Freedom Flyer 3
the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario
May - August 1984
TALKIN' PHILOSOPHY
by Mark Pettigrew
Before concluding with the third and final part of my article
dealing with the least and most opportune moments to discuss
politics [and political philosophy] with someone, I must again
stress that although my guidelines are usually stated in absolute
terms, there are degrees to these characteristics. In other words,
the amount of effort you employ in your discussion should be
proportional to the degree that these characteristics are present in
your opponent's convictions.
Keeping that in mind, here is my elaboration on when it is best
to discuss ideas with someone.
When the other person:
has fundamental principles in philosophy that agree in part or in
whole with your own, but may differ in its evaluation [ie., politics]: This is the most important point of my entire article.
Without getting entirely into the subject of an integrated rational
philosophy, it is critical to point out that one's view on ethics,
politics, and aesthetics depends on one's view of man and on
reality itself.
Why mention this? Because if the person you discuss ideas
with generally agrees with your fundamental principles, then it
makes your discussion easier to come to terms with. Without such
agreement however, there is little chance if any that your
opponent will fully understand the concepts of a free society, or
that he will agree with you but for the wrong reasons. If the latter
should happen, it may be possible to recruit such a person and,
like a client, work with him in the future with the aim of getting his
fundamental views more consistent with a rational philosophy.
believes that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' in issues: (i.e., that
there exist basic objective truths to reality that are independent of
one's perceptions, wishes, feelings.) With this premise
established, you can both agree that there is an answer to a given
problem. But if you hear something like 'what's right for you isn't
necessarily right for me', you're probably dealing with someone
whose basis for determining truth is subjective, not objective.
is young or is still groping for answers: These two
characteristics usually appear hand-in-hand, but not always (some
never 'grope'). By the time a person is between fifteen and
twenty-five years old he will most likely have developed a
philosophy directly from his 'sense of life'. (See Ayn Rand's
Romantic Manifesto for a further explanation of that term.) Many,
however, discover that what their parents and friends have taught
them is not always correct, and are willing to recheck and reform
their values. Both are terrific prospects for productive discussions.
is a confessed idealist and believes in a morally just society
(whatever it may be). Such a person will probably agree that
there are answers, so even if he calls himself 'left-wing',
'right-wing' or even (gasp!) 'communist', don't dismiss him
immediately. You'd be surprised how many people want to know
what is right but are just misguided.
admits that something is wrong with government but doesn't
quite know what it is: Fortunately, your only job here is to point
out and support your perspectives.
voted for a party with an explicit or consistent platform [within
reason] or voted for a specific issue: Let's start with the platform.
Those who vote for 'fringe' parties often do so because they are
sick and tired (and justifiably so) of the major parties. One of
Freedom Party's main goals is to point out to the public that we
are an alternative (and most importantly, that we're right). Of
course, the only party capable of having a consistent platform is
one that upholds individual rights, but even other minor parties
owe much of their support to voters who simply are voting against
the three main parties. This is why these people sometimes make
good prospects.
Those who vote for a specific issue are also worth
consideration, depending on the issue. The key is to focus on that
issue in a discussion, then apply the principle behind the issue to
other issues. This will not only help you discover their attitude
towards principles in general, but will also serve to illustrate the
consistency of Freedom Party's platform.
A last note: I do not wish to imply that this article was written
exclusively for recruitment strategies. It wasn't. Its appeal is
primarily on a philosophical level; in my opinion, recruitment
should always be used as a means to this end: the communication
of rational ideas to others in order to achieve a free society.
The points I've raised are by no means exhaustive. Feel free to
write us about any that you'd like to add.
e-mail
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
