Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
Yep! I was wondering myself if this was one of those randomly generated essays. It makes no sense. I can't believe that we are actually wasting our time telling this guy its nonsense.
They have to do with the premises from which he is examining libertarianism.
For example, when he says that libertarians wish to force their ideology upon non-libertarians, that may make you stand up and cheer, until you realize that what he means is simply that libertarians are not willing to be forced at gunpoint to pay for the leftist social experiments his "non-libertarians" are intent upon.
You see? Taking his argument out of its socialistic context and putting it in one that is more familiar to you makes it evaporate and drift away on the wind. Because he believes that it is socially unjust when people attempt to maintain control over the fruits of their labor, he sees it as coercion against the people who would otherwise benefit from the redistribution of those fruits. But that view is only possible in that context. If you are a supporter of property rights, then you cannot argue that libertarians wish to coerce non-libertarians into anything.
Another example is his oft-repeated "bad truck" analogy. He's talking about a situation where market forces led to people not buying a poorly-designed and -built product, meaning that its manufacturer went out of business. He sees this as a bad thing, because of his socialist context. What that must unavoidably mean is that he believes that somehow people should have been coerced to buy this inferior product in order to keep its incompetent manufacturer in business. Is that what you believe? If not, then all the attacks he mounts with this "bad-truck" analogy similarly evaporate and float away.
That's what people on this thread mean when they say that this writer's prejudices invalidate his points. They mean that all his attacks on libertarianism are founded upon the premise that his socialism leads him to hold different objective standards of good and bad than most Americans would. That means that any defense of libertarianism aimed at this article would perforce turn into an attack on socialism: and probably most of the people on this thread already agree that socialism is bad. Therefore, such an argument is a pointless waste of time.
If you disagree with me, please pick out what you think is his absolute best criticism of libertarians, and I'll have it out with you, and you'll see what I mean.
As soon as you all(Libertarians) disagree with the ACLU.
Good news---you'll qualify, Mr DU disruptor.
Oh, come on! Even conservatives and honest leftists will tell you that there was nothing libertarian about the California "deregulation" of the electric companies. To even call it "deregulation" was a horribly Clintonian murdering of the word's definition.
Damn, and this is coming from a 21 year old; this joker is probably about 5 years my senior...
One central belief of libertarianism seems to be that consenting adults have a "right" to do whatever they want to do. Clearly, God doesn't give anyone a right to do something that is evil.
Whether or not specific immoral acts should be illegal is a matter or prudential judgement. Aquinas' principle in outlawing vice was pretty simple. Is the amount of vice reduced by criminalization greater than the amount of vice caused by criminalization (corruption)?
Seriously, most of the members I have met, whether in person or during the course of my centuries of internet dwelling, have been poor ambassadors for their organisation. I didn't say you were silly, pretentious and risible ... I said that of the organisation. I'd much rather hang out with the rednecks at the rifle range. (AB pulls his collar aside and checks: Yup! It's still red.) I've found that IQ (however defined) is a poor predictor of whether I will enjoy a person's company.
AB
The author CHOOSES to use collectivist values, definitions and worldview in his misguided attempt to debunk Libertarian thought (both large and small 'L'). His whole arguement begins with the presumption that a ruling elite has the authority to direct the resources of society. In the end he concludes that libertarian ideals don't really get perfectly inplemented, and therefore ta-ta-rahhhh we need to have a government that micromanages everyone's lives.
He dismisses the issues discussed in voluminous writings by Classical Liberal authors such as Hayek, Friedman and Von Mises with a wave of his hand, calmly setting up straw-man arguments and briskly knocking them down without addressing the actual issues that have ben widely debated for hundreds of years.
I am hesitant to spend much effort to cite rank and file examples simply because I believe it would do no good. If you truly cared for such you'd read the Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, or Human Action yourself and critique them accordingly.
Many here are frustrated with this article because they see the individual as owning themselves and as a consequence of that, owning the fruits of their labor. This is axiomatic to them. A large part of the frustration that we have with you is you are strolling in with an argument that a ruling elite can kill and destroy in order to buy themselves power and create a social picture that they find more pleasing. And that somehow to say otherwise is self contradictory because voluntary co-operation will result in a picture that someone else finds pleasing.
Don't flatter yourself. You "found his points" illumninating only because he attacked libertarianism, not because He had anything worthwhile to say.
You are perfectly happy to throw in with a Commmunist, because you are more concerned with being "anti-libertarian" than with the criminal ideological mental sickness of anyone who would excuse the crimes of the Christian-killing Communists... which now includes you.
You and your friends have yet to refute ANY of his points about Libertarians. You point to his political ideology and then mention other things he says unrelated to Libertarianism. What are you afraid of??
Nothing.
At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.
By not defining Libertarianism by its self-professed creeds, the author herein arrogates to himself the privilege of defining Libertarianism however he sees fit.
But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
values ~~ The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.
Smear tactic. The fact of the matter is, I would submit that the author simply rejects libertarianism out-of-hand because he is afraid of having his logic savaged... I personally suspect that he has debated libertarians before, and knows he can't win.
So, if you can't win an argument... smear. But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...
HILARIOUSLY stupid statement of deceptive illogic (though I'm not surprised that you "found it illuminating"). Why, by including "Conservatives practice Sodomy" and "Conservatives breathe Air" in the same group of points, the author could likewise say, the sodomizing Conservative belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most Conservatives. "Certainly, no Conservative rejects them all..."
But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
"process legitimises outcome" -- ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS must likewise believe that "Process legitimizes Outcome"; Christian Ethics are as rigidly deontological (that is, anti-Consequentialist) as any Libertarian's.
Non-Consequentialist Deontological Ethics (the above Communistic attack on which you find so illuminating) are fundamental to the Christian Faith. This Communist opposes Deontological Ethics.
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
revealing of order / perfection -- Also fundamental to Christian Ethics. Believing as we do that perfection is literally contained in Scripture, we believe that Presbyters and Magistrates who adhere to God's Law will thereby reveal the perfect purity of God's Law unto an imperfect world. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
world of emergence -- The value attached to the outcome of process, is so central to libertarianism, that it defines the ideal libertarian world.... Inherently, it must then defend this world's existence. And if the absolute free-market had totally unexpected effects (such as a Bolshevik world government), then most libertarians would interfere with its workings, to reinstate their intended ideal world.
False. Libertarians would have no objection to the emergence of a Communal society, provided that it was a purely-voluntary Community... No Force, No Fruad.
Again, this mirrors Christian Ethics. In those areas where Christians have seen fit to establish certain holdings and economic activities in common, it has been a voluntary communalism: No Force, No Fraud.
Ergo, the Communist author of the above is just spitting lies.
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
I could go on... and on... and on...
This entire piece is a pig-swill of vomitous illogic, which is ""illuminating" only to fools.
But when I am done, if you are STILL going to just stand there and drool, "but libertarianism is bad", and defend the Christianity-killing Lies of the blasphemous Social Gospel... why should I bother?
The point was that someone wrote an article whose basis is that one cannot both comprehend the article's definitions and libertarianism. Now, I'm supposed to read an article written by someone who thinks I'm Satan incarnate, with an open mind, and logically refute his "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" rantings.
(Truthfully, I do intend to read the article, but I am starting with as closed a mind as the author's. If I chose to refute any of his rant, you'll be the first to know.)
Sigh... see my #169. I decided to take the time to point that out.
Now, let's see whether or not "Exnihilo" is able to realize, for one fleeting second, "Oh, dear me, I've accidentally gone and posted a complete pile of Communist crap, which I mistakenly thought was 'illuminating'. Silly me.".
Why these rants against the libertarians today, somebody lose your welfare check?
Your hostility to American principles of governance is obvious.
Either that, or you are too dim to understand the consequences of your inchoate views.
I will hunt you down, and smoke you out, disruptor.
take my advice, don't provoke OWK, he'll take you to school and back.
Or is that 'disgust' of the article?
You continue to steadfastly ignore this post. Are you afraid to lay out any of your beliefs? Your behavior is approaching that of a disrupter, if you cannot add anything other than communist articles to this forum.
Fourth, and most important politically: the moral basis of social security payments should be redefined. Payment to the unemployed should be defined as compensation, for injustice and discrimination. In principle, an employer who refuses a job applicant, should compensate the applicant for loss of wages. The State can then take over this obligation, in the form of a fund for unemployment -open to anyone who has ever been refused a job.
True, this is a redefinition of the existing system. But it removes the pseudo-ethical claim, that the unemployed have an obligation to the employed. It is the other way round: those with jobs are guilty - guilty of competition for jobs. The free labour market is not a voluntary competition, like a marathon race. It is a race, created by the winners, to provide an opportunity to win. Any free market system is only morally acceptable, if participants can withdraw: and in reality they never can withdraw.
thoughts?
At this point, he reaches the level of obfuscation where even the individual words don't mean anything, or at least they don't mean what he thinks they mean. Thus, I am forced to throw up my hands and quit.
-------------------------------
Indeed, that line appears to have been lifted from 'Babblefish', or some other computer generated gibberish site.
I was merely pointing out that you could not claim to be a Christian -- or a religiously-devout Jew, for that matter.
You could in no sense claim to be an adherent of any aspect of Mosaic Law whatsoever if you prefer the arguments of a Communist to those of Libertarians.
Now, if you are just a Totalitarian atheist... well, I did say that I felt that your sympathies lie with the Communists, didnt I?
"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded."Is there a political philosophy whose values and/or premises can be rationally grounded?
Erm... no....
People keep telling me that I should.
I retail mutual funds for a living. (OP sheepishly turns head away from FR and gets back to work...)...
I thought you said you're against all redistribution of wealth. How can you agree with the table? By the way, when will you be adding to the forum instead of posting communist articles?
"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded."
Is there a political philosophy whose values and/or premises can be rationally grounded?
The (welfare) nation state is in its dying stage, and you are lashing out, at the perceived threats you see for the state you are trying to 'conserve.'
121 posted on 2/1/02 12:20 PM Pacific by OWK
Once the idea that rights(responsibility) are absolute---invioiable...
wouldn't the lack/abuse of responsibility/rights be criminal--tyranny?
I have said from the beginning...means--methodology--behavior--action--example is critical(determines results)---
. . . . ends/philosophy/ideology/words ultimately are drivel-irrelevant!
...the only argument left is the degree of enslavement.
...the only argument left is the degree of responsibility--reality--freedom(sobriety) vs. rhetoric(lies-bias-pretense)!
The "means(sincerity)" predetermine the ends(Truth-love)---
everything else is smoke--mirrors--hype--hypocrisy(slobovia--lower)!
You agree with his "image/reality" table?
Really?!?
The short bus is to your left. Be good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.