Some Notes of Possible Relevance to Some Recent Unpleasantness Regarding Tolerance and Libertarians
Brian Doherty | January 17, 2008, 2:59am
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
