Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Francesca R]

I agree wholeheartedly with what DrKitten said earlier - libertarians want freedom without the responsibility such freedom entails.

My understanding from what libertarians have said to me is that the freedom they demand is inalienable. So of course it must be freedoms without responsibility. It must be freedom without any ties whatsoever. Therefore if you have to undertake responsibility in order to enjoy the freedom, if the freedom is merely one side of a bargain, if freedom is given to you in return for something, then that's not true freedom, that's a sham of freedom.

I would be interested if a libertarian supporter on this thread could comment on that. I am not attributing the statement to anyone here unless they claim it.

(It can be shown mathematically that the thinking behind what I wrote is flawed in much the same way as the thinking behind 1+1 = 5. John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern did a great job of that in "Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour")

 

[RockNroll]

Is it just me, or is arguing with hardcore Libertopians an exercise in futility? It's not like they have some sort of a record to back up their purely theoretical beliefs, what with Libertopianism having never been succesfully implemented anywhere (a fact that is unlikely to change, if you ask me). Which won't stop them from whining about how all the greatest democracies in human history are actually tyranical hellholes that can only be saved by the awesome power of their pet ideology.

They remind me of a friend of mine who fancies himself a martial artist, yet trains at a McDojo where they don't even spar. I constantly hear him opine on how MMA fighters "totally suck" and how "if they tried those double-leg takedowns on me I'd just elbow them in the head and totally knock them out".

Yeah, sure you would buddy. Pretty easy to always be right and invincible when you don't have to play with the big boys or back your stuff up.

 

[Richard Masters]

Eh what? You seem to forget it was your argument that took up several pages and has now been dropped by you.

Go ahead and ignore what is actually written on my post.

Here is the original statement I made on page 1:This had libertarians, belatedly you included, up in arms about "proportionality" and claiming that this was not a libertarian stance.

I didn't read your argument on page 1. If you refer to my response, it clearly addresses only your rhetorical question, and directly. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

And yet we now agree that it is. Kindly forget about "duress" and "mental health" because you are conjuring such safeguards erroneously into effect on behalf of a libertarian ideology which eschews them.

Whatever makes you feel like you won. Congratulations!

Thus, libertarianism is a set of principles which is irretrievably and most repugnantly damaging to people's liberty.

Exquisitely sound and valid conclusion. I especially like the part where it has nothing to do with anything that has been said.

 

[Mister Agenda]

My understanding from what libertarians have said to me is that the freedom they demand is inalienable. So of course it must be freedoms without responsibility. It must be freedom without any ties whatsoever. Therefore if you have to undertake responsibility in order to enjoy the freedom, if the freedom is merely one side of a bargain, if freedom is given to you in return for something, then that's not true freedom, that's a sham of freedom.

I would be interested if a libertarian supporter on this thread could comment on that. I am not attributing the statement to anyone here unless they claim it.

(It can be shown mathematically that the thinking behind what I wrote is flawed in much the same way as the thinking behind 1+1 = 5. John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern did a great job of that in "Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour")

I'll take a shot at this, Francesca. An inalienable right is one you can't transfer to someone else. You can't buy it or sell it. You can transfer your property to someone else, or give someone else permission to transfer or otherwise handle your property for you (that's all part of your rights as the owner of the property), but you can't transfer your right to own property--for example, all your future earnings--to someone else. This does not protect you from consequences or responsibility, and doesn't mean you can't lose your rights in whole or in part as a consequence of your actions, for example your right to liberty doesn't mean you can't be incarcerated if you murder someone. It does mean a contract in which you agree to live in a closet for the rest of your life is unenforceable.

Increased freedom requires increased responsibility. If we collectively decided we no longer wanted our government to perform some action that needed to be done (perhaps a majority thought the function of the Post Office would be done better or more efficiently in private hands, for instance), enough people would have to take responsibility to find a way to make sure it gets done some other way. The Post Office is a case where we can reasonably surmise there will be plenty of private entities eager to take over its functions. It's easy to imagine cases where people might be more reluctant to take over a government function, and it's reasonable to argue against the government giving it up on the grounds that not enough people will take responsibility to ensure it gets done. Social welfare is a case like this, one could reason that the need for services is so great that people's individual sense of responsibility can't be trusted to ensure that those needs are met. It's possible however, in the future that enough people could escape poverty that private charity would be able to handle the ones still in difficulty and the government's role in this area could be reconsidered.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Is it just me, or is arguing with hardcore Libertopians an exercise in futility? It's not like they have some sort of a record to back up their purely theoretical beliefs, what with Libertopianism having never been succesfully implemented anywhere (a fact that is unlikely to change, if you ask me). Which won't stop them from whining about how all the greatest democracies in human history are actually tyranical hellholes that can only be saved by the awesome power of their pet ideology.
Snip

Arguing with hardcore anyone is probably futile. I don't see why 'Libertopians' would be an exception.

I think Canada, Estonia, Ireland, and many other countries are quite nice. I've been having issues with the USA lately, but it's still near the top, and I have hope some things are going to improve here soon. When you actually live in a tyrannical hellhole you tend to set your sights on more fundamental liberties than the right to smoke pot or buy duty-free sugar.

I'm probably not what you think of as a 'Libertopian' though, just a garden-variety Libertarian.

 

[SaulOhio]

So why do you keep going on about other people's posts?

Because you keep going on about mine.

I hold everyone responsible for their posts not just you so that is isn't a double standard.

I haven't seen it. Like I said, I keep being the target of ad hominem attacks, and you say nothing. I say something that has to be misinterpreted to be considered an ad-hominem, and you jump all over me.

I have not "let" you or anyone else (as you put it) throw any ad hominems around so your claim is simply factually incorrect.

Should I repost the list again?

Glad to see that you have now acknowledged that you do throw out ad hominems - earlier you were claiming that you hadn't been.

The ONE post that I apologized for had to be misinterpreted to be seen as an ad-hominem.

Like I said your ad hominems don't move a discussion forward.

You say ad-hominems. Pleural. I have admitted to ONE argument that I made that could be interpreted as an ad-hominem. When have I made any others?

Again, here is a short list of ad-hominems used on this very thread:

Pretty basic stuff, to you and me. Over the head of a Libertarian.

Because no one can stop laughing long enough to listen to them.

I don't really read SaulOhio's posts, but stop to presses! He's using World Net Daily as a reliable source? OMFG!!!!

Yes, I know. I was just pointing out how backward you people are.

Just go back and read ANY of The Central Scrutinizer's posts, and you will find an ad-hominem.

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. Interesting how many people stop being Libertarians when they get out into the real world.

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.

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

Libertarians tend to have their own self-stoking reading lists, just as creationists have theirs.

Darat: You have NEVER said ANYTHING about all of these ad-hominems. Some of them are so blatant they would get a person permanently banned from a civilized forum.

politicsforum.org

2. Remain courteous and respectful to other users of the forums at all times. Do not make personally directed attacks on any other user (for example, it is acceptable to accuse someone of making a "moronic proposition" but it is not acceptable to accuse someone of being a "moron").

Undernet's #Philosophy channel

# Personal Attacks
Keep your attacks focused on the person's ideas. Heated arguments and disagreements are welcomed, but, blatant insults/name-calling is prohibited. It is OK To post, "What you're saying is ridiculous/incoherent," followed by your reasons for that judgment. But, posting "You are stupid" is prohibited. The channel is at its best when disagreements result in spirited "back-and-forth," but the line is drawn where they degenerate into outright rudeness.

Other internet forums have rules against ad hominems, and enforce them. This forum only enforces such rules when the ad-hominem comes from a libertarian. As long as the target of the ad hominem attack is a libertarian, or any proponent of free markets, its open season.

If you want to discuss forum management issues, do so in the forum management section.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Again, here is a short list of ad-hominems used on this very thread:

Just go back and read ANY of The Central Scrutinizer's posts, and you will find an ad-hominem.

For those who don't know, "ad-hominem" is Latin for "I can't refute the argument, so I'll whine about name calling".

 

[Doubt]

For those who don't know, "ad-hominem" is Latin for "I can't refute the argument, so I'll whine about name calling".

The sad part is he still won't work out the difference between making fun of somebody because of their argument and and the ad hom fallacy.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The sad part is he still won't work out the difference between making fun of somebody because of their argument and and the ad hom fallacy.

You only say that because you're an idiot who isn't smart enough to realize why Libertarianism will make America a utopia. Dumbass...

 

[Doubt]

You only say that because you're an idiot who isn't smart enough to realize why Libertarianism will make America a utopia. Dumbass...

Mommy, US is being mean to me. Make him stop!

In a civilized world, only those who are absolutely right should be beyond ridicule.

[/parody]

 

[Mashuna]

Apologies for derailing this further into a forum management issue, but why is Saul complaining about the moderation on this forum by highlighting membership agreements from other forums?

 

[Richard Masters]

No need to deal in absolutes (to no one in particular):

Libertarianism can be understood as a basic principle or as a derivative one. For example, one might defend libertarianism on the basis of rule utilitarianism or rule contractarianism (see, e.g., Narveson 1988).

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.).

Italics mine.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

 

[SaulOhio]

Why are people complaining about my complaining about the ad-hominems, and not actually talking about the subject--how libertarianism supposedly caused the present economic crisis?

Because you've all got NOTHING!

The subject of the tread is how, supposedly, libertarianism was implemented, and caused an economic disaster.

And my answer is that the facts show the exact opposite.

I have pointed out that the government has been in the control, not of Libertarians, but Republicans and Democrats.

I have named dozens of government measures that Libertarians oppose, but which were imposed on the economy by the Republicans and Democrats. I have described the actual effects of those measures on the economy, appealing to basic economic principles such as supply and demand, the quantity theory of money, and moral hazard.

The response to all this evidence and argument has been simple ridicule and changing the subject.

So please, can someone at least try to answer some of the facts that I have mentioned?

How about answering the substance of my post #19?
That is the point at which the subject was diverted to Libertarian attitudes towards contract law and the "blow your brains out clause" strawman argument. You couldn't refute the fact I presented in that post, about the Fed's clearly anti-libertarian policies, so you changed the subject.


I have been presenting evidence and logical arguments on this thread. All of my so-called opponents have been simply trying to change the subject and used childish name-calling.

How about the existence of the GSE's, Fanie and Freddie, who have influenced at least half the mortgages in this country?

How about the open space laws, which drive up real-estate prices?

How about Clinton's "National Homeoenership Strategy"?

All of these measures are violations of Libertarian principles, free markets, and Objectivist politics. All of them had a very strong influence in creating the housing bubble and its eventual collapse.

In the face of all of this, blaming Libertariansim and free markets becomes logically impossible. But you all want to continue to do the logically impossible, so you try these childish tactics of changing the subject, ridicule, and ad-hominem attacks.

I had hoped for better on this forum. Instead, what I see is childish evasion and ridicule.

 

[Darat]

Because you keep going on about mine.

...snip...

So if I respond to your posts your response is to talk about other people's posts? Why don't you want to talk about your posts?

I haven't seen it. Like I said, I keep being the target of ad hominem attacks, and you say nothing. I say something that has to be misinterpreted to be considered an ad-hominem, and you jump all over me.

...snip...

No.

When you make ad hominem posts and create strawman I merely point out that you make ad hominem and strawman posts. Again you are seemingly wanting to apply distinctly non-libertarian ideas to how I should act, i.e. that I have some responsibility to you to respond in a certain way to other people based on criteria that you impose on me. I don't. I can freely choose who I wish to respond to, as can you and everyone else on this Forum.

Should I repost the list again?

...snip...

How does posting a list support what you claimed? Let me remind you of your claim "...but letting everyone else throw around any ad hominems they want....".

As I said that statement is simply incorrect.

The ONE post that I apologized for had to be misinterpreted to be seen as an ad-hominem.

...snip...

I do wish you'd make you mind up, in the post that you are responding to I simply quoted your words, i.e. "...So unless you call them out on their ad hominems, why do you bother with mine?..." That seems pretty clear to me that you are saying that you post ad hominems. Now you are saying you don't.

You say ad-hominems. Pleural. I have admitted to ONE argument that I made that could be interpreted as an ad-hominem. When have I made any others?

...snip...

"...So unless you call them out on their ad hominems, why do you bother with mine?..."

Again, here is a short list of ad-hominems used on this very thread:
...snip...

Again what has this got to do with your posts and your ad-hominems?

Just go back and read ANY of The Central Scrutinizer's posts, and you will find an ad-hominem.

...snip...

Again what has this got to do with your posts and your ad-hominems?

Darat: You have NEVER said ANYTHING about all of these ad-hominems. Some of them are so blatant they would get a person permanently banned from a civilized forum.

...snip...

Which part of the registration agreement did you not understand when you signed up?

Other internet forums have rules against ad hominems, and enforce them. This forum only enforces such rules when the ad-hominem comes from a libertarian. As long as the target of the ad hominem attack is a libertarian, or any proponent of free markets, its open season.

Any evidence to support this rather wild accusation? Plus (again) when will you explain what this has to do with a thread in the "Economics..." section and a thread specifically about the libertarianism being declared dead?

 

[Richard Masters]

Why are people [...] not actually talking about the subject--how libertarianism supposedly caused the present economic crisis?

Because you've all got NOTHING!

The subject of the tread is how, supposedly, libertarianism was implemented, and caused an economic disaster.

Don't let the group-agreement illusion get to you. I learned the embarrassing way, that when it comes to politics in this forum, everyone mostly disagrees, but at the same time people take advantage of the more stereotypically questionable philosophies/ideologies to ridicule someone, even when they (the perpetrators) are wrong; and sometimes the exaggerated claims are funny on their own merit, even though they may be directed at you.

The fact that Darat is challenging your arguments probably doesn't mean that he absolutely sides with the others, or that he is responding strictly as an Administrator.

 

[Doubt]

Why are people complaining about my complaining about the ad-hominems, and not actually talking about the subject--how libertarianism supposedly caused the present economic crisis?

Because you've all got NOTHING!

The subject of the tread is how, supposedly, libertarianism was implemented, and caused an economic disaster.

I would say that last line is a bit of a strawman.

The subject appears to me to be that a market increasingly free of regulation caused the disaster. A serious discussion would not used such black and white distinction between what exists and what direction things were headed in. I regard the reduction in regulation as part of the problem. So are some of the things you cited.

I am no economist and don't pretend to understand the issues. What I do understand is that any -ism when pursued to their logical conclusion will typically end in disaster. The reason being that most of the various "-isms" are based on models of reality that are something less than 100% accurate. People then learn to exploit the weakness in such systems and the models become a joke.

I do not believe that libertarianism is the root cause of our current problems. But if implemented, a totally uncontrolled market would be exploited by those who can and result in a far worse disaster. Fortunately, the closer you get to a libertarian system the few libertarians you find.

 

[drkitten]

I'll take a shot at this, Francesca. An inalienable right is one you can't transfer to someone else.

Argument by incorrect definition. Not an auspicious start.

OED offers several definitions for "alienate," but the most relevant here is the last one : To alter, change, or make a thing other than it is

You can't buy it or sell it.

.... which makes no sense in the context of its most famous use -- "certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Are you seriously suggesting that there was a market in "life," "liberty," and/or "the pursuit of happiness"?

The complaints in the DoI weren't about people "selling" their right to liberty, but of them being deprived of it unjustly and unilaterally.

 

[drkitten]

Again, here is a short list of ad-hominems used on this very thread:

You have no idea what an ad-hominem is, do you?

 

[Francesca R]

I'll take a shot at this, Francesca. An inalienable right is one you can't transfer to someone else.

Well I captured some of the charactertistics of an inaleinable right and my post was not to question what that was, but what libertarians take on it is. Your take appears to be to change the definition, which is consistent with most of your posts which do not tend to reflect libertarianism to me.

Increased freedom requires increased responsibility.

In particular this comment is apparently at odds with libertarianism. My understanding is that freedom (represented by the inalienable rights) comes (in Libertaria) with zero responsibility, nor does any government or individual have any business attempting to attach any responsibility to it, ever.

It would seem that you don't agree with that.

 

[SaulOhio]

You have no idea what an ad-hominem is, do you?

Then what do you call the posts I listed, since they are certainly not arguments based on evidence and logic. I thought that was what this forum was supposed to be about, rational discussion of issues based on evidence and logic.

Doubt: It still remains that the clear cause of the crisis is the regulation in place. I have seen very little, though admittedly some, evidence of deregulation, but much more evidence of additional regulation imposed.

The Glass-Steagal act was abolished.

Thats about it.

There is some talk that the regulations we have have been poorly enforced, but I have heard of no specifics.

On the other side of the argument are all the regulations I listed, and the basic economic principles of supply and demand explaining why we had an inflationary bubble. Add to that the moral hazard of government bailouts, FDIC insurance, and the GSE's buying up mortgages, thus removing the risk for the original issuer of the mortgage, then the National Homeownership strategy and the CRA specifically diverting the inflationary pressure to the housing mortgage industry.

Given all that, the housing bubble and collapse should have been expected.