Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 22. (Read 23958 times)

In the case of this thread, we can't ask Bob the author that question (analogizing to the author of the article in the first post). We can ask ourselves the inverse question (why is George's plan not ridiculous) and discuss it. But flinging around accusations of ad hominem does not answer that question.

Well, that's no good. You're just letting that argument fly by uncontested. If you're going to be nice about it, use the first statement. "Why is George's plan ridiculous?"

I don't agree. There is little to be gained by promoting excessive growth which in turn causes a reduction in useful information. The greatest potential for useful information lies within the planet's biodiversity and environmental complexity, which is inexorably being destroyed at ever accelerating rates. These resources go through non-reversible transformations which reduce their value for temporary usage. In other words, a humanity induced great extinction. What we gain through such processes are a new kind of information: reality TV and status updates. In other words, we're trading precious and non-renewable resources for an information glut of garbage in the cloud.

Did you read the bottom half of my statement to you? If so, then you'll understand that only the last suggestion in double quotes is applicable. The one that says: "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

I never said someone said such a thing. If you wish to debate me, then try to debate what I'm saying.

Nobody on this thread said we live in a world of 300 million people.  

But go ahead, beat up that strawman.  Show him who's the boss using obvious, uncontested facts.  

Those are kinder, of course, but the first one amounts to the same thing (Make another argument.), while the second actually legitimizes the argument. Don't respond to fallacies except to call them fallacies.

The only real issue is the cost of energy (both pollution as well as the labor and infrastructure). It is a technological problem.

Even solar is not a real answer since if deployed at massive scale it will start affecting the earth's albedo and thus heat it up, plus there will be more waste heat wherever the energy gets used which will alter energy profile of the earth and thus may lead to unexpected problems with the environment. In the end it will probably be easier to move most economic activity to a giant space station that can dissipate waste heat easier, leaving earth as a garden.

This is generations away but it should be what we work towards.

The rest of the stuff is just what needs to be dealt with in the meantime so we don't destroy ourselves before someone figures it out. Perhaps this requires governments, perhaps it is inevitable that malicious entities eventually take control of governments and this ends up doing more harm then good. For that reason, along with the "government as clinging parent stunting growth" analogy put forward earlier, there are people of the opinion we should limit the harm that can be caused when this happens by not making governments so powerful to begin with. Currently the -ism most in line with this viewpoint (at least in the united states) is called libertarianism.

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people pushing 10 billion plus. Problems which did not manifest before are becoming obvious today. These problems require uniform efforts and awareness to solve. Do you see all nations uniformly applying solutions cooperatively to solve these problems? No. Individual agents seek to maximize their own situation, often at the expense of others. They also optimize for the near future, not the long term.

I have seen nothing in Libertarian values which is any different than the analogous scenario outlined in the above paragraph.

Yes, and they can be pretty effective at that for long periods of time.  Still, the overall trend across recorded human history appears to have civilizations moving in the agorist direction; regardless of what governments may want or how 'mature' society in general may or may not be.

Well anyway there are many people who identify themselves as "libertarian" or similar who don't agree with milton freedman at all.

 I'm with myrkul on the agorism front. Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight. If the better alternatives can't be built... well I guess as a society we aren't grown up enough yet and still need government. Of course a government can be like a clingy parent stunting the growth of society as well.

Instead of saying: "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument.", why don't you instead say, "Why is George's proposal ridiculous?", and optionally "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

I've witnessed too many people sling (yes, sling, as in mud) comments which accuse others of using ad hominem too much to not see it for what it really is: hypocrisy.

More to the point, the original poster posted an article. Let's assume a similar case where the article is this:


Let's say the author of the article is Bob. Since no dialog will actually ensue with Bob, because it's an article copied from somewhere else, and the dialog will only occur between forum members, it's pointless to accuse the author of the article of using ad hominem in his article. Such a statement about the article does not refute the notion that George's proposal is ridiculous. Not one iota.

The only valid argument against Bob's article would be to show how George's proposal is not ridiculous.

You're not implying that George's proposal is not ridiculous, you're simply saying that that argument will not prove it to be, and they should, as I said, try again.

No, I didn't say that. I said, "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument."

Admit it, you just don't like to agree with me.

LOL, so this comes up again and again. You are right, but then what is the appropriate response to an ad hominem attack on yourself?

This is myrkul's argument against the speaker: "George's proposal is not ridiculous! The speaker used ad hominem when claiming George's proposal is ridiculous!"

That's ad hominem if I ever saw it.

not by him but by his big brother 

If pointing out logical fallacies is against the rule of the debate every debate would just descend into back and forth mudslinging (eg democratic party was founded by slave owners, etc forever). Its uncivilized to use ad hominems and really the debate should just end once someone does. Really the only chance for it to continue in some sort of productive fashion is myrkul's "try again" approach.

You're still guilty of ad hominem yourself by attempting to imply that George's proposal is not ridiculous because the speaker used ad hominem. No way around it.

You don't need to make an argument against the ridiculousness of George's proposal when the original argument for the ridiculousness is ad hominem. Nor do you deflect. You simply shoot down the ad hominem, and tell the speaker to make another argument.

No I didn't, at least not until I added this example in an explicit yet futile attempt to educate you on the correct use of the phrase in question:


See the difference between attacking a person vs. attacking a person's argument?

I doubt you can.  If you were capable of abstract thought and critical reasoning you wouldn't be going around spreading FUD about libertarians!   

/first two ad homs are free on Mondays