7 ms·

Calling your opponents names like "Libertardians" makes it hard to take you seriously.

dredmorbius 13y ago
Having looked extensively into the tenets, roots, and motivations of Libertarianism, it's a pretty solid, if sad, conclusion of mine. I've yet to find anyone who can effectively explain it defend their stance. The roots in highly discredited laissez faire beliefs, social Darwinism, fascism,racism, and industrialist interventions, to say nothing of the utter rediculousness of Von Mises' Praxeology, the vast disinformation apparatus, and intentional misrepresentation of the foundations of economics only ice the cake.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  The parent wasn't disagreeing with any factual claim you were making, but to puerile name-calling. Unless there is a serious "Libertardian" tradition of thought that I've missed, your response here doesn't address that - you can call someone wrong without calling them names.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    you can call someone wrong without calling them names There's ... a lot of history behind that term. As my follow-up indicates, there's a lot of ground to cover in addressing my criticisms, something that would probably take up a good chapter or two of a book (if not more). Which I may well write. My experiences in both dealing with present-day defenders of Libertarianism and in going to its roots, foundations, and the considerable machinations behind it have lead me to conclude that most of those who defend the tradition 1) fail to understand it and/or know its roots, 2) lack the ability to do so, 3) are paid for their opinions, and/or 4) fully understand the inherent contradictions but find it convenient and in their interest to promulgate a false philosophy for their own benefit. The upshot is that the debate simply isn't an honest one. At which point the respect I show rapidly dwindles. David Brin's one of the more eloquent critics I've run across of late (he's written a number of pieces on G+ and his blog in recent months). James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed goes into foundations of Libertarian philosophy with Sumner and Spencer. Episode 8, "Fit to Rule", I'd recommend the whole episode, but you can skip forward around 30 minutes to pick up the meat. Studying the evolution of economic thought reveals that laissez-faire was considered all but discredited by the early 20th century (ironically, it was Keynes whose book on the subject seemed to most revive interest, judging by the Google Books Ngram viewer). RationalWiki's page on Austrian school economics is another good starting point. http://fixyt.com/watch?v=0wqS7FXrEUQ http://fixyt.com/watch?v=0wqS7FXrEUQ (TDTUC - Episode 8) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Your posts continue to be dominated by argument for the subject matter, when we are now discussing discourse. Restricting my discussion our point of contention: "There's ... a lot of history behind that term." There is practically no history behind the term "libertardian": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=libertardian https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=libertardian - there is arguably history behind libertarians being wrong (which is what you go on to talk about), but that does not in any way motivate the specific term. "My experiences in both dealing with present-day defenders of Libertarianism and in going to its roots, foundations, and the considerable machinations behind it have lead me to conclude that most of those who defend the tradition 1) fail to understand it and/or know its roots, 2) lack the ability to do so, 3) are paid for their opinions, and/or 4) fully understand the inherent contradictions but find it convenient and in their interest to promulgate a false philosophy for their own benefit." And considering those people, which of them are going to be inclined to "see the light" because you called them a "libertardian"? How many are just going to stop listening to you? How many non-libertarians are going to start ignoring your criticisms of libertarianism because you are being disrespectful and offputting? "At which point the respect I show rapidly dwindles." And the point at which you stop showing respect is the point at which I start calling you out for it on HN.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        There is practically no history behind the term "libertardian" I should have clarified: personal history. That said, I thought I was being original when I coined it and found (with some satisfaction) that I wasn't. Convincing people of their follies isn't my primary goal. Understanding their follies and the dynamics behind them are. While I generally don't launch into discussions spewing "libertardian" (present instance being an exception), I do use the term. More often in referring to the philosophy and those who claim adherence to it (itself fraught given the lack of cohesion it and they exhibit). Of the four cases of adherents I describe, only one is likely to be persuaded by facts and/or reason anyway, typical of any other faith-based religion which puts belief over evidence. So my success rate would of necessity be quite limited. And the point at which you stop showing respect is the point at which I start calling you out for it on HN. As I said: the lack of respect for facts and reason (of which there's a long personal history), and the tedium in repeatedly plowing that ground, is why I've resorted to a memetic shortcut which encapsulates if not elucidates the fundamental flaw. That said, while acknowledging your call out, it doesn't in the last bother me for the reasons stated above.

Having looked extensively into the tenets, roots, and motivations of Libertarianism, it's a pretty solid, if sad, conclusion of mine. I've yet to find anyone who can effectively explain it defend their stance. The roots in highly discredited laissez faire beliefs, social Darwinism, fascism,racism, and industrialist interventions, to say nothing of the utter rediculousness of Von Mises' Praxeology, the vast disinformation apparatus, and intentional misrepresentation of the foundations of economics only ice the cake.

dllthomas 13y ago
The parent wasn't disagreeing with any factual claim you were making, but to puerile name-calling. Unless there is a serious "Libertardian" tradition of thought that I've missed, your response here doesn't address that - you can call someone wrong without calling them names.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  you can call someone wrong without calling them names There's ... a lot of history behind that term. As my follow-up indicates, there's a lot of ground to cover in addressing my criticisms, something that would probably take up a good chapter or two of a book (if not more). Which I may well write. My experiences in both dealing with present-day defenders of Libertarianism and in going to its roots, foundations, and the considerable machinations behind it have lead me to conclude that most of those who defend the tradition 1) fail to understand it and/or know its roots, 2) lack the ability to do so, 3) are paid for their opinions, and/or 4) fully understand the inherent contradictions but find it convenient and in their interest to promulgate a false philosophy for their own benefit. The upshot is that the debate simply isn't an honest one. At which point the respect I show rapidly dwindles. David Brin's one of the more eloquent critics I've run across of late (he's written a number of pieces on G+ and his blog in recent months). James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed goes into foundations of Libertarian philosophy with Sumner and Spencer. Episode 8, "Fit to Rule", I'd recommend the whole episode, but you can skip forward around 30 minutes to pick up the meat. Studying the evolution of economic thought reveals that laissez-faire was considered all but discredited by the early 20th century (ironically, it was Keynes whose book on the subject seemed to most revive interest, judging by the Google Books Ngram viewer). RationalWiki's page on Austrian school economics is another good starting point. http://fixyt.com/watch?v=0wqS7FXrEUQ http://fixyt.com/watch?v=0wqS7FXrEUQ (TDTUC - Episode 8) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Your posts continue to be dominated by argument for the subject matter, when we are now discussing discourse. Restricting my discussion our point of contention: "There's ... a lot of history behind that term." There is practically no history behind the term "libertardian": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=libertardian https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=libertardian - there is arguably history behind libertarians being wrong (which is what you go on to talk about), but that does not in any way motivate the specific term. "My experiences in both dealing with present-day defenders of Libertarianism and in going to its roots, foundations, and the considerable machinations behind it have lead me to conclude that most of those who defend the tradition 1) fail to understand it and/or know its roots, 2) lack the ability to do so, 3) are paid for their opinions, and/or 4) fully understand the inherent contradictions but find it convenient and in their interest to promulgate a false philosophy for their own benefit." And considering those people, which of them are going to be inclined to "see the light" because you called them a "libertardian"? How many are just going to stop listening to you? How many non-libertarians are going to start ignoring your criticisms of libertarianism because you are being disrespectful and offputting? "At which point the respect I show rapidly dwindles." And the point at which you stop showing respect is the point at which I start calling you out for it on HN.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      There is practically no history behind the term "libertardian" I should have clarified: personal history. That said, I thought I was being original when I coined it and found (with some satisfaction) that I wasn't. Convincing people of their follies isn't my primary goal. Understanding their follies and the dynamics behind them are. While I generally don't launch into discussions spewing "libertardian" (present instance being an exception), I do use the term. More often in referring to the philosophy and those who claim adherence to it (itself fraught given the lack of cohesion it and they exhibit). Of the four cases of adherents I describe, only one is likely to be persuaded by facts and/or reason anyway, typical of any other faith-based religion which puts belief over evidence. So my success rate would of necessity be quite limited. And the point at which you stop showing respect is the point at which I start calling you out for it on HN. As I said: the lack of respect for facts and reason (of which there's a long personal history), and the tedium in repeatedly plowing that ground, is why I've resorted to a memetic shortcut which encapsulates if not elucidates the fundamental flaw. That said, while acknowledging your call out, it doesn't in the last bother me for the reasons stated above.