Thursday, April 10, 2014

Libertarianism ≠ "="

Right after that RECENT POST about pseudo-libertarianism, i. e., progressivism with some libertarian decorations, I wander over to Takimag and come across a post about “bleeding heart libertarianism,” which seems to be pretty much what I was writing about. To put it another way, it's libertarianism that wholeheartedly accepts all the social values of the left. Me, I don't accept any of the stupid social values of the left.  That's because they're inimical to libertarianism, not to mention common sense and the whole tradition of Western Civilization. My attitude seems to be called “libertarian brutalism,” which apparently isanother name for common sense, etc., or, libertarianism as it ought to be and was, before a bunch of hippies got hold of it. Too many libertarians out there wouldn't even understand what I'm saying here, because without putting it in so many words, libertarianism is to them just a variant of the Zeitgeist, which is a spooky Geist indeed, because it's progressivism AKA Marxism AKA liberalism AKA whatever trendy name they're using for themselves lately.

This from Nicholas James Pell at Takimag:

The Care Bears vs. McCarthy

Catholic libertarian Jeffrey Tucker recently introduced us to the concept of “libertarian brutalism.” The distilled version: Libertarianism is well and good, but can’t we do something to make sure people only use freedom of association in ways that are palatable to progressives?

Now Reason is getting in on the act, proposing a libertarianism beyond the (actually sort of incredibly stupid and childish) non-aggression principle: It’s also about caring, maaaan. The article, replete with scare images of men in Klan robes—the necessary result of a libertarian society unconcerned with “tolerance” or whatever the term is these days—goes through a lot of tired old left-libertarian tropes.

There’s the requisite invocation of Ayn Rand denouncing racism as “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” And no article of left-libertarian progressivism would be complete without pro forma reminders that libertarians seek to use social stigma rather than state power to achieve these aims. Cue the thoughtful, breathless appeals to so-called “bleeding heart libertarianism”: “We don’t care only about force and its improper uses. We care about individual persons.”
“It’s not that I think that people oughtn’t advocate for their own values; quite the contrary. I just don’t understand what it has to do with ‘libertarianism.’”

For what it’s worth, Reason is sort of a ground zero for this type of “progressive libertarianism,” with its deep concerns for “income inequality” and “privilege” and “Bob” knows what else.

So much the worse for what they’re calling libertarianism these days, I suppose. For my own part, I care about me and mine, which is a circle of about 50 people when it comes right down to it. Championing inclusion works for me insofar as it works for me. Beyond that, I honestly can’t be bothered one way or the other.

I’m not really sure what “inclusion” has to do with libertarianism. On the contrary, I side with Hoppe: Private property is, by its very nature, discriminatory. You own it, not everyone. When the anarchist café in Portland decided to throw a cop out, I thought they were dumb for doing so, but I subscribe to the principle “your house, your rules.” Similarly, I think companies have the right to refuse business to people for wearing roller skates, speaking Swedish, or skipping leg day at the gym.
(Read the rest HERE.)
Quibcag: The illustration of the Equality-ist Girls was shamelessly swiped from Vulture of Critique and modified by me and Photoshop.

No comments:

Post a Comment