Making the truth win

Lew Rockwell reminds us that

Mises knew that it is not enough to hold the right views, though this is an essential step. It is just as important to do everything possible to see that these views are propagated and made compelling in a way that will transform society and politics.

There are different ways to do this. One is to pick up a book on persuasion and use the methods it outlines. The problem with this is that the other side can do the same thing, making the contest between truth and lies too often into a contest of salesmanship, where winning is a testament to the winner's skill rather than to the truth of his position.

Another way to do it might be to find a battleground on which the truth has a distinct advantage over a lie, where a less skilled defender of the truth has a fair chance of beating a more skilled defender of falsehoods. This will not, of course, prevent the lie from still winning contests of salesmanship on those other battlegrounds where the most skillful advocate tends to carry the day. But it will give the truth at least some more or less sure victories. Moreover, if people can be made to recognize these particular contests for what they are - contests of truth rather than of persuasive skill - then victories in these contests may over time come to eclipse the victories of cleverness, wit, dirty tricks, mind games, manipulation, doggedness and attrition that result from other contests.

I'd love to add a paragraph that provides specific guidance on finding these truth-friendly arenas. But unfortunately I have none to give.

Share this

Well betting comes to

Well betting comes to mind... Actually I thought this is where you were getting at.

That's one approach

Betting is one area where reality ultimately provides you with a hard yes/no. There are other areas where humbug will not get you very far. The two areas most familiar to me are mathematics and programming. In math, if you don't have a proof you don't have much at all, and if you have a proof it's usually pretty easy to see whether it's valid or invalid. In computer programming, the rigor of your thinking is constantly being tested. Poor logic leads to quick refutation by the computer. (Not always - some bugs can be subtle and go unnoticed for a long time - but enough so that if you can't think clearly and correctly most of the time, it will be obvious to everyone.)

Reality itself

Reality itself constantly changes in response to its participants' accurate perception of reality. You don't actually need an intermediary feedback tool, that's just one improved way to collect data. Reality itself will boot participants who have inefficient views of reality, and reward those who have more efficient views of reality.

If Lew feels this way...

...then why does he engage is such propoganda? He is following in his idol Rothbards steps in stretching the truth till it becomes the opposite. Yippee! Vietnam falls to the communists!!! That'll teach the bad old Americans!!! Saddam should be back in power!!!

Hum... offensive

Hum... offensive style... ad hominem... strawman punching. Come on, admit it, you ARE Rotbard !

P.S. ironically I am wearing a Rothbard t-shirt at the moment 

In Capitalism is the answer

Given a truth that you hold that is not widely known, find a way to express that truth in the marketplace. If you can succeed and out-compete others while wielding this truth, then the superiority of that truth is no longer questioned.
A practical example: Starbucks knew that people who are buying commodities dislike being treated like commodities. The founder managed to create a paradoxical structure - a large scale organization with a local feel. The result? At McDonalds, they now ask my name, write it on the receipt, and announce "Order for Tim is ready".
Conversely, anyone proselytizing a purported truth is at an automatic disadvantage, because if you are smart enough to have divined truths unknown to others then you should be able to weaponize those truths and gain great victory in the marketplace. That's why, politically speaking, people are more inclined to listen to a Ross Perot when he says "I am prepared to used the ideas that let me succeed in the marketplace to fix the nation". He's proven the ideas work (setting aside that the ideas may have been ways of securing government contracts, and the logical loop that formed. The idea isn't that Ross Perot was good or that his message made sense, the idea was that people were predisposed to listen to him because of his success in the marketplace).

You say that because there

You say that because there is still some capitalistic spirit in the US... In the socialist mindset  someone who succeeds does so by luck or by taking advantage of others, he is not more likely to be right than anyone else. In fact, no one is right or wrong as that would create inequality, they are different truthes and the truth of the succesful entrepreneur is not worth anymore than the truth of the common worker... etc. Rand is right on the money on this one.