Thursday, September 20, 2007

Neil in a cleft stick

Neil Harding pops up again with another logical fallacy.
... I saw a band I quite liked called Misty's Big Adventure. During their set, the lead singer had a brief rant against the smoking ban and how the government have eroded liberty. In the next minute he started a song about the dangers of mobile phone masts.

I think this sums up for me the inconsistencies of these so called libertarians.

For fuck's sake, Neil; not everyone who rails against the smoking ban is a libertarian; nor is everyone who rails against this government's erosion of liberty.

Or are you opposed to liberty? Er, no...
Of course what is really happening here is that these 'libertarians' are choosing which liberty THEY consider the most important. Liberty is not a one way street - one person's increase in liberty can be another's loss of liberty.

Right, so you are in favour of what you see as your liberty, OK? Would you count yourself a libertarian? I would hope not, since you are not. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

But, if you reply in the affirmative, then you are acknowledging that you, too, are utterly inconsistent.

If you reply in the negative, then you are acknowledging my point that not all of those who complain about diminishing liberty and the smoking ban are libertarian.

Either way, you invalidate your own argument.

UPDATE: what a surprise! Neil has actually contorted the facts to suit his own agenda.



Tom Paine said...

I don't get it DK. Harding's not worth it. The only thing he's known for is being fisked by you and Longrider. What's the point? Why fan the feeble flame of his idiot ego?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Tom Paine, as Cleanthes says, it's mainly sport, but every now and then you can make a breakthrough with Neil.

Neil reckons he is in favour of smoking ban, because of 'dangers' of passive smoking. So I asked him whether there was such a thing as 'passive fox hunting' and whether that was in any way harmful to third parties. I don't think he's replied yet.

Longrider said...

I don't write for Neil, I write for those (and there are plenty) who may think as he does, but are open to reason. Ten years ago, not only did I vote Labour, I actively campaigned for them. It took listening to the arguments to realise that my continued membership and support of Labour was incompatible with my views on liberty. If eviscerating Neil's frankly shoddy, ill-thought through, poorly researched twaddle causes one or two people to think about their own views, then it's job done. If I can change my mind, so can others.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...