Is libertarianism rationally debatable?

Great Debates
21

techchick: When SingleDad is asking whether Libertarianism is “religious”, he is using some hyperbole. What he is trying to ask is whether Libertarianism is something that is taken “on faith”, and if any amount of argument could convince its adherence to switch away from it. For example, would you consider arguments that say property rights are not absolute, or do you believe in absolute property rights so strongly that you know, even before you hear the argument, that you will not change your mind?

I think that what SingleDad is trying to do is figure out where Libertarians are coming from. I think he’s experienced similar phenomena to me: we’ve tried debating with Libertarians, and we’ve made what we think are well formulated arguments, only to be completely baffled by what Libertarians come back with. I think he’s trying to figure out “where you are coming from”, on order to either 1) debate you better, or 2) not waste any more time if he is incapable of arguing with you.

Now, you are probably somewhat baffled by this reaction, but I think that is because you are not necessarily representative of the Libertarians that I (and probably SingleDad) have had problems with. You seem to have taken a “defensive” tone in this thread, but I think that SingleDad had an honest inquiry in mind (although the language he used is potentially confusing and potentially inflammatory). I think that he is trying to establish the “ground rules” so that he can figure out how to debate you. They aren’t “trick questions”.

And, may I say, that simply posting links to http://www.libertarian.org , etc., is extraordinarily unhelpful? It’s too much information to sift through, so you end up not sifting through any of it, so your point doesn’t get made, and our question doesn’t get answered, and everybody just gets more and more annoyed with each other. If a website can back up your point, that’s great, but as since you know what we are looking for on the website, it helps if you summarize and direct us specifically to the exact place we should be looking. When you just post a link to the overall site, it doesn’t help convince us that you’re right (since we can’t easily find your argument made on the site), it just makes it look like you’re “dodging the question” (even if you don’t mean to).

“You seem a little stuck on the debating and having no fun, sheesh.”

You may find this hard to believe, but some people find debating to be fun.

22

I’m hurt, techchick, really hurt. :frowning: You’re acting like I’m some sort of troll.

The questions I asked in the OP are honest questions, do not presuppose an answer, and have significant meaning for the terms of any debate. And libertarians do indeed insert their libertarian ideas into debate.

Libertarianism is, for me, the perfect topic for rational debate: Its proponents are usually intelligent and rational, and there are enough points of disagreement that we can engage in spirited debate. I much prefer this sort of activity than arguing with Creationists (who have such a different epistemological basis that communication is virtually impossible) or having a mutual admiration society meeting with other liberals.

I know about libertarian philosophy. What I don’t know is under what basis you and other libertarians hold to the beliefs, and therefore on what basis to argue differences that I have.

I’m sorry that you feel you have no confidence in me. I don’t know if I can, or want to, change that attitude. I think it’s far worse for you to duck the questions in the OP than it is for me to duck a hijack.

And what possible difference does it make where I post? I do indeed post primarily in GD; my word count here is thousands of times that of my word count in all other forums combined. So what? If you want to make ad hominem attacks, post them in the pit.

I’m coming closer by default to the conclusion that libertarian beliefs are not subject to rational debate: You hold them out of faith, you assert them as true, and anyone who disagrees with you is by definition stupid and/or ignorant.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick

23

This new Pit thread deserves your attention. Our buddy Lib called it “The ethics of Lawsuits.” You know which position he took? “We only need ONE law, ‘The Non Coercion Principle.’ With that and a bunch a’ arbitrators, everything will be hunky-dory.”

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.