tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post380698569492667091..comments2023-04-03T19:10:54.088-04:00Comments on Critiques Of Libertarianism: The Denialists' Deck of CardsMike Hubenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-46086451937870570822007-04-03T13:09:00.000-04:002007-04-03T13:09:00.000-04:00"Only a dim reader would take my points as either ..."Only a dim reader would take my points as either a defense (or criticism) AEI or CATO."<BR/><BR/>So, what kind of bright reader sees a blog titled "Critiques of Libertarianism" and expects it to be equally hard on all political ideologies?<BR/><BR/>Since this blog and this blog post is about libertarian rhetoric, let's focus on <EM>that</EM>; there's no need to try and derail it. Either CATO and AEI's arguments are sound, or they are not. And if they're not sound, then Huben is basically right.<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://zompower.tk/" REL="nofollow">http://zompower.tk/</A>bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-17028865253609797132007-04-03T09:57:00.000-04:002007-04-03T09:57:00.000-04:00Cato and AEI tells lies, Public Citizen tells lies...Cato and AEI tells lies, Public Citizen tells lies, therefore Cato and AEI are right? That's some great reasoning isn't it?<BR/><BR/>John, I wonder if you aren't trying to pull off another "Clinton did it too!" ( http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008764.html ). The objective isn't to defend your own position, but to attack the opposing positions with, "Your Side Did It Too!" (Whether the other side actually did that isn't important. After all, who needs facts?) So you use fallacies, and they use fallacies, then -- bam! -- suddenly that means you're right! Magic!<BR/><BR/>-- bi, http://zompower.tk/bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-75425548887530898882007-04-02T05:18:00.000-04:002007-04-02T05:18:00.000-04:00Remarkable that you had to go back 42 years to fin...Remarkable that you had to go back 42 years to find an example: that is if we agree with you.<BR/><BR/>But what about the rest of Nader's book, Unsafe At Any Speed? Was he right that auto safety could be improved?Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-74427163054056569972007-04-01T14:29:00.000-04:002007-04-01T14:29:00.000-04:00John, I don't think it would be possible to make s...John, I don't think it would be possible to make such a "grand unified theory": if only because there are so many different, contradictory libertarianisms.<BR/><BR/>Even if I restricted myself to one well-defined libertarian position (and I doubt that really exists.) based on good reasoning, some libertarian holding that position might make an argument whose assumptions, reasoning, or result I agree with.<BR/><BR/>CATO and AEI are fundamentally organizations which apply public relations techniques to promote viewpoints in ways that are essentially fraudulent or subrational. See my index <A HREF="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/discuss.html" REL="nofollow">So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....</A><BR/><BR/>Of course these ideas could be applied to criticize Public Citizen and other consumerist, populist, or liberal groups IF they were applying public relations techniques instead of straightforward rational advocacy.<BR/><BR/>But what we see from CATO and AEI is truly grotesque.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.com