The Ransberger Pivot | Suite101.com

One of the problems of propagating libertarianism is that it is not well-known, let alone understood. People inherently will react to what they perceive as an attack against their doctrine.

As such, the thing libertarians are forced to do most is answering questions. The problem with being forced into that position in a dialogue is that simply answering questions after questions does not permit the libertarian apologist to discuss core issues.

The Ransberger Pivot, devised by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz, is a simple technique that can be used to answer questions or attacks effectively and at a more fundamental level. It is based on the obvious premise that there is an underlying desire about social improvement that motivates people to ask the questions they ask, or attack you the way they do.

For instance, if someone tells you the following :

"Libertarians are against social programs. You people are against the poor and just support plain Social Darwinism !"

Now, we know very well that is a ridiculous attack. If charity was entirely in the hands of private companies instead of the government, much less money would be wasted on bureaucracy and more money and food would go in the hands of those who actually need it. Furthermore, libertarianism frees the poorest our of consumption taxes and anti-employment measures. But your attacker doesn't understand that, or doesn't want to understand it.

The Ransberger Pivot is a two-step process :

1. Agreeing on the implied, underlying goal. The attacker is probably against poverty and desires as many people as possible to prosper. Therefore you must start by acknowledging that desire. Ransberger and Fritz recommended to use a specific phrase like "Like you, I want..." so that you always remember to start with the underlying premise.

In this case, one could say : "Like you, I don't want a society where poverty is the norm : I want a prosperous and progressive society". Most people want such things, and libertarianism can be presented as the appropriate solution once this basic need has been identified rationally, instead of leaning on your attacker's emotionalism.

2. Showing that only libertarianism can best fulfill the goal. Now that you have the agreed-upon value that your questioner or attacker desires, you can show that libertarianism is a superior alternative on that particular issue.

In this case, you could then say : "That is why I am a libertarian. It's been proven, and is also quite obvious if you just look at the state of the world, that freer countries are tremendously more prosperous than those that aren't - people living in the bottom 20% of free countries make 10 times less than people living in the 20% freest countries. Furthermore, charity money would not be wasted by government bureaucracies but rather would be given to those who need it the most. Finally, a libertarian government would not impose consumption taxes, which bring down poor people's purchasing power, or impose anti-employment laws like workplace regulations or minimum wage, which limit the poorest amongst us from getting jobs".

For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Francois Tremblay's Libertarian Philosophy topic, please visit the Discussions page.