Comments on: The Plop Doctrine

By: The Libertarian: Are you a democrat ... or a libertarian ?

The Libertarian: Are you a democrat ... or a libertarian ? — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:35:21 +0000

[...] and “Government” On Libertarianism and the Benedict Option « John Schwenkler The Plop Doctrine | Libertarian Anarchy The Modern Face of Libertarianism – California Bytes Posted by The Libertarian at [...]

By: Michael Wiebe

Michael Wiebe — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:09:18 +0000

1. See Long. Strictly speaking it's not meaningless but absurd, because it is usually defined as "the free market system that currently exists", when no such system does currently exist. 2. False dichotomy. She uses it with the meaning above. 3. Haha. There really is no "true" definition of a word. Definitions, like language, are created by humans. Libertarians generally define "free market" as "stateless society." 4. No. All human action is economic action. So if government has anything to do with humans, then it necessarily affects the economy. Thus, I reject the dichotomy between economic and political freedom. 5. Another package-deal term. Because people generally define socialism as the opposite of capitalism, and because definition of capitalism is absurd, I hold that we should avoid the term socialism as well. I would say Klein advocates statism, a society where voluntary relationships are replaced by coercive ones.

By: Fightingback

Fightingback — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:03:22 +0000

Your attack on Klein was rather childish. If this is the best attack out there on her work, then I’m afraid I’m going to have to start disagreeing with Ron Paul. I’ll just ask you a few questions instead of breaking apart all the “logical” arguments you have, just because there are so many, it would take too much time. 1. You claim that capitalism is a meaningless word. What’s your proof? 2. You claim that Klein assumes that capitalism is synonymous with free market. If capitalism is a meaningless word, then in Klein’s book, so is free market. So either Klein uses free market to mean stateless society or she uses it without meaning. If she uses it without meaning, then you can’t attack her book based on the meaning stateless society, because she’s not using it for that meaning. If she’s using it to mean stateless society, then she’s defined a word. If she defined the word as statless society, on what page did she do that? 3. Which dictionary did you use to get the definition of “free market” as "stateless society." 4. To you, is there is difference between an economic system and a system of government? 5. You claim that she advocates socialism. Where in the book does she do that? Please use page numbers. (I understand from the book is that she wanted regulated capitalism. In other words, a mix of capitalism and socialism.) I'll stop here, we can continue the talk once you've answered the questions. Side note: The book isn’t 600 pages, after page 466 the NOTES start.

By: Michael Wiebe

Michael Wiebe — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:44:12 +0000

Well, that depends on your definition of market. I define "market" as the totality of voluntary interactions. Accordingly, if government predates the market, then you would be in the awkward position of having to explain how people acquired food before government came along. Are you suggesting everyone lived on self-sufficient homesteads, or do you have a different definition?

By: Commentor

Commentor — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:29:15 +0000

Markets of any kind are built on a substrate of government. Government is not something that got 'added later' to an existing market.

By: Steve B.

Steve B. — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:32:56 +0000

good analysis.

I find it utterly incredible that a person could type out an entire book based on such a glaring logical fallacy, and not even notice it; let alone the fact that so many seemingly intelligent people could swallow it whole, without giving the self-contradicting premise so much as a second thought.

I've been trying to expose the inherent confusion that is this book to people on the various internet forums I frequent. Not surprisingly, most who champion this book take the ostrich approach when I criticize it on similar grounds to what you've pointed out here.

Their insistence on blind ideology makes them immune to rational argument.