>3) “Human liberties inherently clash and it requires political compromise to solve this”. This appears to assume something like the zero-sum conception of *liberty as understood by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). But the main libertarian approach to liberty (here theorised as minimising initiated impositions) is not zero-sum but overwhelmingly compossible.
I agree, but it's worse than that. The claim refuted is ambiguous, an example of the dangers of loose language. “Political compromise “ is a euphemism, which tempts the audience to think of peaceful negotiation, when actually what is referred to is compulsion backed with violent threats.
>4) “Anarchy cannot function because people need laws and their enforcement”. This is simply confusing—as most people do—“anarchy” (no political rule) with “anomy” (no *law). Anarcho-libertarians do not think that laws are unnecessary or need not be enforced.
Do they think that the Jews had no law before King Saul?
>5) “There has never been large-scale, non-state law”. This is refuted by the historical societies of ancient Iceland and Ireland: both of which were very long-lasting.
And Law Merchant.
>. Many social changes, desirable and otherwise, that people tend to take for granted today were once dismissed as being impossibly “utopian”. And even if some goal is “utopian” in the sense that it is clearly not fully achievable—such as the elimination of all murder—that doesn’t entail that it is undesirable to aim for it as far as is practical (i.e., *economic).
There is also a sort of reverse “no true Scotsman” fallacy being employed, where the critic assumes that “true laissez faire” was put into practice some time in the past but obviously failed.
>>3) “Human liberties inherently clash and it requires political compromise to solve this”. This appears to assume something like the zero-sum conception of *liberty as understood by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). But the main libertarian approach to liberty (here theorised as minimising initiated impositions) is not zero-sum but overwhelmingly compossible.
>I agree, but it's worse than that. The claim refuted is ambiguous, an example of the dangers of loose language. “Political compromise “ is a euphemism, which tempts the audience to think of peaceful negotiation, when actually what is referred to is compulsion backed with violent threats.
Agreed. I might add that point.
>>4) “Anarchy cannot function because people need laws and their enforcement”. This is simply confusing—as most people do—“anarchy” (no political rule) with “anomy” (no *law). Anarcho-libertarians do not think that laws are unnecessary or need not be enforced.
>Do they think that the Jews had no law before King Saul?
They don’t think. Serious thought is hard work and unorthodox views are not “respectable”. So, even the highly educated usually prefer the ease and safety of remaining inside the Overton window.
>>5) “There has never been large-scale, non-state law”. This is refuted by the historical societies of ancient Iceland and Ireland: both of which were very long-lasting.
>And Law Merchant.
Yes, there are many examples. But it seems best to give ones that operate throughout single countries, as that is probably what statists would find to be a clearer refutation.
>>. Many social changes, desirable and otherwise, that people tend to take for granted today were once dismissed as being impossibly “utopian”. And even if some goal is “utopian” in the sense that it is clearly not fully achievable—such as the elimination of all murder—that doesn’t entail that it is undesirable to aim for it as far as is practical (i.e., *economic).
>There is also a sort of reverse “no true Scotsman” fallacy being employed, where the critic assumes that “true laissez faire” was put into practice some time in the past but obviously failed.
Many critics think that the Industrial Revolution was close to being laissez faire and was an obvious disaster before politics regulated it.
>3) “Human liberties inherently clash and it requires political compromise to solve this”. This appears to assume something like the zero-sum conception of *liberty as understood by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). But the main libertarian approach to liberty (here theorised as minimising initiated impositions) is not zero-sum but overwhelmingly compossible.
I agree, but it's worse than that. The claim refuted is ambiguous, an example of the dangers of loose language. “Political compromise “ is a euphemism, which tempts the audience to think of peaceful negotiation, when actually what is referred to is compulsion backed with violent threats.
>4) “Anarchy cannot function because people need laws and their enforcement”. This is simply confusing—as most people do—“anarchy” (no political rule) with “anomy” (no *law). Anarcho-libertarians do not think that laws are unnecessary or need not be enforced.
Do they think that the Jews had no law before King Saul?
>5) “There has never been large-scale, non-state law”. This is refuted by the historical societies of ancient Iceland and Ireland: both of which were very long-lasting.
And Law Merchant.
>. Many social changes, desirable and otherwise, that people tend to take for granted today were once dismissed as being impossibly “utopian”. And even if some goal is “utopian” in the sense that it is clearly not fully achievable—such as the elimination of all murder—that doesn’t entail that it is undesirable to aim for it as far as is practical (i.e., *economic).
There is also a sort of reverse “no true Scotsman” fallacy being employed, where the critic assumes that “true laissez faire” was put into practice some time in the past but obviously failed.
>>3) “Human liberties inherently clash and it requires political compromise to solve this”. This appears to assume something like the zero-sum conception of *liberty as understood by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). But the main libertarian approach to liberty (here theorised as minimising initiated impositions) is not zero-sum but overwhelmingly compossible.
>I agree, but it's worse than that. The claim refuted is ambiguous, an example of the dangers of loose language. “Political compromise “ is a euphemism, which tempts the audience to think of peaceful negotiation, when actually what is referred to is compulsion backed with violent threats.
Agreed. I might add that point.
>>4) “Anarchy cannot function because people need laws and their enforcement”. This is simply confusing—as most people do—“anarchy” (no political rule) with “anomy” (no *law). Anarcho-libertarians do not think that laws are unnecessary or need not be enforced.
>Do they think that the Jews had no law before King Saul?
They don’t think. Serious thought is hard work and unorthodox views are not “respectable”. So, even the highly educated usually prefer the ease and safety of remaining inside the Overton window.
>>5) “There has never been large-scale, non-state law”. This is refuted by the historical societies of ancient Iceland and Ireland: both of which were very long-lasting.
>And Law Merchant.
Yes, there are many examples. But it seems best to give ones that operate throughout single countries, as that is probably what statists would find to be a clearer refutation.
>>. Many social changes, desirable and otherwise, that people tend to take for granted today were once dismissed as being impossibly “utopian”. And even if some goal is “utopian” in the sense that it is clearly not fully achievable—such as the elimination of all murder—that doesn’t entail that it is undesirable to aim for it as far as is practical (i.e., *economic).
>There is also a sort of reverse “no true Scotsman” fallacy being employed, where the critic assumes that “true laissez faire” was put into practice some time in the past but obviously failed.
Many critics think that the Industrial Revolution was close to being laissez faire and was an obvious disaster before politics regulated it.