06.15.08

Progress of the Revolution

Posted in Left-Libertarian at 10:48 am by Administrator

Of the top twenty political websites, two are libertarian – LRC and Antiwar.com.

Now we just need to dislodge those other eighteen ….

Permalink

39 Comments »

Belinsky said,

June 15, 2008 at 1:55 pm

But…Hall for Bush and John McCain for President are surely libertarian websites!
Administrator said,

June 15, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I think you have those confused with Hell for Bush and John McCain for Prison-resident.
Aster said,

June 15, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Personally, I don’t find it cheering at all that Lew Rockwell and Antiwar.com are popular websites. Lew Rockwell supports a right-wing type of libertarianism as a means to the full restoration of an anti-individualistic culture and proudly hosts human fiends such as Thomas diLorenzo and H.H. Hoppe. Antiwar.com is an associate of the first, and Justin Raimondo is a player who embodies the stereotypical faux-insider journalist’s pose; he vigourously identifies with the same game he ostensibly critiques. His enthusiastic support of the racist, antisemitic, homophobic Pat Buchanan would strike one as primarily repulsive were it not simply bizarre.

This kind of libertarianism is as dangerous to the human spirit as many a variety of statism. Real individualism is again becoming simply superfluous in public discourse.
Tracy Saboe said,

June 16, 2008 at 2:00 am

Well, then start your own libertarian website with YOUR flavor of libertarianism.
And give them some competition.

At least Anti-War and Lew Rockwell are attacking the state.

Tracy
Tracy Saboe said,

June 16, 2008 at 2:02 am

BTW. Townhall isn’t ALL bad. they have Walter William and Larry Elders (Who identifies himself as a Liberpublican these days — but as long as he doesn’t talk about War, he’s libertarian — which he doesn’t too often.

Tracy
Anon73 said,

June 16, 2008 at 4:04 am

This kind of libertarianism is as dangerous to the human spirit as many a variety of statism.

Aster’s been posting quite a few rants lately against Rockwell’s brand of right-libertarianism. I’d agree with Tracy: just start your own website or become a contributor to infoshop. org if you’re so fed up with it.
Soviet Onion said,

June 16, 2008 at 7:12 am

I think her point is that Rockwell’s views are symptomatic of attitudes and dysfunctions within the libertarian moment proper, and/or the way libertarianism is widely perceived, and is only commenting on this particular piece of news because it provides an easy example.

If she’s lied about either of these examples, or is wrong in either the nature or magnitude of her larger conclusions, then those are the points to respond to. “Love it or leave it” is not productive; it’s not even the issue.
Bob Kaercher said,

June 16, 2008 at 10:22 am

Speaking of which, I wonder what a dialectical analysis of right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism might yield. Any thoughts?
Rad Geek said,

June 16, 2008 at 11:13 am

Characterizing something as a “rant” may seem like a handy rhetorical way of waving it off without actually engaging with its argumentative structure. But that’s really uncharitable and not especially productive of reasoned discussion.

I think that LRC is more of a mixed bag than Aster does (not because I disagree with her particularly about the criticisms she lodges against some of the content and authors that appear there, but rather because I think that it’s important to keep in mind how many different authors post there, and that they are not all marching in lockstep, either in general or on the issues Aster has in mind). But be that as it may, the kind of responses she’s gotten from Tracy Saboe and Anon73 are just silly.

If the high readership ranking of LRC is being specifically mentioned as a sign of progress, and one believes that the high readership ranking of LRC is not a sign of progress, then it makes sense to reply with criticism specific to LRC, in order to show that its being widely read is not as good a development as was originally suggested. Replying to that criticism with “If you don’t like it, go start your own” is just a non sequitur. Aster was giving counter-evidence in reply to a particular claim that had already been made; this is just a change of subject.

Replying to her argument with “at least they’re attacking the State,” on the other hand, is like a cartoon of thoughtless “shoulder-to-shoulder” Popular Front rhetoric. At least Stalin was fighting Hitler. (And vice versa.) But, really, so what?

If you think that Aster’s comments are unfair to LRC or Antiwar.com, you can try replying to that, but these kind of remarks, passed off as replies, don’t really even rise to the level of successfully replying.
JOR said,

June 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I think Aster was unfair to LRC. It’s really more of a big tent anti-war website with a libertarian bent than a dedicated right-libertarian website (I’m not sure what ‘right-libertarian’ means here; LRCers in general would probably be more sympathetic to the likes of Kevin Carson than, say, the Catoites would be).

As for Antiwar.com, I don’t really read that site much so I can’t comment on it. Raimondo’s love of more or less randomly directed bombast and hyperbole is one factor that keeps me away.
Michael J. Palmer said,

June 16, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I saw two blog posts on LRC (by Lew Rockwell himself, no less!) that give me hope that Lew is coming around to the anti-voting side.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021547.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021552.html

Meh. It’s a start.
Matt said,

June 16, 2008 at 8:01 pm

I don’t understand the hatred. LRC is, as the sub-header reads, anti-state, anti-war, and pro-market — what is there to take serious umbrage with? I think some of you (though also some of the LRCers) need to embrace one of Harry Browne’s most poignant maxims: to wit, “I’m not going to try and trip someone who’s running in the same direction as me” — that is, in the direction of freedom. I cannot conceive of a manner by which you can critique LRC and have it not seem like picking nits. You guys have philosophical differences; I understand. But are not your differences with, say, the GOP (and its outposts — TownHall, Hannity, etc.) greater by orders of magnitude?

What is so horrible about what LRC and Antiwar.com have done?
Soviet Onion said,

June 16, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Lew Rockwell would have to abandon a lot more than voting than to earn anything more from me than just a qualified nod for his other views. Voting is one of his less problematic beliefs.

Incidentally, I agree with Charles that there’s more to LRC, and particularly Antiwar.com than Aster is willing to admit, and think she focuses on just the characters she hates; why else does she keep bringing up Hoppe and DiLorenzo, like those are the only people that write there? This is even more true of Antiwar.com, which has an even more diverse body of contributors who, in any case, are writing about the war and foreign policy, not social issues. Whatever else there is to object to in paleoconservatives (and there is much), on foreign policy there is little for a libertarian to disagree with.

She seems to think that associating with these people at all and not completely cutting off contact automatically puts the venue on their side, and makes it tainted and lost beyond recovery. Never mind that there are other writers coming from different perspectives, and that issues discussed might not even pertain to the paleos’ racism, sexism and xenophobia.

I’m willing to accept that those are the dominant perspectives at LRC, but not Antiwar.com.
scineram said,

June 17, 2008 at 6:55 am

Mkay, what are those more problematic views?
Jorad said,

June 17, 2008 at 8:03 am

Well, it often seems to suggest, that in a libertarian society, everybody would be a conservative.
They are a little too fond of conspiracy theories and a little too eager to defend politically incorrect things (Hell, I’m sick of PC-speech everywhere too, but it’s there for a reason and it just too often seems like *Discrimination shouldn’t be a crime, because I want to discriminate!* - I know thats not what Hoppe, etc. think, but it’s too easy to interpret for my taste. (As seen with the RP newsletters.))

Nevertheless, I don’t think you should be too fanatical about your own special brand of libertarianism.
I never even found a website yet where I could agree with every single article. You just have to trust people to come to their own conclusions and not angst about the possibility, that they could be contaminated or repulsed, because they read one anti-immigration article somewhere on LRC.
You don’t want those people anyway.
Tracy Saboe said,

June 17, 2008 at 9:09 am

I point about “starting your own website.”

Is just this. Lew Rockwell is reaching people, making them think.Teaching people about libertarianism even if it’s not the particular cosmopoliton brand that some people here subscribe too.

What are you doing to advance the cause of liberty? Put up or shut up.

As far as the “At lease Hitler was attacking Stallan” nonsense. It’s not parrellel at all. Rockwell is attacking ALL states. The State and an institution. The whole point of libertarianism is attacking the state, and getting institutionalized cooersion (i.e. government) parred down and abolished. So if somebody’s “at least attacking the state”, they’re doing the very point of Libertarianism.

Which means Lew Rockwell is libertarian. With the State gone, it’ll be much easier to choose how you want to live your life — if that means not associating with or attacking certain “feelings” amoung the paleo-libertarian crowd then fine.

For the Record Anthony Gregory isn’t really “right-libertarian” although he is an anarchist, and he posts a lot.

Tracy
Bob Kaercher said,

June 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Tracy:

If “cosmopolitan” is intended as a snide shorthand for anyone who doesn’t agree with some or much of the conservative brand of libertarianism that LRC/Mises Institute often promotes–which is how the term is consistently used at LRC itself–it may make for a neat little epithet, but as far as facilitating any kind kind of thoughtful discussion it’s a dead-end, a polemical term used to frame the grounds of debate a certain way so that the parameters of that debate are nice and narrow. It doesn’t help anyone understand anything.

As far as various disagreements on fundamental philosophy and issues, it is true that even different individuals in the same movement will have such disagreements, and that they can always go their seperate ways if they so choose–well that’s a given; so what? The point is that there is no reason why anyone is obligated to shrug them off for the sake of somebody else’s particular conception of movement unity.

There’s no reason why topics like immigration, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., cannot be discussed amongst libertarians like grown adults, and there’s certainly no reason to reflexively dismiss those topics as trivial and unimportant, or to assume that those issues are the exclusive domains of PC cops. If there are some who would just rather not participate in those discussions, fine, but nobody has any right to expect others to keep their mouths shut when they see or hear certain knowledge claims expressed about various ethnic, racial, “alternative lifestyle” or other groups, just for the sake of some kind of party line.

In other words, no one should be expected to mute their individual conscience for the sake of keeping things neat, tidy and comfortable. If you do have such expectations, then I gather you’re in a much different freedom movement than I am.
Matt said,

June 17, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Bob, what I disagree with are not the well-argued points you make, but rather with the notion — expressed earlier — that we should not rejoice at seeing these websites gain in popularity. I’m not saying you need to stifle your opinions on things like ‘racism’ or ’sexism’ to appease the party line; I’m simply arguing that the importance of such things pales in comparison to being on the right side of the philosophy debate (are you pro- or anti-state?), and on the right side of the truly major issues (are you pro- or anti-empire? pro- or anti-preemptive war?).

BTW, I’d be genuinely interested to hear why some of you disagree so vociferously with what is espoused at LRC. I’m a young libertarian, still in his formative stage of ideological development. Try me!
Bob Kaercher said,

June 17, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Matt:

I am certainly anti-state, anti-war and anti-empire. I’m an anarchist and therefore completely anti-authoritarian. I do not submit myself to anyone’s authority of any type, though I do grant deference and respect to those who have legitimately earned it.

Adhering to libertarian principles, in my view–there may be other libertarians who don’t agree–involves a lot more than being opposed to the nuts and bolts of government machinery, though to explicitly denounce the physical mechanisms of statism is certainly important and not to be underestimated.

But I’m not so naive as to think that if I could push that magic button and make the state entirely disappear right this second that many of the problems currently plaguing social relations would suddenly disappear, too. Government isn’t the only type of human organization that is coercive, and coercion can certainly exist in the absence of government. If your libertarian principles are based on the ethical foundation of non-aggression, then I would think libertarians should be just as concerned with non-governmental as well as governmental coercion.

In other words, what constitutes “being on the right side of the philosophy debate” is a lot broader than merely being opposed to the state. A principled libertarian should be just as opposed to all the cultural beliefs that often help to reinforce, and are often reinforced by, statism. This would make being anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc., inclusive of “the right side of the philosophy debate” rather than being altogether separate and disconnected issues.

I don’t happen to think that LRC is the plague or something. It’s not necessary for me to point out what a world of good that site has done for libertarianism. There is a far greater diversity of libertarian writers contributing to that site than many of its most vocal detractors will acknowledge. (I wouldn’t use the term “human fiends” to describe anyone writing for that site.)

The fact that it is such a well known beacon of libertarianism on the web is exactly why so many libertarians will not be shy about criticizing what they see as its inconsistencies, shortcomings, and contradictions, as well they should.

I’m not going to draw up a laundry list of examples, but those inconsistencies, shortcomings and contradictions can best be described, I think, as a pervasive conservativism that is not necessarily compatible with the kind of libertarianism I expressed in the first four paragraphs of this reply.
Micha Ghertner said,

June 17, 2008 at 9:00 pm

The whole point of libertarianism is attacking the state,

This is not the whole point of libertarianism. The whole point of libertarianism is attacking coercion, whether committed by state or non-state actors. Or, as our Kindly Administrator once put it, other people are not your property. Even if those people happen to be women, immigrants, black, Jewish, gay, poor, or otherwise considered undesirables by the bigoted cesspool that is LRC.
Aster said,

June 17, 2008 at 9:49 pm

For the record, I no longer identify as any kind of libertarian, including a ‘left-libertarian’. I don’t accept that I have to treat tearing down the state as *the* defining political issue when other standing systems of repression are at least as dangerous to me as is statism. Given that libertarian society insists that I shelve issues of much more immediate importance to me (and in many cases acts to *worsen* existing oppression) far more than the left insists that I love the state, I utterly refuse to have any allegiance to libertarianism or to identify with the term. ‘Love it or leave it’ is a little late in coming. I didn’t love it; I left.

When I was at university, I converted most of my Amnesty club to libertarianism by appeals to their desire for freedom- bourgeois libertarians might be surprised how much love for the idea there is among the people they go out of their way to snub and despise. You can be damn sure that after ten years of finding out what libertarian society was really life I’m never going to do the same again- quite the opposite; I never miss a chance among leftists to tell them that it is my confirmed experience that libertarianism proved to be more or less exactly what they always told me it was. And I’ve done this not *primarily* because of anger, but because having found a society which *does* take seriously very real forms of oppression which have done immense harm to myself and my friends, the *last* thing I desire to do is spread around an ideology which preaches that race, sex, class, homophobia, etc. don’t matter. I know better, and if a movement overwhelmingly composed of well-off white men *still* can’t figure out why they can’t successfully appeal to almost anyone outside of their social set, nothing on Earth is going to give them a clue.

As far as I can see, the only practical effect which 80 years of libertarian theory and 40 years of libertarian activism have had on public discourse has been to provide an easily appropriated ideology for neoliberal class warfare. Meanwhile the real victories which have loosened up the culture enough to allow women, minorites, and dissidents some genuinely liberated space have been won by others, with libertarians ocassionally joining in but more often helping the reactionaries or just carping from the sidelines. Remember how the Libertarian Party *opposed* the Equal Rights Amendment?

My roommate right now, a disabled lesbian on the dole, decided her opinion of libertarianism after hearing Lindsay Perigo say on the radio that welfare recipients shouldn’t be permitted to vote. I once would have told her that this was a travesty of libertarianism,.given that liberty actually offers liberation for the poor and oppressed. Now I couldn’t tell her that even if I wanted to, because I just don’t believe it. I told her that I supported a *real* free market (a la Kevin Carson), and that libertarianism should never have come to mean this kind of bigoted callousness, but told her that what libertarianism *is* is worse than the existing social democracy and that I deeply regretted my years in the same camp as the individual she would only call ‘that man’. And I sure as Hell meant it. What I’ve found out is that libertarians oppose the violence of the state and don’t give a damn about all the rest of the oppression which happens further down and less visibily in society. I once thought this was just a matter of ignorance and education, but there are only so many times I can take blanket condescension and gender harassment before getting the point that this is never going to change.

Tearing down the state may be your main issue. It’s not mine. I wish I could have both, but I can’t. Opposing patriarchy is for me a day-to-day matter of self-respect; libertarian politics are a luxury. And libertarians force everyone who isn’t in the more privileged positions to make these kinds of choices with utterly predictable results.

* * *

I do, incidentally, acknowledge that there are some intelligent and well-intended writers at Lewrockwell.com. Roderick Long has written there for one (and for that matter, the conservative Paul Craig Roberts is a brilliant writer). I knew Anthony Gregory and San Francisco and was honoured to know him. But I think such people are exceptions, and are very misguided to associate with a website whose entire purpose is to promote a paleolibertarian ideology which *favours* every kind of repression of the individual and the disposessed, excepting only statism.
Micha Ghertner said,

June 17, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Aster,

Like the mafia, we libertarians will not let you leave that easily. You may consider the “culture” of libertarianism tainted, and to a certain extent I agree with you, though I think it is reformable. But just as Objectivists cannot escape the libertarian label we libertarians thrust upon them, coercively, against their will, neither can you. We libertarians are tricky like that.
scineram said,

June 18, 2008 at 10:15 am

“or otherwise considered undesirables by the bigoted cesspool that is LRC.”

“which *favours* every kind of repression of the individual and the disposessed, excepting only statism.”

Ok, do you care to back that shit up?
Bob Kaercher said,

June 18, 2008 at 10:59 am

Aster:

I would say that scineram has a point. If you’re going to issue such blanket condemnations, you might want to support them with something.

As I said for myself, there is a pervasive conservatism at that site with which I don’t quite agree, but to make such sweeping statements like the ones you’ve made is quite a stretch.

I get equally annoyed when I see some LRC writers make blanket characterizations of left-libertarians as being dope-smoking, sexually promiscuous hedonists.
Forgotten Man said,

June 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm

I am puzzled by the claims of racism and bigotry aimed at LRC. Anyone care to post a link to these articles?

What is this other oppression in society that you speak of? LRCers are pretty vocal in their opposition to crime and the state’s failure to contain it.

Based on your statements, I assume you consider a white man choosing to not hire a black man or woman as oppression. In your mind, it is less offensive to put a gun to that white man’s head to force him to hire minorities.

Yes, libertarians OPPOSED not only the Equal Rights Act, but the Civil Rights Act as well!

Liberty is not a la carte. Either it applies to everyone or it doesn’t exist at all.
Bob Kaercher said,

June 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm

“Based on your statements, I assume you consider a white man choosing to not hire a black man or woman as oppression.”

What dots did you connect to reach that assumption?

“In your mind, it is less offensive to put a gun to that white man’s head to force him to hire minorities.”

Well who said THAT???

“Liberty is not a la carte. Either it applies to everyone or it doesn’t exist at all.”

Well I for one can certainly get behind that statement.
Aster said,

June 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Bob-

What’s wrong with being a dope-smoking, sexually promscuous hedonist?

- a dope-smoking, sexually promiscuous… well technically I’m a hedonist only in the vulgar sense; I’m really just a special case of a Randian eudaimonist in ethical terms, more or less.

scinernam-

Oh, go fish. Micha gave you six links backing it up. And why would I want to prove myself to people who I don’t respect, don’t seek to influence, and who clearly desire anything but my well being? What, am I supposed to enjoy chit-chatting with people who want to marginalise me or worse?

Paleolibertarinism has one fatal flaw, and that’s that it depends upon an idealistic devotion to liberty to retain its mask as anything other than an apology for reaction and power. It’s conquered the libertarian movement, sure- but decent people are leaving the movement and have been for a decade or more. When the last youth, spirit, and integrity drains out of the movement, ‘libertarianism’ will be just another name for a particularly cynical kind of conservatism able to decieve only those who deserve it.

I would wish that the ideals of individualism might be reborn somewhere, under some new name. But I don’t think I believe in wishes. And I look at all of this debate, and it all seems so unreal. So much is terribly wrong with the world today, we’re so poised on the edge of unspeakable disaster, and everyone seems to continue with business as normal. Those who should be fighting all that is happening stare itis the face and don’t see it, or fight it with weapons borrowed 80% from the enemy they’re fighting. The real core of loving, thinking, living, feeling, experiencing for yourself is so hopelessly forgotten, not least among those who were pledged to remember it.

I still know people who retain that spirit. A few of them are reading this. The rest… it’s finally stopped hurting. I just don’t care any more. “but I don’t think of you.” You hear something a certain number of times before you cease expecting anything different and there is no trust or care to be lost. And the very fact that paleolobertarianism has succeeded so well as it has is itself proof that the movement lost trust with the true free spirits many years ago

I mourn for what libertarianism should have been. I mourn for what America should have been. So much will be lost.

Micha-

When I first read this, I smiled- just a very warm, deep smile. know what you mean. It touched me to hear you say that. And your form is perfect.

There is an alternate universe somewhere where I’m still a libertarian. I wish I could live in that universe. It’s a better universe, in ways indescribably more important than petty issues such as my dissillusionment with politics. But I’ll never be a libertarian in this world again, unless the world changes a great deal and in ways I don’t think are very likely.

But you read the last two posts above. No, I’m not part of that movement. When you talk to people this way in a forum maintained by the writer who carries the banner of what you thought was your wing of the movement, it’s not yours. If, against all odds, people like Roderick and Charles Johnson succeed injto making libertarianism into what it ought to have been or at least what it once was when it believes in more than the letter of liberty, then I might come back. But in the meantime I’ve wahetever I’ve left of my life to live. I wasted my youth largely on a libertarian movement which I’ve come to loathe. I’m not making that mistake again. The trouble with politics is that its all about what caring about what other people thinkand do and that’s a lousy, miserable place for anyone not deperately concerned with what others think. Sometime people who wish to be happy join in politics because they care to and sometimes because they have to, but ultimately all people obsessed with politics have a streak of war and violence in them. It’s just a bad place to be, and if you don’t get respect or humane treatment and don’t see hope in success its pointless to play the game. I hate the fact people under oppression just have to devote their lives to politics or give up on happiness, but I’m grateful that I no longer have to be one of them.

Roderick-

Goodbye. For obvious reasons I don’t wish to speak any more here.
Matt said,

June 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Alright…
Micha Ghertner said,

June 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Forgotten Man,

If the links I provided above weren’t evidence enough of the moral decay that is paleolibertarianism, take a look at this famous howler by Herr Hoppe:

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

If this is what is required to maintain a libertarian order, then group me with Aster - I want none of it.

And to Bob - if the best paleos can come up with in terms of blanket characterizations of left-libertarians is being dope-smoking, sexually promiscuous hedonists, then color me guilty. The world would be a much better place with more of these kinds of people around.
Dennis said,

June 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm

I would argue that whether one wishes to be part of the libertarian movement or not, if she rejects the notion that the state is allowed to violate the non aggression axiom she is a libertarian. I am an atheist and so, apparently, was Joseph Stalin, I would not stop being an atheist out of contempt for communism, nor would I stop being a libertarian because I disagree, at times strongly, with what some of libertarianism’s most significant advocates believe. I think that racism, sexism, and bigotry toward the LGBT community are worse because of the state, and however unwittingly, any advocate of a weaker state, or no state at all will also weaken those types of intolerance.

For the record, I think the claims against LRC are greatly exaggerated. I have been reading that site for five years, and while I roll my eyes at the occasional attempts to dispute “Darwinism” (note the scare quotes), and the silly religiosity and support for patriarchy that sometimes appear, I simply don’t see what many others do. As an aside about the anti-Darwinist content, I think it is harder to be taken seriously when raising legitimate questions about the climate change discourse when you question one of the most firmly established principles in all of science, Darwinian evolution. There is a pretty wide variety of opinions on the site, which inspires a pretty wide spectrum of sympathy. On balance, however, I think it is a great site, and probably the most important one in the libertarian universe. As such, I can understand that libertarians with differing views will take greater umbrage with things they disagree with there than they would on other sites.

As to Hoppe, I think he is a smart guy with some libertarian inclinations who holds some terrible views and attempts to synthesize his good and bad ideas with interesting and, ultimately anti-libertarian results; any academic can probably point to numerous “Marxists” who bear little resemblance to Marx, the same is true for libertarianism. I dispute Aster’s assertion that LRC is full of writers who only advance anti-statism with the goal of empowering other oppressive institutions. It is likely the case that some contributors to the site would like to live in a stateless society in which they could live in communities which would not be bastions of ideological, linguistic, or sexual identity diversity. While I think that the feelings that drive this desire are unfortunate, to say the least, those contributors are entitled to those beliefs, and in a free society would be entitled to live in such communities to the extent that they could uphold them without engaging in aggression (it would be virtually impossible to uphold such a community, I suspect.) But the majority of articles on the subject are written with the same goal as articles defending the right to engage in prostitution or drug use, they are defending unpopular rights.

A better criticism of the site would be that it rarely features articles decrying conservative “cultural coercion.” While I am all for criticism of over the top PC attitudes, or certain aspects of gender feminism (though these movements are not without their own virtues), I would like to see something critical of homophobia or pro-open borders on the site. But I would still rather read LRC, despite my disagreements with some of its content, then not read it.
Dennis said,

June 18, 2008 at 7:55 pm

That last sentence should have concluded with “than not read it.”
Micha Ghertner said,

June 18, 2008 at 9:33 pm

I think that racism, sexism, and bigotry toward the LGBT community are worse because of the state, and however unwittingly, any advocate of a weaker state, or no state at all will also weaken those types of intolerance.

Even if that advocacy is coupled with intolerance? Insofar as the state itself makes bigotry worse, and it does, you are correct. But it’s not as if anti-statism is the only think LRC promotes.
Dennis said,

June 18, 2008 at 10:57 pm

I tried posting a novel length response, but alas it was lost in the interwebs somewhere. Briefly, I would argue that while the editorial policy of LRC privileges social conservatism, it is not monolithic. Anthony Gregory, Sheldon Richman, Butler Shafer, and Roderick T(iberius) Long are evidence of this. Secondly, I think that anti-statism does weaken bigotry even when coupled with intolerance, because aggressive intolerance is impossible to enforce without the state to back it. This doesn’t mean that intolerant advocates of antistatism are immune from criticism, it simply means that one can appreciate their positive contributions to discourse while railing against their most despicable beliefs.
Dennis said,

June 18, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Actually, I suppose that a stateless society could be home to violently enforced bigotry, depending on the cultural values of the society. But I would still maintain that if that violence is not common place in the same society with a state, it would be even less so without one.
Soviet Onion said,

June 19, 2008 at 8:37 am

The problem with this perspective is that it creates an artificial tactical distinction between the State as an institution and the psychological climate that legitimizes and reinforces it. That climate, just so you know, entails more than just the limited and commonplace belief that States are necessary. It includes the kind of societal oppressions that easily easily lend themselves to state control (for what is habitual, bigoted aggression if not a smaller and more ephemeral precursor to a State) and that, at the very least, condition people to living in fear and cowtowing to authority. This is especially of restrictions imposed during childhood, in which the threat of violence for crossing the line is more than just implied, it’s expected and condoned by adult society at large.

Suppose we pushed the Rothbardian button and made all the police and military disappear tomorrow. If everyone still believed that government control was necessary and good, how long would that anarchist society last? No libertarian would limit themselves to simply dismantling the visible apparatus. When faced with that question, we reply that education is just as important, and just as necessary.

So why isn’t that also true of certain other kinds of beliefs that aren’t directly related to State authority, but that justify and reinforce it nonetheless (or at the very least are hostile to individualism, which is the whole point behind anti-statism anyway). Because it’s psychological? It’s all psychological!
Bob Kaercher said,

June 19, 2008 at 10:39 am

“And to Bob - if the best paleos can come up with in terms of blanket characterizations of left-libertarians is being dope-smoking, sexually promiscuous hedonists, then color me guilty. The world would be a much better place with more of these kinds of people around.”

Micah (and to Aster, too, if she’s still reading), I wouldn’t say that being a dope-smoking hedonist necessarily makes you “guilty” of anything. One’s god knows that an occasional drink with Dionysus from time to time could do some people a world of good.

I just resent the characterizations and insinuations that that is the sum total of left-libertarianism. The debates about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., are neatly cut off by snide remarks about how allegedly left-libertarians just want to smoke dope and have lots of sex with random people, as if that’s the whole alpha and omega of the movement.

It’s not that I give a damn what non-left libertarians think about left-libertarians personally — I sure as hell couldn’t care less. It’s the use of polemical labels to cut off intelligent debate in favor of irrelevant baloney that bothers me.
Dennis said,

June 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Soviet Onion,
I largely agree with you. The state is in many ways simply the most powerful manifestation of all of these other things, which are themselves expressions of the desire to dominate others. I agree that if the machinery were simply to disappear some form of state would probably assume its place quickly. But I also think it is an oversimplification to simply view the state as an extension of the discourse of dominance, I think it is more than that. I think state institutions augment and strengthen these other anti-freedom drives, so opposition to the state does undercut them. So, whatever anti-freedom values the writers advocate, to the extent that they sincerely oppose the state, they work against those values more than their support for patriarchy or whatever works against their statism.

While I am quite committed to most “leftist” cultural values, I am not inclined to declare that someone who is not is a crypto-totalitarian. Someone attempting to strengthen other repressive and oppressive institutions would be foolish to rail against their greatest ally, the state. I think that there can be honest and if handled properly, fruitful disagreement about the roll of bourgeois values in a libertarian society. I also think that arguments about LGBT equality, racism, patriarchy, etc. would be the most important discussions among the radical libertarian community.

I doubt this clarification of my thought will prove satisfactory to you, I don’t know if it is satisfactory to myself.

One thing about Aster, I hope that I interpret her correctly that aside from her aversion to certain prevalent attitudes regarding white straight male privilege and such, her main objection to libertarianism is that she sees that the state can, in certain instances serve as a bulwark against other equally (or perhaps worse) forms of oppression within the culture at large. I have tried to faithfully express what I think her views are, as she is no longer involved here, if I have misstated her position anyone with better knowledge of it than I should correct me. I think this objection to anarcho-libertarianism should be taken seriously, but I am not sold on it. If any serious discussion of this issue has been proffered I would love to see it.
Administrator said,

June 23, 2008 at 1:19 am

Coming to this thread a little late, and I don’t know if anyone is still reading, but –

I guess the two main questions here are a) how bad is paleolibertarianism? and b) how pervasive is it at LRC? Re (a), Aster thinks it’s so bad overall that the good parts are scarcely worth mentioning; some others (e.g. Matt) think it’s so good overall that the bad parts are scarcely worth mentioning. Re (b), Aster thinks it’s all-pervasive at LRC while others hardly seem to see it. I’m both issues I’m in the mushy middle. In general I tend to take more of an attack-the-bad-parts-of-paleolibertarianism approach than either an attack-the-paleolibertarians-per-se or a don’t-attack-paleolibertarianism-at-all approach. (And likewise with the other libertarian deviations — Cato-style, Randian-style, etc.)

It’s worth noting that paleolibertarianism was originally developed partly for reasons of genuine socio-cultural affinity and partly as a (frankly crazy) political strategy (with the proportions of the two motives varying from individual to individual). For those who had the affinity, I assume the affinity remains, but the strategy has been largely abandoned, and the paleo thrust of LRC has accordingly weakened. Most (not all) of the things people criticise LRC had their heyday in the 90s, not now.

As for Anti-war.com, that’s even less paleo-dominated than LRC; lots of regular leftists on there. (Of course Raimondo by himself can often seem as loud as a multitude ….)

Matt:
“I’m not going to try and trip someone who’s running in the same direction as me” — that is, in the direction of freedom. I cannot conceive of a manner by which you can critique LRC and have it not seem like picking nits.

For a general response to this line of thought see Charles on thick vs. thin libertarianism.

Jorad:
a little too eager to defend politically incorrect things

To some extent a problem in the libertarian movement generally; see my 2003 post “One Cheer for Political Correctness.”

Forgotten Man:
Based on your statements, I assume you consider a white man choosing to not hire a black man or woman as oppression. In your mind, it is less offensive to put a gun to that white man’s head to force him to hire minorities.

When someone says they regard both X and Y as oppression, why do you assume they want to use X to combat Y? Why not assume they’re against both?

Dennis:
I would like to see something critical of homophobia or pro-open borders on the site.

Actually LRC has had several pro-open-borders pieces in recent months (see, e.g., here, here, and here) — and a mildly, mildly anti-homophobic piece the other day. Baby steps ….

the state can, in certain instances serve as a bulwark against other equally (or perhaps worse) forms of oppression within the culture at large. … I think this objection to anarcho-libertarianism should be taken seriously, but I am not sold on it. If any serious discussion of this issue has been proffered I would love to see it.

This piece of mine was inspired in large part by this kind of objection; I address some of Aster’s concerns explicitly in it.

Aster:
If, against all odds, people like Roderick and Charles Johnson succeed injto making libertarianism into what it ought to have been or at least what it once was when it believes in more than the letter of liberty, then I might come back.

Well, we will certainly do our best to lure you back in! In the meantime, keep reading LeftLibertarian.org for a glimpse of that future.
Anna Morgenstern said,

June 23, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I have had this argument before, I’d like to pull two quotes out from Prof. Long’s article that I think get to the heart of my position:
“And even when the central government is indeed a protector of more tolerant values, one problem with this sort of centralist solution is that it drives local reactionaries into nationwide politics, since reactionaries then see taking over the central government as the only available means to protect their values. And once reactionaries win at the national level, then they’re in a position to impose their agenda on everybody. At least with decentralization there’s somewhere to escape to.”

“the problem with imposing liberal values by means of military force is that it tends to associate liberal values in the minds of the population with invasion and oppression. One is unlikely to be won over to the cause of women’s rights when those preaching on behalf of that cause have stolen your farm, shot your brother, and blown your children’s hands off with a land mine; indeed the cause of women’s rights is probably in the long run set farther back by such associations. Cultural reform is generally more effective, provoking less resistance and reaction, when accomplished by seduction and osmosis rather than at bayonet-point.”

Both of these are similar patterns. To this I’d like to add one more thing:
Right now, as we speak, we already have experience with the idea that people who do bad things should be isolated and concentrated somewhere… i.e. Prisons. Now, I’m not arguing in favor of the current prison-industrial complex, as it is implemented in most nation states. But what I am pointing out is that decentralism seems to be the “best available option” for isolating and concentrating people with bad behavior/ideas. Neo-nazis or theocratic fundamentalists would, in a decentralized world, find themselves effectively “self-imprisoned”. Yes, there will be people born into those prisons who will suffer needlessly. But such things are literally unavoidable, at least in the short run. The attempt to impose any sort of ideology universally by fiat is nigh impossible. The state, using full authority and force, without restraint, has failed to eliminate libertarian/anarchist ideas, despite thousands of years to make the attempt.
A similar analogy might be drawn to the fact that, under anarchy, crime will still exist. The difference is that no one will be legitimately entitled to commit crime. That is the only functional difference between anarchy and statism. But that one difference changes the shape of society utterly. Then the work begins among all people to isolate and eliminate crime (i.e. coercion and fraud) as much as possible. But it will always be with us to some extent.
Again, statist measures to eliminate crime have failed to do so, despite thousands of years to make the attempt. And those measures have been, themselves, largely criminal in nature. The anarchist argument is, when you boil it down that the net effect of the state on crime is detrimental. This applies to centralism/decentralism as well, by analogy (since anarchism is basically an extreme form of decentralism, in a sense).
Not only that, but the left-libertarian spin on that is that not only does the state increase the net level of crime, but tends to shift it downwards, making the poorest and weakest members of society suffer the most crime, whereas the opposite might well be true under anarchy (at the very least the crime will be less systematic and organized). The state does create a sort of buffer at the very bottom of this chain of crime, “giving out crutches” to use that brilliant metaphor, but that buffer doesn’t change the overall pattern of “big monkey hits small monkey and gets away with it”.