Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 21. (Read 24009 times)

Let's get back on topic.  The article says:

1. Big business created libertarianism
2. Friedman, its representative, was a scumbag.

Well, saying libertarianism is terrible because of point 2 would certainly seem to be an invalid argument. Point number 1, however, is very relevant. What would big business stand to gain from libertarianism?

All the pro-libs here suggest that evil big corporations will suffer under libertarianism because they'll be out-competed by smaller "nicer" outfits in the free market.  So, why would big business promote libertarianism then?

[note: I'm assuming the article is factually correct regarding the facts it states, to wit, that big business did, in fact, create and promote libertarianism. I'm neither an historian nor an economist so I can't judge the truth of these statements]

At least you do follow your own advice and don't bother responding the substance of those who pay you the courtesy of addressing the substance of your arguments. Read posts #5, #7, #8, and #11, my exchange with Cunicula, and compare them to my exchange with you. Which strategy gives the results you want?

Which is what he feeds on, so that's OK.

It's bad logic, and that's *all* it is. All you can do is point out that it's bad logic. If someone makes an argument that you admit is bad logic, why wouldn't the rational thing to do be to simply point out that it's bad logic? You're suggesting essentially that you should ignore the validity of an argument someone else made and instead change the subject. That's crazy.

Sure, in this example, that's right. But if they said "Joe's idea stinks to high heaven because I want a burger for lunch", all you can do is point out that hunger pains have nothing to do with Joe's idea. That's id.

Sure, in your ridiculous example.

Pointing out that an argument is ad hominem is attacking the validity of the argument. The crux of the ad hominem fallacy is that you address the character of the person who made it, not the argument. For example: "Because Joe makes ad hominem arguments, we can reject this argument" is ad hominem. It addresses Joe's character rather than the validity of his argument. But "Because Joe's argument is ad hominem, we can reject it" is perfectly valid. It doesn't address Joe's character but the validity of his argument.

We can, and should, refute invalid arguments. But we can't dismiss an argument based on characteristics of the person who made it. But we must evaluate an argument based on characteristics of that argument itself.

Your suggestion is basically that we presume bad faith on the part of the person advancing the argument because it's invalid and not point out that it's invalid. I'm suggesting we presume good faith on the part of person advancing the argument and do them the courtesy of pointing out that their argument is invalid and that they should honor their good faith, accept its invalidity, and abandon it. Not addressing the specific argument they actually made by pointing out that it's fallacious will make it seem to them that you're simply ignoring the arguments they actually made and just making unrelated arguments. That will make them find it hard to presume you are arguing in good faith and it's a recipe for turning what could have been a productive discussion into chaos.

Definitely not a "better service," though.

Unfortunately, not the case. I was just hearing the other day about a BBB initiative, funded by private money to give military people advice on handling their finances and avoiding being scammed. Ousted by a government program, the director poached for a much higher government salary.

This "article" is a shit smear.  Seriously, it's a smear, full of lies, baseless imputed intentions, conspiracy theories, and errors.


It's sad, of course, that people are so out of arguments, out of reason, out of anything even remotely sensible, that they would feel the need to smear and spread FUD about ideas they hate.  But it's the reality of the human animal, that he will hate and attack that which he fears and does not understand.

It's okay -- truth will prevail.

Why would big business lobbyists "create" something that, if most everyone in government adhered to it, would destroy their clients' crony capitalist partnerships with the tyrants that have maintained power for decades, centuries, ever since the Founding Fathers' generation died out?

Nonsense.  This is exactly the type of blithering unawareness to be expected from someone who can't wrap his mind around a simple, commonplace Latin phrase.  

Environmental destruction happened on far grander scales in the past.  Your vast ignorance is showing; you wave it around like it's something to be proud of.

Example 1: End-Botomian mass extinction

Example 2: Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event

Example 3: Australia/New Zealand Megafauna Extinction

Example 4: North & South American Megafauna Extinction

*Examples 1-4 all occurred when the Earth's human population was much lower than 300 million.

That's just off the top of my head.  Now go back impersonating Al Gore, you doom mongering chicken little enviro-weenie.  

I stand behind the entire conversation about ad hominem. It accomplishes nothing to accuse one of using it. It fails to refute anything. It is often ad hominem itself. All it does is call attention to a logical fallacy that is unrelated to the statement being made.

Like this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Afterall, his father's an idiot.

Bad logic, to be sure. But it makes no difference with regard to the truth of untruth of Joe's idea. The statement about Joe's father is irrelevant. Ad hominem points that out, but nobody cares.

Consider this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Oh, and by the way, I want a burger for lunch.

So he wants a burger for lunch. Good for him. Are you going to try and point out the untruth of Joe's idea stinking to high heaven by arguing about the speaker's hunger pains? If so, you're only engaging in deflection and nonsense. Instead, you should stick to the topic, which is whether Joe's idea stinks to high heaven or not.

You will accomplish nothing by discussing lunch, Joe's father, or whether the speaker mentioned lunch or Joe's father.

If on the other hand, you verbally insult me personally by engaging in ad hominem, then it might be worth my time to discuss it with you, but not because it has anything to do with the main point of argument, but because, by insulting me, I may wish to insult you back, argue the point of the insult, or plant a fist in your face.

While that's a difference, that difference actually weighs against your suggestion.  Consider if Joe argues that fact Y supports conclusion X. If you're speaking to Joe, you can reasonably expect that he believes conclusion X and is willing to defend it on other fronts. You can move on to other arguments against X if you want. But with a third-party, it's evasive and dishonest to shift the topic of conversation away from Joe's argument. Especially since that other person may or may not care about conclusion X. They chose to make the conversation about the validity of Joe's argument and they are entitled to have you stick to the subject until you either agree with or invalidate Joe's argument if that's at all possible.

You could make other arguments too, of course. But if you're going to reply, they deserve at least some serious reply to the specific argument they made.

I never told you once, so your use of the word 'again' doesn't make sense. I will now tell you for the first time, since you will continue to imagine motives that suit your world view until I do. I did so to point out a period of time in the past where environmental decimation was not occurring at the rate it does now. Simple, isn't it?


Awesome!


But still, that doesn't mean you're not getting all bent out of shape over a little exposition. But whatever.

Tell me again why you felt the need to mention the number of people the earth does not have, before going on to correct that mistake with the actual population?

I've heard the 'but but Freedom only worked back in the Bronze Age when there was hardly anyone around' line enough times to know when that card is being dealt.

FYI:  This thread is being held in a public forum, where all are free to read and comment.  If that bothers you GFY, GTFO, etc.   

Ah, but that isn't really what happened, is it? There was no insult directed at a member of this forum, by another member of this forum, making it personal. Rather, an insinuation was made about a third party by another third party.

I'll let you go on and continue arguing against what you believe are the motives behind the words used in a conversation between two other people. Have fun.

You strongly implied such a thing by denying and correcting the 300 million figure (which nobody ever mentioned previously).

If you wish to debate persuasively, try responding to the topics at hand instead of setting up strawmen to knock down.

Framing the obvious as some kind of argument-clincher ("The earth has far more than 300 million people, SO U R WRONG & I WIN!!!1") doesn't earn you anything besides ridicule.

Most libertarians can easily explain why centralized planning fails to solve, and spontaneous order solves, the challenges created by vastly increased population density.

Your attempt to steal the argument by implying that libertarians can only deal with the distant, underpopulated past is old, unoriginal weak sauce.   

I totally disagree with everything you said. It's completely backwards from all reason and logic. If someone makes an invalid argument, you should point out that the argument is invalid. Anything else is not fair to them, and shows a lack of respect because someone who makes an argument deserves a response to the argument they actually made. Moving on to some other argument just frustrates them because you neither accepted nor showed a flaw in the argument they actually made. That's flat out dishonest and will leave anyone witnessing the discussion thinking you evaded their argument.

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

I can't remember.

I agree with this, but don't see how it disagrees with my position.

1) I would count these extinctions (loss of info) as part of the cost of energy. As I said, IMO the ultimate solution is to move these information destroying activities out into space, which would mean extracting energy and resources from information-deficient sources such as sunlight and asteroids.
2) Governments, especially democratic/republican ones pretty much always promote excessive growth. In fact this is the main hypocrisy I see with the current set of "socialist" political party platform's worldwide. You can't save the environment, support economic growth, and remove negative economic feedbacks from the system at the same time.

True enough. What, then, is the argument that this ad hominem article is attempting to make us swallow?