Libertarianism Declared Dead

[SaulOhio]

Well it failed.

[sarcasm]Well thank you for explaining, in such depth and clarity, with so much evidence and logic, why it failed, and for offering an alternative explanation.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, the only part of the post in question that could be interpeted as an ad-hominem is the comparison of the rejection of ideological thinking to a superstition. If it has been interpreted that way, I do apologize. What I was attacking was the rejection if ideological system-building, not the people.

However, my basic argument, that people misunderstand my arguments because they don't get the hierarchical relationship between the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines and all other rights still stands. I strongly suspect it is because they reject "system building", and it has created certain habits of thought which interfere with their ability to consider my ideas in the context of more fundamental ideas.

Your concern with what you percieve as my use of ad-hominem attacks seems new to me, since such attacks have been used against me repeatedly and systematically on this forum.

 

[Earthborn]

No. It was an attempt to understand and explain why almost every single argument I have seen against free market ideas is a strawman.

If you'd ask me, the reason why would be similar to why almost every single argument Libertarians use to criticise other political views is also a strawman, as can be seen in post #216.

 

[SaulOhio]

If you'd ask me, the reason why would be similar to why almost every single argument Libertarians use to criticise other political views is also a strawman, as can be seen in post #216.

Maybe you have the post number wrong. In that post, Mister Agenda is not saying anything about anyone else's political views, but making a counterargument against someone's argument about Libertarianism.

In fact, a comment near the end of that post seems like a support for contract law the way it exists now.

 

[Mister Agenda]

If you'd ask me, the reason why would be similar to why almost every single argument Libertarians use to criticise other political views is also a strawman, as can be seen in post #216.

Would you elaborate, please? If I attacked a strawman it was not intentional and if you would show me how I did so it would be helpful to me in future. Sometimes my mistakes elude me and I need to have them explained.

 

[Francesca R]

No. It was an attempt to understand and explain why almost every single argument I have seen against free market ideas is a strawman. It was an attempt to get people to actually listen to the ideas I have been trying to present, without jumping to rediculous conclusions about what those ideas mean.

That's completely untrue. It was an irrelevant, self-indulgent attack against arguments that nobody has made. That's why you don't quote anyone, and instead invent your own adversary out of thin air. In other words--a strawman. Just what you claim the arguments you get from others are. Except you flee from those because you apparently lack responses to them, which is why your own arguments get so reliably busted open.

 

[YoPopa]

Your concern with what you percieve as my use of ad-hominem attacks seems new to me, since such attacks have been used against me repeatedly and systematically on this forum.

FWIW...Saul, I don't see what you were saying as being ad-hominem in the least. Ad-hominem are attacks on a person, not the beliefs of a generalized group as you were addressing.

Ironic that folks who have been here for 7 years use this shallow accusation to attack you while ignoring the laughing dog "arguments".

I enjoy reading your posts and hope that you continue here.

 

[Darat]

[sarcasm]Well thank you for explaining, in such depth and clarity, with so much evidence and logic, why it failed, and for offering an alternative explanation.[/sarcasm]

You are welcome.

...snip... I strongly suspect it is because they reject "system building", and it has created certain habits of thought which interfere with their ability to consider my ideas in the context of more fundamental ideas.


...snip...

A hint.

Your concern with what you percieve as my use of ad-hominem attacks seems new to me, since such attacks have been used against me repeatedly and systematically on this forum.

This is of course another example of you resorting to an ad hominem.

 

[SaulOhio]

This is of course another example of you resorting to an ad hominem.

No. It was a complaint that you are using a double-standard against me. Others have directed actual insults at me.

Francesca has called me a deluded dreamer.

The Central Scrutinizer has simply accused me of making conspiracy theories, and simply posted bad jokes and animated emoticons in response to my arguments.

You simply accused me of joking in response to what I thought was a carefully thought-out argument.

Are these what you would call examples of intelligent discussion?

That's completely untrue. It was an irrelevant, self-indulgent attack against arguments that nobody has made. That's why you don't quote anyone, and instead invent your own adversary out of thin air.

I didn't think it would be necessary to do so, since I have so frequently identified arguments as strawmen, explaining exactly why they are strawman arguments. Here are a few examples:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4181342&postcount=16
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4179446&postcount=165
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4139235&postcount=16
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3982622&postcount=22
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3981072&postcount=3

And there are several examples here on this thread of what I am talking about.

Here are some more ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4182389&postcount=204
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4182389&postcount=204
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4182382&postcount=202

It's fun to watch Libertarian loonies argue over who is loonier!

He's calling Libertarians loonies! How is this tolerated on a forum that is supposedly dedicated to rational debate? And you are accusing ME of an ad-hominem????

Libertarianism is no more dead than any other religion. Die-hards will continue to think there are excuses and new buds based on their view will spring forth.

Like I said, accusing me of an ad-hominem is an application of a double-standard.

 

[Darat]

No. It was a complaint that you are using a double-standard against me. Others have directed actual insults at me.

...snip...

What other people have or have not done is irrelevant in regards to the comments I have made about your ad hominem.

Do you think you would like to direct actual comments, opinions and arguments regarding libertarianism at me?

 

[SaulOhio]

What other people have or have not done is irrelevant in regards to the comments I have made about your ad hominem.

No, it is not irrelevant. By tolerating all those schenanigans, you have set the standard for rational debate on this channel, and I should say you have set it very low.

Do you think you would like to direct actual comments, opinions and arguments regarding libertarianism at me?

I have. Repeatedly. Constantly. Till I'm blue in the face.

You just accused me of joking.

And you participated in a strawman of a typical pattern used against free market ideas: Because libertarians argue that the government shouldn't be trying to solve certain problems, you assume libertarians don't think they are problems, or believe they shouldn't be solved.

I never denied that working conditions were very bad in some factories in the 19th century. Nor did I claim they should not have been improved. But you seemed to imply, as did a couple of other forum members, that libertarians approved of such harsh, dangerous working conditions.

The libertarian argument is that it takes economic progress to improve working conditions. Government regulations are not very useful.

Just because someone thinks the government solution to a problem won't work doesn't mean they think nothing should be done about the problem.

Originally Posted by drkitten
...snip...

and leave the widows and orphans not only in mourning, but penniless?

You don't need to worry about any orphans and widows - the whole family would have been in the factory!

 

[Darat]

No, it is not irrelevant. By tolerating all those schenanigans, you have set the standard for rational debate on this channel, and I should say you have set it very low.

...snip...

What on earth are you jabbering about? You are responsible for your posts no one here is forcing you to make posts that are full of fallacies.

I have. Repeatedly. Constantly. Till I'm blue in the face.

...snip...

This is primarily a discussion Forum - what did yo expect, that you would post something and everyone would say "Yep we agree" and that would be it?

You just accused me of joking.

..snip...

I think I said something like that to your ludicrous claim that legislation/regulation didn't result in better working conditions in the 19th century. That type of claim either has to be a joke (and many folk here do make deadpan jokes as a form of satire or making a point) or a profound ignorance of the history of working conditions in the 19th century.

And you participated in a strawman of a typical pattern used against free market ideas: Because libertarians argue that the government shouldn't be trying to solve certain problems, you assume libertarians don't think they are problems, or believe they shouldn't be solved.

...snip...

No. What you have created is a strawman, you can tell it is a strawman because this is not what I have posted or argued.

I never denied that working conditions were very bad in some factories in the 19th century. Nor did I claim they should not have been improved. But you seemed to imply, as did a couple of other forum members, that libertarians approved of such harsh, dangerous working conditions.
...snip...

I would suggest that go back and read what I actually posted and actually address that, then we can have an actual discussion.

The libertarian argument is that it takes economic progress to improve working conditions. Government regulations are not very useful.

Just because someone thinks the government solution to a problem won't work doesn't mean they think nothing should be done about the problem.

Glad to hear that - now what about addressing what I've actually posted about?

 

[Richard Masters]

Jacob Weisberg writes in Slate that just as the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 finally proved for good that communism was an unworkable ideology, the financial crisis of 2008 proves that libertarianism is also dead.

First of all, the collapse of the Soviet Union does not conclusively "prove for good" that communism is an unworkable theory.

I don't care for communism in the form of national government, but I don't have a knee jerk reaction to it.

Second, how does Jacob Weisberg prove that libertarianism is dead?

I'll recap: he doesn't.

Instead, he clumps the entire right and calls it libertarianism.

I don't read Ayn Rand, and I don't follow Austrian Economics. I also do not see *any* evidence in his article to support his thesis.

Can anyone elaborate on Jacob Weisberg's behalf?

 

[Richard Masters]

Many many people view the espousal of such a principle by libertarians as vaccuous and outrageously so. Don't libertarian doctrines hold that blowing out the brains of somebody to protect your privately owned property is both legitimate and "proportional"?

I don't think so. How can it be proportional? Proportional would require a legitimate, non-mistakable threat to your own brains, or those of someone you are protecting. Anything less than that would be non-proportional and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

In our non-libertarian society, it is resolutely illegal to set up a contract providing for execution of one of the parties in the event of their financial delinquency. Are you saying that a "libertarian government" will outlaw such a contract too?

Our society isn't purely non-libertarian. A libertarian government probably wouldn't automatically outlaw such a contract; however, the mental health of those drafting the contract would be subject to question and considered.

 

[Francesca R]

Francesca has called me a deluded dreamer.

If you are not, then you certainly do a good impression of one with the broken, inconsistent and utterly fanciful ideas you espouse.

I have so frequently identified arguments as strawmen, explaining exactly why they are strawman arguments. Here are a few examples:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4139235&postcount=16

Yes that most certainly *is* a strawman. Namely yours--fallaciously claiming I had equated libertarianism with anarchy. And the point about a contract party sanctioning violence against them is one that is still out there--in this thread--and which you have fled from, because it seems you have no viable answer to it, which is a disgrace to the libertarianism that you think you are representing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3981072&postcount=3

That was certainly not a strawman since it was, um, an interpretive statement followed by an interrogative puntuation mark. (These are called "questions". . . ). And not directed at you either, so invalid anyway in your latest laundry list of violations against yourself.

The conclusion really must be that your arguments are fully exhausted. I can't remember a prior precedent of the invention of so much "complaint" as a feebly transparent diversion from a poster's intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

I read somewhere that libertarians are not supposed to get fussed unless there is the initiation of force against them. Conversely, you appear to want to enforce against the application of logic, reason and evidence to your posts. Well that would call for rather a big, intrusive government, not to mention a daft one.

 

[Richard Masters]

It's not like Libertarianism was ever anywhere near a Mainstream political movement anyway.
It will survive, but it will probably not be as "fashionable" as it has been the past few years on college campuses...which have always been where Libertariansim is really centered. [...]

Is that where it became fashionable?

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think so. How can it be proportional? Proportional would require a legitimate, non-mistakable threat to your own brains, or those of someone you are protecting. Anything less than that would be non-proportional and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

You might like to check this with various libertarian platforms, which are generally very clear on the legitimacy of lethal force in defence of property (not defence of your own brains). The principle is also frequently upheld in real-world statutes too. But nowhere that I know can you contract to do this.

 

[Richard Masters]

Of course it would be. Just like there was nothing wrong with when auto companies bought up private mass transit companies to put them out of business to get more people to buy cars.

Of course there is something wrong with that. Was that an attempt at a straw man argument?

In the libertarian world view such things are the market in action, not illegal conspiracies like they were in our world.

Well, if you consider that starting your own private mass transit company would undo the damage done by the auto companies, then I'm not sure why you are inventing two different worlds.

 

[Richard Masters]

You might like to check this with various libertarian platforms, which are generally very clear on the legitimacy of lethal force in defence of property (not defence of your own brains). The principle is also frequently upheld in real-world statutes too. But nowhere that I know can you contract to do this.

Whose libertarian platform should I check? This is like telling an atheist that The Atheist Conservative approves of racism, therefore all atheists approve of racism.

Likewise, Communism doesn't inform the views of all leftists; and the laws of the Iranian government are not a standard for Islamic countries.

That there are people with unreasonable views is a different issue.

 

[Richard Masters]

Did you notice how ironic (not to mention hypocritical, as usual) the libertarian position is, in that they condemn a man to death (by denying him the ability to negotiate loan conditions that ensure his survival) under the pretense of "inalienable rights"?

It seems that libertarians do want an authoritarian nanny state that restricts peoples´ rights in order to "protect" them, after all. Not so different from what they keep complaining about, then...

Chaos, I've run into in a separate thread on libertarianism a while back, and you always invent wild straw-man arguments/scenarios that do not reflect the discussion at hand.

Who exactly is denying a man the ability to negotiate loan conditions?

 

[volatile]

Whose libertarian platform should I check? This is like telling an atheist that The Atheist Conservative approves of racism, therefore all atheists approve of racism.

No, it isn't. It's like telling an atheist that if he believes in God, he's not an atheist after all.

Essentially, the things you seem to be backing away from are the defining, core tenets of the philosophy of libertarianism. If you want to disown them, good - they're absurd. But you're not a libertarian if you do.