Sentient Void
12-09-2010, 02:07 PM
http://bothwell.typepad.com/whos_your_nanny/2010/12/extremist-is-not-an-argument.html
God, i feel like I wrote that damned article. +1776, Brutus.
Snippet:
Dear Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates:
It has come to my attention during debates with you on Facebook or the comments section of various and sundry blogs and online newspapers that you have a tendency to get quite frustrated with me and my fellow libertarians who stubbornly insistent on logical consistency while arguing. For instance, we sometimes argue that crime is always crime. The fact that a group of people have come together to call themselves a government does not obviate the moral codes that bind the people who are not the government. Or sometimes we argue that self-ownership necessarily means that people who want to ingest drugs or engage in prostitution should be free to do so even if we personally disagree with this behavior. Or we demonstrate with sound economic logic why a minimum wage will increase unemployment and not help the very people whom you intend to help.
When we consistently criticize the State and advocate for a dramatic reduction of its power or even a complete abolition of the institution itself, you then hurl the "extremist" grenade at us in hopes that the force of the blast will blow us away from our keyboards while the connotative shrapnel of Ku Kux Klan, neo-Nazis, Timothy McVeigh, and anti-government militia members will scar our hands and eyes, thus preventing us from typing any more utter nonsense such as natural rights, liberty, or individualism. However, we see this term as simply a fireworks display: it amazes and awes your audience who already think as you do, but then the show ends and things return to normal. That is, you have entertained your audience and given them something to cheer about, but you still have not grappled with the essence of our arguments.
While you use the term "extremist" because its modern political usage implies a violent, racist, anti-government Neanderthal, the term by itself says nothing about the quality or truthfulness of our arguments. Allow me to give you some examples by applying the word "extremist" to past periods in history. Advocating that someone be black and free in colonial America would be labelled "extremist". Advocating that someone be female and allowed to vote in early 20th century American would be labelled "extremist". Advocating that someone be Jewish and alive in Nazi Germany would be labelled "extremist"*. Do you see my point?
The fact that we libertarians generally believe in limited government (and many including this author believe in the abolition of the State) is an extreme position relative to political opinion of the masses. Neverthless, it does not follow that our extreme opinion is proof that it is an incorrect opinion. In fact, I think that all of you would side with the "extremists" in each of the three examples I previously mentioned. This should clearly illustrate the frivolousness of the term as it is currently used in discussions.
Therefore, when we are engaged in political debates, please refrain from using this term as if the word is the intellectual equivalent of a guided missile that obliterates all libertarians who are arguing with you. It only makes us realize that you have run out of good arguments and you are utterly frustrated with our stubborn adherence to logical consistency, natural rights, and sound economic theory.
Fucking SERIOUSLY. If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're apparently 'moderate' or a 'centrist'. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an 'extremist'. What a bunch of crap.
God, i feel like I wrote that damned article. +1776, Brutus.
Snippet:
Dear Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates:
It has come to my attention during debates with you on Facebook or the comments section of various and sundry blogs and online newspapers that you have a tendency to get quite frustrated with me and my fellow libertarians who stubbornly insistent on logical consistency while arguing. For instance, we sometimes argue that crime is always crime. The fact that a group of people have come together to call themselves a government does not obviate the moral codes that bind the people who are not the government. Or sometimes we argue that self-ownership necessarily means that people who want to ingest drugs or engage in prostitution should be free to do so even if we personally disagree with this behavior. Or we demonstrate with sound economic logic why a minimum wage will increase unemployment and not help the very people whom you intend to help.
When we consistently criticize the State and advocate for a dramatic reduction of its power or even a complete abolition of the institution itself, you then hurl the "extremist" grenade at us in hopes that the force of the blast will blow us away from our keyboards while the connotative shrapnel of Ku Kux Klan, neo-Nazis, Timothy McVeigh, and anti-government militia members will scar our hands and eyes, thus preventing us from typing any more utter nonsense such as natural rights, liberty, or individualism. However, we see this term as simply a fireworks display: it amazes and awes your audience who already think as you do, but then the show ends and things return to normal. That is, you have entertained your audience and given them something to cheer about, but you still have not grappled with the essence of our arguments.
While you use the term "extremist" because its modern political usage implies a violent, racist, anti-government Neanderthal, the term by itself says nothing about the quality or truthfulness of our arguments. Allow me to give you some examples by applying the word "extremist" to past periods in history. Advocating that someone be black and free in colonial America would be labelled "extremist". Advocating that someone be female and allowed to vote in early 20th century American would be labelled "extremist". Advocating that someone be Jewish and alive in Nazi Germany would be labelled "extremist"*. Do you see my point?
The fact that we libertarians generally believe in limited government (and many including this author believe in the abolition of the State) is an extreme position relative to political opinion of the masses. Neverthless, it does not follow that our extreme opinion is proof that it is an incorrect opinion. In fact, I think that all of you would side with the "extremists" in each of the three examples I previously mentioned. This should clearly illustrate the frivolousness of the term as it is currently used in discussions.
Therefore, when we are engaged in political debates, please refrain from using this term as if the word is the intellectual equivalent of a guided missile that obliterates all libertarians who are arguing with you. It only makes us realize that you have run out of good arguments and you are utterly frustrated with our stubborn adherence to logical consistency, natural rights, and sound economic theory.
Fucking SERIOUSLY. If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're apparently 'moderate' or a 'centrist'. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an 'extremist'. What a bunch of crap.