Difference between revisions of "Critiques Of Libertarianism:About"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
(Created page with "==== What is the purpose of your site? ==== The subject of this site is libertarianism: in the broad, poorly defined colloquial sense which includes Objectivism. This is a div...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ==== Why do you do this? ==== | ||
+ | [[File:Duty calls.png]] [http://xkcd.com/386/ XKCD] | ||
==== What is the purpose of your site? ==== | ==== What is the purpose of your site? ==== | ||
− | The subject of this site is libertarianism: in the broad, poorly defined colloquial sense which includes Objectivism. This is a diverse assortment of philosophy converging from many origins to what Alan Haworth characterizes as "a certain assertively right-wing, pro-free market philosophy." Discussion of what is or isn't libertarian or why Objectivism isn't libertarian is not of much interest: the philosophical and political arguments are the subject. For those interested in classification, I refer you to | + | The subject of this site is libertarianism: in the broad, poorly defined colloquial sense which includes Objectivism. This is a diverse assortment of philosophy converging from many origins to what Alan Haworth characterizes as "a certain assertively right-wing, pro-free market philosophy." Discussion of what is or isn't libertarian or why Objectivism isn't libertarian is not of much interest: the philosophical and political arguments are the subject. For those interested in classification, I refer you to [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701-h/2701-h.htm#link2HCH0032 Cetology], Melville's discourse on why the whale is a fish in [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701-h/2701-h.htm "Moby Dick]". |
+ | |||
+ | The purpose of this site is to provide resources for those interested in opposing or learning what's wrong with libertarianism. The purpose is NOT to convert libertarians to anything else: while I might wish to do that, it is impractical because people are very good at ignoring or misreading what they don't want to hear. | ||
+ | |||
==== Your site is anti-libertarian! ==== | ==== Your site is anti-libertarian! ==== | ||
This is not an anti-libertarian site, despite its critical nature. My view is that anti-libertarian would imply opposite to libertarian. Such a position would be ridiculous: instead, particular aspects of libertarianism are criticized for being untrue or undesirable. | This is not an anti-libertarian site, despite its critical nature. My view is that anti-libertarian would imply opposite to libertarian. Such a position would be ridiculous: instead, particular aspects of libertarianism are criticized for being untrue or undesirable. | ||
This site is intended to benefit audiences in ways that may either confirm or disconfirm their libertarian or other beliefs. For example, I regularly get email from libertarians praising my site for helping them eliminate the weak arguments from their understanding of libertarianism. As well as compliments from non-libertarians who want to oppose libertarians. | This site is intended to benefit audiences in ways that may either confirm or disconfirm their libertarian or other beliefs. For example, I regularly get email from libertarians praising my site for helping them eliminate the weak arguments from their understanding of libertarianism. As well as compliments from non-libertarians who want to oppose libertarians. | ||
− | My site is more or less impartial: I feature writings from libertarians, objectivists, anarchists, liberals, etc. I've also allowed a great deal of input from libertarians to help shape my own ideas and writings, even though I myself am not impartial. | + | My site is more or less impartial: I feature writings from libertarians, objectivists, anarchists, liberals, conservatives, marxists, etc. I've also allowed a great deal of input from libertarians to help shape my own ideas and writings, even though I myself am not impartial. |
==== So what's your alternative? ==== | ==== So what's your alternative? ==== | ||
Line 15: | Line 20: | ||
==== You didn't answer the question: what's your position? ==== | ==== You didn't answer the question: what's your position? ==== | ||
That's right, I answered with my strategy for being listened to precisely because many libertarians want the easy route out of dismissing me for my position. | That's right, I answered with my strategy for being listened to precisely because many libertarians want the easy route out of dismissing me for my position. | ||
− | But I've never made any bones about my position. | + | But I've never made any bones about my position. I'm a liberal [[Progressivism|progressive]], liking a very few of David Friedman's ideas but closer to the liberalism because I think government works better and the market more poorly than he does. |
− | What that works out to in practice is that I disagree with most libertarian complaints about taxation and redistribution, agree with many about needless government interference in private lives, and disagree with most libertarian proposals for reforms. For example, I too dislike the prohibitionary "war on drugs" and think it is very harmful. But while I would legalize most drug usage for recreation, I would do so under a regulatory policy that would address what I consider real, harmful problems due to a variety of market failures. Likewise tobacco. | + | What that works out to in practice is that I disagree with most libertarian complaints about taxation and redistribution, agree with many about needless government interference in private lives, and disagree with most libertarian proposals for reforms. For example, I too dislike the prohibitionary "war on drugs" and think it is very harmful. But while I would legalize most drug usage for recreation, I would do so under a [[Public Health Approach]] regulatory policy that would address what I consider real, harmful problems due to a variety of market failures. Likewise tobacco. |
+ | |||
+ | ==== You're ideological too! ==== | ||
+ | I don’t need [[ideology]] to rebut your libertarian arguments. Your ideology is YOUR weakness. It provides you with a bountiful supply of ready-made errors to spare you the pain of rubbing your own two brain cells together to come up with an original idea. Your ideology [[Historical Revisionism|necessarily makes stuff up and ignores the real world where it is inconvenient]]. I don’t need ideology to spot such lies and omissions. | ||
==== You don't criticize the real basis of libertarianism, only strawmen. ==== | ==== You don't criticize the real basis of libertarianism, only strawmen. ==== | ||
Line 26: | Line 34: | ||
This presupposes I am attacking more than the individual arguments. If I claimed to have demolished libertarianism (which I don't) by defeating these arguments, then I could be guilty of the strawman argument. I prefer to be humble enough to restrain my claims to the arguments, and let people decide for themselves whether they should doubt libertarianism on the basis of my arguments. | This presupposes I am attacking more than the individual arguments. If I claimed to have demolished libertarianism (which I don't) by defeating these arguments, then I could be guilty of the strawman argument. I prefer to be humble enough to restrain my claims to the arguments, and let people decide for themselves whether they should doubt libertarianism on the basis of my arguments. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
==== Numerous libertarians dismiss your arguments, and have rebutted them. ==== | ==== Numerous libertarians dismiss your arguments, and have rebutted them. ==== | ||
Line 39: | Line 45: | ||
==== Your site is boring and plain! ==== | ==== Your site is boring and plain! ==== | ||
I am strongly in favor of content over appearance. I think that the lack of graphics and clutter at my site is a positive feature, though it probably won't win me any awards from people who think rotating icons are sexy. | I am strongly in favor of content over appearance. I think that the lack of graphics and clutter at my site is a positive feature, though it probably won't win me any awards from people who think rotating icons are sexy. | ||
− | I despise advertisements, gratuitous icons, scrolling messages, and most of the visual noise that bedecks all too many sites (and makes them slow to download to boot.) I prefer simple functionality | + | I despise advertisements, gratuitous icons, scrolling messages, and most of the visual noise that bedecks all too many sites (and makes them slow to download to boot.) I prefer simple functionality. |
− | At some point, if I get | + | At some point, if I get some design assistance, I may redecorate this site. In the mean time, I'd rather add content. I hope my readers agree. |
==== Your site is one-sided! ==== | ==== Your site is one-sided! ==== | ||
The title SAYS it's one-sided. Critiques. I'll be happy to fix that as soon as the libertarian sites and libertarian literature fix their one-sidedness. However, I will be happy to create links to criticisms of the pages at my site, as I do to the criticisms of my FAQ. I think it is only fair, and judging from the quality of the criticisms so far, I come out ahead. | The title SAYS it's one-sided. Critiques. I'll be happy to fix that as soon as the libertarian sites and libertarian literature fix their one-sidedness. However, I will be happy to create links to criticisms of the pages at my site, as I do to the criticisms of my FAQ. I think it is only fair, and judging from the quality of the criticisms so far, I come out ahead. | ||
− | You must be afraid of our growing numbers if you devote this much attention to us. | + | ==== You must be afraid of our growing numbers if you devote this much attention to us.==== |
This has also been expressed as "Dogs don't bark at tombstones". My initial response is that dogs DO pee on tombstones. | This has also been expressed as "Dogs don't bark at tombstones". My initial response is that dogs DO pee on tombstones. | ||
− | Of course, I could observe that with | + | Of course, I could observe that with numerous web responses to my FAQ alone, libertarians seem afraid of me. That's the problem with those sorts of rhetorical arguments: they cut too many ways. But many libertarians seem to like them. |
+ | |||
+ | ==== Why do you do this? ==== | ||
+ | It's much like the show "Adam Ruins Everything", except that I started before he was born. Debunking mistaken ideas is beneficial for all. | ||
+ | {{QuoteOne|Mike Huben's Criticisms/slight}} |