I am disappointed, Issodhos
, but not surprised, that nothing you have responded with in your previous post is actually responsive to my post. I see assumptions, conjectures, excuses, and insults, but no substantive response. Let me be more explicit:
That aside, your concern over libertarian thought not being a “governing” philosophy compared to the current master/slave system you currently support, NWP, could be clouding your objectivity.
Wow, in one sentence, a veritable treasure trove of fallacious argument (e.g., Nizkor Project - fallacies
), misdirection (non-sequitur), aspersion (ad hominem), strawman... (See, 1, 13, 17, 23, 27, 41... impressive) - but I detect no substantive response. To which I respond: 1) I did not make a comparative claim (strawman/false dilemma); 2) There is nothing clouding my objectivity (ad hominem); 3) nor did I reference or subscribe to a "master/slave system" (non-sequitur/appeal to ridicule/false dilemma, etc., etc.)
I am interested in (and was discussing) effectiveness.
I posited that nothing in "libertarianism" is effective - merely ephemeral. I still see nothing provided to rebut that, and I certainly appreciate the difficulty in doing so, as I reiterate - libertarianism is philosophically bereft of substance.
I have no need to "get together with Phil" over my personal critique (which assertion appears to be a crude combination of ad hominem
attack and guilt by association of some sort). I think I have provided plenty of specifics to which you could have responded
but chose, instead to belittle, obfuscate, and elude rather than respond. Which leads to...
I will then decide how I choose to answer.
I never expected anything else. You can choose to answer or not, as I am free to critique whatever response is provided. I merely pointed out the lack of substance to the responses so far provided as indicative
of the lack of substance to the underlying philosophy. As an approach, I opined that libertarianism is not prone to specificity, because individual problems - even relatively straightforward ones like roadways and hospitals - are too complex for the simplistic solutions that are "libertarian" in nature. My use of roadways and hospitals were merely specific exemplars demonstrating the point.
As to a government-caused need for the Department of Homeland Security, actions have consequences. When we play in other people’s back yard, they sometimes decide to come over and play in our back yard.
This is an amalgamation of causation fallacies. First, asserting that the DHS is "government caused," assuming without basis that there was no outside influence, asserting rather that it was only our "playing in other people's back yard" that inspired it, none of which is actually causally linked in any appreciable manner. This is followed by the leap to assert that a libertarian approach would be different because - "A libertarian-based foreign policy would be focused on cultural exchange and trade in line with a policy of not initiating aggression against others." Of course, that begs the question as to how that is unique from, for example, a liberal approach to foreign policy, or a traditionally conservative approach, or even an isolationist approach. Other than the Bush administration and other fascist-oriented (definitionally) regimes, aggression is not a hallmark of any other particular political philosophy.
As to the piffle about police, military, courts and such...
Piffle? I point out that the there is no effective way of engaging in these activities in a "libertarian" mode, and you deride that as piffle? AH, I understand.... because you have no substantive response, and prefer more ridicule to responsiveness?
Let me be succinct: I assert that libertarianism does not provide a practical solution to ordinary problems of human relations on either the micro (local governance) or macro (national governance) scale.
I have provided specific examples of circumstances where I believe a libertarian approach can be demonstrated to be ineffective and impractical. I have yet to see identified a single example where that is not the case, ergo
, libertarianism is an impracticable approach to human interaction/governance (outside of the formation of clubs). In short: It is a "nice idea" in theory, but has no practical application in the real world.