Whaddya want? A cookie?

Will offers a quick and dirty analysis of the problems with modern liberalism and why its lack of vision endangers us all.

My diagnosis of the malaise of American statist liberalism is that it has failed to accept that many of the ideals of FDR and LBJ are best realized by decentralized means. Clinton represented the best in the possibilities of liberalism in welfare reform and his advocacy of free trade...

However, American liberalism has a phobia of what's down the road to a sensible liberalism and so remain The American Society for the Preservation of Historic Welfare Programs. This is both comical and dangerous. Comical because it's hilarious to witness sophisticated adults confuse contortionist apologetics for ill-functioning, haphazardly structured, historically accidental government programs as an intellectually serious enterprise. Dangerous because the intellectual vacuity of the left allows the conservative juggernaut to pick up speed unimpeded.

Praktike takes umbrage to this in the comment thread, writing,

You know, you libertarians are pretty strange ... always valuing ideology over a mixed economy that has worked fairly well over the years. Sure, there are some problems, but you folks have been agitating on moral grounds while talking about what a disaster our current setup is for some time now and, truth be told, America has done pretty well regardless.

I've never understand this criticism. America has done pretty well compared to what? Without some sort of conception of the ideal good, how can we say whether or not welfare capitalism works well? Sure, it might be better than command-and-control economies, but that's like saying, "I'm not such a bad person, at least compared to Hitler." Wow, great accomplishment, mixed economy. Kudos.

Or as Chris Rock once put it,

Niggers always want credit for some shit they're supposed to do. They'll brag about stuff a normal man just does. They'll say something like, "Yeah, well I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. "I ain't never been to jail." Whaddya want? A cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!


Share this

Pham, that's the way

Pham, that's the way Kinsella is. He's needlessly confrontational and arrogant to boot.

JB, Thanks for the

JB,

Thanks for the psychological counseling, I never thought of thinking how others see me! Maybe I should stop quoting comics using the word "nigger", so that others don't think I'm a lout. Oh, wait, that's not me...

Mr Ghertner has no obligation to discuss anything with anyone -- in a legal sense.

In a moral sense, if someone posts on a blog, and a commenter raises concerns with the post, and is polite about it, and is willing to engage in debate over the issue; then, that blogger has an obligation to engage his critics. If he doesn't, then he's an intellectual coward.

Just because a critic is advancing an extreme view (such as mine, that the word "nigger" should never be used) does not mean he is wrong, or of ill will. Indeed, many libertarians and anarchists are unhappy when their ideas aren't even discussed rationally because they are too radical.

In such spirit, I figured Mr Ghertner (and others) would cut me some slack and at least *consider* my arguments against using the word "nigger", instead of (apparently) dismissing them out of hand (I do note that *some* people here have engaged me, at least). Why did I figure that? Because, as Mock noted above, his reflection on pornography and culture suggested he might have an open mind about this. Mr Ghertner wrote:

"There may very well be a large number of people who are unaffected by some of the [pornographic] images they see, or can at least train themselves to ignore the implicit cultural messages. But at the same time, there are a great many people who are influenced by these messages."

The question is not whether, but to what extent, this holds true for the use of "nigger", and not whether, but to what extent, it negatively influences both black and white culture.

Gil, No, I don't consider

Gil,

No, I don't consider all minds made up. Your mind certainly seems to be though.

It seems to me that there is a class of Americans, generally those who are young and don’t have children, who care not one whit about preserving and improving our culture. When that class intersects with the class “libertarian", the cultural conservatives are right to call them out on the carpet.

You know I think this is where we part ways.

1) It isn't my place to preserve or improve culture, it is my place as a rational individualist anarchocapitalist (Libertarian) to improve only myself, and mine. If the rest of you come along for the ride, so much the better, but it's up to you.
2) If you are a cultural conservative, I'd like to know how you intend to preserve that culture with nothing but 'critisism', or if you think you have the right to do more, how you intend to continue being a libertarian.
3) Gil IMHO you went well beyond critisism in this thread, and straight into trying to cow Micha and others (myself included) into Political Corectness with your accusations, edicts, and shunning. It is one thing to take issue with the word, but you didn't stop there, you called people rasists, bigots, etc...

Anyways that is my last word on this subject, which wasn't the subject in the first place.

Okay, not everyone here is a

Okay, not everyone here is a loser. Yes Pham, I was being sarcastic. I think it's juvenile to use a sci-fi nom de plume, but whatever floats your boat. I think as a general matter it's also cowardly, but who knows, in your case. Whether you are a loser, I have no idea.

I don't take people like Ghertner seriously. They don't deserve to be treated with normal rules of civilized discourse, when they haul off and accuse decent people of being bigots and apologists for bigotry, thereby shutting off debate... and acting like a fucking snot-nosed, brash, petulant, punk ingrates, to boot. As if he has earned the stripes to say such things about Professor Hoppe! It's an outrage.

I have no reason the others hear ought to be treated flippantly, as Ghertner deserves to be. Ghertner is also a hypocrite for quoting the language from Rock. I do think the N-word is special and espeically bad. But the point is that by the Princess and the Pea hairtrigger standards that the Bleating libertarian types use to accuse Hoppe and people like me of bigotry, he is a huge racist himself. Clearly his standards are absurd. That's my main point. To show that he is just a fool.

Pham, I don't mean to "have

Pham,

I don't mean to "have the last word", but you have raised some new points I'd like to address, exactly as you numbered them:

1. The anarchist need not and should not be the isolationist caricature painted by "conservative" and "liberal" opponents, which is exactly the picture you paint. I use the word isolationist in the broadest sense, wherein you claim that your course in life is not affected by the ideas of others; and that, by extension, the culture and institutions in the society around you are irrelevant. Hence, you see no need to support or improve such institutions. This is utter rubbish -- juvenile anti-social "libertarianism".

2. Like Hayek, I am uncomfortable with the label "conservative". It is precisely because I see a relation between liberty and the institutions in civil society that support it that I regard cultural improvement to be critical. So, if anything, I am a cultural progressive. The libertarian literature is full of descriptions of how non-rights-violative action can be brought to bear on people who are behaving poorly. If we are libertarians, and have these constraints (which all civilized people should), then you may likely agree that we must be more vigilant about our culture than our central-planning brethren on either the right or the left, who maintain the fatal conceit that the state can plan our culture and keep it on the true and narrow.

3. Most of my rhetorical hyperbole was to try to elicit a response from Ghertner and others. I have no problem with "political correctness" when it is in line with improving our culture, and you shouldn't either. To label me as favoring "political correctness" is perhaps an attempt to align my position with other, less defensible positions -- thereby discrediting my position. On the contrary, my case for not using the word "nigger" must stand or fall on its own. I indeed accused, but I certainly did not shun or try to cow anyone. It is debatable whether my call for no one to use the term "nigger" is an "edict".

Mr. Guillory, As someone who

Mr. Guillory,

As someone who also considers himself a cultural conservative, I am ashamed by your performance on this thread. You and Mr. Kinsella have taken your own personal vendetta against Mr. Ghertner and used it as an excuse for juvenile behavior. If you want to help keep tradition and morality alive, please carry yourself with more virtue and refinement than you have shown.

Mr Banks, What makes you

Mr Banks,

What makes you think that I have a "vendetta" against Mr Ghertner? While Mr Kinsella has been involved in wide-ranging debate with Ghertner on other sites in other threads, I have not. I have posted maybe one or two comments of support for Kinsella's position (that Hoppe is not a bigot) without endorsing his rhetoric or tactics.

With what, particularly, do you object to in my posts, here? I feel like I have been quite fair. I tried to explain why using "nigger" in any way is necessarily an extension of racist rhetoric and ideology, and therefore endorses racism, and its use is therefore racist. This is a subtle argument, not unlike the notion that legislators who vote for affirmative action laws are acting in a way that is racist, even though they would argue until red in the face that they are not.

Ghertner hypocritically

Ghertner hypocritically posted on this very site an offensive, racist email, while elsewhere attacking as a "bigot" one of the greatest defenders of liberty alive, a noble and decent man. Of course this very thread is the perfectly appropriate place to call him to task. There is no vendetta. Hoppe and others of us believe in liberty. That is no vendetta. The bleating, dimwit-serioso libertarians are the ones who have the vendetta against Hoppe and culturally conservative libertarians like Hoppe. It is natural for his defenders to, well, come to his defense when he is attacked by the vendetta-wielding bleaters.

Stephan, Do you actually

Stephan,

Do you actually believe the stuff you wrote? How old are you? I take it you are a grown man. Yet, you engage in trolling like a 7 year old with the first access to his parents' computer. If your "greatest defender of liberty" was "noble and decent", then why does he say that homosexuals can't exist in a libertarian society? If that's not bigotry, I don't know what is. Certainly not quoting a comedian.

I wonder what people like Roger Garrison are thinking being associated with people like yourself who troll message boards to find phony wrongdoings so that you can make up a reason to chest-thump and defend a bigot. The cult worship is reaching Randian levels. Mises must be turning over in his grave.

Nesbit: "Stephan, Do you

Nesbit:

"Stephan,

Do you actually believe the stuff you wrote?< What stuff?

>How old are you?< When--now, or when you asked the question?

>I take it you are a grown man. Yet, you engage in trolling like a 7 year old with the first access to his parents’ computer.< It's amazing I'm not taking some people seriously, isn't it? Treating them as if they are a joke. Hmmm.

>If your “greatest defender of liberty” was “noble and decent", then why does he say that homosexuals can’t exist in a libertarian society?< He didn't say that. Can you read? Where did he ever say this?

>If that’s not bigotry, I don’t know what is. Certainly not quoting a comedian.< People who yelp about bigotry, gay rights, blah effing blah, are so 20th century and b-o-r-i-n-g.

>I wonder what people like Roger Garrison are thinking being associated with people like yourself who troll message boards to find phony wrongdoings so that you can make up a reason to chest-thump and defend a bigot.< Well I dunno--look at this, http://blog.mises.org/hoppe/archives/2005/02/hanshermann_hop.html , here is Garrison, defending Hoppe too!

Why have today's men turned into such pussies? Jesus!

>The cult worship is reaching Randian levels. Mises must be turning over in his grave.<

There's no cult worship; there's only defense of a great and admired libertarian. He's a close friend but I dont agree with him on everything. So what?

So is Chris Rock using a

So is Chris Rock using a racial epithet when he says "Cracker', he likes this word, ALOT? He's not white is he? Apparently he is a "homophobe" after his Oscar comments. Unless maybe he is a homosexual in which case he gets a pass. You guys going to come down on him?

>I wonder what people like

>I wonder what people like Roger Garrison are thinking being associated with people like yourself who troll message boards to find phony wrongdoings so that you can make up a reason to chest-thump and defend a bigot.< Well I dunno–look at this, http://blog.mises.org/hoppe/archives/2005/02/hanshermann_hop.html , here is Garrison, defending Hoppe too!

You just don't get it do you Kinsella? Garrison's defending Hoppe doesn't have anything to do with this. If you'd get that around your head, you might calm down. Heck, I support Hoppe wrt UNLV also. So, it appears, does Micha Ghertner. That's not the issue. The issue is your coming to this thread to make ridiculous accusations about a comedian being quoted because you can't see that Hoppe has made bigoted statements in the past. You're reaching, and everyone who reads this thread (except Gil) knows it. You're making people like Garrison and many other Mises scholars look bad.

What I find most interesting

What I find most interesting is Gil Guillory's comment:

"In a moral sense, if someone posts on a blog, and a commenter raises concerns with the post, and is polite about it, and is willing to engage in debate over the issue; then, that blogger has an obligation to engage his critics. If he doesn’t, then he’s an intellectual coward.

Just because a critic is advancing an extreme view (such as mine, that the word “nigger” should never be used) does not mean he is wrong, or of ill will. Indeed, many libertarians and anarchists are unhappy when their ideas aren’t even discussed rationally because they are too radical."

Gil, as you may or may not be aware, Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises.org weblog recently engaged in exactly what you have described. Do you think that Tucker's actions make him an "intellectual coward"?

Cite: http://tinyurl.com/5lem5

Micha called me a racist and

Micha called me a racist and a dipsh!t because I said I didn't approve of open borders. You can read his outrageous comments here:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=11700;start=100

He is "Spallenzani" and I am "IRS_Agent."

Kane--right on. Ghertner's

Kane--right on. Ghertner's views are schizophrenic because he is in thrall to the incoherent standards of the PC left.

Nesbit, a few points. First, I speak only for myself. So Garrison need not be "embarrassed" by me.

Second, I am calm. Very calm. This is all a joke to me, as a matter of fact. I don't take any of the PC gnats seriously.

Third, who gives a rat's ass if Ghertner "supports" Hoppe? With friends like him, who needs enemas?

Fourth, my "ridiculous accusations about a comedian being quoted" are no more ridiculous than the bleatings of Ghertner and his brainwashed, hypocritical, leftist, dimwit-Serioso ilk about HHH being a "bigot". HHH is a great man who devotes his life to promoting liberty and individual rights for all; and in person is warm and gentle and does not have a bigoted bone in his body. If Ghertner could get his head out of his ass and have a bit of humility, and not be a snot-nosed punk like all the youngsters now apparently are becoming, he might see this, or at least bite his fucking tongue before making such stupid, evil statements.

Fifth, don't even imply Hoppe has made bigoted statements. It's a lie, and anyone who makes such lies is a lowlife scumbag. You don't want to be a scumbag, now, do you, Nesbit?

Ghertner hypocritically

Ghertner hypocritically posted on this very site an offensive, racist email, while elsewhere attacking as a "bigot" one of the greatest defenders of liberty alive, a noble and decent man. Of course this very thread is the perfectly appropriate place to call him to task. There is no vendetta. Hoppe and others of us believe in liberty. That is no vendetta. The bleating, dimwit-serioso libertarians are the ones who have the vendetta against Hoppe and culturally conservative libertarians like Hoppe. It is natural for his defenders to, well, come to his defense when he is attacked by the vendetta-wielding bleaters.