Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian

[waterj2]

OK, a few more involved questions.

What is your opinion of the Libertarian Party? I’m mainly interested in where you differ, as your agreement on many issues is pretty obvious.

Do you personally feel that homosexuals will go to Hell, as the Bible would seem to indicate, despite the fact that there is nothing in violation of the non-coercion principle involved in anal sex?

Could you toss out a few more links to references on the Austrian School, Hayek, and Von Mises? My primary interest is capitalism, but in terms of economic theory, I haven’t gotten past Adam Smith (which isn’t a bad place to stop, but I want more).

Do you know of any good Libertarian-oriented message boards? I’ve heard free-market.net has one, but I haven’t been able to find it one their site.

Here are a few links of my own, for any interested:
http://www.capitalism.org - Mainly provides details on the Objectivist viewpoints on a number of issues, very orthodox Rand followers.
http://www.cato.org - A libertarian think tank that discusses contemporary issues from a libertarian (though not strict libertarian) perspective.

[Liberal]

Sofis

What I’m wondering is this:
Let’s say you own a piece of woodland. You want to cut down some trees for lumber. Do you have to consider what effect your actions will have on the birds and squirrels and whatnot living in these trees?

Libertarianly, no; Christianly, yes.

[Liberal]

WaterJ2

What is your opinion of the Libertarian Party? I’m mainly interested in where you differ, as your agreement on many issues is pretty obvious.

It is composed mostly of Constitutionalists and other statists. Nevertheless, membership requires signing a statement that you do not advocate the initiation of force.

I suppose where I mainly differ with them is that I’m a purist, whereas they, for the most part, are content with incrementalism.

Do you personally feel that homosexuals will go to Hell, as the Bible would seem to indicate, despite the fact that there is nothing in violation of the non-coercion principle involved in anal sex?

Let me unload that just a bit, if I may.

You are either in Hell or Heaven; it is not a matter that you will “go” to some place whose space-time coordinates are different from where you are now. Heaven is a spiritual kingdom. “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” — Jesus

Sin is a cold heart. Every sin is an abomination to God. Those who condemn homosexuals to Hell, while they themselves have cold hearts are walking a moral tightrope. “By whatever measure you judge others, so shall you be judged.” — Jesus

I would ask of those who claim Jesus as their God, which is better, to be a homosexual and love God with all your heart, or to be a heterosexual and despise your neighbor? Will God turn to any of us for our advice in His judgements?

Could you toss out a few more links to references on the Austrian School, Hayek, and Von Mises? My primary interest is capitalism, but in terms of economic theory, I haven’t gotten past Adam Smith (which isn’t a bad place to stop, but I want more).

In addition to what I have already provided, here are a few:

Society for the Development of Austrian Economics

Austrian Economics Index

Austrian Economics Study Guide

(The above two links are both at The Von Mises Institute

What is Austrian Economics

ISLAM AND THE MEDIEVAL PROGENITORS OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS

But really, you need only read Human Action by Mises.

Do you know of any good Libertarian-oriented message boards? I’ve heard free-market.net has one, but I haven’t been able to find it one their site.

The best one, I think, is at Free-Market:

Main Forum

It is a no holds barred exchange on things like Objectivist epistemology, Austrian versus Chicagoan economics, abortion, and many other topics.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian, here are some things I’ve been wondering about:

• In a “purist” (to borrow your term) Libertarian society, are minor children property or individuals?

• If the latter, are their natural rights to form contracts and be free from coercion restricted in deference to parental authority?

• If so, how is the transition to full rights-bearing status handled? Is it libertarianly acceptable to have a legal definition of “majority age” that restricts everyone to minor status until they’re 18 or 21 or whatever? Or would individual youngsters (when? at puberty?) negotiate with their parents the terms for officially ending their minor status, as apprentices used to formalize the terms of their indentures?

• Would a child be fully rights-bearing if he or she were orphaned or otherwise lacking in “natural” parents or guardians? If not, who would have the right to abrogate that freedom in assuming a parental or guardianship role?

• Does a sort of “minor” or otherwise incomplete rights-bearing status also apply to adults who are mentally retarded, mentally ill, senile, in a coma, or otherwise impaired as functioning autonomous individuals? If so, again, who would have the right to abrogate their freedoms in assuming a guardianship role?

• If ownership is established by decision-making authority, then where does the boundary lie between one’s property (e.g., an animal) and an individual for whom one makes decisions (e.g., a relative in a coma)? In other words, what rights inhere even in a “minor-status” individual?

Thanks,
Kimstu

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Excellent questions! Thank you.

In a “purist” (to borrow your term) Libertarian society, are minor children property or individuals?

They are individuals, given the right to life by God or nature. They are not a property, but rather are a responsibility.

If the latter, are their natural rights to form contracts and be free from coercion restricted in deference to parental authority?

They are nonconsenting parties to a unary contract. In libertarian ethics, the party bound by a unary contract is the party that consents (meaning the parents in the case of children). The parents gave their consent to the contract when they had sex. Because they cannot, by definition, give meaningful consent, children may not form contracts. It is in all cases that the parents, assuming they are peaceful and honest, act as agents on behalf of the children.

The onus is upon parents to protect their children from coercion, whether they do so themselves or hire their government to do so. Parents may not coerce their children. They may (and should) use defensive and retaliatory force to protect and teach their children, but they may never initiate force against them.

If so, how is the transition to full rights-bearing status handled? Is it libertarianly acceptable to have a legal definition of “majority age” that restricts everyone to minor status until they’re 18 or 21 or whatever? Or would individual youngsters (when? at puberty?) negotiate with their parents the terms for officially ending their minor status, as apprentices used to formalize the terms of their indentures?

The parents will decide when the child is capable of giving meaningful consent (that is, the child is an adult). Age is an arbitrary measure of adulthood and therefore worthless, except in the broadest sense. If a child believes he is an adult, despite the judgement of his parents, then he may appeal to his government for arbitration. If he is indeed found to be an adult in that process, then he may contract with the government if he wishes, go his own way, or pursue his own happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he is peaceful and honest.

Would a child be fully rights-bearing if he or she were orphaned or otherwise lacking in “natural” parents or guardians? If not, who would have the right to abrogate that freedom in assuming a parental or guardianship role?

Whoever is the guardian of the child takes on the same unary parental contract.

Does a sort of “minor” or otherwise incomplete rights-bearing status also apply to adults who are mentally retarded, mentally ill, senile, in a coma, or otherwise impaired as functioning autonomous individuals? If so, again, who would have the right to abrogate their freedoms in assuming a guardianship role?

There is nothing “incomplete” about the rights-bearing status of children (nor of people who are retarded, etc.)

People have the right to life (in a political context) whether they are capable of giving meaningful consent or not. Likewise, by virtue of their human life, they have the right to be free from coercion. Forcing a senile relative to take nursing care is not coercive, unless you are forcing upon them frivolous nursing care.

In Libertaria, if you contract to be responsible for a child or other human incapable of giving meaningful consent, then failure to exercise your responsibility is breach (a serious coercion).

If ownership is established by decision-making authority, then where does the boundary lie between one’s property (e.g., an animal) and an individual for whom one makes decisions (e.g., a relative in a coma)? In other words, what rights inhere even in a “minor-status” individual?

You speak of a “boundary” as though they come close to one another, but they don’t.

Just as God or nature gave you your own life, so He or it gave life also to your comatose relative. You do not own it. Your decision making authority is not over his life, but over your contractual obligation to him.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

This last post raises a few questions in my mind:

I am a person who has not signed a contract with any government to represent my interests. I am the (parent, guardian) of a baby whom I am mistreating. Who is in charge of protecting the baby’s rights?

You say: “Whoever is the guardian of the child takes on the same unary parental contract.”

I am a parent who has not signed a contract with any other person to take my children in charge upon an accident to myself. I die or abandon my children. The children in your view depend on the charity of their neighbours. If no one views it as being in their self-interest to take care of those children, what happens to them?

[Gilligan]

While we’re on the subject of children: I already know the libertarian view of public education, but what about requirements to educate your children at all, in the manner that you see fit as a parent? I see that as part of responsibility, same as providing food and shelter. The amount, style, and content of course would vary, but what do you personally think about minimum standards? Take literacy, for example. Is refusing to teach your children to read in this era a coercion along the same lines (but a lesser degree) as refusing to feed them?

[Liberal]

Arnold

I am a person who has not signed a contract with any government to represent my interests. I am the (parent, guardian) of a baby whom I am mistreating. Who is in charge of protecting the baby’s rights?

I’m afraid you will have to Ask the Anarchist about that one. Speaking frankly as a Christian, however, I would take it upon myself to rescue the baby from you.

*You say: “Whoever is the guardian of the child takes on the same unary parental contract.”

I am a parent who has not signed a contract with any other person to take my children in charge upon an accident to myself. I die or abandon my children. The children in your view depend on the charity of their neighbours. If no one views it as being in their self-interest to take care of those children, what happens to them?*

In Libertaria, assuming the child had no other recourse, the child would be taken into custodial guardianship by a private charity orphanage.

(Self-interest, incidentally, is the Objectivist ethic. The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.)

[pldennison]

I just wanted to say that I find it terribly amusing that so many questions to Lib are posted under the underlying assumption that human beings (except for the poster) are nearly all unspeakably cruel, stupid and evil.

[Kimstu]

Actually, speaking only for myself, my underlying assumption is not that people are basically cruel, stupid, or evil, but that people’s lives are very complicated, and that societies of people striving not to be cruel, stupid, and evil generally have to create quite complicated structures to deal with them. Libertarians often claim that a society run on libertarian principles would be massively better, cheaper, and/or simpler than what we’ve got now; but whenever I try to dig out the details, it seems that they’d probably have just as much (if not more) expensive bureaucracy as the current model. (Governments maintaining majority-status decision processes for children claiming the rights of adulthood? Mental competence evaluations to ensure that elders are not being forced into “frivolous” care? Wow.)

Kimstu

[Arnold_Winkelried]

pldennison, I’m not sure to whom your post is referring, but many of the posts I read seem to raise issues that occur frequently in today’s world. The examples I used (child abuse, children without a guardian able to provide adequately for their well-being) are not uncommon. If we assume that everyone is generous, noble and disinterested, then communism would be just as good a solution as LOC (libertarian objective christianity), and actually any system of government would be a perfect solution.

From reading the responses, it seems that the Libertarian solution would be to replace every government institution with a privately funded institution that accomplishes the same task. I must say that I don’t see much difference.

Libertarian, you said “(Self-interest, incidentally, is the Objectivist ethic. The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.)” Sorry, I thought you said you had adopted both ethics. Or did I read the topic subject incorrectly?

[Liberal]

Gilligan

While we’re on the subject of children: I already know the libertarian view of public education, but what about requirements to educate your children at all, in the manner that you see fit as a parent? I see that as part of responsibility, same as providing food and shelter. The amount, style, and content of course would vary, but what do you personally think about minimum standards? Take literacy, for example. Is refusing to teach your children to read in this era a coercion along the same lines (but a lesser degree) as refusing to feed them?

A wonderfully modern question, Gilligan! These days, you might add the teaching of computer skills and access to microwave ovens.

The parent’s responsibility to the child is the same as government’s: to secure his rights. The standard for the parent, in this regard, is even greater than the standard for government, since government may refuse to contract with you (and you with it), but the parent is already under a contract with the child, which he must not breach.

Why not trust a parent’s own best judgement about what is best for his child’s education more than you would trust a stranger’s. Surely, you, as a parent, would not want to leave such important decisions to politicians and lawyers.

Like Phil (and I’m sure like you, as well) it is incredible that people think parents are so untrustworty, yet those same people do not hesitate to entrust a child’s fate to the whims of those whose scandals are legion.

Kimstu

Actually, speaking only for myself, my underlying assumption is not that people are basically cruel, stupid, or evil, but that people’s lives are very complicated, and that societies of people striving not to be cruel, stupid, and evil generally have to create quite complicated structures to deal with them. Libertarians often claim that a society run on libertarian principles would be massively better, cheaper, and/or simpler than what we’ve got now; but whenever I try to dig out the details, it seems that they’d probably have just as much (if not more) expensive bureaucracy as the current model. (Governments maintaining majority-status decision processes for children claiming the rights of adulthood? Mental competence evaluations to ensure that elders are not being forced into “frivolous” care? Wow.)

What costs a lot is when you centralize decision making into a bureaucracy.

Doctors, not government clerks, ought to decide on the frivolity of health care. We agree with you that people’s lives can be complicated. Way too complicated for bureaucrats and politicians to be making your decisions for you.

I am asked so often to give Jeanne Dixon type predictions on how libertarian societies might evolve that I have thought a couple of times about writing a novel, which would paint one way a libertarian society might work.

[Liberal]

Arnod

Libertarian, you said “(Self-interest, incidentally, is the Objectivist ethic. The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.)” Sorry, I thought you said you had adopted both ethics. Or did I read the topic subject incorrectly?

You used the term in the context of a contract with government. I appologize for the misunderstanding.

[Liberal]

Arnold

I’m not sure to whom your post is referring, but many of the posts I read seem to raise issues that occur frequently in today’s world… From reading the responses, it seems that the Libertarian solution would be to replace every government institution with a privately funded institution that accomplishes the same task. I must say that I don’t see much difference.

I don’t presume to speak for Phil (and forgive me, Phil, for butting in) but I find that absolutely incredible. For such real issues that occur so frequently, you would trust the judgement of a stranger (from a world of carnies) over your own?

[Arnold_Winkelried]

originally posted by Libertarian:
I don’t presume to speak for Phil (and forgive me, Phil, for butting in) but I find that absolutely incredible. For such real issues that occur so frequently, you would trust the judgement of a stranger (from a world of carnies) over your own?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that in the case of the privately funded institution, I would be in charge of hiring the employees and determining the policy myself? Or would the tasks have to be fulfilled by me personally?

The “world of carnies” comment is obscure to me also. Do you mean that people in government service are incompetent buffoons or dishonest swindlers, but when released from the bonds of the state (as they would be in a libertarian society) and working for a privately owned institution these same people would be scrupulous, diligent and trustworthy?

I’ll use an example. When I have children, I will try to find the best ways to educate them, for example: when and how to teach them to read? How to discipline them? etc… I could try to invent a system of education myself, but I prefer to rely on the opinion of people that have studied these matters and came up with a method that seemed most appropriate from their experiences. So yes, I may very well trust a stranger with doing a task instead of myself. Which is why I won’t choose home schooling.

If I noticed a family in which a child was being mistreated, my first reaction might be to take the child away. But I would prefer to call a social worker, someone who deals with these issues professionally and has more experience than me, to help the family and authorities to determine what is best. Maybe removing the child is not the optimal course of action. Family counseling might be a more satisfactory solution.

I can think of many examples in the same vein.

[Kimstu]

You know, Libertarian, in a way I’ve gotta hand it to you—your wholesale generalizations about “carnies” and “clerks” and “scandals” and “bureaucrats” are actually beginning to make it respectable to defend government again. Nobody enjoys having to stick up for politicians, but at least it sounds a lot more sensible than these reflexive condemnations of all things bureaucratic. Maybe the reaction will even spark a renewed political discourse where people are actually interested in having calm, critical discussions about practical ways to improve the present government. So please, keep on bashing!

(Anyone who could use a little help in getting over the shock of being called an Uncle-Sam-lover should check out this site.)

Kimstu

[xenophon41]

You know, Libertarian, in a way I’ve gotta hand it to you—your wholesale generalizations about “carnies” and “clerks” and “scandals” and “bureaucrats” are actually beginning to make it respectable to defend government again. Nobody enjoys having to stick up for politicians, but at least it sounds a lot more sensible than these reflexive condemnations of all things bureaucratic. Maybe the reaction will even spark a renewed political discourse where people are actually interested in having calm, critical discussions about practical ways to improve the present government. So please, keep on bashing!

I’ve nothing to add here, other than "Gee, I’d like to see a “calm critical discussion about practical ways to improve the present gov’t.”

Oh, and Kimstu, very nice link; thanks.

[Liberal]

Xen

I’ve nothing to add here, other than "Gee, I’d like to see a “calm critical discussion about practical ways to improve the present gov’t.”

What’s stopping you? If you are a member, you can start threads.

Kimstu

Ah, that link. Free-Market links to it, of course. And it has been discussed in other libertarianism threads here, likely before you came aboard. I’m sure it was an oversight that you failed to provide a link to Mark LaRochelle’s Critiques of Critiques of Libertarianism, so there ya go.

In addition to what LaRochelle has said, I have a couple of comments about Huben’s subject index remarks:

[list=1]
[li]“Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.” — Irrelevant. Aside from being an obvious ad hominem fallacy, it is positively weird to trash the reputation of someone who despised libertarianism as much as she as a means to make an anti-libertarian point.[/li][li]“Liberals understand that government has a useful track record.” — Dicto simpliciter. Governments have a track record of everything from mass murder to benevolence.[/li][li]“Few conservatives seem to feel much need to bash libertarianism: liberals are much bigger enemies.” — Converse accident, the opposite of the above.[/li][li]While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great deal of conflict between the two groups, sometimes resulting in some good criticisms. — Petitio principii, or false premise. Objectivism is not a type of libertarianism.[/li][li]“There’s lots to laugh at, behind the veil of propaganda [of the Libertarian Party]” — Red herring and circumstantial argument ad hominem. Many libertarians (including me) laugh at the Libertarian Party. Above, I noted that it is infested with statists. But the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism.[/li][li]"[Austrian economics is a] fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds." — Another petitio principii. Fringe groups typically aren’t recognized by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.[/li][li]“Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of regulation. (Though some do like market-oriented pollution rights.) They frequently repeat anti-environmental propaganda.” — Huben’s favorite fallacy again. While statists will allow however much pollution they find to be politically expedient, libertarians believe you have the right to be pollution free.[/li][li]“Most libertarians are in favor of absolute property rights, in contradiction to essentially all traditions of property ownership.” — Argumentum ad antiquitatem, an especially odd fallacy for a liberal.[/li][/list=1]

Regarding politicians, if you believe that Al Gore or George W. Bush knows how to run your life better than you do, then libertarianism has no problem with that — you may decide to put your life in the hands of whomever you wish. The problem is when you want to force everybody else to follow your lead.

All these red herrings you have presented aside, please state clearly and concisely exactly why it is that you are against the notion of leaving peaceful honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Is it a “God only knows what could happen” sort of thing?

[Liberal]

Arnold

I’m not sure what you mean by that [For such real issues that occur so frequently, you would trust the judgement of a stranger (from a world of carnies) over your own?]. Are you saying that in the case of the privately funded institution, I would be in charge of hiring the employees and determining the policy myself? Or would the tasks have to be fulfilled by me personally?

It would be as you please. Do it yourself; hire whomever you wish; even, if you wish, give yourself, your children, and your rights over to the bureaucracy of your choice. Libertarianism recognizes the sanctity of your consent.

The “world of carnies” comment is obscure to me also. Do you mean that people in government service are incompetent buffoons or dishonest swindlers, but when released from the bonds of the state (as they would be in a libertarian society) and working for a privately owned institution these same people would be scrupulous, diligent and trustworthy?

Hardly. What I am saying is that, so long as the carnies have eminent domain over you, you are left with no choice but to deal with them. Scoundrels and polticians (people who seek to control other people) exist everywhere, infesting every discipline — business, politics, religion, science, the arts — you name it. But at least, if the decision were left up to you, you could freely and willingly select whatever services you want from whomever you please.

Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, an oligarchical power that believes it is the very source of your rights, or a business who is competing with other businesses (under the stewardship of private consumer agencies) for the patronage of free people?

I’ll use an example. When I have children, I will try to find the best ways to educate them, for example: when and how to teach them to read? How to discipline them? etc… I could try to invent a system of education myself, but I prefer to rely on the opinion of people that have studied these matters and came up with a method that seemed most appropriate from their experiences. So yes, I may very well trust a stranger with doing a task instead of myself. Which is why I won’t choose home schooling.

But at least you could select the stranger whom you would trust, based on whatever criteria you establish as important.

If I noticed a family in which a child was being mistreated, my first reaction might be to take the child away. But I would prefer to call a social worker, someone who deals with these issues professionally and has more experience than me, to help the family and authorities to determine what is best. Maybe removing the child is not the optimal course of action. Family counseling might be a more satisfactory solution.

While I disagree with your choice in that matter (family counseling is of little use to dead babies), at least I am allowing you the choice.

I can think of many examples in the same vein.

As you think of them, think also of the fact that you are thinking of them form your point of view, a point of view that is relevant only if you are a free man.

[xenophon41]

[quote]
[ol][li]“Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.” — Irrelevant. Aside from being an obvious ad hominem fallacy, it is positively weird to trash the reputation of someone who despised libertarianism as much as she as a means to make an anti-libertarian point.[/ol][/li][/quote]

Context, Lib. This quote is taken from the page containing critisisms of Objectivism, not Libertarianism. Since Rand herself was the philosphical fountainhead (so to speak) and cannot be separated from Objectivism, any complete criticism of the philosophy is going to delve into her life and works. Since the rather harsh statement you quoted was merely an introduction to over two dozen accurate and fair critiques (including several anarcho-libertarian critiques), then the statement itself is indeed irrelevant, but not in the way you imply.

[quote]
[ul][li]“Liberals understand that government has a useful track record.” — Dicto simpliciter. Governments have a track record of everything from mass murder to benevolence.[/li][/quote]

The quote is not a sweeping generalization, because it does not attempt to draw a conclusion beyond it’s premise, which refers to the “classic” definition of “liberalism.” Thus, your response is irrelevant.

[quote]
[list][li]“Few conservatives seem to feel much need to bash libertarianism: liberals are much bigger enemies.” — Converse accident, the opposite of the above.[/ul][/li][/quote]

Yep. The quoted statement is a broad statement which the author left totally unsupported by any argument. I’ll point out that your counter statement is also unsupported.

[quote]
[ul][li]While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great deal of conflict between the two groups, sometimes resulting in some good criticisms. — Petitio principii, or false premise. Objectivism is not a type of libertarianism.[/ul][/li][/quote]

I would’ve called it equivocation. Kind of ironic, considering this (in my admittedly limited experience) has been the major problem I’ve found with libertarian arguments. (I’m aware that my statement, were it to be used to support an argument, instead of a general observation, would be considered anecdotal evidence.)

[quote]
[ul][li]“There’s lots to laugh at, behind the veil of propaganda [of the Libertarian Party]” — Red herring and circumstantial argument ad hominem. Many libertarians (including me) laugh at the Libertarian Party. Above, I noted that it is infested with statists. But the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism.[/ul][/li][/quote]

And if the quoted statement were used in an argument against libertarianism, it would indeed be an ad hominem. However, it introduces a page of criticisms of the Libertarian political party. Once again, the page contains many commentaries from libertarians.

[quote]
[ul][li]"[Austrian economics is a] fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds." — Another petitio principii. Fringe groups typically aren’t recognized by [.[/ul][/li][/quote]

The quoted statement does not beg the question, as (sorry to be so repetitive) it does not use the premise (“fringe academic view”) to support any conclusion. Your response, however, is a failed [url=“http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority”]appeal to authority](http://www.nobel.se/laureates/economy-1974-press.html"The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences[/url). Your link is to a press release from the RSAS announcing the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, awarded to Professors Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich von Hayek for “their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.” It should not be taken as an endorsement by the Academy of any particular economic “school” or philosophy.

[quote]
[ul][li]“Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of regulation. (Though some do like market-oriented pollution rights.) They frequently repeat anti-environmental propaganda.” — Huben’s favorite fallacy again. While statists will allow however much pollution they find to be politically expedient, libertarians believe you have the right to be pollution free.[/ul][/li][/quote]

The quoted statement is hardly a misrepresentation of libertarian thought, aimed as it is at the libertarian aversion to regulation. While libertarianism is not antithetical in any way to environmental responsibility, this statement does not set up a straw man argument, as the focus of the linked documents is the efficacy of governmental action in protecting the environment.

[quote]
[ul][li]“Most libertarians are in favor of absolute property rights, in contradiction to essentially all traditions of property ownership.” — Argumentum ad antiquitatem, an especially odd fallacy for a liberal.[/ul][/li][/quote]

Ah, Lib, the question of property rights is integral to the libertarian world view. The author’s reference to “traditions of property ownership” is of direct relevance to libertarianism’s rather odd belief that the holding of property is a “natural” right and should therefore be inviolable from government interference. Traditional ideas of property recognize that, for property rights to be protected by law, they also must be limited (i.e. “defined”) by law.

All these red herrings you have presented aside, please state clearly and concisely exactly why it is that you are against the notion of leaving peaceful honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Is it a “God only knows what could happen” sort of thing?

And you conclude with a classic fallacy of interrogation. (“And have you stopped beating your wife, Senator?”)

I see similar techniques used almost universally in every political discussion, typically by all sides, to defend closely cherished beliefs. This is why I expressed wry doubt to Kimstu that we could ever have a “calm critical discussion” about improving a political system.