Having looked extensively into the tenets, roots, and motivations of Libertarianism, it's a pretty solid, if sad, conclusion of mine. I've yet to find anyone who can effectively explain it defend their stance.
The roots in highly discredited laissez faire beliefs, social Darwinism, fascism,racism, and industrialist interventions, to say nothing of the utter rediculousness of Von Mises' Praxeology, the vast disinformation apparatus, and intentional misrepresentation of the foundations of economics only ice the cake.
The parent wasn't disagreeing with any factual claim you were making, but to puerile name-calling. Unless there is a serious "Libertardian" tradition of thought that I've missed, your response here doesn't address that - you can call someone wrong without calling them names.
you can call someone wrong without calling them names
There's ... a lot of history behind that term. As my follow-up indicates, there's a lot of ground to cover in addressing my criticisms, something that would probably take up a good chapter or two of a book (if not more). Which I may well write.
My experiences in both dealing with present-day defenders of Libertarianism and in going to its roots, foundations, and the considerable machinations behind it have lead me to conclude that most of those who defend the tradition 1) fail to understand it and/or know its roots, 2) lack the ability to do so, 3) are paid for their opinions, and/or 4) fully understand the inherent contradictions but find it convenient and in their interest to promulgate a false philosophy for their own benefit. The upshot is that the debate simply isn't an honest one. At which point the respect I show rapidly dwindles.
David Brin's one of the more eloquent critics I've run across of late (he's written a number of pieces on G+ and his blog in recent months). James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed goes into foundations of Libertarian philosophy with Sumner and Spencer. Episode 8, "Fit to Rule", I'd recommend the whole episode, but you can skip forward around 30 minutes to pick up the meat. Studying the evolution of economic thought reveals that laissez-faire was considered all but discredited by the early 20th century (ironically, it was Keynes whose book on the subject seemed to most revive interest, judging by the Google Books Ngram viewer). RationalWiki's page on Austrian school economics is another good starting point.
Your posts continue to be dominated by argument for the subject matter, when we are now discussing discourse. Restricting my discussion our point of contention:
"There's ... a lot of history behind that term."
There is practically no history behind the term "libertardian": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=libertardian - there is arguably history behind libertarians being wrong (which is what you go on to talk about), but that does not in any way motivate the specific term.
"My experiences in both dealing with present-day defenders of Libertarianism and in going to its roots, foundations, and the considerable machinations behind it have lead me to conclude that most of those who defend the tradition 1) fail to understand it and/or know its roots, 2) lack the ability to do so, 3) are paid for their opinions, and/or 4) fully understand the inherent contradictions but find it convenient and in their interest to promulgate a false philosophy for their own benefit."
And considering those people, which of them are going to be inclined to "see the light" because you called them a "libertardian"? How many are just going to stop listening to you? How many non-libertarians are going to start ignoring your criticisms of libertarianism because you are being disrespectful and offputting?
"At which point the respect I show rapidly dwindles."
And the point at which you stop showing respect is the point at which I start calling you out for it on HN.
1. Brin is absolutely correct in noting that Libertarians don't read or understand Smith (neither do most economists, but that's another story, see Gavin Kennedy for detailed scholarship on the "invisible hand").
2. Theodore Minick exhibits a very frequently encountered tactic of redefining well-defined terms to suit his argument (and failing to provide those definitons). When I pull out a half dozen or so dictionary definitions that discredit his use, his response is "the accepted definition also conflates 'market' and 'marketplace'". Sorry, but if you can't agree on base facts, you've got no grounds for discussion. You've just got a Lewis Carroll "glory".
3. Another respondent claims that Reason.org references Smith often. So I search for references ... and find that most are blithe (and inaccurate based on scholarship) references to the "invisible hand" and little else. Which is to say: the leading Libertarian publication similarly gets its facts and relevance almost entirely wrong.
And as I said: the experience is far too frequently repeated. Any respect I had has long since been extinguished.
As I think I've said, but may've neglected, I've absolutely no problem with you arguing your point (either directly or through secondary sources). I only object to lack of respect which makes my job harder when I need to criticize someone's position, because I run the risk of sounding like you.
If I've resorted to "Libertardian" (and I do that fairly frequently) within a discussion, it's usually an indication that I've reached one of the many impasses I all-too-frequently encounter. And am indicating that Gish galloping, factual and logical errors, argumentum ad nauseum, and similar tactics, are all being indicated but won't be specifically addressed, simply because that serves no use.
As I said: my usual goal in those discussions is to see if there's any merit at all to either the arguments of, or discourse with, a specific person. I've yet to be convinced.
When I repeatedly call out an individual's failings (Noel Yap would be another G+ instance) and they never once apologize or admit error ... again, any last shred of respect has been lost. In his case I'd largely taken to deleting his idiotic comments to my own posts, and finally just blocked him -- the idiocy was too much to take. The icing in his case was repeatedly failing to read or comprehend the text directly before him to which he was responding.
When I make a glaring error, and am called on it, I admit it and appreciate the correction. I don't insist on being wrong.
Learn from others, help them learn from me, and together approach truth in our understandings of the world. When people feel attacked, they shut down. Associating arguments with attacks does poor things to human wetware.
I can help someone learn but I can't make them learn. As a post in my Diaspora stream noted, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".
Sometimes the truth I arrive at is that someone is an idiot (deliberately or otherwise) and that a belief system is wrong.
I've already noted several of the problems I've encountered (non-intellectual motivations / tactical stupidity). The other is the sheer volume of crap most Libertarian's I've run into believe (or at least profess). As I said, I may (and likely will) address it in written form. But it's akin to dealing with climate denialists, creationists, flat-earthers, and others who are vested in an illogical and counterfactual belief system. Very simply not worth the effort.
I'm not asking you to argue; I'm asking you not to call people names, especially when they're wrong. It's not just unproductive, it's counterproductive.
Counterproductive as compared with what? Repeatedly and deliberately ignoring and / or misrepresenting facts and reason?
Trust me: in cases where this gets used it's already a lost cause.
Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" showed that sometimes ridicule is precisely the right tool for the job. No, he didn't change the minds of those he was portraying, but he clearly demonstrated to everyone else the reality. Stewart and Colbert continue his tradition.
Counterproductive in the sense of making it harder for people in general to get closer to the truth, and so increasing the chances of basing our policy decisions on something other than the truth, resulting in outcomes we don't want - individually or collectively (in so far as a collective can be said to want).
Counterproductive in the sense of making it harder for people in general to get closer to the truth
I disagree. In noting that a doctrine has no foundation, bearing, or interest in the truth or verifiability, you're saving a lot of wasted time and breath.
As for collectives, last I checked most humans were collectives of a few trillion or so individual cells, comprising multiple gene lines and species.
"As for collectives, last I checked most humans were collectives of a few trillion or so individual cells, comprising multiple gene lines and species.
Do you want?"
When we say "want" we are, when not speaking metaphorically, speaking at the level of the individual. Call this want1. Want1 is not constructed from a collection of want0s of my individual cells, but follows from specific constructions of cells designed to want1. The existence of a want2 was something I wanted to limit my stipulation of - I make no strong claim of its absence. Constructing it from collected want1s often leads to things like circular preferences, though, so there are clearly at least some caveats.
"I disagree. In noting that a doctrine has no foundation, bearing, or interest in the truth or verifiability, you're saving a lot of wasted time and breath."
You are forgetting that you're dealing with actual people.
There is practically no history behind the term "libertardian"
I should have clarified: personal history.
That said, I thought I was being original when I coined it and found (with some satisfaction) that I wasn't.
Convincing people of their follies isn't my primary goal. Understanding their follies and the dynamics behind them are. While I generally don't launch into discussions spewing "libertardian" (present instance being an exception), I do use the term. More often in referring to the philosophy and those who claim adherence to it (itself fraught given the lack of cohesion it and they exhibit).
Of the four cases of adherents I describe, only one is likely to be persuaded by facts and/or reason anyway, typical of any other faith-based religion which puts belief over evidence. So my success rate would of necessity be quite limited.
And the point at which you stop showing respect is the point at which I start calling you out for it on HN.
As I said: the lack of respect for facts and reason (of which there's a long personal history), and the tedium in repeatedly plowing that ground, is why I've resorted to a memetic shortcut which encapsulates if not elucidates the fundamental flaw. That said, while acknowledging your call out, it doesn't in the last bother me for the reasons stated above.
