I see brainpolice as the “control” in the Mises forum experiments.
Whenever I need to know how a politically correct “culturally marxist” libertarian would think, I can just read his posts.
It’s actually helpful for quickly understanding the debate…
That’s ridiculous.
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
Just like economic intervention, PC intervention has the opposite effect as is desired. Racist schemes like affirmative action increase race tension, not lessen it. Academic settings glorify “preferred collectives” and demonize “inferior collectives” such as whites and men. The goal? To “equalize” things and to bring race “in the open”. The result? A society in which no one feels comfortably talking about sensitive subjects, lest “anti-racists” jump in their face.
There are generally negative consequences for societies whuch shun certain types of thought, and by connection, the types of people that typically think those thoughts. Certainly it’s a problem in the US, but even moreso in Britain, where the PC police have managed to create such a backlash that the virulently anti-foreigner British National Party managed 6% of the recent vote. Every time the media accuses the party of racism, they gain followers - it’s almost a badge of honor considering how much the scarlet “R” gets thrown around. The lesson: when people feel like their ability to control their own life, choose their own assocations, live on an equal playing field is under attack, and they can’t vent their anger through standard channels due to social norms, then they take it to the voting booth.
There is no strategy so certain to produce a racial backlash as anti-racism. The alternative? Stick to letting people live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don’t hurt anybody else. If somebody says something you don’t like, hey, that’s their subjective preference. Don’t hang them for it - it’s no violation of libertarianism.
You have faulty conceptual knowledge on what Marxism is if you think such things.
“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.” - brainpolice
Apparently, certain subjective preferences are an “error”?
Maybe people subjectively value their time, and don’t wish to invest time learning people on an individual basis, so they choose to make assumptions using statistical averages. Maybe people don’t want to have to watch what they say.
Demonizing certain preferences has nothing to do with liberty.
Not marxism. Just the cultural remnant commonly known as political correctness.
Unless those preferences bring about contradictory thought processes in relation to libertarianism. Libertarianism preaches individuality, racism is a collectivist outlook that characterizes a group of individuals as being identical by a common trait. Therefore libertarianism and racism are incompatible and therefore one who states ‘I am a libertarian and yet a racist’ errors in a epistemologicalgcal sense [ Something Brainpolice stated ]
This is a ridiculous tactic to try and smear being anti-racist by using some ill defined concept.
Except that the things I mentioned had nothing to do with racism. Valuing one’s time or the fact that one doesn’t need to watch what they say has nothing to do with racism. So that’s a complete straw man. I agree that racism is collectivist. Your statement that racism and libertarianism are incompatible is true if libertarianism is considered to be a comprehensive philosophy derived from individualism instead of strictly just a political one. So while one may become opposed to racism and a proponent of libertarian through the individualist pathway, one who becomes a libertarian from political analysis may never have considered the individualist philosophy - shall we pick a different word than “libertarian” for these people?.
It seems that Brainpolice’s beef with Hoppe over racism is that Hoppe uses wrong heuristics. I remember Hoppe saying that homosexuals may have to be banned from fabricated communities that want to maintain particular standards. He explains the homosexual lifestyle as the reason for this. Maybe there is some ulterior religious reason. That is speculative and I haven’t seen any proof that he is religious.
The other things he says about Hoppe I can’t see any basis for.
That’s strange because you quoted Brainpolice and his comment on racism and then you yourself made a comment that racism is a subjective preference.
That makes no sense. There is no ‘philosophical libertarianism’ and ‘political libertarianism’ divide. Libertarianism is itself an ideology that is solely in the realm of politics.
If one does not become an individualist then one is not considered a libertarian.
Ok. As I understand it, and after reading all the posts in this discussion, I am an anarchist in the very strict sense of the word. Not that it matters anyhow…
Libertarianism is voluntaryism, i.e. the non-aggression principle. No more, no less.
Voluntaryism…and coca-cola.
Whats ridiculous is labeling brainpolice as “culturally marxist,” one can be anti-racist without being a marxist, one can be anti-Hoppe without being a marxist, and I really don’t see any overt PC in his posts, if anything hes being very politically incorrect.
[:D]
I knew I wasn’t the only crazy one.
Race, in many cases, is a good proxy for ethnicity.
I didn’t know that applied biology, applied sociology, or class probability were fundamentally collectivist and epistemologically bankrupt. It’s a shame you weren’t around to explain it all to Mises.
I don’t know whether BP is one or not, but merely positing that race is a valid concept is not sufficient to thereby make one a racist. Nor is it inherently “collectivist” to do so. And insofar as no violence is involved racism is uninteresting to me as a libertarian, whether I approve of it or not outside of that context.
This is very true.
I believe that the people who refuse to acknowledge race and racial differences are the real racists. There is nothing more disgusting to me than someone claiming I am not racially unique. It’s even more disrespectful than someone claiming I am inferior for being racially differentiated. The latter, is a claim to dispute (value preference). The former is just ignorant collectivism in denial of reality.
I never said racism is a subjective preference (although I’d be inclined to say it is)- I said that considerations which may lead one to want to associate with a certain set of people and not others could have nothing to do with racism - for instance people may subjectively value their time or not having to watch what they say. Calling people racist who value these things, as Brainpolice did, and saying that there are not libertarians, as you do, is simply intolerant and incorrect.
And if you agree with me that libertarianism should rest solely in the realm of politics, then we can see that there is such a thing as a racist libertarian. Being racist doesn’t make you not want to abolish or diminish the size of the state. These people are still libertarians.
And then you say that if one doesn’t become an “individualist” - and thus a non-racist, they are not libertarians, thus contradicting your earlier statement that libertarianims is strictly political. You may want to resolve that contradiction.
I withdraw the ‘culturally marxist’ bit - to me, it’s just kinda slang for anti-racist. Substitute anti-racist instead (which personally, I do believe qualifies as PC). Sorry for the confusion.
Culturally marxist may be a bit much, but BP will probably own up to being a cultural leftist. So I use cultural leftist.