Something Awful makes fun of libertarians

[Gurdur]

....

More importantly, I invite you to look up Classical Liberalism or traditional liberalism, which is what the majority of the founding fathers were.

W00t! Finally we are in agreement! The Founding Fathers were (at least some of them) classical liberals.

They were, however, not libertarians.

Dearie me, this point was already done far, far before in this thread. Can you come up with any new argument?

 

[Gurdur]

Abolitionist and libertarian are not mutually exclusive terms.

Oh really? Not according to all the dedicated libertarian posters I've seen who spend their lives repetitively flaming Lincoln. Lincoln, of course, accomplished far more for freedom than libertarians ever did, something which of course seems to upset libbies a great deal.

 

[Richard Masters]

W00t! Finally we are in agreement! The Founding Fathers were (at least some of them) classical liberals.

They were, however, not libertarians.

Dearie me, this point was already done far, far before in this thread. Can you come up with any new argument?

So I take it you did not read the article or the definition of classical liberal. Perhaps I should repeat it for you:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society...

What you are engaging in is a fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Gurdur]

So I take it you did not read the article or the definition of classical liberal. Perhaps I should repeat it for you:

Wrong again.
What as been pointed out to you several times is that:
classical_liberal |= libertarian

Or to make it even clearer, classical liberalism does not equal libertarianism.

What you are engaging in is a fallacy of equivocation.

Wrong again. I am insisting upon the exact usual definitions of words, not whatever twisted meanings the vanishingly tiny minority of libertarians give them. I am doing the exact opposite of a fallacy of equivocation. I am insisting upon having no such ambiguity.

Or IOW, you're projecting.

Try again?

 

[Richard Masters]

Oh really? Not according to all the dedicated libertarian posters I've seen who spend their lives repetitively flaming Lincoln. Lincoln, of course, accomplished far more for freedom than libertarians ever did, something which of course seems to upset libbies a great deal.

Nice anecdotes. As a libertarian, I can assure you I've never flamed Lincoln, nor do I feel the need to do so. The people you might be describing are probably Secessionists. Secessionism is not synonymous with libertarianism, even if they borrow a few libertarian arguments.

 

[Richard Masters]

Wrong again.
What as been pointed out to you several times is that:
classical_liberal |= libertarian

Or to make it even clearer, classical liberalism does not equal libertarianism.

According to you, but according to the usual definitions of the words, they do.

Wrong again. I am insisting upon the exact usual definitions of words, not whatever twisted meanings the vanishingly tiny minority of libertarians give them. I am doing the exact opposite of a fallacy of equivocation. I am insisting upon having no such ambiguity.

Compare the definitions of Classical Liberalism, and libertarianism. Then come back and tell me who is equivocating.

Try again?

No need. Just read this post and repeat as needed.

 

[Gurdur]

Nice anecdotes.

Ta muchly.

As a libertarian, I can assure you I've never flamed Lincoln, nor do I feel the need to do so.

Well, heavens be praised. It's nice to know at least one libbie can manage some semblance of rationalilty as soon as it comes to Lincoln.

The people you might be describing are probably Secessionists.

Wrong again. Had they been neo-South-Risers, I would have known.

Secessionism is not synonymous with libertarianism, even if they borrow a few libertarian arguments.

Oooooooer! You're right!

Classical liberalism is not synonymous with libertarianism, even if the libertarians borrow many of the classical liberals' arguments.

 

[Gurdur]

Compare the definitions of Classical Liberalism, and libertarianism.

I did so long ago. Political Science was one of my first uni strands, and I did it in quite some depth.

Then come back and tell me who is equivocating.

You.

Sorry, but you did ask. You are in fact equivocating.

repeat

Typical Libertarian preaching strategy.

 

[UserGoogol]

So I take it you did not read the article or the definition of classical liberal. Perhaps I should repeat it for you:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society...

Yeah, so? Individual freedom and limited government does not libertarianism make. Classical liberals want limited government, but libertarians want really limited government, and classical liberals simply did not go as far as libertarians. After all, the Constitution itself explicitly gives the Federal government the ability to create post offices, which is a pretty blatant "socialist boondoggle" if ever there was one.

In all fairness, the founding fathers could not have been libertarians, and it's not unreasonable for libertarians to consider classical liberals their intellectual forefathers. But there was no Austrian School of Economics in 1776 and even classical economics was in a very minimalist state, there was no anarcho-capitalism (not that all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but it has formed an important part of the philosophy even for mere minarchists, by developing the non-aggression principle to more extreme levels), and of course there was no Ayn Rand; much of the philosophical structure of libertarianism simply did not exist.

 

[Gurdur]

Indeed. And much of classical liberalism was mercantilism dressed up to disguise its shoddiness.

 

[Richard Masters]

Yeah, so? Individual freedom and limited government does not libertarianism make. Classical liberals want limited government, but libertarians want really limited government, and classical liberals simply did not go as far as libertarians. After all, the Constitution itself explicitly gives the Federal government the ability to create post offices, which is a pretty blatant "socialist boondoggle" if ever there was one.

In all fairness, the founding fathers could not have been libertarians, and it's not unreasonable for libertarians to consider classical liberals their intellectual forefathers. But there was no Austrian School of Economics in 1776 and even classical economics was in a very minimalist state, there was no anarcho-capitalism (not that all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but it has formed an important part of the philosophy even for mere minarchists, by developing the non-aggression principle to more extreme levels), and of course there was no Ayn Rand; much of the philosophical structure of libertarianism simply did not exist.

Following Austrian Economics is not a prerequisite for being a libertarian. If this were the case, ALL modern economists would be libertarians, as many theories of Austrian Economics have been incorporated into mainstream economics. And Ayn Rand was not a libertarian whatsoever.

Regarding "Classical liberals want limited government, but libertarians want really limited government, and classical liberals simply did not go as far as libertarians," I might remind you that the founding fathers actually started a new government independent of their last. So, in fact, they got rid of their government altogether - in this way they were more radical than modern-day libertarians.

Nevertheless, I'd like to know what your sources are for "classical liberals simply did not go as far as libertarians".

 

[Richard Masters]

Indeed. And much of classical liberalism was mercantilism dressed up to disguise its shoddiness.

I'm still waiting for an argument or a fact from you.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

W00t! Finally we are in agreement! The Founding Fathers were (at least some of them) classical liberals.

They were, however, not libertarians.

Dearie me, this point was already done far, far before in this thread. Can you come up with any new argument?

You are arguing that a record player is not a phonograph.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Classical liberals want limited government, but libertarians want really limited government, and classical liberals simply did not go as far as libertarians.

Please evidence the difference between limited government and really limited government in this context.

 

[Gurdur]

I'm still waiting for an argument or a fact from you.

It's a mutual feeling.

You are arguing that a record player is not a phonograph.

Wrong. I am telling you that a phonograph does not equal a record player.

Look it up. A phonograph may be a record player, but not necessarily.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wrong. I am telling you that a phonograph does not equal a record player.

Look it up. A phonograph may be a record player, but not necessarily.

 

[marksman]

Not at all. It is saying that unless a person is a libbie to a significant degree

Yep. That's a "No True Scotsman" argument. Okay, everybody. Pack up the thread. I think we're done here Nothing to see. Move along, move along. Don't rubberneck at this train wreck of a thread. You can all board the next thread on track two.

 

[UserGoogol]

I think I might be willing to concede my point. There are some strong philosophical differences between the Thomas Jeffersons of the world and the Ludwig von Mises of the world, but whether or not that means that classical liberalism and libertarianism are different is more questionable. I think that there may be some linguistic ambiguity in exactly how broad you want to define those terms. Thus, although I would not consider the founding fathers to be libertarians, I'm not sure that you're exactly wrong by saying that they are.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yep. That's a "No True Scotsman" argument. Okay, everybody. Pack up the thread. I think we're done here Nothing to see. Move along, move along. Don't rubberneck at this train wreck of a thread. You can all board the next thread on track two.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think I might be willing to concede my point. There are some strong philosophical differences between the Thomas Jeffersons of the world and the Ludwig von Mises of the world, but whether or not that means that classical liberalism and libertarianism are different is more questionable. I think that there may be some linguistic ambiguity in exactly how broad you want to define those terms. Thus, although I would not consider the founding fathers to be libertarians, I'm not sure that you're exactly wrong by saying that they are.

Thank you for your honest thoughts. This is seen too little on the internet.