Thick and Thin Libertarianism Part X

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

As has been explained to you before, left-libertarianism’s use of the term “left” is not in referance to the typical left-right/dem-rep spectrum.

It is still a false dichotomy. And I’m a canuck. I don’t care about Rep/Dem. That’s your albatross, not mine.

@Brainpolice

As a matter of simple fact, in America libertarians have generally been associated with conservative think tanks and have overwhelmingly associated themselves with the Republican party.

Those aren’t radical libertarians. That’s not Kinsella or myself. Not that I would put myself in Kinsella’s class since I still have a lot of my hair.

@Brainpolice

There also is not an absence of people that identify as “right-libertarians”. Rothbard, in “For A New Liberty”, identifies himself as a “right-libertarian”.

You can’t have it both ways, last year you were trying to tell anyone who would listen that Rothbard was temporarily nuts when he was on the right, and he was really always left.

@Brainpolice

Just because you don’t have an affinity for the word “right”, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing, in substance, a “libertarian right”.

If we take out all of the strawmanning of the libertarian left, there is barely any libertarian right to speak of, and certainly no organized libertarian right. It is a real stretch to equate Hoppe with Republicans or Big L libertarians.

@Brainpolice

I’ve also personally interacting with him at his google group, in which Kinsella was acting incredibly erratic and I was quickly banned for persistantly being a left-libertarian.

I was also in the group, and I read the tale of your banning. You acted like a child and started behaving in your typical anti-social manner. You probably should not have been invited, as it really wasn’t a group of people you have been able to interact with peacably in the internet wilds. I left the group because I didn’t like some of the eristic argumentation, or the fact there was only a handful of sincerely radical libertarians. Still a lot of great people in that group like Paul Edwards and Brutus. But anyways, I know how to socialize, and left rather than throw a fit and force people to push me out.

@Brainpolice

Furthermore, linking to people’s works in a criticism of them isn’t “promotion” or endorsement.

Not only are you weak on socialization, you’re also clueless about marketing. Stephan probably got 1,000 people to check out Chartier today, a good many who might not have done so otherwise. I know that from my own traffic generated through the LRC blog. There is no doubt, that even if Stephan was more critical (and he wasn’t) he generated a net economic benefit for Gary, and didn’t need to do so.

People would probably do that for you if you showed the capacity to engage without confrontation. Some of us see beating the state as more important than juvenile obsessions about right and left. And some of us, cannot put down ideological nitpicking long enough to see the greater goal, and so are consigned to being irrelevant and ineffective.

@Brainpolice

The fact that libertarian promotion has been funded by “capitalists” isn’t a talking point in your favor. It gives reason for an explaination of bias.

I am incredibly biased towards people who can successfully exchange, understand markets, manage capital, and creatively solve consumer needs and wants. I am not so much biased towards people who post on YouTube, publish PDFs no one reads, and make a lot of noise on blogs.

@Brainpolice

“Capitalists” don’t have a paricular cultural simply by virtue of being “capitalists”. And left-libertarians don’t hate “exchange”.

So capitalists don’t have a cultural preference, but LLs do. Nice double standard.

[Brainpolice]

@Caley McKibbin

Who other than “conservatives” could libertarians ally with?

Well, technically, libertarians could concievably ally with any political or social group under the sun. But I would question why libertarians should have any special affinity with conservatives and Republicans over any other social or political group.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

The subjective theory of value is an economic concept, not an ethical one.

Actually, it’s only economic in the sense that it helps us understand exchange, and the choice of one ethic or virtue over another, is informed by our own subjective preferences.

@Brainpolice

I’d like to see what “money begging” you’re talking about, because your claim seems to be full of shit.

You’re a mod, and I’m a mod but there are limits to the personal attacks you’re going to make, ok?

@Brainpolice

Are you refering to when Roderick Long was asking for money? He was doing so because the state cleared his bank account, not as some sort of rent-seeking escapade, you douchbag.

Again, limits. I wasn’t referring to Long, and you’re out of line for claiming I am full of shit or calling me a douchbag because you are grasping at straws.

Think about your behaviour here.

@Brainpolice

But, more generally speaking, one simply can’t evaluate people’s characters mply by virtue of the label associated with them. That was my point.

Et tu? You seem to make broad generalizations about the character of conservatives, Big L libertarians, Austrians, LvMI etc. I’m trying to understand how you can evaluate character by these organizations, but then claim I cannot do the same.

[nirgrahamUK]

where can i read of Hoppe’s hatred/fear of homosexuals?

what definition of racism do you use? is it ad-hoc?

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

Of course he is a racist. He’s also a nationalist, an aristocrat-sympathizer, a homophobe, a patriarch and a religious nutjob who thinks that just about every cultural group under the sun other than cultural conservatives merit being “physically removed from society” and glorifies caste systems.

Do you even look at who he has out to his PFS Conferences? Do you even look at what is discussed, and by whom?

He’s certainly a lot more inclusive of disparate libertarian and anarchist views than your side of the aisle. Which just goes back to my position. There is an attempt to brand libertarianism in one direction, and to create exclusion instead of collaboration. Solidarity is seen as useful, only insofar as the debate is limited to the familiar topics and cultural values. When someone like Keith Preston points out the elephant in the room, namely that cultural leftists are primarily white single males, who claim to be feminists and anti-racists, and yet cannot attract the very victims they claim to stand for, then he is attacked the same way Hoppe gets attacked.

And I’m not even a Preston fan, I believe he’s into some historical materialism and leftist economics that has no appeal to me. But it is interesting to see how people get attacked for criticizing the hypocrisy and impotence of left culturalism.

I mean, even here, you deride Kinsella, when I have seen him promote Carson on the Mises blog. Sure, he doesn’t hand out free cookies but pumping Chartier today got me interested in his book, and I listened to Little Alex’s interview twice.

Is Kinsella a thorn in the side of leftoids? Absolutely. You guys are super annoying and easy to rile up. But it’s not vicious, and it’s certainly not exclusionary, as you guys tend to operate.

[Caley_McKibbin]

Perhaps the answer to that question rests in the observation of what non-libertarians try to ally with libertarians. I’ve never seen any other than conservatives.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Of course he is a racist. He’s also a nationalist, an aristocrat-sympathizer, a homophobe, a patriarch and a religious nutjob who thinks that just about every cultural group under the sun other than cultural conservatives merit being “physically removed from society” and glorifies caste systems.

So basically he disagrees with you.

[I_Ryan]

@Brainpolice

Of course he is a racist. He’s also a nationalist, an aristocrat-sympathizer, a homophobe, a patriarch and a religious nutjob who thinks that just about every cultural group under the sun other than cultural conservatives merit being “physically removed from society” and glorifies caste systems.

Did you substantiate those claims? If you did, link me. If you did not, substantiate them.

[Brainpolice]

It is still a false dichotomy. And I’m a canuck. I don’t care about Rep/Dem. That’s your albatross, not mine.

It’s not my albatross - I don’t care about Rep/Dem either. But when I make a distinction between libertarians on the grounds of their normative views on property and social goals, that is not a false dichotomy.

Those aren’t radical libertarians. That’s not Kinsella or myself. Not that I would put myself in Kinsella’s class since I still have a lot of my hair.

Even LVMI is a largely culturally conservative think tank, which, in fact, prides itself on being distinguished from them evil cosmopolitans.

If we take out all of the strawmanning of the libertarian left, there is barely any libertarian right to speak of, and certainly no organized libertarian right. It is a real stretch to equate Hoppe with Republicans or Big L libertarians.

Your claim that there is no libertarian right is pure balogna. For one thing, I’m not conflating Hoppe with Republicans or Big L Liberarians. What I am saying is that the libertarian movement in general, including “anarcho-capitalist” circles, is (1) largely dominated by cultural conservatives (2) largely has a distinctly “anti-leftist” temperment in which “socialism” and “liberalism” are the main enemy, and neo-conservatism is opposed on the grounds that it is secretly “leftist” or a “leftist” takeoever of the right (3) there is such thing as “paleo-libertarianism”, in which libertarianism is explicitly concieved of in a conservative fashion and there is an attempt to appeal to the religious right, paleo-conservatives and assorted elements within cultural conservatism (4) a historical revisionism that traces libertarianism back to “the old right”, which is glorified as some sort of central bastion of original libertarianism (5) hardline non-proviso lockean views on property are, in fact, “rightist” and “royalist” (6) the rhetoric of most libertarians is, in fact, fairly in line with the rhetoric of conservatives and Republicans; such as the memes of less government and capitalism (7) whether you like it or not, the adoration of “capitalism” in general, both in state-capitalist and anarcho-capitalist definition, has generally come to be considered a “right-wing” tendency in politics.

I was also in the group, and I read the tale of your banning. You acted like a child and started behaving in your typical anti-social manner. You probably should not have been invited, as it really wasn’t a group of people you have been able to interact with peacably in the internet wilds. I left the group because I didn’t like some of the eristic argumentation, or the fact there was only a handful of sincerely radical libertarians. Still a lot of great people in that group like Paul Edwards and Brutus. But anyways, I know how to socialize, and left rather than throw a fit and force people to push me out.

Your view of the matter is rather skewed. Kinsella and a few others trolled me and acted like dickheads to me right away. It was hardly me throwing a temper tantrum. I was respectful until towards the end. Meanwhile, I got showered with strawmen and smug condescention. One of the only people in that group with the sense to not immedaitely be a condescending douchbag was Plauche.

I am incredibly biased towards people who can successfully exchange, understand markets, manage capital, and creatively solve consumer needs and wants. I am not so much biased towards people who post on YouTube, publish PDFs no one reads, and make a lot of noise on blogs.

This is just pure condescending douchbaggery. Since you are unable to actually outrow be in substance, you feel the need to engage in smug condescension. That only demonstrates your own weakness.

So capitalists don’t have a cultural preference, but LLs do. Nice double standard.

There is no double standard - you’re actually the one with hangups about words like “capitalists” and “left” here. There’s also quite a difference between a rather specific ideology that defines itself partially in terms of certain cultural views, and a completely vague term like “capitalism” that does not.

[Brainpolice]

@nirgrahamUK

where can i read of Hoppe’s hatred/fear of homosexuals?

what definition of racism do you use? is it ad-hoc?

It’s staring anyone in the face who cracks “Democracy: The God That Failed”.

My definition of racism is the cognitive error that considers people to have pre-determined psychological, behavioral and/or ideological traits by virtue of belonging to a particular pre-concieved category of “race” (generally classified in terms of either skin color or a certain geographical connection) - anything derived from this, such as a desire for racial separatism, is only a symptom of this more fundamental error. This includes variants of “race realism”. Racism is fundamentally collectivistic and epistemologically bankrupt in the sense that it judges people not as individuals but on the basis of a preconcieved conceptual category that does not, in fact, predetermine who someone is as an individual.

[nirgrahamUK]

haha, its so obvious well. i guess this thread is done then. thanks for playing.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

Even LVMI is a largely culturally conservative think tank, which, in fact, prides itself on being distinguished from them evil cosmopolitans.

You see, stuff like this is a prime example of the inability to see the bigger picture. I’ve gotten to know several people here at LvMI. I don’t get any sense they worry about cosmopolitans, as much as LLs worry about conservatives.

@Brainpolice

This is just pure condescending douchbaggery. Since you are unable to actually outrow be in substance, you feel the need to engage in smug condescension. That only demonstrates your own weakness.

Maybe it is. Condescendism?

Btw, read your comment in response again. It is a prime example of why you got booted from the LF.

@Brainpolice

There is no double standard - you’re actually the one with hangups about words like “capitalists” and “left” here.

I only call you left, because you identify with the left. I’d be happy to call you anything you like. I’m not really hung up on terms.

@Brainpolice

There’s also quite a difference between a rather specific ideology that defines itself partially in terms of certain cultural views, and a completely vague term like “capitalism” that does not.

Ah, but capitalism is a culture. One of voluntary exchange, productive behaviour and property.

[Brainpolice]

When someone like Keith Preston points out the elephant in the room, namely that cultural leftists are primarily white single males, who claim to be feminists and anti-racists, and yet cannot attract the very victims they claim to stand for, then he is attacked the same way Hoppe gets attacked.

I don’t think you have the slightest clue about what you’re dealing with. Kieth Preston is a “national anarchist”. Furthermore, the argument you’re refering to is a cheap talking point that attempts to characterize those with such cultural causes as hypocrits for simply not being a part of the groups that their cause attempts to defend. I could just as easily mirror that kind of argument thus: most libertarians are upper-middle class and above people, and this is why they don’t attract average working people to their ideology.

Is Kinsella a thorn in the side of leftoids? Absolutely. You guys are super annoying and easy to rile up. But it’s not vicious, and it’s certainly not exclusionary, as you guys tend to operate.

He isn’t a thorn in our side - he demonstrates his lack of knowledge about what he’s dealing with in almost every post refering to LL’s. And it most certainly is vicious and exclusionary, since Kinsella has effectively strawmanned left-libertarians as a bunch of window-smashing communists out to take your property, while more or less maintaining that one must share his normative views to the letter in order to be a libertarian.

[Brainpolice]

You see, stuff like this is a prime example of the inability to see the bigger picture. I’ve gotten to know several people here at LvMI. I don’t get any sense they worry about cosmopolitans, as much as LLs worry about conservatives.

You must have a bad memory then, and have completely forgotten the long serious of posts both here and at LewRockwell.com in which “open borders” and anti-racist libertarians were smeared as “cosmo-beltway-tarians”. DeCoster lead the charge on that one.

Ah, but capitalism is a culture. One of voluntary exchange, productive behaviour and property.

Only if you smuggle your normative premises into the definition of “capitalism”.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

I don’t think you have the slightest clue about what you’re dealing with. Kieth Preston is a “national anarchist”. Furthermore, the argument you’re refering to is a cheap talking point that attempts to characterize those with such cultural causes as hypocrits for simply not being a part of the groups that their cause attempts to defend.

I do have a clue, I have a posted well read response to his critics. It wasn’t a cheap talking point, the entire post was a manifesto about rejecting the forces of division that masquerade as pluralism. It’s a great argument and one that reasonates with a lot of the silent majority of libertarians. The ones who aren’t donating to everyone with a hand outstretched, but show up by the 100s to participate in a Mises circle.

@Brainpolice

I could just as easily mirror that kind of argument thus: most libertarians are upper-middle class and above people, and this is why they don’t attract average working people to their ideology.

But it wouldn’t be true. Most of us on this forum are students and working class. I am working class. Heck, there is a lot more racial, cultural, national, economic and sexual diversity in this community than I see elsewhere with the exception of perhaps the LP.

[Angurse]

@Brainpolice

Thin libertarianism a very real attitude in which one concieves of libertarianism as being a stand-alone philosophy, while acting as if broader social questions are irrelevant so long as the NAP is respected. For example, those who take a neutral attitude towards racial separatism because it does not formally contradict libertarianism are, to that extent, taking a “thin” attitude in terms of their overall social philosophy.

That isn’t necessarily the case though. Ones broader social philosophy could simply be race-neutral not necessarily due to its relation to the NAP, but by their own overall philosophy. They may not find the question irrelevant but rather find that a neutral stance is the best answer. Further, their own philosophy could simply be ambivalent or simply aloof towards the entire subject. For example: this “D&D” I keep hearing about I don’t have any interest in it and don’t see why others do, so the best position for me is to simply be neutral towards it, not because it doesn’t formally contradict the NAP. Now if this means I have a “thin” attitude to that extent, fine. But if that is the case then everyone is “thin” to an extent, certainly there must be somethings that you don’t take a formal pro or con stance on. So I find the phrase meaningless in that regard.

@Brainpolice

Whereas, in contrast, a libertarian that maintains that there are reasons independant of libertarianism for considering racial separatism a negative thing that is worth opposing, is expressing a “thick” attitude to that extent. This is not a non-distinction, there is a real distinction in terms of one’s broader social philosophy here.

Couldn’t a libertarian maintain that there a reasons independent of libertarianism for not considering racial seperatism a negative of positive thing? Could one not purposefully adopt a neutral stance for reasons other than libertarianism?

@Brainpolice

As I’ve explained before, “thin libertarianism” does not mean that people don’t have social goals and preferances other than non-aggression (everyone does), it means that people take up an attitude in which those other social goals and preferances are considered to be effectively irrelevant or negligible concerns so long as the NAP is respected.

I think I’ve pointed this out before actually. The distinction between “thick” and “thin” isn’t so much an actual distinction, like one of ideologies, but tactics. The (derogatory) “thin” seem to overly disregard social goals and preferences outside of libertarianism for whatever reason and the (derogatory) “thick” seem to conflate them with libertarianism for whatever reason.

@Brainpolice

As a tactical matter, a “thin” libertarian might be willing to work with groups such as the “national anarchists” because of a nominally shared anti-statism, whereas a “thick” libertarian with an anti-nationalist bent would likely maintain that the ultimate social goals of the “national anarchists” are harmful and consequentially they should not be allied with. That would be an example of “strategic thickness”.

That doesn’t seem to follow from what you’ve said. If the “thin” libertarian to take up an attitude towards irrelevant or negligible social goals then they’d seemingly be less likely to work with such groups. Nevertheless, similar things can be said of “thick” libertarians as well.

As a tactical matter, a “thick” libertarian might be willing to work with groups such as the “anarcho-feminists” because of a nominally shared anti-statism, pro-feminism, whereas a “thin” libertarian with an anti-feminist bent would likely maintain that the ultimate social goals of the “anarcho-feminists” are harmful and consequentially they should not be allied with.

@Brainpolice

The problem is that a lack of aggression, in and of itself, is necessary but not sufficient to produce a positive outcomes and the type of society that one would like to live in. “Thin” libertarianism is a reductionist tendency in which all that fundamentally matters is whether or not there is aggression, while the actual social and economic conditions and form of a given society is viewed in terms of “whatever emerges”.

I don’t think they all hold the position of “whatever emerges” but rather “what will emerge.” From what I’ve read many simply expect various historical organisations to arise and thrive without the state, such as families, the house, corporations, religious institutions, charities, etc… Many just see these certain institutions growing as a given (from different perspectives obviously).

@Brainpolice

The problem is that the elimination of a given state, by itself, does not mean that a more desirable society will inherently “emerges” - that a social context is necessary to ensure that what “emerges” post-state (1) won’t be another state anyways and (2) will be desirable and better on its own merits. The negation of a particular state does not inherently lead to a free society, let alone one with better conditions in general.

And what constitutes desirable and better is subjective.

[liberty_student]

That’s a heroic post Angurse. Thank you.

[Juan]

From what I’ve read many simply expect various historical organisations to arise and thrive without the state, such as families, the house, corporations, religious institutions, charities, etc… Many just see these certain institutions growing as a given

Yes, those are the anachronistic conservatives, not the libertarians.

[Angurse]

@Juan

Yes, those are the anachronistic conservatives, not the libertarians.

Haven’t we already done this? Whenever you read my “libertarian” just substitute “voluntaryist,” surely some anachronistic conservatives fit that bill.

By your view of libertarianism, can a libertarian even be religious (as in following a large established religion)?

[liberty_student]

@Angurse

By your view of libertarianism, can a libertarian even be religious (as in following a large established religion)?

I’d like to know the answer as well.