Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
Damn, and this is coming from a 21 year old; this joker is probably about 5 years my senior...
One central belief of libertarianism seems to be that consenting adults have a "right" to do whatever they want to do. Clearly, God doesn't give anyone a right to do something that is evil.
Whether or not specific immoral acts should be illegal is a matter or prudential judgement. Aquinas' principle in outlawing vice was pretty simple. Is the amount of vice reduced by criminalization greater than the amount of vice caused by criminalization (corruption)?
Seriously, most of the members I have met, whether in person or during the course of my centuries of internet dwelling, have been poor ambassadors for their organisation. I didn't say you were silly, pretentious and risible ... I said that of the organisation. I'd much rather hang out with the rednecks at the rifle range. (AB pulls his collar aside and checks: Yup! It's still red.) I've found that IQ (however defined) is a poor predictor of whether I will enjoy a person's company.
AB
The author CHOOSES to use collectivist values, definitions and worldview in his misguided attempt to debunk Libertarian thought (both large and small 'L'). His whole arguement begins with the presumption that a ruling elite has the authority to direct the resources of society. In the end he concludes that libertarian ideals don't really get perfectly inplemented, and therefore ta-ta-rahhhh we need to have a government that micromanages everyone's lives.
He dismisses the issues discussed in voluminous writings by Classical Liberal authors such as Hayek, Friedman and Von Mises with a wave of his hand, calmly setting up straw-man arguments and briskly knocking them down without addressing the actual issues that have ben widely debated for hundreds of years.
I am hesitant to spend much effort to cite rank and file examples simply because I believe it would do no good. If you truly cared for such you'd read the Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, or Human Action yourself and critique them accordingly.
Many here are frustrated with this article because they see the individual as owning themselves and as a consequence of that, owning the fruits of their labor. This is axiomatic to them. A large part of the frustration that we have with you is you are strolling in with an argument that a ruling elite can kill and destroy in order to buy themselves power and create a social picture that they find more pleasing. And that somehow to say otherwise is self contradictory because voluntary co-operation will result in a picture that someone else finds pleasing.
Don't flatter yourself. You "found his points" illumninating only because he attacked libertarianism, not because He had anything worthwhile to say.
You are perfectly happy to throw in with a Commmunist, because you are more concerned with being "anti-libertarian" than with the criminal ideological mental sickness of anyone who would excuse the crimes of the Christian-killing Communists... which now includes you.
You and your friends have yet to refute ANY of his points about Libertarians. You point to his political ideology and then mention other things he says unrelated to Libertarianism. What are you afraid of??
Nothing.
At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.
By not defining Libertarianism by its self-professed creeds, the author herein arrogates to himself the privilege of defining Libertarianism however he sees fit.
But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
values ~~ The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.
Smear tactic. The fact of the matter is, I would submit that the author simply rejects libertarianism out-of-hand because he is afraid of having his logic savaged... I personally suspect that he has debated libertarians before, and knows he can't win.
So, if you can't win an argument... smear. But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...
HILARIOUSLY stupid statement of deceptive illogic (though I'm not surprised that you "found it illuminating"). Why, by including "Conservatives practice Sodomy" and "Conservatives breathe Air" in the same group of points, the author could likewise say, the sodomizing Conservative belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most Conservatives. "Certainly, no Conservative rejects them all..."
But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
"process legitimises outcome" -- ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS must likewise believe that "Process legitimizes Outcome"; Christian Ethics are as rigidly deontological (that is, anti-Consequentialist) as any Libertarian's.
Non-Consequentialist Deontological Ethics (the above Communistic attack on which you find so illuminating) are fundamental to the Christian Faith. This Communist opposes Deontological Ethics.
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
revealing of order / perfection -- Also fundamental to Christian Ethics. Believing as we do that perfection is literally contained in Scripture, we believe that Presbyters and Magistrates who adhere to God's Law will thereby reveal the perfect purity of God's Law unto an imperfect world. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it".
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
world of emergence -- The value attached to the outcome of process, is so central to libertarianism, that it defines the ideal libertarian world.... Inherently, it must then defend this world's existence. And if the absolute free-market had totally unexpected effects (such as a Bolshevik world government), then most libertarians would interfere with its workings, to reinstate their intended ideal world.
False. Libertarians would have no objection to the emergence of a Communal society, provided that it was a purely-voluntary Community... No Force, No Fruad.
Again, this mirrors Christian Ethics. In those areas where Christians have seen fit to establish certain holdings and economic activities in common, it has been a voluntary communalism: No Force, No Fraud.
Ergo, the Communist author of the above is just spitting lies.
This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.
I could go on... and on... and on...
This entire piece is a pig-swill of vomitous illogic, which is ""illuminating" only to fools.
But when I am done, if you are STILL going to just stand there and drool, "but libertarianism is bad", and defend the Christianity-killing Lies of the blasphemous Social Gospel... why should I bother?
The point was that someone wrote an article whose basis is that one cannot both comprehend the article's definitions and libertarianism. Now, I'm supposed to read an article written by someone who thinks I'm Satan incarnate, with an open mind, and logically refute his "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" rantings.
(Truthfully, I do intend to read the article, but I am starting with as closed a mind as the author's. If I chose to refute any of his rant, you'll be the first to know.)
Sigh... see my #169. I decided to take the time to point that out.
Now, let's see whether or not "Exnihilo" is able to realize, for one fleeting second, "Oh, dear me, I've accidentally gone and posted a complete pile of Communist crap, which I mistakenly thought was 'illuminating'. Silly me.".
Why these rants against the libertarians today, somebody lose your welfare check?
Your hostility to American principles of governance is obvious.
Either that, or you are too dim to understand the consequences of your inchoate views.
I will hunt you down, and smoke you out, disruptor.
take my advice, don't provoke OWK, he'll take you to school and back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.