Yea I had a similar conversation recently. It's such a refreshing frame-breaker.
When people realize that it's simply infeasible to try to get you to "choose" one of the sides and that the only conversation to have is the meta-discussion of "neither side, we have to talk a layer higher; in a different dimension" you can actually get somewhere with people about their principles and get beyond flag-waving and virtue-signalling.
What are some points/responses you've frequently noticed yourself coming to?
It nearly always goes to either:
- "if you don't like it, you can always leave the country", which itself goes to a whole discussion around the fact that there is no "unclaimed" land on the planet. ...which naturally is an enormous can of worms in itself! (I call this **Murder Island**, which we can talk about some day if you want. Bret Weinstein answered a question from me around this on one of his podcast episodes).
- Children.
The first one attempts (poorly in my opinion. i've never seen a good response) to be answered with the complex of praxeological arguments around "legitimate acquisition of property" which just descends into obscurity when you try to assess if any State has legitimately acquired its territory - or if it "owns it" at all!
The second one... no comment. There be dragons.
---
Either way, at least everyone is talking about something other than Red Team / Blue Team! But it's definitely not any "easier".
I meant more if you have some initial framings for the idea to get the conversation going. But yeah, those responses wouldn't be productive.
Usually the best hook is to find whatever it is someone is appalled at the idea of their state enforcing on them. Maybe they're worried about evangelicals running the show and teaching Noah's Ark to kids as fact.
Usually it's easy to get them to admit they think that's "wrong and shouldn't be done by the state". From there it's not too hard to get them to see that other people feeling exactly the opposite, and that this is a problem with a single state.
Not too long before you get them to agree that "communities should be able to self-determine their fates". Sometimes the reply is "but we should all just agree to make concessions, that's what democracy is about!". From there: sure, agreed, but what about those individuals who would rather not negotiate, should they not be able to self-determine as long as they leave you out of it? Or are they your prisoner?
It"s a short path to individual anarchy from there 🤗
