Difference between revisions of "What Is Wrong With Libertarianism"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Very simply, the major problem with libertarianism is its arguments. However appealing libertarianism might sound, after a while it is impossible not to notice that many of the arguments are conspicuously bad. With further examination, more and more arguments look worse and worse. This necessitates a huge libertarian [[apologetics]] (defense of their philosophy) which is also fraught with bad argument. | |
| − | + | With sufficient confirmation bias or dishonesty, bad arguments are not a problem for some libertarians. But identifying bad arguments and why they are bad is a useful skill in the search for better arguments. | |
| + | Here is a list of criteria for judging a presentation or argument of libertarianism. Statements should not fail any of this gauntlet of tests, applied charitably. Whether you are moving towards or away from libertarianism, this list can be used to improve arguments and understanding. | ||
<dpl> | <dpl> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
* [[Diversity In Libertarianism]] | * [[Diversity In Libertarianism]] | ||
| + | It would be nice if there was a simple dismissal of libertarianism, but there are so many different kinds that no one argument could apply. | ||
There is really no such thing as a coherent libertarian ideology or philosophy. Nor is there one "real" libertarianism: libertarianism is heterogeneous (a mixed collection.) Libertarianism can be left or right, rationalist or antirationalist, essentialist or pragmatist, hardcore or soft core, based on rights or liberty or values, using Austrian or Chicago or other economics, statist or anarchist, political or philosophical, etc. This occurs in other viewpoints (conservatism, liberalism, etc.) as well: but there are three great errors made because of this fact. The first is presenting any one statement as typical of all libertarianism, instead of one or a few sects. That is a false generalization. The second is using these different varieties as if they were the same thing. That is a fallacy of the shifting middle term. The third is the claim that there is a "true" libertarianism. That's an essentialist fallacy. These problems are best avoided by focusing on individual arguments based on one libertarian viewpoint at a time. | There is really no such thing as a coherent libertarian ideology or philosophy. Nor is there one "real" libertarianism: libertarianism is heterogeneous (a mixed collection.) Libertarianism can be left or right, rationalist or antirationalist, essentialist or pragmatist, hardcore or soft core, based on rights or liberty or values, using Austrian or Chicago or other economics, statist or anarchist, political or philosophical, etc. This occurs in other viewpoints (conservatism, liberalism, etc.) as well: but there are three great errors made because of this fact. The first is presenting any one statement as typical of all libertarianism, instead of one or a few sects. That is a false generalization. The second is using these different varieties as if they were the same thing. That is a fallacy of the shifting middle term. The third is the claim that there is a "true" libertarianism. That's an essentialist fallacy. These problems are best avoided by focusing on individual arguments based on one libertarian viewpoint at a time. | ||
