MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Alt-Right Leader Richard Spencer Crashed a Student Libertarian Conference and Was Shunned

The International Students for Liberty Conference is no place for racial collectivism.

SpencerJeff Malet Photography/NewscomOn Saturday, alt-right leader Richard Spencer crashed the 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference at a hotel in Washington, D.C. After quarreling with conference attendees, he left the premises.

Spencer, a self-declared white nationalist who believes the U.S. is losing its white identity, had no business attending a gathering of libertarian students, and conference organizers had every right to eject him. Indeed, their decision to do so was a valid exercise of libertarian principles in action.

I attended the conference, along with several other Reason staffers. The Reason Foundation is a co-sponsor of ISFLC, and hosted several events during the conference. One of those events, a panel discussion about sex trafficking featuring Reason Associate Editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Director of Criminal Justice Reform Lauren Krisai, unfolded at roughly the same time as Spencer's unsolicited visit. I was in the audience at that event, and did not cross paths with Spencer.

But it's clear from video footage that Spencer set himself up in the bar of the hotel—the Marriott Wardman in Woodley Park—and attempted to host an unscheduled and unwanted conversation about his despicable views. To be absolutely clear: Spencer was not welcome at the hotel and had not been invited to participate in ISFLC.

"We did not invite Mr. Spencer," said SFL CEO Wolf von Laer in a statement. "We reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology."

Eventually, Jeffrey Tucker—an influential libertarian thinker—confronted Spencer and made clear to the alt-right provocateur that he "did not belong" at ISFLC. Some shouting ensued, and hotel staff intervened. Shortly thereafter, Spencer left.

It's not completely clear whether Spencer departed of his own accord: he seems to think he was forced to leave, while others say he asked security to see him out safely, even though he was in no danger. But it hardly matters: the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

Spencer has attempted to wring as much publicity from the incident as possible—he tweeted about it no fewer than 40 times, by my count. In his mind, libertarians are "lolbertarians" who need to "accept the reality of race" and get serious about "white replacement." To the extent that his only goal in life is to garner more attention for his fringe worldview, I suppose the stunt was a success—here I am writing about it. Congrats to you, guy who thinks "the United States is a European country."

In any case, the incident should make abundantly clear that the alt-right's racism is incompatible with the principles of a free society. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left's.

Spencer is entitled to broadcast his vile opinions, and to make equal use of public resources. He should not be attacked on the street, or anywhere else. But no private actor is required to give him a platform—otherwise, property rights would cease to matter.

ISFLC, an organization that works tirelessly to support the cause of liberty all over the world—not just for white American college students—handled the matter correctly, in my view.

Disclaimer: I am a friend of Students for Liberty, and won the organization's 2016 Alumni of the Year Award.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

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.

  • SIV||

    Cucker seemed fine with the racial collectivism back when he was penning the Ron Paul newsletters.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    You know well that Tucker didn't write those newletters, SIV. You've been hating on Tucker ever since he titled his book "Bourbon For Breakfast," rather than your suggested "Cloaca In The Morning."

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Spoiler: That was his single issue vote.

    I kid. I have no idea what his issues are.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    His single issue is MAGA (Make Alektrophilia a Gray Area)

  • SIV||

    an unscheduled and unwanted conversation

    Lol!

    Are libertarians going to form a black bloc brigade now?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    That is yet another quote from this article that does not match the video that Robby linked to.

    Maybe he wrote all this without any source material?

  • juris imprudent||

    Robby dear boy, no one remotely familiar with libertarian ethos would have the slightest confusion as to where Spencer stands in relation to libertarianism. So who exactly is the intended audience of this piece?

  • Cyto||

    Probably the same audience that sought to conflate the tiny "alt-right" conference after the election with "Trump supporters"

    They are continually trying to associate all who oppose them with racism and other nasty -ism words. So whenever one of their sort does a drive-by we should disavow their views in the strongest terms, and not allowing them to use a libertarian event as a platform is definitely part of this.

  • Free Society||

    We've got to out-left the left so they know we're not meanies.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "Weenies, not Meanies."

  • Robert||

    Or the same audience who thought LaRouche was a leading figure in the libertarian movement. Remember that? Hasn't come up in 20 yrs. AFAICT.

  • Free Society||

    Funny you should say that. LaRouche PAC people have been going after Ron Paul donors. I have two friends who are fairly wealthy that donated substantial sums to Ron Paul's presidential and congressional campaigns and both of them get periodic visits and phone calls from LaRouche people selling some of the weirdest Utopian fantasies; a great system of canals to connect the country and green the the Mojave desert, nationalization of industries, subsidized mineral extraction et cetera. As far as (genuinely) fascist economics go, those guys are it.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    LaRouchebags are fucking hilarious.

    Funniest place they ever cropped up was in the UN Cyberviolence Report. No, not as a "hate group" or anything like that. As fucking reliable source. On videogames programming kiddies to be killers.

    I wish I were making that shit up.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Those LaRouche Democrats are a trip. I got roughly the same pitch on the Mall in DC from one of them. After they described their massive public works projects (I swear Newt Gingrich merely changed the setting for his to the Moon to avoid a copyright battle and try for the Sci Fi vote at the same time) I said "So, it is just National Socialism?"

    I could not believe that the guy in front of the Obama/Hitler sign had to take a beat or three to respond. Figured he must have heard it all the time, but no he denied national socialism after some stammering, but could not tell me the difference between LaRouche programs and FDR/Mussolini/Hitler/Clinton/Nixon etc.

  • Robert||

    I first heard of them when I was an undergrad at Columbia U. 45 yrs. ago. That was their base of ops. "Lyn Marcus" et al.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    So who exactly is the intended audience of this piece?

    The same fucktards who already lump libertarians (and anyone to the right of Stalin for that matter) in with the alt-right.

  • Free Society||

    So leftists then.

  • snortlilac@icloud.com||

    I would be considered a leftist, but in no way would I lump libertarians with the alt-right.

  • Free Society||

    You would be considered an anecdote.

  • Cyto||

    If you cloned him then he could be NotData.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    You may be in the minority. It's been my experience that the left loathes libertarians more than the GOP.

  • Sam Haysom||

    This is so so so laughable. The left basically ignores libertarians because is about power and no one is willing to trust libertarians with power.

  • scooby509||

    Yeah, leftist is way too broad as it includes classical liberals. The correct term would be "regressive left."

  • Free Society||

    Yeah, leftist is way too broad as it includes classical liberals

    Most certainly not. Basically every political party on the planet that cites 'classical liberalism' as a guiding ideology is considered right wing. The right-left divide isn't identical in every country but classical liberalism's place on the right side of that continuum is damn near universal.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    And the people those fucktards are trying to convince. Or we could just let them control the Narrative unopposed.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No kidding. But I'll at least give him a little credit for instinctively realizing that he'll be lumped in with Spencer by his liberal "friends" when it becomes convenient for them.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Robby dear boy, no one remotely familiar with libertarian ethos would have the slightest confusion as to where Spencer stands in relation to libertarianism. So who exactly is the intended audience of this piece?

    The various commenters here who are confused as to where Spencer stands in relation to libertarianism?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    That's not all they're confused about.

    What I'm taking away from this so far is that apparently they should have just shut up and baked Spencer a cake.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If Spencer would have demanded Tucker bake him a cake, and Tucker refused? Robby would have been all over that with the same accuracy and detail he displayed in this article.

  • SIV||

    I shouldn't have to say it but I do not agree with t Spencer's racialist views and suspect he's an agent provocateur to boot.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    You mean he's a walking and talking Internet troll.

  • Robert||

    To boot? Fine, he got the boot.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Booted by a bunch of cosmo lolbertarians. What a cuck.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Still not sure why he would even show up there except for attention? Also, not sure why he was given it?

  • Cyto||

    To avoid the inevitable footage on MSNBC showing that libertarians like to listen to white supremacist alt-right leaders, thereby proving that we are all part of the evil, racist, fascist movement.

  • The Grinch||

    They'll smear libertarians that way anyway. They've already started doing that actually.

  • american socialist||

    Yep. They will ignore the shun part

  • The Grinch||

    Exactly. He wouldn't have shown up in the first place if y'all had nothing in common, right? You people were just trying to save face.

  • american socialist||

    Which it amuses me they like to complain they just wants good for the country, to get what is right and the truth for all!

  • XenoZooValentine||

    So, by all means, feed them more ammo to do so. It's good that we have the alt-right to tell us how to politic.

  • The Grinch||

    Just because I don't agree with tossing someone out of a conference and consequently giving them attention doesn't mean I agree with them. And BTW, libertarians, and I consider myself one of them, are considered alt-right by the left and no amount of protestation or logic is going to convince them otherwise.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    And just because some people are going to lie about us, doesn't mean I think it may as well be true.

    For what it's worth, my comment wasn't meant to single you out, my apology if that's how it read.

    And there are certainly tactical considerations even if you have the right to throw someone out. I think the attempt to ban Moldbug from Strangeloop was stupid since it wasn't even a political conference, and his presentation wasn't political. (It was a tech conference and he was talking about operating systems.) I hate the "politization of everything": and I think giving everybody a background check for badthink would be ridiculous, and would make the event a pain in the ass nobody wanted to deal with.

  • The Grinch||

    Thanks for the clarification and don't sweat it. We may not quite agree on how to handle him but it looks like we do agree on the point that Spencer's an ass.

  • AlexInCT||

    "And just because some people are going to lie about us, doesn't mean I think it may as well be true."

    They are not necessarily lying, really. As someone already pointed out, these people consider anyone not left of Stalin/Mao to be hardcore rightwingers.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    In the online sub-cultures, the fascists believe they have common ground with libertarians on their opposition to communism (AntiFa).

    To that point, I believe the justification is "the enemy of my enemy."

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well I understand the concept of "enemy of my enemy" but facist are also our enemy. Lol. I mean even if you find a few issues we might agree on, it's not like we going to team up with a bunch of skinheads with nice haircuts.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    "our" & "We"

    That's your problem right there, chuck.

  • Free Society||

    Well first, libertarians bend over backwards to ally themselves with the radical leftists that are antithetical to basically everything libertarian. Some kind of adherence racial identity is a neutral value regarding libertarianism, one does not impact the other. Secondly, racist ideologies are not necessarily fascist and fascist ideologies are not necessarily racist. That word has already taken on so many meanings in popular usage that it's almost useless now to describe anything with it.

  • Free Society||

    Well first, libertarians bend over backwards to ally themselves with the radical leftists that are antithetical to basically everything libertarian. Some kind of adherence racial identity is a neutral value regarding libertarianism, one does not impact the other. Secondly, racist ideologies are not necessarily fascist and fascist ideologies are not necessarily racist. That word has already taken on so many meanings in popular usage that it's almost useless now to describe anything with it.

  • Cyto||

    The idea in trying to find allies on the left is that there are hard leftists that are motivated primarily by their one civil liberties issue - maybe drugs, maybe gay rights, maybe pornography.... whatever... and they arrive at their progressive, big state theology as a way to enforce the rest of the world to protect and respect that pet issue.

    Libertarianism provides them another way to arrive at their goal - so it is a natural fit.

    Reality has proven a little more resistant to the application of this theory.... but it is still a decent theory. Grab those on the left by their civil liberties boner, and grab the right by their "limited government" hard on.

    We used to toss in the anti-war thing for the left too.... but that's just an ironic joke these days. Maybe after a couple of years of Trump they'll go back to pretending to be anti-war.

  • ||

    "We're" not going to, but some people who like to pretend to be libertarians will tell you we should appeal to nasty white nationalists and fascists. Probably because they're one or the other themselves and too cowardly to admit it. You can see some of those people right here saying "we should TOTALLY embrace all the racists and fascists, because they hate lefties too!" What vile fakes.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Yeah. The progs aren't the only side familiar with entryism.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is... just another enemy. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

  • juris imprudent||

    Ah, there you have it - we are attempting to prove to a bunch of morons that we aren't 'some thing'. What a productive enterprise that must be.

  • obijuan||

    Because it's a free country? If this were some progressive event and libertarians went and took over a booth in the hotel bar I don't see the big deal. It's not like the heckler's veto or anything. The actual conference was uninterrupted, right?

  • ||

    If he was actually buying something and have a chat there wouldn't have been a problem at all as far as the conference is concerned. Instead, they pretended they were a session for the conference, and occupied the bar without buying anything. So they were using the hotel's property to host a non-paying loiterer's attempt to fraudulently represent as part of a hotel-hosted conference organized and attended by paying customers. So yes, it's a free country, which is why the hotel management had every right to kick him out.

  • Free Society||

    Looked like he had some drinks in the video... I guess he brought his drinks from his Wolf's Lair?

  • obijuan||

    If he didn't buy a drink then that changes everything.

  • ||

    It wouldn't change much even if he had. The hotel had every right to kick him out if they wanted. The biggest issue though was pretending to be part of the conference. He had a sign with "ISFLC" on it, and the people who invited him told people it was a "breakout session".

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Yes. If I set up a table in the dealer's room or artist's alley or what have you without permission from the convention organizers, I would expect to be booted out the moment they found out about it.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    XenoZooValentine,

    Apparently Reason and Robby see no difference between what you describe and what Spencer actually did. There is a difference, of course.

    Spencer and his pals sat in a boot in the public bar. Instead of ignoring the covey of jerks, the people from the conference who came into the bar insisted on making a scene of it instead of ignoring the little jerks.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Maybe if they weren't effectively advertising it as part of the conference I would agree, but it seems they went out of their way to do so. I'm pretty sure they wanted that confrontation.

    It wasn't just a bunch of guys that happened to be talking about something at a bar, it was a publicity stunt, presumably to tweak the organizers for not having them. So I guess it worked.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The Spencer gaggle was not in the conference.

    Instead of ignoring the covey of jerks, the people from the conference who came into the bar insisted on making a scene of it instead of ignoring the little jerks.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    They had ever right to kick him out if he was pretending to be part of the conference. And for those that think that it's just the left that lumps these morons in with libertarians, ask yourself this. Does Spencer go to a prog conference and set up a booth?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Chipper,

    The hotel should have every right to kick him out for whatever reason they feel like. But that right is currently infringed.

    The other bar patrons don't have any right to kick anybody off of property that is not theirs and they are not even renting.

    Not sure what booth you are talking about. Spencer sat in an existing booth in a bar. He did not set up a booth in a rented space.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Wasn't it the hotel that kicked him out?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Wasn't it the hotel that kicked him out?

    Neither of Robby's fables indicate that at all.


    It's not completely clear whether Spencer departed of his own accord: he seems to think he was forced to leave, while others say he asked security to see him out safely, even though he was in no danger.

    And the "forced to leave" part Spencer blames on Tucker, not the hotel.

    Gleaning what happened via the text of this article greet you with peril at every turn.

  • Free Society||

    Does Spencer go to a prog conference and set up a booth?

    He has attended numerous prog gatherings to engage the other attendees. I think you can find some of that on his youtube channel.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Still not sure why he would even show up there except for attention?

    Don't strain too hard trying to find a reason why Spencer does anything except to get attention. I think it's safe to assume that's his primary motivation for everything he does. He's a meat-space troll.

  • ||

    I heard the people who invited him were going to invite that Invictous moron, but they couldn't get him, so they asked Spencer instead.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    At least the Invictus moron is entertaining.

  • Robert||

    Gadilla? Libertarian gatherings are notorious for chasing people away.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Haha, good point. For a bunch of people that want the most inclusive society possible, we are not very inclusive.

  • Robert||

    Lessee the score this AM: Bogus parking ticket dismissed, bogus boast by Trump dismissed, bogus libertarian dismissed...yeah, you can tell it's a holiday.

  • straffinrun||

    Very important stuff.

  • american socialist||

    Yes indeed

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    "Pot? This is Kettle. You're black."

  • american socialist||

    In a world where clicks are needed, richard spencer gets unwarranted publicity

    It is kind of a shame random people get all this attention for im not sure what reason (yea clicks i know)

  • eyeroller||

    the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

    OK, but do you really believe that? If they considered members of some race unwelcome, and evicted them all, would you write the same sentence? (Or maybe you're using the word "irksome" to hedge, I can't tell.)

  • AlmightyJB||

    "If they considered members of some race unwelcome, and evicted them all, would you write the same sentence? "

    Yes, but saying someone has a right is not the same as condoning behavior.

  • eyeroller||

    I was asking Robby. I'm sure there are plenty of commenters who would write that sentence.

  • eyeroller||

    the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

    OK, but do you really believe that? If they considered members of some race unwelcome, and evicted them all, would you write the same sentence? (Or maybe you're using the word "irksome" to hedge, I can't tell.)

  • obijuan||

    attempted to host an unscheduled and unwanted conversation

    How do host an unwanted conversation in a hotel bar sitting in a booth? I saw the video. Presumably those in the booth and surrounding the booth wanted the conversation.

  • Free Society||

    So Richard Spencer crashed or attended the event? Same thing if the person is icky eh Robby?

  • obijuan||

    I don't think he did this, but I'm curious what would have happened had he purchased a ticket and simply and quietly attended the event. Kick him out when they realized it was *that* Richard Spencer? Refund the money?

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Sounds to me like he crashed it, hence "uninvited".

  • Free Society||

    So are you saying that the conference attendees must have formal invitations to attend or that Spencer rushed the stage and stole the microphone?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Every event I ever attended had some rules of conduct that could get you booted without a refund. And usually a catch-all rule somewhere that lets them boot somebody based on the sole judgement of the staff. It's not because the organizers love being dicks, it's because that's the only way to deal with idiots accidentally or intentionally disrupting the event in some unforeseen way, since you can't make a rule against everything in advance. Hotels are not a democracy. If the convention is paying for the space, they get to make those rules.

  • Free Society||

    Okay so he attended and was thrown out. I don't see the "crashing" as this was not, to my recollection, an invite-only event.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    OK, let's say your event isn't invite only. It's on private property. You're paying for the use of it for this purpose, even though you're not charging anything to your guests. For the sake of argument: I walk in, start telling people I'm with your organization, preaching white nationalism, and talking shit about you (that guy is such a lolbertarian, amirite ladies?) to everybody who will listen.

    Are you really going to be like "I could just ask (as in tell) him to leave, but that would be wrong."

    Hey, maybe you decide to just think the whole thing is funny and upload me to YouTube later or whatever. But it you were like "enough of this shit" and told me to leave, I wouldn't be surprised.

    And I'd think you were well within your rights to ask troublesome people to leave your space. (OK, hypothetical dickbag me from the mirror universe above might disagree, but you get the idea.)

  • Free Society||

    Are you really going to be like "I could just ask (as in tell) him to leave, but that would be wrong."

    But that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not he "crashed" it. At worst, he showed up and other attendees took umbrage with his attendance and formed a rather angry mob. I'm not impugning anyone's property rights in the slightest. However that doesn't mean the angry villagers come off looking any better for their conduct.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If you watch the video, the one Robby linked to but did not bother telling anybody it was the video of the incident, he and his mates are sitting in a booth in the bar off the hotel lobby.

    Some of the folks from the event were at the bar too.

  • Shinin' Pete||

    My understanding is that he was invited by the Hans Hermann Hoppe caucus.

    In any event, while it's true the conference is a private event, the bar is in the lobby, which, I believe, is known as a "place of public accommodation". Spencer had every bit of a right to be there as the conference attendees.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Spencer should have grabbed the Hoppe posse to help him.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    So Richard Spencer crashed or attended the event?

    It does not appear that way at all from the video.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I (... ) did not cross paths with Spencer.

    Too bad. You could have thrown your cosmotini on him and run away squealing like a little girl.

  • Free Society||

    In any case, the incident should make abundantly clear that the alt-right's racism is incompatible with the principles of a free society. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights.

    So you either think a core tenet of 'racism' is the abolition equal rights or you didn't bother to present a cogent example of the incompatibility you say exists.

    The point is that racism is not necessarily ideological in the first place, it's a pretty broad category of beliefs while libertarianism is much more narrow, Libertarianism doesn't care what gender pronouns you use or whether you think Puerto Ricans are lazy. That is unless you're a left libertarian like Robby Soave who sees libertarianism as a vehicle to signal his virtue. Libertarian philosophy is neither compatible nor incompatible with racism. They dwell on different issues and unless a particular set of racist beliefs stands in opposition to basic libertarian principles like self-ownership and property rights, they don't interact or impact each other.

  • scooby509||

    "So you either think a core tenet of 'racism' is the abolition equal rights"

    Nope, but a core tenet of the *alt right* brand of racism certainly is, because it's white identity politics and identity politics seek to abolish equal rights.

    "The point is that racism is not necessarily ideological in the first place ... Libertarian philosophy is neither compatible nor incompatible with racism. ... "

    You make some excellent points here.

  • Free Society||

    In any case, the incident should make abundantly clear that the alt-right's racism is incompatible with the principles of a free society. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights.

    So you either think a core tenet of 'racism' is the abolition equal rights or you didn't bother to present a cogent example of the incompatibility you say exists.

    The point is that racism is not necessarily ideological in the first place, it's a pretty broad category of beliefs while libertarianism is much more narrow, Libertarianism doesn't care what gender pronouns you use or whether you think Puerto Ricans are lazy. That is unless you're a left libertarian like Robby Soave who sees libertarianism as a vehicle to signal his virtue. Libertarian philosophy is neither compatible nor incompatible with racism. They dwell on different issues and unless a particular set of racist beliefs stands in opposition to basic libertarian principles like self-ownership and property rights, they don't interact or impact each other.

  • straffinrun||

    The yellow and black flag doesn't bring out the highlights in Robby's hair quite like the red and black one does.

  • Free Society||

    That's about as deep as his views come across. I bet he had to look up Jeffrey Tucker on Wikipedia to find out that he's an "influential libertarian thinker".

  • straffinrun||

    The whole thing is absurd. How much father down can you punch than going after Spencer? I mean, really. Rent a meeting room in a hotel, say some shit that 95% of the population will dismiss out of hand and suddenly you're the country's largest problem. Racists are shitty, but we could co exist in my free society.

  • Free Society||

    In theory, a free society could even accommodate socialists so long as they aren't hellbent on using force to reorder society according their vision. Admittedly the "starve-to-death-in-a-commune" socialists are a rare breed but still....

  • Trainer||

    But that's kind of the definition of socialism- you can't have it unless you force everyone else into it.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Si.

  • Free Society||

    But that's kind of the definition of socialism- you can't have it unless you force everyone else into it.

    No, you could have a factory or enterprise organized along socialist lines, where the workers own everything and share in the control of the company. Alas that business model is a recipe for failure, but still it can feasibly be done and fits into the category.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    No, you could have a factory or enterprise organized along socialist lines, where the workers own everything and share in the control of the company.

    Like United Airlines did in the 1980s? I have no idea how that is working out.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I really do wish they'd just do it on their own time and their own dime sometimes. "Guys, go buy a farm, start a commune, have fun for all I care, I don't give a fuck. It's not like nobody ever did that."

    I guess it's just more fun when you do it with other people's money.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I really do wish they'd just do it on their own time and their own dime sometimes.

    They used to sort of do that in the 1970s. Check The Diggers in San Francisco, who left San Francisco and started a commune in the hills. The Farm in middle Tennessee is another example.

    Reason has published some decent articles about these groups.

    Now if the rest would follow, that would be totally groovy.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Free Society,

    I do agree that libertarianism per second is neutral when it comes to belief in racialist ideology since as long as you respect other people's rights to life, liberty and property, you would be acting on libertarian principles. That does not mean, however, that racialist ideologies are compatible with methodological individualism and the notion that each of us is a human individual of will. Racialist ideologies are, instead, deterministic to the point of hilarity.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Stupid autocorrect...

    Per se, not 'per second'

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Agreed that it protects the right of people to believe whatever they want. But a lot of people think that means you always have to give them a platform no matter what they believe, or for that matter what you believe.

  • Free Society||

    I'm not talking racialism, which is an explicitly ideological term. Like I said, you can be a person who thinks Puerto Ricans are lazy and so long as long as you aren't supporting that their rights be violated, those simultaneous beliefs are not contradicting each other, stupid though they may be.

  • brec||

    "We did not invite Mr. Spencer," said SFL CEO Wolf von Laer in a statement. "We reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology. [emphasis added]"

    "Obsolete" is an unfortunate word choice, as it implies that the ideology was at one time valid.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Pursuant to the dictates of the majority, or pursuant to empirical evidence?

    I have a pocket full of Bolsheviks that are saying, "Not so fast, lolbertarians."

  • Ken Shultz||

    Being denounced by white nationalists is high praise.

  • SIV||

    Unfortunately, so is being denounced by Jeffrey Cucker.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    What was the tagline of that Hating Breitbart movie?

    "You can judge a man by his enemies."

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    But it hardly matters: the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property

    It is truly amazing to see those quoted words in this publication at all. How did it get by the editors, much less the filters?

    Oh yea, private property counts when I agree with what you are doing on it.

  • SIV||

    "No public accommodation for fascists"

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Gary Johnson is down with that.

  • ||

    Do you have a filter for Shackford's posts? He has a bona fide gay hard on for private property rights and free association rights.

  • Tak Kak||

    Did the crowd quietly say "un-shun" and "re-shun" between shouts?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I'm imagining it more like Charlie the Unicorn.

    "Shun the unbeliever. Shuuuun. Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun..."

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Wow, this is so strange. I read Robby's article. Then I clicked on his link for the video of the actual incident, shot from two different angles. If you are having trouble finding that link, it is because it is the second to last one in the article and Robby does not point out at all that it is the video of what he is talking about.

    Oddly, the video shows a much different scene than what the article leads one to believe. The stinking alt-righters are told by hotel staff to keep the noise down. The problem is, he has to hush my fellow libertarians (in spirit, I was not there) down repeatedly to tell Spencer and his table of paying kamarade customers to keep the racket down.

    Then everything gets loud again. Jeffrey Tucker, and I am a big fan of his, becomes the loudest of all. He smartly points out to the punks that the only reason they are still in the joint is because of public accommodations laws (paraphrased). The video does not show Spencer eventually leaving.

    Come on guys. The way to deal with these punks is to shun them. Don't gather around and out shout them, you are in a fancy-pants bar for crying out loud. Just ignore them and be about your business.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    As all HnR commenters should have learned by now: The ONLY way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.

    The ISFLC people failed to grasp this essential rule, and came off the worse for it. As loathsome as his ideology is, Spencer's behavior in the video appears more civilized than that of the libertarians.

    Jeffrey Tucker is a great guy, and has been a great spokesman for the liberty movement, but he has come down with a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Sure, Trump is a crass, authoritarian buffoon, but he's no worse than any of the recent occupants to and aspirants to the White House. Tucker's "Trump=Fascism" trope is way over the top. Trump is no more of fascist than Obama or Hillary or McCain. If Trump is a fascist, pretty much everybody in DC is a fascist, and this has been the case for nearly a century.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Right on.

  • Robbie Clark||

    This piece is false, Robby Soave. The hotel bar was not rented by ISFLC and he had every right to be there and was behaving peacefully before a bunch of libertarians (at least one in a mask) started yelling at him and causing a commotion.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    So, I'mma let you finish, but lemme interrupt this shitshow for an interesting anecdote. Or vignette, or something.

    A few years ago there was this SJW group that somehow decided convention security was making them feel unsafe, because whatever. So they started this "backup ribbon project" of volunteers who would help anybody who needed it (possibly regardless of if they wanted it -- I'll get to that) and would wear official looking ribbons to identify themselves.

    I remember following a certain major convention's Facebook page, and when they got wind of it they politely asked (as in told, since it's their convention) everybody to not do that, because they didn't want these unaffiliated people they didn't know being confused for actual convention staff or hotel security, possibly using that trust to pull shenanigans.

    I generally thought this was a good move, since we're talking about people who were pushing much the same "hunting ground" narrative about convention that they're currently pushing about college campuses. And I think the last thing already drama-prone geek conventions need is a bunch of self-appointed white knights playing Save the Princess, puffing their chests out, and asking every girl talking to a boy "is this guy bothering you" and so on.

    Naturally, the Facebook hivemind said the convention was worse than Hitler because they didn't do nothing.

    Thoughts?

  • Shinin' Pete||

    Because no thread featuring Jeffrey Tucker would be complete without....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdYuGl-FEDo

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

  • Noodlez||

    What is this new site?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Look in the am/pm links of last week. Shoot sloopy/swiss/jesse/multiple others an email.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    One of the better Downfall parodies, if you've ever been a HnR lurker or in the commentariat.

  • Greg B.||

    https://youtu.be/v20KQy6XMfU

    OH LOOK! Evidence refuting the author's narrative completely!

    Spencer WAS invited to a breakout session with the Hoppe Caucus in a PUBLIC AREA of the hotel, the bar and restaurant, which was not reserved exclusively for the conference.

    Tucker, and apparently Reason as well, are studying with antifa, LITERAL COMMUNISTS, in shutting down a peaceful meeting of individuals engaging in their right of free association simply because they do not like Spencer's beliefs.

    I'm calling it now. Reason will deny the NAP applies to racists/Nazis/fascists, etc terms of slander before Trump's first term is over.

  • Free Society||

    Found this on a google search, it looks like you may be right.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Your video shows no such invitation, and it is indeed the video that Robby linked to that totally refutes his own story.

  • Free Society||

    The article I just posted mentions that some newly formed "Hoppe Caucus" invited him.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I was not responding to you or that article.

  • Free Society||

    I know I'm just pointing that out...

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Must you be such a pointist?

  • Free Society||

    We call ourselves pointifists. Makes us seem tougher I think.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    "Pointifists, stronger together." I've heard that before somewhere ...

  • Trigger Warning||

    That virtue sugnal shines brighter than Aldebaran.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    And sounds louder than Hastur's footsteps.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bacon-Magic- that was FUCKING AWESOME.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    That is trshmnstr's creation. I'm just Paul Revere. *gallops off*

  • TBlakely||

    The sad thing is with the obsession with identity politics and the ongoing, ever more strident hate mongering of white males the Alt-Right is only going to grow. It's almost as if the left planned it this way.

  • scooby509||

    "In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left's."

    I'm at a loss to think of any way in which his commitment to identity politics exceeds the left's. As far as I can tell, they're easily as bad or worse, they just have better PR.

  • znatsirhc||

    There are right-wing and "neo-reactionary" libertarians who support the Alt-Right. Some left-wing libertarians support socialism. The writer of this article is having a knee-jerk reaction to Spencer's "white identitarian" politics. It's not like the Alt-Right will become popular if people give it the same open-minded consideration as they would any other political philosophy. Besides being only for white people, it's rigidly intolerant of non-traditional lifestyles like homosexuality or, of course, miscegenation.

    Spencer was probably recruiting libertarians who might be worried that third-world immigrants are lowering the average IQ and bringing socialism in America closer to a reality. The Libertarian Party platform addresses this issue perfectly by eliminating the welfare state completely. If that were the case, I wouldn't have any problem at all with open borders. The problem is that social democratic elites want to accumulate power within their class by letting third-world immigrants settle here and live on welfare like in Europe. They can't suppress the middle class like that without creating some kind of right-wing nationalist uprising.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Snowflakes!

  • nicmart||

    A large contingent of libertarian activists refuse to denounce racism and anti-Semitism. Unless the movement separates itself from these ugly forms of collectivism, as Reason has, it doesn't deserve the support of civilized people.

  • John R. Kennedy||

    I certainly take no issue with ISFL kicking someone out of their event - private property etc. And it's not that hard to disagree with Spencer's views based on his support of racial collectivism. However, the author claims that Spencer's views are more repugnant than the Left's collectivism, and that makes me think this author is a sorry excuse for a libertarian. The Left's collectivism has killed hundreds of millions of people, while Spencer seems to oppose wars and violence.

    He was just sitting in the bar area trying to have a conversation. A lot of people weren't "invited" to the event. Should there be an ideological test for those people? What if some people who attended secretly hold some views that ISFL does not approve of? I thought ISFL was interested in inviting the broad spectrum of libertarians.

    I didn't attend ISFL because it seems like a transparently left-libertarian event, and this confirms it. Gay marriage or transgender bathroom issues become the most important issues so we can get as much approval from the far Left as possible, and you can expect to be lectured about baking a cake for a gay wedding.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online