No logic, no peace!

You should read Steven Horwitz on PC libertarians. This, for me, is the money quote, taken from a site that doesn't like us cosmopolitans:

Political correctness is a very strong signal of statism. In the mind of a statist, something is either required or banned. Either homosexual behavior is banned or it is required that everybody respect homosexual behavior.

The irony is breathtaking. I'm still turning it around in my mind, admiring its perfectly smooth and impermeable surface.

The author of that quote is saying, "I have a right to decline to associate with blacks or homosexals." And he is saying this in a piece decrying cosmopolitan libertarians for exercising our right to decline to associate with racists.

Can this be turned around on me? Of course, but I don't think it holds. I think it's good to shun people for certain kinds of behavior. I just don't think that being born with black parents is among the behaviors it is valid to shun. The paleolibertarians are not, by and large, trying to convince me that I, too, should be frightened of black people--given where I live, this would seem to be a fruitless exercise. They're simply denying that I have a social right to disassociate myself from people who do feel that way.

Well, I stand foursquare behind any American citizen's legal right to hate black people. But they shouldn't expect to be invited for brunch.

Comments

They're simply denying that I have a social right to disassociate myself from people who do feel that way.

No, they're saying you are a phony for preferring to associate with statists, and that your commitment to libertarianism is suspect when you run screaming away from a libertarian candidate the first whiff of what some of his supporters might actually want to do without their freedom.

Remember this isn't in the context of some abstract debate. This is over whether you should support Ron Paul for president or not. And so far, you seem to implicitly prefer the mainstream candidates, however statist, to Paul.

Lets ask flat out, assuming equal electability, equal administrative competence nad leaving out the gold standard nuttiness aside, who would be better as president, Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul?

None of this is to say that Ron Paul can't be criticized, but what you implicitly seem to say is that it is better to be ruled by statists than by paleolibertarians who, whatever their person al views on race, as a matter of policy just want to leave everybody alone.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 7:25 PM

Sorry to be so impolite there, I do generally admire your writing, but your persistantly tendentious interpretations of texts here is breathtaking.

Sadly, your whole behaviour towarsd the paleolibertarians here reminds me of another brilliant blogger and infuriatingly tendentious reader of texts, Laurence Auster, who semi-regularly goes postal on fellow paleoconservatives like Steve Sailer or Rod Dreher for their impurities.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 7:41 PM

So, assuming that Ron Paul didn't hold nutty positions, that he could be elected, and that he could actually then enact any of his policy prescriptions? this is like asking me to comment on whether I'd vote for Ron Paul if he had x-ray vision and the bat utility belt

Posted by Megan McArdle | January 16, 2008 7:44 PM

I admire Maegan's standing up for what is right and "good", but yes, more than reciprocal logic is at work here.

Some people find homosexuals immoral. I do not have to agree with them, and I have gay friends and acquaintances. However, I do not have to necessarily "embrace" gays as we are all urged to do. Maybe I like some gays who are, well, more normal, middle class, not too out there. Should I respect the ultra-sissy types? If someone is an obnoxious flamer or self obsessed about their gayness is that something I am supposed to respect? No

No, this is beyond even free association and goes beyond libertarianism. Respect is something that one renders to respectable people; respectable in the sense that they act respectabley (I make my own definition of respectable, thank you. I should not have to embrace or respect someone simply because they belong to a group.

People are very confused about respect these days and demand respect even when they are not respectable and have nothing to show for them selves. Sorry.

I choose gays in this example but I could think of may other categories of either libertine or "religiously orthodox" people. No, there is noting respectable about many of them.

More thoughts

Virtue is its own reward. How lame

Diversity is an end in itself. Even more lame.

Posted by Jozef | January 16, 2008 7:47 PM

Is hobnobbing with racists now a requirement for libertarians who wish to maintain a good standing, according to Thursday?

You can count me out, then, if so.

If Megan's "commitment to libertarianism" is "suspect" because she won't abide racists, then that tells us sort-of libertarianish political independents all we need to know about you and your kind.

I am constantly tempted to join the libertarian movement, I read many libertarian books, and I have written for libertarian publications, but some of you people are quite frankly disgusting.

Posted by Michael J. Totten | January 16, 2008 7:58 PM

The question is whether statism is morally worse than racism, and whether the views of people like Rockwell are any more deserving of ostracism than the views of your average Manhattan left-liberal. They are both bad, but why the especial ire at the one as opposed to the other. I think somewhat worse of Paul for these newsletters, but I find the frenzied denunciations by cosmopolitan libertarians rather crazy.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 8:07 PM

The question is whether statism is morally worse than racism

For many of us, this isn't a question (at least if statism is defined as "mainstream political parties" and excludes real communists), and the mere posing of the question makes us wonder a bit about the mental health of the person posing it.

I say that as a libertarian-ish conservative.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 16, 2008 8:11 PM

More importantly, and it has been said ad nauseam, because Ron Paul's campaign was never destined for the presidency or even the candidacy, it was simply one of showcasing the popularity of Libertarian principles. When the de facto spokesman seems by all evidence complicit in hate-mongering, it is prudent for the reputation of the more rational elements to distance themselves, lest they further sully their national image.

That being said, the article linked brought me back to school studying British Victorian Literature. A wonderful professor made the case that Dracula was a metaphor for imperial anxiety regarding the Eastern European, or "Colonial Other" in general, gaining access to the instruments of capitalism. This being land at the time primarily. Along with the arrival of this foreign New Money comes a whole new set of anxieties which plague the Western European imperial power (Male). In a way, Dracula can be seen as the ultimate battle between imperial statism and free enterprise, heightened to metaphysical reality.

It is no wonder that just prior to this work, Karl Marx himself wrote, "Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him."

Posted by Peter | January 16, 2008 8:14 PM

There is absolutely no contradiction in believing the following statements:

1)The civil rights movement, particularly in it's post-1970 form, encouraged some very dubious and counterproductive infringements on individual liberty, which should probably be closely examined and modified or scrapped. In it's pre-1970 form, though, it did a lot of good for individual liberty, at relatively minor cost to same. On net, the civil rights movement was a big win for individual liberty, if imperfect.

2)Racists are assholes. I won't have anything to do with them. If anyone tries to link me to them, I'll call bullshit, even if the racist and I think the same way about farm subsidies and marijuana laws.

Now I realize that no one likes being called an asshole (particularly those who actually are assholes), so some might instinctively try to push back against this. Do I care? No. One of the good things about being a paleolibertarian would seem to be that you don't have to care what your neighbors think about you, let alone some guy on the internet. Relax, and enjoy your assholery in the comfort of knowing that I won't try to stop you. No, really, don't thank me. You've earned it.

Posted by Dave | January 16, 2008 8:35 PM

BTW, shouldn't a more logical contruction be:

In the mind of a statist ... [e]ither homosexual behavior is banned or it is required.

without anything additional on the end of that 2nd sentence?

Posted by Kolohe | January 16, 2008 8:42 PM

For many of us, this isn't a question (at least if statism is defined as "mainstream political parties" and excludes real communists), and the mere posing of the question makes us wonder a bit about the mental health of the person posing it.

Well, if you can exclude real communists, I'll exclude real white supremacists and Klansman, none which Paul or Rockwell are. Is the slightest whiff of racial animosity an absolute disqualifier, even when the alternatives are statists like Hillary or Obama? Please note that once you get past the Shocked! Shocked! rhetoric of Megan and others, the the Ron Paul newsletters are best characterized as below:

A handful of the quotes are genuinely shocking and inappropriate, but most are simply tactless statements of unpopular facts — such as the black crime rate being (for whatever tragic historical reasons) about seven times the white crime rate — a pattern that has held for at least twenty years, since it was about that long ago that I stumbled upon this unpleasant fact myself, not while reading some deranged Klan pamphlet but while reading through lots of Department of Justice stats based on crime victims’ own reports.

http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/08/race-ron-paul-the-primaries-and-more-now-andat-lolita-26-with-john-derbyshire/

I agree that racism is bad in general and in many historical instances has lead to appalling injustice. If we were talking about the fifties, I think we could all agree that racism was clearly worse than statism then. However, I also think that somewhere along the line their positions reversed. I also agree that people should try to be tactful when it comes to sensitive issues like race, but these ritual denunciations are getting rather tiresome.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 8:45 PM

Is the slightest whiff of racial animosity an absolute disqualifier, even when the alternatives are statists like Hillary or Obama?

Except that Paul and his band aren't in any reasonable way alternatives to Hillary and Obama, because HE ISN'T GOING TO WIN. Everyone knows that, including him. Given that, why shouldn't Megan and other cosmopolitan libertarians engage in some public distancing from paleolibertarians. There's quite literally no cost to it, it actively makes us look better in the eyes of many potential allies and semi-allies, and is, as an extra bonus, the morally correct thing to do.

No one in this conversation is trying to win Ohio. Cutting deals with the unsavory and holding our nose while we do so has no payoff. Given that, why would you expect us to do anything other than call you jerks.

Posted by Dave | January 16, 2008 8:52 PM

There's quite literally no cost to it

Except hysterically overdenouncing Paul and Rockwell emboldens people like Shirline McGovern:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/restoring_my_libertarian_stree.php

it actively makes us look better in the eyes of many potential allies and semi-allies

Being complicit in spreading the idea that racism is the sin of sins and a substantial danger to any group of people in the 2008 U.S. leads many of these potential allies to believe that state action should be taken, such as these Human Rights Tribunals, but I guess so long as it leads to lower taxes, its all OK.

Posted by Thursday | January 16, 2008 9:07 PM

Except hysterically overdenouncing Paul and Rockwell emboldens people like Shirline McGovern:

Except that no one did that. The facts seem to indicate that Paul is most likely a racist, but not a virulent one. Rockwell certainly is. Thus: assholes. That's all. Not felons, not comic book villians, not deserving of legal censure, not even dangerous. Just assholes. There's a small advantage to me to remind people that not all libertarians are racist assholes. There's no advantage to me whatsoever in associating with racist assholes, no matter what they might think about the Department of Education. Threatening me that if I call you an asshole I risk Canadian human rights tribunal black helicopters simply isn't going to work.

Posted by Dave | January 16, 2008 9:22 PM

Threatening me that if I call you an asshole I risk Canadian human rights tribunal black helicopters

More likely, they'll just declare you insane and exile you to the American Siberia secretly established by act of Congress in 1956 as part of a conspiracy by Communists in the UN to take over the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Mental_Health_Enabling_Act

Libertarian history -- wild, woolly, and straight out of the pages of a Thomas Pynchon novel...

Posted by brooksfoe | January 16, 2008 9:39 PM

Thursday: The question is whether statism is morally worse than racism, and whether the views of people like Rockwell are any more deserving of ostracism than the views of your average Manhattan left-liberal.

It depends. Stalinism is worse than garden variety racism, but I'd vastly prefer a President Barack Obama if my other choice is some knuckle-dragging neo-Confederate racist scumbag who promises not to ban smoking in bars.

I am not a liberal, but most of my friends are. Obviously they are welcome in my home. The creep who wrote Ron Paul's newsletters is not coming over for dinner and will never be my political ally.

Posted by Michael J. Totten | January 16, 2008 9:41 PM

The question is whether statism is morally worse than racism

I think, Thursday, that there is a vagueness here. Does morally worse mean "currently causes worse real world consequences" or "is a better indicator of bad moral character?" An American libertarian may believe the former is true; few believe the latter. This is reasonable. Most people in America are statists of a Hillary Clinton/George Bush variety. If holding statist views is an error, it is at least a usual error, and the faultiness of the statist project is not well known or broadly agreed to. The wickedness of racism, however, is well known, and a consensus view. For this reason, it is a sign of exceptional, not usual, bad character to persist in virulent racism. I suspect that the condemnation of Paul has much to do with this.

Also, Paul has no chance of winning. He has no relevance as a potential maker of libertarian policy, but only as a symbol of libertarian positions. When we choose policy makers, we are often comfortable in picking the lesser of two evils -- selecting the candidate who will produce the least bad policies. Perhaps we are also justified in placing less emphasis on personal character in these circumstances. When choosing to endorse a symbol, however, the situation is different. We care little about policy consequences (as there are none), and much more about personal character. I suspect libertarians are disowning Paul because they judge him a poor symbol for the libertarian movement. I am not a libertarian myself, but it is hard to fault that judgment.

(I should add that all those who have not read Thursday's blog should do so. His "Austen vs. Doestoyevsky as Christian novelists" post is a personal favorite)

Posted by Ben A | January 16, 2008 9:49 PM

I gotta say, it's damned amusing to watch little-red-book carrying libertarians savage one of their own when said one fails to salute the supreme leader. Or to salute him properly. Or to salute him sufficiently. Or to salute him blindly.

Or it would be amusing if said one wasn't being savaged so savagely, for stating fairly sensible if arguable opinions.

Posted by Steve Roth | January 16, 2008 9:52 PM

Dr. Ron Paul will almost certainly blow a gasket when he reads this letter but I honestly must make the case that society has paid a dear price for letting Ron stifle dissent. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. Because of his eagerness to participate in riots, if you can make any sense out Ron's merciless threats then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. As a general rule, each rung on the ladder of colonialism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Ron to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. That is the standard process by which licentious doofuses divert our attention from serious issues.

Once you understand Ron's ploys, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Ron do exactly the things he accuses contentious mythomaniacs of doing. I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. When one examines the ramifications of letting Ron create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that what we have been imparting to him -- or what he has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.

I am not in any way placing the blame on Ron for virulent, barbaric mob bosses who bring about a wonderland of extremism. That notwithstanding, Ron is still culpable for plotting to conduct business in a backwards, immoral way. A trip to your local library would reveal that he should stop calling me a thrasonical gadfly. Although I've been called worse things by better people, Ron likes to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Ron and his representatives will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of money-grubbing thoughts Ron is thinking about these days. I'll end this letter with a personal invitation to Dr. Ron Paul himself: If you care to respond to what I wrote, please do, especially if you think that I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way whatsoever. Pax vobiscum.

Posted by Rick Ellensburg | January 16, 2008 10:08 PM

I agree with Michael Totten. The behavior of some paleo-libertarianins is disgusting. Those of us who find Milton Friedman a touchstone libertarian believe that free minds and free markets unleash the power and creativity of all humanity to create a free and equal society. The fundamental choice is whether you think human life is about dismantling barriers between people, or keeping them rigid. Frieman would, and perhaps did, excoriate anti-Semitism and anti-Semites. The LP appears morally chaotic and ungrounded. It doesn't seem to have a moral compass, let alone good manners and basic social decency. These considerations are why many of us are comfortable in the libertarian wing of the Republican party which at its best has a Reganesque feel of good will towards all, and inclusiveness beyond gender, race, and class identities. They are good people to hang out with. And you get to smoke, drink, and eat red meat.

Posted by Michael Barger | January 16, 2008 10:34 PM

Lets ask flat out, assuming equal electability, equal administrative competence nad leaving out the gold standard nuttiness aside, who would be better as president, Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul?

Most libertarian voters won't be faced with that choice. There will be a Libertarian candidate on the ballot.

Posted by Mark Bahner | January 16, 2008 11:04 PM

Gotta say, if I get really disgusted with Republicans such as the feckless read-my-lips-no-new-taxes George Bush, I vote Libertarian.

Posted by Michael Barger | January 16, 2008 11:32 PM

"The question is whether statism is morally worse than racism."

When the racism is accompanied by rooting on police brutality (as in the case of one of the Rockwell-Rothbard Reports), I don't think there's any question what's worse - racism is just a particularly brutal form of statism. When the racism includes strict enforcement of anti-immigration laws, racism certainly makes the state a lot worse.

But the fact is that the state exists, and, like it or not, the vast majority of people think it should exist. So if you want to change it, you have to work within it. And guess what? This means associating with statists.

You also seem to take a rather broad view of statism in suggesting that it is clearly worse than racism; so I might point out to you that under your broad view, Ron Paul is in fact a statist, particularly when it comes to his views on immigration.

The real question should be: which is worse- a state run by a racist, or a state run by an American or European-style center-left or center-right politician? I think history pretty well proves the answer to that question; or is this nation really that oppressed that you yearn for the days when racists ruled? The days of the Jim Crow South, the days when most of our modern drug laws were first passed, and yes, the days of slavery. Similarly, was Germany more moral when it was run by a racist or when it was subsequently run by European socialists? Sorry, but I'll take the American or European socialist as head of state every time over the racist as head of state. Statism does not always or even usually mean totalitarianism; racism in control of a state does.

If libertarianism is to ever work, it will require an end to the notion that one race is inherently superior to another race. A view that one race is inherently superior to another necessarily provides justification for the state, as it necessarily leads to a view that members of an "inferior" race are not full citizens and thus subject to domination by a ruling class. Dominance by one class of people over another class is the definition of "statism."

Posted by Mark | January 17, 2008 12:51 AM

The question is whether statism is morally worse than racism

I don't see either one as a moral issue. To me, it is a question of whether statism is more rational than racism. The answer is easy: "yes".

There is hope of convincing almost any statist that libertarian solutions are superior, since as I see it the evidence is solid that they are. There is little hope in convincing racists and homophobes to cease being racist and homophobic, as one cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into. In addition, even if I am unable to reason them out of their position, supporting statists over the bigoted paleo-libertarians means that I can at least be reassured that the country is being run by relatively rational people with bad ideas, rather than nuts and idiots with bad ideas.

Posted by Dan | January 17, 2008 1:18 AM

Michael B,

You left out, " ... and shoot guns". :-)

Posted by Kirk Parker | January 17, 2008 1:20 AM

Nobody is making anyone here like gay people, black people, etc., so what exactly are the paleolibertarians whining about anyway?

Posted by Reality Man | January 17, 2008 2:46 AM

There are some good points in these essays.

For example this:

"In the mind of a statist, something is either required or banned.
Either homosexual behavior is banned or it is required that
everybody respect homosexual behavior. Either races are discriminated
against by law or it is required that everybody treat races as
equal in their own decisions."

"Statist" doesn't seem quite the right word. Maybe "politically
correct" would be better? Except I do get that the author is
emphasizing the use of the powers of government to push a viewpoint.

And the last line is kind of wrong. Actually, we've gone from a world
where "races are discriminated against by law" to a world where
"races are discriminated against by law". It's been a big change but
not quite that big of change.

This especially resonates:

"In a world of liberty homosexual freedom and "homophobia" would
coexist."

Yes. That's exactly what I've been feeling for some time. I'm
for homosexual freedom. I'm also for people spouting off and
complaining about homosexuals and homosexuality without risking
their job or, more to the point, without their bosses risking
legal consequences for not firing them.

This doesn't mean I am homophobic. But I am for being allowed
to change my mind and become homophobic -- if I so wish -- without
risking the powers of the state being used against me.

Nor does this mean I approve of homophobia. There is nothing
incongruent with saying all of the above and at the same time
speaking out against homophobia. If I say something against people
who are opposed to homosexuality then that's me speaking. It's
a very different situation though if it's the government speaking.

(Both quotes above are from
http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/political-correctness-is-fear-of-liberty/)

I'm uncertain about the other arguments the author makes and possibly
he may be pushing it to far.

Posted by Mark Amerman | January 17, 2008 7:00 AM

I think it's amusing that there are "libertarians" who find the preservation of prejudice to be in keeping with libertarian ideals. Anyone who understands the consequences of racism (surely, just about everyone by now?) knows that even its non-legislative manifestations have corrosive effects on the mobility of the affected minorities. There is this nominal impulse to assume that hating black people because the color of their skin or whatever is protected by the first amendment and should be protected, because this is supposed to personify our willingness to accept the consequences of free thought. I understand where this is coming from, but libertarians in particular should be the first criticizing (if not advocating state intervention) racism, because libertarianism as a functional philosophy depends upon an egalitarian foundation without which the entire line of thought falls apart. You can't on the one hand advocate for the primacy of the individual as an independent decision maker while on the other hand providing aid and comfort to people who would relegate whole classes of individuals to a dependent status. This really boils down to an either/or proposition: you can elevate the freedom of people to have nasty, irrational thoughts about minorities, knowing it will actually hinder the liberty of those minorities, or you can elevate the principles of tolerance that are simply a prerequisite for a free society even in an ideal libertarian utopia, knowing that doing so may hinder the free expression of those nasty, irrational thoughts. I think it's an easy fucking choice.

Posted by gerontion | January 17, 2008 7:46 AM

I'm also for people spouting off and
complaining about homosexuals and homosexuality without risking
their job or, more to the point, without their bosses risking
legal consequences for not firing them.

I think you're getting into the gray area between expression and harassment.

Posted by brooksfoe | January 17, 2008 9:06 AM

That's a good point, brooksfoe.

There are contexts, especially on the job, where I really
don't think the expression of opinion is appropriate. I can
imagine scenarios where someone blasts their opinion at
someone they know to disagree with them and since because it's a job
and the other person isn't really free to leave, then I think
it does constitute something like harassment. I'm sure that
scenario unfolds every day all over the country.

I'm not sure how legally you can try do discourage such
things without making for a worse problem than the one started
with, but I'm sympathetic to those being harassed. I'm also
sympathetic to managers trying to discourage this sort of thing.

But what I really had in mind when I wrote that sentence was
speech outside of work. There are situations now where people
suffer severe penalties, encouraged by the law, for speech
off the job and it's not hard to forsee that the situation
might get much worse.

Posted by Mark Amerman | January 17, 2008 9:45 AM

"No logic, no peace!"

Is that sung to the tune of "No Woman, No Pride"?

Posted by Njorl | January 17, 2008 10:30 AM

While I agree that racism is bad, as are other forms of discrimination, I don't think the solution is for the government to try to mandate "acceptance" or "respect" or "tolerance". The government should avoid trying to regulate thoughts or opinions. This is why I object to the concept of "hate crimes". Hate crimes are explicitly thought crimes. If someone beats another person, they should be arrested and tried for battery. I don't really care why they beat the person (unless the reason happens to be a legal defense, like the victim was holding his child at gunpoint or something). Battery is battery. Beating a random person or beating someone for their money isn't "better" than beating someone because they are black.

Unfortunately, the concept of hate crimes is being carried farther. Now we are seeing people punished by the law for saying mean things. While I don't want people to go around saying mean things, I REALLY don't want the government punishing people for saying mean things. I don't care of the mean things are really hurtful. Now there are some categories of mean things that could be illegal, like, "I'm going to kill you if you come in my neighborhood." Credible threats of violence are a form of assault.

If someone in a bar says that they think that homosexuals are sinners and will go to hell, I don't want them fired or punished for their religious belief. Even if saying that hurts someone's feelings. Hurting someone's feelings should be illegal.

I'm not defending racists or Ron Paul. I'm opposed, though, to statists using the power of law to compel people to be "nice" or "respectful" or to avoid saying anything hurtful or mean. I'm fine with anti-racists labor laws (you can't hire or fire based on race). I'm not okay with anti-racist speech laws. Or laws that require tolerance. They won't work and are too easy to abuse.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | January 17, 2008 10:49 AM

'Beating a random person or beating someone for their money isn't "better" than beating someone because they are black.'

I had this opinion at one point. You have to consider the basis of criminal law. Ostensibly, we are not just punishing people for their crimes because they deserve punishment. The point of the punishment is to deter and to rehabilitate. If a sound case can be made that on a consistent basis, that battery for racial hatred is harder to deter or requires more time for rehabilitation to be effective, then the differing penalties are warranted. I don't know if that case has been made, but I think it is a possible, logically consistent justification.

Posted by Njorl | January 17, 2008 11:01 AM

gerontion,

There are several items in your statement I disagree with.

You said,

...because libertarianism as a functional philosophy depends
upon an egalitarian foundation without which the entire line of
thought falls apart.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Egalitarian means the state
does not favor one group over another. In the context of racism,
egalitarinism would mean that the government does not favor one
race over another. It has nothing to say about how one individual
treats another. And it definitely does not promise that life will
be fair.

As far as I know everyone I know that calls themselves libertarian
accepts this idea. Libertarianism in general is not about
trying to remake human nature. Instead part of it is an emphasis
on allowing different sorts of people to coexist.

You said,

This really boils down to an either/or proposition: you can
elevate the freedom of people to have nasty, irrational thoughts
about minorities, knowing it will actually hinder the liberty of
those minorities, or you can elevate the principles of tolerance
that are simply a prerequisite for a free society even in an ideal
libertarian utopia, knowing that doing so may hinder the free expression
of those nasty, irrational thoughts.

There are several things about this statement that bother me.
I'll start with the least important.

You speak of people having nasty, irrational thoughts
about minorities. Why minorities? Is it someone how less
of an issue if people are having nasty, irrational thoughts
about majorities?

You speak of an ideal libertarian utopia and I agree that
there are some people that think this way. But I don't and I'm
libertarian, and I don't think we're pursuing a utopia. James
Madison and Thomas Jefferson are two of the most prominent libertarians
and I don't think that they thought they were pursuing or ever
thought they had constructed, a utopia.

Returning to the phrase, nasty, irrational thoughts, so
you are saying if someone has a nasty, rational thought
about an ethnic group it's not racism? Is that really what
you mean? Because if so I don't accept that.

There is the implication in all this, not just this statement,
but your whole statement that you are not racist. Now I don't
know you, I don't even know your name, but not for one moment
do I believe that to be true.

Jesse Jackson once said, I wish I could quote him but the best I can
do at this moment is to paraphrase, that when walking along the
street in the evening if he saw a black man on the other side
he was uneasy. That's a remarkable statement considering who he
is.

People might argue about whether it's a rational or irrational
behavior but I don't think there's any question that this
cumulative distrust hurts black men and that therefore it's
racism. I'm not saying that you have this particular attitude
but I don't doubt for a moment that there is more than one ethnic
group that you have negative perceptions about.

One question I have is whether you are aware of this in yourself.
You might be oblivious. But this dichotomy you're creating of
here are the racists on one side and here are the anti-racists
on the other: it's at this level a false one.

The best one can do, the closest a real human being can come
to not being racist is try to compensate for these vague semi-
conscious perceptions that so often rule.

Are you such a person? If so, my hat's off to you. But I wonder.

If I could take your private thoughts and sift through them
what would I find?

There are a lot of people who perceive themselves as not being racist
yet are racist in a more profound sense than I have yet described.

I take it from your comment that you are utterly outraged about
Obama's candidacy. If a white man running for president belonged
to a church that preached black people were evil I'll intuit you'd
be outraged. If you don't feel that way it should be a poweful
clue.

Now I'm not saying that Obama should not be president for this
reason. I haven't really come to a decision as to what I think
about this.

But I am saying that based on your words, why my god, that
should be automatic for you.

Posted by Mark Amerman | January 17, 2008 11:24 AM

EI:

Who is advocating hate crime laws here? The issue is whether it is morally right for a certain breed of libertarian to refuse to associate with and condemn libertarians who view racism as socially acceptable behavior. The other question is whether associating with racists is worse than associating with (American-style center-left and center-right) statists.

To me (and I think most rational people), the answer to that question is a no-brainer, and is absurd on its face.

Posted by Mark | January 17, 2008 11:37 AM

The issue is whether it is morally right for a certain breed of libertarian to refuse to associate with and condemn libertarians who view racism as socially acceptable behavior. The other question is whether associating with racists is worse than associating with (American-style center-left and center-right) statists.

Man, I feel like I must be a total freak then, since I associate with racists, homosexuals, communists, and minorities without a second thought. I guess the difference is that I don't need to be surrounded by people I agree with or am similar to in order to have a good time. In fact, I almost prefer to be in the company of people I differ with strongly. It makes for much more fun conversation. Of course, that doesn't mean that people necessarily want to hang out with me once I've let loose on them. But that's their prerogative. So does that make me ultra-libertarian, or just nuts?

Posted by Christina | January 17, 2008 12:35 PM

The two sides largely argue past one another.

As long as the remedies against bigotry remain in the realm of freely chosen shaming and shunning, then the libertarian complainers, linked to by Horwitz, really don't have a leg to stand on. However, I must point out that most of the complainers are not advocating using coercion, state or otherwise, against people like Horwitz. Indeed, they are trying to shame and shun people like Horwitz and McArdle.

It is debates like this that remind me of why libertarianism will never be anything other than a fringe political movement. Libertarians just can't really assemble themselves together in a large enough grouping because not enough of them are willing to simply accept the differences that each of them is going to always have.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 17, 2008 12:42 PM

The fallacy of most libertarians is that they refuse the right of people to get together, form states, and interact in a static manner. Look at history--you've got the choice between a) a state b) a failed state (Somalia, Ivory Coast), or c) something worse (Iraq). We end up with states because nothing else works if you want to have a pretty high level of technology, economic development, and good quality of living.

People LIKE the results of states. They may bitch about taxes, but on the whole, people like something like social security, regulations so that you don't have to worry about poison in your food, and transparent financial interactions controlled by regulation.

Some libertarian ideas will receive a reception among American. A lot won't. If libertarians want political power, they should learn to live with this and figure out how to tailor their message so that they are more attractive to the average American. Said message may need compromises from "pure" libertarianism--such as not supporting racists, conspiracy nuts, and similar. People WILL judge you by the people you associate with. Get used to this.

Or you can go the other route and try to be a "pure" Libertarian party. Which might not provide as much political power, but will at least allow for consistency in one's platform.

The problem is, Ron Paul has been doing neither. He's not a pure libertarian, he hasn't been realistic in his policy platforms, and he keeps running back to playing around with some pretty stinky groups.

Posted by grumpy realist | January 17, 2008 1:49 PM

Grumpy Realist,

There are true anarcho-libertarians, but they really don't represent more than a fraction of self-identified libertarians. Most self-described anarchists only seemingly try to deny the formation of a state, but if you read their ideas, they are really describing minarchism in which mediation and protection services are purely voluntary and user fees support them as a kind of proto-state.

The problem with libertarians is not that they try to practice pure libertarianism, but rather that they don't, at least they don't in the deeper recesses of their hearts. Witness this and the previous thread. McArdle and others want to eject the racists for their beliefs. The racists want to eject the non-racists. Neither side is willing to live and let live, but such a philosophy is the very essence of libertarianism- one has no expectation of positive rights. Libertarians atomize their organizations based on what each subgroup thinks is appropriate behavior and what is anathema. Other political organizations overcome this because they already explicitly accept the use of coercion to enforce group norms and, as a result, are able to forge broader agreements.

If Libertarians want to form larger organizations, then they have to be willing to accept on some level behaviors and beliefs they may find personally repugnant. In the end analysis, it may be that human beings are completely incapable of accepting the diverse range of personal behaviors and beliefs that true Libertarianism would necessarily entail, which would be very, very ironic considering how this particular debate got started.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Such hypocrisy.

Bragging about his moral enlightenment, Michael Totten says he would rather vote for Barack Obama than Ron Paul. Which is a fair enough conclusion, so long as his grounds for doing so are unrelated to the topic of racism. It is a recorded fact that Obama was an attendee of an "unapologetically Black" church in Chicago - a church which gave an award to Louis Farakkhan, whose history of anti-white and anti-semitic talk should require no recital. Will he condemn and disqualify Obama for associating with a patently racist church, and do so in the same heated tone as he does for Ron Paul?

Of course he wont. Because he is a hypocrite.

And what about Megan? The smear job on Paul was written by Jamie Kirchick, who is a disciple of Martin Peretz. Martin Peretz has added to America's political conversation the following gems about Arabs:

"violent, fratricidal, unreliable, primitive and crazed … barbarian"

So Jamie associates with racists. And thats fine by me, since I do not grandstand about the moral purity of my dinner part invitation list. But some who does so should, I think, apply it consistently.

Posted by Neal Murray | January 17, 2008 5:19 PM

Who is advocating hate crime laws here? The issue is whether it is morally right for a certain breed of libertarian to refuse to associate with and condemn libertarians who view racism as socially acceptable behavior. The other question is whether associating with racists is worse than associating with (American-style center-left and center-right) statists.

The original post has a quote that refers to the statists habit using force of law to make people behave "correctly". So a statist would be inclined to ban racism and make tolerance and respect compulsory. Given the spread of hate crimes laws and speech codes, etc... this is not a theoretical issue. It is a real phenomenon that is actually happening. Ironically, "liberals" are often pushing for these laws...

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | January 17, 2008 5:30 PM

Ostensibly, we are not just punishing people for their crimes because they deserve punishment. The point of the punishment is to deter and to rehabilitate. If a sound case can be made that on a consistent basis, that battery for racial hatred is harder to deter or requires more time for rehabilitation to be effective, then the differing penalties are warranted. I don't know if that case has been made, but I think it is a possible, logically consistent justification.

I thought that's why "premeditated" and "mallice" are term of art in the criminal justice professions, and why motivations had to be proven in order to justify more serious forms of sentencing. The elevation of "hate" to a distinct form of "crime" does nothing to improve the efficacy of the criminal code, but it does make it that much easier to judge someone's thoughts.

Posted by anony-mouse | January 17, 2008 5:35 PM

Our current criminal justice system is most definitely not designed to reduce crime. It has evolved as a way to punish people who do bad things, but does very little to rehabilitate and often prisoners hone their criminal skills and are more likely to repeat offend, so deterrence isn't very effective.

I also doubt that anyone has actually studied whether "hate" criminals are more difficult to deter/rehabilitate than greedy criminals or insane criminals or addicted to drugs criminals.

Hate crimes are a way to punish people who think wrong thoughts.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | January 17, 2008 5:50 PM

The really simple point I am trying to make is that there is something actual, something real, rather than merely theoretical, that is at stake that libertarians are supposed to care about when it comes to racism. If all racism happened to be was an opinion phenomenon that had absolutely no consequences for, say, black people in America, just as one example, then it would make sense to say that tolerance for racism is a valid part of what it means to be a libertarian. But racism has actual, empirical side-effects that actually, measurably alter the real liberties of African-Americans. Racism reduces liberty. If you actually give a damn about individual freedom, real freedom as it is actually expressed in the world, then you have to give a damn about racism, and that means libertarians in the name of libertarianism should be taking up the cause against racism before anyone else. Which isn't to say that they should necessarily be for the Civil Rights Act (if that's so terrible). But they should be refusing to associate with racists, they should be calling racists out for their bigotry, and otherwise be explaining that the one thing a society cannot tolerate is intolerance. This isn't a contradiction-you can't have it both ways, where you preach about the importance of tolerating world views, all the while rubbing asses-to-elbows with opinions that are intolerant by their very nature.

Posted by gerontion | January 17, 2008 6:29 PM

Gerontion--BRAVO! I think that's what I've been trying to get at--if libertarians want to have their ideas accepted, then they're going to have to show that by "practicing the Libertarian Way" the result is a decent society that has fairness, justice, respect for others, AND some form of self-correction to deal with those who abuse the freedoms they have. You can't just keep saying: "well, if you don't like it, move away/quit your job/say "NO" to the harrasser." If you don't want things like the Civil Rights Act to come into being, you're going to have to stamp down hard on the people whose racism are the reason that Act came into being.

Posted by grumpy realist | January 17, 2008 7:12 PM

As a liberal - as we say oversees, not meaning American centre left - I find Libertarianism in the US just plain bonkers. A strangely Bolshevik approach to the idea of liberty. Or perhaps Bolshy-Anarchist with a bit of 19th c. primativist racism mixed in.

The lot of them give liberal, free market thought a bad name, bizarre whankers.

Posted by The Lounsbury | January 17, 2008 9:43 PM

"Hate crimes are a way to punish people who think wrong thoughts."-Posted by Earnest Iconoclast

I agree with your other evaluations of my comment. They were just musings. But you are wrong about the reason for hate crimes. They are a means of overriding prejudiced judicial systems which refuse to protect classes of citizens while avoiding double jeopardy by a technicality.

The government doesn't give a damn what people hate. They just don't like the results when entire classes of people begin to think that they do not have equal protection under the law. They begin to provide their own "justice". Competitors in the provision of justice are bad in the government business.

Posted by Njorl | January 17, 2008 11:40 PM

I have some sympathy for the anti-hate crime law crowd (except when the attacker is an employee of the state, especially a police officer), but what actually separates an act of terrorism from a hate crime? If a Hezbollah operative kills an Israeli because they are Jewish, that is a terrorist act, isn't it? What really separates that from a bigot killing a random black person? I think we can all agree that the KKK is a terrorist group.

Posted by Reality Man | January 18, 2008 1:16 AM

Gerontion and Grumpy Realist,

As long as such a stand does not involve state coercion to enforce, then any decent libertarian, in my opinion, should be willing to stand up and condemn such behavior through speech and association. That is at least what Megan McArdle seems to be saying. However, there are a lot of so-called libertarians that seem to be perfectly comfortable with the notion that private business owners don't have a right to be racists through their actions of association in hiring or doing business. In other words, they are liberatarians for some issues and non-libertarian for others. I have also encountered this sort when discussing illegal drugs or sexual practices.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 18, 2008 10:21 AM

Njorl: "But you are wrong about the reason for hate crimes. They are a means of overriding prejudiced judicial systems which refuse to protect classes of citizens while avoiding double jeopardy by a technicality."

If a prejudiced judicial system won't prosecute or convict for assault and battery (say) when the victim is black, then it won't prosecute or convict for "hate crimes" when the victim is black. If what you are saying is that a federal hate crime law would be a way of moving the case out of a prejudiced state/local judicial system to the federal system, it's unnecessary - the Civil Rights Act has allowed that for nearly 45 years. And, unlike the "hate crime" laws, it doesn't declare that some victims are more important than others.

Posted by markm | January 18, 2008 11:06 AM

"There are true anarcho-libertarians, but they really don't represent more than a fraction of self-identified libertarians. Most self-described anarchists only seemingly try to deny the formation of a state, but if you read their ideas, they are really describing minarchism in which mediation and protection services are purely voluntary and user fees support them as a kind of proto-state.

The problem with libertarians is not that they try to practice pure libertarianism, but rather that they don't, at least they don't in the deeper recesses of their hearts. Witness this and the previous thread. McArdle and others want to eject the racists for their beliefs. The racists want to eject the non-racists. Neither side is willing to live and let live, but such a philosophy is the very essence of libertarianism- one has no expectation of positive rights. Libertarians atomize their organizations based on what each subgroup thinks is appropriate behavior and what is anathema. Other political organizations overcome this because they already explicitly accept the use of coercion to enforce group norms and, as a result, are able to forge broader agreements.

If Libertarians want to form larger organizations, then they have to be willing to accept on some level behaviors and beliefs they may find personally repugnant. In the end analysis, it may be that human beings are completely incapable of accepting the diverse range of personal behaviors and beliefs that true Libertarianism would necessarily entail, which would be very, very ironic considering how this particular debate got started.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 17, 2008 2:41 PM

flippin' Yancey is one of the very few, on these boards, that actually understands what Libertarianism actually is..and, it should go w/o saying, yes, that includes, out, our beloved hostess..

Posted by MEH | January 18, 2008 1:26 PM

"flippin' Yancey is one of the very few"

this, to attempt clarification, was really a play on 'flip'..

Yancey, often flip(pant), is one of the most genial characters on these boards..

Also, this: "No logic, no peace!", in light of Yancey's post, is rather funny..

Posted by MEH | January 19, 2008 3:56 AM