My first stab @ meta-blogging is with an excellent rebuttal by David Z. of No Third Solution to Critiques of Libertarianism: A Non-Libertarian FAQ by Mike Huben, concerning libertarianism, which some may have had either the pleasure or the groaning over reading.

I remember getting a link to this FAQ a while ago via an email, back when emailing random links was considered "cool" and possibly even efficient (circa -2000 A.D. ?).

Web 2.0 kiddies: this was well before the invention of mass blogging & social networking (Huben's FAQ originated in 1997).

This was also before AOL & Compuserve lost their collective balls in a few rounds of roshambo with ConCast & Spyrizon ;D

Written intercourse aside, here are some notable excerpts:

Huben also thinks that Taxation is theft is a lousy argument.

The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it.

Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it?

...This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the government is a holder in trust for natural resources.

Ah, yes… “If you presume [insert inter-subjective assumptions, here] then you must agree with me!”

When property is claimed by a first-owner, no threat is made or implied.

No force, no threat of force is needed, until someone else attempts to forcibly relieve him of his enjoyment of that property.

This can only be justified by a belief in property. As Friedman notes, the argument that “theft” can exist absent a coherent definition of “property” is patently retarded.

...

Huben believes you should “love it, or leave it.”

This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

For example, let’s say you live in a condominium…

Not this again!

Of course this is a “love it or leave it” argument. I prefer to couch it in less friendly terms, since it’s actually an “If you don’t like it, get the f**k out!” argument.

The dissenter is always presumed wrong, even though it is (arguably) his country, too (at least partially).

There are two sides to any disagreement. That one side happens to be popularly held does not substantiate it morally, ethically, etc. I do not like certain aspects of the social contract, other people do.

Or, to put it another way, other people don’t agree with my social contract. Why don’t they have to leave it?

If you start by evicting everyone who disagrees, all you’re left with is people who agree, which virtually ensures the State’s perpetuation, and further impedes the (misguided) notion that reform can happen from within.

Everyone who wants meaningful reform has been shown the door.

Charming way to run a society, isn’t it?

So, why should we be obliged to accept the social contract? Why can’t we be left alone?

You are not coerced to accept US government services any more than you are coerced to rent or purchase a place to live.

If pretty much all territory is owned by governments, and pretty much all houses and apartments are owned, well, did you want them to grow on trees?

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

The government owns everything, and we are merely tenants. Thanks, you just gave everyone the Reader’s Digest definition of feudalism.

Who owns the government?

Some contend that, OK, we’d leave but there’s no libertarian state, so we’ve got nowhere to go.

This concedes the basic challenge to the “love it or leave it” argument, and as such, it’s another bad libertarian argument.

Huben picks the low-hanging fruit:

There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emigrate.

They are the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no over-government dictating to those sovereign nations.

Nice try.

With few exceptions (Sealand, anyone?) all of these countries were established through violence and conquest.

None of them were founded on anything remotely approaching a “free market”, and none of them recognize an individual’s right to sovereignty, as would a free market.

The free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want.

It’s not competitive.

Stop poisoning the well with terms like “the free market of government services.”

The only people who want a “free lunch” are those who seek to offload the costs of their lifestyle choices onto others.

In economics, this is now as a negative externality, and it is commonly associated with the so-called tragedy of the commons.

Again, you can read the rest of the FAQ here: http://www.nothirdsolution.com/non-libertarian-faq/.

Also recommended for any curious Democrat / Republican / Apathetic Voters out there.

I'd think a good place to start strengthening (or challenging?) your own arguments would be with the aforementioned FAQ's in the above.

I mean honestly, libertarians are just getting tired of the "what about the poor?!?!" arguments; here's your chance to make the dialogue a little better next time you log on to Reddit, & flaunt those Positive Rights of yours.

* I took the liberty (more puns to come) of adding Wikipedia links for better hallway vision.

Cheers,

N

Labels: commentary, libertarianism, promo