View source for Analyzing Libertarian Arguments

<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:Fallacies Of Philosophy]]
[[Category:Ideology]]
[[Category:Opposing Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Fallacies Of Ideology]]
[[Category:Basics|900]]
{{DES | des =  First steps to analyzing libertarian arguments.  Libertarian arguments literally make every fallacy of logic and informal fallacy of argument.  After a while, it gets fairly easy to spot the problem in the arguments.  Here are some of the major problems. | show=}}
<!-- insert wiki page text here -->

; Elevating rules of thumb to absolutes.
: Allowing ownership does not imply allowing unlimited ownership.
; Where are the tradeoffs?
: Very few arguments are about open and shut cases.  Almost always, there are tradeoffs involved, and reasonable people can disagree on the conclusion because they have different values.  What tradeoffs are left out?  Which values are presumed to trump others?  Given that disagreement cannot be resolved, how should the answer be decided?  (Libertarians do NOT have a good answer for that.)
; How is the question loaded?
: "When did you stop beating your wife?" is the classic loaded question.  It slides in a presumption of moral incorrectness.  (See Shalizi example.)  Loading can be accomplished with propaganda terms, [[dog-whistle]] terms, and a host of other indirect methods.  The best response to loaded questions is to shame the questioner for his tactic.
; Does the argument make use of [[Principles of Propaganda|the principles of propaganda]]?
: One list of 9 principles is: big lie, focus, repeat, blame, provoke, crisis, emotional symbols, pander, and no limits.  Follow the link for more explanation.
; Does the argument pretend to logic?
:If not, point out how unconvincing the illogical argument is.  If it does pretend to logic, conservative and libertarian arguments almost always fail logically, with bad assumptions or clear fallacies.  [[The_Entitlement_Theory_of_Justice#Justice_in_Transfer|Nozick's pretend induction, for example]].<br>There are literally hundreds of fallacies of formal and inform logic.  You must needs gird your loins by learning about them.
; Does the argument start with the usual suspects?
: There are several very common false assumptions used by libertarians. 
* economic man
* rational man
* markets work best
* government cannot work
* the problem does not exist
* there is a slippery slope
; Does the argument try to say what you think or believe?
: When it's not a deliberate tarbrushing, strawman or misrepresentation, it might be:
* psychological projection: "you have to have an ideology!"
* assuming that because you disagree with one thing, all your ideas are opposite.  "If you oppose this freedom, you think everybody should be slaves!"  Milton Friedman used this one: (paraphrased) "would you rather have mercenaries or slaves as soldiers?"  (find a source)
; Does the argument ignore the diversity of existing alternatives?
: For example, criticisms of the US two party system little notice that multiparty systems in other nations hardly give different results.
; Is the argument a conspiracy theory?
: For example, if libertarians claim that you have been brainwashed by the state through its schools, it is easy to notice that there is no obvious "truth" coming from private schools or schools in other nations.
; Does the argument simply dismiss real-world evidence?
: See: [[The "No True Libertarianism" fallacy]].

<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them.  Use these explicit workarounds. -->
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}}  -->
{{List|title=Analyzing Libertarian Arguments|links=true}}
{{Quotations|title=Analyzing Libertarian Arguments|quotes=true}}