On "Bleeding-Heart Libertarians"

(For those familiar with the BHL blog, where they are known to sneak in justifications for using force): The very phrase 'Bleeding Heart Libertarian', if you think about it, is 'in and of itself' actually a subtle contextual ad hominem and 'poisoning the well' attack on 'actual' (i.e. non-force-advocating) libertarians ... the only way it makes sense to prefix the "bleeding heart" adjective at all is if you're sneaking in a sort of suckerpunch claim that your opponents ('normal' libertarians who presumably, we are to take it, don't have 'bleeding hearts') are 'heartless'; it is essentially a claim that much pain and suffering would be allowed and ignored if 'ordinary' 'non-bleeding-heart' libertarians were ever in charge - it automatically frames all subsequent discourse and debate within this mindset, and it's 'smart' but sneaky in that it puts debate opponents immediately on the back-foot, as they must then sprawl to try defend themselves against a veiled implication that they're 'heartless', instead of arguing some point at hand, even before any rational debate has begun. It's a disarming tactic, in that debate opponents can't even counter-argue without automatically, by implication, being placed in a sort of 'you're heartless' spotlight.

It's a variation of the Race Card - e.g. if I called my blog "Thoughts from a non-racist libertarian", then it would subtly cast aspersions of racism on anyone who argued with my points (while also stigmatizing libertarians via association with racism). No truly honest intellectual discourse could take place in such a context.

Why can't "BHL's" (or 'left-libertarians') simply use reason to make their point, without resorting to such 'psychological-manipulation tactics'?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and the 'Wet Look'

Image
An Aquatic Ape I think the strongest 'circumstantial evidence' supporting a partial form of the (controversial)  aquatic ape hypothesis * is something I don't think I've seen mentioned before: The simple fact that we find  wet Homo sapiens sexually attractive. If you think about it, doesn't it seem a bit arbitrary? E.g. would gorillas find other wet gorillas sexy, or would rats find other wet rats sexy? How universal is this? If we consider the concept of sexual choice ** in evolution, then if our ancestors were once partially evolving "in that direction", then we might expect that they may have felt  a mate choice preference  for the entailed characteristics of a hypothetical "aquatic ape" (such as the 'wet look', as well as finding smooth, hairless skin comparatively more attractive, as we do). To consider this argument, look at a picture like the one above (or  this ,  this ,  this ,  this , or  this ) ... then (for men now) t
Read more

Last Refuges of Great Art

Image
The 'art world' should be ashamed that one of the last refuges of artistic beauty and value is not in the art world, but in the art produced by the artists of the video game industry ... I think there is more beauty and value in a single screenshot here than in all the works of the "Tate Modern" put together: http://www.videogamer.com/wii/secret_files_tunguska/screenshot-4.html (And there's plenty more like this out there.) Even the garbage bin is beautiful The rich, expansive virtual worlds created by video game artists are, in a loose sense, 'virtual art galleries' - they're often 'larger' than 'real' art galleries, you can comparably 'explore' them, and every virtual detail is almost like a small piece of art in its own right. If you're ever in London, try this "experiment": Visit the National Gallery (for its classical paintings collection) in the morning, and the Tate Modern in the aftern
Read more