Insightful quote from Adam Bates:
Q: What is it about the libertarian movement that attracts as you say, “rape apologists, Islamophobes, and nativists?”
A: I think there are two largely distinct strains of belief that lead people to anarchism/libertarianism. One is a fundamental commitment to the liberation of others, and the other is a fundamental and exclusive commitment to the liberation of oneself or one’s tribe.
Both of those sets of people are going to be anti-government, both of them are going to be largely non-interventionist, both of them are going to feel like they support liberty (albeit one definition is universal and the other is tribal), and I think libertarianism has obvious appeal beyond the alternatives.
But with the rise of the social justice movement and increasing global connectivity, we’re seeing that distinction grow starker by the minute. The “tribaltarians” aren’t going to support immigration, they’re not going to support race or culture mixing, they’re not going to support trade, they’re not going to accept any arguments about collective crimes against groups of people that aren’t them, they’re going to recoil at any and every effort to erase the philosophical and moral buffers between “them” and “us.”
So I get it. I get how they got here. But if there ever was a reason for these two groups of people to caucus together, it has now evaporated entirely.
I’m also reminded of Rand’s analysis of tribalism [link goes to an MS Word document]. (The fact that Rand herself was frequently guilty of tribalism doesn’t make her analysis any less useful.)
Why not trade? That’s a benefit to your group as well as to your group plus your trading partners.
I (rightly or wrongly) read his phrase “liberation of others” as meaning liberation of others along with one’s own group, not liberation of others rather than one’s own group.
Because the triabaltarians view anonymous trade exchange(i.e, no regard for identity) as a form of cultural expropriation that corrupts the identity of the tribe.
I took David to be asking, not “Why don’t tribaltarians embrace trade?” but “Why isn’t trade (mutual benefit) a third option among reasons to be libertarian, besides benefit for one’s own group and benefit for others?” Hence my reply above, namely, that I took the “benefit-for-others” option to be shorthand for universal benefit, including oneself and one’s group.
And the tribaltarians would the reject the third option for the reason I outlined above. Tribaltarianism is predicated on a false dilemma largely tied to the back of a rejection of the universalism of “mutual benefit.”
Right. But David wasn’t asking why the tribaltarians don’t recognise a third option. He was asking why Adam Bates didn’t recognise a third option.
It’s not clear to me that was Friedman’s point, but assuming it was, I would concur that Bates’ options are too limited. There are more than two. For example, a fundamental commitment to the liberation of oneself could include a fundamental concern for the liberty of others, simply on the basis of the insight that “what is done to them will eventually be done to you.”
I’m not sure that counts as a distinct option from the universalist one.
Well, I guess I depends on whether we are tagging all the options as universalist or tribal. Bates’ observation starts with:
(1) Fundamental commitment to the liberty of others OR (2) an exclusive commitment to the liberty of oneself or the tribe.
An apt observation, but not necessarily a complete one. Bate’s later tags (1) as universalism. But, so too would Friedman’s suggestion be tagged. So too would mine.
But mine does differ from Bates’ (1). His option has commitment to others as a premise. My option would deduce it as a conclusion.
Note: I’m a liberal and start with a presumption of liberty for all. For me, there is a specific commitment to principle on that matter. Proud universalist.