A response to the "Non-Statist FAQ".

Mark LaRochelle has expended a large amount of research and effort to create
a document which fails dismally at rational criticism of the Non-Libertarian
FAQ.

Where Mark DOES SUCCEED, though he doesn't seem to realize it, is that he's
created the nucleus of an online FAQ about libertarian beliefs which is much
better than any of the other pro-libertarian FAQs.  Amusingly, he's used my
FAQ as an outline.  He's larded it with claims I'm wrong and innumerable
references to the highly disputable authors and texts that make up the
library of mostly crank literature preferred by libertarians.

Mark fails badly in a large number of ways.  I'll enumerate those rather
than getting mired in debates about specific points.

(1) The biggest failing is Mark's misunderstanding of FAQ-nature: presentation
of useful background for newsgroups, rather than the most rigorous possible
argument.  He cites as a fault:

	Virtually everything it says about libertarianism is generalized from
	UseNet postings....

Well, duh!  My FAQ was written precisely as a response to libertarian UseNet
postings, and says so.

Rigorous arguments are too lengthy for FAQs: executive summaries are needed.

(2) Mark criticizes me for incompleteness of my FAQ: well, pardon me for
being finite.  I'm quite aware of this: my FAQ says: "This FAQ is an
unfinished work. Vast sections have yet to be created...."

And the plain fact is that I've been studying the philosophical literature
both by libertarians and others in preparation for further FAQ development.
In addition to some email discussions with a few notable libertarians.
When I'm ready, I'll resume FAQ creation.

(3) Mark pretends to refute me by the sophomoric device of identifying
fallacies of argument, and to emphasize that, he comically provides links to
descriptions of those fallacies.  Unfortunately, he often mistakes presenting
a position as an argument.

What amuses me the most is that in the midst of his accusations of fallacies,
he's myopically demonstrating most of them himself.  For example, he uses
this fine example of tarbrushing in his very first sentence:

	This is not a refutation of Mike Huben's "Non-Libertarian FAQ"
	(which is not quite as "Non-Libertarian" as Hitler was), but of
	the most fallacious arguments within it.

Is slipping in comparisons to Hitler his idea of rational argument?

(4) Along the line of fallacies, one that is very typical of libertarians
including Mark is name (and in this case image) dropping.  This is the
propaganda technique "transfer", "a device by which the propagandist carries
over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere
to something he would have us accept."  His document is studded with the
floating heads of libertarian-approved icons.

One of the most prevalent claims is that classical liberalism leads directly
to modern libertarianism: Mark writes "classical liberalism, a kind of "beta
version" of the program of which libertarianism is the latest "release."
Thomas Jefferson, other founding fathers, Locke, and Lysander Spooner did not
endorse libertarianism: their philosophies differed substantially.  It is only
by picking and choosing among their statements that they could be presented as
any more "proto-libertarians" than they are "proto-modern-liberals".

Nor does he even attribute libertarianism to modern economists correctly. 
Friedrich Hayek is only doubtfully a libertarian, and Ronald Coase has
denied it in print.

Yet worse, centuries old ideas are now "libertarian ideas".  This ludicrous
attempt to take credit for the ideas of others deserves ridicule at best.

(5) Another propaganda tool Mark makes extensive use of is the glittering
generality "libertarianism is the ideology that aggression is bad".  This
assumes that rejection of libertarianism means preference for its diametric
opposite, and the pretense that property, rights, and common law are not
created by threat of aggressive force, without consent. 

"Aggression" only has meaning within a context of defined rights and
obligations.  A major libertarian propaganda strategy is to deny anyone else
the ability to define that context: they get to say what qualifies as
aggression.  Sorry, Mark, most classical liberalism and all modern liberalism
except some libertarianism reserves definition of rights and obligations to
society, not to libertarian ideologues.

(6) In presenting his large lists of "refuting" sources, Mark strongly
resembles a Jehovah's Witness, well versed in WatchTower Society approved
creationist literature that confirms his own viewpoint.  Mark presents no
hint that there is literature refuting his, nor does he mention the contempt
of most scholars for the many mutually contradictory positions he endorses.
Instead, like most libertarians I've seen, he presents a false front of
certitude.

(7) "Non-Statist" is a bad misnomer for "libertarian", since it would also
encompass many other political philosophies which would disagree strongly
with the contents of the "Non-Statist FAQ".  Anarchists, tribalists,
left-libertarians, etc. would disagree with the propertarian notions so
thoroughly presumed in it.  And minarchists, of course, are libertarian
statists who would agree with much of that FAQ, but are excluded by the title.

In conclusion, a person who's predisposed to libertarianism, or is easily
impressed by large numbers of links and citations might be convinced that
the "Non-Statist FAQ" actually rebuts the Non-Libertarian FAQ.

But a slightly more critical reading finds that it is rife with the standard
propaganda and errors of libertarianism, as well as a number of problems
that Mark has apparently invented on his own.  Without going into details,
essentially all Mark's arguments suffer so badly from these problems that
they don't really refute anything because they don't meet the positions of
the "Non-Libertarian FAQ".