Something Awful makes fun of libertarians

[Chaos]

This is beginning to sound like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in which unless the person in question has never compromised libertarian values in any way shape or form, they aren't really a libertarian and thus libertarianism has accomplished nothing.

*snip*

Only for people who are viewed negatively by the one committing this fallacy.

There is also the fallacy in which a person that is viewed positively, unless they have never done anything that could be construed as being motivated by libertarianism (and they most likely did do such things, to be viewed positively by libertarians), is considered libertarian no matter what evidence to the contrary exists, and thus libertarianism is to be praised for every good thing that ever happened.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Only for people who are viewed negatively by the one committing this fallacy.

There is also the fallacy in which a person that is viewed positively, unless they have never done anything that could be construed as being motivated by libertarianism (and they most likely did do such things, to be viewed positively by libertarians), is considered libertarian no matter what evidence to the contrary exists, and thus libertarianism is to be praised for every good thing that ever happened.

Insert any political philosophy and you could make the same point.

This is an argument from idiocy.

 

[marksman]

Only for people who are viewed negatively by the one committing this fallacy.

There is also the fallacy in which a person that is viewed positively, unless they have never done anything that could be construed as being motivated by libertarianism (and they most likely did do such things, to be viewed positively by libertarians), is considered libertarian no matter what evidence to the contrary exists, and thus libertarianism is to be praised for every good thing that ever happened.

That's a tu quoque argument and does not disprove the original "No True Scotsman". The fact that libertarians may dentify people who are libertarians inappropriately doesn't mean that Gurdur isn't inappropriately defining libertarians to exclude those who may be.

 

[Richard Masters]

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.

I think I can agree with this. There isn't a perfect correspondence between classical liberals and libertarians, and there are surely some libertarians who deviate too much from classical liberalism (toward anarchy) to be considered classical liberals, though in a Venn Diagram the intersection space would be quite large.

 

[Chaos]

That's a tu quoque argument and does not disprove the original "No True Scotsman". The fact that libertarians may dentify people who are libertarians inappropriately doesn't mean that Gurdur isn't inappropriately defining libertarians to exclude those who may be.

Who says I´m trying to disprove anything? I was just thinking, since you were identifying logical fallacies committed in this debate, I might just as well help you by pointing out another one which you had apparently overlooked.

On the other hand, if you would like to tell me that you were not aiming for fair discussion, but simply trying to demonize the opposition, in that case you can hardly complain that someone else turns your words around at you.

 

[drkitten]

That's a tu quoque argument and does not disprove the original "No True Scotsman". The fact that libertarians may dentify people who are libertarians inappropriately doesn't mean that Gurdur isn't inappropriately defining libertarians to exclude those who may be.

Nor does the fact that Jerome may be defining libertarians too widely in support of his vacuously wrong hypothesis mean that Gurder is being inappropriately narrow.

 

[marksman]

Who says I´m trying to disprove anything?

Usually, when someone quotes a person (in this case, me) and responds to it,it is either to add to that person's comments, or to disprove it. If it is neither, it is a non sequitur.

if you would like to tell me that you were not aiming for fair discussion, but simply trying to demonize the opposition

In what way did I "demonize" Gurdur? I pointed out that his criticism was committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. When he tried to justify it, his words confirmed -- contrary to his intent -- that he was committing that fallacy. The fact that my second response used humor doesn't make it "demonizing".

in that case you can hardly complain that someone else turns your words around at you.

Is that what you were trying to do? Because you attempted that through the use of a tu quoque fallacy, which is usually a very bad approach to such things.

 

[marksman]

Nor does the fact that Jerome may be defining libertarians too widely in support of his vacuously wrong hypothesis mean that Gurder is being inappropriately narrow.

Agreed. Good thing I didn't try to use Jerome's words to prove that Gurdur was being inappropriately narrow. Instead, I used Gurdur's own statements.

 

[GreyICE]

Agreed. Good thing I didn't try to use Jerome's words to prove that Gurdur was being inappropriately narrow. Instead, I used Gurdur's own statements.

You misunderstand the No True Scottsman. In that fallacy, the person in question was clearly of Scottish blood, and was being defined out of the category of Scottish.

In the case of the founding fathers, they did not identify as libertarian. In this case, the only way to 'prove' they're libertarian is to look at their philosophy. This would be the equivalent of looking at someone who claimed to be American to see if they had Scottish ancestry.

In that case it's perfectly fine to say "Err, that ancestor of theirs? That's Wales. Not Scotland."

Or in this case, they're philosophy isn't libertarian, they don't identify as libertarian, they clearly allowed actions that were an anathema to the libertarian philosophy, so claiming they're libertarians is just an Appeal to Authority.

Look that one up.

 

[technoextreme]

Of course you are correct. I was answering the question: "Tell me, what have the libertarians actually accomplished? Anything, anything at all?". Libertarian ideas; or rather at that time liberal ideas, were instrumental in the creation of the United States of America.

Except that the philosophy that they were advocating resembled the way our government was structured nowadays. Not anything your imagining as libertarianism...

Oh bwa-ha-ha-ha, argument from etymology.

Look at the etymology of the word "villain". Now try telling me that therefore nowadays it means "peasant" and not "miscreant".

What utterly impoverished bollocks of a pseudo-argument is this? Argument from etymology is a no-go from the very start, since hundreds of words in English now have meanings at odds with their etymology.

And what you just provided was an argument from ignorance. The Republicans are liberals. Democrats are liberals. It's a really odd philosophy for what it's worth but you can't argue that both Republicans and Democrats operate under a liberal philosophy.

You are aware that the meanings of words change over time, are you not?

Do you think the word liberal means the same thing today as it did 200 years ago? In fact, in America at least, it means quite the opposite.

No. Liberal means the same thing it does for most of the world except the United States. I doubt most Europeans would have trouble recognizing the fact but most Americans will.

 

[Travis]

Considering the number and variety of "Founding Fathers" I would be surprised if there were not at least a few that might be considered libertarians.

 

[marksman]

You misunderstand the No True Scottsman. In that fallacy, the person in question was clearly of Scottish blood, and was being defined out of the category of Scottish.

No, I didn't. The issue in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is not defining "Scotsman" but defining "True Scotsman". The entire apocryphal conversation that led to the fallacy's name assumes that there is such a thing as a "True Scotsman", which is a smaller category than "Scotsman".

The same is being applied to "libertarian" by both sides. Gurdur was (I'm not sure why you decided to raise a four-month old thread from the dead) narrowly defining "libertarian" to justify his statement that libertarians never accomplished anything. Others were broadly defining "libertarian" to prove that they did.

The argument thus revolves around definitions, and since people are defining the word in order to prove their point, they have engaged in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. That fallacy is entirely about defining (or redefining) words to prove your argument.

In the case of the founding fathers, they did not identify as libertarian.

No, you're doing it too! The question wasn't whether "self-identified libertarians" had accomplished anything. Just "libertarians", a word incapable of universal application.

In some ways, the initial question "What have libertarians accomplished" was a trap, since "libertarian" is really too vague to be helpful.

they're philosophy isn't libertarian, they don't identify as libertarian, they clearly allowed actions that were an anathema to the libertarian philosophy, so claiming they're libertarians is just an Appeal to Authority.

I don't have to look it up to know you got it wrong. An Appeal to Authority is when people are expected to believe your argument not because it proves its thesis but because the person uttering it is a person of authority. Which has nothing to do with what you wrote (as far as I can tell).

Declaring someone a libertarian is always a question of semantics since there is no generally accepted definition of "libertarian".

 

[balrog666]

This is pure rubbish; "liberal" does not equal "libertarian".
[snip]

Read some history, in no sense of the word is a modern "liberal" the same as a "Classic Liberal".

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You don't need someone else to make fun of Libertarians, they do it quite well themselves, unintentionally.

 

[Drudgewire]

No, I didn't. The issue in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is not defining "Scotsman" but defining "True Scotsman". The entire apocryphal conversation that led to the fallacy's name assumes that there is such a thing as a "True Scotsman", which is a smaller category than "Scotsman".

The irony here is I consider the net's "one true Scotsman" (because he gave me my first real writing gig at XWrestling back in the day) to be the Scotsman moderating Something Awful's poker forum.


ETA: And he's not even Scottish.

 

[Architect]

Whit? Someone call?

 

[GreyICE]

No, I didn't. The issue in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is not defining "Scotsman" but defining "True Scotsman". The entire apocryphal conversation that led to the fallacy's name assumes that there is such a thing as a "True Scotsman", which is a smaller category than "Scotsman".

The same is being applied to "libertarian" by both sides. Gurdur was (I'm not sure why you decided to raise a four-month old thread from the dead) narrowly defining "libertarian" to justify his statement that libertarians never accomplished anything. Others were broadly defining "libertarian" to prove that they did.

The argument thus revolves around definitions, and since people are defining the word in order to prove their point, they have engaged in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. That fallacy is entirely about defining (or redefining) words to prove your argument.

Not exactly. The fallacy is about arbitrary definitions.

Lets say that two farmers are examining a tractor to purchase. One thinks it is a good farming tractor, the other doesn't.

They can have a perfectly legitimate debate over the status of the tractor as a 'good farming tractor' without getting anywhere near a No True Scotsman. The point of the fallacy, which you'd know if you understood it, is not that the fallacy revolves around definitions, but the definitions are arbitrary.

The definition of a True Scotsman is one who is acting like the debater thinks a True Scotsman should act like.

Libertarian, on the other hand, is a defined ideology, with a clear, reasonably concise, and defined set of values. While, like any philosophy, disagreements among the adherents exist, those cannot be confused for an arbitrary definition.

Now if someone starts talking about how people aren't true libertarians (like the Spanish Inquisition weren't True Christians, or Stalin wasn't a True Atheist) then we have the Scotsman.

No, you're doing it too! The question wasn't whether "self-identified libertarians" had accomplished anything. Just "libertarians", a word incapable of universal application.

Do you want me to demonstrate that a concept does not have to be clearly defined in order to exist? We can run the paradox of the heap yet again.

Suffice to say that a clear definition does not have to exist for a concept to be used and discussed.

I don't have to look it up to know you got it wrong. An Appeal to Authority is when people are expected to believe your argument not because it proves its thesis but because the person uttering it is a person of authority. Which has nothing to do with what you wrote (as far as I can tell).

Saying 'the founding fathers were libertarian' is pretty much like any other argument dragging the founding fathers in (they always coincidentally vaguely support the side of the arguer, while offering no additional arguments) - a classic appeal to authority.

 

[marksman]

They can have a perfectly legitimate debate over the status of the tractor as a 'good farming tractor' without getting anywhere near a No True Scotsman. The point of the fallacy, which you'd know if you understood it, is not that the fallacy revolves around definitions, but the definitions are arbitrary.

No, the point of the fallacy is people altering the definition of a word to justify their point. That can happen when it's arbitrary. It can also happen when it's vague.

Libertarian, on the other hand, is a defined ideology, with a clear, reasonably concise, and defined set of values.

I disagree. Libertarianism is an ideology. A libertarian is a person who adheres to libertarianism with varying degrees of success.

When defining whether an individual is "libertarian" one necessarily has to accommodate the notion that nobody is entirely consistent in their actions. Thus, the question is whether someone is "truly Libertarian". That's deep into "No True Scotsman" territory.

Do you want me to demonstrate that a concept does not have to be clearly defined in order to exist?

Why would that be pertinent? Nobody claims libertarianism is non-existent. Only that whether someone is a libertarian is going to be subject to disagreement even among reasonable people (and I'm not going to analyze whether Gurdur and Jerome da Gnome are reasonable!)

Saying 'the founding fathers were libertarian' is pretty much like any other argument dragging the founding fathers in (they always coincidentally vaguely support the side of the arguer, while offering no additional arguments) - a classic appeal to authority.

That's not an appeal to authority. If one were then to argue that libertarianism is a superior ideology because the founding fathers are libertarians (assuming one were to accept that premise), then it would be an appeal to authority.

You're jumping the gun. We haven't even established the premise. I'm fairly certain the appeal to authority would have been just around the corner, though.

 

[GreyICE]

No, the point of the fallacy is people altering the definition of a word to justify their point. That can happen when it's arbitrary. It can also happen when it's vague.

You're looking for Equivocation. Try that one, that's the fallacy you're describing.

I disagree. Libertarianism is an ideology. A libertarian is a person who adheres to libertarianism with varying degrees of success.

When defining whether an individual is "libertarian" one necessarily has to accommodate the notion that nobody is entirely consistent in their actions. Thus, the question is whether someone is "truly Libertarian". That's deep into "No True Scotsman" territory.

Um, nonsense. A person does not have to be completely consistent to be an adherent to a particular philosophy.

All they have to do is take the same motivating principles that drive that philosophy and attempt, through word and action, to apply them in their life.

You're just trying to smack me in the face with Loki's wager, and hope that I don't notice.

Why would that be pertinent? Nobody claims libertarianism is non-existent. Only that whether someone is a libertarian is going to be subject to disagreement even among reasonable people (and I'm not going to analyze whether Gurdur and Jerome da Gnome are reasonable!)

Okay, so it's a subject worthy of debate. Oddly, in a debate, two people can hold different positions, and neither need be using logical fallacies to hold them.

I know, I know, that probably shatters a black and white worldview, but it's true.

People can logically debate whether or not a person's philosophy was consistent with the principles of libertarianism. It's an interesting debate.

That's not an appeal to authority. If one were then to argue that libertarianism is a superior ideology because the founding fathers are libertarians (assuming one were to accept that premise), then it would be an appeal to authority.

You're jumping the gun. We haven't even established the premise. I'm fairly certain the appeal to authority would have been just around the corner, though.

Yeah, there's an implied appeal to authority about 0.01 seconds after the words 'founding fathers' comes up. Those words are this close to making it into Godwin's law as things that derail debates.

 

[marksman]

You're looking for Equivocation. Try that one, that's the fallacy you're describing.

No, equivocation involves the misleading use of a word. Neither side here is being misleading. They simply have a disagreement anout the meaning of a word., and that disagreement is rooted in wanting to win the debate.

A person does not have to be completely consistent to be an adherent to a particular philosophy.

Yeah, that's what I wrote. Thats' why people can disagree over whether someone is libertarian. It's also wha allows people to take a narrow or broad interpretation of the word to declare themselves right on the issue. (I.e., the No True Scotsman fallacy).

You're just trying to smack me in the face with Loki's wager, and hope that I don't notice.

No, I'm not saying it can't be discussed. I'm saying it can't be so particularly define as to definitively say that any given individual is a libertarian.

Let me be more specific. One could definitively say that some people are libertarians -- say, members of the Libertarian Party. One can certainly identify a lot of people who are not libertarians -- say, Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini. But in between these poles is a vast grey area of people for whom a libertarian label is absolutely within the realm of reasonable disagreement.

Just as with the apocryphal No True Scotsman argument, when people discuss the grey area, their definition of libertarian is going to shift based on their position.

Now, a debate on how libertarian Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson is? Fascinating and worthy of discussion. Deciding whether you can label any of these people libertarian? Arbitrary and in the end self-serving.

Oddly, in a debate, two people can hold different positions, and neither need be using logical fallacies to hold them.

Sure, they can. But in this specific instance they weren't.

there's an implied appeal to authority about 0.01 seconds after the words 'founding fathers' comes up. Those words are this close to making it into Godwin's law as things that derail debates.

Agreed. But we hadn't even gotten to that fallacy.