From Free Life No. 22, April 1995.

Most libertarians often find it difficult to argue with welfarist liberals over their beliefs.

The reason is simple. You present by logic and force of argument that if your conversation partner believes in freedom or liberty at all, then it follows that she must accept that - at the very least - a state must be minimalised, if not abolished altogether. You show by argument that given the premise of liberty or morality or economics or the fact that value is subjective, that the market system is the only sustainable system of social and economic organisation; that the market presents the only way needs and wants can ever be identified and satisfied.

Her reaction is not normally to dispute the power of your logic, but rather, she concentrates in reply on the consequences. You will be told that without the State, people would starve, without benefits, there would be poverty deprivation and want.

You point out that this is not so; that charity did work until the state crowded it out and we were forced to pay for inferior services we often did not want or need.

Her reply - that it is immoral that patients should be treated according to ability to pay rather than need; that affordable decent-quality housing is a right, that education too is essential and must be provided by the State.

However ,much you now use logic, you will get nowhere. You have reached an impasse.

What has happened? You believe that by mutually agreeing on a starting point, you have shown that what she must accept is a free market.

She believes that the situation you have ended up with is so preposterous that it cannot be seriously entertained by anyone with a conscience.

There is an ancient philosophical device known as reductio ad absurdum. Basically, you take a premise (idea, argument, thesis, contention) and argue from it by logic. The result obtained is obviously absurd. Thus by reductio ad absurdum you have shown that either your premise must be incorrect or that your logic is flawed. The reason being that no true premise can by logical reasoning lead to an absurdity.

Your partner has used this analysis. She dismisses your outcome because she feels it to be, at best, unethical, and at worst, absurd. She therefore considers that either your starting point is flawed or that your reasoning is misconceived.

Her non-acceptance of your end result means that you have reached the position of stalemate. She believes that you have constructed for yourself the perfect reductio ad absurdum (which means that she does not have to argue with you any longer since you have verbally shot yourself in the foot); you believe that you have proved your case and developed what can only accurately be described as a reductio ad libertarianism.

So who is correct? It could be argued that neither party has really got anywhere. Indeed, many arguments for libertarianism are based upon attempting to justify an end position, rather than the (debatably more intellectually honest) approach of an open mind. Our friend believes that the end position is absurd, and is so much so that no argument in its defence, however plausible or cleverly put together, can possibly be valid.

In Nozick's words, you need to show that your vision is "inspiring as well as right".

It is evident, as a side issue, by the gist of the criticism levelled against Nozick's theory from even stronger advocates of the State, that he failed in this task. Very few arguments put forward in reply to the Wilt Chamberlain example or the Tale of the Slave (both of which are ingenious) manage to show any flaws in the logic itself, and such attacks will find it almost impossible to do so. People feel the need to advance such arguments because they are unwilling to concede the point (i.e. that they consider the result to be unethical or impractical).

However you will find it impossible to "sell" your end goal as being inspiring to someone who is adamantly opposed to everything it stands for on grounds of both practicality or morality.

What then is the answer? How do you deal with or attempt to convince such a sceptic? Indeed, is it even worth the time and effort?

I believe that it is. But the time for graphs and logic is now gone. The only way you will now succeed is by aiding a leap of the imagination. You need to present a scenario and draw parallels. The answer may lie in words, but rather than the cold and blunt words of economics, philosophy or politics, it lies in fiction.

There have always been great liberal and anarchist texts, some distinctly more subtle than The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Try Heinlein or Ursula La Guin or almost any other Science Fiction writer. Once you have, you will never forget how justice works without the state (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) or how a society based upon individuality cannot drift off course (The Dispossessed).

Watch Star Wars or Star Trek; listen to Rush; Try the Illuminatus Trilogy or 1984 or even Animal Farm.

Science fiction is the key; for it opens endless possibilities, which, over time, people assimilate into their thoughts and their lives. Nobody seeks to live a lie, that is why the prejudice against libertarianism cannot survive and that is why today's absurdity may appear a little less absurd tomorrow.