Mike Huben's "Critiques of Libertarianism"

Blame that on my faulty mouse. I edited it. Check again.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

Blame that on my faulty mouse. I edited it. Check again.

-Jon

Don't lie. You were implying that he eats waste!

 

If you thought Mike Huben's Critiques Of Libertarianism is bad was bad then you should read Seth Finkelstein's Libertarianism makes you stupid found @

http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

The following that he wrote will be the most asinine things you'll ever hear or read- and I quote:

"Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships""

What? How else do you define force and fraud other than the common meaning? This guy misses the point by a long shot.

It amazes me how some people tells about themselves when they blabber on long enough. Twisting words around is an ancient political trick.

Michael S:

What? How else do you define force and fraud other than the common meaning? This guy misses the point by a long shot.

The guy also misses another point: lots of people DO support force and fraud, albeit to a limited degree.  That's the only explanation for the extensive government we have now.  This is not a trick of semantics, just a lack of understanding of the nature of coercion. No one really wants a government that's out of control, but they DO want a government to control us in certain areas, failing to realize that it's very difficult or perhaps even impossible to limit government in those ways.  It's like telling a thief it's okay to steal up to $20, but then being shocked when he steals hundreds or thousands of dollars, and not being able to stop him.

 

This Seth character is hilarious. Just have at look at his "irrefutable" refutation of Logic. (Just lookup the section "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid: from 2+2=5 to 1=2" here). Apparently he has found a "classic fallacy" in mathematics from University of Toronto, somehow disproving the logical use of axioms, not knowing that what is meant by classic must surely be classical in the sense that it has been a classic mistake made since time immemorial. So the argument goes:

• Step 1: Let a=b.
• Step 2: Then a^2 = ab,
• Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
• Step 4: 2 a^2 = a^2 + ab,
• Step 5: 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab,
• Step 6: and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab.
• Step 7: This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) = 1 (a^2 - a b),
• Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2

Well how daft can you be? If a=b then: (you can always sustitute b for a)

• Step 2: 1=1, (true statement)
  
• Step 3: 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, (true statement, i.e. reduces to Step 2)
  
• Step 4: 2 x 1 = 1 + 1, (true statement, i.e. reduces to Step 3)
• Step 5: 2 x 1 - 2 = 1 + 1 - 2 (true statement, i.e. reduces to Step 4)
• Step 6: 2 x 1 - 2 = 1 - 1 (true statement, i.e. a reduction of Step 5)
• Step 7: 2(1 - 1) = 1(1 - 1) (true statement, i.e. a reduction of Step 6)
• Step 8: Error! (impermissible operation: division by zero)

"(a^2 - ab) = 0" no matter which way you cut it, as long as the "axiom" (a=b) is maintained. In a sense what he has written is:

(0 = 0) => (0 = 0) => (0 = 0) => (0 = 0) => (0 = 0) => (0 = 0) => (0 = 0) => (2 x 0 = 1 x 0).

This is obviously true! But why use seven operations to come to an nonsensical conclusion which he could have just postulated right away. The answer is of course one of two: He is daft og he is trying to obfuscate; either of which is far from original. In case anyone wonders, I stopped reading after stumbling upon this section of his.

Solid_Choke:

What do you guys think of this website?

That looks really interesting; I'll take a more thorough look later. Although I would usually describe myself as a libertarian, that does not place libertarianism beyond criticism, and I have many problems with it myself.

Thanks for the link!

corpus delicti:

He is daft og he is trying to obfuscate; either of which is far from original. In case anyone wonders, I stopped reading after stumbling upon this section of his.

I think what he's complaining about is that he feels that libertarians are just mindlessly throwing implications at him from the "no force" axiom to get to a conclusion that he feels is wrong. In that example, he's arguing that just saying that 1 isn't 2 should be enough to disprove the all thing; he doesn't want to go through all the steps to find the incorrect one.

What he doesn't realize is that he dislikes not libertarianism, but phylosophy. There is plenty of libertarian work in pratical grounds, ever since Adam Smith, which I'm sure he would be more comfortable with.