A question from the Telegram channel Right Argument, accompanied by a donation of 124 rubles. And yes, if you were wondering how advertising could be bought on my channel—this is roughly how it would look.

The reasons for apoliticism can vary, but they usually boil down to the fact that a person pointedly places their immediate self-interests above some abstract values, and therefore doesn’t consider politics to concern them in any way. Thus, we need to show the person how state redistribution and state social welfare jeopardize their self-interests. And for that, in turn, we need to understand what those interests consist of.

I have recommended a similar approach before when explaining how to tell your mother about ancap if she is traumatized by the nineties.

The most common type of apolitical person who approves of state intervention is the one who simply doesn’t want to bother thinking about all this nonsense. The state doesn’t trouble their head with taxes because the employer acts as the tax agent, yet people receive some pensions, study, get medical care, and occasionally receive some benefits. Various loud words about the state robbing someone have as much value to such a person as any annoying advertisement. If someone tries to convey this information, it means they expect to make money from it. Maybe the State Department is paying them, or maybe they’ll start extorting donations now.

In this case, it’s best to sprinkle in anecdotes of two types from time to time. The first: how a certain mutual acquaintance successfully evades taxes, made money on Bitcoin investments, or settled a complex issue within state jurisdiction through a private contact—and so on. The second: how someone was fleeced for extra money through property taxes, had some entitled social payments withheld, or had their business seized in favor of the “brass,” and so forth. In short, provoke cynicism toward the state in the person—essentially, that all the fairy tales about the state being necessary for people are written for suckers, while self-respecting gentlemen will, of course, grab a piece of the state if given the chance, but seriously rely only on themselves and other respected gentlemen.

The second type of apolitical statist is encountered much less frequently. This is a calculating guy who has all the necessary benefits and social payments, considers receiving them entirely fair, and will most likely gladly provide consultation on various nuances of welfare. Having grown accustomed to the unpredictability of politics, he doesn’t bother his head with who is there or what they promise before elections, or how one politician is better than another. You simply need to be in the state’s good graces and do what is approved by the current authorities.

Here, it makes sense to encourage such “entrepreneurship,” but remind them that when everything collapses, it’s important to know how to pivot. In the Soviet Union, trade workers were in favor, but in the early nineties, most of them turned out to be professionally unfit for the new conditions. Today’s trade workers slave away and don’t look anything like the former privileged stratum. So, when social welfare ends, it’s important not to end up on the street as a useless specialist in obtaining benefits; it would be good to have other competencies.

Fortunately, such people usually don’t need long convincing that social welfare will sooner or later collapse. Since he is consistently in the black, he knows deep down that no free ride lasts forever.

Of course, there are many other varieties of statists, but I have listed specifically those who are apolitical. If you encounter statist political activists, that’s a completely separate conversation, but that’s a whole other story.

And as a postscript, I’ll briefly share my impressions of the channel Right Argument. I would say that this young resource is still forming its own style, so the channel looks somewhat eclectic. Initially, the authors apparently assumed they would ask themselves questions, answer them, and result in a fairly concise catechism for communicating with leftists. But now the channel has expanded beyond the original intent and has begun to intersperse arguments with reactions to the current agenda. So now it can also be used as a source of those very life anecdotes that are so useful for kitchen conversations.