I'm Still Not a Libertarian so I guess that means I'm opposed to personal freedom
world.std.com
world.std.com
I'll give one example. The author lists the "Libertarian Fallacy" as "the idea that freedom is measured by absence of laws". He then goes on to argue against this fairly unrealistic idea. The problem is most rational Libertarians wouldn't advocate for the absence of laws even if they could make it happen. So he's arguing against a straw man. The real Libertarian point is that we should have only the laws that are absolutely necessary to keep society functioning.
In addition to that he's extrapolating Libertarian points to unrealistic levels to support his argument. For example, he says "The Taxation Fallacy counts how much wealth is taken away by taxation, but ignores the amount that comes back from it -- it treats money that is taxed as if it simply disappears". The problem is that no Libertarian actually believes the wealth completely disappears. The Libertarian point is that Government is inefficient so it takes wealth and then returns significantly less wealth back to the economy due to waste (such as not being able to dock some government employees pay even when they are being disciplined which essentially gives them a paid vacation for doing something wrong).
It's a long piece and I could go on to refute every point but there's really no reason for that. The bottom line is he doesn't have any grasp on what Libertarians truly believe making the whole thing not really worth reading.
But how do you know what all Libertarians truly believe?
For instance, you say: "The real Libertarian point is that we should have only the laws that are absolutely necessary to keep society functioning." This sounds fine. However, this is so general that probably even, say, a Marxist would agree. He would just not agree on what "functioning" means or what particular laws are indeed necessary.
One could argue that even apes have functioning sociaties and they have no laws that we know of. Is this the ideal we as humans should therefore establish? It would fit your definition as well.
Also, your argument that the government "returns significantly less wealth back to the economy due to waste" is weak, for you don't know what value the returning money creates. That might easily trade-off any existing "waste". For instance, what value is created when streets are build by the government? What value was created by the ARPANet investments in the Internet technology?
That's the problem with political ideals: One often defends one's own ideals althought one doens't really know what they mean.
Is there such a thing as a Meta No True Scotsman Fallacy? If I say "George Bush proves Communism is a failure," is it ok for someone to point out that George Bush is not a communist? You can play the "No True Scotsman!" game forever, but at some point, words and ideologies have meanings. The linked article does not accurately reflect current mainstream (or otherwise) libertarian thought, and the parent poster is correct to point that out.
However, I do agree with you that words and ideologies have meaning at some point. I just think that the supposed meaning often differs; usually even for those who have subscribed to a certain ideology.
Taking about ideologies: Try to read the original article with open eyes. Some of his points do not just apply to the Libertartian position, in particular, but to ideologies, in general. Even if he misunderstand or over-emphasized some details -- how can his general arguments be wrong? You would have to argue that Libertarism is not an ideology or dogmatic point of view to counter them.
Additionally, even some of his concrete points seem logical: For instance, do you have the freedom to travel when all land is privately owned? Doesn't look like much freedom to me.
If you now argue that this is not the Libertarian position, then please take the time and explain what the Libertarian position is. How much land should be owned by the public, represented by the government? What is the Libertarian position on the commons? Who is going to defend the commons against greed and private interests according to the Libertarian ideology?
Well, I guess I technically agree with this statement since you included the qualifier "rational", but there certainly are some irrational (in what appears to be our shared opinion) Libertarians that do argue the strict version, and because of their zeal are the ones that get associated with the name. In particular, they are the ones running the Libertarian party itself. Remember how excited the party was that this last election, they nominated someone who wasn't a lunatic?
That's why I refer to myself as a little-L libertarian; I'm heavily influenced, but not defined by my capital-L Libertarianism.
You can argue about whether or not that is realistic, but to say they desire no laws is unfair.
And yes, the LP has an overabundance of socially challenged types. A rational man should be able to weigh arguments by their worth and not by their bearers.
Murray Rothbard would have torn this guy to pieces.
As a movement it has some good ideas, but there is also a huge collection of irrational people that are pro Libertarian and have little understanding of human behavior. For example we removed most monopolies because they where a bad idea keeping a few that are more effective than breaking them up so many people seem to ignore the idea that monopolies are bad. In theory there might be little problem with monopolies until you start to consider how people behave.
PS: The articles of faith that underlie the standard Libertarian predictions of how the world will work under their system are largely derived from the capitalist myth, and share all its imbalances in how it understands and defines human nature. It is my belief that as long as Libertarian philosophy ties itself so closely to idealizing capitalism, or makes itself too absolutist in any other way, an attempt to get people to live by purely Libertarian principles will find itself fighting against aspects of human nature that it doesn't want to acknowledge, and if it doesn't compromise it will fail because it tries to make people only half human.