Posted on April 2 at 1:18 a.m.Suggest removal

First of all, your new definition of libertarianism that “one who seeks to utilize free trade to advocate liberty” is very misguided. Libertarianism is more than free trade. However, free trade is a logical conclusion for economic policy in a libertarian country. But, economics is not the be-all-and-end-all of libertarian philosophy.

A better definition is libertarians want to maximize individual liberty which means a very limited role for the state. In fact its only role should be to enforce individual rights and enforce contracts. Pigeonholing Libertarianism as only a free trade economic theory is disingenuous and just plain wrong.

Now, with the whole picture of the “libertarian ideal” let’s analyze your examples:

Chile under Pinochet – He was hardly a libertarian but instead a military dictator. Suspending civil liberties and violating human rights. Ironically this supposed liberty loving libertarian was put on trial for his violations of liberty. However, I do somewhat agree with you on his economic ideas. He was pro-free market, but remember this is economic policy not his entire political philosophy.

Indonesia under Suharto – Yet, another example of a military dictator. Similar to Pinochet he had a very centralized and rule by military force. Again, I’m not sure how a military dictatorship = libertarianism. However, I will agree with you on the economic policy. He seemed to have a pro-free market stance but the government controlled many methods of production.

Iran under the Shah – Finally someone who isn’t a total military dictator but instead is a monarch. Unlike Pinochet and Suharto, the shah did try to push things likes women’s rights but he still maintained a highly centralized state. Again, he did seem somewhat pro-free market but much of the wealth was maintained at the top, especially the nationalized oil industry.

The major problem with your analysis is that it’s conflating free market capitalism with the definition of libertarianism. While capitalism is a logical consequence of a political philosophy that maximizes individual liberty, is not the whole story. As a political science major I expected better analysis. You of all people know that economic policy is a small portion of a countries overall political philosophy.

Your examples are bad because they only address the economic side of libertarianism and not the moral/political side. None of the examples have governments that support individual liberty or even a limited government. Instead they are highly centralized states that saw some benefit to a free market economic policy. It is very disingenuous use examples that don’t represent a political philosophy in order to refute that political philosophy. I believe that is somewhat of a red herring argument.
We need to look at the whole picture when discussing political philosophies, including ones we don’t agree with.

On

Posted on March 6 at 1:14 a.m.Suggest removal

First of all, I believe it is worthy to discuss the Dawkins trip. The key words being the Dawkins trip, not his religious views. I believe the initial question “Does Dawkins deserve our attention?” is totally misguided. I guess he would not deserve our attention if we have world views that are not supported by science. In that sense I could legitimately say he does not deserve our attention. But for the rest of us who believe there is a physical world that is older than 40,000 years, Dawkins deserves much attention.

Dawkins religious views and criticisms of his God Delusion are irrelevant to the reason he came. If his talk was on atheism than those criticisms are warranted. However, he is talking about evolution and his religious views are irrelevant for the scientific discussion at hand. REMEMBER, DAWKINS IS HERE FOR THE ANNIVERSARY OF DARWIN. But, I do see the temptation. Some Christians cannot attack Dawkins on his scientific points so they use the atheism crutch.

So I guess we should just write of the most preeminent biologist of our generation? All because he is anti-religious? Sounds like a good model of progress to me. Anyone who writes off one of the most respected scientists in the world just because of his religious views needs to have their head examined. Hold your religious concerns for when Dawkins comes to talk on religion, not evolution.

I think a more relevant question is “Does a small sect of Christianity deserve our attention?”

On