This should be called Critiques of *Libertarians*, since it spends
99% of the time complaining about libertarian debate tactics ands 1%
actually discussing libertarian philosophy, attempting to blur the
line between the two, hoping the naive reader will be fooled into
thinking that you have valid arguments against Libertarianism.

But since you are so in love with this little piece of silliness
that you post it repeatedly, I will return the favor and repeat my
response:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Feel free to compare and contrast this to, say, a Republican or
a Democrat or a member of the Reform Party.  What are their core beliefs?
What, in the end, do they stand for?  Apparently, their beliefs are
"it's my turn to drive now!" -- with no apparent destination in mind.

As flawed as it was, the original United States, back when it first
started, was fairly close to Libertarian (that slavery thing was a
serious mistake!).  Would anyone argue that the US is a failure?  Compare
this to "anti-libertarian" states, like the USSR and Cuba.  Does
anyone really believe that _more government_ looks good when held
up to the light of history?

Subject the philosophy of others to even a fraction of this scrutiny
demanded here, and it falls down much more quickly than libertarian
beliefs.  Would you hold those who believe in smaller government to
_higher_ standards, despite all the obvious failures of _too much_
government through the ages?

This can be debated as an academic exercise, but really doesn't
have much bearing on libertarianism.  Libertarianism is
based on a few simple principles, not on "the founding fathers".
Debating whether they would agree or not with a partiucular position
may be great fun, but not particularly relevant.  This is also true
for arguments about the Supreme Court and the Dec. of Ind.

In other words, the libertarians are right, but historically those
who crave power over the lives of others have been able to use
government to get their way.   What's sad is that some people will
believe that this is a reflection on libertarianism, rather than on
statism.

This is discussed endlessly on the groups.  Anyone who is interested
in this tired subject should look there for both sides.

Agreeing to be governed is not the same as waiving your fundamental
rights.  If the SC decided that free speech is no longer in the
constitution, are we to quietly put up with it?  This is where
libertarians are different than the "mushy" philosophies:  libertarians
support consistent respect for the rights of indivduals -- not just when
it is politically popular or politically expedient.

The difference, of course, is when the US "unilaterally" changes the
rules, it affects 260,000,000 people, and then, there is nowhere
to go.  Libertarians, in general, believe in voting with your feet,
but minimizing the difference between switching condos and switching
job, friends, and country is just an "argument in desperation".

Oh, look, here it is now.  Having to move six blocks because you
can't get 30 people to agree with you is "analogous" to having
to move 2000 miles and learning a new language because you can't get
260,000,000 people to agree with you.

Sorry, analogies don't stretch that far, even under the most
liberal definitions.  The author of such a claim doesn't believe it
any more than libertarians; it is just a last ditch attempt to
distract rom the real issues.

Yet, opponents of libertariansism frequently claim that they
can "provide" houses/food/medicine/whatever for free, without
infringing on the rights of others, because "the government will
require it".  Sure.

And yet, oddly enough, this "prize piece of libertarian rhetoric" is
more frequently proposed by _opponents_ of libertarianism than
by libertarians themselves....

I have not seen a libertarian make such a claim, so enjoy your
inflatable date!

Comparing the changes that just formalize accepted practice or
are put in for safety reasons to those in which a politically
connected group gets their vision of utopia enforced into law at
the expense of a few is another not-so-subtle trick to evade the
real issues at hand.  By claiming that things that most libertarians
don't object to is the same as those that they do, you have again
set up a strawman, and may auto-eroticize on it all you like.

Most libertarians have thought about this and would be happy to pay
for things they actually use via user fees.  This can be compared to
the statists who want _others_ to pay for the things _they_ want,
whether the others will use it or may even be opposed to it.

I'll admit, this is frequently ignored.  But a little logic shows the
fundamental reason behind the "taxes makes us poorer" claim.  There is
a certain amount of money to be spent on things.  Each person can
decide what they want to spend it on, or the money can be
sent to Washington with the hope that the politicians, after they take
their cut, will pick the right thing for us.  "Politicians making
decisions" is not a good that most people want or an end unto itself,
therefore, the money spent on that is wasted.  If nothing else, we will
be poorer by that amount due to taxes.  And if they make the wrong
decision (i.e., helium reserves), we are poorer by that amount, too.
So unless you can claim that the federal government can meet the
desires of 260,000,000 people better than those people can do it
themselves, taxes are a drain on society.

The total burden was significantly less than today.

So, becuase society is more complicated, a few central planners are now more
able to make decisions for the masses?  I would like to see the
defense of this incredible claim!

Encoding the "commonly accepted" definition of ownership and force
into law is hardly the same as encoding the right of you to take my
money for a project that I have no interest in!  Once again, the blurring of
two clearly distinct concepts should be dismissed as the sillinesss that
it is.

Do you mean practical reasons like "I don't like it when you do that"?
There is no questions that rights often collide.  That is the point
of government.  What libertarians object to are laws that regulate
the rights of others to *behave peacefully and cooperatively* when
such behavior *has no effect on others equal rights*.

Your argument here seems to be "Because there are power hungry people
who have corrupted governments everywhere, we should just live with the
corruption and be happy with it".  I don't buy such a lame argument,
and I doubt if many people will.

Libertarians are actively trying all tacts -- large scale, small scale,
theoretical, pragmatic.  But no matter how many working examples are
provided, or how clear the effects, people opoose the plan due to
a remote "what if" scenario -- usually one that occurs *due to* statism!

This has nothing to do with libertarianism and is really just name
calling.  If there are people with such views, they are nutcases, and
exisit in all parties.  Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat -- does that
make "Democratism" (whatever that would be) invalid?

Most of your discussion under this heading falls into the "some
libertarians are bad at arguing".  Big whoop.  You're not so good yourself...

Again, your arguments fall into the "some people can't argue" category.
Mostly the reason a particular book is recommended is because people
get tired of discussing the types of strawmen that you happily
refer to in this FAQ by people who don't even know what libertarianism is!

Ok, would you be happier, if, instead of "force and fraud", libertarians
said "force fraud and theft"?

Now you are getting into semantic games.  Government *IS* the set of
things that we authorize the use of force for.  Libertarians think
this set of things should be minimized.  Statists think it should
be adjusted to suit _their_ personal needs.  

I sort of agree with you here.  Slavery was not government enforcement of
slavery, it was a failure of the government to endorse civil rights
for all persons.  It is certainly not libertarian.  If your morality
is that blacks are not people, there may even be logic to slavery.
Fortunately, this nation came to it's senses and decided to acknowledge
that slaves were humans, thereby reversing the government failures
of the past.

But even in unbiased questionaires, the number of libertarians far
exceeds the expectations of pollsters, and, in fact, the majority
of the population mistrusts the government.

That's because libertarians can't rent out the Lincoln Bedroom or
give rides on Air Force One as an "outreach (read: evangelism) tool".

Yet.

I'll agree, it's sort of a silly claim, although probably no more
silly than things the D&Rs repeat regularly (see, e.g., mandatory
volunteerism, a 5% increase is a "cut" if 30% was previously threatened).

Calling somebody who believes that government can solve the problems
of 260,000,000 diverse and dispersed individuals better than the
individuals themselves a "statist" isn't an ad-hominen attack, it
is the word that is used to describe people who believe the state
functions better than cooperative individuals.  If you feel this is
an attack, could it be that you are embarrassed by the philosophy it
encompasses?  Would you really rather have people type "those who
think government can solve problems better than individuals think...."
instead of "statists think....".  If you are embarrassed by your
philosophy, don't come cryin' round here.

You don't see Libertarians claiming that the use of the word
"Libertarian" is an ad-hominen attack.

Since I don't use quotes to try to score points, I almost agree.  Of
course, the statists are happy to resort to quotes when it suits
their whims, as you did earlier on in this propaganda piece.   You
weren't attempting to "misdirect and channel" our thoughts, were you?

And therefore not worth attempting?  Are you claiming that, since
perfect libertarianism can't be reached, we just may as well accept
full scale socialism?  What is the point of this comment?

Same questions:  since Jefferson, and early proponent of Libertarian
ideas, had human flaws, should we just dismiss the philosophy?  I
don't think fans of Clinton, Gingrich, Rostenkowski, etc, etc, want
to get into that game.  You'll lose in a big way.

I don't and won't.

???? Your response makes no sense whatsoever.  This thing is too damn
long already, why include something you have no response to?

Have you done an analysis of newsnet posts and/or other debate forums
to arrive at the conclusion that Libertarians do this more than others,
or are you just taking cheap shots to beef up the size of your
article, hoping that it will give you credibillity?

You completely (and I suspect intentionally) missed the point:  you
can't take credit for your charitable ways if the extent of your
charitable ways is spending other people's money, through force of law.
That's not charity, it's hypocrisy.

And once again, a statist tries to blur the distincintion between
voluntary cooperation and coercion.  It's sad, really.

Actually, I've only seen in used in the context of "we have that exact
same problem under statism, plus many others that are *caused by* the
statism, so why are you holding libertarians to a higher standard than
you hold yourself?"

When a law can be shown to cause direct and avoidable harm, sitting
around waiting for a case to occur, somewhere, in which that harm
was avoided due to not having the law seems like a painful means
of progress.  What about the needless victims in the meantime?

This is the point the libertarians are trying to make.  No, you cannot
vote to take my money to pay for your pet project, just because you
need/want a big screen TV.  No, you can not stop me from writing a book
with the F-word in it because you are offended by that word.

Libertarians believe in individual rights, not group rights.  Statists
of all flavors just want _their_ opinions codified into law, at
the expense of those who disagree.

All in all, the essay had little to add to the discussion.  The
arguments boil down to a few types:

  1) Libertarians are occasionally bad arguers, sometimes using flawed
     logic or using quotes.  No attempt is made to show that these
     things are more common among libertarians than among others.
     This is just presented as an attack tactic, which, oddly enough,
     suffers from the very flaws it decries.  You attempt to blend
     this argument in with a description of Libertarianism, hoping
     that if the message is presented simultaneously with attacks
     on the messenger, you can discredit both.  Fortunately, most
     people are more clever than to fall for such a shallow trick.

  2) There isn't a libertarian country, so it must be a bad idea.
     Why the fact that "power corrupts" is a reflection on the
     philosophy that wishes to limit such power is not explained.

  3) Libertarians want to use force, too.  This is one of the few
     interesting and valid points in the essay, although the essay
     completely ignores the fact that Libertarians are the ones who
     prefer to point this out.  Libertarians wish to *make explicit*
     the government's use of force.  If all laws were discussed in
     the context of "Would you be willing to haul your mother off
     to jail to acheive this social goal?", we would have made
     some real progress.  It is the statists attempt to deny this
     use of force that allows many ridiculous laws/programs to
     exist at all.

  4) The arguments that blur the distinction between two radically
     different things, e.g., cooperation = coercion, or moving
     six blocks = moving 2000 miles to a new country, or getting
     20 people to agree is the same as getting 260,000,000 to agree.
     These arguments are last grasps to score points by playing
     semantic games.  The best response to such arguments is pity,
     as in "I'm sorry you couldn't think of anything intelligent
     to say"

  5) Some Libertarians are confused/not perfect/weird/whatever.  This,
     of course, has nothing to do with the philosophy, and is just
     an example of attacking the messenger when no valid arguments
     can be found.  I don't really think this is a game that statists
     should be happy to engage in, since, just by sheer probablility,
     based on quantity, they have more nutcases/losers/whiners/whatever
     than the libertarians.  In fact, if you really want to get down
     to it, libertarians tend to be _more_ educated and stable than
     the general population.  It is only through the kindness of
     their hearts that they tolerate, legally and morally, the
     loonies in the other parties and continue to support the civil
     rights of those others -- something the statists are not likely
     to do for others.