Argument Against Libertarians - Need Help

[A. Havnes]

Okay, so I'm debating a socialist, which seems pretty easy. However, he asked me to refuse this article, and while I think I can do it, I'd like you guys' input to make sure that I have a.) good arguments and b.) can find better, more effective ways to refute this guy.

Libertarians are the True Social Parasites (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/23/libertarians-are-the-true-social-parasites/)

So far, this is the guy's mindset, just you let you know.


First the Us and most other countries were on the gold standard when the great depression started. Heavy government intervention was needed to get the world out of that (in the form of re-arment to fight WW2.)



My reasons for dislikeing Libertarianism is that as much as we dislike being told what to do, we do need rules to keep us in line. The fact is that people (or at least enough of them to ruin it for everyone else) will try to rob and cheat others for their own benifit. Also some services are more effeicently provided by governments that are publicly owned then by the private sector (ie education).


One issue that I think says alot about the usefulness of Libertarianism is Climate Change. Science is telling us that the fuel we make so much money off is wrecking the biosphere, and will devestate food and water security worldwide, especially in the poor countrys that did less to create the problem. It's hard to believe that many of the pulloters will decide to make themselves poorer (in the short term anyway) to protect other people in the future.


The problem with a charities is that they don't have anywhere near the resorces that a government does. Small community based health care alone means that a lot of people will fall threw the cracks."]The problem with a charities is that they don't have anywhere near the resorces that a government does. Small community based health care alone means that a lot of people will fall threw the cracks.

Socialists are easy to debate, aren't they?

[Golding]

I'm not sure what the blog is trying to prove. Matt Ridley may have been preaching libertarianism, but it doesn't appear that he was practicing it. This blog seems like a classic style of argument, trying to attach a flawed philosopher to a philosophy, and hoping that the flaws are confused as the philosophy itself.

I agree with your friend that some rules are needed to maintain a society. Those rules need to be consistent and fair, though. That's the kind of thing that goes away when you try to micromanage at the federal level. And that's where I think your friend may be getting confused. Libertarianism isn't the absence of rules. It's minimizing them to the most fundamental and meaningful rules.

[James Madison]

Okay, so I'm debating a socialist, which seems pretty easy. However, he asked me to refuse this article, and while I think I can do it, I'd like you guys' input to make sure that I have a.) good arguments and b.) can find better, more effective ways to refute this guy.

Libertarians are the True Social Parasites (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/23/libertarians-are-the-true-social-parasites/)

So far, this is the guy's mindset, just you let you know.









Socialists are easy to debate, aren't they?

There are always booms and busts, period of economic growth and economic decline. No system of goverernance will prevent this. Now consider the Great Depression, how can we argue the US was a capitalist country when at the same time it also had a private bank? You can't. In fact, the Fed was largely responsible for the crash of 1929 so it seems to me that large bureaucracy hurts rather than helps a nation's economy. If he wants to bring up the gold standard ask him to compare the economy from 1791 to the early seventies and then the early seventies to today. One hundred years ago, this nation possessed about 3% of the world's population yet held roughly half its wealth. What do you think that figure would be like today? We were successful because we had a powerful currency. That's why Rome, Babylon, and Egypt were so powerful.

As for his neo-malthus ideology, it's probably one of the most refuted philosophies ever to enter the political realm of thought. If human beings can't be trusted on their own, why would you trust them when in government? He argues that we operate for our selfish desires, well what do you think people in government do? At least some lunatic off the street doesn't have access to a million soliders with M-16s, tanks, and thousands of nuclear warheads. And remind him that libertarianism =/= anarchy. Libertarians believe in laws to protect the citizen's natural rights.

[TortoiseDream]

Okay, so I'm debating a socialist, which seems pretty easy. However, he asked me to refuse this article, and while I think I can do it, I'd like you guys' input to make sure that I have a.) good arguments and b.) can find better, more effective ways to refute this guy.

Libertarians are the True Social Parasites

So far, this is the guy's mindset, just you let you know.



First the Us and most other countries were on the gold standard when the great depression started. Heavy government intervention was needed to get the world out of that (in the form of re-arment to fight WW2.)



My reasons for dislikeing Libertarianism is that as much as we dislike being told what to do, we do need rules to keep us in line. The fact is that people (or at least enough of them to ruin it for everyone else) will try to rob and cheat others for their own benifit. Also some services are more effeicently provided by governments that are publicly owned then by the private sector (ie education).



One issue that I think says alot about the usefulness of Libertarianism is Climate Change. Science is telling us that the fuel we make so much money off is wrecking the biosphere, and will devestate food and water security worldwide, especially in the poor countrys that did less to create the problem. It's hard to believe that many of the pulloters will decide to make themselves poorer (in the short term anyway) to protect other people in the future.



The problem with a charities is that they don't have anywhere near the resorces that a government does. Small community based health care alone means that a lot of people will fall threw the cracks."]The problem with a charities is that they don't have anywhere near the resorces that a government does. Small community based health care alone means that a lot of people will fall threw the cracks.

Socialists are easy to debate, aren't they?

He doesn't understand the Great Depression, in that government intervention only prolonged the depression and made it worse. Bring up the Depression of 1920-21, which was actually WORSE than the Great Depression; but because President Harding didn't intervene it was over in a year.

For his second point, I agree that we do need some rules to keep us in line, but I think those rules should only pertain to protecting our inalienable rights (life, liberty, and property). Laws for those purposes punish murder, slavery, and theft. Even if free men were as vile as he makes them out to be, the idea that people would rob each other left and right is just complete non-sense. Also, education is not best provided by the government. Just mention that our great universities were started by the churches, not the state; and if it is true that the government is the best provider of education, then why are US students so low in international rankings?

It seems, too, that he has bought into the whole global warming scandal. While I am still on the fence about whether global warming, which is happening, is our cause or not, I have not ever seen convincing evidence presented from either side. The fact that over 30,000 scientists believe that global warming is not our cause is a good thing to bring up.

The healthcare thing is similar to education. In a more general sense, though, the government can only provide for some by taking from others. So government is force, and immoral; charity is free will, and honorable.

My $.02

[Old Ducker]

The first quote, "First the Us and most other countries were on the gold standard when the great depression started. Heavy government intervention was needed to get the world out of that (in the form of re-arment to fight WW2.)" is easy to refute. The other quotes are just opinion.

The rebuttal: The gold standard after the creation of the FED was corrupted. Starting in the early 20's, the FED began monetary intervention (inflation), partly to finance german reparations, under the Versailles treaty. Without this bubble, there would have been no stock market crash and without fractional reserve banking, there would have been no runs on banks. The depression of the thirties was primarily a result of wage maintenance in an otherwise deflationary environment, which depressed employment. For those who had jobs, the depression wasn't such a bad time as their purchasing power increased substantially. The New Deal programs didn't help either as it created uncertainty which depressed business investment.

[VIDEODROME]

I think often Libertarianism is summed up as the idea of letting people do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

If a corporation is polutting and it's proved they're harming someone else isn't that a clear case where Libertarians would be against the polluter?

As for government providing services I prefer that to be done locally as much as possible for better accountability. It's easier to watch over government programs in the local town hall then in D.C. I'll include health care in this response by doing it at the state level.

As for the depression I believe that happened after the creation of the FED. Previously there were large spikes up and down in the market like the Panic of 1907. The FED was supposed to grown and shrink the money supply with the economy. I think most of the time they do the opposite though and prolong booms like The Roaring 20s which then lead to the busts like The Depression.

[TastyWheat]

Those are some of the worst arguments I've ever heard. I think you'll do alright.

[haaaylee]

lets count how many words this person spelled incorrectly:

dislikeing
benifit
effeicently
countrys
devestate
pulloters
resorces

then there is:

"problem with a charities" (used twice)
using "threw" instead of "through" (used twice)


clearly this person's point on government being better at education is true. (sarcasm)

socialists are not very bright.

[foofighter20x]

The first quote, "First the Us and most other countries were on the gold standard when the great depression started. Heavy government intervention was needed to get the world out of that (in the form of re-arment to fight WW2.)" is easy to refute. The other quotes are just opinion.

The rebuttal: The gold standard after the creation of the FED was corrupted. Starting in the early 20's, the FED began monetary intervention (inflation), partly to finance german reparations, under the Versailles treaty. Without this bubble, there would have been no stock market crash and without fractional reserve banking, there would have been no runs on banks. The depression of the thirties was primarily a result of wage maintenance in an otherwise deflationary environment, which depressed employment. For those who had jobs, the depression wasn't such a bad time as their purchasing power increased substantially. The New Deal programs didn't help either as it created uncertainty which depressed business investment.

Not to mention, the international gold standard collapsed around WWI.

The gold standard he's thinking of was the domestic gold standard, which ended with Roosevelt and EO 6102.

[TCE]

I agree with your friend that some rules are needed to maintain a society. Those rules need to be consistent and fair, though. That's the kind of thing that goes away when you try to micromanage at the federal level. And that's where I think your friend may be getting confused. Libertarianism isn't the absence of rules. It's minimizing them to the most fundamental and meaningful rules.

The perfect example of this is a school. When I went to Junior High back in the day, there were the following rules:

1. No gum can be chewed.
2. Chewed gum cannot be stuck onto objects.
3. There will be no vandalizing school property with gum.

A Libertarian would laugh at these rules. First, if rule one is effective, then rules two and three are meaningless. Second, rule three is the only one that needs to be on the books. Gum is in no way dangerous if chewed correctly and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, who cares if it's chewed?

The school as a whole is another example. Libertarians don't like the principal, school board, and superintendent (Federal Government) making books full of rules, but if the teachers (the states) want to make some rules for their classrooms, then that is alright. The rules put forth by the school board will likely be unnecessary and unwarranted whereas the rules the teacher has will be more targeted and effective.


I think often Libertarianism is summed up as the idea of letting people do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

If a corporation is polutting and it's proved they're harming someone else isn't that a clear case where Libertarians would be against the polluter?

As for government providing services I prefer that to be done locally as much as possible for better accountability. It's easier to watch over government programs in the local town hall then in D.C. I'll include health care in this response by doing it at the state level.

Let's say company is polluting a river with toxic chemicals. Well, unless they own the river and the body of water that the river goes to, they are destroying/damaging property. The owner of that property, be it the state, you, me, whomever, has the right to sue and have the offender cease and desist. The government shouldn't have to send something to that company and to me to tell us to do something about my river being polluted and then create a federal agency. That just wastes funds.

The larger something is, the harder it is to control. Millions and billions of dollars are wasted by the government every year. Private businesses cannot afford to burn all of that capital, because if they did, they would go out of business. There is no market check on the government since they're just losing our money anyway, not theirs.