Some Notes of Possible Relevance to Some Recent Unpleasantness Regarding Tolerance and Libertarians

I invite all fellow admirers of a tolerant, dynamic, vibrant, liberal, varied and growing world of ideas, expressions, and ways of being to consider, for a moment, that there may indeed have been some wisdom in that famous epigram said to sum up the spirit of Voltaire (though never, apparently, written by him in such words): “I disagree with what this man has said, but I defend to the death his right to say it.”

As ugly and embracing of intolerance as such an epigram may seem in practice, perhaps there are reasons, reasons vital to the flourishing of an interesting, varied, free world of expression, that those summing up the spirit of Enlightenment tolerance did not choose to express the appropriate attitude toward things said with which he disagreed—even strongly and passionately disagreed—like this: “I disagree with what this man has said, and I consider him evil for saying it; furthermore, I consider him having said it the most significant thing about him, and that it overshadows any other accomplishment or statement he has ever made. I fervently wish to have him driven from polite society, and consider that anyone who does not enthusiastically join me in so driving him to themselves be evil, or at least incredibly idiotic and not to be trusted—but don’t worry, I don’t think he should be arrested for saying it.”

It may be that the more famous saying indeed embodies the spirit of a lovable, valuable, rich world of discourse; and that the second one perhaps embodies a less open, free, and dynamic, and thus less valuable and interesting, world of discourse.

Also worth considering might be that libertarians in America have had, for reasons that might be somewhat understandable on reflection, to cultivate (perhaps to a fault) that original Voltairian spirit, as unpopular as it is in America. Among libertarians’ intellectual background is the likes of Nock, who believed that it wasn’t enough for a judge to refuse to convict girls for walking naked down the street; that true liberal freedom meant no one even noticed. Also, of course, in libertarians’ intellectual background is Mises, who wrote that “Liberalism…must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance,” but that statement might be seen to have a strange loop in it.

Libertarians have a set of peculiar beliefs about the proper use of force, generally based in a moral vision as well as a vision of human wealth, happiness, and flourishing. They consider their ideas of liberty and free markets salubrious, even glorious. They also find that almost everyone around them—generally including dearly beloved friends and family—hews to an alternate set of beliefs about what is proper and how to treat other human beings, beliefs utterly opposed to theirs in important respects. Indeed, the very common view that it is proper to use violent force against nonaggressors is one that the libertarian could fairly, from their perspective, consider evil.

And yet, somehow it rarely seems proper to the libertarian to hew with grim consistency to some of the conclusions about how to behave in the social world that might follow from that. They have never managed, for the most part, to be sternly and angrily opposed in high moral dudgeon to most of the people around them.

Indeed, looking at those who have chosen that path, they see models that seem inappropriate There seems something worth mocking and rejecting in the traditional Objectivist’s sense of a duty to practice harsh lordly disdain and refusal to truck with those who reject reason and liberty for irrationality and evil. Neither does it seem prudent or lovely to most libertarians to emulate the driven-to-his-compound-with-guns style of the man who decides to finally and firmly remove himself from the statist world’s endless evils of theft and oppression, back to the wall, prepared to fight if need be to show how he refuses to give any sanction to evil ideas—and evil practices.

For reasons perhaps difficult to articulate in a raw moral calculus, such ways of dealing with ideas—and practices!—that harm innocents by the millions seem even to most libertarians unlovely and impractical. It would lead to a social world, as long as they have failed to educate the rest of the world around them in libertarian principles, too ugly and divisive to warmly embrace. Such a hardline approach of complete moral disavowal and disengagement from people who advocate bad ideas is generally eschewed, even when those ideological differences aren’t merely about words or thoughts, but actuate in what the libertarian sees as actual theft, assault, tyranny, and murder on a daily basis.

This might shed some light one why many American libertarians tend toward such serious and dedicated classical Voltairianism, even when the rest of the world thinks them foolish, misguided, or evil to think, and behave, in that overly tolerant manner.

Comments

jkii | January 17, 2008, 3:28am | #

There seems something worth mocking and rejecting in the traditional Objectivist’s sense of a duty to practice harsh lordly disdain and refusal to truck with those who reject reason and liberty for irrationality and evil.

Ayn Rand's essay Apollo 11 comes to mind. She delights and marvels at the rational accomplishment of the mission while being highly critical of the irrational means by which it was funded.

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 3:40am | #

God dammit JA you're a worse fuckwit than the dot product of TLB and Dondero to the Googleplex power.

But I suffer you this once and point out something I did on McArdle's blog.

Political correctness is a very strong signal of statism. In the mind of a statist, something is either required or banned. Either homosexual behavior is banned or it is required that everybody respect homosexual behavior.

No, you miserable, vomitous mass, this last sentence logically should be "Either homosexual behavior is banned or it is required." Period. End of sentence.

Of course, (and sorta back to the post) I defend your right to say whatever the fuck you want, even if you are a spamming asshole

wmb | January 17, 2008, 3:44am | #

The Rondroids have apparently decided to try to stifle comments by flooding the place with very long messages all off the topic. The issue is not the media. The issue is not whether other people are bad or the whether you like the people who wrote the truth about Paul. The issue isn´t even whether anyone who was involved in the story supports the war. The issue is whether or not Paul was the publisher -- that is undisputed -- or the author, which is diputed, of bigoted articles. If Paul didn´t write them who did?

Libertarianism has a different standard than other philosophies. We preach individual rights, social tolerance and freedom. If we have bigots in the midst we have the right to know it and to condemn it. We are not shutting them up, they are free to be bigots. But we also have the right to shut them out.

The Rockwell types engage in big lies which I´ve seen over and over. People who I personally know are called neo-cons and war mongers for supporting the war in Iraq. Yet in truth they never supported the war. Rockwell´s legion of Rondroids spread the story around that these ¨beltway¨ libertarians were supporting the war even when they most explicitly were not. But oppose this bigoted ass and suddenly you get smeared by Rockwell -- which is one reason they scream smear the moment their actual writings are exposed. They practice smear so often that they assume everyone else does as well.

Libertarians support Rockwell´s right to be a bigot and to print hateful newsletters. And if Ron Paul was stupid enough to help in that venture that is his problem. We have the right to expose the truth and reject the bigots. They may want to work with hate groups on Far Right but most libertarians don´t. Now that the Rockwell bunch have been exposed they are reacting with hysteria. Shame on them.

Loki | January 17, 2008, 3:53am | #

Nice post, Brian. Sometimes I think the contradictions inherent in libertarianism makes it a far better personal philosophy than a political one.

Fuck politics, I'm gonna go make something.

greenish | January 17, 2008, 4:08am | #

It is partly a matter of communication: people pick up on nuances even when they aren't there. (As annoying as it is to have to tailor one's speech to the biases of listeners,) qualifying a point more than once makes it sound like you don't really stand by the point.


Personally, I was attracted to libertarianism in part because I felt it was a political philosophy that did not require one to be a jerk.

prolefeed | January 17, 2008, 4:32am | #

I was getting really sick of the newsletter posts, and thinking of not logging on here for a couple of weeks until the BS and hairshirts were shed, but this post seems to add something relevant to the discussion. Thanks, Brian.

Here's my take: I wander around all day long hearing and reading people who hold this alien and evil philosophy that wholesale theft and systematic abridgment of our rights are good and noble things. They want to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can buy, what kind of gas mileage our cars must have. They have no problem with temporarily enslaving us to serve on juries. Until recently, they enslaved us, put guns in our hands, and made us kill strangers we have no grudge against. Their latest contemplated power grab is to take over about a sixth of the economy and force us to have our health care rationed by bureaucrats.

I could go on and on. In the face of this pervasive, insidious evil, we have just one presidential candidate who is willing to try to roll all this back. And then, on the day of a make or break primary election, a hit piece comes out, and this magazine supposedly devoted to liberty takes the bait and runs with it, and then beats the issue to death in article after article, long after the rest of MSM has either ignored it or given it a light going over during a single news cycle.

So, to the Reason staff I say: Enough. Stop kicking a good man when he is brought down by a sucker punch delivered by one of the people who have bought into this pervasive, evil philosophy. It's sickening. Give it a fucking rest already.

M | January 17, 2008, 6:30am | #

Thanks, Brian, for phrasing things so nicely, and early for St. Valentine's Day.

The features you highlight seem consonant with, though certainly not exclusive to, "primitive"/pacifist/esoteric Christianity, without which one might wonder how the ancient Roman Empire would have developed.

SIV | January 17, 2008, 7:04am | #

I fervently wish to have him driven from polite society, and consider that anyone who does not enthusiastically join me in so driving him to themselves be evil, or at least incredibly idiotic and not to be trusted

Cosmotarian identity politics

Sam M | January 17, 2008, 7:07am | #

Brian,

Thanks for taking this out of the realm of horse-race politics (we all know our entry is a bit of a nag anyway) and saying something useful. Extremely thoughtful, provocative and well-written. I compare this to the disappointing, simplistic observations of Matt Yglesias (pandering to racists makes Ron Paul a Racist) and other folks across the political spectrum.

Well done.

Sam MacDonald

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 7:19am | #

Nice post, Brian. Sometimes I think the contradictions inherent in libertarianism makes it a far better personal philosophy than a political one.

I basically agree. Minority parties have the luxury of being very concerned about commitment to ideals. One big issue for any libertarian party is the extent to which it is willing to compromise. I'm not as familiar with the LP as most people on the board, but I get the sense that it is not _as_ willing as the Democrats and Republicans to accept different moral codes. That is, while you can identify broad philosophical similarities among the groups making up the DP and RP, to the extent that their members consider moral philosphy, neither party is focused on any one. You can find consequentialists, Kantians, Pragmatistics, various Christian ethics, etc. in both parties. Certainly some philosophies are more represented in each party, but neither party identifies itself with one specific moral code.
If/when libertarianism takes on a larger role in US politics, it will almost certainly face a situation where its followers must decide how willing they are to accept the actions of fellow citizens who do not believe in the personal philosophy of libertarianism.


I gotta go to work, but hopefully I'll be able to finish my thought later.

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 7:23am | #

And rewind just a mere 3 to 4 weeks ago right here at Reason H&R. The handful of us who were warning about Ron Paul and his ties to fringe movements, and past fringe statements were slaughtered by the the Paul fanatics. Savage attacks on our character, and use of silly names to denigrate us.

Now we've been proven correct.

Do you see any Mea Culpas from this crowd?

I've seen one, from a guy named Andrew Taylor. And a couple "maybe Dondero (and they others) were right" by a couple others. And that's it.

I think some apologies are owed to those of us who were raising the flag for the last few months.

When that's done, perhaps we can return to some civil discourse Brian.

Sheldon Richman | January 17, 2008, 7:25am | #

Brian, it is one thing to associate with nonlibertarians to, among other things, get them to see the wisdom of libertarianism. It is something else to express their nonlibertarian ideas as one's own. Isn't that part of the controversy surrounding the Ron Paul newsletters? This isn't about tolerating the intolerant; it's about pandering to the intolerant.

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 7:29am | #

Billy Joe Allen of Nolan Chart gets it completely wrong. He's writing this off as Ron Paul being associated with Lew Rockwell who is associated with Pat Buchanan, blah, blah, blah.

Uh-uh. This is a common mistake that almost everyone is making.

RON PAUL! was responsible for much of that material in those Newsletters. From what I witnessed, at least 30 to 40%.

And it was RON PAUL who attended fringe meetings and hung out with fringe characters in the quasi-racist, certainly Separatist movements all those years. I don't remember Lew Rockwell joining Paul on any of those excursions.

And it was RON PAUL who had the copies of SpotLight Magazine sitting in piles all over his office in Clute, Texas.

It was Ron Paul, who wouldn't leave the office on a campaign trip without first picking up the latest copy of Spotlight to read on the way to Austin.

The Paul fanatics like Allen, want to just write this off as Lew Rockwell suckering Ron Paul into association with quasi-racists. Rockwell certainly is culpable. But his best buddy Ron, was just as if not more responsible for this movement to the fringe.

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 7:33am | #

Funny comment coming from a non-libertarian like Sheldon Richman. A Leftist posing as a "libertarian" like Richman has the audacity to diss real libertarians.

He's one of the ones who needs to apoligize to those of us who've been screaming at the top of our lungs for months now: BE CAREFUL ABOUT RON PAUL!

And Reason readers should know, that as good a job R and TNR, Economist, et.al have done on this story, they have merely scratched the surface.

One respectable Political Blog, non-partisan and Centrist - DonkeyElephant - this morning has a piece touching on Paul's financial irregularities with past campaigns and the Newsletters.

Reason just mentioned this in passing. None of the others even brought it up.

All the articles have just thus far, scratched the surface. Those who stick with Paul need to be called on the carpet now, and weeks from now, when more becomes exposed.

DavidS | January 17, 2008, 7:34am | #

such serious and dedicated classical Voltairianism

Can anyone give me a brief definition so I can 'tend' towards it more effectively?

alisa | January 17, 2008, 7:37am | #

I was hoping that Paul's success story would bring libertarian ideas more into the public discussion. The disappointing thing is that we're always going to have some bad company in the form of racist libertarians. And it's natural -- though maybe not logical -- to judge by association. A lot of people didn't vote for Reagan when they suspected him of pandering to racists. If it's "intolerant" to think an idea is wrong, and to express one's view, then it's the very mildest kind of intolerance and I like having it around.

JLM | January 17, 2008, 7:50am | #

Dondero,

"I think some apologies are owed to those of us who were raising the flag for the last few months."

The only thing you were raising the flag about were your differences with Paul on foreign policy. When did you ever "raise the flag" about this issue? The level of shit that you were getting here was rooted in the fact that many here think you are a fucking neocon. I doubt that has changed much.

ithaqua | January 17, 2008, 7:53am | #

"It may be that the more famous saying indeed embodies the spirit of a lovable, valuable, rich world of discourse; and that the second one perhaps embodies a less open, free, and dynamic, and thus less valuable and interesting, world of discourse."

It may be. But, you know, it's actually not. There's no actual contradiction between the two quotes you offer; I can firmly believe that white supremists, for example, should be ostracised from polite society, and that the people who urge me to seriously consider that blacks are inherently less intelligent, more violent, more criminal, etc., than whites are either evil or stupid, AND YET still defend, absolutely, their right to express such beliefs. I am not infringing on anyone's free speech by shunning them based on the content of said speech, nor am I doing so by encouraging others to likewise shunning them. The right to free expression does not include either the right to an audience or freedom from the consequences of the ideas expressed; moreover, one does not create a more "lovable, valuable and rich" discourse by refusing to condemn utter gibbering crap when it is promulgated.

You could argue, fairly, that the policies which Paul supports are beneficial enough that his other flaws should be overlooked. Fine. But please don't try to pretend that those of us who see something revolting, disappointing and dangerous in Paul's willingness to pander to white supremists are somehow anti-freedom or anti-free speech by, you know, judging Paul based on the ideas to which he lent his name.

Also, what Sheldon said. Libertarians do, indeed, live sociably and peacefully among people who advocate policies and beliefs the libertarian finds abhorrent. On the other hand, libertarians do not generally support advocates of said abhorrent beliefs for public office. It's kind of like, oh, supporting Giuliani over Paul due to the belief that a hard line on "Islamofascism" benefits libertarianism more than his other unlibertarian beliefs and policies harm it.

Jacob | January 17, 2008, 8:06am | #

Did Reason ever mention the utterly unfair characterization of the Mises Institute in the Kirchik piece? Unlike Reason, I waited to form my judgment of the matter because I knew half of what Kirchik wrote was a blatant smear. Interesting how Reason didn't even wait long enough to get another perspective before jumping on the story.

gaijin | January 17, 2008, 8:09am | #

And rewind just a mere 3 to 4 weeks ago right here at Reason H&R. The handful of us who were warning about Ron Paul and his ties to fringe movements, and past fringe statements were slaughtered by the the Paul fanatics.

Man (and woman) is a political animal...political behavior exists in all areas of life, not just in our system of government...in that way, each of us is tied to some fringe idea, even if it is only expressed in our purchase decisions...suggesting that the only 'pure' politicians are those that have no links to fringe ideas flies in the face of human nature on this planet...don;t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Jacob | January 17, 2008, 8:17am | #

I agree with the post. I have a racist friend, and I haven't disowned him. I argue with him, as a classical liberal should. He argues that there are clear statistical correlations between black communities and crime (there are) and that this is due to biological/genetic/essential factors (there is less evidence for this). I argue that black crime statistics are due to culture and that there is nothing biological about it. If a black child grew up in a good family, he would be less likely to commit crime, as would his children and his children's children. We agree to disagree, and move on to another topic.

What does it say to the racists if nobody will even discuss the topic with them? It says that the mainstream is intellectually bankrupt and afraid to show it by defending racial equality in a debate.

Just to let you know, if I ever run for President, I have associated in the distant past with vile right-wing racists. Hopefully I won't be stupid enough to let them write in a newsletter with my name across the top.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 8:18am | #

For me, being accepting of the differences of others is a big part of why I am a libertarian. I guess this makes me a cosmotarian (I saw the word was banned on an earlier thread and decided I'd better get a use in) or a cosmoanarchocapitalist, but I like the idea of a lot of people being able to live differently, regardless whether or not I think it's wise. This includes those that choose to live a more socialist lifestyle as long as they don't demand others do the same.

As one example, of course I would never want to live in a commune of the intentional community variety. These are places in which your house is only nominally yours and can't be sold except with permission, and places in which the homeowners association charges its own taxes. However, since the joining of these sorts of communities are entirely voluntary, I'm glad that they exist. I'm not just neutral on their existences. I actually like the idea of people out there living in different, coercion-free and generally harmless ways, even economically foolish ones.

Ayn_Randian | January 17, 2008, 8:32am | #

Dondero wants to front, like he actually said anything about this.

Rittberg was being taken to task for being a trolling foreign interventionist and a quasi-militarist.

no mea culpa for you, DOOOOONDERO!

Erich Donero Bullrich | January 17, 2008, 8:33am | #

Go fuck yourself, Eric, hedonist neocon. You are owed nothing.

Torch | January 17, 2008, 8:36am | #

Most of all he needs the funk (shine it)
Help him find the funk (ha, funk it)
Most of all he needs the funk
Help him find the funk (get him)
Most of all he needs the funk (I know we can get him)
Help him find the funk (ho)
Most of all he needs the funk (ha, don't)
Help him find the funk (I know you will Dance, sucker)
Most of all he needs the funk (shine the spotlight on him)
Help him find the funk (oh funk me)

Ha-da-da-dee-da-ha-da-ha-da-da-da
(Dance, Nose You know you on my funk street)
Oh, funk me
Ha da da dee da hada hada da da (get on down
Nose I like it Dance, then)

Flash light
Flash light (oh-ho-ho)
Spot light
Neon light (neon light)
Street light (street light)

Oh-ho, ha-ha

Everybody's got a little light under the sun

http://org.ntnu.no/booty/mp3/funk2come/flashlight.mp3

Jake Boone | January 17, 2008, 8:43am | #

For the fifth time in a little over a week, I am compelled to agree with Eric Dondero. When everyone here was all atwitter over Ron Paul, Dondero was the lone voice of sanity. He told us there'd be embarrassment, if Ron Paul got anywhere near enough support to make him a threat. He told us Paul had skeletons in his closet, and, as an ex-staffer, he had reason to know.

But we didn't listen to him, and now his predictions appear to be coming to pass. Mea culpa, Eric.

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 8:49am | #

It seems to be the case that libertarianism was used to pander to racists and bigots as a point of strategy, and that is just unacceptable.

It's one thing to say that the government shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do; quite another to hold libertarianism up as a solution for racists and bigots, so they can apply their views more effectively.

If you can't tell the difference between condemning government coercion and the stupidity of racists and bigots, something libertarians should continue to oppose, even in Libertopia, then don't be surprised to find that libertarians everywhere find your presence among them embarrassing.

Don't be surprised to find that we're ashamed of you.

P Brooks | January 17, 2008, 8:51am | #

Fuck politics, I'm gonna go make something.

*tips hat*

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 8:52am | #

For me, being accepting of the differences of others is a big part of why I am a libertarian. I guess this makes me a cosmotarian (I saw the word was banned on an earlier thread and decided I'd better get a use in) or a cosmoanarchocapitalist, but I like the idea of a lot of people being able to live differently, regardless whether or not I think it's wise. This includes those that choose to live a more socialist lifestyle as long as they don't demand others do the same.

This is what attracted me to libertarianism, but lately I'm not so sure about to what extent libertarianism as a moral philosophy is compatible with libertarianism as a political philosophy. I never thought of libertarianism as a universalist philosophy (i.e., one that it's followers believe is the best choice for all people), but the vehemence of some of the posters on past threads about certain issues makes me wonder.

I really, really hate to sound like Dan T (whatever happened to him), but imagine that the U.S. was a country more like what prolefeed wants (prolefeed, I'm not trying to pick on you, you just happened to provide some concrete examples in this thread). If the U.S. had no mandatory jury service, but an overwhelming majority of people wanted a mandatory jury service system, who wins? Would it be evil for the majority to impose such a system on the minority? I agree that a system where every whim of the majority becomes law would not be preferable, but at some point people should be able to live under the government that they want. Finding the right balance is not easy; no country is really even close. If libertarianism was the governing philosophy of a country, that country would eventually have to decide to what extent it can impose libertarian values on non-libertarian citizens.

Rimfax | January 17, 2008, 9:00am | #

I smell a fresh ban baking. I'd like to say that I'll miss Joe Allen, but I won't.

alisa | January 17, 2008, 9:08am | #

Jacob -- I'm with you there. I have a "racist" friend too -- at least he's friendly to the "maybe there are biological differences" line of thought. I do think it's better to engage someone in a discussion than to call him a name. But when you're not on personal terms with the newsletter-writers, there's no way to address them directly. Only thing you can do is express some general disgust for that kind of rhetoric.

now what | January 17, 2008, 9:09am | #

Interesting new twist: an article about the RON PAUL NEWSLETTERS that contains none of those words...

Anyway, Reason dudes/dudetttes: I like you guys. I really do. I've been reading you for five-ish years. So help me out here.

After all, you sort of got me into this Ron Paul mess in the first place. It was in part your favorable coverage of his candidacy (cover story, videos, talking him up on O'Reilly Factor, etc.) that contributed to my hopping on the rEVOLution's wacky bandwagon despite my discomfort with some of Paul's stances on issues about which honest men (including many of the Reason writers) may disagree (immigration, abortion, gold standard, black helicopters).

So now we've got Newslettergate, and Reason is distancing itself from Ron Paul -- and as much as I want to buy the campaign's "old news, let's move forward" response, it's still harder to justify keeping that RP bumber sticker on my car, maintaining Ron Paul links all over my blogs, and contemplating how much money I've sent to the guy on those once exhilarating "money bomb" days.

Assuming that many Reason folk previously considered more-or-less endorsing a vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and assuming that Newslettergate has revealed too much unsavory stuff to continue supporting his campaign ... now what?

Is there a "second choice" you could get behind? Do you suggest sitting out the primaries (again) and waiting to see what the Libertarian Party comes up with for it's under 1% of the vote candidate this time around?

Seriously... help me out. Before Feb. 5, please.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:11am | #

Would it be evil for the majority to impose such a system on the minority?

I say yes. Of course I tend to be more of an anarchist than do most libertarians, and I tend to be libertarian for moral rather than pragmatic reasons, so I'm not even in favor of majority rule. As a government system (completely divorced from the positions the wielders of power take), I'd say Democracy is better than Oligarchy which is better than Autocracy. My views on Federalism are similar (again, divorced from the positions of those in power); it's better than Centralization, all told. But none of them is a substitute for freedom.

If libertarianism was the governing philosophy of a country, that country would eventually have to decide to what extent it can impose libertarian values on non-libertarian citizens.If libertarianism was the governing philosophy of a country, that country would eventually have to decide to what extent it can impose libertarian values on non-libertarian citizens.

I don't see that they have to. If they are actually governing by libertarian values, they won't be imposing anything on anyone (other than whatever the particular group of libertarians agree is the absolute minimal, essential function of government). For example, the mandatory jury service system you describe would not exist, but there's no reason people couldn't set up some sort of (probably local) voluntary version.

tarran | January 17, 2008, 9:12am | #

now what,

There is only one candidate to support in the primaries. 'None of the above'.

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 9:14am | #

"Is there a "second choice" you could get behind? Do you suggest sitting out the primaries (again) and waiting to see what the Libertarian Party comes up with for it's under 1% of the vote candidate this time around?"

If only there was a "None of the Above" option on the ballot!

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:15am | #

Is there a "second choice" you could get behind? Do you suggest sitting out the primaries (again) and waiting to see what the Libertarian Party comes up with for it's under 1% of the vote candidate this time around?

If I were going to vote (which I won't), that's what I'd do. Of course the only way I'd ever vote is as a protest vote so the under 1% doesn't really worry me - it's not a bug, it's a feature! I'm about as far from pragmatic or utilitarian as you can get.

VM | January 17, 2008, 9:15am | #

Once again, Jake Boone shows a level of class and guts that are appreciated!

well played, Sir!

now what: find out for yourself. Your first strategy didn't seem to work for you. Or stick with it, if you believe the "that's in the past". Or if you actually believe the d00d had any libertarian bone in his body...

gaijin | January 17, 2008, 9:17am | #

now what:

You can always write yourself in as a candidate in the general election.

Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 9:17am | #

Who is this Ron Paul fellow? Never heard of him before.

now what | January 17, 2008, 9:17am | #

Yeah, unfortunately I'm one of those misguided people who find "not voting" to be an unacceptable option...

Thus my principled "wasted votes" for Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, etc.... over the years.

eh

VM | January 17, 2008, 9:19am | #

now what - I see we have followed similar patterns. But voting local issues is always good. 'Cept hier in Chikago we don't always get asked... and the gov makes William J. LaPetomane seem honorable.

*hangs antlers in disgust*

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 9:19am | #

Jinx!

Hey, seriously though, I think there's still an open question about how to vote. I suppose it's possible for some people to still vote for Ron Paul, maybe Lettergate for them just means they won't be supporting Ron Paul publicly any more and won't be making any more donations.

I don't think I can do either. Like a lot of libertarians, I blab a lot, to the point where a lot of people ask me how I'm voting, and I won't tell people one thing and then do something else.

Steve Horwitz | January 17, 2008, 9:23am | #

Dondero doesn't help himself by questioning Sheldon Richman's libertarian credentials. Get real.

The point Sheldon makes is the one I'd make too. It's one thing, as a libertarian, to defend the right of racists to say racist things and even if we as individuals choose not to associate with them, we should still be vigilant in defending their right to free speech.

However, when people calling themselves libertarians are pandering to racists and either outright saying or strongly implying that such beliefs are part of what it means to be a libertarian, then it's a whole other issue. (And I use "racism" as a cover term for all kinds of odious stuff.) Then libertarians who find such views offensive have every right to engage in a more aggressive sort of shunning and one that suggests that presenting such arguments *as libertarian arguments* is not a position that can be tolerated.

To me, when self-proclaimed libertarians suggest that racist views are part of libertarianism, it feels just like someone is calling me a racist. Not only is it false, it does damage to my name and reputation, and I feel justified in saying "you're wrong and shut the hell up."

As one example, it troubles me no end that there seems to be a generation of young libertarians who believe that it is part of libertarianism to defend the South in the Civil War. (Obligatory caveat - this does not mean I think Lincoln was a saint, ok?) Such an argument need not be racist but it certainly can be, or can be easily misconstrued that way. In any case, libertarianism per se requires no such view of the Civil War.

The problem here is what I've called "libertarian contrarianism," by which I mean the belief that some libertarians seem to have that if you are libertarian, you must reject all "conventional wisdom." Hence, some libertarians attack those who attack racism, deny evolution or deny/minimize the Holocaust, defend the South/attack Lincoln in ways that can't be supported by historical scholarship, etc.

It's the mindset of a 16 year old who just assumes everything his/her parents say is full of shit. (Trust me, I have one of these creatures.) Pandering to racists etc has reduced pieces of the libertarian movement to intellectual adolescence. The newsletter fiasco might be our cue to be more consistently grown up.

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 9:23am | #

I suppose I should go over to Liberty and tell them that I'm canceling my subscription.

I don't subscribe to Liberty, but after all the years of paleo-types coming over here and saying they were going to cancel their subscriptions to Reason, it only seems fair...

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 9:23am | #

Yesterday I talked about how deceitful douchebags are using the occasion of the newsletter scandal to try to "smuggle in" and accomplish other argumentitive goals, using the approach of talking about these goals in the same breath as the newsletters.

That douchebag Earl Hutchison mentioned above was one of the examples I had in mind.

Dondero is definitely one of the other examples. Because of his self-admitted desire to practice genocide against Muslims, he now hates Ron Paul, because Paul opposes his genocidal aims and threatens to alienate enough Republicans and libertarians from the party of torture's ultimate nominee to have an impact on the likelihood of Eric's murderous and sadistic desires being further fulfilled in the future. Eric is really happy about the newsletter scandal, because it allows him to attempt to accomplish a handful of other goals:

1. It allows him to argue that he was "right all along", even though the newsletter stuff was always a trivial part of what he posted here about Paul. We can go back and check the threads - Eric's primary and repeated concern was not that Paul would associate libertarianism with racism, but that he would associate it with pacifism and "anarchism". [Eric defines anarchism as anyone who doesn't want to submit to Giuliani-style fascism lite.] Over and over Eric bellowed that because he stood in the snow to collect petitions one day back in 19whenever, he wasn't going to let "his movement" be associated with not wanting to exterminate Muslims. Everyone here knows this is true.

2. It allows him to promote other names as "the face of the libertarian movement", despite the fact that just about all of those names are garden-variety Bush conservatives.

3. It allows him to try to promote additional smears about "financial irregularities", confident that no one will examine them too closely now that the first scandal has scored a "hit", and despite the fact that all reputable [i.e. not using Dondero as a source] information seems to indicate that Paul was the VICTIM of financial impropriety during the 1988 campaign.

And has anyone noticed the simple fact that all during the time period when Paul was supposedly this evil moustache-twirling racist, Eric happily continued to work for, to work with, and to associate with him just the same? If we were to take Eric's twisted and slanted version of events at face value, by Eric's own statement he was happy to be an associate of Paul's when Paul was fomenting race war, he was happy to be an associate of Paul's when Paul slept each night in a coffin lined with anti-Semitic agitprop, he was happy to be an associate of Paul's when Paul would "force" him to "dress up" and "pretend" to be a Jew, and he was happy to be an associate of Paul's when Paul was involved in "financial impropriety" - and only decided to not be associated with Paul when Paul's reaction to 9/11 was to - correctly - predict that 9/11 would lead to shocking abuse of human rights and civil liberties. All those other stories Eric makes up? Just fine and dandy by Eric. Correctly predicting the future on 9/12, instead of slobbering at the prospect of deliberately killing civilians for revenge, as Eric admits he did and still does? Not acceptable to Eric. Judge everything Dondero posts on that basis.

Elemenope | January 17, 2008, 9:24am | #

who wrote that “Liberalism…must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance,” but that statement might be seen to have a strange loop in it.

See, and here I was still stuck on the Hofstadter reference, and someone went and furiously threadjacked what should have been an interesting discussion.

Bastards! I shall not tolerate you!

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:26am | #

VM - LaPetomane was a fine executive. He was just misled by some unprincipled advisors.

A transcript that I think you'll find enlightening:

Hedley Lamarr: Repeat after me: I...
Men: I...
Hedley Lamarr: ...your name...
Men: ...your name...
Hedley Lamarr: [to himself] Shmucks.
[continues aloud]
Hedley Lamarr: ... do pledge allegiance...
Men: ...do pledge allegiance...
Hedley Lamarr: ...to Hedley Lamarr...
Men: ...to Hedy Lamarr...
Hedley Lamarr: That's *Hedley*!
Men: That's Hedley.

The Democratic Republican | January 17, 2008, 9:27am | #

Dondero, maybe you would get your apology if you had been trying to do a service to humanity without being a fucking prick. But your main concern is DONDERO, so don't act like you did anything for anybody else. It's been really nice not having you around here the last couple weeks; would you please do us the pleasure of your absence?

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 9:27am | #

Wow, Fluffy. If you're going to get all excited about everything Dondero's saying, then maybe you need like a vacation of something?

NotThatDavid | January 17, 2008, 9:29am | #

I've been trying to stay out of this idiocy, but this is just bullshit:

Letting a bunch of xenophobic rot appear in his old newsletters actually does reveal something about Ron Paul. It reveals that he faults on the side of trusting people too much, rather than not enough. As a publisher, he foolishly trusted his editor to actually edit.

No, it shows, in the best case, that he didn't care enough about what was being published under his name to actually read it. To never fucking read your own publication isn't trust, it's laziness, lack of responsibility or lack of caring.

VM | January 17, 2008, 9:29am | #

HEAD THEM OFF AT THE PASS?

I HATE THAT CLICHE!!!!!

So... Hedley actually the silent but deadly LaPetomane pen? IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!!!

Steve Horwitz | January 17, 2008, 9:31am | #

One more thing...

As someone who also had raised doubts about Paul before the events of last week, I don't want any apologies like Dondero. All I ask is that those of you who are now having second thoughts about Paul look for new people and places in the libertarian movement to channel your energy and resources, and ones that you are more certain represent the sort of libertarianism that you would be proud of.

Such organizations are out there and they do make a difference at all points in the libertarian "structure of production" - from academia (Institute for Humane Studies or Foundation for Economic Education) down to places like the Institute for Justice fighting it out in the courts, not to the more prominent ones like Reason and Cato.

I cannot recommend a major party candidate to support who is more libertarian than Paul, but for those of you who are voters, do think about supporting the LP candidate, assuming they don't nominate another nutjob.

A turd vs a douche is bad enough. Let's hope the LP doesn't give us the third choice of a used condom.

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 9:34am | #

I don't see that they have to. If they are actually governing by libertarian values, they won't be imposing anything on anyone (other than whatever the particular group of libertarians agree is the absolute minimal, essential function of government). For example, the mandatory jury service system you describe would not exist, but there's no reason people couldn't set up some sort of (probably local) voluntary version.

My concern is that unless you have a population with that is more homogenous philosophically than any other ever seen before, eventually the philosophies collide.

Let's take a quick look at a libertarian country with a minimal level of government. There is a group of collectivists who create their own town. Everything within the town is private property. Everyone in the town consents to the "management" of an elected group of their fellow citizens, the Board. This Board is essentially the equivalent of a neighborhood association. They impose rules on the community, really anti-libertarian ones. No pot, no abortions at any time, no free speech, no short skirts, mandatory church attendance, mandatory vegetable gardens in backyards and mandatory sharing of those vegetables, private schools that teach creationism, etc. They believe that criminals should be (among other things) shamed in stocks in the town square. Now, EVERYONE in the town accepts and consents, by means of contracts and covenants, etc. What's more, people are completely free to leave. The Board buys you out at a fair price and you go your merry way.

What happens with the first outsider gets caught smoking weed in the town square, or walks down the street in a bikini. Sure, there's implicit consent to abide by the rules of the community, and they are on private property. The Board puts them in the stocks. What does the Libertarian government do? Either they let the Board dictate the rules of the community and essentially become the de facto government of that town (accepting "evil" within that part of their territory), or they go in, "rescue" the person from the stocks, and impose their values on the people of the town.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 9:35am | #

Unless something very odd happens in the primaries, I'm planning on writing the same name I did in 2004: Batman.

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 9:37am | #

Wow, Fluffy. If you're going to get all excited about everything Dondero's saying, then maybe you need like a vacation of something?

Eh, the post is a bit long, but it really wasn't that much effort. Ever since Eric admitted that he wanted to see war crimes and deliberate genocide committed after 9/11, these denunciations of him have basically written themselves.

I also don't want the occasion of the newsletters to be Eric's big chance to rehabilitate his reputation, so I combined a bunch of well-worn Dondero criticisms into one big post and threw it out there. It wasn't that much more effort than a cut and paste post would have been. Nothing to require a vacation or anything.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:40am | #

And if you need more convincing of how LePetomane was misled, examine this not-so-innocuous transcript of a meeting in the midst of the various scandals that eventually brought down his administration:

Hedley Lamarr: Meeting adjourned. Oh, I am sorry, sir I didn't mean to overstep my bounds, you say that.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: What?
Hedley Lamarr: Meeting is adjourned.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: It is?
Hedley Lamarr: No, you say that, governor.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: What?
Hedley Lamarr: Meeting is adjourned.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: It is?
Hedley Lamarr: Here, sir, play with this.
[Hands the governor a paddleball]

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 9:41am | #

The Board puts them in the stocks. What does the Libertarian government do?

This is an interesting question, and boils down to whether you think people can contract to submit themselves to physical abuse, and must then submit to it even if they change their minds.

If you think that they should be able to make such a contract, then intervening to remove the person from the stocks would be wrong. But if you don't think they should be able to make such a contract, then intervening would be right.

After all, you stipulated in your example that people can leave whenever they want. If that's true, if the person they're keeping in the stocks wants to leave, they have to let him leave, and if they don't allow him to leave I can come and get him.

Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 9:42am | #

Unless something very odd happens in the primaries, I'm planning on writing the same name I did in 2004: Batman.

So you're a DC party member? As a Marvel party member, I say fuck you and will vote for Dr. Doom.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 9:44am | #

Sulla,

The disintegration of the social contract produces this situation right now.

But, more to your point... The libertarian government does nothing and the guy's friends and family rescue him, by force if necessary. You don't have to recognize rules you don't agree to in that situation (for victimless crimes.) Sure, it's a little wild west but the scenario you're talking about is kidnapping. That's not a victimless crime, and all bet's are off.

Sort of like that 14-year-old beating that burglar with a baseball bat.

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 9:47am | #

When Wolf Blitzer was questioning him about his old newsletters on CNN last week, Dr. Paul said "Libertarians are incapable of being racists, because racism is a collectivist idea". I don't know that I agree with the first part of that statement, but Dr. Paul should be forgiven because he was being ambushed with a question and had only a few minutes to answer it.

Kirchick talked about his story on Tucker Carlson's show Jan. 7. The story itself came out Jan. 8. Dave Weigel asked Paul about it Jan. 8. Wolf Blitzer's interview -- which was all about the newsletters -- was on Jan. 10. Also, it's an issue that came up again and again in 1996, so you'd think a guy running for president would have had time to prepare questions about past controversies.

Reinmoose | January 17, 2008, 9:47am | #

Brian -
Well thought out post, indeed.

I find myself constantly battling with what it means to be tolerant of other peoples' opinions. Sometimes I like to think that I can accept what everyone else's opinions are and merely try to influence them a little. In person (I assure you) I am a good listener and have developed ways of getting people to come up with more libertarian thoughts on their own. It is difficult, though, not getting really passionate about things that I believe so deeply.

Sometimes I really do think that these people who are so close to me are total scum for their beliefs, but that's surely no way to live. I see this with other frequent commenters of differing ideologies. We try to sound like we understand what the other person is saying, and that we understand why someone might believe the libertarian/democrat/republican position on something... but then sometimes we just crack (this happens all the time around here with different people, I do believe).

So then which of the two meanings of Voltaire's statement best fit libertarianism? I see it as both. The more passive way is to win friends, advance your values, and function as a human in necessary relationships. The more angry way is to remind yourself how firmly you believe what you do.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:48am | #

They believe that criminals should be (among other things) shamed in stocks in the town square. Now, EVERYONE in the town accepts and consents, by means of contracts and covenants, etc. What's more, people are completely free to leave. The Board buys you out at a fair price and you go your merry way.

This is a more nasty version of the "intentional community model" that I mentioned above, but depending on what manner of things your "(among other things)" covers, I wouldn't see any problem with its existence as long as the voluntary nature is upheld pretty strictly. However, your potsmoking freeloader isn't covered by their contracts; they can ask him to leave, or even make him leave, but he's not subject to their punishments. (I would argue that their children wouldn't be exactly subject to those punishments either, but I'm a little more hesitant to see parental authority as the absolute that some people do.)

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 9:49am | #

The point of the game is to demonstrate how a pattern of racial segregation can result from the individual decisions of people whom hardly anyone would accuse of being racist. Which is one of the reasons the charge of "racism" is one that is almost impossible to defend against.

There is a non-insignificant difference between that and calling the MLK holiday "Hate Whitey Day" in newsletters under your own name, often written in the first person.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 9:49am | #

Episiarch,

It's that sort of politics of hate that is tearing his country apart.

I'm loath to stoop to your partisan level, but Batman would fuck Doom up so bad you wouldn't hear about him again until the 2099 primaries.

And he'd be running for city council.

VM | January 17, 2008, 9:51am | #

THE JUGGERNAUT, BIATSCH

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 9:51am | #

Familiarize yourself with the main economic plank of Paul’s platform: eliminating the income tax with no replacement. If it succeeded, most of the friends, fellow partiers, sources, and sex partners of the Orange Line journalists and think tankers would be out of work.

I defended that exact plank in Paul's platform this week in a 30-minute public radio interview in which the word "newsletters" did not come up. How does that affect your "economic analysis"?

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:54am | #

...and as to the end result in the anarchist version, SugarFree has it right. (The traditional libertarian version's result is slightly different, as they'd still have minimal powers for dealing with actual harmful crimes like kidnapping, murder, theft, and so on.) His friends, family, or other concerned peopel would arrange for his release in one manner or another.

Philip Blumel | January 17, 2008, 9:54am | #

Brian, you make good points in your post about tolerance and you were right to make it general rather than specific to the newsletter issue, if that's what prompted it.

I say this because what requires genuine tolerance regarding Ron Paul is NOT any alleged insensitivity in old newsletters. After all, such insensitivity is not nor has ever been part of the Paul persona, does not show up in any policy statements of the campaign and does not animate his supporters. To even discover it took investigative work and some lucky intervention from people with personal animosity toward Ron. It does not require tolerance of any kind to deal with something so remote.

What requires tolerance is the wackiness that in reality exists among many Ron supporters and to some extent Ron himself, including an inclination to believe nutty conspiracy theories, noisy Christianity, working man triumphalism, obsession with sovereignty and other features of cultural populism. You covered these well in your cover story on Ron.

These populist Ron supporters are not like me. However, many others I meet are like me. Or, in other cases, are like I used to be when I was a college kid. I also have met several new genuine, permanent friends through the campaign because I tried not let my prejudices ruin a good time. I have been rewarded for it.

Your comments in this post remind me I should not be a self-conscious prig and make me a little embarrassed at my own periodic intolerance of difference in others.

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 9:54am | #

After all, you stipulated in your example that people can leave whenever they want. If that's true, if the person they're keeping in the stocks wants to leave, they have to let him leave, and if they don't allow him to leave I can come and get him.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, I meant that residents of the community could choose to leave the community if they wanted. Non-residents were free to visit, but to the extent that their behavior violated the rules of the community, they were subject to punishment and could not leave until the punishment was done.

Both Fluffy and Sugarfree argue for self-help by the friends of the person in the stocks. What happens when the Board's guards forcibly resist the rescue attempt and put the rescuers in the stocks for violating their rules?

It seems to me that either the libertarian government cedes authority to the Board to enforce its rules within its private property, in which case it is de facto an independent nation (or at least an extremely autonomous member of a federation),
OR, the libertarian government comes in, uses force, and tells the people of the town that they can't do what they want with their private property.

FWIW, I don't necessarily have a problem with the first scenario. It seems somewhat similar to a Snow Crash world, and might be workable.

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 9:55am | #

Furthermore, there would be far fewer spoils for the lobbyists to lobby over, and fewer important articles for the journalists to write about D.C. politics, so they’d suffer personally as well as socially.

Wait -- so if the income tax was eliminated (an awesome, epoch-shifting undertaking, that would be accompanied by high-level theatrics), there would be fewer important articles to write? That makes no sense. Also, from my (very limited) experience living in the Beltway (two weeks and counting), it strikes me that the many self-described libertarians I've met socially would be pretty stoked about eliminating the income tax.

Legate Damar | January 17, 2008, 9:56am | #

Thank you, Brian. Your acceptance of my acceptance of an individual's past mistakes make me feel much more welcome here than I had over the previous week.

Perhaps we can all be civil again?

NO WAI | January 17, 2008, 9:56am | #

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!oneoneone!

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 9:58am | #

To the extent Ron Paul succeeded, they would be less able to shut down the madrassas and save Muslim women from the dastardly Muslim male. They’d have less control over oil.

I'd like to point out that the author of these words thinks he's explaining the motivations of reason staffers.

intolerable | January 17, 2008, 9:59am | #

Mr. Doherty, you seem to be undermining the case made by other Reason that their shit don't stink.

What's that about?

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 9:59am | #

SugarFree, Episiarch,

You two have completely bought in to all the two-party nonsense. I shouldn't even respond because you've so obviously and thoroughly imbibed of the Kosmic Kool-Aid. Neither the Marvel nor DC parties care about the voters at all. I'm planning to vote for Marv.

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 10:00am | #

The MSM, including its political bureaus along the Orange Line, finds the Internet threatening.

So threatening that we invite you to write bollocks about us on our website!

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 10:01am | #

wouldn't see any problem with its existence as long as the voluntary nature is upheld pretty strictly. However, your potsmoking freeloader isn't covered by their contracts; they can ask him to leave, or even make him leave, but he's not subject to their punishments.

He's trespassing on their land. What if he keeps coming back to their town square to smoke up? Either they keep throwing him out, he keeps coming back, and they've lost an important part of their real property rights, or they patrol the borders of their property to keep him out, at which point you start heading in the direction of territorial sovereignty again.

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:01am | #

Non-residents were free to visit, but to the extent that their behavior violated the rules of the community, they were subject to punishment and could not leave until the punishment was done.

OK, I understand now.

I wouldn't consider this set-up acceptable under what I would call a libertarian government.

If someone violates your property rights, you have the right to ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, you have the right to force them to leave. If they threaten you when you try to force them to leave, you have the right to escalate your use of force as the confrontation escalates and as your safety requires.

You don't have the right to say, "A ha! You stepped on my property with your big toe! I can seize you, kidnap you, and torture you to my heart's content until I feel you have been punished enough!"

But I'm not an anarcho and perhaps they would disagree.

milky | January 17, 2008, 10:03am | #

So, "whitey" is a racial slur now? Is that what this is about?

a non-insignificant difference between that and calling the MLK holiday "Hate Whitey Day"

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:03am | #

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job,

I was not advocating for the anarchist's position, but that is what I outlined. Thanks for pointing that out.

Is Sulla's question also solved by a rationalized hierarchy of rights? Your town's right to be dopefree is a lesser right than the smoker's right to freedom? What are the pitfalls of a rights hierarchy? Must enforcing those rights be done under the color of authority or can just the interpretation of the results of the enforcement.

Or we could go back to screaming about cannibalism and Reason's betrayal. (Pretty please, no.)

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 10:05am | #

OR, the libertarian government comes in, uses force, and tells the people of the town that they can't do what they want with their private property.

I don't think it's so much that the libertarian government (if it took action in this case) would be telling "Stocktown" that they can't do what they want with their private property. It's more that they would be telling them they couldn't do what they want with people.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:07am | #

Sulla,

I think the short answer is: No libertarian theory or structure of government is going to allow something like that to go on. We constantly defend ourselves here from accusations of being anarchists. (No singling you out.) But libertarianism allows for a government that enforces laws against the "harm" of person and property.

Also, Fluffy ditto.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:10am | #

Marv?

You are now officially worse than the guy at the store who keeps putting the wrong comics in my hold box.

--end rational discourse--

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 10:11am | #

Sulla,

Fluffy's answer:

If someone violates your property rights, you have the right to ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, you have the right to force them to leave. If they threaten you when you try to force them to leave, you have the right to escalate your use of force as the confrontation escalates and as your safety requires.

is pretty much the answer there. They can deal with trespassing, which he'd be guilty of, but the potsmoking can't be punished per se, except by those who've agreed to the punishment.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 17, 2008, 10:18am | #

SugarFree:

Is Sulla's question also solved by a rationalized hierarchy of rights? Your town's right to be dopefree is a lesser right than the smoker's right to freedom? What are the pitfalls of a rights hierarchy? Must enforcing those rights be done under the color of authority or can just the interpretation of the results of the enforcement.

Yes, I think it would be effectively dealt with by this means as well. As far as the pitfalls, I think the most obvious is in setting up the hierarchy in the first place, especially in cases in which the ranking of rights would be far from clear.

(I assume the "--end rational discourse--" was only intended to apply to my unconscionable support of third party comics and not to "The Lurid Tale of Bondage in Stocktown.")

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:21am | #

Matt -

I'm no Rockwellian, but I would say that with some beltway libertarians - not Reason necessarily, but others - there is a tendency to view the most feasible route to achieving libertarian goals to be by playing courtier to the Republican party establishment.

These cosmos want to write nice little economic position papers that Republicans can use when they feel like it, or maybe some anti-big government stuff that Rush can ape on his show if a Democrat gets back into the White House.

And when grovelling before the Republican party establishment and begging for crumbs is the approach one has chosen, one might have a tendency to get pissed off when Paul encourages bomb throwing and the slaughter of Bushite sacred cows.

I don't really think, for example, that the cosmos love the war. I think they don't want to talk about the war, because talking about the war pisses off Bush Republicans, whose table the cosmos are begging at. They are pissed at Paul because Paul's incitement of libertarian vs. Republican hatred [and when you read the Paul grassroots sites there's no doubt that's what it is] might make Bush Republicans not pick up the phone when some CATO type calls them for a favor.

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 10:25am | #

Sulla,

I think the short answer is: No libertarian theory or structure of government is going to allow something like that to go on. We constantly defend ourselves here from accusations of being anarchists. (No singling you out.) But libertarianism allows for a government that enforces laws against the "harm" of person and property.

Also, Fluffy ditto.

My point is that if the libertarin government acts in a manner consistent with this philosophy, it will be impose libertarian values on the collectivist minority. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (or a good thing), just responding to the argument made above that "If they are actually governing by libertarian values, they won't be imposing anything on anyone (other than whatever the particular group of libertarians agree is the absolute minimal, essential function of government)." I think that level of imposition is rather significant.

Fluffy's answer:
If someone violates your property rights, you have the right to ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, you have the right to force them to leave. If they threaten you when you try to force them to leave, you have the right to escalate your use of force as the confrontation escalates and as your safety requires.
is pretty much the answer there. They can deal with trespassing, which he'd be guilty of, but the potsmoking can't be punished per se, except by those who've agreed to the punishment.

True, but John McSmokington isn't really trespassing until he starts smoking weed, and Wendy McShortskirt isn't "trespassing" until she steps onto their property in her short skirt. Strictly speaking, the issue is "trespassing," but the town uses that as cover to regulate the behavior of visitors.

James Ard | January 17, 2008, 10:26am | #

It is sad that the guy with the best prescriptions for improving black America gets shot down because he may have some lingering racist beliefs. The Reason staffers should be better than falling in line with the intolerant, hyper-sensitive press types that ruin discourse by skinning alive anyone who comments on race.

FatDrunkAndStupid | January 17, 2008, 10:27am | #

Regarding the "libertarians can't be racists" line, I think what Paul was really trying to say was that libertarians by nature of their philosophy, can't be effective racists. Whether a libertarian is racist or not, from a political standpoint, is completely irrelevant. Though Paul clearly isn't a racist, if he were, it is no reason not to vote for him because his libertariansim makes his racism politically moot. That's unique among political philosophies. If a Democrat or Neocon or Donderoist is racist, that's something a voter needs to consider because their racism is going to effect policy. A Libertarian's by defnition can't. That's another reason why I think this discussion is silly. First, none of us really think Paul really is a racist which should end the story right there (and to the MSM's credit, at least they seem to understand this point and dropped the story after a day), but as libertarians, we should also be savvy enough to know that even if Paul were a racist, it's politically irrelevant.

Jim Henley | January 17, 2008, 10:29am | #

I don't really think, for example, that the cosmos love the war. I think they don't want to talk about the war, because talking about the war pisses off Bush Republicans, whose table the cosmos are begging at. They are pissed at Paul because Paul's incitement of libertarian vs. Republican hatred [and when you read the Paul grassroots sites there's no doubt that's what it is] might make Bush Republicans not pick up the phone when some CATO type calls them for a favor.

This strikes me as true of: Virginia Postrel; Brink Lindsay (maybe); and, well, I can't think of anyone else.

Right now the Cosmo-Most-Wanted list prominently features Julian Sanchez, Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley. All of these three have talked about the war - they're agin' it - and none of them evince any tender concern for the GOP. I could go on. There are very few members of "the Kochtopus" proper that are pro-war or want the war to go away. Ironically, pro-war/GOP-symp "libertarianism" is found out there in Red America, among people like Glenn Reynolds and his followers.

Brian: love you man, but the argument in this particular blog entry of yours is so tortured John Yoo would provide it habeas relief.

Jim Henley | January 17, 2008, 10:29am | #

or want the war to go away

That is, "or want discussion of the war to go away." My bad.

Steve Horwitz | January 17, 2008, 10:33am | #

Having read both Virginia's books and both of Brink's books, I am not quite sure how it is that their work can be seen as "begging at the table of the GOP." To the extent both have favored the war, I think they are wrong in their judgment and they should be criticized for it. But the rest of the "cosmo" caricature just doesn't fit, and certainly not for Virginia, perhaps more so for Brink who at least really works in DC.

More important, as Jim notes, there are precisely two examples of the "cosmo" ideal type Fuffy has created. Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:35am | #

Jim:

I think that we're probably talking about different groups of people.

In all likelihood this is because sometimes when the Rockwell set uses the term "beltway libertarian" they mean a lifestyle libertarian, and sometimes they mean a pro-war, pro-Republican-party libertarian.

To me a beltway libertarian is someone who, upon hearing Jonah Goldberg claim to be a libertarian, would immediately think, "Hmmmm...how can I get him to agree to support policy 'X'?" A Paul libertarian would immediately think, "If I spit in Jonah's face, can I get out of here fast enough to avoid the cops?"

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:36am | #

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job,

Yes, comics. You might as well advocate Frank "The Tank" Miller for president.

-----

Yes, the ethical stance of everyone involved in making the hierarchy would be difficult to weigh, especially if we we were trying to avoid the nightmare of majority rule. Maybe everyone gets to ranking 25 rights, and then they are decided on proportionally?

Ah, fantasies of Libertopia...

-----

Sulla,

If what the town is doing is so obvious in your example, it would be just as obvious to whatever enforcement the society has set-up to watch for this sort of stuff. Or you get a little good-ol' vigilante justice.

I actually have no problem with imposing "values" on those who don't play by the very simple to understand "rules" that a Libertopia would operate under.

"Sorry" for all the "quotation" "marks" but this discussion ripe for someone to swoop in a derail it with semantics.

dhex | January 17, 2008, 10:37am | #

whatever the answer might be, i don't think the republicans hold it. this much seems crystal clear after eight years of bush&co as well as assholes like mccain and - har har har - giuliani.

perhaps the fixation should be on building a kinder, gentler superstate?

dhex | January 17, 2008, 10:39am | #

Regarding the "libertarians can't be racists" line, I think what Paul was really trying to say was that libertarians by nature of their philosophy, can't be effective racists.

i feel him in theory, but in practice that's pretty obviously not true. i don't think your thoughts and beliefs on the relationship between coercion and the state and the roles thereof eliminate human tendencies to tribalism, pettiness and bigotry.

highnumber | January 17, 2008, 10:42am | #

Brian,
Great piece, but I don't think those are the only two options. One could also say, "I disagree with what this man has said, and I defend to the death his right to say it, but once I have heard what he has to say and I have decided that it conflicts with my ethical or moral position, I will no longer invite him to my parties and I will have coldly civil conversations only when absolutely necessary."

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 10:45am | #

I actually have no problem with imposing "values" on those who don't play by the very simple to understand "rules" that a Libertopia would operate under.

Is your Libertopia universalist? Would every known person live in Libertopia?

What is Libertopia's attitude to Communopolis? Communopolis is Libertopia's small communist (not in the soviet sense, but the love each other share with each other sense) neigbor, that is non-agressive and does not force people to stay, but does require that all who live there live according to the whole give according to your means, take according to your needs thing? Is it a live and let live relationship?

I'm curious because I have no serious problem if you want to live in Libertopia, as long as I can live in Classicaliberaland.

Rob D. | January 17, 2008, 10:46am | #

Radley never approved my comment on his latest blog post, so I'll post it here. Not sure why he's censoring all of a sudden.


ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

We will be marching with others on MLK holiday.
Here's my meetup group event...
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/107/calendar/7128884/
These events are happening ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

These marches will coincide with our latest money bomb effort on MLK holiday.
http://www.freeatlast2008.com/

Here's a wonderful youtube to promote this event...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWClI8zsH4

Ron Paul unites ALL, black, white, brown, & yellow. Keep quibbling about old newsletters while we change the country for the better.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:47am | #

Sulla,

Any expansionist libertarian empire is not Libertopia. It's just another bunch of authoritarian assholes.

Pig Mannix | January 17, 2008, 10:56am | #

Mr. Doherty, you seem to be undermining the case made by other Reason that their shit don't stink.

What's that about?

Mr. Doherty has been involved with the libertarian community at large somewhat more deeply than most of his colleagues, and probably understands how this is going to play a little better than they do.

Here's the situation:

Cosmo-libertarians: a few dozen bloggers with a ridiculously inflated sense of their own importance.

Ron Paul: candidate still much admired by perhaps 90% + of people who identify as libertarians.

In a movement where grudges have been known to last a lifetime, Reason & the Cosmos are going to be remembered mostly by the libertarian community at large for their role in knee-capping their best shot ever for a serious national candidate.

Given that Reason is likely to be Persona non Grata within the larger libertarian movement for quite a few years, Doherty, quite reasonably, probably wants to put some distance between himself and the party line, in the event he ever wants to draw a paycheck from a libertarian organization not affiliated with the Cato Institute ever again.

I don't blame him.

Steve Horwitz | January 17, 2008, 11:03am | #

Reason & the Cosmos are going to be remembered mostly by the libertarian community at large for their role in knee-capping their best shot ever for a serious national candidate.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd bet money on "not." But whatever that outcome, at least I/we/they won't be remembered for supporting a candidate whose libertarian credentials were questionable from the start and whose solicitation of, if not approval of, racists, nationalists, homophobes, and conspiracy types of all sorts constitutes an enormous embarrassment to libertarianism.

Sulla | January 17, 2008, 11:04am | #

Sulla,

Any expansionist libertarian empire is not Libertopia. It's just another bunch of authoritarian assholes.

I guess all my posts have been a roundabout way of getting back to the main thing I wonder about: the tension between libertarianism as a moral philosophy and as a political philosophy. It is by no means limited to libertarianism; many flavors of christianity also wonder how best to "hate the sin, not the sinner." I'm not saying that libertarianism is a philosophy that recognizes the idea of sin, just that there are definitely some (many, most?) libertarians, such as prolefeed above, who refer to "this alien and evil philosophy that wholesale theft and systematic abridgment of our rights are good and noble things." I recognize that philosophically consistent libertarianism would never support a war against another country _merely_ because they subscribe to an "alien and evil philosphy." But, history shows that philosophical consistency often goes out the window when moral judgments get involved.

This is the tension I'm talking about, that no matter how noble a personal philosophy is, once it becomes a political philosophy backed by the power of a state (even a minarchist one), there is some tendency to compromise one's "values," particularly in the face of another with radically different moral values.

SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 11:11am | #

I think most here would agree with you if cornered, based on our pessimism about human nature... but "Libertopia" is just a play on "utopia" and that translates as "nowhere."

On that basis we can only answer theoretical questions based on the intentions of our beliefs, not how they may or may not play out in a scenario that has not and may never happen.

T | January 17, 2008, 11:18am | #

This is where the party ends
I can't stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend

Hmm. Interesting to watch H&R devolve into a They Might Be Giants song. I'm thinking a better song might have been more entertaining, though.

Russ 2000 | January 17, 2008, 11:19am | #

Bottom line: tolerance isn't entertaining.

Lawrence | January 17, 2008, 11:37am | #

I'm curious if the fact that folks like the KKK were the among the first to attempt gun control, primarily so that "some" folks could not defend themselves on certain dark evenings?

There is a difference between not liking someone because of their genotype, and actively campaigning against their right to vote, hold property and own guns.

It can easily be argued that the folks and ideas that Mr. Paul "endorsed" under his name may actually have been the impetus for the collectivists to take action.

Would we have gotten LBJ and his policies if the folks Ron Paul associates with hadn't forced them by rejecting equality before the law?

Would liberals mock "states rights" (I don't personally believe in states rights, per the constitution, I believe in limited federal powers, limited state powers not beholden to fed action, and individual rights, exactly as the constitution spells out), if state rights were not also a historical call for depriving some humans from the right to call themselves human and own themselves?

Institutional racism, which Ron Paul seems to endorse in these letters, is COMPLETELY collectivist. That's my problem with his associations.

It doesn't matter if he decries that or not, to attempt to declare an entire section of humanity not deserving of basic property rights is exactly the historical arguments that gave birth to present climate.

I don't blame the collectivists for rebelling against the opposition of some to the refusal to allow that these genotypes were indeed human, with a right to vote and hold property, and not be held as cattle and property.

If you really don't like the collectivists and their attempt to force equal outcomes, then one has to ask...

WHY SIDE WITH THOSE WHO OPPOSE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. Which would have been the perfect solution to head off LBJs "superstate", and the collectivist argument in favor of equal outcomes.

Always remember, it was folks like the "racists" who most successfully opposed basic property rights and voting rights (as well as gun rights) in American history, and showed the collectivists how to do it.