Navigation

Let Both Grow Together Until the Harvest

By on December 9, 2011 18

Here’s a parody video of a bunch of market anarchists, of both left-wing (e.g., Brad Spangler, Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier, me) and right-wing (e.g., Walter Block, Stefan Molyneux, Keith Preston) varieties. (CHT Ross Kenyon.) The vocal imitations of me and of Molyneux are especially good. (Some of the others, not so much.) But I don’t know why there’s no Hoppe.

, , ,

18 Responses to Let Both Grow Together Until the Harvest

  1. InvincibleNumanist December 9, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    Haha, thanks for sense of humor. Big fan of your work!

    Reply
  2. Sheldon Richman December 10, 2011 at 7:38 am #

    Yes, I believe you were faithfully portrayed. 🙂

    Reply
  3. Mariana Evica December 10, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    OMG That was so incredibly funny.

    Reply
  4. William December 10, 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    My fit of laughter has my roomates deeply concerned. This is so good.

    Reply
  5. Julia December 12, 2011 at 12:14 am #

    Numanist always cracks me up. Glad you found that vid.

    Reply
  6. zhinxy December 12, 2011 at 6:10 am #

    Brilliant! But I agree… NEEDS. MORE. HOPPE.

    Reply
  7. JOR December 12, 2011 at 7:31 am #

    It’s my own fault I was taking a drink when the Keith Preston bit came up, but I blame you anyway.

    Reply
  8. John December 17, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

    Each one of the “right wing” anarchists you mention could easily object to the label.

    Keith Preston could be seen as being to the left of you and Brad Spangler on property rights. You two are Rothbardians, while his take on economics is more in line with Carsonian mutualism.

    Walter Block tries to maintain a “plumb line”, and criticizes libertarians such as you and Hoppe for attempts to associate libertarianism with the left or the right. His comments after your lecture on Rothbard’s “Left and Right” essay are relevant here.

    Stefan Molyneux, while also having a “neither left nor right” style, extends anti-violence and anti-authoritarian arguments into interpersonal and family relationships. He extends the anarcho-“capitalist” critique of the state into an anti-theism which is decidedly not right wing. His critique of the effects of the acceptance of violence in our society could easily be considered to parallel the deep criticism of some of the anti-racist/anti-sexist arguments of yourself or Charles Johnson in their “leftyness”.

    Reply
    • Roderick December 17, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

      Each one of the “right wing” anarchists you mention could easily object to the label.

      Yes, I’m sure they would. But Keith’s cultural positions push him a lot farther to the right of us than his economic positions push him to the left of us. Walter may call himself neither left nor right (a position for which he misappropriates the left-libertarian term “plumbline”), but I don’t think he would deny being to our right, and he certainly counts as a right-libertarian as defined here. Molyneux is closer to left-libertarianism than they are, but his remarks on feminism, for example, position him to our right.

      Reply
      • Brandon December 18, 2011 at 11:04 am #

        Everyone in the world past, present, and future is to your right on feminism, except about 2 or 3 dozen people.

        Reply
        • Roderick December 18, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

          You need to meet more people.

        • zhinxy December 23, 2011 at 8:03 am #

          Everyone in the world past, present, and future is to your right on feminism, except about 2 or 3 dozen people.

          ….
          0_o

          Seriously?

          Curious, though. Can you name them?

        • Brandon December 23, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

          I can name some of them.

          I’m reacting based on a piece that Roderick recommended as representative of his views on the subject, and, I think, written by Charles Johnson. It might have been this [PDF].

          Regardless, I got through a couple of pages, but it struck me as such stomach-churning misandric hate-speech that I couldn’t slog through the rest of it.

          I’m not sure if the linked document was what I was reading because this is years ago, but I remember it suggested a centuries-old conspiracy of evil males to inflict their violence and rape upon helpless female victims, ie. all women. And it went downhill from there.

          I don’t think the material I was reading agrees with most people’s perceptions of the world they live in, any more than a sci-fi novel would, and I think it’s a good distance to the left — or some direction anyway — of 99% of feminists.

        • Roderick December 23, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

          I remember it suggested a centuries-old conspiracy of evil males to inflict their violence and rape upon helpless female victims, ie. all women.

          So Charles writes a piece one of whose central themes is “why it would be mistaken and wrongheaded to interpret us as claiming X,” and you come away from it remembering nothing except that he claimed X?

  9. zhinxy December 23, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    I’m not sure if the linked document was what I was reading because this is years ago, but I remember it suggested a centuries-old conspiracy of evil males to inflict their violence and rape upon helpless female victims, ie. all women. And it went downhill from there.

    …

    Wow, okay. Well, Charles has what I think is the best commentary ever on Brownmiller’s myrmidon theory, which is often misinterpreted as beign exactly what you just said. Suffice it to say, it is NOT what you think it means.

    There’s a beautiful lecture he gives explaining this and it’s relation to Hayek’s theories of spontaneous order on mises.org somewhere, I’ll find it for you.

    Basically, it is not what you say it is.

    Charles IS far fonder of Dworkin than I would like, but the idea of Rape Conspiracy Patriarchy is absolutely NOT what Brownmiller, or Charles, probably her best interpreter, has found.

    I do a lot of dealing with Mens Rights Activists types in my adventures on the internet, so the strawman of Rape Conspiracy Misandry comes up a lot. May I assure you, that’s not what that essay meant.

    The lecture. People may not agree with it, but it’s not what you say it is.

    Reply
  10. zhinxy December 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLyikDzsaZE

    dont know why the link didn’t show.

    Reply
  11. zhinxy December 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

    Ah, the short post here.

    Money quotes –

    One extremely common, rather coarse way of misunderstanding Brownmiller (or, mutatis mutandis, other radical feminists, when they say things like this) is to treat this kind of analysis as if it were some kind of conspiracy theory about rape — as if Brownmiller were claiming that, say, every first Monday of the month, all the men got together in a big meeting at the Patriarchy’s underground headquarters and decided to have some men commit stranger rape as a way to keep women down. Or, to be more charitable to uncharitable critics, as if Brownmiller were claiming that police-blotter rapists and other men who do not commit rape are consciously collaborating with one another, in some kind of social plan, promulgated from the top down, to intimidate women and bring about and sustain male supremacy.

    The truth is that there are historical cases where groups or movements of men have consciously collaborated with one another to keep women down. (What else, for example, would you call the gynocide in Basra, or the psychiatric analysis and treatment of hysteria in Europe and America, or the Taliban, or 19th century American family laws, under which white husbands posted advertisements about fugitive wives — almost as frequently as they posted advertisements about fugitive slaves — and used the law and bounty-hunters to forcibly recapture wives who chose to leave home?) So that happens, but Brownmiller’s analysis of stranger rape doesn’t claim that that’s what’s happening when rapists reinforce the system of male supremacy. What she claims is that the pervasive fact of rape, and the threat that its pervasiveness inflicts on all women, produces a spontaneous (undesigned) order, so that the actions of rapists serve the role of promoting, sustaining, and reinforcing male supremacy.

    It’s not controversial, or it shouldn’t be by now, that the threat of rape imposes constraints on women’s behavior: Don’t go out at night alone. Don’t make yourself noticeable on the subway. Don’t dress like that. Don’t act overtly sexual. Don’t go to that party. Don’t drink at that party. Or, if you do, then you better like whatever happens to you and you better not complain, because baby, you were asking for it.

    And also: you better find the Right Man and enlist him to protect you from other men. (By walking you home at night. By slipping into a situation to block off the Wrong Men who are hassling you. By becoming your boyfriend or fiance or husband and looking out for you.)

    – Is that really, truly, all so controversial, extreme, and terrible to contemplate? And if it is, why?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes