I am disappointed that
+Stefan Molyneux
would take this approach to "rebutting" the article in question..
Rather than addressing the points made head on, he attacks the rhetoric
and style of the authors, without addressing the underlying reasons for
their criticisms. Here are a few examples of this:
_________________
Note:*
While the following 44-point breakdown is intended to be objective, not
taking a side either way, it might appear to be supporting statism
because it is almost entirely composed of criticisms of Stefan
Molyneux’s so-called “debunking”, and aims for a pragmatic and centrist
approach to achieve a high degree of neutrality on the issue of
libertarianism vs. statism.
_________________
1. The
claim libertarianism doesn't glorify personal freedom: While I'm sure
libertarians (or at least, many libertarians) believe personal freedom
to be not only a pragmatic virtue in society, but a natural right, there
are those (including the authors of the post) who
understand freedom
as a threat to society, a radical ideal at odds with civilized
behavior, and more conservatively speaking, an irresponsible paradigm.
Rather
than addressing this point, Stefan expects the authors of the article
to go along with his assumption that freedom is inherently just, and
good, and a natural right, and upon that assumption makes the claim that
because they are
pretending to think freedom isn't a natural
law, they are using sophistry to bypass that "fact". It is not a fact,
because he hasn't been proven, Stefan. Just because they don't agree
with your view of freedom, doesn't mean they are
in denial of the obvious. If you wish to effectively argue against their attacks on freedom, you should understand
why they feel freedom is such a radical, socio-politically irresponsible ideal.
2.
He then implies that less personal freedom necessarily results in more
freedom for other entities or constructs. This is not true. A healthy
society is one in which freedom is restricted for all, and even in
complete anarchism, for society to function, all members must
willfully restrict their personal freedom sufficiently to coexist and cooperate with other members peacefully and productively.
3.
He attacks their use of the word "ideology" by stated that ideology
always has a negative connotation, and ideology implies it is not
fact-based. Both are untrue:
a. Definition of ideology:
a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
b. visionary speculation, esp. of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.
c. the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
____________
Notice that:
a. nowhere in those definitions is the claim ideologies are inaccurate or factually incorrect,
b.
that one some definitions carry an (arguably) negative connotation [and
incidentally, one that Stefan didn't address, from point (1)], and
c. The third definition of ideology explicitly defines ideology as scientific (fact-based).
____________
Additionally, Stefan, since the self-affirmed values of libertarianism are considered ideological
by definition,
according to the scientifically well-evidenced interpretations of
sociology (and society generally) utilized by the authors of this
article, the burden of proof is on you to either show that freedom is a
natural and necessary part of a healthy, functional society as you
claim, or demonstrate that the freedom of libertarianism and the freedom
criticized by its detractors, are different.
_____________
One
last note before moving on: Stefan, stop with the endless examples,
they distract from the core points, and more important, they make it
seem that you are deliberately using diversionary tactics to avoid
actually addressing your detractors.
4. He claims communism was not adopted, but in fact, it was adopted by some, and those that adopted it imposed it upon the rest.
[I
am here using "communism" as commonly defined- the original communism
actually was adopted by everyone who subscribed to it voluntarily;
Marxism was inspired by, though it is largely antithetical to the
original (utopian) communism.]
5. He claims that "extremism" is
meaningless, when it carries a very strong connotation of uncompromising
conviction and belief, coupled with the aggressive drive to impose
these convictions and beliefs on others. How is that meaningless?
6.
Contrary to what Stefan claims, Individual Liberty, while not
necessarily the most important principle for all libertarians, is the
only universally held principle of libertarianism. Many libertarians
disagree with the non-aggression principle, holding that (among other
arguments) a degree of aggression is necessary to uphold liberty.
6b.
Additionally, not all libertarians believe in property rights, and some
libertarians even find the concept of "property" to be antithetical to
libertarianism.
[Another side note: Stefan- making hyperbolic
assumptions about the so-claimed framing of words by your detractors, is
not a rebuttal. Donald Trump is not in the article, and neither are
card games. Unless there is some evidence of such a metaphor in play,
you should understand and address the words as they are commonly
defined.
7. The use of "radical" libertarian does not refer to
all libertarian, as Stefan implies. There are radical proponents of just
about anything that attracts zealotry. This isn't framing, this is
zeroing in on a particular demographic of the libertarian movement.
8.
Fan is derived from "fanatic", and considering we are talking about
radicals (see point 7), it's natural for them to be "fans" of whatever
they are proponents of, due to the nature of a zealot (extremist).
9.
He claims that because divisions of groups/people/etc. are rational,
they are not made up. This goes contrary to scientific understanding of
perception, which is "the organization, identification, and
interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and
understand the environment."
Perceptions are cognitively
developed by individuals, and while they are generally compatible with
each other sufficiently to not become a barrier to meaningful
interaction, they are not "natural" in the sense of being innate, but
developed overtime as part of the development of
consciousness made
possible by interactions of the individual with the environment, and the
cumulative adaptations to facilitate more efficient and meaningful
future interactions.
10. Especially in a socio-economic system
such as we see in the world today, where money really can buy power, an
economic vacuum (created by the deregulation that libertarians advocate)
could theoretically increase the power of the 1% (the economic
"royalists"), and this is a legitimate concern, particularly for
progressive liberals. Rather than addressing this concern, Stefan simply
contradicts it, saying "libertarianism isn't like that".
11. A
lot of libertarians endorsed the trickle-down economic policies of
Ronald Reagan (Reaganomics), most notably Ron Paul, so again, ignoring a
legitimate concern that modern-day
libertarians are trying to
repackage a system that does little for the people besides create more
inequality. Libertarians already have a track record for promoting such
policies, so it's understandable for critics to be wary of a possible
"repackaging".
12. Stefan, when they appealed to the need for a
moderate amount of liberty, that is something called "diplomacy" or
"willingness to compromise". When you frame liberty as "only good", and
suggest that your detractors are saying "yes, freedom is a good thing,
but too much good is bad". You are creating a straw man, attacking an
argument they never made.
They are saying that liberty, like all
values, are only good in moderation. We need to regulate our principles
to ensure they are beneficial instead of detrimental to us; this is
particularly true in society, where the diversity of opinions makes any
kind of absolutism, even be it of liberty, morality, or happiness,
incompatible with society, and even destructive and destabilizing.
13a.
"The argument for moderation is...just nonsense": Yet you refuse to
explain what is nonsense about it. Is this a rebuttal, or just a
libertarian vanity show?
13b. The axe-murdering/rape analogy is a
clear-cut straw man. ANY axe murdering is already extremism, making
your "argument" invalid to begin with.
13c. Drawing from point
(12), YES, that's what it's about: diplomacy, negotiation. Social
democracy is a result of the compromising of different views of what
works best for everyone. It's not "a little bit of axe-murdering", it's a
synthesis of opposing views. Just because you
don't agree with the
synthesis or don't think compromise is a good thing, doesn't change the
fact that this is how the present system came about.
14. "Self
described or not, what does it matter"? People often describe themselves
differently than they actually are, for various reasons, and many
people who describe themselves as libertarians, hold values generally
considered incompatible with libertarianism. But here's a more vivid
example: Rick Santorum was a self-described conservative, yet Ron Paul
attacked him for being a "fake conservative". So yes, "self described"
draws an important
distinction.
15. The reason they feel
libertarianism is nihilist is likely because the absence of government
removes a great deal of existing social structure, and as structure is
the means that we generate and preserve meaning, a promotion of
"meaninglessness", while definitely a hyperbole, is not an entirely
unwarranted concern.
16a. The following points, which note
"misunderstandings of how societies work, and utter failure to adapt",
underlines the fact that point (15) was indeed their concern, and the
reason why they referred to libertarians as "nihilists".
17. When
they say "the free market has an utter failure to adapt to changing
circumstances", they are referring to laissez faire, which is the system
in which the market has little to no regulation. This is generally
true; historically, the absence of regulation has led to economic
inequality, instability, and even insolvency. A moderate degree of
regulation has proven to be the most economically efficient means of
maintaining a healthy economy.
18a. How do I understand their
point of view without my head exploding? Hmm, maybe because I'm
objectively analyzing both points of view to develop reasonably accurate
and balanced
conclusions?
18b. It's amazing how people locked
inside some ideological bigotry (in your case, Stefan, of regulation
and a state-structured economy) can say the most absurd things.
19a.
Claiming they are assuming is an argument, specifically, an argument
for the lack of evidence supporting (in this case) that humans are wired
only to be selfish.
19b. Incidentally, the philosophy upon which
this assumption is based (Ayn Rand's Objectivism) has been universally
rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience, and there is an
immense
body of work demonstrating biological altruism as naturally occuring,
and a natural survival instinct evolved to adapt to a social
environment.
20a. Stefan: "The free market...fundamentally relies
on cooperation" NO. The free market fundamentally relies on the
psycho-social inverse of cooperation,
competion.
20b.
"small amount of competition" you'd better provide some kind of proof
for this bold assertion. I look forward to it, should you respond to it
here, because I'm certain you won't respond to it in this video.
20c.
Yes, you can argue that people cooperate with others to compete against
others. That is coopetition. But this is not cooperative in principle,
it is the limited use of cooperation to augment competitive ability.
20d.
If you were to make the argument that "the free market is competitive,
but has cooperative elements", that is defensible. To argue the inverse,
that the free market is cooperative with
some competition, would require some kind of evidence to be credible.
20e. Purchasing products or services from people is neither cooperative or competing with, but exchanging with.
21. Do you really need selfishness to be defined to understand their arguments? Really?
22a.
"Cooperation requires voluntaryism". Generally, but not necessarily. A
person could choose to cooperate simply because they don't like the
alternative, and that is how most governments
coerce the cooperation of its citizens.
22b. Raising your voice doesn't make your arguments more objectively accurate.
22c.
You seem to be drawing a distinction between "cooperation" and
"coercion", arguing that if a person has the choice to either cooperate
or suffer the consequences, it's not cooperation, it's coercion. I think
this is a bit simplistic and idealistic distinction (there are
consequences to everything, so this distinction feels a bit too much
like "credit card companies are coercing me to pay my debts, because if I
don't I won't even have the credit to buy a house or have a cell phone
contract".
While the distinction is essential to libertarianism,
taking for granted that the distinction is obviously important in
general, makes for a weak argument against the rejection thereof.
22d.
Libertarianism can be considered anti-cooperative because government
laws, regulations, and taxes are in place to coerce state cooperation in
national issues. In the absence of government structure, there are no
clear protocols and standard for cooperation, making it more fragmented
and difficult.
23. Democracy, if implemented correctly, is the
most efficient known form of socio-political cooperation. This has been
demonstrated through extensive historical analysis of government
paradigms and their overall impact on the well-being of society and
advancement of
civilization.
24."When there are no rulers,
there are no rules". I'm not sure if I should attack this silly
assertion, or just leave it alone. Stefan, have you taken a good look at
history? Every ruler in existence had rules. The most obvious and
universal rule: they (the ruler) are the ruler- that is, their authority
to rule cannot be questioned.
Often, the rules didn't apply to
the rulers, but that doesn't make the rules any less real. Also, even
for rulers that didn't follow their own laws, they could only do so to
the extent that public favorability permitted it.
25. Actually,
the most stable form of governments recognized are (in this order) the
Republic and the Democracy; the current form of government for most
modern nations is a hybrid of these two. The longest the most successful
anarchist/libertarian society, the "Free Territory"(Makhnovia), lasted 3
years.
26. "The state is the biggest single enactor of rape, theft, assault, and murder".
STOP.
Stefan, weren't you just saying several minutes ago, that arguments
which anthropomorphize non-living constructs are [fallacious] and
sophistic? The state is a construct, it doesn't exist any more than a
forest exists without the trees. I agreed with you
on that point, but now that you're directly contradicting that fact to support your arguments...
Argumentum ad absurdum.
Let's
just try to ignore your clear lapse of judgement with that comment, and
stick with the original idea: The state is a non-living construct. The
state does not rape, steal, assault, or murder anyone. People use the
state to do that. The state is a nonliving construct, so while it's easy
to scapegoat the state for these problems, these problems are a
function of people, not the state. One could theoretically say that
without the state it would be more difficult to commit these crimes, but
even then, that would be a difficult argument to prove, considering
there's also religion, society, human instinct, brainwashing, etc. to
take its place,
27a. Ireland was not stateless for 1000 years.
Their state may have been primitive by today's standards, but not
stateless. It was dominated by Gallic tribal confederations:
"The
fundamental unit of Gallic politics was the tribe, which itself
consisted of one or more of what Caesar called pagi. Each tribe had a
council of elders, and initially a king. Later, the executive was an
annually-elected magistrate. Among the Aedui, a tribe of Gaul, the
executive
held the title of Vergobret, a position much like a king, but his
powers were held in check by rules laid down by the council.
The
tribal groups, or pagi as the Romans called them (singular: pagus; the
French word pays, "region", comes from this term), were organized into
larger super-tribal groups the Romans called civitates. These
administrative groupings would be taken over by the Romans in their
system
of local control, and these civitates would also be the basis of
France's eventual division into ecclesiastical bishoprics and dioceses,
which would remain in place—with slight changes—until the French
Revolution."
28b. Somalia is not stateless, it
was a
failed state- that is, an unstable state that is constantly in a state
of temporary anarchy due to political volatility. Presently Somalia has a
state, known as the "Federal Republic of Somalia", though it remains to
be seen if this state will be able to maintain its power.
29.
"Slavery is a holdover from...tribalism". But just a minute ago, you
were claiming in the defense of libertarianism that the Gallic tribes
lasted for a thousand years. Well, to be fair they weren't stateless,
but these are your arguments we're addressing here, not mine.
30a.
Nowhere in the article does it suggest that "you can use violence to
solve complex social problems". Another straw man neutralized!
30b.
"This is the logic of statism" No, there is nothing about the existence
of the state that necessitates violence or any of the other problems
you unwittingly have anthropomorphized it
with.
31. They
already made the arguments of why removing the Internal Revenue Service
would be bad. It's because it interferes with the universal
cooperation/coercion regarding the funding of
national needs.
32a.
You just admitted that the problems with pollution are being solved by
environmental regulations, coerced by the government. That's another
argumentum ad absurdum!
32b. Just because existing regulations
solve some problems, doesn't mean it solves all of them. To ensure our
environment is in optimal health, we need to ensure that the approach we
take
addresses the issues as comprehensively as is practical.
33.
First you used Somalia as a bright and shining example of how Somalia's
so-called stateless society was one of the best in African (even though
technically it wasn't stateless, but a
failed state), with comparably better life expectancy, quality of life, health, etc.--
Then you claim Somalia is a horrible example of libertarian stateless policies, that it's like judging atheism based on Nazism.
Which is it? Bordering on another argumentum ad absurdum, and it hasn't even been 30 seconds!
34.
Actually, I would claim that you've been arguing against a lot of straw
men, many of which I'm passing over to avoid too much repetition in
this critique.
35.No, the government laws don't debate with
individuals about how to deal with the complexities of poverty, because
that's inefficient. They instead debate with each other, and the people
who debate these issues are elected by the people through the democratic
process. It's a more effective (if far less direct) means of solving
the same issues in a manner that the people can agree upon most.
36.There's
no gunpoint, Stefan. If you don't like being taxed, you can go to
court, and appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Even if you
lose, no one's going to shoot you. They might imprison you for failure
to cooperate with tax system, but this whole gunpoint hyperbole is
getting a bit old.
37.Again with the straw man. No reasonable
person is debating whether or not we should rape each other, or how many
to rape. Government politicians/officials/etc. debate universal issues
for which there are widespread differences of opinion about.
38.
"Why are we introducing communitarianism here?" That's the whole
premise of the article, to show how libertarianism is a repacked
communism.
39.The first point "you only get to vote for who will
boss you around" is a valid, albeit a contentious point". However, the
claim that the state's politicians are necessarily "bought and sold by
special interests groups". While it is true that most states are driven
to
some
extent by special interest groups, many states have
very little special interest influence, and special interests are not
inherently a function of the state. Libertarianism is a special interest
group itself, and it advocates statelessness/the lessening of state
power.
40. The single largest funding of Barack Obama came from
unions, and Wall Street funded both Republican and Democratic candidates
equally.
41. "Bought and paid for, you don't get to choose-"
While special interests groups influencing elections and government
policies are a major issue, to throw out choice entirely is a hyperbole.
42.
They weren't saying "sometimes government is good, and sometimes it's
not". They were saying some issues are best resolved by government
intervention/influence, and some issues are best resolved without state
intervention.
43. If you were arguing against the illegality of
marijuana, then you would have a good point. But the state isn't what
makes marijuana illegal- there are actually a few countries where
marijuana is legal, and it's likely that in a few years, given the
current state-level support for it, the federal government of the U.S.
will be forced to legalize it as well.
44. The paradigm that individualism should be balanced by collectivism is not an endorsement of rape, theft, or murder.
For all of you reading this, this is not a criticism of libertarianism,
but of Stefan Molyneux's "arguments", which are probably some of the
most pseudo-intellectual defenses of libertarianism I've seen. His
half-assed, self-contradictory, fallacy-ridden, hyperbolic arguments are
even more sophistry-ridden than those of the detractors he mocks, and
are as much of a disgrace to libertarianism as the arguments of Richard
Dawkins are to atheism and evolutionary theory.