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).
Anonymous person using my name,
Who said anything about liberating women against their will? I think the people on here who’ve met me will vouch for my smooth and respectful approach to dealing with others.
It’s not about being condescending, unless a belief in objective discernment of oppression is automatically condescending. Am I in the wrong to point out to a Jew that joining the Nazi Party is a bad idea? I admit it’s better that people realize these things on their own, but you can’t posit completely isolated human beings. The people in your hypothetical will likely exist in some form of a social setting. And if I am in that social setting, then I am going to be honest about my thoughts. I consider courtesy preferable to all cruelty in discourse. I exhaust flower power before I turn to cruise missiles.
For the record, I do not assume that a woman who stays at home to raise children or her husband supports patriarchy. Patriarchy is the abstract belief that men should rule and be above women. The concrete I mentioned is compatible with a society of free thinking individuals “bowing” to the dictates of their own mind.
Woah! Sorry, Nick. On your first response to me, I thought you were using my name to preface my comments. I don’t wish to exude pomposity, so I thought I’d apologize ( :
I can see that you must be another Nick and not an anonymous person. Once again, I apologize. And I thank you for challenging my convictions.
“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.”
Charles is down in Texas, so we may have to wait for his response to this. That said, if a person’s husband is doing great harm, then I’ll probably point that out. What happens when said husband starts treating my radical feminist girlfriend poorly? Am I or her supposed to just say “patriarchy is your subjective preference, so you can keep talking”?
People have a legal right to have consensual S & M experiences or join Buddhist retreats, but an open society will likely contain people discussing their merits. A healthy society is not static.
My question for you, Nick: are there any values other than formal non-aggression Libertarian ones that you hold dear? What if the world were being overtaken by the idea that everyone should discipline themselves in monk style all the time? Would you speak out against it, or would you just say that it’s their right to do so?
I ask, because at a certain point, you may find that being a monkish person is the only way you’ll feel connected or get access to adequate food — all social life having been concentrated in monasteries. This is why cultural nihilism can’t ever work. I am curious to hear your thoughts.
What really blows my mind about all of this is that no one seems to get that the alliance Keith Preston is advocating between far lefties, the urban lumpenproletariat, the “radical middle,” and the socially conservative neo-peasantry would, if successful, in all likelihood be the death of the U.S. Empire, a goal also known as: “Bringing the Whole Motherfucker Down,” “the Holy Grail,” and “the Revolution.” If we were able to do this, almost all of the rest of the world would be fucking ECSTATIC.
In a decentralized confederation of the former United States, there would most likely be some enclaves that would be virtually hell on earth in their xenophobia, racism, sexism, intolerance, etc. But there would also be places of unbelievable enlightenment, rationality and compassion, etc. The whole point of anarchism, to my mind, is that in the absence of the centralized state everyone would be free to pursue their idea of utopia. Which would be someone else’s idea of dystopia, but that’s kinda the point – no one has a monopoly on truth, and there is no one right way to live.
Also, doesn’t everyone realize that if people you despise separate from you, that means you don’t have to put up with them anymore? All we have to do is give up the idea of somehow converting everyone to our own perspective.
That is to say, I personally am a fairly extreme “cultural leftist” – I agree that patriarchy, certain aspects of the concept of white privilege, and widespread cultural contempt for homosexuals are serious social problems. But the methods of addressing these things differ so wildly that we absolutely have to draw a distinction between the genuine libertarian left and the totalitarian humanists. If for no other reason that the purely selfish one of: Do you want people to think you’re some kind of PC totalitarian fanatic when you start denouncing “racism, sexism and homophobia?” Because that’s where we’re heading, if we’re not there already. Similarly, I would like to be able to bash capitalism without people assuming that I’m advocating a communist dictatorship, but that’s exactly what’s happened because of the goddamn Commies.
I think Keith hits the nail on the head in two ways: One, if libertarians by and large adopt the left-countercultural 60’s values of anti-racism, feminism, etc. they will assuredly become simply another subset of the radical left and the “ordinary people” will come to regard them simply as yet another faction of stuck-up, elitist city folk out to impose their supposedly more enlightened ways on the rest of the populace. Two, we need to draw a big, fat distinction between us and the totalitarian humanists. It is same as the historic divide between Anarchists and Communists.
Totalitarian Humanists, like their Communist counterparts before them, are not totalitarians in some nebulous rhetorical way (like the way “anonymous” is trying to impute “Nazism” to Keith because of his contempt for weakness, cowardice and materialism, for instance) but full-on fucking TOTALITARIANS. They are presently engaged in attempting to seize control of the centralized state power in order to construct a totalitarian bureaucracy dedicated to eradicating any possible leftist sin like “racism, sexism, homophobia” and activities like smoking, wherever they may be found. They have no problem with using even WAR to advance these ends. They are the kind of people who supported the attack on Afghanistan because it was supposedly going to help the women under the Taliban.
To illustrate how “left-wing” cultural values can lead to totalitarian tendencies, or are at least not necessarily incompatible with them, let me offer my own experience:
I am vehemently opposed to the custom of spanking children. I regard it as a form of sexually tinged child abuse (though admittedly mild compared to some of the other things people do to their kids), EXTREMELY authoritarian, and probably one of the primary ways many people are conditioned to accepting the dictates of “the system.”
A few years ago, I carried this opposition to the point of wanting the government to ban it (despite being an anarchist) and would say things like (and this pains me to admit it): “spanking is three-quarters of the way to rape” and “everyone who hits their kids should have their fucking teeth knocked out.” This is a totalitarian attitude, if anyone doesn’t know.
I am still opposed to this practice but this kind of attitude strikes me as the height of foolishness for two reasons: one, because the state cannot change a cultural practice, no matter how vile, that is this deeply ingrained, and two,
because banning it would result in a huge backlash from parents who felt that their rights were somehow under attack, and would regard perpetrating this form of child abuse as some kind of rebellion, as perverse as that sounds to me.
The point is, you can’t change these things with laws. You have to change people’s minds. (I personally would like spanking children to become about as socially acceptable as shitting in the middle of the street.)
And moreover, there are quite simply bigger fish to fry at this moment. If someone is opposed to the Iraq War but feels that it is somehow their right to spank their children, well, I would rather not lose an ally by getting all high and mighty on them. First and foremost, we need to stop the goddamn Empire that has murdered 6-8 million people, is currently imprisoning about half that many, and will go to unheard-of extremes to maintain its power. We need our friends in this endeavor wherever we can get them, be they urban transsexuals, rural theocratic retards, or middle-managing corporate flunkies.
“What if the world were being overtaken by the idea that everyone should discipline themselves in monk style all the time? Would you speak out against it, or would you just say that it’s their right to do so?”
Sure I’d speak against it.
I’m all for battling ideas with ideas but I draw the line at using means such as “ridicule” and “social ostracism” to win the battle.
I’ve read some good arguments on why monogamy and the traditional family are necessary in order for a free society to sustain itself. What if those who believe so made fun of homosexuals and unwed mothers on the street or otherwise made their lives difficult? People can’t live harmoniously in the same community if they treat each other like that. There has to be tolerance or separation if there is not to be oppression. But of course you don’t have to hide your disapproval or be acritical.
Thanks, Josh, for arguing my case more succinctly and eloquently that I did.
Nick Manley and Nick,
Here’s my contribution to this debate: Besides political libertarianism, I generally prefer the values of self-discipline, self-reliance, minding one’s own business, not being a parasite on others, stoicism, personal strength and resolve, critical and independent thinking, courage, honor, generosity to deserving others, intelligence, intuitiveness, merit, valor, and self-assertiveness. I generally respect people who display these characteristics, and am considerably less respectful towards people who don’t.
While I don’t put much faith in religion, I do think a society where the most revered institution was a kind of “monastery of scholars,” perhaps something similar to the Chinese civil service system, might be a society worth having.
As for the earlier debate between Schwartz and Block about whether a Nazi society could be libertarian so long as those to be exterminated went to the gas chambers voluntarily, perhaps such a society would be libertarian on some very remote, abstract, cosmic level, but there is no probability of such a society coming into being. A society of such sheep could never achieve libertarianism of any kind.
Does libertarianism need to be more than ethnic intolerance, religious persecution, and shunning non-conformists minus the state? Yes. But libertarianism also has to be more than vomitoriums, orgies, beer busts and bullfights, paid for with a VISA card. People whose only concerns are personal hedonism, materialism, avoiding emotional pain and physical safety will not be willing to fight those who would enslave or subjugate them, particularly when offered all sorts of carrots in exchange for their liberties. People who do not value self-reliance and responsibility will wish to be shielded from the consequences of their actions, by looking to the state for salvation or attempting to pass the costs on to others.
Two, we need to draw a big, fat distinction between us and the totalitarian humanists. It is same as the historic divide between Anarchists and Communists.
I completely agree with you Josh. As a libertarian I support pluralism and freedom of association, despite having a lot of sympathy to the goals of eliminating “racism, sexism, homophobia”. That doesn’t mean I support the “totalitarian leftists”, but I still support people using voluntary means including persuasion, boycotts, etc to achieve some of the “left” values that have been discussed thus far.
Since Josh offered the example of spanking children as a personal anecdote, I’ll give an anecdote of my own: Exclusive nightclubs that routinely bar “fat” women, young people (they have less money and are more likely to get into fights), and the not-so-well-dressed from entry. I think this practice is repulsive and they should allow in hippies, people with tattoos and tie-dyed T-shirts, women over 170 lb, etc. Thus, I wholeheartedly applaud cases like the following where voluntary means like persuasion and boycott are used:
Nightclub discrimination.
I myself remember being turned away one time from such an establishment simply because I was wearing sneakers! No word yet if they’ll allow friendly hobos however. 🙂
Nick,
I dunno why monogamy is necessary for a free society. I’ll inspect your arguments though, if you want to tell me them. If it’s a variation on the no welfare state means conventional family all the way line, then I’d just point out that the welfare state doesn’t have a monopoly on the idea of a social safety net.
“I completely agree with you Josh. As a libertarian I support pluralism and freedom of association, despite having a lot of sympathy to the goals of eliminating “racism, sexism, homophobia”. That doesn’t mean I support the “totalitarian leftists”, but I still support people using voluntary means including persuasion, boycotts, etc to achieve some of the “left” values that have been discussed thus far.”
For the record, this is all that I want. Actually, it’s more than I want- I don’t demand that libertarians actively engage in anti-racism (anti-sexism, etc.), altho’ it’s nice when some (Roderick, Charles, thank you) do. I just want libertarians to cease enabling racists and others who oppose the state as a means to restore other forms of oppression. And I do demand, on ethical principle, that they stop being bigoted douchebags themselves (obviously, many individual libertarians are very much not). I refuse to hide my anger when people do engage in that kind of thing, and then other libertarians shrug and act like the only trouble here is the possible danger of ‘political correctness’. I would be far more favourably inclined to those who claim that the market will take care of racism if those people themselves actually used their voices in the free market of ideas to take care of racism (or other prejudices), at least to the minimal degree of refusing to sanction and tolerate open bigotry.
I would anything but object to a line being drawn between libertarian support for the sociocultural aspects of the open society and ‘politically correct’ attempts to achieve the same via statism, so long as libertarianism *also* drew a clear and sharp line between the individualism they once claimed to believe in and its opposite in racist (patriarchal, etc.) collectivism. My objection is to projects such as paleolibertarianism, which seeks to synthesise legal individualism and socio-cultural collectivism, or to Preston’s philosophy, which attempts to synthesise a vanishingly formal advocacy of legal individualism with the fascist philosophies of an Evola or a de Benoist, along with some personal nightmare barbarism of mobs, rage, and muscles.
I used to find it obnoxious when libertarians would use ‘methodological individualism’ as an excuse to dismiss claims of inter-group oppression from court without a hearing. But today what I see is libertarians saying that a collective society where an individual is frozen into a social place and where people are treated as members of tribes, sexes, and families instead of as themselves is just fine as long as the state isn’t involved. That’s not just a clueless but a positively evil claim- evil if one’s standard of value is the individualistic view that a person should be judged for his or her own choices and spirit rather than the brute accidents of clan and biology. Libertarians used to deride the identity politics left precisely because it took the slightest notice of such things, even for good purposes. Today there are libertarians who think it’s absolutely fine to take notice of those things- but not, as the PCs generally claimed, as a means to eventually overcome structural injustice. In other words, collective solidarity as a bad means of defense against oppression is unacceptable, but collective solidarity by an oppressive establishment deserves a wink and a nudge.
As for those who would paint me as ‘totalitarian’, I would point out that I want zero government control of speech and expression, ultra-libertarianism on social issues, and on economic issues I’m more consistently in favour of the market than Popper or Hayek. On international relations I’m not a pacifist and think that there are valid cases for humanitarian military intervention by more liberal countries as a means to stop bloodbath or despotism, but I consider most wars conducted by the United States in the last half-century to be criminal aggressions. My last vote was cast for the Green Party on civil liberties grounds, despite serious reservations as to the deeper motivations of the environmentalist movement.
What I am against- solidly- is the irrationality of judging people by tribal membership and the defense of the taboos of the closed society. The notion that such a worldview is compatible with individualism is absurd. A society which keeps women or racial or sexual minorities in their place and refuses to accept people as individuals with minds and wills of their own is not a free society no matter what the laws are. Laws are simply written rules, and a social order which works by unwritten rather than written controls is just as (actually, more) destructive to individual rights as is one which is more alphabetical in its habits. I am, in short asking for nothing that Ayn Rand wouldn’t have asked for, if she had applied her individualist principles to matters of race, class, and gender.
The real question is: is libertarianism a politics which seeks to open up the maximum possible freedom for the individual to live his or her own life as she chooses, or is libertarian a politics seeking to destroy the Westphalian state with no particular regard for the above goal? And while many people seem to think that I’m a better radical leftist than I thought I was, the principles I am appealing to out to be the rock-sold foundations of libertarianism and any other liberalism: the liberation of the individual to subordination to the group, and the defense of a rational social order against traditionalism and mysticism. These are not the goals of ‘political correctness’ but the goals of *reason*- a person who believes in the primary principle that people should think and feel for themselves has even more reason to despise racists that a person primarily concerned with inter-group oppression; racism is a disease which warps and confines the mind of the racist, without even getting to what a racist society does to the souls of its victims. The same applies to all forms of prejudice, and a person such as Keith who does everything in his power to increase the social prestige and visibility of utterly irrational, utterly collectivist filth can never, ever be a friend to individual liberty or to anything human.
Preston’s philosophy does away with the basic political ideas without which any kind of liberal order is impossible or even coherent. He loudly opposes liberalism, humanism, and human rights, in so many words. He glories in violence and paramilitarism. This isn’t liberty. You can’t create or maintain the fragile creation of an open society by smashing and tearing down what exists with no regard for what will follow or who one enlists as allies- because liberty isn’t just the absent of the state but a specific individualistic social practice requiring a high degree of rationality and individualism. If, somehow, Keith were to get what he wants and his alliance of armed gangs were to successfully challenge a failing American state, the results would merely be a barbarian’s paradise. And, yes, I support the existence of the union known as the United States, or those of the European Union or Commonwealth of Nations, over that.
“Nick,
I dunno why monogamy is necessary for a free society. I’ll inspect your arguments though, if you want to tell me them.”
I don’t think it is, but that’s beside the point. The behaviors I described are a form of coercion in my opinion and therefore shouldn’t be justified even if it can be argued or proven that they serve libertarian ends.
So to summarize and clarify, one part of my disagreement with Johnson’s article is on what he considers non-coercive means. The other part is on what he considers libertarian ends.
According to what he writes on “thickness from grounds”, criticizing those who would voluntarily enter an hierarchical lifestyle is a libertarian end. To me it’s not, because as long as a way of life, practice or type of relationship is voluntary and consensual, no freedom is being taken away.
On the other hand, as you have pointed out, if a particular lifestyle were to become popular to the majority, then the rest of society might have to follow that lifestyle out of *sheer necessity*. For this reason I agreed that a libertarian should oppose the idea that everyone should join a monastery. However, I don’t see any reason pertaining to liberty for opposing the idea that some people should should join a monastery if they are so inclined.
P.S. I hope I’m not misrepresenting Charles Johnson’s views. I apologize if I am.
“My objection is to projects such as paleolibertarianism, which seeks to synthesise legal individualism and socio-cultural collectivism, or to Preston’s philosophy, which attempts to synthesise a vanishingly formal advocacy of legal individualism with the fascist philosophies of an Evola or a de Benoist, along with some personal nightmare barbarism of mobs, rage, and muscles.”
For the record, I have not read any of Julius Evola’s work beyond scattered excerpts, and do not consider him to be an influence on my thinking. I do not fully share Alan De Benoist’s entire outlook, either. For instance, I would value individualism more and communitarianism less, am less hostile to the market, and am less anti-American in the cultural sense than the French New Right. I do find some of De Benoist’s ideas on ethno-pluralism, federal populism and paganism to be refreshing critiques of the PC Left, Marxism and social democracy, and of the “throne and altar,” traditional conservative,” Neo-Nazi, bourgeoisie or Christian Right. I don’t agree with all of Rothbard’s or Chomsky’s views or ideas either. That doesn’t mean I reject the entire body of their work.
“But today what I see is libertarians saying that a collective society where an individual is frozen into a social place and where people are treated as members of tribes, sexes, and families instead of as themselves is just fine as long as the state isn’t involved. That’s not just a clueless but a positively evil claim- evil if one’s standard of value is the individualistic view that a person should be judged for his or her own choices and spirit rather than the brute accidents of clan and biology.”
For the record, I am personally in favor of meritocratic individualism. Should we say we don’t want any Asian mathematicians, female physicians, Jewish scholars, black athletes, or gay artists simply on the basis of group characteristics or background? No, that would be exceedingly foolish.But this is not the perspective of most radical leftists or left-liberals. Instead, they prefer that privilege be given to groups favored by the Left on the basis of such characteristics. I’ve seen this myself in academic and business circles-embarrassingly incompetent people being given positions of responsibility or admitted into exclusive programs, on the basis of affirmative action or some such provision, when clearly the necessary level of merit and ability was not present. I’ve know persons in management positions who’ve been forbidden to terminate incompetent employees solely because the race or other such characteristic opened the employer to charges of discrimination.
America is not South Africa circa 1960 or some Middle Eastern country. There is no one seriously claiming women, minorities, gays, etc. should not have access to jobs, education, property, public services, housing, healthcare, etc. The Left raises matters of “racism, sexism, homophobia” as vague phantoms that are rarely accompanied by actual examples or real-world oppression inflicted on real-world individuals. More often, these are simply matters of blanket, unsupported claims or, at best, selective indignations. If someone wants to point out a specific case where a specific individual is being oppressed because of their race,etc., I’ll be happy to take a look at it.
“Libertarians used to deride the identity politics left precisely because it took the slightest notice of such things, even for good purposes. Today there are libertarians who think it’s absolutely fine to take notice of those things- but not, as the PCs generally claimed, as a means to eventually overcome structural injustice. In other words, collective solidarity as a bad means of defense against oppression is unacceptable, but collective solidarity by an oppressive establishment deserves a wink and a nudge.”
Implicit in this claim is that only groups favored by the Left can be victims of “structrual injustice.” This is far from true. What about violent state repression against poor white gun owners or members of eccentric fundamentalist religious sects? What about religious kids in state schools who are subject to reprimand or sanction for carrying Bibles or religious artifacts? What about violent hate crimes committed by blacks against whites such as the Wichita massacre? What about the murder of a 13-yr-old boy by homosexual-pederast rapists?
“On international relations I’m not a pacifist and think that there are valid cases for humanitarian military intervention by more liberal countries as a means to stop bloodbath or despotism, but I consider most wars conducted by the United States in the last half-century to be criminal aggressions.”
States do not act out of “humanity”. They only act out of their own interests.
“The real question is: is libertarianism a politics which seeks to open up the maximum possible freedom for the individual to live his or her own life as she chooses, or is libertarian a politics seeking to destroy the Westphalian state with no particular regard for the above goal? ”
“racism is a disease which warps and confines the mind of the racist, without even getting to what a racist society does to the souls of its victims. The same applies to all forms of prejudice, and a person such as Keith who does everything in his power to increase the social prestige and visibility of utterly irrational, utterly collectivist filth can never, ever be a friend to individual liberty or to anything human.
Preston’s philosophy does away with the basic political ideas without which any kind of liberal order is impossible or even coherent.”
I have laid out an extensive framework for an alternative to the “Westphalian state.” I have proposed of loose confederation or collection of autonomous communities, with a liberal-libertarian common law legal framework, a free-market anarcho-socialist economy, a neutralist foreign policy and decentralized militia confederation, whereby everyone has the opportunity to create intentional communities organize according to the utopia (or dystopia) of their choice. This automatically means cultural pluralism, whether by conservative, religious, traditional, “family values” types or countercultural, bohemian, sexually “deviant”, drug-using types.
“He loudly opposes liberalism, humanism, and human rights, in so many words.”
I have no problem with Jeffersonian classical liberalism, but modern left-liberalism seeks to impose egalitarianism by force where it cannot exist naturally. Liberal-humanism denies the reality of “otherness,” as the Europeans who’ve subsidized generations of unemployed Muslims and California progressives who’ve had the slap in the face that their much beloved “people of color” aren’t exactly down with some of their other ideas like same-sex marriage. I might have more respect for the construct of human rights if someone could explain exactly what human rights are. “Life, liberty and property” in the Lockean-Jeffersonian-Rothbardian sense? The right to housing, healthcare, education, full employment, etc in the social democratic/Marxist sense? The right to vote in periodic state elections?
“Human rights” seems to be a rather confused and arbitrary concept. And where do these rights come from? God? The state? “Natural law” in some manner akin to the law of gravity?
“You can’t create or maintain the fragile creation of an open society by smashing and tearing down what exists with no regard for what will follow”
I specifically stated in the essay being debated on this thread:
“Recognition of the iron law of oligarchy, or the view that elites are inevitable, and an emphasis on meritocracy, as opposed to simply tearing down all authorities, institutions, and organizations, thereby creating a power vacuum that allows the worst to get to the top.”
Actually, left-wingers have a lengthy history of doing just this. For instance, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was originally a secular, democratic revolution, but the efforts of its Marxist leadership to impose secularism by force rallied the people to the Ayatollah Khomeini. “Anonymous” has praised, on another blog, the French Revolution and the uprisings of 1968-hey, no nihlism there.
“He glories in violence and paramilitarism. This isn’t liberty. You can’t create or maintain the fragile creation of an open society by smashing and tearing down what exists with no regard for what will follow or who one enlists as allies- because liberty isn’t just the absent of the state but a specific individualistic social practice requiring a high degree of rationality and individualism. If, somehow, Keith were to get what he wants and his alliance of armed gangs were to successfully challenge a failing American state, the results would merely be a barbarian’s paradise.”
Well, it’s interesting how those who decry “violence” always have no problem with violence exercised by their own side. “Anonymous” enthusiasm for “humanitarian” war, for instance. As for the matter of “armed gangs,” the implication is that the currently ruling armed gangs in blue (also known as “The Police”) and in green (also known as “The Army”) are somehow benevolent, acceptable, legitimate and enlightened gangs, but those that may emerge from a class insurgency and rebellion against the state are not.
“And, yes, I support the existence of the union known as the United States, or those of the European Union or Commonwealth of Nations, over that.”
Well, there you have it. I figured as much.
The French Revolution and 1968 were both complicated affairs. I don’t think there were no positive aspects to them though.
Obviously, the Jacobins were tyrants. Likewise, I am sure the students/workers in 1968 had some Marxian ideologues in their midst — I admit I don’t know much about exact ideological composition.
“Obviously, the Jacobins were tyrants. Likewise, I am sure the students/workers in 1968 had some Marxian ideologues in their midst — I admit I don’t know much about exact ideological composition.”
These are the downsides I can think of — although, you could argue the Jacobins were traitors to the liberal ideas at work in the French Revolution.
“Two, we need to draw a big, fat distinction between us and the totalitarian humanists.”
While a strategic Left-Right alliance may not be absolutely necessary for this distinction to be made, it might still be a good idea for left-libertarians to pursue a strategy of:
a) vigorously attacking the totalitarian humanist establishment (at least as vigorously as they would attack other authoritarian groups), and
b) allying with all groups that struggle against authoritarianism, injustice, exploitation and oppression, even if they are not traditionally associated with the cultural Left.
Such an alliance would, for example, criticize mainstream feminism (or more precisely what Christina Hoff Sommers calls “gender feminism”), male chauvinism, racial supremacists, race hustlers, etc. In contrast, it would support equity feminism, men’s rights groups, “equal opportunity” anti-racism, etc.
Nick, do you want us to submit to gender roles, instead of choosing our own roles to express who we are?
Rigid gender roles hurt those who would thrive in roles restricted to the other gender/s. They hurt butch women and femme men. They hurt transsexual and intersex people. Do they help anyone?
Radical feminism [aka gender feminism, or feminism opposing oppositional sexism] is not totalitarianism. It is a necessary part of human liberation – for men as well as women.
P.S. TS and IS issues aren’t about gender roles. It’s just that TS and IS people tend to be the collateral damage of rigid gender roles and oppositional sexism.
Just some gendered thoughts:
Well, I lived in red state Missouri and dealt quite well with being an unusual guy — my friend Ray’s boyfriend thought I was gay, because I was a dramatist and would flirtatouesly drape myself over him. I didn’t really care that he thought that. I’d treat it as an amusing rather than an insult.
Here in MD-DC, I do fine with being a lispy kind of high pitched softie. I’ve known people who’ve painted quite dire pictures of what you can get away with that haven’t exactly panned out in my own experience. Marja has suffered virtually no harassment when we’re walking around in public — and the only potential incident I can think of didn’t involve anyone confronting her directly.
That said, she did get railroaded by the VA court system or at least suffer the verbal wrath of a bigoted woman. Alas, these issues do matter — although, I pay little attention to them except when I am thinking about my own past. Personally, I like being an anti-patriarchal “stereotype”. I confess I generally get thrills from acting effeminately or being labeled as such — a gay guy I met a party told me I radiated gayness lol.
at a party*
And my speech teacher told me saying “I had a fetish for musical theater” in a speech about West Side Story might set people’s minds wandering off the wrong track — since I come across as extremely gentle to him.
It was funny, because he was clearly not trying to insult me or pry into whether I was gay or not. He asked me if he was being sensitive enough, and I told him that I wasn’t *that* fragile lol.
Keith,
You’re being an asshole, and you really ought to stop.
Whether or not you think that Anonymous is in fact Aster, and whether or not you think that Anonymous or Aster has treated you unfairly, in this discussion or in other discussions, that’s absolutely no reason to respond with polemical distortions of her views, or with down-and-dirty attacks of your own. You ought to be embarassed at having made such thuggish appeals to tooth-for-a-tooth rhetorical retribution (“like I told you before, if you want to throw rocks at me, I’m going to hit back and hit hard”). If you think that you’ve been strawmanned or unfairly attacked or otherwise wronged in this conversation, I can’t see why you think it’s a good idea to reply by getting just as nasty as you wanna be yourself — as, for example, with your (really vile) attempts to exploit common prejudice against transgender people in order to score some kind of rhetorical point (as if there were anything wrong with being trans or otherwise challenging patriarchally-correct notions of gender identity; as if there were anything wrong with sex reassignment surgery; as if any of this had a damned thing to do with anything in the discussion about libertarian alliances and strategy).
If you have something worth saying about libertarian alliances and strategy (and, for the record, I think what you have to say combines some genuine insights — e.g. about the importance of populism, the importance of secessionist decentralism as way to work across traditional Culture War front lines, the classism that goes into certain Progressive attitudes about poor, rural, Southern, or otherwise marginalized white folks, etc. — with a lot that is really wrongheaded), then you can say it without resorting to this kind of garbage.
And I will hopefully have more to say about your essay later, both on some substantive points and some terminological points. (I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of the term “thick libertarianism”; “thick libertarianism” is not identical with left-libertarianism, and you’ll find thick conceptions of libertarianism not only among left-libertarians, but also among paleolibertarians, orthodox Objectivists, and, while we’re at it, your own expressed views about pluralism, and Anonymous’s expressed views, too; what we differ over is not thickness, but rather on the particular commitments that are to be bundled together with non-aggression.) But I’ll probably come around to a real response in a venue other than this already-lengthy comments thread.
Nick Manley: Am I going to throw acid in the face of a woman who chooses to stay at home and raise her children? No.
Other Nick: What about “ridiculing” or “socially ostracizing” her “patriarchal” husband?
Well, what about it?
If her husband really is acting in a domineering or patriarchal way, then why shouldn’t he be ridiculed or socially ostracized for it? He’s an asshole. Those of us who think that domineering behavior and patriarchal attitudes are ridiculous, foolish, or vicious have every right, and every reason, to withdraw our social support from, or to make fun of, people who engage in them.
Of course, I also think it would be silly to presume that you can just look at the fact that a woman chooses to spend her time on caring for children in her home and somehow automatically infer from that that it’s the result of domineering behavior or patriarchal attitudes on the part of her husband. People make all kinds of choices and there’s nothing in feminism which requires you to rag on heterosexually married women who are, for reasons of their own, working at childcare rather than in a capitalist workplace. Or on their husbands.
Other Nick: 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.
How so? You have the right to do whatever you please, an it coerce none. And I have the right to criticize your choices, if I think they are ill-considered, foolish, vicious, or otherwise harmful.
There may be cases where it is *rude* to do so; there may also be cases where it is *morally wrong*. (There is such a thing as a virtue of tolerance, and of minding your own business. If you think that libertarians have good reasons, qua libertarians, to cultivate those virtues, even in cases where intolerance or busybodying would have been expressed through nonviolent means like ostracism or ridicule, well, then what you’re advocating is in fact a form of thick libertarianism. A thin conception of libertarianism would have nothing to say about whether people should be tolerant or intolerant, as long as they’re non-aggressive.) But be that as it may, I can’t see that you’ve made any case for saying that it is never the right thing to do. If a husband is (nonviolently) being an asshole to his wife, and she (consensually) stays in the marriage, because she thinks his assholish behavior is basically O.K., or even that it’s the right way for him to treat her, then I certainly see no reason why I have some kind of obligation to continue associating with that asshole or providing social support to him or to hold off on calling him an asshole in conversation.
Other Nick: I’m all for battling ideas with ideas but I draw the line at using means such as “ridicule” and “social ostracism” to win the battle. […] I don’t think it is, but that’s beside the point. The behaviors I described are a form of coercion in my opinion and therefore shouldn’t be justified even if it can be argued or proven that they serve libertarian ends.
Nick, are you seriously suggesting that ridicule and social ostracism are “a form of coercion”? If so, when you say “coercion” do you mean what libertarians normally mean by it (i.e., an invasion of the target’s liberty rights), or do you mean something else?
If you seriously mean to suggest that making fun of somebody in words or pictures, or withdrawing your social support from them (by refusing to trade with them, refusing to talk to them at parties, whatever) is unjustified because it’s somehow a violation of the target’s liberty rights, then I think this is absurd, and that it’s not recognizable as any form of libertarianism that I’m aware of, since it would require a claim to the effect that nonviolent speech or expression is invading the target’s liberty rights, or that people have a positive obligation to provide social support to people who they do not want to associate with. (And I’m supposed to be the p.c. fascist here?)
I hope that I’ve misunderstood your view. But if I have, then I do need some help in figuring out what it is. Do you think that ridicule or ostracism are not literally violations of the targets rights, but that they are objectionable on some other grounds? If so, what are those grounds, and why do they rule out any and all use of ridicule or social ostracism, just as such, as legitimate nonviolent means for libertarians to achieve their social or cultural goals?
Nick: Such an alliance would, for example, criticize mainstream feminism (or more precisely what Christina Hoff Sommers calls “gender feminism”), male chauvinism, racial supremacists, race hustlers, etc. In contrast, it would support equity feminism, men’s rights groups, “equal opportunity” anti-racism, etc.
May I suggest that if your understanding of the different factions within the feminist movement depends significantly on Christina Hoff Sommers’s worthless, more or less purely polemical distinction between “gender feminism” and “equity feminism,” then you probably need to do some more work learning about the history, theory, and practice of the feminist movement before you try to figure out whether to support or to criticize it. (For a discussion of some of what’s wrong with Sommers’s discussion of “gender” and “equity” feminism, see for example my comments about this alleged distinction over at feministe.)
Nick Manley: The French Revolution and 1968 were both complicated affairs. I don’t think there were no positive aspects to them though.
Well. I don’t think Keith was claiming that there were no positive aspects to them. I think he was claiming that the criteria that are being used to criticize his strategic views are not being consistently applied.
Well, it looks like you might have got my email ( :
Or already knew about this thread…whichever works!
Charles,
I would like to see a serious discussion of statist centralist social engineering versus op-ed writing and non-violent forms of resistance among liberals. One of my criticisms of Anonymous is that they have never offered substantial evidence to support the contention that illiberalism can really be held effectively at bay via centralist offensive coercion. America has had affirmative action, racial quotas, mandatory desegregation of private-public institutions, and I don’t see a liberalistic utopia or racialist free society outside my window. I’d also encourage people to examine the Civil Rights movement to see what degree of success it had in changing attitudes or simply making the costs of active racism uneconomical before Lyndon Johnson signed a piece of paper in 1964. I watched a PBS documentary with my mom, and it spoke of how major store owners secretly dealt with the Civil Rights movement to desegregate stores. The South African racialist regime was brought down with non-violent grassroots action. The black members of the population were important employees/consumers of White racialist economic institutions. Of course, the economic interdependence of human beings proved to be the downfall of formal discrimination ( :
I contend that this principle is probably applicable in plenty of other cases. And my criticism of some Progressive measures to deal with racism would be that they are impossibly seeking a shortcut. It’s not a “realist” position to think that a minority will feel at home after a five year plan of coercive engineering. This was the meaning of Rand’s primary point about reason versus force. When we are blindly thrusting ourselves in action, we are losing out on philosophic growth and growth in the art of human communication.
America invaded Iraq and its tribes did not act according to the vision of central planners back in the U.S. Likewise, the domestic central planners have yet to achieve their racism free utopia. I’d contend that areas of America that are more Progressive are so, because of a fundamental identification with better ideas and perhaps greater material wealth-prosperity — the old liberal argument about material success helping tolerance.
*Blindly thrusting ourselves into muscled action in a potentially fatal war of wills
Marja Erwin,
“Nick, do you want us to submit to gender roles, instead of choosing our own roles to express who we are?”
No.
Rad Geek,
“May I suggest that if your understanding of the different factions within the feminist movement depends significantly on Christina Hoff Sommers’s worthless, more or less purely polemical distinction between “gender feminism” and “equity feminism,” then you probably need to do some more work learning about the history, theory, and practice of the feminist movement before you try to figure out whether to support or to criticize it.”
The only things I know about Christina Hoff Sommers are what I read on wikipedia about her, so you may be right. I’m basically against misandry, female chauvinism and matriarchal ideals. I’m in favor of equal rights.
“Nick, are you seriously suggesting that ridicule and social ostracism are “a form of coercion”? If so, when you say “coercion” do you mean what libertarians normally mean by it (i.e., an invasion of the target’s liberty rights), or do you mean something else?”
Is harassment an invasion of the target’s liberty rights? I think I have the right to walk down the street without people making fun of me.
As to my objection regarding “social ostracism” I thought you meant something along the lines of impeding others from socializing with the person whose behavior you disapprove.
*
“Other Nick: 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.
How so? You have the right to do whatever you please, an it coerce none. And I have the right to criticize your choices, if I think they are ill-considered, foolish, vicious, or otherwise harmful.”
Of course you have the right to criticize my choices. However, since my choices are voluntary no one’s taking away my liberties and therefore criticizing me for entering a hierarchical lifestyle is not a libertarian end in itself.
From my reply to Nick Manley:
“So to summarize and clarify, one part of my disagreement with Johnson’s article is on what he considers non-coercive means. The other part is on what he considers libertarian ends.
According to what he writes on “thickness from grounds”, criticizing those who would voluntarily enter an hierarchical lifestyle is a libertarian end. To me it’s not, because as long as a way of life, practice or type of relationship is voluntary and consensual, no freedom is being taken away.”
Charles/Rad Geek,
Perhaps you and I simply don’t inhabit the same moral universe on these matters, but I have no problem with “an eye for an eye,” whether in rhetorical/polemical combat or in literal physical combat. If someone comes at me with a knife, I don’t mind pistol-whipping them or shooting them outright. Likewise, if someone initiates personal attacks, fraud, lies, defamation and insults towards me, and seeks to create warrantless conflict between myself and others, they can do it at their own risk. All bets are off so far as I am concerned. After all, civility is a two-way street.
Nor do I consider the personal sensitivities, quirks, physical or psychological characteristics of others to be off-limits during the course of polemical warfare. I used to approve when left-wingers called Ronald Reagan a senile old fool, though the PC thing to do would be to dismiss this as “ageism” and speaking ill of the mentally handicapped. I approved when Al Franken described Rush Limbaugh as a “big fat idiot,” though one could take this as “weightism” and insensitive to what might be called the “intellectually challenged.” I have no more of a grudge against transgendered people than I do against old people, senile people, stupid people or fat people. That said, if others want to challenge me to a fight, they’d better be prepared to get hurt. If that makes me an “asshole,” so be it.
I would very much enjoy reading whatever rebuttal or counterarguments to my essay that you may wish to offer, and I welcome any efforts to correct any misconceptions or deficiencies in understanding I may have concerning thick libertarianism. And thank you for clarifying my comments concerning the French Revolution and the 1968 uprisings.
Charles-
Thank you, deeply, for speaking up against Keith’s bigotry.
Personally, I don’t object if Kieth throws a rock for a rock, as such. I’m no more a Christian than he is, after all.
My view is that the rules of civilised exchange are extremely valuable and worth much energy to preserve… when people really mean it. Like other valuable things (the ‘free market’, the ‘level playing field’), the principle can also be deployed as a structure of oppression when applied with selective hypocrisy. When a real social contract doesn’t exist (or doesn’t exist for everyone), then the barbaric but honest egoism of ‘help friends and harm enemies’ applies. So as far as I’m concerned, Kieth can go ahead and throw all the rocks he wishes- so long his rhetoric has something to say or show and isn’t another vulgar appeal to collectivist hate.
I’ve thrown plenty of rocks at Keith, and don’t apologise, given that Keith is openly attempting to ally the libertarian movement with people (such as white nationalists and violent street gangs) who have absolutely zero respect not merely for my social citizenship but for my basic human rights- people who really would kill me as soon as look at me. It is not tolerable, and the lack of opposition (or perhaps awareness) Keith has encountered within the libertarian movement to this simply evil project is disgraceful. The anarchist movement, from what I understand, was more quick to respond to the danger posed by national anarchism- a difference which says a great deal as to why in meatspace I’ve felt more comfortable among anarchists than among libertarians.
On names:
I speak online as Anonymous for two reasons: the first is that I’m personally uncertain as to what relation I want to have with libertarianism, if any, and I don’t wish any statement of mine to become a personal investment until after I’ve decided what I fully think and feel on the matter. The second is simply that I’m tired of the constant gender harassment (and garden variety sexism) I’ve received when I have posted openly in libertarian forums, and I’d some hope that posting anonymously might avoid the problem. I’ve never been particularly interested in concealing my identity.
I would like to write more on some other things you brought up, particularly class, when I’ve more time (Anonymous has to go cook some nummies ;).
Keith-
If you wish to well play the ‘I am not a racist (sexist, etc.)’ game, you really ought to have shut up several posts ago. Your nazi is showing.
I come from Virginia too.