The fundamental difference between the idea of a free society and any statist ideology is not which specific model of social organization their proponents strive for, but the methods they use to realize these aspirations. If the difference consisted only of end goals, there would be no fundamental difference at all. Indeed, any model of socio-economic organization and system of relationships between subjects can be implemented in a free society based on the principle of non-violence, voluntary agreements, and within the framework of free associations. In contrast, political ideologies always propose one specific social model that must be mandatorily implemented for all people, including through violent coercion.
When people encounter an idea of social organization that is unfamiliar to them, they almost always start asking questions such as “how will such-and-such a problem be solved within the framework of this idea.” Such an approach to understanding ideas is not surprising, as most of them offer a specific and single solution for everyone. People are used to the idea that a universal goal must be chosen, mandatory for everyone under threat of violence. However, if one tries to explain the ideas of freedom within these boundaries, it will likely fail—the listener will evaluate your answer based on their own preferences and conceptions of possible solutions, which may not coincide with your positions at all. Obviously, in their eyes, this will make the ideas of freedom appear unattractive, or even completely untenable.
Of course, modeling possible solutions is important, and the resulting answer can still serve as a convincing argument; however, it cannot be anything more than a supplement to the main argumentation. And the main argumentation itself must show people what was mentioned in the previous paragraph—that a specific and mandatory solution does not exist!
But how, then, will a particular problem be solved? Very simply—in the way the person themselves wants, based on their own preferences and views. In whatever way each person approaches the solution to their problems, that is how they will be solved. As for questions and problems common to many people, they will be solved based on how people agree to solve them. Each person can unite in associations with other people to create their own social order, which extends to the members of that association.
Therefore, it is necessary to ask the listener how they themselves would solve a particular problem if the ability to make the decision were in their own hands, and if the implementation extended to those who have corresponding agreements with them or participate in the same association. Their answer to your question will also be an answer to their own question. Only in this way can the idea of a free society be explained most accurately and attractively. Only then can it be conveyed that it consists of a method—freedom of activity, agreement, and association, as well as non-violent coexistence—while the goals themselves can be completely different.
Of course, this will not sound convincing to those who unconditionally believe that the realization of their personal aspirations, or the aspirations of some association sharing their views, requires the violent coercion of other people to accept their ideals. In such a situation, it is likely necessary to use arguments demonstrating the negative externalities of violence and discrediting it as a phenomenon as a whole. But if even this does not sound convincing, then all that remains is to end the conversation. After all, explaining something to people who have strong violent convictions (or even tendencies toward committing violence) is simply pointless; they can only be pressured by condemnation, ostracism, and various sanctions, and one should prepare to defend oneself from them, for they will seek to force you into submission by power at the first opportunity.
