So True It Hurts

IOZ drops it like its hot on Phallibertarians, riffing off the exchange between Kerry Howley and Todd Seavey:

Male libertarians who denigrate the pervading social constraints on women and people of minority racial groups and people with less common sexual predilections--i.e., most male libertarians--do so because their ideology is grumpy and reactionary; it is forged of the same stuff as crybaby conservativism; its concerns with genuine liberty are purely tactical, and entirely personal. These scattershot beliefs, which consist principally of disliking taxes, regretting surveillance, and smoking weed hardly constitute a political identity at all. [...]

[M]any self-identified libertarians are in fact bourgeois white men firmly ensconced in a patriarchal heteronormative social order that they fundamentally do not wish to change. They seek to remove impediments to their petit bourgeois hedonisms, and they have the vague sense that if the government got its mitts out of business, everything would be fine.

I've largely stopped thinking of myself as a libertarian; obviously the drift of this blog has been toward blow-up-the-world-and-die-laughing anarchism. But a truly minarchical social order requires a revolutionary change far, far beyond that which most internet spouter-offers envision. It would require a deep, abiding alteration in almost every aspect of daily existence; it would require the complete dismantling of the current economic order; it would require redrawn political borders, disbanded militaries, the destruction of whole industries, the wholesale dislocation of huge populations. Even very particular policies that libertarians might seek to ameliorate represent immense alterations in our extant society. Freeing the majority of the 2 million prisoners in our penal system requires more than deciding to decriminalize marijuana. It requires a wholesale restructuring of our jurisprudential understanding, a change, from top to bottom, in the way that justice is delivered, from beat cops to DAs to judges to jury selection to the appeals process . . . and so on.

Feminism's challenge to our bedrock assumptions are to be embraced, not dismissed, by anyone actually dedicated to the radical change that such libertarianism envisions, but most soi-disant white male libertarians don't actually contemplate radical change. [...]

This is libertarianism as practiced by Glenn Reynolds, full of joyous Barbarellas, nanobots, and manly men doing manly things, like shopping for gadgets and dreaming of meeker, more compliant chicks.

It always amuses me when white male libertarians wonder why there are so few non-white non-male libertarians out there. This is why.

Share this

If they are terribly wrong,

If they are terribly wrong, which is my opinion, this is not a problem about their values but about them being wrong, and they should be corrected within the libertarian framework.

If they are terribly wrong, then they should be corrected with the truth, but this is also an image problem. Bigotry isn't just an intellectual error, it's also bad publicity.

Someone intelligent will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, but yes, this is somewhat dangerous, this is thick-libertarianism.

But it is a problem even for people who consider themselves thin-libertarians. If a libertarian believes that certain people should get back to the kitchen/get back in the closet/get out of the country, but doesn't tie these beliefs to libertarianism in any "thick" sense, this libertarian is still doing a disservice to libertarianism, both intellectually ("this person is incorrect about the truth on this matter; I shall adjust my skepticism of any other factual claims this person makes accordingly") and aesthetically ("this person is a jerk, other libertarians tend to be jerks in precisely the same ways, I shall conclude that libertarianism is a philosophy for jerks").

People are more likely to take what you have to say seriously if you are polite and kind, not just when you are talking about issue X, but also when you are talking about issues Y and Z. Of course, I'm guilty of breaking my own advice at times, to my own detriment.

Aren't you concerned by your

Aren't you concerned by your own image issue? I know better to judge you based on these quibbles but you do sound a lot like the social-democratic thought police. Your discourse is reminiscent of the discourse of people I very strongly disagree with, people that advocate policies completely opposite to libertarianism.

True, but since my purpose

True, but since my purpose is to convince you that the social-democratic thought police are your friends, and you just need to teach them the problems with using the state to solve all their problems, I don't see a way to avoid sounding like the very people I'm urging you to team up with. I want to sound like them because I am them.

It's like the plot twist to an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Freaky.

No, these people are not my

No, these people are not my friends. It is not a matter of choosing the best tool to solve the problems, they have genuinely different ends than mine. Most of these people should rot in jail for the crimes they committed.

For my part, I think I

For my part, I think I already have enough friends who insinuate I'm a racist and sexist.

Why are they friends?

Do they mean it in a bad way?

If being a racist is believing that ethnic clusters may differ in characteristics, physical, intellectual or moral, then label me a racist. Label me a sexist as well.

I don't base my everyday judgment on these differences, I think the slightest information I can get about a person will dwarf any rational racist prior. Heck, I'd say my prior has equal expectations, but I do believe there is some variance across groups. I have no reason to believe variance to be 0. That makes me a racist and a sexist.

He keeps them

He has been keeping them around so that he can make that remark. Now he'll be disposing of them.

And without them, all I've

And without them, all I've got is you two.

Me ?

Get lost you racist macho pig.

French people are so fucking

French people are so fucking rude. Must be genetic.

I second that (and blow my

I second that (and blow my nose at you)

Thanks Scott

You used to have three, but...

Thats the kind of moral

Thats the kind of moral position that prevents most libertarians from directing their marketing interests at the brown menace. Social aptitude and geographic/time constraints prevent libertarians from really doing any sort of community outreach in the hood, which is another reason the colored folk numbers are so low.

People can change, they just need time to be worked over in very subtle ways. If you expect to convince anyone, you will have to be as non-confrontational as possible, this really helps if you hear them say something particularly inflammatory and you simply let it slide.

A good way to look at it is: If these crimes they have committed are so heinous, why can they sleep at night?

You have to find, and attack, that which makes them feel at ease with their actions. Not the actions themselves.

Anecdotally: Anarchism is an easier sell to minorities than libertarianism.

You have to find, and

You have to find, and attack, that which makes them feel at ease with their actions. Not the actions themselves.

That is actually quite deep, I'm going to think about this for a while.

But libertarianism is not

Arthur wrote:

No, these people are not my friends. It is not a matter of choosing the best tool to solve the problems, they have genuinely different ends than mine.

But libertarianism is not primarily about ends, but about means. Even for consequentialist libertarians, what makes them libertarian is their belief about what sorts of means are most likely to lead to desirable ends.

Most of these people should rot in jail for the crimes they committed.

This is a strange way to win friends and influence people.

libertarianism is not Feminism

“Feminism's challenge to our bedrock assumptions are to be embraced, not dismissed, by anyone actually dedicated to the radical change that such libertarianism envisions,”

This is a logical mess. Just because both libertarianism and feminism can be radical does not make them related in any strong way.

Libertarianism’s critique has been that normal spontaneous human interactions have been subverted by government tyranny. The preferred situation would be that the market via voluntary exchange would handle most or all of interactions in a peaceful manner. Women as well as everyone else would be free to choose the way they interact.
It was never proposed that libertarianism would be about destruction of all society or end up with everyone being equal. Equal by what force?

The theory is that the average person would be better off but this would not be guaranteed. Government can’t grantee this either. Only the powerful who hold government control are always better off. If they be women then I guess some feminists would be pleased at this, though there are so many kinds of feminism I can’t keep up. Libertarianism and feminism are not particularly related, though females would find no government impediment to them in a libertarian society. Under libertarian society feminist issues would be handled by peaceful negotiation by individual parties,not by government tyranny or pitchfork wielding mobs or other third parties. Long live libertarianism.
Dave

Libertarians wonder why

Libertarians should not wonder why [insert group X] aren't libertarians. Most people are statists. They always will be. Perhaps we should be welcoming rather than rude for entirely different reasons, but either way most people are going to remain non-libertarian.

Libertarians should not

Libertarians should not wonder why [insert group X] aren't libertarians.

I think that is false. How do you fight their acute ignorance if you don't know what it is? Maybe you don't want to expand the roster and pry more of the somnambulist populace from the vats... thats fine, I know many LP folks who do, and are.

most people are going to remain non-libertarian.

Bummer. I think thats the fundamental problem of the party, market saturation.

TGGP, I agree with this. But

TGGP,

I agree with this. But the question was not why most women and minorities are not libertarians; rather, the question was why - among libertarians - there are so few women and minorities relative to white males.

I agree that there are lots of good reasons to be welcoming rather than rude. One of those reasons is to increase the number of people who share our views, not because we naively think that its possible to one day convince everyone or even a majority that our views are correct, but that it is better - for lots of non-electoral reasons - for there to be more libertarians rather than less.

It's hard to respond to

It's hard to respond to this, or even to know whether I agree or disagree, without specific examples. What precisely are you (plural) objecting to?

I would guess that Glenn Reynolds has more female readers...

...as a percentage than pretty much all libertarian blogs including this IOZ fellow.