Difference between revisions of "Critiques Of Libertarianism:About"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
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: people are very good at ignoring or misreading what they don't want to hear.
+
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! ====
Line 20: 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! ====
 
==== You're ideological too! ====
Line 55: Line 55:
 
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}}
 
{{QuoteOne|Mike Huben's Criticisms/slight}}

Latest revision as of 15:49, 25 June 2021