http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Debunk!
As far as I see it, the argument appears to be, “Reasoning is too absolute or not convincing; therefore, libertarians are retarded for using it for political theory.”
No point in debunking that which rests entirely on strawmen and unsupported assertions.
Libertarians tend to be stupid because it’s attractive to cranky dolts. That being said:
The problem with axiomatic (and/or Absolutist) libertarianism is that its ‘axioms’ are incompatible with survival and action. All actions have destructive externalities (flashlights come to mind).
Indeed. Now, would you do me a favor ? Care to explain what -ism or a-ism got you, so that I can avoid it ? Cause, being stupid is bad, but your condition is way way worse … =]
Thank you, Juan, for empirically confirming my theory.
You’re welcome ! On the other hand, I’m having some trouble understanding your comment. Well, that’s not surprising given that I subscribe to libertarianism and libertarians tend to be stupid.
Pardon my ignorance of optical physics, but… how???
The difference between a flashlight and a laser is, more or less, energy concentration. They both act in essentially the same way - sending that obnoxious light, heating up the air and walls, doing minor (but detectable) damage to the wood on my front door! Aggression!
Your arbitrary limits are all based on rationalizing proportionality or denying restitution like Lefevre. Because that would work out GREAT! Steal, nothing happens to you!
Yeah, not to mention obscuring the stars.
tl, dr, dc
I’ve argued this exact point (or close) here on this forum. I’m still a libertarian. This argument is not a knock-out punch against radical libertarianism, though it may be for a ridiculously purist NAP.
Wow, that’s a masterful argument. [8-)]
Vichy isn’t wrong by any means. Any political ideology is full of morons who’d rather tote the word before knowing what it means. However all ideologies have this.
Wow, that’s a masterful argument.
It’s not an argument, it’s a fact. There are a lot of stupid people everywhere, and libertarianism tends to be attractive to cranky, marginalized stupid people. Not all libertarians are stupid, but it’s easy to demonstrate most of them are. Or have you never heard of the Libertarian Party?
And most libertarians know next to nothing that would reasonably justify the vociferousness of their conviction, they’re philosophically nearly blind. This should not be a controversial statement, I think.
Not all libertarians are stupid, but it’s easy to demonstrate most of them are.
I don’t think it is. I’d say the average libertarian is pretty intelligent.
Anyway, you’re just a troll, and not even a good one. Buh-bye.
Oh but it is! Unless you concede the same applies to other ideologies. Good luck proving that there is a disproportional number of unphilosophical, stupid individuals in libertarianism as compared to any other ideology. As for the LP, it is hardly the seat of radical libertarianism (at best not-so-small-governmentism? a home for disgruntled liberals/conservatives?) so it’s a poor example. In fact I’ll even go so far as to say that after reading libertarian thinkers, be they philosophers or economists, mainstream ones bore me.
There’s a difference between crankishness and stupidity.
Oh but it is! Unless you concede the same applies to other ideologies.
I would - most people of any ideological stripe are unreflective, uncritical and extremely narrow in their outlook.
Good luck proving that there is a disproportional number of unphilosophical, stupid individuals in libertarianism as compared to any other ideology.
I never said that. Though Libertarianism does tend to attract more cranky stupid people.
As for the LP, it is hardly the seat of radical libertarianism
No, but it is a hugely influential segment of libertarianism. And even taking the more radical elements - Mises, Anti-state.com, Strike the Root - the really intelligent people is largely confined to the academics and staff. The unwashed masses of Rothbardians are tards.
In fact I’ll even go so far as to say that after reading libertarian thinkers, be they philosophers or economists, mainstream ones bore me.
Which is to say - the vast majority of the libertarian movement.
There’s a difference between crankishness and stupidity.
Yes, there is. Libertarian stupid people just happen to be particularly cranky, because libertarianism has a tough time not sliding into pure crankyness.
What is it to be “cranky” anyway? Sounds nebulous.
From Wikipedia
“Crank” is a pejorative term for a person who either holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false, or is simply just bad-tempered.[1] The term implies that a “cranky” belief is so wildly at variance with some commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous, and arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict his unconventional belief.
It’s a behavioural-ideological assessment.