Post by willie with tan lines on Sept 20, 2017 14:41:44 GMT -8
Libertarians have more in common with the alt-right than they want you to think
...
Members of the non-mainstream right were quick to distance themselves from the alt-right, which is a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state. Taylor Millard, writing on Hot Air, heaped abuse on the alt-right, calling them “grifters” and “fakers,” and calling on his fellow conservatives and libertarians to decisively “purge” the alt-right from their ranks. Nick Gillespie, an editor at the libertarian magazine Reason, denied that there is any “pipeline” between libertarianism and the alt-right, arguing that real, liberty-loving libertarians reject the collectivism and authoritarianism of the alt-right. Michael Brendan Dougherty, writing in the National Review, similarly asserted that there’s not much to the whole idea of a “libertarian-to-fascist” pipeline, that fringes will be fringe, and that “kooks” will always congregate there.
It’s probably true that some of the overlap between libertarians and alt-righters can be explained by their companionship as members of the political fringe. But it’s not purely accidental, either. Historically, prominent libertarian thinkers have made the decision to cultivate ties with the nationalist far right, and have viewed racial demagoguery both as an efficacious political tool and an intellectually defensible position. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline may have been forged partially by coincidence, but it was also crafted and maintained.
In the early 1980s, economist Murray Rothbard left the libertarian Cato Institute, which he had helped found. Rothbard’s impatience with respectability politics and the moderate tone enforced by the Kochs on their organization (including Reason magazine) led to his departure. He made common cause with another dissident libertarian named Lew Rockwell, founder of the Mises Institute, a home for a more hardcore brand of thought than was permitted at Cato.
A self-confessed admirer of Joseph McCarthy’s political tactics, Rothbard wanted to put some emotional meat on the spare, abstract bones of libertarian economics. Rockwell, who shared Rothbard’s strategy, penned a series of virulently racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic newsletters on behalf of Ron Paul, in hopes of crafting a viscerally appealing emotional aura around libertarianism. “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational,” one missive went. “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” said another. With these themes, Rothbard and Rockwell brought sensation and visceral feeling to a libertarianism that had otherwise been a matrix of lofty abstractions.
....
www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.f2866ebe63f9
...
Members of the non-mainstream right were quick to distance themselves from the alt-right, which is a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state. Taylor Millard, writing on Hot Air, heaped abuse on the alt-right, calling them “grifters” and “fakers,” and calling on his fellow conservatives and libertarians to decisively “purge” the alt-right from their ranks. Nick Gillespie, an editor at the libertarian magazine Reason, denied that there is any “pipeline” between libertarianism and the alt-right, arguing that real, liberty-loving libertarians reject the collectivism and authoritarianism of the alt-right. Michael Brendan Dougherty, writing in the National Review, similarly asserted that there’s not much to the whole idea of a “libertarian-to-fascist” pipeline, that fringes will be fringe, and that “kooks” will always congregate there.
It’s probably true that some of the overlap between libertarians and alt-righters can be explained by their companionship as members of the political fringe. But it’s not purely accidental, either. Historically, prominent libertarian thinkers have made the decision to cultivate ties with the nationalist far right, and have viewed racial demagoguery both as an efficacious political tool and an intellectually defensible position. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline may have been forged partially by coincidence, but it was also crafted and maintained.
In the early 1980s, economist Murray Rothbard left the libertarian Cato Institute, which he had helped found. Rothbard’s impatience with respectability politics and the moderate tone enforced by the Kochs on their organization (including Reason magazine) led to his departure. He made common cause with another dissident libertarian named Lew Rockwell, founder of the Mises Institute, a home for a more hardcore brand of thought than was permitted at Cato.
A self-confessed admirer of Joseph McCarthy’s political tactics, Rothbard wanted to put some emotional meat on the spare, abstract bones of libertarian economics. Rockwell, who shared Rothbard’s strategy, penned a series of virulently racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic newsletters on behalf of Ron Paul, in hopes of crafting a viscerally appealing emotional aura around libertarianism. “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational,” one missive went. “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” said another. With these themes, Rothbard and Rockwell brought sensation and visceral feeling to a libertarianism that had otherwise been a matrix of lofty abstractions.
....
www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.f2866ebe63f9
...
It's facile logic, of course, but this is the natural result of what we might call "libertarian derangement syndrome" — in which no accusation is too over-the-top when it comes to attacking libertarians.
Thus, imagine my lack of surprise when The Washington Post this week published its latest screed against libertarians in general and the Mises Institute in particular.
The Post publishes a new one of these every year or so, trotting out the same examples over and over to illustrate how libertarians — who might seem to be harmless to the untrained eye — are really part of a dark underbelly of white-supremacist militarism.
The article is all retreads, including the insinuation that Murray Rothbard was a racist because he saw no problem with right-wing anti-tax positions. Even worse in the minds of WaPo editors is the fact that Rothbard concludes that government regulations "trample on the property rights of every American" and are a bad thing.
It is here where libertarian derangement syndrome most rears its head. Rothbard was against using government coercion to boss around private citizens and business owners, telling them whom to hire and what to pay employees. Therefore, he must be targeted for destruction by the official outlets of respectable opinion. Since Rothbard can't be quoted actually advocating for any act of aggression or oppression against anyone, we must therefore draw the conclusion that he was secretly a white-supremacist militant because he held certain anti-tax, anti-regulation opinions in common with some racists. This is a bit like condemning vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian.
By the end of the article, however, the author tips his hand and admits that the real problem is libertarianism in general, not with any particular alleged sin of Murray Rothbard or his associates at the Mises Institute. The evils of libertarianism, we are told, revolve around its "abstract notion of self-interest" which lends itself to all sorts of violence and sinister leanings.
Unfortunately, WaPo can't even get this right since libertarianism is not based on "self-interest" at all. The author may be confusing libertarianism with the philosophy of Ayn Rand — who specifically hated libertarians and condemned them. Libertarianism, rather, is based on the idea that it's wrong to initiate violence against other people. The end.
Obviously, an ideology such as this is directly at odds with white supremacists or anyone else who walks around threatening others or committing acts of violence.
What really galls WaPo though, is that this libertarian foundation of non-violence also means opposition to state-sponsored violence, including the regulatory state, the welfare state, and the endless wars of modern "humanitarian" America.
It's because of these positions that libertarians will earn the ire of mainline academics and journalists forevermore.
Thus, imagine my lack of surprise when The Washington Post this week published its latest screed against libertarians in general and the Mises Institute in particular.
The Post publishes a new one of these every year or so, trotting out the same examples over and over to illustrate how libertarians — who might seem to be harmless to the untrained eye — are really part of a dark underbelly of white-supremacist militarism.
The article is all retreads, including the insinuation that Murray Rothbard was a racist because he saw no problem with right-wing anti-tax positions. Even worse in the minds of WaPo editors is the fact that Rothbard concludes that government regulations "trample on the property rights of every American" and are a bad thing.
It is here where libertarian derangement syndrome most rears its head. Rothbard was against using government coercion to boss around private citizens and business owners, telling them whom to hire and what to pay employees. Therefore, he must be targeted for destruction by the official outlets of respectable opinion. Since Rothbard can't be quoted actually advocating for any act of aggression or oppression against anyone, we must therefore draw the conclusion that he was secretly a white-supremacist militant because he held certain anti-tax, anti-regulation opinions in common with some racists. This is a bit like condemning vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian.
By the end of the article, however, the author tips his hand and admits that the real problem is libertarianism in general, not with any particular alleged sin of Murray Rothbard or his associates at the Mises Institute. The evils of libertarianism, we are told, revolve around its "abstract notion of self-interest" which lends itself to all sorts of violence and sinister leanings.
Unfortunately, WaPo can't even get this right since libertarianism is not based on "self-interest" at all. The author may be confusing libertarianism with the philosophy of Ayn Rand — who specifically hated libertarians and condemned them. Libertarianism, rather, is based on the idea that it's wrong to initiate violence against other people. The end.
Obviously, an ideology such as this is directly at odds with white supremacists or anyone else who walks around threatening others or committing acts of violence.
What really galls WaPo though, is that this libertarian foundation of non-violence also means opposition to state-sponsored violence, including the regulatory state, the welfare state, and the endless wars of modern "humanitarian" America.
It's because of these positions that libertarians will earn the ire of mainline academics and journalists forevermore.