I’ve been so preoccupied for the last few weeks teaching new courses on logic & ethical theory & intro phil that, until today, I missed the latest issue of Radish!
Suffice it to say (if you didn’t already beat me to it): do not pass go, do not collect $200 – click on the link and go straight to Hell Radish.
The topic is libertarianism’s racism problem.
Long. Wordy. Brilliant. Too many quotes from Thomas Carlyle, but, hey – that goes with the territory.
Since I still think of myself as something of a libertarian, I will need to respond, at some point.
In the meantime, enjoy.
“You can never have too many quotes from Thomas Carlyle! Never! NEEEEEVEERRRRRR!”
Well, possibly. Reading Carlyle with attention will certainly improve ones verbal skills. He’s often almost as difficult as Kant, or Hegel, or Proust, or Joyce.
I don’t think it’s of no consequence that the Mises Institute is whiter than Augusta National, even though libertarians scream until they’re blue that it is.
Possibly the most eye-opening bit in “White Right” is this lengthy quotation from a guy I’d never heard of before – the late Carleton Putnam:
– a guy I’d never heard of, before, whom the Will Wilkinson’s & Megan McArdle’s of the world would, no doubt, crawl all over each other to denounce as a frightful racist – when, in fact, he’s about a hundred times more thoughtful & genuinely humane than either of them.
i’m libertarian except i’m anti-open borders, anti-“affirmative action,” anti-“disparate impact” & anti-isolationist (& pro-white-european-male) – but that’s all we need: a small splinter group of race-realist libertarians with even less power & influence than libertarians. it’s either co-opt a larger (political) party or start an even smaller & less powerful party. yet, there must be other options. hmm, i have to reread my 1930’s German history…
@panjoomby: I’m genuinely baffled by your post. In a mature welfare state like the US, opposition to open borders is not an *exception* to libertarianism. As for state-sponsored “affirmative action” and fussing over “disparate impact,” they are utterly antithetical to libertarianism. On the other hand, if you’re anti-isolationist, I think that probably does count as an exception to libertarianism. I assume you’re being ironic when you say “that’s all we need: a small splinter group of race-realist libertarians with even less power & influence than libertarians.” After that, I simply have no idea what you’re trying to say.
correct on the irony:). the libertarian stance used to be very “open borders” — now they’ve merely added a few caveats (but they’re nowhere near saying “let’s allow only high IQ immigration). they ignore affirmative action (do you think either of the R. Paul’s would take up the case to end it?) Indeed, some libertarians argue for affirmative action & reparations (!) see http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-libertarian-case-for-affirmative-action/ “…deontological libertarians also believe in restorative or restitutive justice. And it cannot be denied that governments in the United States have historically harshly discriminated against African-Americans. For libertarians, those governments are morally required to compensate the victims of their injustice. For that reason, libertarians support financial “reparations” for victims of segregation…”
yikes! (i disagree with all of that). i endorse many libertarian positions, but as a race realist, i disagree with some — & my subsection of libertarianism would be too small to amount to much. Yet, i think conservative “prohibitionists” (those against the freedom of allowing pot, other drugs, prostitution, abortion) are wrong — & i think the conservative tendency to bring religion into governance is appallingly wrongheaded — otoh, i think most of of what liberals endorse is idiotic (except those things in my previous parentheses – yet many liberals seem to endorse a nanny state about those things – which is egregiously anti-liberty). i’m saying we should be allowed to grow what we want in our backyards (you’re correct in thinking “a libertarian is simply a conservative who used to get high”:) it seems we don’t have enough political party choices – back in the elections of 1860 i think 4 parties earned electoral votes – i wish i could see that happen again (but without the civil war/war between the states part). cheers!
i guess i’m saying libertarianism is more like being a catholic (where you don’t have to believe in every position of the church), than like mormonism (where to be a good one, you better believe in every position of the church).