In fairness- that’s not really a “libertarian” belief- it’s a belief held by most libertarians- but the two aren’t related since a good majority of people would oppose a state sponsored religion. Atheists most likely, people of other religions than the one sponsored, non libertarians who like liberty...
So there would really not be a reason to say “as a libertarian..” before that- sort of like saying: “as a feminist, I think rape is bad..” or, “as a pacifist I cannot condone the murder of children...” it’s like... ok. So if you weren’t a pacifist you’d think that child murder was peachy keen? Likely not.
Well that’s sort of my point. If you oppose it on libertarian grounds- the direct logical inference is that you do not oppose it on any other grounds. Which may be the case, but if it is not the case- then it’s somewhat poor use of language. Obviously one could argue that saying you support it on libertarian grounds doesn’t explicitly state you don’t oppose it on other grounds- but: 1. Libertarian wouldn’t be the strongest or most defensible grounds to site as it relies on the other party taking some significance from the ideology- which by its nature has a limited scope. 2. It is not a libertarian ideal- so it’s extraneous. Ego. One is merely injecting information about ones self that does not contribute to their case. And...
3. It is a misleading use of language in that sense. At the least imprecise. But if I say “I promise I won’t arrest you if you confess...” and then have my partner arrest you- I have technically kept my word, but it is still linguistically and conceptually a lie by omission since the cleverness of the thing is derived from the fact that I was aware that you would still be arrested, and you would interpret my words as meaning that you would not be arrested. Likewise- saying “I don’t cheat when I am with someone” to reassure a partner of your fidelity- when you’re meaning is that when you are PHYSICALLY with them- as in they are present- makes the statement factually true- but it is still misleading. In this case- there isn’t necessarily subterfuge- save in relation to using it to prove wrong the initial example.
What I mean there- is that we could extraneously add “as a Libertarian” to anything mundane to “disprove” the example- eg: “as a libertarian, I think rape is bad.” “As a libertarian, I believe the atmospheric pressure at sea level averages 14.7lbs/sq in.” While it is TECHNICALLY disproving the original statement- it’s doing so through contrivance.
Which itself contains two logical faults. The first being that if we say that the use of “as a libertarian” in this case can be inferred to mean ones philosophical base as opposed to meaning that the status as a libertarian is the direct and primary logic to reach such a conclusion- we can also infer that the original post omitted under assumption the specific phrasing that it only applies to logic which is the primary purview of libertarian philosophy. If we allow ambiguity of language in the reply to swing in our favor- we must be able to do the same for the proposition- which somewhat undermines the use of language at all in such cases.
The second logical fault- or a slightly humorous perspective anyway- would be that the reply proves the spirit of the proposition- even if it disproves the words. Namely- that the reply jumps the shark and eschews logic or convention in reasonable discourse in order to fit the conclusion the speaker wishes to draw even if it is not supported. In other words- it would be like being called ignorant on a matter of politics between two countries and in ones rebuttal- getting the names of both countries leaders wrong. Even if eloquent in a vacuum- such response would merely serve the ends of the original statement as opposed to the intent of refuting it.
Of course- since we have gone so far into minutia it is only fair to also mention that the original post- while likely intended as such- is hyperbolic and ridiculous in premise anyway. There is nothing to suggest that any self identified libertarian from a random sampling would be any more or less correct or sensible than any random person from another major political belief system on a random issue. So obviously the suggestion that simply being libertarian identifies one as foolish or otherwise- is patently absurd in the same way most any such broad generalization about a groups cognitive abilities is.
So I’m not arguing for the OP’s view point- I’m merely stating that while it has faults- the rebuttal served does not refute the case made, the case made IS refutable. It’s a very weak position on the part of OP- but the rebuttal, as I have outlined- I do not think undermines the position in debate.
@famousone- right up until it’s time to act one has the luxury of thought. It’s a Sunday, I have no work today... well... I have a little this and that to do... but effectively I have as much time to consider the facts as I desire to take. Overthinking is relative- but if we put it to measure it could best be said to be excessive thought which takes away time from other more meaningful pursuits, or which paralyzes or prevents timely action. We aren’t under the buzzer on this one, and I’m driving the missus around on errands so I’m stuck in a car either way. Thusly- I would say I am certainly thinking deeply on the matter...
... but overthinking? I think not, as there is no detriment posed by the level of thought I have applied. It actually wasn’t even more than a moments thought- far less time than it has taken to write all this (which still had not been much time.) overthinking and underthinking- both can be problematic- even dangerous. But... again- it’s relative, in part to circumstance and in part to the amount of thought one can produce in a given period of time. For me- this is fairly on the spot thinking, no truly deep diving required. But I, like most, al certainly not imbue from
Over thinking from time to time. As of late I was overthinking on what radiator to buy for my poor ailing roadster. All aluminum 2 row, or single row with plastic tanks? Cost is a factor- and I am not sure I need the features of the aluminum unit for this car... but still I think it over even though the cheaper choice would be fine for likely almost a decade.
Over thinking from time to time. As of late I was overthinking on what radiator to buy for my poor ailing roadster. All aluminum 2 row, or single row with plastic tanks? Cost is a factor- and I am not sure I need the features of the aluminum unit for this car... but still I think it over even though the cheaper choice would be fine for likely almost a decade.