Reaching Left, Part 2

Keith Preston has a critique of my Mises Circle paper. (CHT Ralph Raico.) Needless to say, I have some comments to make about it, but no time right now (I just got back from San Diego), so I’m simply linking to it for the moment. (But three smiley faces to the first reader to identify the glaring non sequitur in his first paragraph ….)

In related news, Martin a.k.a. Mr. Civil Libertarian has a piece on left-libertarianism here.

, , ,

12 Responses to Reaching Left, Part 2

  1. Todd S. April 26, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    Not a comment on the article itself, but why do I always feel like I’ve attended a Klan meeting after going to that site?

  2. Chris George April 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    Childbirth is physically painful, therefore denying a woman an abortion at any time she wants for any reason she wants amounts to the imposition of physical torture. Pretty thin, huh? Apparently, women who undergo abortion procedures never experience any kind of discomfort, physical or otherwise.

    It’s not a non-sequtir if his intended meaning is to say it’s obvious and expected that pregnancy involves pain, therefore, pain as an excuse for terminating an otherwise voluntary pregnancy is not as effective. I’m not sure if that’s what he meant though.

    • Chris George April 26, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

      doh! I got ahead of myself. Read this wrong. So nevermind.

  3. Ayn Rand April 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    The non sequitur is that abortion cannot be seen as relief from the pain of childbirth because abortion may also involve pain.

    • Roderick April 26, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

      That’s close. The non sequitur is that forcing a woman to give birth cannot be seen as torture because voluntarily chosen abortion may also involve pain.

      By analogy, suppose I threatened and/or proceeded to waterboard anyone who tried to go to the dentist. It wouldn’t make sense for me to argue “I’m not torturing these people, because they were trying to go to the dentist, which also sometimes involves severe discomfort.”

  4. MBH April 26, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Roderick Long is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy!

    Seriously though, psychology for the sake of avoiding logic is getting old.

    I see his move too: he’s a Jew so he can get away with the claim that Nazism and communism should be seen as equally evil. I’m also a Jew and I think his Nietzschean psychologizing is a Nazi mind-set.

    • MBH April 26, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

      Oh boy, I didn’t realize the picture above the article was not of the author — that it’s in fact of a “heeb”.

      Dear Kieth Preston, He did it all for you. Didn’t He?

      • Rad Geek April 27, 2011 at 8:49 am #

        FWIW, Heeb is also the name of a magazine (of, by and for Jewish hipsters). I expect that the photograph came from the magazine and the caption is intended to credit the source, rather than to throw out a random ethnic slur.

        Which is not to say that “Hur hur, let’s head up this post with a photograph of a Jew recycling something” didn’t harmonize with certain nasty … resonances within Keith Preston’s intended audience.

        • MBH April 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

          Interesting. Coincidentally, I just found out what ‘hipster’ means a couple days ago. I thought it was an insult.

    • MBH April 27, 2011 at 3:32 am #

      Note for the metaphorically impaired: “fuck your god” etc. means “fuck that by which you represent” — assuming, as is the case with Keith, it’s not a variable allowing the grammatical gears to shift at will.

  5. Sergio Méndez April 26, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    Keith Preston? The guy who thinks libertarianism can be combined with racial supremacists, that used to comment in this and other left libertarian blogs? He doesn´t deserves an anwer at all, I think.

  6. Jeremy Weiland April 27, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    Well, I like Preston’s theory about totalitarian humanism, but I like it _because_ it separates the aristocrats from the authentic leftists. It makes a sharp distinction between the ideals for which one advocates and the means one uses to realize those ideals. That is the danger of political correctness – leftist ideals put into the service of authoritarianism. What Keith usually objects to is the universalist impulse in advocating for these ideals, not the ideals themselves.

    Frankly, I’m a bit stumped at the point Keith was trying to make contra yours. Should we dismiss all activists for humanistic causes because some are boors about it? Or should we attack privilege, regardless of the ideological narrative surrounding the privilege?

    I’m at a bit of a loss to explain why Keith chose to be so hostile towards you, Roderick, when as far as I can tell your essay was something he should have welcomed. Nothing could be more in keeping with his goals than an authentically anti-authoritarian left that understands the establishment left is not necessarily its ally.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes