What do you guys think of this website? It is edited by Mike Huben and is basically a huge list of anti-libertarian arguments. It seems that David Friedman has responded to it. Are there any more libertarian responses or websites that try to defend against the arguments found on this website? Any other thoughts?
Further investigation of the site has turned up a response from Mark LaRochelle. It appears to be a good start to debunking the Anti-Libertarian FAQ and can be found here.
That it is a plethora of piss poor arguments and bad rhetoric.
I didn’t read much, but either it is full of strawmen and the occasional ad hominem or I just happened to stumble upon the few strawmen within the site.
The aspect that - in my mind, at least - speaks volumes, is the lack of coherency. There is no consistent counter-argument, but a grab-bag of nitpicks. Like the anti-anti-tax argument going into property theory and just saying the natural rights argument boils down to “first-come-first-served”, as if that is a rebuttal… I am appalled that the anti-libertarians can’t come up with a more coherent and striking list.
Most of the rubbish he has posted up there has already been refuted, or is puerile garbage (e.g. the article comparing Austrian econ to a religion - it is so confused on methodology I do not know where to begin.) It’s sad really.
-Jon
What do you folks think of this from David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom”?
He has quotes collected about libertarianism, and OMFG he quotes himself!!
I only read about 1/3. Nothing especially noteworthy. The criticism is mainly academic and Friedman uses extreme examples. Are most people going to sue those who emit photons from flashlights onto their property? Of course not. There are a lot of variables that need to be met before this kind of scenarios arise, though I’m sure they will on a long enough timeline. If your neighbor has a light on his yard that shines onto your yard, I don’t see it as extraordinary to demand the light to be removed or ensured that the light doesn’t shine on your yard.
The part about having to prove the libertarian moral view as correct isn’t really my field. I don’t care about morality, so I’ve never looked into the it’s intricacies. How does one even prove morality as correct?
And they don’t even appear to be intelligent quotes. Were I to quote myself, I would certainly make sure it wouldn’t be of “OMG! Statists suck Stalin’s peepee!” quality.
When hearing a statement like that, my first thought is “I’d better not have him over for dinner.”
I’m not saying I’m amoral. Just that I know morality is no restriction. Anyone who wants to murder me doesn’t need to morally justify it to me first. Thus I have never given much attention to the study of morals and rights.
I’m not so sure. A lot of people do care about morality. There have been many, many books written to describe, for instance, the justifications the Nazi foot soldiers gave to themselves to explain how they could do what they were doing. Most people don’t like to think of themselves as evil. This is part of why it’s possible to argue for libertarianism and be successful at all.
In a limited sense, yes. At least in civil situations. And I’m not saying moral discussions are worthless. Only that I don’t place a high value on morality.
For example, I can kill a mosquito without hesitation and I can assault and perhaps even kill a human being in self-defense. But killing in cold blood or assaulting a person without provocation is not something I can do. I have no precise moral guidelines and even my adherence to the non-aggression principle is superficial, but my capacity for empathy and sympathy prevent me from harming others.
My point is that the thing that prevents us from harming others is innate. Morality is simply a layer on top of that. So morality has it’s place in civil situations and among those already predisposed to non-aggression. But in times of danger or among those prone to violence and sociopathy, morality has no meaning.
I don’t see why people ignoring it, or behaving contrary to it, imply that morality becomes meaningless. Sure, don’t bring Ayn Rand to a knifefight and all that, but morality remains important, although not as a weapon.
I agree. Morality in policy discussions is an important aspect. But my path to libertarianism was a bit uncommon and I have never put emphasis on it. I do use standard morality arguments, though mainly as a vehicle. So, for example, the intricacies of the social contract vs. natural rights debate are a mystery to me.
Leave it to statists to completely miss the point about contractual voluntarism.
Is this guy going to volunteer for trying to cancel government services? I’m sure he’d lose his status as a favorable customer pretty fast.
You never know…
-Jon
I think that Rand would have pwned in a knife fight… but that’s just me [:D]
Yeah, but that’s just because she would have brought a gun.
Huben’s stuff is a mindfuck–a real challenge if you want to try to unravel the Gordian Knot of arguments he makes, but ultimately just frustratingly pointless.
Might check out Bryan Caplan’s FAQ instead:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm