Here is my reply to Selwyn Duke's second essay "Libertarianism's Folly-Part Two". You can download my reply to his first essay here. He wrote a third essay to respond to criticisms of his second essay, but it is not worth the time for me to respond to it. He makes the same philosophical errors and displays even more ignorance of libertarian thought. The two essays I have written are sufficient rebuttals of all three of his essays.
Just to give you a sample of how ignorant Mr. Duke is of libertarian thought he writes the following in this third essay: "Now, the Founding Fathers, men much admired in libertarian circles, understood this well." (Emphasis added)
Well, he certainly has a good grip on what libertarians think about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. I know that Trevor really admires Constitution. I, of course, absolutely love the Constitution. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has nothing but respect for the Constitution. Manuel Lora appreciates what the Founders did for the US as does Ryan McMaken. Lysander Spooner was one of the biggest fans on the Consitution ever. Stephan Kinsella loves both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Of course, there are libertarians who do admire the Constitution, however, if Mr. Duke had some actual knowledge of libertarian circles, he would know that there are libertarians who despise the Founders. But this is pretty much how he frames his arguments in these three essays. He invents some characteristics about libertarians and then argues based on those inventions. In fact, I find it interesting that Mr. Duke does not actually cite any libertarians other than Ayn Rand and he does this to make an argument against secularism. But secularism is not libertarianism.
Mr. Duke does not at all reference Murray Rothbard or Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Lew Rockwell or Walter Block or Robert Higgs or Frederic Bastiat or Albert J. Nock or Frank Chodorov or Leonard Read or anyone else other than Rand. And Mr. Duke admits this ignorance:
To be fair, a couple of libertarians (one of whom is running for office) wrote me and stated that their informed ideological brethren understand that law must have a moral basis, such as the “non-aggression principle.” Yet, while I realize many different conceptions of libertarianism exist, absent an authoritative “Church of Libertarianism” to establish official dogma, I have no choice but to draw my conclusions from libertarians’ consensus pronouncements. After all, there are textbook/dictionary definitions of liberalism that sound pretty good, too, yet they describe no liberals I’ve ever met. I live in the real world; if you seek a denizen of textbook dream-world, I suggest you visit your local college campus.
Granted there is not an authoritative "Church of Libertarianism" (a contradiction of terms if there ever was one), but had Mr. Duke actually taken the time to do some research, he might have been able to write an intelligent argument rather than the sanctimonious fluff he did compose.
I sent Mr. Duke a personal email with some suggested reading. I also asked him to actually read some of my suggestions before responding to me or writing anything else about libertarianism. At the very least he could sound intelligent while arguing that the criminal known as the State can enforce morality.
Download Selwyn_dukes_folly_part_two
Comments