Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Hello from a newbie
Hello all. I'm a newbie here, having been recently turned onto the site by co-conspirator LysanderSpooner. So far I've been a lurker, but I thought I'd solicit your thoughts on this "Critiques of Libertarianism" (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html). Have any of you seen this guy Mike Huben before? He offers many so-called refutations of libertarianism, and I'm trying to come up with some refutations to his refutations.
Thanks, stevo
Hey Stevo,
Big welcome!
I prefer the term anarchist, myself, but I did click on the link you gave. I noticed in his 'debunk' of a libertarian claim that he is a statist seems to suggest that Stalin and Hitler were libertarians (!!).
That was kinda enough from him, for me.
Stevo, welcome to the conspiracy! I think the best thing to refer to in refuting those standing against libertarianism is to point out the gun in the room. I find it tremendously helpful to apply the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) to any situation presented, and then point out the gun in the room. Depending on whether you want to maintain a relationship with the person with whom you are engaged ,you may, or may not, want to put that gun in their hand.
If you put the gun in the hand of the person who's claims you are refuting, expect a visceral, and even violent reaction. People don't like to be identified as aggressors.
My wife uses this tactic with me when I am aggressing, but is usually kind enough to put the gun in the hand of some hypothetical entity. It has a dramatic effect to put the gun in the hand of the aggressor.
Thanks FUR3jr for the advice. That is often the line of argument I take -- pointing out the immorality of various statist agendas. They all rely upon the initiation of force.
I've noticed that defenders of the status quo often make this demand: "Show me a libertarian country. Where doe this work now in the real world." They then often couple this argument with the "you want to turn back the clock" argument, because examples of freedom exist prior to the Progressive Era.
Here's an example. On my blog, I recently discussed about a talk by Steven Horowitz called "Do We Really Need a Central Bank?" Here is a response I got that contains both the "Show me an example" and "you want want to turn back the clock" arguments. Oddly, my correspondent offers no thoughts about why a central bank is or isn't desirable. I know that there are names for various types of arguments (such as ad hominem, reducto ad absurdum, etc.), and I'm sure that this style of argument has been identified before.
Here's an example:
It seems that all nations now have central banks. They are part of our world. Just like nations evolved to eliminate slavery, to create time off on weekends, to create manditory education, etc... Our world progresses and as discoveries are made and our understanding increases we create new institutions. Sometimes, one nation may try something, and it may not catch on. But something like central banking does not seem to be one of these things. It seems that ever nation in the world now has a central bank. That is is something that is part of our world.
One thing I notice about libertarian types is that they seem to want to bring back the past. you mentioned the author talking about 1893 proposed law changes that could have helped. Think about it our Federal Reserve was created back in 1913. It was part of the progress of the world. Now, as I understand it, every nation in the world has a central bank. Yet this author wants to turn back the clock. It's like the Luddites that talk about the great old days before cars.
I have noticed this as a common recurring theme in libertarian thinking. the constant desire to go back to some set of things that existed 100+ years ago or more. It definately seems that libertarians are fighting a war against time.
Stevo: As an aside, it is worthy to note that Panama has no central bank.
Hey thanks for pointing that out for me. I'll have to investigate their banking system further.
Welcome. I think you'll find this forum far superior to thomhartmann.com. I read the link over really quick. I'll try to come up with some refutations in the future. At first glance, it looks like the guy just disagrees with fundamental principles.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
HEY!!!
Gonna check out the link! Just got done Free talk Live, and on my way home!
Welcome! You're already providing interesting content! Thanks!
G!