Quick Tyranny Summary

So let’s sum up the Obama Administration’s scandals so far:

Of course, there are a number of liberals who are trying to defend the president and his administration (such as Jeffrey Toobin from the New Yorker), but for once it seems that the cloak has come off and the emperor has no clothes. Everywhere people are outraged over this.

What will happen? I don’t know. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is a fairly tyrannical administration. I wasn’t alive during Nixon so I can’t compare. But it seems awful. And it’s about the same as George W. Bush.

I hope this finally leads to some improvement. The dark times we’re facing now may be a forge through which we will tempered into something much greater. I can hope, at any rate. Even if all it does is make the American public more skeptical of the government, more distrustful of it, that will be a fantastic first step.

Bookmark and Share

Why mainstream news is dying–and good riddance

I don’t normally go on rants about the liberal media bias we’re always told about, but he’s a great example of why so many Americans think it exists:

Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers http://t.co/voXoD4lsWY
@washingtonpost
Washington Post

That’s just wrong, and WaPo knows it. Saying that only “Rich, middle-aged men” and people who eat at Chick-Fil-A care about four dead foreign service officers is just disgraceful. There are tons of Americans out there who care that the government let four diplomats die for what seem to be purely political reasons…and instead of honing in on that, the Washington Post is disgracefully putting up flak.

That’s not to say there isn’t BS on both sides of the aisle:

60 embassy officials were killed during Bush administration and not one of these GOP fools even issued a statement.
@MJayRosenberg
MJ Rosenberg

But holy crap, WaPo, was that a BS tweet.

And folks wonder why the Washington Post Company is losing money hand over fist. Gee, it couldn’t be that you’re a bunch of morons giving cover to government evil, could it?

Bookmark and Share

I am now (Cato) Unbound!

I’m extremely pleased to announce that I am participating in the May 2013 edition of Cato Unbound (@CatoUnbound), the most intelligent online journal of intellectualism.

The topic of this month is fusionism, specifically between libertarians and conservatives. My good friend and America’s Iron Lady, Jacque Otto (@jacque_otto) is kicking off with a lead essay, followed by yours truly on Wednesday, to then be followed by Students for Liberty Vice President Clark Ruper (@clark_ruper) on Friday and Acton Institute Research Fellow Jordan Ballor (@JordanBallor) on Monday.

This is the big leagues, folks, and I am very proud to be here. While six years ago I wanted to just do sci-fi writing, this is still extremely exciting. And I’m sure I can work it into my science fiction–after all, a great many science fiction writers were and are passionate libertarians. For that reason, HUGE thanks are in order to Cato Unbound editor @JasonKuznicki, to whom I now owe a keg of scotch. Or something.

Please read the lead essay up here, and feel free to join in the discussion!

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/05/06/jacqueline-otto/state-debate

Bookmark and Share

Sorority Girl Email: How We Laud & Coddle Bullies And Forget The Bullied

Last week, an email from a sorority girl in Maryland went viral, thanks to Gawker, and–to use the vocabulary of its author–it’s fucking horrible. I was going to write about this last week, but I didn’t; however, the issue has recently “concluded.” Let’s go over the letter itself, then focus on the reactions, which I find to be more important.

It is 882 words long. 41 of those words are the F-bomb. (According to one comment, that is. I’m not going to waste my time counting the figures myself.) It is full of ENTIRELY CAPITALIZED SENTENCES. It is a brazen, unmitigated attack at sorority members, an attack that has no decency and even threatens violence in the form of “cunt punts” against other members.

What shocks me more than this, though, are the comments from the Gawker article. Here are a few:

“This girl will be the president of a company some day. We are kidding ourselves if we think this letter didn’t bring RESULTS.”

“Me too–she’s a great writer.”

“Mistake? That email is going to launch her career.”

Really? If she is seriously going to become the CEO of a major corporation because of this email, then I don’t want to be on this planet anymore.

I do not–repeat, DO NOT–understand people who think that being an asshole to others is somehow worthy of praise, emulation, or promotion. To me, anyone who thinks that way is a psychopath or a politician–but I repeat myself. And maybe that’s where the problem is with our current culture: we have psychopaths running both our major corporations and the federal/state government.

But I digress. The thing is, if you would “laugh” at this, I think really think you need your head examined. Being downright mean to other people like this is acceptable in an emergency situation, when time is of the essence and no one can be coddled, but not otherwise. You can make your point without entirely relying upon vulgarity, attacks, and threats of violence. And I would like to think that such writing would be utterly unacceptable in a business situation, as it would be completely and totally unprofessional.

Not sure about that, though. Some places might do that. They might even find it fine. In which case, those places are hellholes.

I also wonder why this comment is buried so low. Maybe the truth stings?

Nice they are talking about my old shitty frat. Honestly after reading it I can’t blame those girls, in all seriousness they should want to hang out with other better frats. Sigma Nu sucks. I remember the social would always plan evens with the worst sororities because nobody else wanted to. DG, Zeta, and sig kap…. it was like a rotation. most people dropped out after they could get into the bars. It was mostly full of rapists, dealers, or social ackward vigins. I was neither just a frisbee playing hippie:) I dropped out after the exec bored wouldn’t investigate the rape of an unconcius girl in the house, even tho it was video taped. It makes that stubenville ohio rape case look not so bad. There is literally or atleast was a rape room set up in the basement of that frat house. I know of 3 or 4 rapes that were swept under the rug. I really can’t fault those girls for not wanted to talk to that frat definately safer to hang out with other frats. Anyhow man I love social media

 

And when you read the email, especially about the part about the other sorority girls being “FUCKING boring,” it seems to me the whole thing is a complaint about sorority girls not putting out for a bunch of guys. And to me, that is just gross and even barbaric.

Fortunately, the sorority took the right action and recently accepted the young woman’s resignation. That was the smart, professional thing to do. Already, though, some are wondering “I hope this woman’s life isn’t ruined because of this email.”

Oh, FFS, this woman got kicked out of a sorority. As @stressnstrain noted, “Have some perspective.” It is hardly the end of the world. Many productive people are not members of a fraternity or a sorority, and you know what? That’s a good thing. Everything I saw from my college career was that frats & sororities were nothing more than extended exercises in binge drinking, sex, and following utterly ridiculous rules meant to destroy your life and your individuality. In fact, leaving the sorority may be a good thing.

Another commenter on the FB page says:

I understand that this young lady made a mistake and did not uphold the ideals that we all expect as a Delta Gamma. But I also feel compassion for her and would have hoped that Delta Gamma could have reached out to her with some sort of guidance and counseling rather than just accepting her resignation. I’m sure she feels alone and humiliated at this moment. I hope that she has others to turn to because it appears Delta Gamma has abandoned her and I don’t believe that was the correct course of action.

Sorority girl feels alone & humiliated? GOOD
PLEASE. She “feels alone and humiliated”? That’s the point. She should feel humiliated over this. Boohoo–this sort of whining is the same sort of thing as when adults start “feeling bad” for the bully on the playground when he’s told off for being a bully. It’s sick and makes me want to throw up all over my shoes. That commenter should be utterly ashamed of herself.

The basic thing to take away from this is that all these people are horribly, horribly sick. They’re messed up. And while I previously laid the blame for most of our problems on the baby boomer generation, I think it might just be all these folks who somehow want to coddle bullies and jerks. Maybe they’re the problem. I don’t know. But what they’re saying goes against all norms of behavior and is completely unnatural.

I will say one thing, though, and that is I kind of agree with this PolicyMic article posted by Laura Donovan. Donovan writes:

I’m the first to admit the email was horrendous, not to mention further confirmation that I made the right move to opt out of Greek life in college despite the fact that practically everyone in my immediate family was in a frat or sorority, but it’s my hope that Martinson’s whole life isn’t destroyed by this single email.

For those of you who are out of college, think about this: did you ever do anything stupid during your undergrad days? Something shameful that you’re not proud of? At the beginning of my junior year, I found myself in a grouchy mood and wrote an article for my college publication that offended so many people, some called for my resignation. I received email threats and was harassed and publicly shamed even by fellow staff members. It was tough, worst of all because I didn’t feel everything I said I felt in my column. I remember thinking I was going to be punished forever for an article I wasn’t particularly proud of, and that no one wanted to see me other than the girl who’d upset some folks with my 600-word article. None of the good work or highly lauded columns I’d produced mattered to anyone. A single article made them want to demonize me forever and be their punching bag anytime they needed someone to direct their anger at.

That was almost five years ago, but earlier this month, a colleague brought up the article I spent my final years of college trying to forget, as he’d heard about it from a mutual friend who’d been joking that I’ve been a huge firebrand since college. My demeanor immediately changed. I reacted with hostility and began to cry. Why did this single thing I did as a 20-year-old continue to follow me? I’d worked so hard to put it behind me, and others were still mocking me for it.

Part of that is, unfortunately, the price for writing stupid stuff in the Internet age. To deal with it, you grow a thick skin and get over it. You may also say, “Yes, what I wrote back then was wrong, and I know it.” Admitting it is the first step to fixing your problem, and I think once you do that, it should be like a reputational bankruptcy case–you lose a lot of credibility for the original stupidity, but you wipe your slate clean and start over again. It should not be allowed to dog her life forever. A year or two, maybe, but people do need to recognize that people change and must drop the subject sooner or later–preferably sooner. If I was hiring her 10-15 years from now, we might joke about it, but I wouldn’t let it guide my actions. Nobody is defined by a single moment, no matter how hard authors and politicians try to make it so. That isn’t fair or just.

However, Donovan also writes (emphasis added):

What I wrote was nothing like Martinson’s email, which is most certainly unacceptable to send to anyone, let alone sorority sisters you supposedly love like family. Martinson should have known better than to talk like that and use slurs, but I don’t think it was right of the internet to shame her in the way that it did, and I don’t want her to think the rest of her life has to be defined by this single email. If anything, she knows to be more careful with the way she presents herself on social media and online, and hopefully she realizes there’s more to life than a poorly executed Greek event.

She left the sorority, and she’s doing the right thing by going dark. Once the dust settles, she should release a statement of apology, and hopefully she will be able to rebuild from there. You may not like her (she doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to hang out with, and I’m certain I’m too “f-cking AWKWARD and boring” for her), but I don’t think she should be punished forever for this, at least if she shows some remorse once the interwebs is finished chucking stones at her.

Au contraire.

It is absolutely right for the Internet to mock her and shame her for what she did. And contra commenter Michelle Adams, we should condemn her for her actions. Again, how else does one learn what is right and what is wrong? It’s a corrective mechanism, and it works pretty damn well. Sure, not all mocking and shaming and condemnation is right–I mean, if a Nazi guy tried to “mock” me for being friends with Jews, for example–but for the most part, when someone goes really out of line, it is absolutely correct for other individuals to mock them for it. Would you not punish your children if they did something wrong? (If you genuinely say “I wouldn’t” to that question, then tell me how are they going to become good, upstanding adults instead of degenerate assholes who use everyone else as tools to meet their own inner desires?)

This lauding and coddling of bullies makes me want to vomit, as I’ve said before. And as I’ve said before, this is unnatural. This is not how things are supposed to work. Or at least, not in the past. I guess the new standard now is for people who are mean assholes who use others will be praised and supported, while those who are nice, hard-working people will be denigrated and left in the cold.

If that’s the vision of the world these people want, then I want no part of it.

Bookmark and Share

In Which I Blame Everything On The Baby Boomers

When you look around today, you see mountains after mountains of problems. We have the US government debt, whose numbers have left the realm of sane discourse long ago and trended into the land of absurdity, at $16.7 trillion dollars. We have the incredible unfunded liabilities gap for our entitlement programs, which blew past the land of absurdity on an express train to Lovecraftian insanity like Spaceball One going at ludicrous speed with a total shortfall of $119.5 trillion dollars. We’re embroiled in wars across the globe, so fearful of attacks from Islamic terrorists we’re willing to let government employees molest us in airports, or allow our president to kill us with robot death kites without any restraint or oversight whatsoever. We’re still fighting a pointless “War on Drugs” that the government lost decades ago, but they still wage in order to kill more innocents every year. We’re panicking over guns in schools, pastries that look like guns, and all the myriad ways teenagers get drunk. We have an unemployment rate that is still chilling out at almost 8% (and that’s just the bland figure; the real unemployment rate is closer to 15%) and a labor participation rate that has dropped three points since 2007–which equals hundreds of thousands of Americans who have just given up looking for work. And just this past week, we had an epic meltdown over a $44 billion cut to the federal budget, a federal budget that’s over $3.6 trillion and suffers a $1.3 trillion deficit.

We can’t seem to get anywhere with our many modern crises. Everywhere we turn there is fear, danger, and financial ruin. Many have stepped up to lay the blame of these catastrophes on the feet of many different things. Some blame capitalism. Others blame government intervention and crony socialism. Still more blame the media for distorting the facts of incidents. Others blame foreigners, particularly the Chinese and the Russians (and Mexicans, and Middle Easterners, and Greeks, and Europeans, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the Indians….) In the spirit of blaming and finger-pointing, I would like to offer my idea of who is to blame for all of our problems today.

I blame the Baby Boomers.

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share

North Carolina: Theocracy in Action

Lawmakers in North Carolina want to make it a Christian theocracy:

Raleigh, N.C. — A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

The legislation grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union against the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

Overtly Christian prayers at government meetings are not rare in North Carolina. Since the Republican takeover in 2011, the state Senate chaplain has offered an explicitly Christian invocation virtually every day of session, despite the fact that some senators are not Christian.

That they’re having religious prayers of any kind in a government body is odious to begin with, but Republican theoconservatives have really gone over the deep end with this one:

House Bill 494, a resolution filed by Republican Rowan County Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, would refuse to acknowledge the force of any judicial ruling on prayer in North Carolina – or indeed on any Constitutional topic:

“The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people,” the bill states. “Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion.”

Clearly, someone did not read their constitution. Yes, Mr. Warren and Ms. Ford, the Constitution does give the power to the federal courts to decide what is and isn’t unconstitutional. They’ve been doing this for centuries.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states, and the 9th Amendment states that powers that neither the federal government nor the state government have is reserved to the people. Deciding what religion you’re going to be is most certainly a power reserved to the people.

It makes me shake my head when I see stories like this. Is this what libertarianism “fusionism” with the “Right,” with theoconservatives, has gotten us? This is terrible. This is not the America our Founding Fathers envisioned. This is not the America that will prosper and go on for a long time defending individual liberty.

I know I have mocked other atheist groups for doing rather silly things, but that’s because they’re taking attention away from things that are genuinely important. LIKE THIS. This is where people should be devoting their effort and energy, to combat idiocy of this nature that seeks to impose itself upon all of us, and that will actually have a powerful effect, not something that means nothing. A state that goes against the Constitution to willfully trample over religious liberty and individual freedom of conscience cannot be tolerated.

North Carolinians should call their state reps, tell them to vote against this bill, and then tell everyone else that fought so hard against the contraceptive mandate on religious liberty grounds this is the same thing. They should also tell that to anti-gay marriage people who used the religious liberty argument. They can’t have it both ways.

If this is going to become the future of the United States, then we have a serious problem. Best to nip it in the bud today.

Bookmark and Share

Couple of totally random political philosophy thoughts

So I wrote a post awhile back where I said that libertarians, conservatives, and the free market movement in general should be supportive of a universal basic income, probably via some sort of negative income tax. One of the reasons I was supportive of it was because that we can’t really take advantage of our negative rights–basic freedoms to do what we want, which libertarianism champions–if we’re homeless and starving.

Anyways, I was looking for a book a friend of mine recommended to me to add to one of Amazon’s wish lists–the one that will never be fulfilled because I will probably never order (and thus read) the books on there, but oh well–and I stumbled across Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics by Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl (the Doug & Doug show). What I found interesting was the book’s description. It’s a bit wordy, but you can safely focus on the bit in bold:

How can we establish a political/legal order that in principle does not require the human flourishing of any person or group to be given structured preference over that of any other? Addressing this question as the central problem of political philosophy, Norms of Liberty offers a new conceptual foundation for political liberalism that takes protecting liberty, understood in terms of individual negative rights, as the primary aim of the political/legal order. Rasmussen and Den Uyl argue for construing individual rights as metanormative principles, directly tied to politics, that are used to establish the political/ legal conditions under which full moral conduct can take place. These they distinguish from normative principles, used to provide guidance for moral conduct within the ambit of normative ethics. This crucial distinction allows them to develop liberalism as a metanormative theory, not a guide for moral conduct. The moral universe need not be minimized or morality grounded in sentiment or contracts to support liberalism, they show. Rather, liberalism can be supported, and many of its internal tensions avoided, with an ethical framework of Aristotelian inspiration-one that understands human flourishing to be an objective, inclusive, individualized, agent-relative, social, and self-directed activity.

So basically, if I get this right, the basic function of any political system is to protect one’s negative rights and individual liberty. Well, if you’re on the street, starving and homeless, with your negative rights being of no use to you…are they under attack?

That’s a very bad argument, I know. But I still think there is something there, something that my tired brain at just past midnight can’t articulate. I think there is something that can be a good justification for a universal basic income from a libertarian/classical liberal standpoint, and which I think will make the libertarian/classical liberal/neoclassical liberal argument that much more appealing to anyone who isn’t on the far left.

PS: The book I was looking for was Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order, an attempt to kinda sorta merge deontological ethics with virtue ethics; or to defend a system of natural rights (or “side constraints”) within a wider system of virtue ethics. Yes, me and my friend get quite intellectual at times.

Bookmark and Share

The one kind of person who shouldn’t vote

There are many people out there who say we should restrict universal suffrage, that certain classes of individuals shouldn’t vote. There are those who think people on welfare shouldn’t vote. Or college students. Or women. I am always against these arguments. I think that the moment we restrict suffrage from anybody, we seriously weaken and damage democracy.

But today, I’m going to say something different. I am going to say that there is one sort of individual who should be prohibited, barred, and rendered ineligible to vote.

Those are the people who bring forth an argument, and then demand other people go find the evidence to back up their argument. This is known as failing the burden of proof. I see it almost every day. Thousands of people put forward arguments based on intuition and evidence they heard about, but never really saw for themselves, and thus never really grappled with the argument they are actually asserting. The problem is that is a total abdication of critical thinking, which is precisely the thing you must be utilizing when going to the polling booth.

As philosopher Jason Brennan notes, voting in an election has enormous consequences on hundreds of millions of Americans. He writes in his book, The Ethics of Voting:

Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. So, in this book, I argue that we have moral obligations concerning how we should vote. Not just any vote is morally acceptable.

He’s absolutely right. Just read the sample chapter in the second link. Voting has consequences. Voting is not just a political right in a democracy, but it is also a responsibility. If you’re going to exercise that responsibility, you damn well better be thinking critically and using your noggin to explore what options are before you and make the right choice. When you’re in that poll booth, it’s your vote. You can’t delegate that vote to anybody. It’s your responsibility, so when you make your choice, you better be the one doing the thinking.

This is not a call to, say, ban all liberals from voting. It is not what you think that pisses me off (although that does too, just not in this context), it’s how you think–or don’t think, really. Someone can be a socialist and as long as they evidence for their position, can credibly argue for said position, and actually go through and grapple with the consequences of their position, then that’s okay. Said socialist can vote. But if one can’t, if one can only spout talking points but refuse to actually do any actual thinking, you should probably be barred from entering the voting booth. You can’t be trusted with such a duty.

A great example of this was found on Twitter, when back in January I got into something approximating a debate with a liberal over welfare and job requirements. She made the assertion that all welfare has work requirements. I asked her to provide evidence of this assertion. This is sort of how it went*:

becca_a

jeremy_2becca_b

jeremy_1

becca_3

jeremy_5becca_1

jeremy_7

After this, she just failed to do any sort of debating at all, and just started calling me names and said I was “prejudiced”.

This is not the way you debate policy, or even think. She very clearly abdicated her role, and failed to defend her position whatsoever. And she’s not the only one. I see this almost every day. Not just on Twitter or the rest of the Internet, but in daily life. People get crazy ideas into their heads, back them up by saying “Well they say so” (who the hell are they?) and when evidence is demanded, they order the other side to do their research for them.

A person who “thinks” in this manner is clearly not thinking at all. They are not doing the research on their positions or anyone else’s. They are not coming to terms with the consequences of a policy. And considering what a vote entails, how it will affect millions of people in a democracy, a person who fails to do this critical thinking and understand consequences should not be voting. Period.

Of course, there is always the counter-argument that people don’t do their research on politicians because they don’t have the time to. It’s rational self-ignorance. They need to devote their resources to doing other things. That’s all well and good…except in this era of information technology, it’s crap. You can easily learn economics for free. Watch some videos from LearnLiberty or the Economic Freedom Project. Get a free copy of Frederic Bastiat’s The Law [PDF] (as well as his essay The Petition of the Candlemakers, which is just hilarious; doubly so since it was written in the mid-19th century.) And you can easily look up a candidate’s website, find his or her positions, then type that issue into a Google News search and find dozens of opinion pieces on either side. (As a general note, always read stuff from the Cato Institute. They know what they’re talking about.) I’m not saying voters have to be policy experts; far from it. But it’s not hard to get a more-than-cursory understanding of the issues at hand and the kind of person you’d be voting for. If you’re not able to do that, then don’t bother going to the voting booth at all.

I have no idea how one would test for this inadequacy and render such people ineligible. I just don’t. But I think it would be optimal. How many times have we gotten really awful politicians because our electorate is just uneducated and–I hate to say it but it’s true–just stupid? How on Earth did George W. Bush, of all people, get elected to not one, but two terms? Did we just not do the research?

I agree with Brennan. Voting is a mammoth responsibility. If you’re not willing to do the basic thinking required to make such a decision, then don’t bother at all.

Bookmark and Share

Does “very conservative” equal “libertarian-leaning”?

CPAC starts today, and continues throughout the weekend, being the nation’s largest gathering of conservatives in the country. I myself am not going, even though I live in DC, because I find it to be a colossal joke. Inviting Allen West, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, and the homophobic bigot known as Cliff Kincaid, as well as turning away gay conservatives who are probably the future of the conservative movement, strikes me as so dumb that it’s a joke without a punchline.

Reading about it in the news, though, something has come up that makes me scratch my head. Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan of The Washington Post have an article called “5 Things to Watch at CPAC.” One thing they wrote made me scratch my head (underlined emphasis here mine):

2. New GOP vs. old GOP: As the debate over Rand Paul’s filibuster showed, the Republican Party is very much wedged between the older generation of foreign policy hawks and establishment-minded politicians and the new generation of very conservative, often libertarian-leaning Republicans

Er, that’s not quite right.

I know there are a lot of libertarians out there who think we should continue to pursue the idea of “fusionism,” of aligning with conservatives, because of our shared free market values. I count many of them as my friends But I’m not one of them. In fact, I see fusionism as a dangerous, self-destructive concept that could badly, perhaps even fatally, wound the liberty movement and American libertarianism. There are serious differences between conservatism and libertarianism that I think makes fusionism a bad fit, and we should be doing more these days to split the two and establish a stronger, more independent, brand identity for libertarianism.

Perhaps the most stark and visible difference are social issues. Conservatives usually are against homosexuality, are against abortion, are for “traditional” social mores, want to keep people locked into gender roles, and generally believe that the good of a larger culture trumps the good of the individual, and where individual and culture conflict, the individual should shut up and accept his or her place. Are you a woman but don’t like to wear dresses and prefer riding motorcycles and fixing cars? Traditionally, conservatives would say “Too bad, now get back in the kitchen.” Traditionally, libertarians would tell you, “Do as you will, so long as you bring no harm to another.”

Those are very different approaches.

I think the implications of being a libertarian, the very way one thinks that leads one to libertarianism, rules out several conservative ideas. It first rules out the likes of Cliff Kincaid and his vile attacks on homosexuality. I think it also rules out a lot of the “VDARE” type racism you get on the fringe right, and the Islamophobia you also see with people like Pamela Geller. It should rule out a lot of the gender stereotypes that many on the right seem to want to perpetuate by government power, at least on the farther right. It also says no to cronyism, protectionist trade policies (which were championed by Rick Santorum in the last GOP presidential primary), bailouts, the national security state, massive spending on the military, etc.

Although there is a sort of “thin” libertarianism where you can technically be a “libertarian” but still have some hateful ideologies on the side (thinking of Lew Rockwell and some of the Mises Institute ilk), I for one fully agree with Matt Zwolinski of Bleeding Heart Libertarians when he writes:

I am reminded of Gordon’s review by some of the reactions to our recent discussion of the Ron Paul newsletters. One reaction in particular (see here for an example), was that even if the racist rhetoric of the newsletters could be attributed to Rothbard, Rockwell, or Paul himself, this does nothing to undermine the libertarian credentials of these individuals for the simple reason that there is no inconsistency between racism and libertarianism. If being a libertarian just means being committed to the non-aggression principle, then one’s beliefs about the intelligence, criminality, or even basic moral status of members of other races simply isn’t an issue. So long as one is committed to opposing the initiation of force against all persons, one has met the one and only necessary and sufficient condition for membership in Club Libertarian.

Personally, I think the Rothbardian emphasis on the non-aggression principle as definitive of libertarianism is unwarranted. And his argument for it certainly leaves much to be desired. But I do think there’s something to be said for understanding libertarianism as a kind of “thin” political commitment. We libertarians are united by a (rough) agreement on the proper role of the state in society, but we can agree on that point while vigorously disagreeing with each other about a host of other moral, religious, and cultural issues. Tolerance of such disagreement arguably makes for a more effective political coalition. And, after all, part of the appeal of libertarian political institutions is that they allow for people to believe in and live according to a diverse set of norms.

But does that mean that racism, nationalism, and a desire for cultural stasis sit just as well with the libertarian worldview as tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and cultural dynamism? I don’t think it does. However we define libertarianism, and whatever our reasons for endorsing it, we are libertarians for some reason. And the reasons we have to endorse libertarianism will often be reasons for endorsing other values, projects, or cultural practices as well. Imagine someone who endorsed the non-aggression principle because they believed it reflected the fundamental equality of persons, for example, but who simultaneously believed that white Americans were the moral superior of every other person on the planet, and who expressed that belief through a variety of derogatory and marginalizing practices. Even if such a person in no way violated the non-aggression principle, I would still say that they are not a libertarian in as full a sense as they could, and should, be. The reason is not just that they have beliefs and practices that I find objectionable. It is that they have beliefs and practices that are incompatible with the very moral foundation on which libertarianism rests.

I’m a “thick” libertarian. If you’re going to treat people as individuals, as ends in themselves and not means to an end, it’s going to be mighty hard to keep that concept in your noggin while simultaneously embracing ideas like sexism, racism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. That would be some impressive cognitive dissonance.

To an extent, conservatism is slowly shrugging off the more odious components of an older, more hidebound era (though not completely; one of the items that has made a bruhaha is this infographic telling CPAC goers what to wear, and basically says “Don’t enjoy yourself.”). However, having watched it happen over the past couple of years on Twitter and in the real world of Washington, DC (heh, real world, DC, now there’s a joke), I don’t think it’s so much that conservatism is evolving or changing, but that people are becoming more libertarian. We’re still not seeing a majority of them really libertarian yet, most of them are more like “conservatarians” (or libertarian conservatives, with the libertarian part being a mere adjective…) but it’s actually a move away from “very conservative.”

Of course, as David Boaz of Cato wrote two years ago when social conservatives boycotted CPAC over GOProud’s inclusion, conservatism is always changing. “Twenty years from now,” he said, “conservatives will deny they were ever anti-gay, just as they now have no memory of ever supporting discrimination against African-Americans or women.” But I think in this case, conservatism is actually starting to die. What will it have left to move on when gay rights become accepted across America? Attacking atheists? That’ll last for all of about an hour. Muslims? That’s already starting to weaken. Cyborgs? Let’s not derezz that lightbridge until we come to it.

What use does libertarianism have in tying itself to the mast of conservatism? What have we gotten out of not having a stronger and more independent brand? We’ve become associated with George W. Bush and his plutocratic economic policies (including TARP), which have made it far more difficult than it should be to argue for a free market in the 21st century. We’ve become associated with fools like Rush Limbaugh, who infamously called Sandra Fluke a slut last year when she testified on (demanded, really) government-bought contraceptives being a human right. And, to some extent, we’ve also become associated with the anti-gay strain of conservatism. This is not good. This is not libertarianism. And for crying out loud, we should not be tolerating this, nor associating with it.

I understand Blake and Sullivan’s mistake. A lot of people give journalists crap for not getting things quite right, but on this I’ll let them slide. They get a free pass because for the past twenty years–ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union–libertarians have given conservatives a free pass. This has got to stop. We come from a fundamentally different tradition, one that rejects the staid, hidebound stasism of the right, and the meaningless, virtue-sapping totalitarianism of the left. Let’s show that to the world. Let’s make that difference today.

PS: For other great blog posts from BHL on the subject of “thin” and “thick” libertarianism, check out these:

  1. Libertarianism and Morality,” by Fernando Teson
  2. Libertarian Social Morality: Progressive, Conservative or Liberal?” by Kevin Vallier
Bookmark and Share