Libertarianism

"Are All Libertarians Socially Liberal? No way."

|

TokenLibertarianGirl weighs in on what she calls the "Reason v. Mises Debate":

Relevant links at the source. And since Token brought up (and recommended!) The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America, here's some interesting policy discussion that references the book from National Review's Reihan Salam. Excerpt:

We're baaaaaack!

The traditional approach to making the basics of a middle class life more widely available is to increase the resources devoted to dysfunctional public sector institutions, to increase the number of regulations, and perhaps to create new public sector institutions in the hope that they will escape the sclerosis that plagues older ones. This approach hasn't turned out very well.

Note, however, the trajectory of various other consumption goods: appliances, automobiles, and amenities; personal services in domains that are not burdened by licensing restrictions; the cost and quality of housing in regions that aren't severely capacity-constrained by zoning restrictions and other regulations.

Somehow libertarians and conservatives need to connect these threads, as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch try to do in their The Declaration of Independents: the assumptions need to flip so that voters start wondering why the public education system isn't offering higher quality at lower cost, in marked contrast to, say, fast-casual dining chains or the manufacturers of consumer electronics or the purveyors of coffee.

Yes, but his hair is an A+!

Over at The Huffington Post, Jigar Singh, CEO of The Carbon War Room, declares the book "fascinating." The Libertarian Party of California deems it "an awesome volume, sure to guide you to a more libertarian future….an entertaining manifesto." Bill Conerly calls it "a really fun read," and takes our implicit recommendation to buy (for free!) a copy of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. Over in Bangkok, Paul Salvette says "the book is quite enjoyable, regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum," and cogitates a bit on how it applies to "the self-publishing and indie author community." And for balance, here's a disappointed review from Alex Chiang:

Two editors from Reason magazine write a book subtitled "How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America", which I don't understand, because they spend a lot of time talking about case studies where non-traditional thinking was advantageous, but in my opinion, failed to connect that to any sort of concrete action about how to create a viable, politically electable Libertarian candidate. Had high hopes; I give it a B-.

There's a big pile of reviews and reactions over at the Declaration2011 site.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: More Questions in the Gunwalker Case, Centrist Dems Likely to Reject Obama's Tax Plan, Newt Gingrich to Unveil Another Contract

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. highly disappointed that this token libertarian girl isn’t into casual sex with fat losers on the internet 🙁

    1. I’m sad she doesn’t have loose morals and a penchant for skinny losers.

    2. I’m sad she doesn’t have loose morals and penchant for skinny losers…

  2. Carbon war room ?

  3. She needs to use a bigger screen shot.

  4. I agree with Julie to a good degree. I’m socially conservative in many ways in my personal life, but I don’t believe in legally coercing others to behave the way I want, beyond things like not killing me and not taking my stuff.

    Ron Paul obviously falls into this camp as well.

    1. ^^this^^

      well, minus the wife-swapping, multi-girlfriend lifestyle *ducks thrown high-heel*

      1. something wrong dating 2 or moar women?…provided no exclusively has been implied or promised?

        1. becuz i date both my left and my right

          1. ok that’s kinda funny old mex.

        2. it is if you’re married. 😉

    2. “Tolerance” and “not illegal” shouldn’t mean “approval”, much less subsidy and state-encouragement.

      1. There’s a long list of things I don’t approve of that I don’t think need to be prohibited by government fiat.

      2. Didn’t South Park already definitively cover this subject? Including gerbils, concentration camps, and worthless awards?

    3. I’m socially conservative in many ways in my personal life

      Me too, in some ways. I love the idea of being married, for example. I could never be comfortable with a threesome. I think abortion is wrong. If I was married, and I did have children, I would like my wife to be able to stay at home and raise them.

      But I agree with Julie. I can’t stand rap music, figure skating, commercial television, abortion, the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, long socks, and I can’t stand to be in the same room with either Warty or Sugarfree (Jesus dudes, soap is cheap). But I would never consider using the force of government rid myself of those annoyances.

      1. I could never be comfortable with a threesome.

        Pfft. Whatever… like you could even find two guys that wanted to have sex with you.

        1. Jealously is an ugly emotion.

          1. Pet peeve:

            “See kids, here, troy meant to say ‘envy’. Can you say ‘envy’?……..good! I knew you could!”

        2. Pfft. Whatever… like you could even find two guys that wanted to have sex with you.

          I LOLed.

      2. Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?

        Lawrence: I’ll tell you what I’d do, man: two chicks at the same time, man.

        Peter Gibbons: That’s it? If you had a million dollars, you’d do two chicks at the same time?

        Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a millionaire I could hook that up, too; ’cause chicks dig dudes with money.

        Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.

        Lawrence: Well, the type of chicks that’d double up on a dude like me do.

        Peter Gibbons: Good point.

        Lawrence: Well, what about you now? what would you do?

        Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?

  5. And for balance, here’s a disappointed review from Alex Chiang:

    … I give it a B-.

    Is that praising with faint damn?

  6. Libertarians are socially liberal. By definition. “Libertarian” describes a person’s view about policy, no matter how much he hates rock and/or roll.

    1. It’s just semantics. Perhaps the solution is to drop “socially liberal” and replace it with “socially libertarian.” The former phrase worked with the old meaning of “liberal” but sounds weird when used today.

      1. Yes. I’m in favor of social freedom, not the PC nonsense that modern “liberals” are pushing.

    2. Re: Michael,

      Libertarians are socially liberal. By definition. “Libertarian” describes a person’s view about policy[…]

      That’s not true, Michael. “Policy” implies laws, not social convensions. An anti-driscrimination law may be considered socially liberal, but it is certainly NOT libertarian as it steps over people’s right to freely assemble with whomever they see fit. You may have a society with NO laws and yet still be socially conservative or socially liberal.

      1. Sorry, conventions, not convensions. My Spanish to English mental dictionary played tricks on me!

      2. If he is using the classical definition of “liberal” then he is right. If he is using the everyday definition of “liberal” then he is not correct.

      3. intolerance is tolerance !

        1. Old Mexican is right. A person (say a Christian libertarian) can morally object to homosexuality without saying “There oughta be a law…”

          1. That would make his policy position socially liberal. Policy positions say nothing about personal preferences.

            Just as, “Don’t use the state to redistribute money to the poor” doesn’t translate to “I hate the poor.”

            1. Yes, as far as policy positions.

        2. I’m dickless!

          1. right, its my johnson

    3. No, libertarians are politically liberal on social issues. That is, the social status quo they prefer may (or may not) be the same as normal conservatives, but they believe in separating society and state to such an extent that they abhor the use of political means to achieve it.

  7. but in my opinion, failed to connect that to any sort of concrete action about how to create a viable, politically electable Libertarian candidate.

    So the critic wanted to see how to put together a politician?

    1. One of the main points of the book went sailing over his head, apparently: to wit, that working around the political process is more effective than working within it. Ignore the state rather than change it. It may catch up with you later anyway.

  8. The reason why we need two incomes these days is primarily to pay taxes. If we got rid of this enormous government and lowered taxes, and got rid of regulation so things would be cheaper, people wouldn’t need two incomes and a lot more women could stay home with their children. Basically in the last 50 years put women to work and screwed our kids so that we could take the extra productivity and money and spend it on a giant government. Indeed, more than a few liberal thinkers in the last fifty years have viewed big government as a way to destroy the nuclear family and replace it with a more collectivist ideal. Why most conservatives don’t see that connection and understand that big government is the enemy of conservative civic values is beyond me.

    1. You know, this is an interesting question. While I don’t think it’s the only factor in two-parent-working homes–greater income opportunities and career-mindedness for women are surely the main reason, as are the many more goods and services available in the marketplace–I don’t think one can discount the increasing tax burden we all face.

      1. Most people, men and women, don’t have great careers. Most women get a lot of joy and personal satisfaction out of staying home with their kids. The feminists hate that fact. But it is true. Imagine a world where our tax rates are half of what they are now and there wasn’t a housing bubble and bullshit regulations that reduced supply so that housing was reasonably priced. You can’t tell me that a lot more women wouldn’t have the freedom to stay at home with their kids in such a world.

        1. Most women get a lot of joy and personal satisfaction out of staying home with their kids. The feminists hate that fact.

          No kidding. The degree of contempt is overwhelming. They also hate porn stars that love their work. How come most feminist are women you wouldn’t want to fuck anyway.

          1. My wife is staying at home. She has an MBA/MIS and could be working, so the choice is voluntary. Aside from managing some of the household affairs and our youngest daughter, she also has a small business. It’s not anything major, money-wise, but it keeps her connected to her career.

            1. Well I feel sorry for your wife having to wake up to your mug every day, but, IMHO, the probability is that your daughter is better off being raised by her mom than the baby sitter.

              1. I agree. We both feel more comfortable with one of us being with her than some stranger.

            2. Women have different values than men. They tend to like running their own small businesses better than men. And careers are not all they are cracked up to be. The feminists really sold women a bill of goods when they sold them on the “career women” thing.

              1. There are times I’d like to swap with her.

                1. Is this where the “Adult Friend Finder” jokes start?

                2. I DID swap with my wife. She goes out to work, I stay at home with the kids. It works out great for the both of us, and I get to spend ample time with my boys (sometimes too much).

                  Neither my wife nor I would have it any differently.

                  1. I DID swap with my wife.

                    I’ll be doing the same in another year – can’t wait.

              2. “The feminists really sold women a bill of goods when they sold them on the “career women” thing.”

                There are many women who regret having “put off” having children. The longer you “put off” having children the less likely you are to ever have any. The window of fertility is a smaller span of time for women than it is for men. Guys in their seventies can still produce sperm. Women in their Seventies need a surrogate mother.

                1. And not only a surrogate mother but someone else’s eggs.

                2. “”The feminists really sold women a bill of goods when they sold them on the “career women” thing.”

                  There are many women who regret having “put off” having children. The longer you “put off” having children the less likely you are to ever have any. The window of fertility is a smaller span of time for women than it is for men. Guys in their seventies can still produce sperm. Women in their Seventies need a surrogate mother.” Life is about making decisions and living with them. This goes for both man and women. If you ask me (so far no one has) feminism by its self is perfectly fine and worthy. Start packaging it with Marxism and socialism, as many, *ahem* academic types have, and (IMHO) you get a triple layer bullshit cake. Tastes just like bitching and moaning about the regular bumps and bruises of life that nobody, regardless of sex and gender, can avoid.

              3. “Women have different values than men.” Stereotyping is such a time saver.

        2. “Most women get a lot of joy and personal satisfaction out of staying home with their kids.” And because of this, all women should, whether though custom or law, be forced to stay home with their kids. Right, John?

    2. Re: John,

      The reason why we need two incomes these days is primarily to pay taxes.

      The other main reason is currency debasement, as it destroys savings and increases the cost of living. It makes NO sense that while our great-grandparents worked the fields or the factories, their descendants are still toiling, husband and wife, with all the accumulated wealth from past generations. Why? would that be?

      Because those savings were taken by the government and the banks in the form of debased currency. Husbands and wives still have to work just to keep up with the increasing cost of living, notwithstanding their parents legacy.

      1. That is an excellent point. The great inflation of the 1960s and 70s also coincides with the rise of the two income family. If you combine, taxes, the housing bubble, the rise of the higher education bubble and credentialism, and the debasement of the currency, we really have gone out of our way to screw the middle class in the last forty years.

    3. I hate taxes, but I mostly disagree. At least in my observation, most 2 income families like to buy and do a lot of “stuff.” I am referring to middle class families. Poor families with 2+ income earners possibly NEED 2 incomes, but they aren’t that affected by taxes.

      Most 2 income middle class families I observe “need” ( at minimum) 2+ giant SUVs or luxury vehicles or 2+ new vehicles that require perpetual financing, a large home with a mortgage that requires both incomes complete with top of the line new appliances/accessories/home theater, weekly or more frequent entertainment excursions ( amusement parks, movies,etc), at least yearly expensive vacations, “going out” by one or both spouses, and lots of booze to cope with the financial pressure and collapse of the family/affairs/etc.

      1. Just anecdotes, of course- based on my observations as a frugal one-income from self-employment family in a sea of keeping-up-with-the-Jones.

        1. Actually Johnny, I have to agree with you (at least anecdotally), because that almost describes my wife and I.

          We don’t have fancy vehicles or a home theater, but we don’t have kids, and get bored so easily that we find outselves spending at least $200 per weekend purely on entertainment (which includes a lot of booze).

          The most horrible thing we can imagine is having to sit inside for more than a few hours at a time not *doing* something.

          And since she hates outdoors-y type activities (camping, hiking), which tend to be cheaper, that means it’s bars, malls, bookstores, brew tours, wine tours…and that’s just in the last two weeks. And now that we’re into haunted house season…

          But since we don’t have kids, and have the extra income, we figure, no harm no foul.

      2. This is probably true, to a certain extent. I have a full time career, and my wife is a stay at home mom of one child with a second on the way. She works once a week waiting tables, but other than that, we’re basically a one income family. We have a modest home, two paid off cars and a used car with a small payment, and we don’t buy a lot of frivolous items. So we can make it on one income. We both like her taking care of our children.

    4. Actually I think almost all conservatives do see it. If you gave them just the gov’t they wanted, it’d be a lot smaller & cheaper. What you may not understand is that a lot of the interventions by police power that they favor are pretty darn inexpensive — nasty but cheap.

  9. Anyone else want to make fun of the way she talks.

    1. She sounds as if she might be hearing impaired.

    2. she was talking?

  10. Of course you don’t have to be socially liberal to be a libertarian. The most basic principle of libertarianism is that people shouldn’t be prohibited from acting in any way that doesn’t violate the rights of others. Being a racist, misogynist a$$hole falls under that, provided you aren’t violent about it in any way. I, of course, have every right to shun you and call you out for your racism or misogyny, so long as your rights aren’t violated.

    1. I think this is why so many racists and such are attracted to libertarianism in general and campaign’s like Paul’s in particular. If you hate group X and the current political climate allows only two viable options of government help for group X or no government help at all for group X then the second position can be seen as the best option you have. This dynamic has been going on since Goldwater…

      This is NOT to say that this is the motivation between most libertarians for the positions they choose, it’s likely not. But it likely is for a significant amount.

      1. I don’t know about that. Whether it’s union thugs who hate Spanish-speaking workers or liberals whose hatred of Muslims over their (purported) treatment of women is white-hot, most of the racists I’ve known in my lifetime vote Democrat.

        1. You’re hilarious. Just to take your two selective examples and ignore your conflating of liberals and Democrats: do you want to argue anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-Muslim sentiment is as strong or stronger among the Democratic party than the GOP? That’s laughable.

          1. FYI, GOP =/= libertarians.

            1. Sure, since you made your allegations about Dems and liberals I compared them to their counterparts.

          2. Re: MNG,

            I think this is why so many racists and such are attracted to libertarianism in general and campaign’s like Paul’s in particular.

            What’s a racist? Wouldn’t a racist be more attracted to collectivism than individualism? I believe you are making things up, MNG.

            1. Racists are usually searching for a coherent belief system. Right. They are free of any cognitive dissonance. Right. You know what you are talking about. Right.

          3. Liberal attitudes towards minorities tend to assume that they cannot succeed because of their minority status without help from liberals. In other words, they feel minorities are inferior, which the definition of racism (where the minority status is based on race). It is a patronizing racism rather than a hostile racism, but the attitude is still racist.

            1. See how liberals react to people like Clarence Thomas or who, rather than being a highly accomplished individual who has ascended to the highest echelon of his chosen profession, is just a lawn jockey uncle Tom who has the gaul to think thoughts not approved by the liberal elite.

          4. Even IF you are correct, which is something I’m willing to stipulate to for the sake of argument, I KNOW I’m right when I suggest that 10 out of 10 edu-elitist blowhards who feel that their Art History degree entitles them to make decisions about how much of my wealth they can steal belong on Team BLUE. Indeed when I was within academia in grad school I heard many of the so-called academic elite argue that they are more qualified to vote than your average farmer or plumber or electrician. I’ve even heard that those who live in big cities are more qualified to vote than country-folk because they are immersed in so much culture and have so much more experience with the world blah blah blah.

            Though racism is not the right term to use is this instance, the thought process is exactly the same – I’m better than person X because of some arbitrary criteria that I’ve made up in my head. Whether it be because one is white or one is educated makes no difference, the pathology is the same.

            I’d also argue that the so-called academic elite are a MUCH larger threat to America and her individuals than racists are.

        2. most of the racists I’ve known in my lifetime vote Democrat.

          Same here. Granted, they are way old school straight-line Democrat voters from back when Texas was a one-party Dem state, but they are still (a) racists who (b) vote Democrat.

          Not sure what they did with Barack.

          1. Racism or any other kind of discrimination is an order of magnitude worse when it’s backed up by government.

            1. There is a major distinction between laws mandating discrimination and laws prohibiting it.

          2. Also, if you think American libertarians are racist, you really need to spend more time in one of those delightful social democracies in southern Europe.

            1. “Also, if you think I am a two-timing liar and a lazy, mean drunk, you should meet my brother!”

          3. I don’t know what to tell you, would you like to see polling data with indicators on anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant issues? GOP and cons do worse than Dems and liberals. If your experience is so counter to that I’d advise you get out and mingle a bit more, or try to overcome confirmation bias.

            1. Because, after all, no one would answer dishonestly if asked about their attitudes toward other racial groups. I’m sure those polls are every bit as reliable as the ones that ask about illegal drug use.

      2. Most racists I know are Democrats.

        They feel that certain races are inferior and as a result need special help.
        Why else would they push to allow them to get by with lower academic standards, or use welfare to make blacks wards of the state?

        Yep. Those well meaning racist liberals.

        So superior to those inferior black people.

        1. “Most racists I know are Democrats.

          They feel that certain races are inferior and as a result need special help.”

          Oh lord, not this old chestnut.

          Yeah, when I think of a racist I think of someone trying to help black people and such.

          Jesus, did Hannity suckle you as a child?

          1. Are you saying it is not racist to think of someone as inferior to you because of their race?

            It’s still bigotry.

            One person may act upon their bigotry with violence, another may act with pity.

            Either way it’s still bigotry.

            1. Well, one can certainly acknowledge that certain people are disadvantaged and it has nothing to do with being “inferior.” Certain groups of people are, you know, victimized by the state for generations. Maybe, as a libertarian, I think certain people deserve compensation for being victimized by the state. Does that mean I think they are inferior because they “need help”? No, it means I don’t think they should be abused by the state, and if they are they deserve restitution.

          2. The core meaning of racism is the belief that a particular race is inherently inferior (or superior), It does not mean that the actions towards that race are necessarily hostile. That is a different word, like bigot.

      3. Come on. What evidence have you got that racists are “attracted to libertarianism in general”? How do you think the average libertarian’s racial prejudice compares to the average Republican or Democrat’s?

        Is this another spoof MNG?

  11. Both arguments are needed. There are some people who will be turned off if you approach libertarianism by taking a socially liberal approach and others will be turned off if they assume you are socially conservative. The LvMI and the Reason Foundation need one another. They speak to different subcultures and personality types. I have donated to both organizations in the past and will do so in the future.

    1. The mises site is mostly an economics forum, while reason does focus much more on social issues. So one cannot assume that just because there is less focus on stories such as obscenity court cases, that mises is more socially conservative or less. I think that mises caters for an significant audience beyond the USA though, so it probably wise to not to be too risque with ones articles.

      1. “I think that mises caters for an significant audience beyond the USA though”

        Yeah, like the CSA

        1. MNG, they oppose ALL wars, the Civil War just happens to be …. a war.

            1. MNG, I challenge you to find an article on their site that is “Huu-rah!!! War!”

              1. The guy is a moron, I doubt he has even been there.

                1. I’ve been there quite a lot seeing as at one time I used to read Sobran’s work there (remember, I voted for Buchanan for President, wacky youthful days).

                  Look, I’m not the only one to notice a, shall we say ‘fondness’ for the CSA over there.

                  1. Re: MNG,

                    Look, I’m not the only one to notice a, shall we say ‘fondness’ for the CSA over there.

                    You’re looking foolish, MNG. Sayign that the Confederate States had a right to secede does not mean a “fondness” for them. Like saying that the Germans had a point when wanting to reunite the German populations after Versailles does not mean one is a Nazi. You’resimply indulging in badmouthing.

                    1. This MNG reminds me of a guy I once came across at the same table when attending an Indian wedding. They had the traditional swastika symbol on the tables, this guy did not know that this actually old symbol used for many years in India, so he made a complete fool of himself by claiming these people were nazis.

                    2. I found it interesting that when listing activities that a socially conservative may not support but still want legal, she included, “inter-racial marriage.” In other words, she believes marrying outside your race is morally wrong and is a racist. That seems like a CSA family value to me.

                  2. Like has already been asked, show this pro war stance.

                  3. (remember, I voted for Buchanan for President, wacky youthful days)

                    And you lecture other people about politics? Dude, mote, beam, eye, etc.

              2. Re: PIRS,
                MNG, I challenge you to find an article on their site that is “Huu-rah!!! War!”
                Don’t challenge him. He’s obviously talking out of his ass.

        2. Why don’t you check it out, you will be surprised how many members there are from Europe and other places. It is because of the simple fact that since it does not preach economic nationalism, it attracts people from all over.

      2. Not everyone there is socially conservative but I think Lew Rockwell is and he is the founder. There are several writers there who cater to a more “conservative” audience. You will also find a great many articles on their site about the history of religion and how it relates to economic history.

        1. Re: PIRS,

          Not everyone there is socially conservative but I think Lew Rockwell is and he is the founder. There are several writers there who cater to a more “conservative” audience.

          I’ve posted in many debates in LvMI (the blog and forums) and the audience is as diverse, if not more, than Reason’s. There are quite more fellow agnostics commenting in LvMI that you would think, and some pretty sharp liberals as well.

          MNG is simply indulging in badmouthing.

      3. Some mises folks sure like to inject racial beliefs in their economics, though. Or play up the economics angle in ways like “Property rights= keep ‘wetbacks’ and ‘niggers’ out of your communities.” I don’t think it’s really sticking to economics when you go out of your way with Confederate fetishes and pandering to racists.

  12. I’ve always thought that what paleo-libertarians and liberals have in common is a faith that just leaving things to the market will perpetuate traditional forms of “keeping people in line.” It’s just that the former think that is a good thing while the latter do not.

    1. Certain forms of behavior reward those who practice it. And other forms punish those who practice it. For example, getting up and working hard every day generally tends to lead to a happier more successful life than laying in bed doing drugs. Being married with kids is generally easier than being single with them. People will figure that out on their own and in the aggregate correct their behavior as a result. That is unless the government comes in and reduces the negative effects of certain behavior.

      1. a happier more successful life than laying in bed doing drugs

        Puuulllleeeeeezzze. I get out of bed before I do my drugs.

    2. “a faith that just leaving things to the market will perpetuate traditional forms of “keeping people in line.””

      Please explain what you mean by this.

      1. Discrimination against races, genders, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc.

        1. If you are a racist one way to live in an ideal world for you is to get the government to back your racist views. If that becomes less viable another way is to just make sure the government doesn’t move to deter such behavior. Then you can cound on the fact that such beliefs are so prevalent, especially among those with many resources (“job creators”), that they will remain strong in society.

          1. It is a chicken or egg question. In fifty years racism against blacks went from being an accepted state of affairs in this country to never being publicly tolerated. The question is did the laws make people less racist or did society change on its own and the laws just happened to be there.

            1. To believe the laws had no effect would be to take everything economics and philosophy teaches us about inventives and chuck it in the trash.

              Laws against discrimination increase the cost of it, so less of it.

              1. That just means people won’t act overtly racist. That doesn’t mean they will be less racist. And further there are lots of private activities, like say objecting to interracial marriage by disowning your kid for marrying another race, that the laws don’t cover. Yet those things reduced as well.

                And yes, the laws could have had an effect. But that doesn’t prove they did. If racism was reducing on its own anyway, the laws made no difference or less difference than they claim to have made.

                1. “If racism was reducing on its own anyway, the laws made no difference or less difference than they claim to have made.”

                  Well, they would have had this effect that you note “people won’t act overtly racist.” If you were a black man stopping at a hotel after a long drive it was getting a room which was important, more so than the ‘secret feelings’ of the hotel owner.

                  As to your interracial marriage example, that fits under the laws too. As it becomes costly to be racist less people encourage racism (secret or not) among their kids and it dwindles. But what gets people to discourage it in the first place? The idea that you and your kids can get in serious trouble for that is a mighty big incentive to do so.

                  1. Again, you are assuming that because the laws could have had an effect they did. It is entirely possible that the US was experiencing a social revolution outside of the laws. And that people were getting less racist on their own. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence of this. The growth of blacks in sports and the integration of the military did a lot to change people’s attitudes.

                    In other words, if racism were say a 9 on a ten scale in 1958 and would have naturally been reduced to a 5 had we done nothing, then the laws can’t take credit for the entire reduction in racism. There is a serious argument to be made that all we had to do was integrate government institutions like schools and society would have worked it out on its own. It is not like there isn’t a private cost to being racist without discrimination laws.

                    1. I’m assuming the laws had an effect because of everything we assume about incentives John. When you increase the cost of something people do it less.

                      I’d readily concede that not all the diminishment in racism is due to the laws, just some of it. To hold otherwise strikes me as odd.

                    2. Maybe some of it. But we will never know how much. And those laws came with a social cost. We can’t change history and can never settle a counter factual argument. But, maybe the argument itself means that those laws are today no longer worth their cost.

                    3. If, by your own admission, we will never know how much but suspect they had at least some, then the argument about how much they had certainly does not lead to the conclusion that today they are no longer worth their cost!

                    4. We have good reason to think the meds helped your dire heart condition, but there is no way of knowing how much of your improvement was from it and how much was from exercise, so I guess we can conclude we should stop taking the meds.

          2. If you are a racist one way to live in an ideal world for you is to get the government to back your racist views. If that becomes less viable another way is to just make sure the government doesn’t move to deter such behavior. Then you can cound on the fact that such beliefs are so prevalent, especially among those with many resources (“job creators”), that they will remain strong in society.

            This is a valid hypothetical. Unfortunately, here in the US the majority of the evidence comes from the former scenario and very little evidence of the latter.

            1. Not true. A great deal of racist, sexist, etc., company policy was not made under legal duress, but because of the preference of the owners or business reasons.

              1. Not true. A great deal of racist, sexist, etc., company policy was not made under legal duress, but because of the preference of the owners or business reasons.

                How do you separate the influence of hundreds of years of government protected institutionalized racism from our present day social beliefs. I am not claiming that such beliefs are solely due to our history, but I don’t know how you can tease out the biases that would exist regardless vs those that were indoctrinated with the help of law for generation after generation.

                1. “How do you separate the influence of hundreds of years of government protected institutionalized racism from our present day social beliefs.”

                  How do you? It’s you that claimed “here in the US the majority of the evidence comes from the former scenario and very little evidence of the latter” not me.

                  1. How do you? It’s you that claimed “here in the US the majority of the evidence comes from the former scenario and very little evidence of the latter” not me.

                    I obviously can’t with any certitude, but my post was in response to your proposed scenarios above. In the US, we have a considerable history of government protected racism. And I would submit that the attitudes and interactions towards blacks was influenced heavily by government policy, as evidenced by the differences in the North and South.

                    1. I think we have a history of racism from everywhere. But I’m not sure we have much of a debate here. Even if goverment was the main promoter of racism once it takes hold in the culture I submit it doesn’t go away because government withdraws that support. The question then becomes, should government do something to counter what it has fostered? I realize different people will answer differently here and that most of them are not motivated by racism.

          3. And yet, despite the efforts of the white power/white nationalist movement to do just that, racial bigotry grows ever more marginalized amongst Homo sapiens. Even de jure segregated nation-states like the RSA were unable to resist these social pressures, despite the universal opposition of the ruling classes.

          4. If you’re a racist against blacks, you could support a law requiring that employees of federal contractors be paid “prevailing wages” – a law which was expressly motivated by a desire to discriminate against blacks.

            If you’re racist against Asians, you could support racial-preference policies which give preferences to certain non-Asian racial groups.

            If you want to celebrate racists of the past, you could praise the Confederate-loving, Jim Crow supporting Woodrow Wilson.

            If you’re racist against Jews, then (like FDR) you could limit Jewish immigration while Jews are fleeing Hitler’s Europe.

            etc.

        2. How would a free market “perpetuate” these things? It would destroy them. Money is not a race.

          1. You could ask the people at Woolworth’s who segregated their establishments as company policy, not law.

            As long as an establishment gains more customers and dollars by being racist, sexist, etc., than it loses it is in their interest to enact company policy that is so. When such sentiments are prevalent and run deep that is often the case.

            1. What if the black owner of a social club didn’t want white patrons?
              Should that be allowed?
              What if the gay owners of a gay bar wanted to exclude straights?
              Should that be allowed?

              1. I think it depends on how much of a ‘public accomodation’ is involved. A private club with memberships and all, go nuts says I. But when you hold yourself out to the general public I say no. I say this because in our society we have and want to have most day-to-day services to come from the private sector. To allow discrimination there does have a serious impact on many groups (minorities, especially ones with limited resources). And I find that harm to trump the liberty interest of association of the discriminator.

                But, I imagine we disagree. My point is two kinds of people could get behind your view: non-racist people who think liberty interests should trump, and bigots who want to see more establishments discriminate.

                1. and bigots who want to see more establishments discriminate.

                  I would keep walking there was a sign on the door that said “Whites Only”, and I’m white.
                  I would also defend the right of that bigoted asshole to put that sign in his window.
                  It gives me information – specifically that he’s a bigoted asshole – and I can use that information to choose to do business with someone else.

              2. Those questions do not compute in his head, it only works one way. Being at the top of the victimology ladder makes it impossible to discriminate.

            2. The United States did not then and does not now have a true free market. Also, the history of war may have increased resentment. In many Latin American countries where slavery ended without war race is less of an issue today. In fact the percentage of mixed-race people is quite high because of this.

              1. This is unhelpful, pretty much no place is or has been Libertopia. Appeals to utopian ideals is what Marxists do, let’s not go there.

                I’d also dispute your contention that race is not a big issue in many Latin American nations. It’s contrary to much I’ve read on that subject. Less or different issue, maybe, “not a big issue”, no.

                1. “I’d also dispute your contention that race is not a big issue in many Latin American nations. It’s contrary to much I’ve read on that subject. Less or different issue, maybe, “not a big issue”, no.”

                  I have been learning more about Latin American lately because I have been studying Spanish and with the oddly notable (and Ironic) exception of the Dominican Republic it is according to what I have studied. In fact it is not uncommon in some countries for non-black friends to greet black friends with the word “Negro”. This is not considered insulting or offensive. It is the equivalent of “Blondie” or “redhead” it is just a physical description and nothing more.

                  As I said the Dominican Republic is just … odd … there even people who (to us) look black sometimes try everything they can to appear white – even going to the point of straiting their hair.

                  1. I worked with many Mexicans who absolutely hated black people. They didn’t even think of them as human.

                    1. “I worked with many Mexicans who absolutely hated black people. They didn’t even think of them as human.”

                      Leme guess .. the blacks they hated were U.S. Citizens. Ask them about the blacks they knew in Mexico. This is cultural not racial in most cases.

                    2. I don’t recall them caring where the black people were from. They hated them all. The word they used often was “mayate” which I remember one guy saying it translated to “bat” as in flying rodent. A quick google says it translates to “dung beetle” as in a beetle that rolls around a ball of shit.

                      I didn’t feel the love.

                2. Your belief that government will create harmony between the races by making laws is about as utopian as it gets.

                  1. I don’t believe that. In fact, I bet I’ve done more to fight affirmative action in my life than you have, and that is largely based on my view that it leads to racial disharmony.

                    What I’m arguing is that laws against discrimination make discrimination and the prejudice from which that comes more costly and therefore less common. That’s all.

                    Lots of other government action can make things much worse between races.

                    1. What I’m arguing is that laws against discrimination make discrimination and the prejudice from which that comes more costly and therefore less common.

                      I think society could do a good job of that by shunning businesses who put “Whites Only” signs in their windows.

                      This ain’t the 60s anymore.

        3. You see, when government forces people to like each other, they really do end up liking each other.

          1. Ah, lil’ pussy spoofer is awake.

            1. Ah, little idiot cannot argue with the facts.

              1. How funny is it when a spoofer complains that people are not arguing the facts?

                Back to bed sport!

                1. You see when one uses MNG as the name, then on cannot be stating facts, except of course when the real MNG is using the name, but I digress. All the facts from all over the world have indisputably shown that race relations everywhere have improved where government decided to intervene.

    3. I’ve always thought that what paleo-libertarians and liberals have in common is a faith that just leaving things to the market will perpetuate traditional forms of “keeping people in line.” It’s just that the former think that is a good thing while the latter do not.

      As a libertarian, I’ve always thought that “keeping people in line” was what many believe is the function of the State.

      1. You can keep people in line plenty without the state. Mills recognized this when he wrote On Liberty, it was not just government coercion that he spoke of but social opinion and its power to punish eccentricity.

        1. You can keep people in line plenty without the state. Mills recognized this when he wrote On Liberty, it was not just government coercion that he spoke of but social opinion and its power to punish eccentricity.

          Undoubtedly you can. This is a basic fact of human psychology. Even under conditions where the State coerces individuals to act in a certain manner, social opinions will ALSO exist to coerce individuals. So I must presume that your argument only hinges on who does the coercing.

          1. Don’t get me wrong Ray, government oppression is much worse than oppression via social opionion. Much.

            I just argue that the latter is still quite possible and more effective than many might admit.

          2. social opinions will ALSO exist to coerce individuals.

            I’m gonna need a definition of “coerce” here. Personally, I tend toward the one that has to do with the use or threat of force, which is not something that “social opinion” traffics in.

            1. Well, of course, you guys have a very restrictive definition of ‘coerce’ that limits it to “force that is not justified.”

              I’m using it in this sense:

              to cause to do through pressure or necessity
              wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

            2. I’m gonna need a definition of “coerce” here. Personally, I tend toward the one that has to do with the use or threat of force, which is not something that “social opinion” traffics in.

              I’m thinking of coercion in the form of non-physical influence and intimidation. A good example from John’s post would be family coercion towards a child who wishes to interact or marry with someone they disapprove of. Also, social pressures to conform to certain ideals (patriotism, nationalism, etc.).

              1. That’s what I’m thinking of too. Withholding social contact or things like inheritance, discrimination in hiring or doing business with, etc.

                This can be powerful stuff. Certainly not as powerful as physical and legal threats, but powerful stuff nonetheless.

            3. Fair enough.

              Does anyone think there’s a problem with using the same word to mean both the use or threat of force, and the withholding of social or economic favor?

              1. Anyone who believes there is a legitimate distinction between action and inaction. Or anyone who maybe sees negative rights as both distinct from positive rights and more valid a construct.

              2. Can I switch back and forth between the definitions when I feel like it, without letting anyone know?

                1. Isn’t this how most people regularly debate?

        2. Certainly.

          And when we have confined our current Leviathan State to more seemly bounds, I may find myself worried about the purely voluntary, though still quite real, constraints that civil society puts on freedom of choice and action.

          Until that day, though, it seems like worrying about getting a facelift while the cancer metastasizes.

          Remember, when Mills was writing, the state was a fraction of what it is today.

          1. That seems like a reasonable position to take RC. Good points.

            I guess I would disagree that the government is so oppressive, so I’d relatively worry more about social opinion, but I realize we’d disagree on that.

          2. Remember, when Mills was writing, the state was a fraction of what it is today.

            This is a good point. I wonder what the founding fathers, Mill, Locke, Hobbes, or Machiavelli would say today if they saw how ubiquitous government is in our everyday lives.

            1. Hell, even I’d say they would probably think “WTF????”

              Though Hobbes might have rubbed his fingers together and said “excellent” like Mr. Burns.

              1. Not enough God for Hobbes, I think. But other than that, yeah, he’d be down.

  13. Nick looks like Dr. Ian Malcolm in that photo.

    1. Really? Thinking more Ace Ventura…..

  14. Wow, you guys wrote a book? I must’ve missed all the promotions…

    1. No shit. I was wondering if this wasn’t just another chance to sell the book.

  15. Is it just me, or does Nick have a woody?

  16. Is that shot of Nick from the 86′ Leatherman’s Conference or the 87′?

    1. Either way that shot is missing leather chaps. (assless chaps reference removed)

  17. Not all libertarians are economically conservative either. Some of us don’t care for the capitalist system… read Lysander Spooner.

    1. And in libertopia, you will be free to pursue your eccentric economic vision alongside the capitalists.

      1. I eagerly await the resurgence of Georgism in Libertopia.

      2. the capitalist will not be able to compete in a free market.

  18. How exactly (as the woman in the video contends) can someone who is into “gay bashing” be a libertarian? The tent’s big enough to fit those who can now both ask & tell, heteros, people who don’t approve of teh gays, etc. But those who bash gays? Really?

    1. I think it has already been mentioned here, bashing a gay as in physically hitting somebody is certainly not a libertarian idea. Saying one does not like gays, as in free speech, is a perfectly acceptable practice, whether one likes it or not.

  19. Are all libertarians socially liberal?

    Who cares? They’re not going to use the Total State to force you into compliance with their views.

    Feel free to engage with them, or not, in the wide-open and diverse marketplace of ideas! Who knows? Somebody might learn something, or even change their mind.

  20. imo people confuse socially liberal with libertarian./ socially liberal comes from the tradition of “if it feels good, do it” with the implied position that “it” is ok, or even good for you.

    social liberals often claimed for instance that drugs were really harmless, etc.

    libertarianism takes no moral stance on whether this stuff is good, it merely says govt. should not have a role in enforcing/criminalizing stuff that consenting people do to themselves or with each other.

    it is entirely consistent for a libertarian to say “i think meth is a terrible, evil, destructive drug” *and* “nobody should be put in jail for smoking meth”

    or “i think premarital sex is morally abhorrent but it should not be illegal”

    or

    “i think people should give a lot more to charity but i don’t think govt. should be involved in welfare payments”

    etc.

    it doesn’t matter what one’s personal moral views are regarding all sorts of behaviors. to be a libertarian means (imnsho) one simply believes that it’s always worse to have govt. regulate these behaviors (via the barrel of a gun necessarily) vs. social pressure, taboos, and other informal measures we use …

    iow, i think fat people in spandex is an awful thing. i am all for social taboos, and whatever other social pressure it takes to keep fat people from wearing spandex in public. but i don’t want there to be a law against it.

  21. THREADJACK: (file under the cops never get disciplined meme): NYPD officers disciplined for throwing football with boy
    Officers Catherine Guzman and Mariana Diaz face departmental trial for tossing a football with a child
    By PoliceOne Staff

    NEW YORK ? Two NYPD officers are challenging the disciplinary action taken against them for throwing a football with a child at a Bronx housing project.

    Officers Catherine Guzman and Mariana Diaz say they were humiliated by the commanding officer of the Bronx Housing Bureau for playing the game last year on the Fourth of July, according to the New York Daily News.

    “He was irate and berated us in front of everyone,” Guzman said. “He said, ‘What are you doing? Do you realize you are on overtime?'”

    Four officers were involved in the incident, and two accepted a penalty of two vacation days, but Guzman and Diaz are appealing the ruling.

    Charges against them say they “did fail and neglect to remain alert, to wit: throwing and catching a football with three uniformed members of service…while maintaining a foot post.” Both will receive harsher penalties if found guilty.

    Lawyer Eric Sanders said the NYPD needs to rethink how it defines community policing.

    “I think the Police Department prefers its officers to be an occupying force rather than interacting with the community it serves,” Sanders said.

    “I don’t think throwing a football to a 7-year-old boy is misconduct,” Guzman said. “We were interacting with the community.”

    1. So what I’m getting from this is that the po-po aren’t above using trumped up bullshit charges on each other as well as on the rest of us? Good to know.

      Or was that not the message you were hoping for?

      1. pretty much. the reason-meme is that all IA’s do is whitewash investigations and protect cops.

        ime, as i have seen over and over again,many IA’s and investigators love to fuck over officers, even when they are doing a GOOD t hing, as imo this perfect example of community policing demonstrates. not being faceless “just the facts, ma’am automatons” but being members of the community.

        once i was at a beach party (in uniform) and the singer of the band invited me to play guitar for a song. i did so. my partner was there to listen to the radio if we got a call. people loved it.

        one of my supervisors was not too pleased when he found out, but my chief (who was totally cool) said he had no problem with it, and it was the kind of image he wanted his officers to have in the community.

        i rocked, btw

      2. I gather that one “po” of “po-po” means “police”. What does the other “po” mean?

        Anyway, I’d like to know how long the officer in question spent playing with the boy. That would distinguish a friendly gesture from goofing off. Like any other job where nobody could possibly concentrate 100% of the time on it, because there’s nothing much to do for much of it.

        1. and of course that’s very relevant.

          also note that even if the officer’s conduct was not professional, the supervisor who yelled at them in public definitely breached proper protocol. unless something is exigent, you never discipline like that in public.

    2. nah, dunphy’s msg was management w TEH [FATZ] cant play sportz

    3. dunphy, personally, I think it hurts, rather than helps your case to post a story showing that police administration is apparently willing to enforce short-sighted and stupid rules, while actual criminal violations go unaddressed.

      1. then you clearly don’t know my case, which is not surprising considering nearly everyone here misrepresents it.

        i have long claimed that contrary to the meme, the idea that IA routinely whitewashes investigations and is there to whitewash and hide the misconduct of patrol officers is laughable.

        ime, IA detectives tend to be the least skilled of all investigators. just like those with MA’s in education tend to be the bottom of the academic barrel (and yet we entrust them to teach our kids), IA detectives TEND not to be either particularly skilled or experienced investigators. it is a stepping stone assignment for those who wish to advance. fuck over a few cops and you get rank. iow.

        fortunately, due to our unions, lawyers, and arbitration, we often see officers rehired after they were fired due to biased IA investigations and/or bullshit charges

        while CRIMINAL charges are reviewed by a jury (an impartial group of peers) and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, with the burden on the prosecutionand a presumption of innocence, NONE of that is true of IA investigations.

        this is why i fully support videotaping of police. it PROTECTs US, the GOOD cops. fuck the bad cops. i don’t like bad cops. i want good cops to be protected, and ALL cops to have due process.

        the more people videotaping, the better

    4. Huh. So you’d think they’d REALLY get punished for, say, kicking someone to death.

      1. i think if criminal charges were warranted, they’d be filed. if there is sufficient evidence to charge them, they will be charged, imo

  22. I agree with Token and consider myself a socially conservative non-religious libertarian, and I reject moral relativism. That being said, how do you identify a rational moral code? I think Sam Harris’ book “The Moral Landscape” is a good place to start.

  23. I’ve always had trouble with the idea that being racist is a “socially conservative” belief that is embraced by conservatives. Is it?

    I also don’t understand this whole idea of ” No. I AM a libertarian, but don’t lump me in with those crazy liberals who don’t oppose interracial marriage.”

    The porn, drugs, prostitution stuff, maybe I understand. Taking a stand against tolerance of individuals based on race? Don’t understand that.

  24. Am I correct in observing that Matt & Nick’s book has been getting more favourable reviews from non-libertarian sources than from other libertarians?

    Wouldn’t be the first time.

  25. Note to self: Don’t mention He-who-shall-not-be-named, even as a throwaway gag in your handle. Apparently

  26. The reason why we need two incomes these days is primarily to pay taxes.

    That cannot possibly be true as the total tax burden, according to those Bolsheviks at the Tax Foundation (the same pinkoes who calculate Tax Freedom Day) is lower than it was in every year since 1970 except 2009 and 2010. (The series starts in 1971.)

  27. The problem with the Rockwellians at the Mises Institute is not just that they are conservatives, but that they pal around with racists, bigots, anti-Semites and the worst scum on the Right. They laud the Confederacy as if that is a burning issue today. They promoted the racist memes of Hans Herman Hoppe, gave voice to bigots from the League of the South, and praised anti-semites like Sobran. They are a disgrace.

  28. She’s not condemning interracial marriage ? she’s using it to illustrate her point. Opposing interracial marriage is an irrational belief, imho ? but it doesn’t exclude one from being a libertarian. On the other hand, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose drug use, but at the same time oppose the state ban on it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.