How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[iCEBREAKER]

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people

Nobody on this thread said we live in a world of 300 million people.  

But go ahead, beat up that strawman.  Show him who's the boss using obvious, uncontested facts.  

[FirstAscent]

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people

Nobody on this thread said we live in a world of 300 million people.  

But go ahead, beat up that strawman.  Show him who's the boss using obvious, uncontested facts.  

I never said someone said such a thing. If you wish to debate me, then try to debate what I'm saying.

[FirstAscent]

Instead of saying: "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument.", why don't you instead say, "Why is George's proposal ridiculous?", and optionally "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

Those are kinder, of course, but the first one amounts to the same thing (Make another argument.), while the second actually legitimizes the argument. Don't respond to fallacies except to call them fallacies.

Did you read the bottom half of my statement to you? If so, then you'll understand that only the last suggestion in double quotes is applicable. The one that says: "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

[FirstAscent]

Well anyway there are many people who identify themselves as "libertarian" or similar who don't agree with milton freedman at all.

 I'm with myrkul on the agorism front. Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight. If the better alternatives can't be built... well I guess as a society we aren't grown up enough yet and still need government. Of course a government can be like a clingy parent stunting the growth of society as well.

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people pushing 10 billion plus. Problems which did not manifest before are becoming obvious today. These problems require uniform efforts and awareness to solve. Do you see all nations uniformly applying solutions cooperatively to solve these problems? No. Individual agents seek to maximize their own situation, often at the expense of others. They also optimize for the near future, not the long term.

I have seen nothing in Libertarian values which is any different than the analogous scenario outlined in the above paragraph.

The only real issue is the cost of energy (both pollution as well as the labor and infrastructure). It is a technological problem.

I don't agree. There is little to be gained by promoting excessive growth which in turn causes a reduction in useful information. The greatest potential for useful information lies within the planet's biodiversity and environmental complexity, which is inexorably being destroyed at ever accelerating rates. These resources go through non-reversible transformations which reduce their value for temporary usage. In other words, a humanity induced great extinction. What we gain through such processes are a new kind of information: reality TV and status updates. In other words, we're trading precious and non-renewable resources for an information glut of garbage in the cloud.

[myrkul]

Instead of saying: "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument.", why don't you instead say, "Why is George's proposal ridiculous?", and optionally "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

Those are kinder, of course, but the first one amounts to the same thing (Make another argument.), while the second actually legitimizes the argument. Don't respond to fallacies except to call them fallacies.

Did you read the bottom half of my statement to you? If so, then you'll understand that only the last suggestion in double quotes is applicable. The one that says: "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

Well, that's no good. You're just letting that argument fly by uncontested. If you're going to be nice about it, use the first statement. "Why is George's plan ridiculous?"

[FirstAscent]

Instead of saying: "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument.", why don't you instead say, "Why is George's proposal ridiculous?", and optionally "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

Those are kinder, of course, but the first one amounts to the same thing (Make another argument.), while the second actually legitimizes the argument. Don't respond to fallacies except to call them fallacies.

Did you read the bottom half of my statement to you? If so, then you'll understand that only the last suggestion in double quotes is applicable. The one that says: "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

Well, that's no good. You're just letting that argument fly by uncontested. If you're going to be nice about it, use the first statement. "Why is George's plan ridiculous?"

In the case of this thread, we can't ask Bob the author that question (analogizing to the author of the article in the first post). We can ask ourselves the inverse question (why is George's plan not ridiculous) and discuss it. But flinging around accusations of ad hominem does not answer that question.

[myrkul]

In the case of this thread, we can't ask Bob the author that question (analogizing to the author of the article in the first post). We can ask ourselves the inverse question (why is George's plan not ridiculous) and discuss it. But flinging around accusations of ad hominem does not answer that question.

True enough. What, then, is the argument that this ad hominem article is attempting to make us swallow?

[bb113]

Well anyway there are many people who identify themselves as "libertarian" or similar who don't agree with milton freedman at all.

 I'm with myrkul on the agorism front. Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight. If the better alternatives can't be built... well I guess as a society we aren't grown up enough yet and still need government. Of course a government can be like a clingy parent stunting the growth of society as well.

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people pushing 10 billion plus. Problems which did not manifest before are becoming obvious today. These problems require uniform efforts and awareness to solve. Do you see all nations uniformly applying solutions cooperatively to solve these problems? No. Individual agents seek to maximize their own situation, often at the expense of others. They also optimize for the near future, not the long term.

I have seen nothing in Libertarian values which is any different than the analogous scenario outlined in the above paragraph.

The only real issue is the cost of energy (both pollution as well as the labor and infrastructure). It is a technological problem.

I don't agree. There is little to be gained by promoting excessive growth which in turn causes a reduction in useful information. The greatest potential for useful information lies within the planet's biodiversity and environmental complexity, which is inexorably being destroyed at ever accelerating rates. These resources go through non-reversible transformations which reduce their value for temporary usage. In other words, a humanity induced great extinction. What we gain through such processes are a new kind of information: reality TV and status updates. In other words, we're trading precious and non-renewable resources for an information glut of garbage in the cloud.

I agree with this, but don't see how it disagrees with my position.

1) I would count these extinctions (loss of info) as part of the cost of energy. As I said, IMO the ultimate solution is to move these information destroying activities out into space, which would mean extracting energy and resources from information-deficient sources such as sunlight and asteroids.
2) Governments, especially democratic/republican ones pretty much always promote excessive growth. In fact this is the main hypocrisy I see with the current set of "socialist" political party platform's worldwide. You can't save the environment, support economic growth, and remove negative economic feedbacks from the system at the same time.

[FirstAscent]

In the case of this thread, we can't ask Bob the author that question (analogizing to the author of the article in the first post). We can ask ourselves the inverse question (why is George's plan not ridiculous) and discuss it. But flinging around accusations of ad hominem does not answer that question.

True enough. What, then, is the argument that this ad hominem article is attempting to make us swallow?

I can't remember.

[JoelKatz]

More to the point, the original poster posted an article. Let's assume a similar case where the article is this:

George's zoning proposal is ridiculous. He has no integrity.

Let's say the author of the article is Bob. Since no dialog will actually ensue with Bob, because it's an article copied from somewhere else, and the dialog will only occur between forum members, it's pointless to accuse the author of the article of using ad hominem in his article. Such a statement about the article does not refute the notion that George's proposal is ridiculous. Not one iota.

The only valid argument against Bob's article would be to show how George's proposal is not ridiculous.

I totally disagree with everything you said. It's completely backwards from all reason and logic. If someone makes an invalid argument, you should point out that the argument is invalid. Anything else is not fair to them, and shows a lack of respect because someone who makes an argument deserves a response to the argument they actually made. Moving on to some other argument just frustrates them because you neither accepted nor showed a flaw in the argument they actually made. That's flat out dishonest and will leave anyone witnessing the discussion thinking you evaded their argument.

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

[iCEBREAKER]

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people

Nobody on this thread said we live in a world of 300 million people.  

But go ahead, beat up that strawman.  Show him who's the boss using obvious, uncontested facts.  

I never said someone said such a thing. If you wish to debate me, then try to debate what I'm saying.

You strongly implied such a thing by denying and correcting the 300 million figure (which nobody ever mentioned previously).

If you wish to debate persuasively, try responding to the topics at hand instead of setting up strawmen to knock down.

Framing the obvious as some kind of argument-clincher ("The earth has far more than 300 million people, SO U R WRONG & I WIN!!!1") doesn't earn you anything besides ridicule.

Most libertarians can easily explain why centralized planning fails to solve, and spontaneous order solves, the challenges created by vastly increased population density.

Your attempt to steal the argument by implying that libertarians can only deal with the distant, underpopulated past is old, unoriginal weak sauce.   

[FirstAscent]

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people

Nobody on this thread said we live in a world of 300 million people.  

But go ahead, beat up that strawman.  Show him who's the boss using obvious, uncontested facts.  

I never said someone said such a thing. If you wish to debate me, then try to debate what I'm saying.

You strongly implied such a thing by denying and correcting the 300 million figure (which nobody ever mentioned previously).

If you wish to debate persuasively, try responding to the topics at hand instead of setting up strawmen to knock down.

Framing the obvious as some kind of argument-clincher ("The earth has far more than 300 million people, SO U R WRONG & I WIN!!!1") doesn't earn you anything besides ridicule.

Most libertarians can easily explain why centralized planning fails to solve, and spontaneous order solves, the challenges created by vastly increased population density.

Your attempt to steal the argument by implying that libertarians can only deal with the distant, underpopulated past is old, unoriginal weak sauce.  

I'll let you go on and continue arguing against what you believe are the motives behind the words used in a conversation between two other people. Have fun.

[FirstAscent]

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

Ah, but that isn't really what happened, is it? There was no insult directed at a member of this forum, by another member of this forum, making it personal. Rather, an insinuation was made about a third party by another third party.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'll let you go on and continue arguing against what you believe are the motives behind the words used in a conversation between two other people. Have fun.

Tell me again why you felt the need to mention the number of people the earth does not have, before going on to correct that mistake with the actual population?

I've heard the 'but but Freedom only worked back in the Bronze Age when there was hardly anyone around' line enough times to know when that card is being dealt.

FYI:  This thread is being held in a public forum, where all are free to read and comment.  If that bothers you GFY, GTFO, etc.   

[FirstAscent]

I'll let you go on and continue arguing against what you believe are the motives behind the words used in a conversation between two other people. Have fun.

Tell me again why you felt the need to mention the number of people the earth does not have, before going on to correct that mistake with the actual population?

I never told you once, so your use of the word 'again' doesn't make sense. I will now tell you for the first time, since you will continue to imagine motives that suit your world view until I do. I did so to point out a period of time in the past where environmental decimation was not occurring at the rate it does now. Simple, isn't it?

I've heard the 'but but Freedom only worked back in the Bronze Age when there was hardly anyone around' line enough times to know when that card is being dealt.

Awesome!

FYI:  This thread is being held in a public forum, where all are free to read and comment.  If that bothers you GFY, GTFO, etc.   

But still, that doesn't mean you're not getting all bent out of shape over a little exposition. But whatever.

[JoelKatz]

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

Ah, but that isn't really what happened, is it? There was no insult directed at a member of this forum, by another member of this forum, making it personal. Rather, an insinuation was made about a third party by another third party.

While that's a difference, that difference actually weighs against your suggestion.  Consider if Joe argues that fact Y supports conclusion X. If you're speaking to Joe, you can reasonably expect that he believes conclusion X and is willing to defend it on other fronts. You can move on to other arguments against X if you want. But with a third-party, it's evasive and dishonest to shift the topic of conversation away from Joe's argument. Especially since that other person may or may not care about conclusion X. They chose to make the conversation about the validity of Joe's argument and they are entitled to have you stick to the subject until you either agree with or invalidate Joe's argument if that's at all possible.

You could make other arguments too, of course. But if you're going to reply, they deserve at least some serious reply to the specific argument they made.

[FirstAscent]

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

Ah, but that isn't really what happened, is it? There was no insult directed at a member of this forum, by another member of this forum, making it personal. Rather, an insinuation was made about a third party by another third party.

While that's a difference, that difference actually weighs against your suggestion.  Consider if Joe argues that fact Y supports conclusion X. If you're speaking to Joe, you can reasonably expect that he believes conclusion X and is willing to defend it on other fronts. You can move on to other arguments against X if you want. But with a third-party, it's evasive and dishonest to shift the topic of conversation away from Joe's argument. Especially since that other person may or may not care about conclusion X. They chose to make the conversation about the validity of Joe's argument and they are entitled to have you stick to the subject until you either agree with or invalidate Joe's argument if that's at all possible.

You could make other arguments too, of course. But if you're going to reply, they deserve at least some serious reply to the specific argument they made.

I stand behind the entire conversation about ad hominem. It accomplishes nothing to accuse one of using it. It fails to refute anything. It is often ad hominem itself. All it does is call attention to a logical fallacy that is unrelated to the statement being made.

Like this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Afterall, his father's an idiot.

Bad logic, to be sure. But it makes no difference with regard to the truth of untruth of Joe's idea. The statement about Joe's father is irrelevant. Ad hominem points that out, but nobody cares.

Consider this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Oh, and by the way, I want a burger for lunch.

So he wants a burger for lunch. Good for him. Are you going to try and point out the untruth of Joe's idea stinking to high heaven by arguing about the speaker's hunger pains? If so, you're only engaging in deflection and nonsense. Instead, you should stick to the topic, which is whether Joe's idea stinks to high heaven or not.

You will accomplish nothing by discussing lunch, Joe's father, or whether the speaker mentioned lunch or Joe's father.

If on the other hand, you verbally insult me personally by engaging in ad hominem, then it might be worth my time to discuss it with you, but not because it has anything to do with the main point of argument, but because, by insulting me, I may wish to insult you back, argue the point of the insult, or plant a fist in your face.

[iCEBREAKER]

I never told you once, so your use of the word 'again' doesn't make sense. I will now tell you for the first time, since you will continue to imagine motives that suit your world view until I do. I did so to point out a period of time in the past where environmental decimation was not occurring at the rate it does now. Simple, isn't it?

Nonsense.  This is exactly the type of blithering unawareness to be expected from someone who can't wrap his mind around a simple, commonplace Latin phrase.  

Environmental destruction happened on far grander scales in the past.  Your vast ignorance is showing; you wave it around like it's something to be proud of.

Example 1: End-Botomian mass extinction

Example 2: Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event

Example 3: Australia/New Zealand Megafauna Extinction

Example 4: North & South American Megafauna Extinction

*Examples 1-4 all occurred when the Earth's human population was much lower than 300 million.

That's just off the top of my head.  Now go back impersonating Al Gore, you doom mongering chicken little enviro-weenie.  

[TheButterZone]

Why would big business lobbyists "create" something that, if most everyone in government adhered to it, would destroy their clients' crony capitalist partnerships with the tyrants that have maintained power for decades, centuries, ever since the Founding Fathers' generation died out?

[Rudd-O]

This "article" is a shit smear.  Seriously, it's a smear, full of lies, baseless imputed intentions, conspiracy theories, and errors.

https://i.imgur.com/m9e3X.jpg

It's sad, of course, that people are so out of arguments, out of reason, out of anything even remotely sensible, that they would feel the need to smear and spread FUD about ideas they hate.  But it's the reality of the human animal, that he will hate and attack that which he fears and does not understand.

It's okay -- truth will prevail.