0 votes

Article criticising Libertarianism

Hi,

I found this article critcising libertarianism. As I am interested in putting forward the case for a Libertarian state, i would like to have defenses for these criticisms. It is quite a long article but one of the best I have seen in a critical aspect. Any defenses you have for the arguments given would be much appreciated.

Most of their arguments relate to specific exceptions to the general rule where libertarianism would work, but if there is a way to solve those in a libertarian manner it is good to know.

Article here
http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/liberty.htm



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

read the article. i say "whatever" (like a 12 year old girl)

*elitist mocking tone*

any construct taken to the extreme is going to break.

give me any political, societal, or economic mental construct, and I can break it, by defining it's pure form and then laying it on top of another construct, such as the idea of "society".

there is no such thing as a pure republicanism, or democracy, or libertarianism.

neither does pure capitalism or socialism exist.

because they cannot.

when discussing IDEALS, people of average intelligence will make the mistake of trying to fit one endlessly faceted construct over another endlessly faceted construct ("libertarianism" over the idea of "society" for example)...eventually a somewhat talented writer with the gift of simplification will come up with a structured "it doesn't work" argument, showing us that the square peg doesn't fit in the round hole....but, this can be done to any political social economic construct. And the only people that this "persuades" are those of equal intellect and had previously made up their minds (in agreement), or those who are uneducated, or just not capable of higher order thought.

people with a truly liberated intellect will simply smile at the poor baboonish meanderings of such a a writer and perhaps try to remind them, that these things are merely gross and clumsy attempts to have a dialogue that may be useful as a analytical tool.

I don't even take such writings seriously. In a face to face discussion, I could dismantle the author's thought process with very little effort.

*/elitist mocking tone*

*normal tone*
the author is a dipshit.
*/normal tone*

Yeah. We’re pretty stupid for thinking for ourselves.

(That’s sarcasm, by the way.)

—Cliff in Sioux City, Iowa
May’s Song: ♪Emily♪ by Dave Koz
Throw-away tools of war

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

So what

Why do we have to be labeled liber's?

Lables

I agree with you, we can label ourselves what we like. But it is harder to control what other people label us. If we show some libertarian ideals, then people who have some knowledge will label us as Libertarian. To refute that label is mostly pointless as credibility will soon be lost and useful discussion time will be consumed with labels.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/youownyou (quotes)
Website: http://www.own-yourself.com

if you accept your label,

if you accept your label, then labeled you are.

if you tirelessly refuse to be labeled (and I personally find it effortless)

then the majority of people you have had a conversation with, will know better then to label you. they will also know you as a deep thinker, and not to be trifled with.

but it sounds like you like the label. so go ahead.

Libertarians are for individuals

Who makes the best Libertarians are artists. Artists are born with talent, or aquire a gift, and it's something corporations envy, Corporations may have talented people working for them, but they are not individuals. So corporations and those who think collectively fight against Libertariansim, as if those who are so gifted, or talented, that they not only appreciate freedom, but profit off it... this is a problem for those who have no talent and produce nothing, but profit off misery.. so they seek to make the Libertarian some narcassistic uncompassionate beast, in so many words.

Artists have a hard time with the corporate structure, because the corporate structure is not free. It seeks to make everyone equal, and that's not how nature works because nature does not distribute talent equally, or mental or physical power evenly.

Libertarians are nomally resourceful with allot of dependents, who don't complain, unlike the dependents on goverrnment and the corporations it controls.

many scientist are also libertarians

But corporations have found a way to deal with them. only corporations can protect intellectual property these days. Or the old H1b visa can be used to keep wages low, and to get rid of non-conformists. Now Science education is working quickly to get them set up as "teams of scientists". Scientists have always shared and worked together, now their interactions are being mediated by corporations.

I know many people on the DP hate scientists or anything scientific, but it is among scientist that you will find libertarianisms strongest and most effective allies.

Excellent point

You are absolutely right Arts and sciences! THANK YOU.

Oh my, where to start...

This is a long article, full of loaded examples that cannot be disputed effectively without unpacking all of the twisted assumptions that lead, inevitably, to a rejection of libertarianism.
After reading the article, I can say that much of the criticism revolves around presenting a "problem" (such as how to save the whales) that has not been specifically addressed by libertarianism, and, since the writer cannot think of how it might be handled, proves the libertarian theory of private ownership is impractical. Virtually all of the examples are like this. Contrary to proving that Libertarianism is a failure, it proves only that the critic personally has not thought of how libertarian principles might be applied. Frankly, some of his examples would make any libertarian scatch his head, because some of these "problems" are pretty sticky and complex. However, when the critic immediately concludes that ONLY government force can solve the problem, he demonstrates that he is reaching for the only tool he knows. Free people have a tendency to solve their problems in most unusual ways. (I remember reading about an island in the South Pacific where the residents solved the problem of the commons by apportioning the ownership of the fruits of their trees by seasons instead of by plant. Who'd a thunk?)

Getting into a debate with this article involves a line-by-line disputation.

That was my problem...

"This is a long article, full of loaded examples that cannot be disputed effectively without unpacking all of the twisted assumptions that lead, inevitably, to a rejection of libertarianism."

Some of the assumptions are subtle and not easily identified when speaking person to person. Its good to identify them before getting asked in person.

"Getting into a debate with this article involves a line-by-line disputation."

It seems the basic way you would handle a person bringing these arguments to you, would be not to defend against them, but to go on the offensive and remind the other party that their method of solution is the solution of governmental force. In a way producing a statemate or throwing the argument back their way. I guess that would be a good tactic in some situations.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/youownyou (quotes)
Website: http://www.own-yourself.com

what thatcher means

IS that society is an abstract construct, not a thing. It is the result of the interaction of individuals, it is not an entity in itself. Society emerges from the actions of a group of individuals, and can change at a moments notice if the individuals change. Thus arguments that something is "good for society" or that society needs to be maintained are simply arguments for the status quo of personal interactions, not for the mythical society. Society is not maintained by force, it exists through the consent and enlightened self interest of individuals. THose who call for maintaining society are calling for using force to stop society from changing.