Difference between revisions of "Critiques Of Libertarianism:About"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
(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 CETOLOGY, Melville's discourse on why the whale is a fish in "Moby Dick".
+
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. It's somewhere between liberalism and David Friedman's ideas, closer to the liberalism because I think government works better and the market more poorly than he does.
+
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.
 
But I do intend to address the numerous philosophical and other "foundations" of libertarianism systematically in the next couple of years. I've made a substantial amount of preparation already.
 
  
 
==== 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. That's why I even keep most counters on a separate page, rather than on each page.
+
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 a really nice logo or background, I may add them to my site. In the mean time, I'd rather add content. I hope my readers agree.
+
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 8 web responses (and counting) 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.
+
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}}

Latest revision as of 15:49, 25 June 2021