Libertarianism

In Search of the Elusive Cultural Libertarian

You might be a cultural libertarian if... well, that depends on whom you ask.

|

What is a "cultural libertarian?" While young conservatives claim the term originated in a 2015 Breitbart article, it's actually a term that's been thrown around by libertarians and conservatives in the media since at least 2001. But does the "cultural libertarianism" debated in outlets such as Reason and the National Review back then share anything with the version espoused by the likes of Canadian activist Lauren Southern and Breitbart personality Milo Yiannopoulos these days? Yes and no. 

Today's "cultural libertarians" claim to be concerned, first and foremost, with free speech and fending off the "illiberal" or "regressive left." Where they succeed, from a libertarian-no-qualifier perspective, is in igniting the passions of young people toward the protection of civil liberties. Where they fail is by turning off more people in the process than they win over, delighting in the kinds of tactics and stunts that provoke but little else. Going to a feminist rally and holding up signs saying "there is no rape culture" may seem edgy when you're 20, but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole, not a radical for free expression. 

Kevin Glass, policy director for the Franklin Center, calls the cultural libertarianism of today "warmed over 90s-style anti-politcal correctness in a new suit." Former Reason staffer Julian Sanchez, now at the Cato Institute, opined yesterday that "cultural libertarian is either redundant or just a dodgy way of saying 'I don't wanna talk about racism or sexism.'" If so-called cultural libertarians are just people who don't want censorship in the name of social justice, we already "have a perfectly good word for" that, noted Sanchez: civil libertarians. 

Similar sentiment comes from writer Garry Reed, who explored cultural libertarianisn this week at Examiner.com. Because classical liberalism is a philosophy that covers economic, political, and social realms, being a libertarian means "you're a philosophical libertarian, political libertarian, cultural libertarian, social libertarian, economic libertarian and libertarian in every other way possible," he writes. 

KoPubCo.com

Southern positions cultural libertarianism as a sub-branch of broader libertarian philosophy. "Libertarians who are not Cultural Libertarians would argue that the only suppression of speech and expression that is unacceptable is suppression that is perpetrated by the state," says Southern, making it sound like just another way of saying "thick libertarian." Thick libertarianism is a term used by liberty-movement types to describe libertarians who "concern themselves with social commitments, practices, projects or movements that seek social outcomes beyond, or other than, the standard libertarian commitment to expanding the scope of freedom from government coercion." But for the nouveau cultural libertarians, freedom from government coercion seems, if anything, an afterthought in the battle to "trigger" Twitter leftists and, at worst, an inconvenient obstacle in the election of President Donald Trump. 

Breitbart's Allum Bokhari defines cultural libertarians in opposition to cultural authoritarians: "those who want to control culture versus those who want to liberate it." In this sense, we're not talking "the economic libertarianism of Hayek or Rothbard, nor the political theorising of Nozick," writes Bokhari.

"Cultural authoritarians from both the left and right occupy most positions of power in government, academia and the media," he asserted in a subsequent article, "Rise of the Cultural Libertarians," and this is bad news for free expression. In contrast, cultural libertarians believe in open expression, viewing art as separate from its political overtones, and recognizing "that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile." 

Tellingly, Bokhari mentions the main goal of cultural libertarian to be "needling their foes" on the Internet "with waspish critiques and satire." Their core tenets, he writes, are "resisting identity politics," "public shaming," "combat(ing) anger with ridicule," ending "safe space culture," and "defending spaces for uncomfortable opinions." When it comes down to it, the cultural libertarians of the Breitbart set just want to mock "social justice warriors" while invoking natural rights. 

Yet at the very bottom of Bokhari's list, there is this: "celebrating culture in all its forms." Whether his cohort of cultural libertarians actually do so in practice is debatable, but this idea is the closet that Cultural Libertarianism 2.0 comes to its 2001 counterpart. Let's look at that old debate for a moment. In a December 2001 National Review post, Jonah Goldberg decried the "Chinese-menu culture" that "basically says that whatever ideology, religion, cult, belief, creed, fad, hobby, or personal fantasy you like is just fine so long as you don't impose it on anybody else, especially with the government." In other words, cultural libertarians believe in the sort of pro-choice multi-culturalism that today might labeled evidence of "cultural Marxism." 

"You want to be a Klingon? Great!" wrote Goldberg. "Attend the Church of Satan? Hey man, if that does it for ya, go for it. You want to be a "Buddhist for Jesus"? Sure, mix and match, man; we don't care. Hell, you can even be an observant Jew, a devout Catholic or a faithful Baptist, or a lifelong heroin addict—they're all the same, in the eyes of a cultural libertarian."

This attitude, embodied by the "arrogant nihilism" of Nick Gillespie and former Reason editor Virginia Postrel, was "rapidly replacing liberalism as the real threat to America, and the true opposition to conservatism," warned Goldberg.

According to cultural libertarianism … we can pick from across the vast menu of human diversity — from all religions and cultures, real and imagined — until we find one that fits our own personal preferences. Virginia Postrel can write triumphantly that the market allows Americans to spend $8 billion on porn and $3 billion at Christian bookstores, because she isn't willing to say that one is any better, or any worse, than the other.

If this is cultural libertarianism, sign me up!  

And that's exactly the attitude Reason took back in the early aughts. Gillespie noted that contra Goldberg's claim about libertarian nihilism, we actually cling in Hayek's idea that "to live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."

This belief, "in tolerance—and in allowing people to pursue and discover their own definition of happiness to the greatest extent possible while maintaining peace—is not believing in 'absolutely nothing,'" Gillespie wrote.

In a subsequent post on the matter, he noted that the cultural-libertarianism debate with Goldberg reflected broader differences between libertarians and conservatives. "These differences are worth underscoring, if only because they are not going away anytime soon," blogged Gillespie. "These two positions—roughly representing forces of choice vs. forces of control—are where the action is, and will be, for a long time to come." 

In the nearly 15 years since then, things got a bit strange, though. U.S. conservatives grew increasingly authoritarian in the post-9/11 era and then gradually started backing off as the Tea Party, Ron Paul, and others introduced a little more liberty to GOP ranks. At the same time, liberals let cultural power go to their heads and, absent the occasional issue convergence (ending marijuana prohibition or the ban on same-sex marriage), started parting from "cultural libertarianism" in many meaningful ways.

What we're left with is a cultural libertarianism with the same rough contours of its predecessor but with 1) new lines drawn in terms of allies and enemies, and 2) the corrupting influence of over a decade of social media outrage culture. And as Peter Suderman and others have argued, we're seeing the rise of post-ideas politics, where neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually stand for anything except winning the news cycle, and then the one after that, and then…  In this environment, the cultural libertarianism of Bokhari, Southern, et al is a perfect product of its time. It exists in service not of Hayekian principles but for pageviews and lulz. 

There's nothing wrong with this, per se, and politics as performance art isn't a new concept. But by invoking libertarianism in service of trolling, today's cultural libertarians reinforce the worst tropes about the libertarian philosophy. Once, it was that we were all just conservatives who want to smoke pot; now it's we're conservatives who want to say obnoxious things without complaint. Muh free speech rights!

Again and again, these cultural libertarians seem aghast at the idea that there could be any social consequences at all based on things they say. "Freedom of choice on cultural issues"—how a 2001 paper from the Sociology of Religion journal describes cultural libertarianism—only extends to those with whom they agree on cultural issues. Which isn't really very libertarian—culturally, politically, or in any other sense—at all. 

Even Christopher Cantwell, who is best described as every Salon stereotype about libertarians if those stereotypes called women cunts 10 times more often, sees through the 'free speech' schtick of the alt-right-lite set. Cantwell digs "the idea being that violence—State sponsored or otherwise—is not the only threat to free speech" and that "cultural Marxists, social justice warriors, and even stuffy right wing religious fanatics [also] pose a threat to free expression." Calling "a movement aimed at fighting these people" cultural libertarians "does appeal to me," he writes. But as it stands, cultural libertarian' "rhetoric almost mirrors that of our politically correct rivals." 

Or, as Daniel Pryor put it, "the shared attitude amongst both movements is .. that they can tolerate anything except the outgroup." 

In a piece for the Center for Stateless Society, Pryor suggests that framing things as "libertarians versus social justice warriors" leaves much to be desired. Sure, "social justice" may be a heated and hated term today, but libertarians certainly aren't opposed to social justice goals offhand. "Rather than framing the debate as cultural libertarianism versus social justice, opponents of big government should take the best of both and discard what doesn't work," writes Pryor.  "In the end, it's perfectly consistent to be a cultural libertarian and a social justice warrior when one weeds out the authoritarian strains that exist in both." 

Advertisement

NEXT: Great News! Harriet Tubman Will Replace Andrew Jackson on the Front of the $20 Bill

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. Would, would, would, wouldn’t, wouldn’t, wouldn’t.

    1. from left to right, right to left, top to bottom or bottom to top?

        1. Don’t worry, it can’t be anything too bad, it says he’s got “Idle Hands” 😛

    2. That’s 3 typos in a row.

    3. Which square did you start with?

      1. Isn’t that Hillary in the lower right?

        1. Maybe Crusty was talking about the old newspaper photo.

        2. The only ones I recognized were Nick Gillespie and a young Hugh Grant just to the right of Nick. The others are people I’ve not seen before.

      2. He is talking about the pics from the promoted stories.

  2. I don’t think you provided enough screen shots of your twitter feed.

    1. The cool kids connect over the Twitterers. While I think Twitter is pretty useless, this story seems like a fine way to utilize it.

      1. No, twitter is for twits.

            1. Post- menopausal?

          1. Don’t you oppress me by attempting to enforce grammatical and speling nrms,

            Not even sarcastically. I will spill works however I dim well pleas.

              1. you’d be the only one.

      2. It’s hard to take blog entires seriously when they essentially mirror Cracked.com. (Not that I probably should take blogs as a serious thing, I guess.)

        Why should I care what someone on Twitter said about ‘X’? Am I incapable of following you on Twitter? Is this a veiled way to try and encourage me to follow you on Twitter? Given the subject of your Masters, I imagine so.

        Good luck with that.

  3. Dammit, ENB, don’t talk about Lucy!!

    1. The staff have been trolling us pretty hard, recently.

    2. Didn’t she come up here about 3 weeks ago? Note the dark glasses; she’s obviously on the lam, like Rushdie, Twitting from a burner phone.

  4. I honestly thought Reason had been remaking itself as more of a cultural libertarian mag. Look around your office; there’s several cultural libertarians there. They shouldn’t be hard to find.

    “In the end, it’s perfectly consistent to be a cultural libertarian and a social justice warrior when one weeds out the authoritarian strains that exist in both.”

    I’m not so sure, really. Libertarians (cultural or otherwise) are (or should be) concerned mostly with reducing the size and scope of government. SJWs, as far as I can tell, aren’t at all concerned with that.

    The only overlap I can see is that the SJW tactics (shaming, ostracism, etc.) often happen out in civil society, and don’t necessarily involve armed agents of the state. Could we learn some of their tactics and use them to advance our goals? Sure. Do we really share that many goals with them? I’d be very wary; where we have common goals, our end point is usually where they really are going to start demanding state action. Exhibit A (you knew this was coming): gay marriage. The common goal of gay marriage licensing was the end point for us. For our SJW “allies”, it was just one step toward calling in agents of the state to enforce privileges for a new protected class.

    1. That’s ‘Cosmotarian’, RC. Think cocktail parties, hangin with the cool kids.

    2. O, I think we already practice those tactics, like ostracism. It’s just that no one is noticing.

      1. No… they notice. they just call it bullying and abuse when we do it. When they do it, it’s “justice”

    3. RC, the quoted sentence doesn’t even make any sense!

      There are no authoritarian strains in libertarians, that’s the whole fucking point of libertarians. Show me a libertarian with an authoritarian strain and I’ll show you a Democrat or a Republican.

      SJW’s don’t want liberty or even fewer rules, they want lots more rules and a few new exceptions. To weed out the authoritarian strain in SJW’s is eliminate 100% of them.

      1. Is it authoritarian to ‘mandate’ that everyone do what they want, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone? That’s a bit of a stretch for ‘authoritarianism’.

        And yes, SJW’s are essentially the Hitler youth. If you removed their authoritarian strain, you’d be left with nothing except the vague observation that people are different from each other sometimes.

      2. To weed out the authoritarian strain in SJW’s is eliminate 100% of them.

        That’s TOTALLY not true and that’s exactly why we need more mandatory cultural-awareness training.

  5. I’m glad I’m not a libertarian.

    1. So what ‘er you then?

      I am your King!

      /bringing class into it

  6. Where they succeed, from a libertarian-no-qualifier perspective, is in igniting the passions of young people toward the protection of civil liberties

    So what you’re basically saying here is that there are none of these ‘cultural libertarians’ on college campuses today.

    1. We need a poll of milennials

  7. Virginia Postrel can write triumphantly that the market allows Americans to spend $8 billion on porn and $3 billion at Christian bookstores…

    People still spend money on porn? Have they heard of this newfangled Internet thingy?

    1. It’s market dynamics. What is available for free may not square up with their personal deviancies, so people part with money to get the less readily available, or higher quality, or whatever other convenience parameter. Some people probably also get off on having to pay for porn (people are strange)

    2. Did you know that some people still write checks?, lololololol

      1. Have you bought a house lately? First checks I had to write in years because it was the only form of payment various parties involved would accept.

        1. I mean writing checks at the grocery store and drug store. I witnessed it just a couple days ago. It was like a bigfoot sighting. I had to wait in line 30 minutes to buy a gallon of milk. It was worse than the old blue haired lady with the little coin purse.

          1. That’s funny. I see it all the time. My grocery store has a component in the register that reads the account information and processes it more or less there, printing on the check relevent data.

            I don’t trust it, so I’ve never paid via check there.

            1. I think I don’t typically notice, because I use the self-checkout line when only buying a few items. This time, for whatever reason, 2 of the three self-checkouts seemed to be broken and there was a line a mile long at the other, so I ducked into the express checkout lane that only had 5 people ahead of me, not realizing one of them had *gulp* this primitive paper thing called a check, which the cashier apparently took like 20 minutes to just stop flipping it over and over and staring at it. Then called over someone else, who took an additional 10 minutes to show up.

              1. Yeah, people don’t get that express doesn’t just mean limited item count, it means speedy transactions. I wish markets would enforce item counts for express lines and also have “cash or card only” policies for those. Of course the pro-tip is to use self-check where there is hopefully one feeder line feeding multiple checkouts.

                1. I really wish that self-checkout with cards and cash only meant speedy. Unfortunately, half of the dumbies in front of you will cause it to go something like this:

                  First person in line: Keeps swiping card, staring at screen…

                  Calls person over to help.

                  Store person slowly walks over, takes lot of seemingly unnecessary time.

                  Person looks dumbly at card, asks question.

                  Person says ‘uh, it’s a gift card. I got it in 1982 and I don’t know if there’s anything still on it’

                  Store person says ‘This won’t work here!’ walks slowly away.

                  Person then fumbles in purse for seemingly hours, finally pulls out other card.

                  Slides card again and again, stares at monitor. Calls over person to help.

                  Person doesn’t come over, is too busy talking to co-worker who also is doing nothing.

                  Person fumbles in purse, starts pulling out wadded up dollar bills and some change…

                  I think you get the picture.

                  1. Easy solution, do what I do. Shop after midnight.

              2. Y’know, when people talk about automation taking jobs, I just picture that exact situation (with broken self-checkout machines) only with one guy left on Earth that knows how to actually fix them.

                Y’know, hell.

          2. I see old people do that from time to time.

          3. 30 min.? I was stuck less time than that behind someone bartering a live chicken & a few homemade arrows for groceries.

    3. Shaming porn purists is part of your cultural libertarianism?

      1. I like my porn impure.

        Pure porn sounds like a fetish.

    4. Don’t mention Postrel and Porn in the same sentence.

      1. ^This is a reference to her well-known…prickliness, not a statement on her appearance.

        1. Prickliness? Are you implying she doesn’t shave often enough?

      2. I was just quoting the article. Don’t shoot the messenger.

  8. Hyphenating “libertarian”. Proof that the word has lost all meaning, or a sign of the end times. You decide.

  9. but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole,

    Unless that private event is a private business and the person wants to take a shower with children of the (genetically) opposite sex. Then it’s fairness and equality because pubic accommodation laws exist and shit.

    And by “throw shade” in your example, you really should say “upset their bullshit false narrative”. Because there is no such thing as rape culture.

    1. There might come a day when the people that thought they could appease the SJW or win them over with reason will realize that they are slated as second against the wall.

  10. “Republicans who smoke pot.”

    1. And pee in all of the bathrooms.

      1. Ass-sex with messicans?

      2. Just the rooms, though. Not in the toilets.

  11. In the end, it’s perfectly consistent to be a cultural libertarian and a social justice warrior when one weeds out the authoritarian strains that exist in both.”

    That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Being a cultural libertarian should mean that you accept people’s culture and choices even if you don’t like them yourself. Only a reason writer could square that contention with some commitment to “social justice”. If you think it is okay and in fact your duty to cajole and bully people into giving up practices you don’t like, you are not a cultural libertarian I don’t care if you don’t want to use the government to do your dirty work.

    How the hell can people believe this nonsense?

    1. I’m not sure, but I really have not witnessed any of this non-authoritarian SJW stuff. It’s just authoritarian all the way down. Normal people who don’t want to control and/or ruin other people’s lives over the personal pro-nouns they choose to use, don’t become SJWs.

      1. If I look at you and say “your culture is wrong and it needs to change”, I am not being a libertarian. I am trying to enforce my view of what is good on you. I think what you are doing is wrong and care enough about it to tell you and try to convince you otherwise. Just because I am not putting a gun to your head to do it, doesn’t make my goal any less authoritarian.

        1. So, they’re sort of like neocons without guns?

          1. In the beginning sure. But eventually they usually go for the gun when you don’t do what they want.

          2. They don’t need guns when they get the state to do their enforcing for them. Plenty of guns there!

        2. Just because I am not putting a gun to your head to do it, doesn’t make my goal any less authoritarian.

          At this point, I think we have so much actual gun-to-your-head state authoritarianism, I prefer to limit the term to that flavor, and not the “civil” flavor of social and civic pressure.

          1. You could get rid of the government and have anarchy and still not be free if the society was itself oppressive and unfree. If you can’t do something because doing so will cause the rest of society to run you our of business or seek to do you harm, you are not any more free than you would be if you couldn’t do things out of fear of being sent to prison. In fact you might be less free since it is often easier to hide from the government than it is from all of society.

            1. Mine is a more situational approach, based on our current problems. If I thought that non-state pressure/”authoritarians” weren’t such a flyspeck compared to our currently metastasizing state, I’m sure I’d be looking at a broader definition.

        3. Not really. As a libertarian I can freely say that what you are doing is dumb and you should stop doing it.

          So for example, if your idea of a fun time is hitting yourself in the nuts with a hammer, I can think you’re a god damned idiot and can freely express that opinion. In fact I can choose to refuse to associate with you because you’re obviously either crazy or an idiot. That all fits within the libertarian framework.

          Now if I lobby to make it illegal to hit yourself in the nuts with a hammer, that’s when I stop being a libertarian.

          1. As a libertarian I can freely say that what you are doing is dumb

            A technical niggle =

            You’re not saying something is dumb *as* a libertarian.

            You’re a libertarian who also happens to believe X is dumb. That opinion isn’t necessarily derived from your libertarianism.

        4. John, your culture is wrong and it needs to change.

          1. WTF are you going on about? John has no culture!

        5. If I look at you and say “your culture is wrong and it needs to change”, I am not being a libertarian.

          I never thought I’d see the day that John, out of all people, argue that libertarianism is equivalent to cultural relativism.

    2. Why, John, the way you describe cultural libertarianism sounds almost . . . multi-cultural. And I’m thinking that’s a pretty good definition.

      It also highlights the way SJWs are anti-multicultural, trying to grind everyone into their very narrow cultural outlook.

      Highlighting, I think, the mis-fit between libertarians and SJWs.

      1. Yeah. I am not a cultural libertarian, because I don’t by into multiculturalism. Not all cultures are equal. Some of them I don’t want anywhere near me. But if you think they are and really are willing to live and let live, then you are. Like everything there are degrees of being this. Some are further up the scale than others.

        1. John is Michael Savage?

          1. See, this is what I mean when I say it’s tough to tell the difference between sarcasm and legitimate retardation around here.

            1. What if it is retarded sarcasm?

        2. So you are an insularist. Some of us are pluralists. Pluralism leads to higher economic standard of living. All the great trade cities of the world are cosmopolitan, whether we are talking about Amsterdam at the beginning of the Enlightenment or today’s New York or Hong Kong.

          1. Sure but that doesn’t mean any and all cultures can exist in such a pll ace. Many can but some can’t. Realizing that doesn’t mean it has to be one culture. And of your pluralism doesn’t have some limits, then it is just fantasy.

            1. Well, also, cultural boundaries are permeable. There are many different ethnic and cultural groups in America: English, German, Scandinavian, African, Italian, Jewish, etc., and they all have differences in culture. Food, as a prime example, but as Americans, they have more in common with one another than they do with their kinfolk who stayed behind in the Old World.

      2. I’ve often said this, but I don’t think most SJW types realize it. The sort of shit they are doing in the USA, they will be laughed the fuck out of some other countries. I mean not only first world problem reasons, but because it’s fucking lunacy that just sprung up here. It actually does not even exist in other places. Do they realize that some other languages are completely built around the gender of words? You literally cannot say anything in any Latin romance language without inflecting a gender preference on words. Do they think they can actually force other cultures to rethink their entire culture?

        1. Do they think they can actually force other cultures to rethink their entire culture?

          Yes.

          My evidence – they think they can force this culture to rethink its entire culture.

          1. All this country need is more TOP. MEN.

            I’m sorry, more TOP. FAUNA.

        2. Do they think they can actually force other cultures to rethink their entire culture?

          Yes, I believe many of them believe exactly that.

          Once they have done purifying American culture, of course.

          “Doing right ain’t got no end.”

          1. I’ll enjoy seeing them get laughed at and ridiculed the way they deserve to be here.

      3. SJWs aren’t anti-multicultural, so much as they’re really against “cultural appropriation”, which too many define as simply “white people doing non-white stuff”.

    3. You’re right, Johnnie, social justice is inherently meddling in others’ shit, but IMHO the state is always a player in their lineup as well.

      Freedom for me, but not for thee – SJW

  12. “Libertarians who are not Cultural Libertarians would argue that the only suppression of speech and expression that is unacceptable is suppression that is perpetrated by the state,”

    As libertarians, I think that’s correct. If you pursue the goal of eliminating non-state suppression of speech, you aren’t really doing that as a libertarian. It can be consistent with your libertarianism so long as you don’t call for the state to penalize it, but its not really a libertarian goal, IMO. I see libertarianism fairly narrowly – rolling back the size and scope of the state. There are other laudable goals out there, but those aren’t really libertarian goals, per se, to me.

    1. I disagree. I think suppression of free speech at a rented venue is wrong. Or suppression by forcibly coming between a speaker and an interested subject who aren’t infringing on anybody else’s property.

      But I know a lot of people cheered when a Trump speech at a rented venue got shit down by people who refused to leave when asked by the organizers.

      1. I agree that its wrong. And I think we have the libertarian tools to deal with it (property rights and trespassing).

        But, my definition of libertarian is pretty narrowly focussed on the size and scope of the state. If its not the state suppression speech at a rented venue, then its not a libertarian problem to me unless the state is preventing the organizer/property owner from solving the problem themselves.

        What concerns me about treating violations of rights by private parties as a libertarian problem is that it starts to make rights sound like positive rights. Your free speech rights, to me, are the right to speak without the government interfering. If your free speech rights start to include the “right to be heard”, now its morphing into a positive right. And positive rights are not liberty’s friend. It gets messy because the government is supposed to protect your rights against interference by private parties, as well, and I don’t have a pithy way to separate “I have the right to speak that should be protected by the government” from “the government should insure that I am heard”.

        1. and I don’t have a pithy way to separate “I have the right to speak that should be protected by the government” from “the government should insure that I am heard”.

          Property rights should provide all the pith you need.

      2. got shit down by people who refused

        Deliberate or John-o? In either case, well played, sir.

      3. But I know a lot of people cheered when a Trump speech at a rented venue got shit down by people who refused to leave when asked by the organizers.

        Regardless of whether the (non-government) heckler’s veto is an issue of free speech, there’s no doubt that they’re trespassers in this scenario. By my reckoning, trespassers in the act of trespassing don’t have free speech or at the very least cannot possibly hide behind the right to free speech to justify trespassing.

    2. I see libertarianism fairly narrowly

      Well, Nick Gillespie wants to ensure libertarianism has lots and lots of scope creep. Scope creep is always good, right?

    3. I see libertarianism fairly narrowly – rolling back the size and scope of the state. There are other laudable goals out there, but those aren’t really libertarian goals, per se, to me.

      It always comes down to “thick” vs. “thin”, doesn’t it?

      1. It really does. Its an issue/distinction that should be highlighted and discussed more, I think.

    4. Without a culture of liberty one cannot have a libertarian polity.

  13. Lucy!

    *swoons*

    1. Don’t get too excited. Odds are it’s one of her doubles.

  14. But how would the interns of Milo Yiannopoulos describe the meaning of being a “cultural libertarian”?

  15. Thin crust pizza, circumcised, pothead, hates everyone, sarcastic.

    1. Once again your analysis is spot-on.

    2. Isn’t “thin crust pizza” redundant?

      1. Is this some jibe on Crusty’s weight problem?

  16. What the hell is necessarily cultural libertarian about atheism? It is not necessarily inconsisnt but it doesn’t require you to be a cultural libertarian either.

  17. but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole

    You can always get a little muscle over there to remove those people, right?

    1. but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole

      And a trespasser. But we’ll overlook the frequency with which SJWs violate other people’s rights.

  18. I thought we had agreed on libertarian culture: do lots of squats and smoke lots of pot. Having anal sex with freely migrating sex workers from other countries was also tolerated for those not contractually obligated by their spouse from refraining to do so.

    1. Something about cakes food trucks too.

  19. Libertarian? I thought this was a librarian website. I’ve wasted my life.

    1. The lack of discusion of library related topics didn’t clue you in?

      1. Librarians are deeply concerned about regional differences in pizza preference.

      1. The Dewey decimal system is so 19th century. All the cool kids are using the library of congress cataloguing system these days.

  20. it’s actually a term that’s been thrown around by libertarians and conservatives in the media since at least 2001.

  21. “In the end, it’s perfectly consistent to be a cultural libertarian and a social justice warrior when one weeds out the authoritarian strains that exist in both.”

    Is social justice anything but authoritarian at this point?

  22. Here is another way to think about cultural libertarian. Do you think your relationship with someone is entirely defined by their culture or politics such that you cannot have a relationship with them in any aspect if you object to those? So, for example can you shop at the store owned by the guy who hates gays or holds some other view you find objectionable? Are you able to have a strictly business relationship with him and judge him by how well he runs his story and nothing else? If the answer is no, then you are not a cultural libertarian.

    1. “Are you able to have a strictly business relationship with him and judge him by how well he runs his story and nothing else? If the answer is no, then you are not a cultural libertarian.”

      If I answered yes, can I still not be a cultural libertarian?

      1. I think so. I think that is a pretty good definition. You have the ability to separate your views on someone’s culture or life choices from other things that you don’t object to. I don’t think you can be one of these assholes boycotting businesses that do things you don’t like and call yourself a cultural libertarian. You are basing your judgement of someone entirely on your view of their culture. That doesn’t seem very libertarian.

        1. “I don’t think you can be one of these assholes boycotting businesses that do things you don’t like and call yourself a cultural libertarian. You are basing your judgement of someone entirely on your view of their culture. That doesn’t seem very libertarian.”

          We’re missing a golden opportunity here: Thin Cultural Libertarianism vs. Thick Cultural Libertarianism!

          1. “I think that is a pretty good definition. You have the ability to separate your views on someone’s culture or life choices from other things that you don’t object to. I don’t think you can be one of these assholes boycotting businesses that do things you don’t like and call yourself a cultural libertarian. You are basing your judgement of someone entirely on your view of their culture. That doesn’t seem very libertarian.”

            Strangely, many political libertarians (particularly leftish ones) case for a completely free market is based on people not being culturally libertarian (by that definition, anyways). That is, shunning and boycotts and other NAP acceptable forms of social action will make wrong-thinking people go right (or shut down completely).

            1. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If a restaurant wants to put up a sign saying ‘No blacks allowed’, then they should be free to discriminate against who they do business with.

              Likewise I should be free to discriminate who I do business with, and I can choose not to eat there.

            2. I get that, and that’s my gray area. I’m all for freedom of association, but if there’s some dick in my town who won’t sell cakes to white people because he hates them, it would be tough for me to want to shop there and give him my money. He’s free to do that and the state shouldn’t be involved at all, but I’m not sure I want to encourage him by giving him my business.

              On the flip side, cultural engagement can be a powerful force. The recent story about the black guy meeting with KKK leaders, befriending them, and just sort of providing a human face as counterpoint to their nonsense is a powerful anecdote. Maybe you’re better off trying to change them through engagement rather than boycotting.

              1. it would be tough for me to want to shop there and give him my money.

                No one has a right to your money.

                1. HM, that’s correct of course. I meant in the sense of small-town commerce. I’d like to shop there–maybe he’s the best, cheapest, etc, but he’s an asshole. Kind of like how I feel listening to Rage Against the Machine. The biggest bunch of dumbasses to ever pick up instruments, but Zod can they put a song together.

                  I think Inigo’s comment sums it up reasonably well for me.

            3. Yeah, and that would work.

              To answer the original question, I DO NOT care at all what the personal opinions are of someone I am doing business with. And, most likely, I would not even be aware of those opinions. I don’t want to know.

              But it’s a different matter if those opinions are forced on me. Say I walk in, and he says, “I see you’re kinda fashionably dressed. You look like you stepped out of GQ. You ain’t some kinda fag, are ya? We don’t serve your kind here!” Even though I am straight, I would probably take my business elsewhere because I don’t appreciate being accosted by someone who wishes to make money from me.

              By the same token, my own opinion should not matter to them. If there is a sign outside their shop that read, “If you don’t feel the Bern, don’t even bother coming in,” I would probably continue on to one of their competitors.

              I read something in an old magazine once (I think it was Hustler) that said: Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Some of them stink. No one wants to see yours unless specifically asked.”

  23. Ah, navel gazing. The best kind of gazing!

    1. I prefer shoegazing.

      1. The only decent post in this whole clusterfuck.

  24. Cultural libertarians are anti SJW because ‘social justice’ is a Marxist buzzword that represents politically-correct authoritarianism.

    “Actual Justice” is the thing that libertarians care about.

    1. Pan Zagloba’s Rule of Thumb: in any construction involving Social + noun, word “social” can be replaced by “not” ~80% of the time.

      1. I’d say preface the noun with “in” and you come to the actual outcomes.

      2. Sometimes it’s better understood as “shitty” or “evil”.

      3. They have to call it Social Justice, because if they called it Justice, it would mean the opposite.

    2. ALL libertarians are anti SJW because ‘social justice’ is a Marxist buzzword that represents politically-correct authoritarianism.

      FTFY

  25. “”You want to be a Klingon? Great!” wrote Goldberg. “Attend the Church of Satan? Hey man, if that does it for ya, go for it. You want to be a “Buddhist for Jesus”? Sure, mix and match, man; we don’t care. Hell, you can even be an observant Jew, a devout Catholic or a faithful Baptist, or a lifelong heroin addict?they’re all the same, in the eyes of a cultural libertarian.””

    Mmmmm, that’s some good strawmanning Goldberg. I don’t think anyone would argue being a lifelong heroin addict is no worse than being an observant Jew. They’d just argue that you have the right to be a heroin addict. Saying someone should be allowed to be something doesn’t mean that it’s no different from everything else someone is allowed to be. If I say someone should be allowed to be a Neo-Nazi, that doesn’t mean I’m saying being a Neo-Nazi is morally identical to being a charity worker.

    1. You are right. Tolerating does not mean accepting or supporting such. I think though you should be able to separate your objections to one part of their life when dealing with other aspects. So, yeah, being a Neo Nazis is pretty awful. If however a Neo Nazi runs a really good business that you have a reason to patronize, you should be able to put that aside and say “you he sucks and I wouldn’t want to hang around with him but he does a good job at a good price and deserves my business”. To me that is the essence of tolerance.

      1. If the Neo Nazi guy refused to do business with gays and blacks and Jews and such, would you still patronize his establishment?

        1. Depends on whether I want to be torerate those views or not. If I don’t, then no I wouldn’t. If I do, then yes.

          I am not saying intolerance is always bad. It’s not. I am just describing what it looks like If you chose to patrionize such a place, don’t then claim you are intolerant of racism. If refuse to do so, don’t claim you are tolerant of that person. It is a different question which choice is right under those circumstances.

        2. Does the neo nazi feel the need to proselytize? If not, then how am I supposed to know?

          I’m not there for political posturing–I’m there for a widget.

          I’m extremely sure that I do business constantly with people whose political ideas I heartily disagree with. But I’m not there for politics–I’m there for stuff.

          If anyone decides they need to make my shopping trip political in a way I don’t like, I take my business elsewhere.

    2. Maybe to Goldberg being a Klingon, Satanist, Buddhist for Jesus, Jew, Catholic, Baptist, or heroin addict are all the same?

  26. Going to a feminist rally and holding up signs saying “there is no rape culture” may seem edgy when you’re 20, but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole, not a radical for free expression.

    “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act really mean thing that should not be done.”
    Orwell as interpreted by ENB.

    For the record – SlutWalk: Not a private event. Public event. Whole point of it. And no, when you make a public rally in a public square in front of public gallery, you don’t get to whine when other people bring signs that disagree. And if you rip up the sign – YOU ARE THE ASSHOLE.

    Seriously, of all the dumb shit you could have found (Milo founded his career on dumb shit, FFS), you pick Lauren Southern telling idiots that they are lying as an example of a thing not to do?

    1. Reason writers don’t agree with leftists but they like them and think they are well meaning. It is an epic blind spot.

    2. “Going to a feminist rally and holding up signs saying “there is no rape culture” may seem edgy when you’re 20, but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole, not a radical for free expression.”

      It was a public event where Lauren Southern engaged in a counter protest because she disagreed with the position of the feminists. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Southern did in that instance. The fact that the feminists couldn’t handle disagreement and reacted with shrieking hysteria wasn’t Southern’s fault.

      She was about 10,000,000 times more courteous than the people who protest Trump rallies.

      1. Yes, but Trump is evil while social justice goals are noble, you see, so that’s all for the greater good.

    3. @Pan Zagloba: Thank you for posting that. I’m only somewhat familiar with Southern and Milo, but I’ve watched the SlutWalk videos, and you pretty much nailed my thoughts about it (and about ENB’s bitching about it).

  27. I’ve grown increasingly annoyed with ‘cultural’ libertarians aka civil libertarians. Bill Maher basically falls under that label. At least in his own head.

    These are people who will rant and rave often times about collectivizing people when attacking SJW types, but then turn around to do the same thing the second its economics. It’s mostly white male ‘liberals’ of the Bush era coming of age and realizing that they are being demonized by their former allies for their white maleness. So they lash out of and pretend to have great principles on their side. Sargon of Akkad being a great example.

    1. I don’t know, I think Sargon’s moved really far to the right compared to where he used to be because of all the shit he’s seen from leftists. I didn’t watch many of his videos for a few months, and since I started watching them again I’ve noticed his newer work is much more vicious towards some of these dumbass college leftists.

      He basically hangs out with Milo, Lauren Southern, and a bunch of right-wing youtubers and I can’t help but feel they’re rubbing off on him.

      1. They are and are not. He adopted the word “regressives” for SJWs to differentiate them from “liberals”, but he still is a leftist. For example, I believe his preferred candidate in US election is Sanders, and he put out a long video arguing against voting for Conservatives in UK. It’s just that he’s a leftist in the mold of Atlee and Bevin – not a Marxist, interested in genuinely benefiting the working class, a British (but not English) patriot who is willing to extend Britishness to anyone regardless of their birth country and in favor of open, honest debate. I don’t agree with Sargon, but I wish he was the face of modern Labour Party, for example (even if he is a Corbyn fan).

        And you should check out him reading and commenting on Hayek’s exhortation to the English. It’s my favorite video of his by a mile.

        1. Jeremy Corbyn is an ideological Marxist-Leninist. Any proponent of his is a degenerate.

        2. Sargon’s not a leftist.

          He’s just had it ingrained in him so deeply that right is bad that he cannot call himself anything that might lead to the self awareness that his views fall more towards the right side of the spectrum.

          It’s a problem that many who were fed leftism with their mothers milk have.

          There just has to be a good left–there just has to!

          But there isn’t.

  28. What is more libertarian than labeling and collectivizing both myself and others?

    CHOOSE SIDES!

  29. It’s pretty hard to find people who like the whole Bill of Rights. Most people treat it like an Applebee’s pick 2 for $20.

  30. Once again, this quote is apt here:

    “Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

    … or, to paraphrase Stealer’s Wheel: authoritarians to the left of me, authoritarians to the right.

    Those who have no desire to “want people to be controlled” make more comfortable neighbors.

    ALL social justice warriors want (other) people to be controlled. By definition. (the “warriors” part)
    If so-called cultural libertarians want to poke them, I have no problem with that. It can be amusing.

  31. On a side note, I think it’s great when SJWs try to disrupt meetings and shout people down. It shows they are desperate. Plus, there’s a nice Streisand effect of people becoming intrigued by the taboo idea.

    1. My response to such behavior would be to entertain their stupid and disruptive antics calmly, which would likely provoke a violent reaction from them after a length of time, since they hate being ignored, or failing to anger their victims.

      Once that occurs, respond with brutal force, and teach them manners thusly.

      1. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
        –Malcolm X

        1. God bless the Colt 1911.

          1. God made men, Col. Colt made them equal.

      2. It’s only fun and games because we still have some semblance of a rule of law. If they really attacked people they would go to jail. They know this and thus just act like assholes. If that ever isn’t true and they realize it, it will get very serious.

        Don’t be fooled. Those people are fanatics who would happily do violence against you if they thought they could get away with it.

        1. I know. Progressives are inherent aggressors. In places where free men still arm themselves, their horseshit is rarer. I wonder why.

      3. My response to such behavior would be to entertain their stupid and disruptive antics calmly,

        Even when their antics are designed to go on indefinitely and shut down your event?

  32. yay – more culture wars. Just what I needed, to be browbeaten, chastised, and attacked for not toeing some line; a line that is forever changing.

    1. I see someone is not on my side. GET HIM, TEAM!

  33. Where they fail is by turning off more people in the process than they win over, delighting in the kinds of tactics and stunts that provoke but little else.

    What’s more libertarian than that?

    1. Lamely inserting a certain phrase into every comment thread?

      1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting increasingly abstract.

      2. Which one… “fuck off slaver”, “ROADDZZZ”, “You know who else [insert action here]” or some combination of “Mexican buttsex”?

  34. So is ENB aiming for that Huffpo position. She supported public accommodation laws before joining Reason. Has she changed her mind or is just willing to slum it? Also Welch and Gillespie support those laws too so perhaps she is a good fit for Reason.

  35. I’m not sure if I’m a cultural libertarian or not, but I sure love to jeer at SJWs. Then again, I also love to jeer at SoCons.
    It’s fun because they are so damn stupid, but without any probable mental deficit that would make laughing at them in poor taste.

    This said, I also recognize that members of those groups are free to jeer at me.

    Back in kindergarten I learned that “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Amazingly, the lesson stuck.

    These days, unfortunately, that children’s axiom has long been forgotten, and trying to revive it would probably be triggering to a great many people.

  36. Reason should change its name to Der Morgen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Morgen

  37. Kevin Glass, policy director for the Franklin Center, calls the cultural libertarianism of today “warmed over 90s-style anti-politcal correctness in a new suit.”

    Interesting, considering the 90s was PC v1.0, and we’re now at the rabid, high-vibration, perfect harmonic peak of PC 2.0. So I suppose that during these ebbs and tides, you’ll see opposition ebb and tide with it.

    1. And he says that like its a bad thing.

      At least we’re wearing new clothes.

  38. Again and again, these cultural libertarians seem aghast at the idea that there could be any social consequences at all based on things they say

    What a minute when people said such things about Charlie Hebdo didn’t Reason find that terrible and awful?

    “Freedom of choice on cultural issues….only extends to those with whom they agree on cultural issues.

    UM doesn’t ENB believe that too?

    1. Again and again, these cultural libertarians seem aghast at the idea that there could be any social consequences at all based on things they say

      What a minute when people said such things about Charlie Hebdo didn’t Reason find that terrible and awful?

      Yes, it’s terribl and awful when the social consequence is dying in a hail of bullets with the shrill ululation of “Allahu Akbar” as the last thing you ever hear.

      1. Apparently, being attacked and murdered by a group of fanatical terrorists is comparable to, say, social chastisement and ostracism on Facebook.

        Yeah.

      2. https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..rlie-hebdo

        It was bad when he said this:

        Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility,” he lectured. “At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious.”

        1. “At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious.”

          Even at that point, it is far superior to the alternative. So fuck off, slaver.

  39. I call BS.

    Willingly participating in a protest against nonexistent “rape culture” is what makes you an asshole.

    Holding up a sign saying “There is no rape culture” is calling out the assholes for exactly what they are.

    There is no polite way to fend off SJW idiocy. That just gets you shouted down by the idiots.

    The best way to fight them, then, is with incongruity and humor.

    Admittedly the humor is sometimes crude, but so be it.

    Let SJWs be seen for the buffoons they are. Let them suffer the humiliation they try to visit upon others.

  40. This doesn’t seem that complicated to me. There are “economic” libertarians and “social” or “cultural” libertarians. Everything that is not economic is cultural. Cultural libertarians believe that you should be free to possess guns, drugs, and pornography. You should be able to marry whomever you want. You should be able to cross any state or national borders without consequences. You have the right to pursue whatever medical care you desire, including the right to take any medications you think will help you regardless of government approval, as long as you pay for it.

    Issues that start to mix culture with economics include the right to engage in business with whomever you want regardless of what country you live in, what color you are, or your religious preferences. That includes the corollary right to refuse to do business with whomever for the same reasons. You have the right to pursue whatever education you wish, but don’t have the right to have other people pay for it. You also have the right to engage in whatever business you choose without getting permission from government first.

    You have the right to produce whatever speech or art you wish, and to express whatever opinions you wish. But you don’t have the right to have that speech subsidized, and you will not be immune to social opprobrium short of government restrictions. Other people are free to shun you if they are offended by you, but they cannot censor you.

    1. If that is what it is, please sign me up.

    2. It bothers me when I see “cultural libertarians” call the central bank a private bank.

      And why are these people all white? Because they’re libertarians? You’re honestly calling the central bank a private bank and can’t find any dark skin to, at least, stand with you on that? No… that’s not libertarian. If you’re a libertarian, you would learn to appeal to left as well as right. Because both sides have their merits. These guys want to impose social values on others, fuck them, they don’t know shit. They’re the same as those SJW’s. Racist, and misogynist.

      At least be around some rich, self made, white people. So then I have some proof that you attract productive sense into your life.

      I knew kids who tried worshiping Hitler pulling this same shit. These cult-libs aren’t any different from these rednecks here. In fact, they probably sympathize with them!

    3. But both of those things are part of the DEFINITION of being “libertarian”.

      So saying “cultural libertarian” makes no sense. In the context you give, it just means ACTUALLY culturally liberal, as opposed to the fake kind of cultural liberalism many Leftists espouse.

      It’s a form of double-speak that really just doesn’t work.

      If you are already libertarian (upper- or lower-case “L”), then this already applies to you, and there’s no need for the extra label which confuses the issue.

      In summary, “cultural libertarians” are culturally liberal. But all libertarians are culturally liberal, or by definition they aren’t libertarians. Many on the Left are (or at least used to be) culturally liberal. “Cultural libertarian” is just an unnecessary, redundant label. And I for one object to this bastardization of an otherwise well-understood term.

      Rather than redundantly and confusingly label the real (and already) cultural liberals, maybe more effort should be made to call out the fake cultural liberals for what they really are.

  41. At the same time, liberals let cultural power go to their heads and, absent the occasional issue convergence (ending marijuana prohibition or the ban on same-sex marriage), started parting from “cultural libertarianism” in many meaningful ways.

    Even ending marijuana prohibition came with caveats on the left. “ending prohibition” came packaged with a heavy-handed regulatory scheme– similar to what many localities did after Prohibition– that puts the state squarely in control of the hows, whens and whys in the sale and consumption of marijuana products.

    I’m not saying it’s worse than it was, but the idea that you can “get the government out” of, well, anything is an utterly foreign concept to the left.

    1. “Even ending marijuana prohibition came with caveats on the left. “ending prohibition” came packaged with a heavy-handed regulatory scheme”

      I actually heard some leftist drug policy pundit interviewed on the radio saying that pot must be fully legalized immediately so as to capture all that wonderful tax money that is now going into the dirty pockets of criminals.

      I was shouting at the radio, “No you, idiot! It should be legal because government has no right to dictate what adults can and can’t put into their bodies of their own free will. It’s none of their damn business.”

      Sadly, even when these people are on side in terms of wanting the same results (ending the drug war), it’s for the wrong reasons –it’s always about growing the government with them.

      1. As long as mj is taxed like similar products, I’m ok with it. The revenue will be huge since mj is the largest cash crop in the US. So it fulfills the desire for revenue and freedom.

    2. As well as being horrified that marijuana providers might turn into a big business with mass production.

  42. “In the end, it’s perfectly consistent to be a cultural libertarian and a social justice warrior when one weeds out the authoritarian strains that exist in both.”

    Sure. It would be nice if I could get a non free-floating, shifting definition of “social justice” from a self-proclaimed social justice warrior that doesn’t somehow end in firing squads and gulags.

    1. The issue is that individuals who identify themselves as social justice warriors are invariably totalitarian leftists, and have absolutely no interest in effecting actual justice.

      1. I would concede that in their mind, justice is punishing your enemies and forcing certain classes of disfavored people into a kind of soft-slavery to lift and fluff the lifestyle of other favored groups.

        It’s certainly not justice to me, but they’ve made it pretty clear it’s justice to them.

        1. They’re suffering from a collective, ideological sort of otherworldly retardation, or dementia.

        2. Yeah, its “justice”, just like a person with a dick is a “woman”.

          [ducks, runs]

  43. “In the end, it’s perfectly consistent to be a cultural libertarian and a social justice warrior when one weeds out the authoritarian strains that exist in both.”

    What sort of thing can libertarians take from the SJWs except in the most vaguest of terms? For example a libertarian and a SJW can both support “economic justice” in only very vague terms.

  44. “I want to be an asshole without disapprobation.”
    *snort* HA, priceless.

    As much as I love being a snarky asshole, I’ve had to learn to pick up on hints that tell me when it’s time to back off… mostly because I like being a decent human being (if nothing else). Yet at the same time I also think the other party having the liberty to just walk away and ignore me is key.

  45. Even for ENB this is impressively stupid. But I completely lost it at this point:

    In this environment, the cultural libertarianism of Bokhari, Southern, et al is a perfect product of its time. It exists in service not of Hayekian principles but for pageviews and lulz.

    Coming from the 24/7 Trump show, Buzzfeed-lite “…and that’s not okay” headline generator, “look at muh profanity” style guide, bumper sticker sloganeering YouTube tranny bathroom controversy videography of Reason. What do the kids say these days? ROFLMAO?

    1. Roflmao? Was he some commie I missed?

    2. It exists in service not of Hayekian principles but for pageviews and lulz.

      Elizabeth’s Hayekian bona-fides are well established, by contrast

      If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with. You have the right to not go into business, to choose a profession that will allow you to never deal with whomever it is you don’t want to deal with; you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway.

      “”Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality – an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order.””
      -Friedrich August von Hayek

  46. The “forces of choice vs. forces of control” bit is interesting too. I might be completely missing the point, but hell, just seeing what people buy and don’t buy can tell you a lot about a cultural situation. What’s especially funny is when you notice some interesting incongruities between what people advocate on the internet and then what they buy. Like that one friend who goes on and on about hating feeling like society is always forcing them to be submissive….but then it just gets weird when you hear them say that because you know what they have sitting on the shelf in their bedroom closet. *shakes head*
    Neeee, aber wahrscheinlich denn du bist, was du isst? 😛

  47. Btw, ENB is a stupid cunt.

    There, I guess I’m a cultural libertarian now.

  48. So Weigel-in-drag and, by extension, Reason now wants to engage in vigorous chin-tugging about being provocative and trolling people they disagree with? Good thing none of THAT happens at HnR, right?

    People react to the phrase “social justice” because it is invariably used by the left. No one but leftists ever prattles on about social justice. No one who believes in individual liberty frames it through the term social justice. Put simply, social justice is nothing more than a way for the left to attempt to couch their illiberal desire to beat their ideological opponents into submission in noble-sounded language. It’s a hammer to beat people over the head and mold them into their approved opinions and beliefs.

    Hurry up and get that job with Vox/Slate/The Atlantic already. Christ.

  49. I mean, this sentence:

    “Sure, “social justice” may be a heated and hated term today, but libertarians certainly aren’t opposed to social justice goals offhand. ”

    is utter bullshit. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it simply accepts at face value the supposed good intentions of the proggies who use the phrase. I’m absolutely opposed to “social justice goals” because they always incorporate collectivism and the expansion of state power.

    1. Social justice is not actual justice, good enough reason for me to oppose it.

      It’s the arbitrary rule of moral busybodies.

  50. It’s interesting that opponents of libertarianism so enjoy framing it as if it were simply nihilism, when living with less regulation actually requires more thought about what is right and wrong.

  51. …the “arrogant nihilism” of Nick Gillespie and former Reason editor Virginia Postrel

    Fucking nihilists …Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, at least it’s an ethos.

    1. Uli? He doesn’t care about anything. He’s a nihilist.

      -Ah, that must be exhausting.

  52. So how does this square with Reason’s defenses of offensive comedy?

    1. Are you talking about Hot Tub Time Machine?

  53. Is this just a belabored way of Elizabeth saying, “I DONT LIKE BREITBART PEOPLE”?

    1. I thought it was “Please, oh please keep inviting me to the Ruling Class cocktail parties. I’ll do anything!”

      1. I think the cocktail-party metaphor has become strained to meaninglessness.

        I think its maybe just clearer to ask, =

        Is the idea here that Reason magazine needs to distance itself from people who share many basic, core-libertarian views, in order to remain congenial with the people who share absolutely none of them?

        1. Yes, I think that paints the picture rather well. Their friends and professional colleagues are largely of the left, and they often share disdain for the yokels. In general, at least in my experience, disagreement with friends and acquaintances to the right rarely leads to shunning and exile. Disagreement with friends to the left quite often leads to being cut off permanently. I had one of my closest and oldest friends abruptly cut me out of her life because I wouldn’t parrot her increasingly unhinged rants about Chik Fil A and told her I had no intention of boycotting anyone.

          1. the yokels

            FWIW, i’ve never thought that term was a catch-all for everything not-cosmo, so much as a specific term for the more… let’s say, This Kind of Libertarian…. which isn’t any more ‘socially conservative’ but is just a more-rural POV on libertarianism which prioritizes different things

            its definitely not something that encompasses all of the Milo-esque ‘alt-right’ which is more focused on being a culture-war bugbear to progressives. Then again, i’m not someone who uses the term sincerely all that often, so i don’t know how other people see it.

            1. Thanks for linking that. I haven’t watched any of his other videos yet, but basing judgement on that introduction, James Yeager is awesome in my book. He seems to get the essence of what it means to be libertarian imo.

              I think the LP needs people like him speaking on their behalf. A simple, sensible message, delivered with about 100 times more charisma than your average politician. Get that kind of thing on the air during election season, and get a spot in the debates, and maybe the LP would actually gain some ground.

        2. No. RTFA and comprehend it this time.

  54. Going to a feminist rally and holding up signs saying “there is no rape culture” may seem edgy when you’re 20, but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole, not a radical for free expression.

    Cucktarian Manifesto: have all the libertarian beliefs you want, but actually *fighting back* against the lies of the Progressive Theocracy makes you an asshole.

    1. Cultural Libertarian:
      Someone who believes in fighting back against the Progressive Theocracy. Someone who, when commanded to “shut up!”, says it again, twice as loud.

      1. Fighting back by…doing the same things. Have fun with that.

    2. Thanks for marking yourself as a complete retard by using the term ‘cuck’.

  55. Jesus was a cultural liberation and some say the original beatnik or OB.
    Jesus had long hair and a goatee, wore a long robe and sandals.
    He even lay with the bad girls and smoked herb.
    All Hail the OB!

  56. 1) WTF is with the CNN-ish twitterboxes or whatever the hell they are called. This is the most poorly laid out POC that I’ve seen here. (But I’ll still make my annual donation – but please…. simple text is enough!)

    2) WTF “Cultural Libertarian”? I’ve read this, and I still don’t know. A libertarian is basically someone who says “leave me the heck alone, and I’ll leave you alone”. … on all matters.

  57. Good article, but the last paragraph bugs me. It reflects a lack of understanding of how proggies pervert language and tear out objectivity to promote their narratives. ‘Social Justice’ is a poison that must be called out as such.

    Otherwise, completely accurate. ‘Cultural libertarians’ are too often alt-right creeps who want to be seen as cool.

    1. Agreed. Personally, I can’t decide who I dislike more, progs/SJWs, socons, or alt-right trolls.

      Though, I have to admit that the trolling is occasionally funny.

      For example: Feminism or Cancer?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpdCCOgSJao

  58. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  59. Dusty microscopes in the basement discussing the fucking smudge on a petri dish stored bottom shelf in a lab with boarded windows and rusty faucets.

    1. HEEEEESSSS BAAAAAACK.

    2. It’s all about whether it is absolute anarchy or do-the-least-harmism/minarchy. I’m coming around to the idea that at least 50% of the populace are fucking idiots. Do the least harm-ism can maybe appease them if couched in the right language. I’m not 100% convinced of the appeasement doctrine, but I do know that anarchism scares the fuck out of those idiots(unless, of course, they are the idiots who believe anarchy means destroying everything). From a purely man-has-a-right-to-defend-himself-ism/anarchism perspective, then fuck the idiots. If they want to rise up, let them be laid to waste by the smarter people who have better technology/weapons. It’s a brutal perspective, but more moral than appeasing the morons from a purely individualistic perspective. If you appease the morons, you are giving up a part of yourself to support them. Appeasement is the long term view of things; in one’s one lifetime, it is much better to go along and get along rather than stand for anything. We are each but a speck of dust in the whole of the cosmos. Even when humanity has technology to lay waste to the morons without impugnity, they will probably say “fuck it” and soar off into the ether and let the morons fight amongst themselves for king of the wastelands.

      1. Appeasement is the long term view of things

        I mean this in the long term view of one’s own life. Because, if you don’t appease in the short term, your life is in far more danger.

  60. I think that, theoretically, libertarians have more in common with liberals than conservatives: libertarianism and liberalism share the common essential idea of individual liberty. The exaltation of individual liberty animates everything that liberals and libertarians strive for, in contrast to conservatives, who seek to conserve a “traditional,” “real American” lifestyle at the expense of others. The big break between liberals and libertarians is social justice, with its two lobes, poverty and identity (i.e. identity as race, gender, religion, etc) – with honorable mentions to climate change and guns. What liberals see as a “do-nothing attitude” toward social justice, libertarians see as a reasonable leery-ness about anything that might lead to the totalitarianism of the 20th century. Certain bits of rhetoric exacerbate the disconnection: liberals are annoyed that libertarians seem to fail to acknowledge the problems of social injustice, and libertarians are annoyed that liberals cast the “do-nothing attitude” as “disdainful of the destitute,” or worse, “racist/sexist.” Liberals and libertarians agree on many, many things though! Privacy over security, dislike of warfare, free expression over censorship, liberty regarding sex (porn, sex work, queer sexuality, etc.), liberty regarding drugs, disdain for Christian dominionism, and more.

    1. Privacy over security, dislike of warfare, free expression over censorship, liberty regarding sex (porn, sex work, queer sexuality, etc.), liberty regarding drugs, disdain for Christian dominionism, and more.

      Modern Liberals(in the american sense) believe these things for sure? Modern Liberals are all about invading privacy for security because they have to stop “hate groups!”. They are all about welfare. They are all about censorship. They are even into censoring porn if the porn is BDSM, because womyn can’t consent to that(or whatever). They hate drugs because they harm people physically. They are all into “healthy living!”. It is true that they hate Christianity, unless practiced by minorities and different from mainstream white denominations.

  61. It’s probably my hatred of SJW bullshit, but this article rubs me the wrong way. At least cultural libertarians are actually pushing back against the lunacy. Robby Soave here at Reason does a good job highlighting the anti-liberty activities of the modern Left, and I appreciate that, but it’ll take more than preaching to the choir to restore some semblance of cultural sanity.

    Despite some of the idiocy masquerading under its banner, GamerGate (associated to some degree with cultural libertarianism) is one of the more successful examples of cultural pushback against the regressive left that I can bring to mind. Damn near the entire weight of the mainstream media against them and vast numbers of gamers still said, “No, fuck *you*.” As much disdain as some of us might have for social media, we need to win these kind of battles, too, if we want liberty to thrive.

  62. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  63. I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7179 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site….

    +++++++++++ http://www.MaxPost30.com

  64. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  65. Nathan . if you think Gloria `s posting is astonishing… yesterday I bought a brand new Land Rover Defender after bringing in $8648 this-past/5 weeks and even more than 10-k this past munth . with-out any question its the most-rewarding I have ever done . I actually started five months/ago and right away started making a cool more than $85… per/hr .
    try here ??? http://www.ny-reports.com

  66. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  67. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  68. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  69. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  70. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  71. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.