In a review of Tom Woods Meltdown, one Herbert Gintis said:
"With all due respect, sir, why are you and your colleagues not just one more set of visionaries whose vision is a social impossibility? I repeat: there is no credible model of market dynamics and equilibrium that shows markets plus private property alone is a viable system."
And along the same lines another guy I'm debating said "you have the same problem that communists have, but on the far right extreme instead of the left. They are utopians (idealists). Communism and Libertarianism sound great, in theory, but could never actually work because there are too many selfish assholes in the world."
How do you respond to this common argument?
What makes you think putting a group of these same selfish assholes in charge of the state will produce desireable results?
Our 'theory' takes man's faults and limitations into account. We support institutions which check selfishness and ignorance, as they do, but we believe the state is not a necessary institution and often worsens these social problems.
Often these comments are nothing more than the golden mean fallacy. They imagine a line with laissez-faire on one end and full state control on the other, and then reason that the ideal situation is somewhere in the middle. It's a very appealing argument which allows them to easily dismiss us crazy libertarians and avoid really grappling with our arguments.
The only real way you can deal with such an idiotic generalization is by bringing it into specifics. Deal with each objection individually. If you really want to have this debate you'll have to ask "exactly what 'wouldn't work' about a libertarian society?"
Odds are you'll have trouble getting an answer, or they'll throw out an example of how it won't lead to Nirvana. That's essentially 90%+ of objection to libertarian suggestions...the straw man of : "Oh yeah? And how is that supposed to ensure that no one gets mugged? What would you do about x? See? Your whole system doesn't work."
Michael J Green:Our 'theory' takes man's faults and limitations into account. We support institutions which check selfishness and ignorance, as they do, but we believe the state is not a necessary institution and often worsens these social problems. Often these comments are nothing more than the golden mean fallacy. They imagine a line with laissez-faire on one end and full state control on the other, and then reason that the ideal situation is somewhere in the middle. It's a very appealing argument which allows them to easily dismiss us crazy libertarians and avoid really grappling with our arguments.
I can't help but notice that this seems to be an Overton-window gambit as well - "Let's put our ideological opponents at two opposite ends of an imaginary line and put ourselves in the middle. Then we call our opponents 'extremists', thereby painting ourselves as reasonable!"
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Plus, communism DOESN"T work even in theory. Thats what I would argue, when people try and throw out the "well, sure, it sounds good in theory, but so does communism" Don't let people get away with that garbage. And then point out that our theories are not based on perfect competition or any crazy assumptions or models of the world.
I know Im from the other side of the aisle than you guys, regretably. But when I get confronted with that, I just counter "why don't we try it first, and then decide if it works or not."
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Laotzu del Zinn:I know Im from the other side of the aisle than you guys...
Please look up "political false dichotomy".
Or at least watch this video.
But when I get confronted with that, I just counter "why don't we try it first, and then decide if it works or not."
That has got to be the most dangerous, childish, idiotic idea I have ever heard.
Not only does it work in theory, it also works in practice. Just look all around you. At this moment what is the state providing you? What is the market providing you?
Why am I refraining from punching you in the nose? Why aren't we having this consverstion in that room over there marked 'keep out, employees only'? Why did that lady over there hold the door open for the stranger walking behind her? Why doesn't this very sharp pencil have a government mandated warning label stamped on it?
Do you really believe big brother is looking out for you?
Aren't we adults? Do we really need a big brother?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
John James: If you really want to have this debate you'll have to ask "exactly what 'wouldn't work' about a libertarian society?"
If you really want to have this debate you'll have to ask "exactly what 'wouldn't work' about a libertarian society?"
Thank you all for the help. When Gintis says that it wouldn't work because "there is no credible model of market dynamics and equilibrium that shows markets plus private property alone is a viable system," I'm not sure how to answer him. I haven't studied any economic models. Is there one I can point to?
Conza's clip is perfect for what you're looking for. As an addition, I would also point to these...
"The True Nature of Taxation" (related thread here)
Tell him that the popular "practicality of the liberal intellectual" works well in theory but not in practice.