Friday, March 11, 2016

Leftbertarians

How do you like that word? I just coined it, or I thought I did, but a Google search reveals that it has been used before. But, I think, not quite the way I mean it. I intend it to be a portmanteau word for "left-libertarian," which makes it an oxymoron, which is usually a phrase rather than a single word. To me, libertarianism is, or should be, a part of the right, at least in America, insofar as it is a branch of conservatism which holds the Founding Fathers as a standard. And yes, I know that the Founding Fathers differed among themselves, but the idea of liberty was their standard, and they differed mainly in how they thought was the best way to attain and maintain liberty. Not a damn one of them was a leftist by current standards.

But recently, I've had self-styled "libertarians" assure me the libertarianism is and always has been a leftist movement. And I guess you can make a case for that if you consider the use of the term libertarianismo [link] in Spain during the Civil War there, where is seems to have been equivalent to Anarcho-Communism, which is about at oxymoronic as you can get. But I don't see the continuity between that particular

But if you're that kind of libertarian, you really belong in the Democratic party with Bernie and Hillary, denouncing the Founding Fathers as nasty old White male slaveholders, yadda yadda yadds.

This kind of hippy-dippy thinking is certainly all over the place among libertarians in the US today, which is why I call myself a libertarian nationalist, lest somebody think I'm one of that bunch.

To cases, one of those leftbertarianss was going on today about how "racism," which to him seems to be taking a person's race into account in any way whatsoever, is a form of "collectivism" and therefore is irredeemably evil. This is clearly influenced by Ayn Rand in one of her sillier moods.

Anyhow, I responded to him this way, more or less, but I'm adding a little, too:

Nope. Using race as a factor in determining expectations is not racism, or, if it is, then every human being on earth is a racist. Obviously, you have to make judgments about people without getting to know them all the time. Calling this "race-collectivism" is just childish prattle. Collectivism is a completely different thing, and, for that matter, there are occasions when individualism works and other occasions when collectivism works. And occasions when a blend of the two is best. I believe  crazy old Rothbard himself once used the analogy of a couple of guys carrying a log together as agreed-upon collectivism. And then there's the fact that many of us agree to communicate by speaking and writing English (and other languages), which is another example of agreed-upoon collecivism. And, finally, here's what an actual economist, rather than a dogmatist, said about it all a few years ago:

Harvard Professor Henry Gates’ arrest has given new life to the issue of racial profiling. We can think of profiling in general as a practice where people use an observable or known physical attribute as a proxy or estimator of some other unobservable or unknown attribute. Race or sex profiling is simply the use of race or sex as that estimator. Profiling represents mankind’s attempt to cope with information cost. God would not have to profile since God is all knowing.
People differ by race and sex. Let’s look at a few profiling examples to see which ones you’d like outlawed. According to the American Cancer Society, the lifetime risk of men getting breast cancer is about 1/10th of 1 percent, or 1 in 1,000; and 440 men will die of breast cancer this year. For women, the risk of developing breast cancer is about 12 percent, or 1 in 8, and 40,610 will die from it this year. Should doctors and medical insurance companies be prosecuted for the discriminatory practice of routine breast cancer screening for women but not for men?
Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average. The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest known diabetes rates in the world. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men.
Knowing patient race or ethnicity, what might be considered as racial profiling, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services.
One might take the position that while it is acceptable for doctors to use race, ethnicity and sex as indicators of the higher probability of certain diseases, it is not acceptable to use race or ethnicity as indicators for other attributes such as criminal behavior. 
Other than simply stating that it is acceptable to use race or ethnicity as information acquisition technique in the case of medicine but not in other areas of life, is there really a difference? Surely, race and ethnicity are not perfect indicators of the risk of prostate cancer or hypertension; neither are they perfect indicators of criminal behavior; however, there are concrete factual data that surely indicate associations. Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang says, “For four violent offenses — homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — the crime rates for blacks are at least 10 times as high as they are for whites.”
Read the rest here:

Of course, if you'd rather rely on the "reasoning" of a leftbertarian SJW than that of Walter Willians, go for it :)

Help me spread the word "leftbertarian" around, It may catch on, like "cuckservative" has.
-----------
Quibcag: This is Oka Ayuko of Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu), the word "viagra" somehow made me think of her.

No comments:

Post a Comment