Keith Preston, whose prize-winning essay on plutocracy occasioned some heated exchanges in this space a month ago, likes the economic aspects of left-libertarianism but isn’t so jazzed about the cultural aspects, at least in the version advocated by Charles Johnson and myself.
Keith’s newest essay “Should Libertarianism Be Cultural Leftism Without the State?” criticises our perspective.
I don’t have time to respond right now, but will soon (though I suspect my reply will mostly be refritos of stuff I’ve said before).
Professor Long,
This post as well as the recent thread over all RadGeek.com raised a couple of questions for me regarding the “cultural aspects” left-libertarianism that you have been promoting:
Let’s suppose that you’re right about the existence of forms of oppression and exploitation in society that do not necessarily involve rights violations (e.g. bossism, patriarchy, racism), as I think you are, and that a sufficiently ‘thick’ libertarianism should (non-coercively) oppose these forms of exploitation.
Suppose further that Marilyn Frye’s metaphor of the bird cage is a good one for understanding these forms of oppression – where no particular bar keeps the bird confined but in conjunction with all of the other bars, the bird is completely hemmed in. In your view, then, does ‘thickness’ simply require that one oppose (i) the pattern of bars, as a system constituting a cage, or (ii) all particular bars to the extent the rest of the bars are still in place, or even (iii) all bars whatsoever even when there is no cage at present, given the risk that in the future such bars might come to be re-configured so as to again constitute a cage?
To perhaps push the metaphor beyond its usefulness, doesn’t the liberation of the bird simply require that one or two bars be removed max so as to allow the bird egress, rather than the removal of all of the bars (at which point, it would be less of a cage and more of a birdhouse)? And if so, shouldn’t we (to the extent possible) only aim at the destruction of ‘enough’ bars to allow egress and make it unlikely that the cage can re-constitute itself while leaving the other cages alone?
What I’m suggesting is that social forms (family and kinship groupings, business organizations, religious bodies, hierarchical relations, and other perhaps-exclusionary associations), that may be quite sinister in present society could be rendered far more innocent (though still ‘dangerous’ in the Foucauldian sense that you’ve mentioned in the past) in an appropriately left-libertarian context. If so, how does this bear upon how those same social forms ought to be dealt with and/or evaluated under present (less-than-ideal) conditions?
Thanks,
Araglin
Minor correction: Replace “while leaving the other cages alone?” with “while leaving the other bars alone”.
As far as consequence-thickness goes, removing a few bars might be enough. Grounds-thickness might require more.
I curiously await your further thoughts. I’m cautiously pleased to see this.
Personally, I refuse to give the slightest aid and comfort to the libertarian movement until and unless it proves itself a counter to, rather than an an enabler of, the horrible politics of someone like Keith Preston.
“This fatuous reasoning brings even Marxism and Nazism under the Libertarian umbrella. After all, the values of a liberated proletariat or of a purified Aryan race cannot really be achieved – the Libertarian would have to argue – except through uncoerced action. Marxists and Nazis need not repudiate their philosophies – they merely have to call for the factory owners to hand over their property to the state, for the book publishers to accept the views of the Minister of Propaganda, for the Jews to march into the gas chambers…voluntarily! If the Hitlers and the Stalins want to implant the virtue of absolute submission to the state – Rothbard would tell them – they must persuade the people to submit willingly. In other words, only when political freedom reigns can the goals of barbarians be realized.”
– Peter Schwartz, “Libertaranism: the Perversion of Liberty”.
Needless to say, Schwartz is a hack, and I used to consider this statement and over-the-top absurdity. I was wrong. Substitute ‘kith and kin’ or other authoritarian and coercive substate social order for ‘state’, above, and one has something fairly close to what Preston wants- even if he’s not saying it. It’s certainly what he (and the rest of us) would get, if his ideas were ever enacted.
Libertarianism can *never* be an excuse for abandoning the desperately precious achievements of our human civilisation. Anyone who pushes ideas like racial separatist ‘ethno-pluralism’ in the 21st century flunks out of the human race and out of any conceivably valid political philosophy. This is what bigotry looks like.
Very well said Anonymous. Thank you for writing it.
Thanks for posting this, Roderick. I very much look forward to your rebuttal. I can think of no one more capable of arguing for “the other side” than you.
Here’s Walter Block’s reply to Peter Schwartz:
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/response_to_schwartz.pdf
The specific example of an ethno-pluralist system that I referred to is the Swiss canton system. Is Switzerland a benighted medieval society, or is it the most prosperous, peaceful and arguably most libertarian nation on earth?
Keith-
Flattery for Roderick, deliberately dishonest queer-baiting for me? Whatever.
Here’s the other side of Keith Preston, and it’s exactly the personality you’d expect of an apologist for racism and ‘anarchist’ fascism. For instance, he describes the current (left) anarchist movement as “nutjobs, freaks, dysfunctional personalities, punks, brats, crackpots, thugs, crybabies, mediocrities, Peter Pans, cultists, ignoramuses, sociopaths, reactionaries, authoritarians, totalitarians, Communist dupes, left-wing fascists, liberal butt-lickers, tree-huggers, intellectual incompetents and stooges for the left-wing of state-capitalism”. The point isn’t what one thinks of left-anarchism (I have criticisms of it myself). The point is what one spirit has to be like to write this; this kind of iron-hard hateful demonisation of difference, sentiment, and weakness could have been ripped off any Nazi propaganda poster. I’ve been disturbed enough to see this kind of filth in a libertarian venue that I asked a friend of mine, a professional psychologist, to examine his writings- my friend works as a counselour for heroin addicts, 24/7 alcoholics, violent gang members, and other very hard core cases. She said it was filled with as much hatred and (probably more significantly but for reasons less clear to me) self-hatred as anything she’d encountered in her professional life.
Keith, go ahead an spew you want- I really don’t respect you enough to care about anything you want to say any longer, and I’m optimistic enough about the world right now to believe that *eventually*, somebody will catch on. Either people will eventually see through you, or libertarianism is doomed anyway. Either there’s no such thing as libertarian Nazism, or libertarianism is an invalid political ideology. This shouldn’t be difficult or in need of debate.
‘Ethno-pluralism’, incidentally, is essentially the notion that human beings are racist by nature; it is not the claim that racism should be legally permitted but the views that human beings in general are tribal animals to whom associating with “one’s own kind” is natural and the natural state of society. It is, in other world, the basic worldview of the Nazi and the Klansman. Advocating libertarianism or anarchism at the same time doesn’t change this. And to claim that everyone wants to live with ‘one’s own kind’ is a presumptive insult to all human beings and a revealing projection of a disfigured and abused psychology utterly unable or unwilling to imagine that others do not share his or her pathology. And if it’s a sick politics of envy to hate the rich purely and simply because they have something that you don’t, then to hate ‘liberal elites’ and cry oppression at anyone who has risen out of the spiritual mud of racism and tribalism is an evil in search of a new word. Preston is a voice out of the darkest gutter of the human spirit.
This is the passage from the Block article Keith cites which ‘answers’ Schwartz (who, again, I don’t generally think much of and have zero desire to defend):
“I once ran into some Neo-Nazis at a libertarian conference. Don’t ask, they must have sneaked in under our supposedly united front umbrella. I was in a grandiose mood, thinking that I could convert anyone to libertarianism, and said to them, ‘Look, we libertarians will give you a better deal than the liberals. We’ll let you goose-step. You can exhibit the swastika on your own property. We’ll let you march any way you wish on your own property. We’ll let you sing Nazi songs. Any Jews that you get on a voluntary basis to go to a concentration camp, fine.’
“I agree with Schwartz on this. The problem with Nazism is not its ends, from the libertarian point of view, rather it is with their means. Namely, they engaged in coercion. But, the ends are as just as any others; namely, they do not involve invasions. If you like saluting and swastikas, and racist theories, that too is part and parcel of liberty. Freedom includes the right to salute the Nazi flag, and to embrace doctrines that are personally obnoxious to me.”
To the degree that Block is merely saying that a free society shouldn’t ban Nazism, I agree. (which does not mean that laws against Holocaust denial are among the more serious violations of human rights in our world today) The rest falls so clearly into ‘missing the point’ that there’s not much else worth saying- a politics which cuts off its analysis of Nazism at ‘people have a right to be Nazis’ has no relation to real human existence. The ACLU was right to defend the rights of the American Nazi party to march in Skokie, but the ACLU lawyers didn’t go home and kick back a few beers with their new Nazi friends the way that Preston does. Preston wants to bring to the libertarian table people who would cheerfully beat others to death, and these others who include not a few libertarians and, not insignificantly, me. You can’t advocate dealing with fascists without missing this obvious point, and one can’t make such a proposal without evading or just not caring about what this says and what this does to all of those that fascists intend to victimise. A man who invites an open rapist to a social gathering is implying criminal disregard and absolute disdain for the rights of any women in the room. Preston is doing the precise equivalent in political philosophy and activism and deserves precisely the same contemptuous kind of response.
I urge, and will continue to urge, anyone who honestly stands for the original values of classical liberalism: that is, reason, individualism, tolerance, and freedom, to defend their values and speak out against the presence in their midst of ideas which do not belong in civilised society. As Ayn Rand very rightly put it, “racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism”, and the same of course goes for all other forms of bigotry. If Keith Preston’s style of thought becomes prominent within libertarianism that will be the end of libertarianism as a movement capable of achieving anything good in the world.
I see a lot of these accusations thrown at Keith Preston, yet I never see any concrete examples. I don’t agree with some of his thoughts, nor do I agree with all of Roderick’s.
Can you please point me towards Mr. Preston’s hate filled rants and associations?
“Preston wants to bring to the libertarian table people who would cheerfully beat others to death”
This is fucking moronic. Who cheerfully beat others are aggressors, and no one wants to bring aggressors to the table, I hope.
“Anonymous”,
I’m not “flattering” Roderick. I’m simply giving him due recognition as the leading proponent of a cultural left/libertarian synthesis. As for you, I could care less how “queer” you are. When I said on a previous thread that you seem interested in nothing but “Gay Sex Uber Alles,” I did so because it’s true. Having belonged to your list and other lists where you are present, it’s clear that you have no interest in resisting the empire, the state, the ruling class, etc., but instead prefer a lifestyle “politics” (if it can be called that) that’s simply about self-centeredness and self-pity. You’ve expressed hostility towards libertarians in general, not just me, because libertarians refuse to adopt your attitude that the whole world revolves you and your preferred lifestyle interests and methods of self-indulgence, and your anger at the world because the rest of humanity isn’t fawning over how wonderful you are . Say what you want about me, but you don’t even have the courage to reveal your actual identity when attacking me, so you hide behind the oh-so-creative moniker of “anonymous.”
“For instance, he describes the current (left) anarchist movement as “nutjobs, freaks, dysfunctional personalities, punks, brats, crackpots, thugs, crybabies, mediocrities, Peter Pans, cultists, ignoramuses, sociopaths, reactionaries, authoritarians, totalitarians, Communist dupes, left-wing fascists, liberal butt-lickers, tree-huggers, intellectual incompetents and stooges for the left-wing of state-capitalism”.
As one who was part of the left-anarchist subculture for years, I can say that is a very accurate description of many of the personalities you find in that circle. In fact, anarcho-leftoids, particularly these antifa gangs and “anti-racism” fanatics, in many ways exhibit the very same psychological characteristics as their neo-Nazi archenemies.
“I asked a friend of mine, a professional psychologist, to examine his writings- my friend works as a counselour for heroin addicts, 24/7 alcoholics, violent gang members, and other very hard core cases. She said it was filled with as much hatred and (probably more significantly but for reasons less clear to me) self-hatred as anything she’d encountered in her professional life.”
Tell her I said thanks for the compliment. I’m a “self-hater”, am I? At least I never saw the need to have my “gender identity” surgically altered (like I told you before, if you want to throw rocks at me, I’m going to hit back and hit hard).
“Keith, go ahead an spew you want- I really don’t respect you enough to care about anything you want to say any longer,”
I’m sure your lack of respect for me could not possibly be any greater than my lack of respect for you.
“Either there’s no such thing as libertarian Nazism, or libertarianism is an invalid political ideology.”
That you would make a statement like this shows that you either have no real understanding of what my actual views are, or you are deliberately misrepresenting my views because you don’t want my real arguments to be heard. I suspect it is the latter. You cowardly and dishonestly attack me and spread lies about me, and then turn around accuse me of being the dishonest one.
“‘Ethno-pluralism’, incidentally, is essentially the notion that human beings are racist by nature; it is not the claim that racism should be legally permitted but the views that human beings in general are tribal animals to whom associating with “one’s own kind” is natural and the natural state of society. It is, in other world, the basic worldview of the Nazi and the Klansman. Advocating libertarianism or anarchism at the same time doesn’t change this. And to claim that everyone wants to live with ‘one’s own kind’ is a presumptive insult to all human beings and a revealing projection of a disfigured and abused psychology utterly unable or unwilling to imagine that others do not share his or her pathology.”
Why this fixation on race? I don’t even consider race to be primary part of my outlook, nor do I favor “racism” or racial separatism per se. If some blacks, whites, Asians, Jews, Hispanics, etc. want to be separate, so be it, though I don’t really think that’s necessary. I would prefer meritocratic individualism. The only reason I write about race issues at all is to address a matter of practical concern within the context of building an anti-state movement, to recognize the possibility of separatists as allies against a common enemy, and to attack the totalitarian tendencies of the “anti-racist” Left.
” Preston wants to bring to the libertarian table people who would cheerfully beat others to death, and these others who include not a few libertarians and, not insignificantly, me.”
Not at all. I’m only interested in people from the Left or Right who wish to move past this kind of sectarian violence.
“A man who invites an open rapist to a social gathering is implying criminal disregard and absolute disdain for the rights of any women in the room.”
Actually, there have been a number of guys like that whom I’ve had to deal with rather harshly over the years.
“As Ayn Rand very rightly put it, “racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism”, and the same of course goes for all other forms of bigotry.”
Oh, yes, cult leader Ayn Rand was the very model of open-minded, free-thinking tolerance. It’s not surprising she would be your hero, given that she proclaimed selfishness to be the ultimate virtue, and reacted with visceral hostility and venom towards anyone who dared to disagree with her. As for her “anti-racism”, she thought Arabs were savages who deserved whatever they got from the Israeli imperialists. She had no particular interest in opposing the slaughter of the the Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian people by the US regime. She was more worried about the antiwar movement and the hippies.
The bottom line,***ASTER***, is that you’re a self-serving, self-absorbed, petulant, perpetually adolescent crybaby and LOSER. If you were anything else, you would have better and more important things to do than devote so much energy to attacking little ‘ol me, as though I’ve got some secret army of stormtroopers running around smasking up synagogues.
If others here are interested in finding out more about my actual outlook (given my lightning rod status for some people), this is probably the most comprehensive statement of my views of anything I’ve produced:
http://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/
‘Ethno-pluralism’, incidentally, is essentially the notion that human beings are racist by nature; it is not the claim that racism should be legally permitted but the views that human beings in general are tribal animals to whom associating with “one’s own kind” is natural and the natural state of society.
It sounds like ethno-pluralism is just common sense. You’ve heard of Yugoslavia right? I also learned in my (state-sponsored) schooling that the reason Africa has so much conflict is because boundaries of countries were drawn with no regard for the different tribes that lived there. I also notice most Americans choose to live in America, with people who they have common language and customs. It’s not PC to say it, but yes, humans do generally prefer living with people who share their language, customs, religion, ethnicity, etc.
It is, in other world, the basic worldview of the Nazi and the Klansman.
Some anonymous person on the internet has declared I’m a Nazi. Good thing I found out now. Thank you internet person.
Gabriel,
The old Yugoslavian Communist system contained many of the features we associate with political correctness in the West today-ethnic quotas, a central government that played off different ethnic groups against one another, multiculturalist ideology (though they called it simply “internationalism”), hate speech/hate crimes laws, etc. Jeez, all of that worked out really well, didn’t it?
The Communist regimes of Eastern Europe like Enver Hoxha’s Albania were also the prototypes for all of the “hate speech,” criminalization of Holocaust denial, etc. laws that have since been imported in Western Europe and Canada, with Western Communists and other totalitarian leftists usually taking the lead on trying to introduce the measures. And it’s not just Holocaust “revisionists” who are subject to these provisions. For instance, Christian and even Islamic clerics have been subject to prosecution for stating the obvious fact that their religion disapproves of homosexuality. At the same time, others have been prosecuted for criticizing Islam. Bridgette Bardot, for instance, was prosecuted for criticizing the animal breeding practices of some Islamic immigrants. David Irving was prosecuted for a speech made in another country fourteen years earlier. In Canada, a journalist was brought before the so-called human rights tribunal (which is just a modern, left-wing PC version of the Inquisition) for publishing the Danish cartoons that so pissed off the Muslims. This type of repression is continuing to spread into more and more areas. In the US, we have the First Amendment, so the PC crowd hasn’t been able to get their hooks in quite as deeply here, but they’ve established regimes of this type in those institutions where they’ve have unquestioned control, such as university humanities departments. Even prominent and influential people are not immune from this kind of persecution. Think of the examples of Lawrence Summers and Dr. James Watson. Think of the example of Hans Hermann Hoppe.
What proponents of PC wish to do is silence anyone who does not share left-wing orthodoxy concerning matters considered sacred to the left such as race, gender, homosexuality, environmentalism, etc. My antagonist on this thread is a good example. They wish to do this not only through legal and institutional measures but also through extra-legal violence. In some European countries, these antifa thugs (sort of a leftist version of the skinheads) routinely attack others with violence, and the law will look the other way. These elements are the future secret police of the future totalitarian humanist regimes that the PC leftoids wish to implement.
Ah ok I finally figured you out Keith; you’re an ex-anarcho socialist! I heard somewhere that ex-Christians make for the most hardheaded atheists, since they usually had a specific reason to leave the faith (as opposed to someone who was agnostic and reached atheism through deliberation.)
http://attackthesystem.com/learning-the-hard-way-my-life-as-an-anarcho-leftoid/
That linked article you mention by Nexus is really fascinating. I especially like tip #20, which says to tell the leftists that you won’t initiate force against them or take their stuff, which is a far better promise than they’ll get from Leninists or Green Party/ELF types!
The tips were very revealing as well. Don’t ever talk about environmental protection as any beliefs but their own seem apocalyptic and insane. Tell them you hate capitalism, since for the radical left “capitalism” includes ADM, the state, Wall Street, Rupert Murdoch, and a bunch of other stuff.
Well, for all practical purposes I still am a traditional left-wing anarcho-socialist (like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin). I incorporate the aspects of modern libertarianism into my approach that I think are correct, without necessarily buying the whole package.
The reason I am so despised by these anarcho-leftoid critters (and other leftoids) has to do with my views on political strategy. I’m for building a strategic alliance across the Left-Right spectrum against the US federal government, its empire, its economic branches, its police state,etc., and I’m for including a variety of people and movements with “conservative” social views on certain matters. I view this as necessary to wage war against the state. However, the leftoids think waging war against the state, empire, ruling class,etc. is less important than waging war against every conceivable type of “bigotry”, although they define bigotry fairly abitrarily and selectively (for instance, bigotry against rural people or poor white southerners doesn’t seem to bother them much). In their view, the war against “racism, sexism, homophobia,” et.al.ad nauseum takes priority over the war against the state. They are incensed by me because my “beyond left and right” outlook is considered a hinderance to the holy war against (non-leftist) forms of prejudice and outgroup hostility. They would rather keep the state, empire, ruling class, probably even the police state and prison-industrial complex than make any territorial or even social or cultural concessions to the political/cultural right-wing.
Also, you have to remember that most left-wingers reject libertarianism or anarchism of ANY kind. Most of them believe in a very powerful obtrusive state that interferes extensively in local communities, regions, private institutions and even foreign countries for the sake of advancing left-wing ideals like environmentalism, race/gender/sexual equality (or, more accurately, minority/feminist/gay supremacy), socialism, secularism, etc.
Anti-state leftists are a minority among leftists, and even anti-state leftists tend to hate the Right more than they hate the state. Lew Rockwell said the problem with the mainstream Republican-oriented Right is that they claim to be anti-government but what they really hate is the Left. It works both ways.
Well, for all practical purposes I still am a traditional left-wing anarcho-socialist (like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin). I incorporate the aspects of modern libertarianism into my approach that I think are correct, without necessarily buying the whole package
That’s fair enough.
In their view, the war against “racism, sexism, homophobia,” et.al. ad nauseum takes priority over the war against the state.
You’ve definitely articulated my concerns over identifying too strongly with leftist ideals. I’m not against gays having rights or women receiving equal pay for equal work or whatever, but these particular struggles are as you say seem somewhat arbitrarily selected. Abortion is legal in many places, unmarried women seem to have equal pay for equal work, and gays are more accepted now than anytime in the last 100 years. Black incomes haven’t equalized with whites but that is improving I think. Moreover, in the 21st century most of these concerns really are secondary to overcoming the state, although many were relevant in the past. Anyway, what good is gender equality of the sort Dworkin would like to see if a powerful welfare-warfare state is still around?
Thanks a lot Keith, I was almost persuaded by Roderick’s arguments for left-libertarianism. Now I realize it’s best to just be a libertarian, instead of a “left” or a “right” one. 🙂
“I’m not against gays having rights or women receiving equal pay for equal work or whatever,”
No, of course not. Whenever I’m attacked by the Left on these matters, I’m always reminded of G.K. Chesterton, the founder of distributism, who was accused of being an apologist for bosses because of his anti-Communism. His reply was something like, “Who but the devils from Hell would defend the bosses?” His point was that the Communists were just as bad if not worse.
“Abortion is legal in many places, unmarried women seem to have equal pay for equal work, and gays are more accepted now than anytime in the last 100 years. Black incomes haven’t equalized with whites but that is improving I think. Moreover, in the 21st century most of these concerns really are secondary to overcoming the state, although many were relevant in the past. Anyway, what good is gender equality of the sort Dworkin would like to see if a powerful welfare-warfare state is still around?”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Since the 1960s the Left has pursued a strategy of “outgroups, unite” even though many traditional outgroups don’t really have much in common, like socially and religiously conservative racial minorities and Third World immigrants, feminists, traditional working class labor union members,environmentalists and homosexuals.
My approach is more or less the same thing, although I focus on contemporary outgroups rather than past ones, and identify the state and the empire as the primary target, rather than “straight white male hegemony,” “cultural conservatism” or the private sector(though I don’t consider the plutocracy to be private).
“Thanks a lot Keith, I was almost persuaded by Roderick’s arguments for left-libertarianism. Now I realize it’s best to just be a libertarian, instead of a “left” or a “right” one.”
Thank you. I don’t consider someone like Roderick or Charles Johnson to be an “enemy,” just someone with a different point of view. I’m not really into labels, but someone once referred to me as a populist-libertarian-anarchist, and I kind of like that and think its appropriate.
Dare I suggest the term “moderate anarchist”?
I don’t consider someone like Roderick or Charles Johnson to be an “enemy,” just someone with a different point of view.
Very true, they are great guys and certainly both have made substantial contributions to the body of literature of the libertarian movement. I just feel that their attempt to steer the libertarian movement to Leftist ideals (or “recover the ideals the Leftists stole from us” as Roderick might prefer) is misguided. The funny thing with the criticisms that Block has leveled at them is that although Block claims to reject thick libertarianism he himself holds many “right” beliefs as dearly as Roderick holds “left” ones (e.g. that so-called “union thugs” would have no place in a freed market, that slave contracts are legitimate, that corporations like Walmart represent a free market, private cops in Disney World are great, etc).
Johnson himself summed up my thoughts very well when he said “I think that anarchy is an achievement for the future, not a restoration of any kind of idyllic past”.
Keith-
“I’m a “self-hater”, am I? At least I never saw the need to have my “gender identity” surgically altered (like I told you before, if you want to throw rocks at me, I’m going to hit back and hit hard).”
There is a different between hitting hard and appealing to irrational prejudice and deliberate hate and lies. Perhaps you really don’t understand the difference, or pretend not to. I suspect however that some of those this reading this will. Nick, Marja, Charles, Roderick- this is the hard evidence for what I have been saying all along about Keith Preston. This is straight out, classic, bigotry.
Here are some other words of his:
“The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”
I do know about others here, but I personally believe that a person or a society which values personal self-fulfillment, emotional and psychological health, and material prosperity- in a word, human happiness- is a good thing, nay, the best thing. It is this happiness which repressive and brutal societies make impossible and precisely what those who desire a society which protects individual rights seek to nurture. It is not weakness but strength to favour humanity over cruelty- or Athens (or even Corinth) over Sparta. Real power is the power to enjoy life in this world- not the raw and empty power to fight and win, but to smile, create, and love (I do not mean Christian love). Or, as Shadia Drury put it, in another context:
“[M}en like Heidegger, Schmitt, Kojève, and Strauss expect the worst. They expect that the universal spread of the spirit of commerce would soften manners and emasculate man. To my mind, this fascistic glorification of death and violence springs from a profound inability to celebrate life, joy, and the sheer thrill of existence.”
Sneering down at others because they don’t deny their feelings isn’t superiority, Keith. It’s spiritual poverty. So is the ignorant prejudice displayed above.
* *
And he’s taught how
to walk in a pack,
shoot in the back
with his fist in a clinch.
To hang and to lynch
To hide ‘neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain’t got no name
But it ain’t him to blame.
He’s only a pawn in their game.
(Bob Dylan)
Well, I’m gonna flesh my argument out in an upcoming post, but essentially I think you can appreciate Keith’s arguments and still consider at least some conceptions of “thick libertarianism” as valid. In fact, Keith seems to approve of the idea of identifying a broader cultural setting for libertarianism.
His point about the workability of primary alliances with the broader Left is sound, I think. It does need to be addressed, but I want more time to think about a response. In any case, I think there would be value in building a movement that could retake leftism for the libertarian version. Especially if the groups you cite as on the left are being co-opted into the state, that seems like a perfect catalyst for cutting the cord between statism and the Left.
I couldn’t agree more about the need to be flexible in our strategic political alliances. But I think it’s possible that some libertarians, in simply being themselves, will tend to emphasize values that would be considered more to the Left. If a movement can be built around that significant subset of the population, it could be powerful. And it could participate in a broader anti-state movement and make it clear what being leftist is about.
“There is a different between hitting hard and appealing to irrational prejudice and deliberate hate and lies.”
Those who live in glass houses should think twice before throwing rocks at others. It is you who act with “irrational prejudice and deliberate hate and lies” towards me, and then cowardly hide behind the shield of political correctness in a pathetic effort to claim immunity from retaliation. It is you who personally attack and insult me and attempt to incite hatred towards me by others, and do so in such a cowardly manner that you pathetically attempt to obscure you who really are-“anonymous”.
“this is the hard evidence for what I have been saying all along about Keith Preston. This is straight out, classic, bigotry.”
Accusations of “bigotry” mean about as much to me as accusations of “communist” or “anti-American” that I have gotten from my right-wing opponents in the past. You are every bit as ignorant and narrow-minded as you imagine those whom you attack to be. You attempt to hide behind your status as an Officially Oppressed Minority, as though that gives you a free pass to attack others with impunity. If others are taken in by your mendacity, self-pity and cowardly self-absorption masquerading as enlightened humanism, so much the worse for them.
” It is not weakness but strength to favour humanity over cruelty- or Athens (or even Corinth) over Sparta. Real power is the power to enjoy life in this world- not the raw and empty power to fight and win, but to smile, create, and love”
From Paul Belien:
“a wholly new danger emerged, namely that of welfare immigration—the immigration of people, increasingly from cultures which have not been shaped by the basic forces of European civilization, who come purely for the purpose of claiming welfare benefits…Many of the natives, the indigenous Dutch, are fleeing. Last year, as in every year since 2004, more ethnic Dutch natives moved out of the country than newcomers moved in…One emigrant Dutchman, a homosexual author who now lives in Brussels, wrote recently: “I am not a warrior. I do not fight for freedom. I am only good at enjoying it.”..All over Europe, Muslims regard Western women as whores waiting to be raped. The number of reported rapes in Sweden is three times as high as in New York City, which has roughly the same number of inhabitants but is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. While many women in Western Europe fear what might happen to them, they have become almost fatalistic about it. A young German woman said that it is “better to let yourself be raped than risk injuries while resisting, better to avoid fighting than risk death.” This attitude is very un-American, but is typical for the secularist Europeans. Europe has chosen the path of submission…The self-inflicted disease of welfarism saps people of the strength to take care of themselves, to stand up for their rights, to fight for their freedom and even for their physical integrity…The ludicrously permissive Dutch open their doors for those who want to assassinate them. In a secularist and politically correct society, it is harder to withhold rights (apparently even from a man who butchers fellow citizens) than to magnanimously grant them, displaying one’s tolerance and broad-mindedness as one does so. What harm, the liberals think, because for them these rights are no more than abstract professions of non-discrimination.”
From Sean Gabb:
“Mr Obama cannot be more stupid in his actions or more embarrassing in his utterances than Mr Bush has been. But his essential function as President will be to shield the new ruling class of America while it carries through a total transformation of American life. I do not know exactly how America will change. But I can predict that, come 2016, most Americans will no longer recognise their country. It will be less free. It will be less prosperous. It will be less American. What has happened in England, and what is happening in Australia, will now happen in America. All this is to be regretted. I think increasingly, however, that if those who are transforming the English world are to be blamed, those who are being transformed are no less to be despised. In 1917, power was seized in Russia by men who were prepared to murder anyone who so much as raised an eyebrow at them. Whether they murdered thirty million or sixty million people is important in the obvious sense. Where ensuring absolute docility of the ruled is concerned, it is the first million who matter. No one can blame the Russian people for grovelling before Stalin. But none of the almost equally radical governments that have taken over in the English world has killed any of its own citizens, or is proposing to kill any. We have been enslaved by a small minority of intellectuals whose most potent weapon is words. Any people who can be so enslaved deserves to be enslaved.”
From Patrick Henry:
” Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! “
Keith has crossed the line – not just making personal attacks but making ones which endanger other posters.
“Tell her I said thanks for the compliment. I’m a “self-hater”, am I? At least I never saw the need to have my “gender identity” surgically altered (like I told you before, if you want to throw rocks at me, I’m going to hit back and hit hard).”
Gender identity is rooted in the friggin’ brain. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034
Transition doesn’t alter that, it alters the body to match the brain. I have known the hatred which our society teaches for people like me – I have overcome it in myself and face it in others. I have known a little self-hatred -more body-hatred- and have found my way out of it.
As for why –
I don’t think libertarianism can or should be reduced to one political program. Rather, it must be its ends, which, as an anarchist, I would summarize as freedom among equals, or as a voluntary and egalitarian society. There may be a certain tension between these ends, but without freedom, there is no egalitarianism, and without equality, there is no freedom for the marginalized and the oppressed.
People change their means as they see better and worse opportunities; I moved from left-Marxism to mutualist anarchism; others turn to bigger cages and looser chains for the moment. People rarely change their ends. I believe that those who embrace less-than-libertarian politics on libertarian grounds are potential allies; those who embrace libertarian politics on authoritarian grounds are near-certain opponents.
Now I am skeptical of civilization, and would like to see distinct cultures thrive in their own communities, so I am tempted to oppose those who praise civilization and those who oppose panarchy – but – I will not align myself with those who condemn my dreams.
Anyway, you shouldn’t try to identify or out an anonymous poster. I doubt that it puts her in any real danger, but it is HER choice, not yours to make.
Gabriel:
“It sounds like ethno-pluralism is just common sense. You’ve heard of Yugoslavia right? I also learned in my (state-sponsored) schooling that the reason Africa has so much conflict is because boundaries of countries were drawn with no regard for the different tribes that lived there. I also notice most Americans choose to live in America, with people who they have common language and customs. It’s not PC to say it, but yes, humans do generally prefer living with people who share their language, customs, religion, ethnicity, etc.”
Now I really understand “anonymous” when he or she says that there is nothing more dangerous in right wing concepts than “tribalism”. It is pure irrationality, the idea that people who live in my tribe are radically “different” than people that live in the neighboring one. It is irrational, dangerous and fails to recognize that the fact that generally we are just humans. That doesn´t mean people don´t have differences, cultural ones, and that they have not the right to live according to those. But difference is not a justification for parrochialism and collectivism, spoused by tribalists. And this is precisly what people like you and mr Persons are defending. Not a very libertarian principle, which is supposed to defend the rights of INDIVIDUALS and reason, not tribalism and irrational fear and hatred of the other in the name of “difference”.