Sunday, November 9, 2014

Pollitically Correct Libertarianism Must Die!

Well, I'm certainly not a politically correct libertarian (ask anybody) so I must be a 'brutalist.' Or maybe not. Brutalists are against political correctness, as am I, and they seem to be what's left when you get rid of "thick" libertarianism, which, if you haven't heard, is the dopey idea that you're not a real libertarians unless you buy into (almost) all the trendy liberal social justice warrior enthusiasms. If you don't buy into them, you're, well, just awful.

I'm just awful. I think you can theoretically be a libertarian while buying into racial equality, the moral irrelevance of all brands of sexual perversion, and a rejection of the notion of race, tribe, and nation. In theory. In practice, if you do that, you're ensuring the demise of the very idea of libertarianism in the long run. Of course, if you're safe in your mother's basement, that's no big deal.

Rather than distinguish myself with the word 'brutalist,' I prefer the term 'libertarian nationalist,' because it's a signal that I don't buy into all the touchy-feely open borders everybody is equal antiracist antinationalist antiscience anticommonsense trend that permeates libertarianism every bit as much as it does liberalism and neoconservatism these days.

Here's a brutalist I could get along with, denouncing political correctness. Sent in by Matt Treasonous Bailey. Beware: lots of f-words.

Now, then. About the basic controversy, Kathy Shaidle says this:

“[L]ibertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.”

That’s Jeffrey A. Tucker’s provocative proposition in a widely discussed new article in The Freeman.

Humanitarian libertarians value the principle of liberty, Tucker writes, because—among other things—it permits freedom of association and promotes the primacy of the individual over the state.

However, he also claims that liberty “keeps violence at bay” and “protects human rights of all against invasion.” Neither proposition is self-evident to me, but Tucker boldly declares, “We know all this from history and experience.”

So I’m dumb.

Tucker then contrasts these “humanitarian” beliefs with those of “brutalists.”

Brutalists also treasure liberty, but for the wrong reasons, and find those listed above “boring”:

To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

Yet I don’t detect much difference between some of these examples of “good” liberty (freedom of association) and “bad” liberty (the formation of homogeneous tribes). Tucker, however, insists that these “two impulses”—the humanitarian and the brutalist—are “radically different.”

I reject other premises of Tucker’s as well, primarily the importance (or even existence) of “racism” and “sexism,” at least as defined and (supposedly) experienced by Western progressives.

As Jim Goad has ably demonstrated, “hate-crime” homicides are only slightly more real than Bigfoot: Twice as many blacks kill each other every year than blacks were lynched by whites in America between 1882 and 1968.
Read the rest here:
Me again. I'm definitely on the side of the Brutalists when they're opposing political correctness, and I'm definitely disgusted with Tucker's appropriation of the Marxist terms "racism" and "sexism." In my opinion, if we suddenly had a libertarian society tomorrow, that kind of thinking would destroy it in about six months.
Quibcag:  Marii of Joshiraku (じょしらく) also denounces political correctness.


  1. Tucker is the stereotypical pencil necked geek. I haven't taken him seriously since reading this essay by him:
    Especially, this passage:
    "I took it to the repair guy at the small-engine shop, who said he would be happy to work on it but it won't be ready for two weeks. This of course is ridiculous. I asked him if he could fix it right now, since it will probably only take ten minutes. He said no, that would not be "fair to other customers." I pointed out that fairness had nothing to do with it since his existing customers have already contracted to wait up to two weeks, whereas I would like to have mine fixed now. Still, even in the face of this impenetrable logic, he refused."

  2. I have to admit that Christopher Cantwell is one of my favorite anarco-libertarians.