Difference between revisions of "Critiques Of Libertarianism:About"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==== 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 [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 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. | ||
Line 17: | 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 48: | Line 54: | ||
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 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. | 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}} |