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).
Basically, what Anonymous is saying is that his or her opinion is the only valid opinion, and anyone who disagrees with him or her is inhuman. Hmm, where have we heard that before? I believe a little Nietzsche will smoke Anonymous out of his or her hole.
“Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope…
‘What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge’–thus they speak to each other. ‘We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not’–thus do the tarantula hearts vow. ‘And ‘will to equality’ shall henceforth be the name for virtue…’
You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue.” – Friedrich Nietzsche, from Thus Spake Zarathustra “On the Tarantulas”
You see, I am not a Libertarian, but it seems to me that while Libertarians want to tolerate people of all different views (as long as they as peaceful), people like Anonymous have a burning hatred and contempt for anyone who is different from them, or who refuses to “accept” them. What we see leaping off the screen from Anonymous’ words is a lust for revenge disguised as moral indignation.
Marja,
I apologize for any offense you may have taken from my comments.
As for “anonymous,” it is “anonymous” who initiated the personal attacks on me, not just here on this thread, but on another thread, and on a number of other lists or blogs. I used to belong to a list moderated by “anonymous,” as “anonymous” had initially expressed an interest in some of my work, only to vehemently disagree with some of my other views, and subsequently expel me from the list. I was okay with that, as I very much favor freedom of association, including freedom of exclusion. Even after that, on a few occasions when I criticized statements made by “anonymous” on other forums, including my own, I would refrain from attacking “anonymous” personally or even mentioning “anonymous” actual identity, as I did not want to be a source of sectarian division, personality clashes and other in-fighting among libertarians.
Since then, however, “anonymous” has gone out of their way to attack me publically and personally in a variety of forums, encouraged other list owners to expel me, and does so in a shrill and accusatory manner without regard for facts, evidence, arguments, etc. “Anonymous” is intelligent, knowlegeable of political theory and familiar enough with my own work to know that these accusations are baseless. The “Nazi” accusation is the most absurd of all, given that I have denounced Nazism over and over again in my work, compared aspects of the US police state to those of National Socialist Germany, and I have repeatedly criticized the U.S. regime for exhibiting qualities closing resembling fascism.
In the article that Roderick posted at the beginning of this thread, I included in the endnotes references to no less than three separate articles by myself where I am criticizing social conservatism of the kind “anonymous” abhors. In fact, in the piece on thick libertarianism I expressed sympathy with the social/cultural left on the majority of issues. I have written extensively in the defense of prisoners, drug users, prostitutes, the homeless, youth cultures, and even gang members, and other such groups that conventional left-wingers often show no interest in. In fact, I’ve also done local television broadcasts on these topics over the years, and I’ve been involved in local activism around these issues. For years, I have promoted the work of Kevin Carson and other leading left-libertarian economists. “Anonymous” accusations concerning my supposed obsession with death and destruction are particularly ironic considering I have been an antiwar activist for over twenty years, and have opposed every military action by the US government in my lifetime (and most others before that in retrospect). My views on armed struggle are the same as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Take them for what you will.
“Anonymous” has provided no evidence whatsoever to support all of the horrid accusations made against me. A single quote where I speak derogatorily of the left-anarchist milieu, which I admit is a bit overstated though somewhat tongue-in-cheek, is irrelevant to a discussion of what my actual political views and objectives are. Another quote where I criticize Westerners for being too fat, wimpy and lazy and not “eternally vigilant” enough in defense of their liberties is pretty well evidenced by contemporary events. If “anonymous” prefers a society of mush-mouthed pansies ripe for enslavement, I suppose that’s their prerogative.
“Anonymous” accuses me of everything from dishonesty to mental illness to organizing genocide, and then turns around and tries to play innocent victim when I throw a little bit of mud in their direction. “If you can’t take the heat….”
The source of “anonymous” obsessive hostility to me seems to be my outreach efforts to the Right, and my criticisms of certain totalitarian tendencies on the Left. Sorry, folks, I call ’em like I see ’em. Just as there are people on the Right who raise valid arguments, or points of concern, so are there people on the Left with an authoritarian agenda of their own.
If others disagree with me, fine. So be it. However, “anonymous” uses disagreement as license for endless personal attacks, insults, lies, fraud, and defamation, as well as efforts to draw a wedge between me and other people with whom I have no quarrel. As they say in primary school, “She started it!”
I fail to see why I should show any courtesy, consideration or respect to such a person. If “anonymous” does not want to be insulted or personally attacked by me, then “anonymous” should have thought about that before insulting or personally attacking me. “Anonymous” uses that moniker because she has publicly disassociated herself from libertarians on one hand (because libertarians won’t put her in charge of the movement) and then hides behind anonymity for the sake of initiating further personal attacks on libertarians.
Nor do I care two goddamn fucks about “anonymous” selective indignation and crybabyism concerning “bigotry.” “Anonymous” started this fight, and I’ll make it as rough and as vicious as “anonymous” wants to make it, and then some.
Michael,
Amen.
Sergio,
Ideological constructs do not undo thousands of years of actual human experience. Read your Burke and Hayek. Economic Marxists can claim exemptions from the laws of economics all they want, economic laws exist still the same. “You can’t have your take and eat it too,” for instance. Cultural Marxists can claim exemptions from human nature and social science all they want, human beings are still tribal creatures. Does that mean it’s necessary to hate or want to murder all other tribes? Of course not, just as the fact that you prefer your own children doesn’t mean you need to wish harm on other children. Just because you prefer your own wife or girlfriend doesn’t mean you need to be a serial killer of other women. But there’s still a difference between “mine” and “theirs” and “us” and “them.”
Keith:
You assume to many things that are nebolous or doubious concepts. You know, like “human nature”, and the idea that family (“we prefer our own children”) is a natural concept, and not a social construct. That does no mean that humans do not tend to appreciate more their families, but rather, that what is considered family is usually a social construct and not part of “human nature” or a “biological fact”. Trying to hide behind rethoric of “thousends of years of human experience” is not going to make your case any better.
Sergio:
“You know, like “human nature”, and the idea that family (”we prefer our own children”) is a natural concept, and not a social construct.”
If i had a dollar for every time I’d heard an attempted debunk on that basis that this or that “is a social construct”.
Fine, complete the line of reasoning. What differentiates a (undefined) “natural concept” from an (poorly defined) “social construct”? Does the distinction make any sense at all; is there anything related to humans that you can NOT claim are “social constructs”?
Peter:
Sure there are things in humans that are not social constructs. The idea of family, is not one of them WHAT is considered family varies depending of time and culture (and even, individuals). That is mostly accepted by antropologists in general, and with good reason.
Sergio,
I’m not defending “families” or “tribes” as such; merely pointing out that A) libertarianism means respecting freedom of association and the choice of people as to their associates, and B) that many people in many different times and places seem to like associating with people with similar customs, language, religion, etc. You could argue that B) is factually mistaken of course, and if I am misreading anthropology then by all means correct me. How would you explain the many African conflicts of the last 100 years, if it’s not the remnants of British forced integration?
As to A), I don’t think respecting freedom of association in a libertarian anarchist society will result in thousands of little “tribes” in a war-of-all-against-all. If you’re so worried about it, you probably should stop hanging out with anarchists; after all, forcing people to integrate and live together with those they would not otherwise choose to live together with is much easier to accomplish with a powerful state than by trying to persuade or argue.
Keith, anonymous, and others,
Well, this is really not the kind of nastiness I wanted to wake up to this morning. Anonymous correctly intuited that I would read this conversation and Keith had notified me by email of his intent to critique left-libertarianism. For those who are interested, I will pen my own essay in response — as I’ve been increasingly frustrated by the world’s contempt for cultural liberalism lately. This frustration will probably produce a new site or organization intended to promote the study of the foundations of liberal polities. It may expand to include a Bohemanian esque magazine or blog of sorts. If such a publication comes to be, then I invite Aster Francesca, Charles Johnson, Roderick Long and other creative thinkers interested in a thick or contextual left-“libertarianism” to contribute — emphasis would not be on promoting Libertarianism as official movement or ideology per se, because I want to make it comfortable for liberal thinkers like Adam Reed who reject Libertarianism. I’ll likely invite individualist minded Progressives I personally like to have a dialogue too. That said, it would be a colloborative project in some form or another, so I am not proposing I take on CEO omnicompetence.
After much recent reflection mostly induced by former Libertarian personality Aster and Objectivist Adam Reed, I’ve decided that I need to shift gears to more integrated liberal philosophic-cultural-political education to help keep the world on a positive track — not to mention revel in intellectual stimulation.
Ok, I hope I am not the target of accusations of self-indulgence after that windy “press release” ( :
It’s a good thing that my friends will attest to my general lack of conscious arrogance!
My contribution to this debate:
Firstly, the exchanges between Keith and anonymous have yet to deter either from political action. It’s ironic that I share many of anonoymous’s concerns about Keith’s worldview without caring so much about targeting him in particular, but the fact that neither have been deterred from political action indicates that attempts to crowd each other out aren’t working. I don’t think Keith will disappear due to constant verbal fights, so I maintain a Chris Sciabarra sense of civility without giving up my passion. I do have to say that I share Marja’s DEEP disdain for Keith’s attempt to out Anonymous with charges of alleged transsexuality and being Aster. I am not going to say whether I think it’s Aster or not, because I must uphold the value of privacy. Regardless of who it is, the Aster accused of wanting to be Rand esque dictatorial cult leader of the Libertarian movement is not the Aster I’ve known. As someone who has a profound admiration for her, I cannot simply remain silent while she is misrepresented. Other than that, I am really not going to say anything more in this thread. I’ve already stated my views on Keith Preston in both public-private venues multiple times. I am going to save my passionate disagreements for my blog response.
One more thing: as someone who almost had a sex change and suffered TWO relationship break-ups over it. One of which tramutizied me to the point of two suicide attempts, I cannot emphaize clearly enough that making fun or targeting people based on gender identity is profoundly destructive. It’s a testament to the resolve and confidence of my friend Marja that she was able to read this. I am immensely pleased to see her in such a self-appreciative mood in this thread! You’ve earned another L Word season watching with me ( :
Lol.
Gabriel:
First at all, lets make clear I favor freedom of asociation as an essential right all people have. That doesn´t mean I am willing not to criticize CERTAIN forms of association based on irrationality, that are exclusive for the sake of it (say, racist associations) or that in that those associations pretend to justify themselves using some vague tribal concepts or reification of some ideological predjuice. Secondly, I am not fearfull tnat in an anarchistic society “will result in thousands of little “tribes” in a war-of-all-against-all”. Yet, even if I think is highly unlikly such thing happens, it is not imposible, in the sense it depends of people and their actions to determine which path will an anarchistic society will take. And since one of the basic propositions ot thick libertarianism is that cultural enviroment is essential in the maintainement of a an anarchist, a free social order, and I think those cultural enviroment is best represented by left values, I will defend the position I´ve been holding here.
Communists also saw people as a blank-slate with “human nature” just a social construction they could replace. They turned out to be dead wrong.
If individuals are tribalists, than one who respects the autonomy of individuals will permit them to organize themselves on the basis of tribalism.
Sergio:
Thanks for your reply:
“Peter:
Sure there are things in humans that are not social constructs. The idea of family, is not one of them WHAT is considered family varies depending of time and culture (and even, individuals). That is mostly accepted by antropologists in general, and with good reason. ”
Sure, the concept of family would vary according to culture, no disagreement there.
Then again, what’s referred to as “family” on a western-dominated forum can’t come as a surprise to many. Besides, am I wrong when I claim that for the vast majority of human history, recorded or dug up by by archaeologists, a family has been a pair-bonded male and female in unison producing and tending to their offspring?
If that is the case (which I believe), then there is no need to starting a discussion about social constructs, it would simply be a non sequitur.
Peter:
“Then again, what’s referred to as “family” on a western-dominated forum can’t come as a surprise to many. Besides, am I wrong when I claim that for the vast majority of human history, recorded or dug up by by archaeologists, a family has been a pair-bonded male and female in unison producing and tending to their offspring?”
The problem precisly is that is not the case. In many cultures it is male and various females. In others make and female bond to produce offspring, but kids get educated by grandfahters or the comunity. In others family is extended and include more than just the couple and their offspring living in the same home etc…
TGGP,
I don’t think thick left-libertarians like Charles Johnson, I, and Roderick Long are claiming human beings are blank slates. We are claiming that human beings are not innately concrete perceptual bound tribalists who have to shun the person over the hill.
“If individuals are tribalists, than one who respects the autonomy of individuals will permit them to organize themselves on the basis of tribalism.”
Well, I often find being part of a tribe depressing. I am a black sheep in my biological family. My grandfather told me tonight that U.S. Muslims are ok, but they still need to be watched. I sometimes wish I weren’t so public of a figure in Libertarian/anarchist circles, because I find that unity can involve kneejerk worries about being “ousted” coming up — my psychology can be pretty starved for attention at points. One of the happiest experiences of my life was spent in San Francisco speaking to people of diverse ideological political labels — the atheist Nick meets the mystical Pagan escorts and Social Democratish best friend of a friend. I have a friend in Israel who doesn’t think abortions are moral, but who doesn’t want them to be illegial or wants to shun/make life miserable for people who get them. I am meeting a kind intellectually curious Christian friend tomorrow — despite sounding like a Randian when talking about the merits of Christianity. My dream places to live in the U.S. are New York City and San Francisco — cosmpolitian urbanism all the way.
This is why I find it strange when people say tribalism is innate. I walk around and see people of different ethnicities get along every single day. What’s the problem? Because I’ve never gotten an answer that doesn’t leave me scratching my head. I read news reports about intensely tribalistic societies like Afghanistan and Iraq all the time. I vastly prefer even my precarious position in America to those environments — which is not to say I endorse the empire or police state.
If we were really all tribalists, then that would majorly upset my worldview. It’s a good thing that we’re not, and the Civil Rights movement happened. A Libertarian whose spirit would be satisfied with being stuck with the Nation of Islam for the rest of their lives is simply living in a different world then me. Why should I respect the cultural or social “legitimacy” of people to aborgate benevolent individualism in favor of abusive tribalism? I may not put a gun to their head, but I don’t have to remain quiet about it. I’ve comforted a person living in a cultural ghetto before, and I’ve had to worry about losing out on major things in life due to transsexuality — the straight God fearing tribe not being accomodating. No politics that ignores these directly perceived realities is ever going to be taken seriously by me. Not by a long shot.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a Southern Baptist, but he spoke like a mostly complete philosophical ally when he said this:
““We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant ‘Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness” then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”
http://www.lifeloveandliberty.com/2008/07/01/martin-luther-king-jr-quote/
I just want people to understand what it’s like to have to worry about coming out as transsexual in a context where your decidely mixed biological tribe wonders about and takes an interest in your life. To live in a society where escape from that is impossible due to a public tribal morality of fidelity to family and lack of social safety net outside of said family is deabiliting in the extreme. I am lucky to have been born with immediate parents I can get along well with in a society with a nominal respect for some degree of civilized conduct. Not all teens and young adults have been so lucky:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/06/iraq-kurdish-girl-st.html
The video above depicts the view of “just” punishment for offense against family-tribe to its logical conclusion. I didn’t support the War in Iraq, but that incident made me angry enough to really want the U.S. military to kill somebody in Iraq — the mob under question. It was an admittedly knee jerk emotionalist response that shouldn’t be acted on without rational reflection, but it’s an entirely understandable one.
This isn’t an academic debate for some of us. We’ve been in tribal ghettos before and looked outward to better places. Not all of us have yet to make it to them.
Hmm, not cool.
From what I could gather of the account of this incident on some of the related links, this act was perpetrated by the US-allied Kurds, who were suppressed by the secular Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Christians have also been dealt with fairly mercilessly by the Kurds and the Islamic factions to the point where most of them have fled to Syria (which is also a Ba’athist regime).
Score one for Thomas Hobbes.
“To live in a society where escape from that is impossible due to a public tribal morality of fidelity to family and lack of social safety net outside of said family is deabiliting in the extreme.”
It’ wouldn’t be so nice to live in a society where you are harassed by left-libertarian activists for living a conservative lifestyle, either.
It depends on what you mean by harassment. I would hope that people would be curious and open about new ideas. It’s possible to be an intellectual activist without approaching people execution style. If we’re not going to be nihilists, then there are going to be some values that are worth “fighting” for.
Am I going to throw acid in the face of a woman who chooses to stay at home and raise her children? No. Am I going to be seriously concerned that the local movie theater is owned by a guy who puts a “no niggers” sign out front?
Yes
I am pretty content to let people live their own lives. That’s why I don’t like it when a black or white or Asian person can’t go enjoy a movie due to racial prejudice. I am not sure if that places me on the “cultural left” as Keith sees it, because I don’t always agree with Progressive approaches to shared concerns. I see legitimate individualist concerns with things like mandating racial quotas via force of law.
Many years ago, when I was heavily into New Left ways of thinking, I very foolishly tried to join the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, and was rejected as they took the “All-African” part of their name very seriously.
“Am I going to be seriously concerned that the local movie theater is owned by a guy who puts a “no niggers” sign out front?
Yes”
A guy like that is being silly and narrow-minded, but I’d defend his legal right to do it. Richard Epstein makes a good case against laws banning discrimination.
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Grounds-Against-Employment-Discrimination/dp/0674308085
There are some instances where discrimination of this type may be warranted, though it need not be so crudely stated, such as a high racial tension area where the presence of multiple races is likely to lead to violence, or where a substantial portion of the members of a particular ethnic group are associated with serious predatory crime to the degree where their presence guarantees increased threats of that kind.
Also, there’s the question of whether associations formed for the advancement of the interests of particular groups are legitimate in excluding outsiders. For instance, looking back on it, the AAPRP had good reasons for keeping me out, as they exist as a black organization for the purpose of advancing black interests, and do not wish to be co-opted or distracted by whites who will inevitably bring somewhat different views with them.
” am not sure if that places me on the “cultural left” as Keith sees it, because I don’t always agree with Progressive approaches to shared concerns.”
Well, you’re obviously a “cultural leftist” in the broad sense of sympathies and affiliations, though on this issue you don’t need to be a conventional left-winger to think racially separated theaters are unnecessary. I don’t really think such things are necessary, except in unique or extraordinary situations of the kind I mentioned. You could certainly oppose such things and be a Burkean conservative, a born-again Christian, a traditionalist Catholic, a Muslim, an Orthodox Jews, or even a non-racialist fascist. I guess you could even be a white nationalist or separatist of certain kinds without seeing the need for such things.
A situation where norms of civility have degenerated to the point of open mindless sectarian wafare is arguably an instance where “emergency ethics” is called for. I don’t view evasion of racially “impure” territory in that context to be the same — there is a lot of individual context to consider. We’re in agreement there.
However, I don’t think any of your challengers in the recent blog eruption over cultural leftism are talking about those kinds of emergency situations. With the possible exception of Anonymous, we’re not in support of coercive laws against evil isms. I don’t know of any left-libertarian who has made use of the state to back their cultural interests — when peaceful people are involved. I know a TG person in NYC who wouldn’t even use the state on their behalf. It’s also true that having culturally left views in a broad sense doesn’t automatically make you a supporter of individual rights. My family includes supporters of smoking bans who claim to be surpremely liberal. My sister has no problem with gay people, but she still wants cocaine banned. That said, the idea of a dialectical thick left-libertarianism is to draw connections between being against racism and being for non-coercive proccesses in resolving disputes over secondhand smoke. In that sense, we’re a constructive “threat” to every inconsistent “Progressive” nominal individualist out there. As much as I may be frustrated with my nominally Progressive relatives at times, I see them as more of a potential audience then Islamist separatists wanting to establish Sharia enclaves. If America is super politically correct, then these groups are of no major consequence for even the pragmatic question of successful revolt against the imperial state. Incidentelly, you mentioned a poll about secessionism that showed black/latino support for it. How do you know they supported it on racialist grounds?
” Incidentelly, you mentioned a poll about secessionism that showed black/latino support for it. How do you know they supported it on racialist grounds?”
That was just speculation on my part. I do know that racial-nationalist ideologies are more prevalent among minorities, so I guessed that this was a possible explanation. I was rather surprised by that poll’s results, given that many Americans, presumably blacks in particular, associate secessionism with the Confederacy, and consequently with the pro-slavery cause.
“As much as I may be frustrated with my nominally Progressive relatives at times, I see them as more of a potential audience then Islamist separatists wanting to establish Sharia enclaves.”
Those aren’t much of an issue in the US, but it’s a real issue in Europe.
“That said, the idea of a dialectical thick left-libertarianism is to draw connections between being against racism and being for non-coercive proccesses in resolving disputes over secondhand smoke. In that sense, we’re a constructive “threat” to every inconsistent “Progressive” nominal individualist out there.”
How are there connections between being against racism and issues pertaining to smoking? I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I’m not really getting your point here.
“Am I going to throw acid in the face of a woman who chooses to stay at home and raise her children? No.”
What about “ridiculing” or “socially ostracizing” her “patriarchal” husband? My main beef with the kind of thick libertarianism Johnson is advocating is that it seems not to respect the right of a person to voluntarily enter an inegalitarian/hierarchical lifestyle.
If I decide to become a monk thereby abolishing some of my freedoms and having to obey a formal hierarchy, isn’t it my right to do so? If I get a masochistic kick out of my wife ordering me around the house and she enjoys it too, isn’t it our right to live that way? And if I’m free to abandon the monastic life or divorce my wife, what need is there for self-appointed “liberators” to help “liberate” me against my will?
Nick,
Yes, the issues you’ve raised point to what I consider to be primary difficulties with thick libertarianism and other similar ways of thinking.