The Freedom Minute

Who Wants to Be a Master Debater?

On Sunday I was at a friend’s house for an Academy Awards viewing party. I generally don’t care much about who wins the Oscars, and this year in particular we all knew which film was going to take away the lion’s share of the awards. But I like visiting my friend and his wife and they were so very kind to include us, so we went.

During one of the commercial breaks, I happened to be talking to my friend about the state of the economy and mentioned in passing my libertarian leanings. One of the other couples there immediately took great umbrage at my statement. The wife pronounced that (I’m paraphrasing) “libertarianism can’t work because under such a system there’s no common property and you can’t have a functioning society without a commons such as roads etc.” I pointed out that I never claimed that I was in favor of a society in which there was no commons and that by attacking me on that point she was making a Straw Man argument (claiming I said something I didn’t say and then arguing against it). She apparently didn’t want to engage me further to explore what I did advocate because she simply walked away in a huff. As a result, I never got the chance to explain why she also happened to be wrong about her absolute assertion that a commons is necessary for a society to function.

Then her husband chimed in.

I immediately knew I was in trouble with this guy because the first thing he said was “Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke dope, get laid, and (something else I can’t recall now)”. Clearly this was an attempt to demonize libertarians by a) calling them Republicans (as if that somehow means you’re a bad person) and b) suggesting that if you engaged in or approve of those activities, you’re morally bankrupt and your opinions are to be dismissed. Now I honestly don’t believe he came up with this little ditty all by himself; he must have heard it somewhere and decided to parrot it because he thought it made him seem clever. On the contrary, using an Ad Hominem attack rather than using real, logical arguments simply shows you to be intellectually lazy. Plus, if he though that somehow he was insulting me, he was wrong because a) libertarians are not Republicans, they’re libertarians and b) I do believe you should be able to smoke dope and have as much sex as you want without interference from your neighbors (i.e. the government). And I think I’m right.

He then declared that libertarianism can’t work as a political model for a society because no completely libertarian society has ever existed. I hope anyone reading this can immediately see how silly that type of argument is. (He couldn’t.) I responded that no large scale purely libertarian society has yet existed, partly because it’s never really been tried. He then said it hasn’t been tried because libertarian societies don’t work. It’s pretty hard to debate someone who engages in circular reasoning. It’s even more frustrating when you point out what they’re doing and they refuse to see it.

Furthermore, I tried to explain, I wasn’t advocating for a “purely” libertarian society, just one that was more libertarian than the one we have now. He refused to acknowledge my clarification of my views and insisted that if I was a libertarian I must believe this, that, and the other thing – all of which he went on to claim were wrong, couldn’t work, etc. I tried to explain that, like his wife, he was making a straw man argument and to have an intellectually honest discussion, you don’t get to do that. Again, the point was lost on him. So, I figured I’d try once more to explain why his previous claim that libertarianism can’t work as a political model for a society because no completely libertarian society has ever existed, isn’t proof of anything. I said that, using his reasoning, prior to the successful founding of the United States, a critic could have claimed that “since the type of democracy the founding fathers are advocating hasn’t existed before, it can’t work”. And we now know how wrong such a critic would have been.

He then went on to try to prove me wrong by saying that ancient Greece had a democracy and therefore my example didn’t hold up. I tried to explain that, once again, he was making a straw man argument. In my example, I didn’t say the critic would have claimed that “no democracy had ever existed before”. Rather, I said the critic could have claimed that “the type of democracy being advocated by our founding fathers” hadn’t existed before. He had again changed my argument and then attacked his distorted version of my position.

Furthermore, I said, “my critique of your faulty logic still stands even if you’re claiming that Ancient Greece was the first democracy”. In that case, we use Ancient Greece as the first instance of democracy. And, prior to the institution of a democratic government there, any claim that democracy couldn’t work because it had never existed is revealed to be an equally silly argument. Apparently this was too much for him to understand because he kept claiming I said “no democracy had ever existed before”, and because he could prove that wrong, he was entitled to dismiss my entire point.

So let’s summarize – Basically his arguments boiled down to:

The Straw Man

Libertarianism as I define it means that you believe X, Y, Z.
X, Y, Z is wrong (can’t work, has the following flaws, etc). Therefore, you’re wrong.

Circular Reasoning
Libertarianism doesn’t work. I can prove that because no completely libertarian society has every existed. No completely libertarian society has ever existed because no completely libertarian society has ever been tried. No completely libertarian society has ever been tried because libertarianism doesn’t work. Therefore libertarianism doesn’t work.

I finally gave up trying to talk sense to this guy and went back into the den to watch Slumdog Millionaire sweep the Oscars.

By the way, there are some limited historical examples of workable libertarian societies. Go here to read a short summary about them. And here for a very detailed article.

Also, just for completeness, I want to point out that his (and his wife’s) initial statement that “libertarian societies can’t work” is meaningless unless you define “can’t work”. Do they mean a) will collapse after X period of time? How long is X? b) can’t be formed in the first place? c) would not be a just society? d) would not be a pleasant society to live in? etc. You must define your terms. Generalities like “can’t work” have no place in intelligent, logical discussions.

And for those of you who might think it a bit boorish to argue political philosophy at my friend’s Oscar party, I agree. But I didn’t start the debate with this guy and his wife. I was talking to my friend and they chimed in, rather rudely I might add.  I certainly couldn’t let their ridiculous and fallacious attacks against my beliefs to go unchallenged.

February 25th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Libertarian Philosophy | no comments