The royal treatment, from a critic
I just looked for the first time at Steve Burton’s article at 4W criticizing my article, “Why libertarianism (as well as Objectivism) is a transparent fraud.” His article is entitled, “The Transparent Fraud”—evidently a reference to myself. He starts off by quoting my entire article, and, for easy reference, numbering the sentences, of which there are 18. I must thank Mr. Burton for treating my text with such importance. I’ve never had my sentences numbered before.
However, I must point out that his actual criticisms of me seem awfully weak and insubstantial, especially after the build-up he gives me. Why such a big wind-up, with so little follow-through? I don’t even understand what is his main objection to my article. He lays his greatest emphasis on my failure to distinguish between social customs enforced by law, and social customs not enforced by law. But why does that matter? He doesn’t say. He implies by his title that my article is fraudulent, but he doesn’t actually make a case that it is.
Most of his commenters also seem unimpressed by his arguments, and back up my point that libertarianism does not offer any guidance for the ordering of society. (Responses to Burton are also posted in the entry, “Is libertarianism worth a mote of dust? The debate continues.”)
Also, I apologize for my overbroad characterization of 4W writers as not caring about the good of society. Lydia McGrew corrected me on that in the above linked entry.