The Trouble With Libertarians

[Betruger]

Why's that a problem for you?

It's a problem for me when a person's answer is claimed as a fundamental principle of Libertarian ideology. When every Libertarian has a different opinion on what the fundamental principles of it should allow it's not really a movement any more to me, just a generalized line of complaints.

I think almost everyone can agree that "your rights end where mine begin"is good guiding principle. My problem is that crowds playing off nothing but populist discontent want to use that as a rallying cry against any law they personally find inconvenient or disagreeable. To the extent that people will declare the very principle of law enforcement or taxation to be fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism.

I'm pretty sure Libertarianism was around and being debated before this tea party fad.

[bcglorf]

Why's that a problem for you?

It's a problem for me when a person's answer is claimed as a fundamental principle of Libertarian ideology. When every Libertarian has a different opinion on what the fundamental principles of it should allow it's not really a movement any more to me, just a generalized line of complaints.

I think almost everyone can agree that "your rights end where mine begin"is good guiding principle. My problem is that crowds playing off nothing but populist discontent want to use that as a rallying cry against any law they personally find inconvenient or disagreeable. To the extent that people will declare the very principle of law enforcement or taxation to be fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism.

I'm pretty sure Libertarianism was around and being debated before this tea party fad.

I have absolutely no idea how your post has anything to do with what I said.

Dogs and wolves are related.
Mars is the closest planet to Earth.

What are you talking about?

[Betruger]

About your apparent conviction that one must be the hand-wringing type if he happens to hang his hat on the Libertarian peg, but doesn't have identical opinions to other Libertarians. The kind of party-line-tow that's more common in the two major parties. What you describe sounds like Tea Partiers, rather than Libertarians.

Libertarians, as far as I've seen (admittedly I'm no scholar on the matter), are the most comprehensive debaters of issues out of Repubs/Dems/Libertarians/Tea Partiers. Repubs and Dems' major trend is entrenched obscurantism, Libertarians all talk and no action, Tea Partiers an acute rash with neither head nor tail.

What you're describing doesn't sound like Libertarians. Even if I agree, from what I've seen/heard/read, that there's substantial variety under the Libertarian tent - the genuine Libertarian agglomerate, not just "self-styled" Libertarians.

[bcglorf]

About your apparent conviction that one must be the hand-wringing type if he happens to hang his hat on the Libertarian peg, but doesn't have identical opinions to other Libertarians. The kind of party-line-tow that's more common in the two major parties. What you describe sounds like Tea Partiers, rather than Libertarians.

Libertarians, as far as I've seen (admittedly I'm no scholar on the matter), are the most comprehensive debaters of issues out of Repubs/Dems/Libertarians/Tea Partiers. Repubs and Dems' major trend is entrenched obscurantism, Libertarians all talk and no action, Tea Partiers an acute rash with neither head nor tail.

What you're describing doesn't sound like Libertarians. Even if I agree, from what I've seen/heard/read, that there's substantial variety under the Libertarian tent - the genuine Libertarian agglomerate, not just "self-styled" Libertarians.

My whole point is that Libertarian is or has become such a vague concept that it is nearly meaningless. It is a title that can be laid claim to by anyone that agrees on the principle of "your rights end where mine begin" Anarchists, Dems, Reps and Tea partiers alike. I don't see any utility in a word or idea that is so terribly vague and broad.

[Betruger]

Vox populi fallacy

[bcglorf]

Vox populi fallacy

Takes one to know one.


If you don't want to take this seriously that's fine.

[Betruger]

1- Show me where I used that fallacy.

2- You're saying that if enough people misuse a word, the idea behind the word perishes. Is that right?

[KitemanSA]

My whole point is that Libertarian is or has become such a vague concept that it is nearly meaningless. It is a title that can be laid claim to by anyone that agrees on the principle of "your rights end where mine begin" Anarchists, Dems, Reps and Tea partiers alike. I don't see any utility in a word or idea that is so terribly vague and broad.

Shows you how popular the concept has become that everyone wants a piece of it.

Libertarianism is well defined for anyone who is interested. It is the term for people who find themselves in the upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

See the World's Smallest Political Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

Also stated, it is the term for people who desire self-government in both the economic AND the social world. This is unlike the schizophrenics called Republicans who want self-government in the economic world but want others-government in the social world. It is also unlike the schizophrenics called Democrats who want self-government in the social world but want others-government in the economic world. Authoritarians aren't schizo, they just want others-government completely while centrists are schizo about their schizophrenia!

[Betruger]

What gets me is how he denounces the overuse/misuse of the word Libertarian, but then himself relies on that fallacious bit to argue against Libertarians - saying that he's got a problem with Libertarians because they're not really Libertarians. When in fact those people are pseudo-Libertarians, self-styled, Libertarians in name only.

The concept itself isn't any more or less vague for so many or few people pretending to adhere to it. The concept can't be used as a title for "anyone who agrees on [that] principle". Using it that way is specifically what he denounces. It's akin to a vox populi or bandwagon fallacy. Words mean things.

[Diogenes]

Libertarians are the Steve Urkels of the political world. Their response to the disasters which occur when their ideas are implemented is “Ooopppsss. Did I do that? ”

They aren’t trying to be anarchists, they just can’t help it.

[bcglorf]

My whole point is that Libertarian is or has become such a vague concept that it is nearly meaningless. It is a title that can be laid claim to by anyone that agrees on the principle of "your rights end where mine begin" Anarchists, Dems, Reps and Tea partiers alike. I don't see any utility in a word or idea that is so terribly vague and broad.

Shows you how popular the concept has become that everyone wants a piece of it.

Libertarianism is well defined for anyone who is interested. It is the term for people who find themselves in the upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

See the World's Smallest Political Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

Also stated, it is the term for people who desire self-government in both the economic AND the social world. This is unlike the schizophrenics called Republicans who want self-government in the economic world but want others-government in the social world. It is also unlike the schizophrenics called Democrats who want self-government in the social world but want others-government in the economic world. Authoritarians aren't schizo, they just want others-government completely while centrists are schizo about their schizophrenia!

I would argue that Nolan's Chart is labeled in a misleading fashion then. The extreme top is supposed to be those that favor absolute abolition of government control, much as the very bottom favors absolute government control. If Anarchy falls anywhere on the chart, it is exactly where the label "Libertarian" is placed.

Please correct me if I'm misreading your definition of "Libertarian", but if it is a sliding bar based of Nolan's chart, then it just means the less government power people are willing to accept, the more Libertarian they are?

Presuming that is correct, aren't Anarchists then simply the 'most' Libertarian folk among us?

[bcglorf]

What gets me is how he denounces the overuse/misuse of the word Libertarian, but then himself relies on that fallacious bit to argue against Libertarians - saying that he's got a problem with Libertarians because they're not really Libertarians. When in fact those people are pseudo-Libertarians, self-styled, Libertarians in name only.

If you'd prefer I simply decry anarchists posing as Libertarians for claiming the Libertarian moniker falsely I'd be happy to. I would rather insist you help me out in the same cause though, rather than siding with them and utterly confusing the matter.

The concept itself isn't any more or less vague for so many or few people pretending to adhere to it. The concept can't be used as a title for "anyone who agrees on [that] principle". Using it that way is specifically what he denounces. It's akin to a vox populi or bandwagon fallacy. Words mean things.

Then please provide me a definition. The Nolan Chart definition seems the most broadly acceptable one, and it clearly suggest the less government you want, the more Libertarian you are. That makes it difficult to declare that anarchists aren't libertarians. By the chart, anarchists are actually the most dedicated and pure Libertarians out there.

[bcglorf]

1- Show me where I used that fallacy.

2- You're saying that if enough people misuse a word, the idea behind the word perishes. Is that right?

The 'Libertarian' term was first coined by Joseph Déjacque, an Anarchist. You seem quite opposed to connecting the two. The only thing that's changed since then though is that enough people have since misused the word to describe something different, and you seem inclined to hold to the new and changed definition instead. Seems a bit unfair to call me out for pointing out that there are still an awful lot of anarchists claiming the libertarian flag.

[Diogenes]

1- Show me where I used that fallacy.

2- You're saying that if enough people misuse a word, the idea behind the word perishes. Is that right?

The 'Libertarian' term was first coined by Joseph Déjacque, an Anarchist. You seem quite opposed to connecting the two. The only thing that's changed since then though is that enough people have since misused the word to describe something different, and you seem inclined to hold to the new and changed definition instead. Seems a bit unfair to call me out for pointing out that there are still an awful lot of anarchists claiming the libertarian flag.

I have written quite a bit about one particular Libertarian notion; That drugs should be completely legal.

I theorize that the fact that Opium was legal in China for so many decades (3/4 of the male population addicted in Manchuria.) caused China to be economically stagnant and unable to defend itself from the Japanese invasion later.


As this appears to be the effect that totally legalized drugs would have on any nation, it indeed becomes an issue of national defense and the survival of the society. If the theory is true, then this one plank in the Libertarian platform does certainly lead to anarchy. Libertarians simply don't consider the matter with any depth into the future.

[Betruger]

I would rather insist you help me out in the same cause though, rather than siding with them and utterly confusing the matter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with anyone.

Anarchists posing as libertarians is what I'm saying it is, yes.

..Yikes. It really is that confused. I didn't know that Anarchists were traditionally a part of Libertarianism. There's so many branches under that "Libertarian" umbrella; no wonder they're so impotent.

Indeed I was wrong on that. My bad.

So this is like the atheism debate. You can't usefully only specify atheist or libertarian, you have to specify which branch of libertarianism you mean. Yes, KitemanSA ought to be at least that precise. Yes that Nolan Chart is too simplistic, and I always thought so myself. An anarchist would score the same as someone who only wanted minimal, not inexistent, govt.

But I don't think it's worthwhile to blame actual Libertarians or Libertarianism for those that only use the name fashionably.. Those people are irrelevant to the actual value of the various Libertarian philosophies. Every cause has some fools tagging along.

There really ought to be better nomenclature for the Libertarian zoo, though. No argument there.