Good stuff from Max. I've been round this trail a couple of times too (tho' more in pubs than on stages), so here's my tips:
>>
>> Has anyone on the list debated libertarians? What kinds of arguments
>> should we expect to encounter from the other participants? What kinds of
>> arguments do libertarians have problems with. Any references to studies
>> articles or books would be helpful. Especially regarding privatization
>> or government intervention vs libertarian style free markets. I also
>
>My best short, quick answer is there are two basic vulnerabilities:
>
My best short, quick answer is "don't bother". It's a thankless task, with no hope of enlightenment and should only really be recommended to the kind of people who like to point out weaknesses in the Biblical interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses. Assuming that this isn't an option (like maybe there's money riding on it or something) . . . .
>one is that the L argument against government is diseconomical; most
>anything government abandons can and will be done in some fashion by the
>private sector, but the outcome will often be unsatisfactory. This goes
to
>the idea of public goods in economics (see any textbook on public
finance).
Worthwhile, but remember that your opponent will have learned his economics from libboe tracts, and will deny that public goods exist (possibly apart from defence). Don't waste time explaining economic concepts -- he will not learn and will simply repeat his script. A useful remark here is to point out "If the individual people always choose the best solution, wouldn't that imply that the current system of government is the best solution". This will bring out any latent Black Helicopters tendencies, and in my experience, once someone mentions the Bilderberg Group, you're fairly safe to start laughing at him.
>two is an argument usefully recapitulated in Bruce Ackerman's Stakeholder
>Society. There is no meaningful freedom in a context of gross inequality.
>the whole bit about the poor and the rich having the same right to sleep
>under bridges. Every runner doesn't begin at the same starting line.
Remember to bring along a doughnut if you try this tactic, so that you can award it to your opponent if he doesn't mention Bill Gates -- I guarantee that you will go home licking powdered sugar off your lips. The other script at this point is for the libboe to reel out some tired anecdote about a penniless immigrant who worked his way up to be the shoelace king (often allegedly a relative or ancestor of your discusant). The best response here is to point out that "the race doesn't always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet", and that it's just as unfair that some people have a better *chance* of success.
The best way to draw the rug from underneath libertarians, however, is not to let them get away with claiming that the basis of liberty is property rights. If you give them that, most of their sub-Nozickian conclusions go through pretty easily. Tell them that property rights over a piece of land restrict other peoples' freedom to walk on it, and ask them how they deduce that property is more important than freedom. It's a slippery customer indeed who can back-flip his way out of that one.
Oh yeah, and every time they use the form of words "initiation of force", remind the audience that under their definition, a black man sitting at a lunch counter can be considered to be "Initiating force".
How did your friend allow himself to be dragged into this mess?
dd
___________________________________________________________________________
_____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
IMMEDIATELY on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________
_____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
IMMEDIATELY on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------