Libertarian Apologetics

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search

Libertarians have standard techniques for defending their absurd ideas that overlap strongly with the techniques employed by religious believers.


Criticisms of the Non-Libertarian FAQ
Over 20 years, numerous libertarians have criticized A Non-Libertarian FAQ. Their criticisms are surprisingly lame, with rather obvious errors.
Gish Gallop [More...] (2 links)
The debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.
Reddit AnCapCopyPasta [More...]
"Quick access for Anarcho-Capitalists to copy/paste material and win any argument instantly." Note the ridiculous equation "copying=winning". Because libertarians are generally incapable of thinking for themselves, and must plagiarize. A veritable catalog of common, stupid AnCap arguments.
Right Hook: The Tactics of Conservative Criticism [More...]
"Over the past few years, there have been some big hitting books from the left criticising inequality, capitalism and 'free market' economics or neoliberalism. Naturally, these books have received a lot of criticism from the right. However, sometimes it seems that this criticism is overzealous: an attempt not merely to question the book, but discredit it entirely, and accuse the authors of various misrepresentations of facts and people along the way." Examples from The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone' by Kate Pickett & Richard Wilkinson, 'Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class' by Owen Jones, and 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism' by Naomi Klein.
The Courtier’s Reply [More...]
PZ Meyers' description of how "The Emperor has no clothes!" is defended by sycophants, and why that defense is fallacious. You don't have to be an expert in libertarianism to know it is baseless.
Vast literatures as mud moats [More...]
"Vast literatures" can be a waste of time when they are propaganda, content-free, or generally erroneous. Demands that you familiarize yourself with vast literatures before you argue can be mere rhetorical strategies, rather than genuine requirements for understanding.
Why should anyone have to read your goofy holy book? [More...]
If you are arguing against a libertarian position, you don't need to have read "collections of rationalizations, inconsistent and incoherent" to take an opposing position. All you need is to identify where the position is wrong.


No quotations found in this category.