For AML: The Disaster of "Me" Libertarianism

[Sauron]

Yes.

I just spent a couple days at a libertarian conference. It was an experience that I find increasingly dismaying and disappointing because there has been a clear rightward shift in the libertarian movement, toward some clearly anti-libertarian viewpoints, if not toward some pure nonsense from the fringe right. It is as if no libertarian today can critique the Federal Reserve without appealing to the pseudo-history conspiracy theories of G. Edward Griffin, of the John Birch Society.

But, what is interesting is listening to libertarians dismiss issues that are important to people who aren’t like them. Let us be truthful: the typical libertarian, and certainly the typical attendee at this conference, is a middle-aged, white, straight male. And, they seem utterly incapable of seeing freedom through the eyes of anyone who isn’t the same.

Mention equal marriage rights for gay people and they simply dismiss it as unimportant. If they aren’t actively opposed—and some were—they see it as inconsequential. If you talk about guns they often are interested since so many of them own firearms. If you talk about pornography they are interested. But when it comes to the barriers to immigration they don’t give a damn since they aren’t immigrants. They hate tax laws, but then they pay taxes.

They really are libertarians who only see liberty as an issue as it applies to white, middle-aged, straight men (WMASM).

[erimir]

Of course, I have a sneaking suspicion that he hasn't quite made the leap to understanding why libertarian economic policy doesn't appeal much to those who aren't middle class or wealthy.

But it's a step in the right direction.

[Stormlight]

He also isn't a libertarian but a fascist dressed up as a lolbertarian.

[The Lone Ranger]

But, what is interesting is listening to libertarians dismiss issues that are important to people who aren’t like them. Let us be truthful: the typical libertarian, and certainly the typical attendee at this conference, is a middle-aged, white, straight male. And, they seem utterly incapable of seeing freedom through the eyes of anyone who isn’t the same.

That's the thing that always gets me. I know a fair number of self-described libertarians. Most are uneducated and ignorant, but some are quite well-educated and well-informed. What they all seem to have in common is a complete inability to understand that not everyone else experiences the world as they do. Or perhaps more to the point, a complete inability to understand that anyone could disagree with them on these issues and still be a decent, informed, and rational person.

Gay marriage? Immigration? At best these are non-issues, since they're neither gay nor immigrants. More often than not, they insist that government should be criminalizing gay marriage and severely restricting immigration -- apparently because, "Hey, I'm neither gay nor an immigrant, so these things are wrong." (And, of course, they're completely blind to the irony of wanting the government to criminalize everything they don't like.)

[AynMisesLibertarian]

So some conservative is trying to hjack libertarianism and that is a proof that libertarians don't care about social issues??

More often than not, they insist that government should be criminalizing gay marriage and severely restricting immigration -- apparently because, "Hey, I'm neither gay nor an immigrant, so these things are wrong." (And, of course, they're completely blind to the irony of wanting the government to criminalize everything they don't like.)

these people are not Libertarians,but conservatives who are ashamed to be conservative after Bush.

True libertarians oppose govern forced equality(example the Civil Rights Act or Racial Quotas) but not immigration or gay marriage

[Watser?]

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[AynMisesLibertarian]

What about all communists and socialists who claim to be "Democrats"?

[Watser?]

Also:

...

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

What about all communists and socialists who claim to be "Democrats"?

Urban legends. They don't exist.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

So some conservative is trying to hjack libertarianism and that is a proof that libertarians don't care about social issues??

Kinda like how you hijacked the term "anarchist"? And we all know what Ayn Rand had to say about those kinds of people, don't we?

Besides, it seems to me that these libertarians aren't hijacking anything. Their positions are the natural conclusion of their twisted, illogical philosophy. They behave just like you do: spout high ideals, but then do whatever you really want to do and rationalize it away by claiming that it's "libertarian".

You claim they're bad libertarians; the evidence says they are perfect, model libertarians doing exactly what model libertarians do: following the philosophy of extreme rationalizing of their own self-interest.

They may have to grasp at straws and twist themselves into semantic knots to create the necessary rationalizations, but that's precisely what they do. And it's exactly what libertarianism encourages.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

these people are not Libertarians,but conservatives who are ashamed to be conservative after Bush.

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I am not a libertarian

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

So some conservative is trying to hjack libertarianism and that is a proof that libertarians don't care about social issues??

these people are not Libertarians,but conservatives who are ashamed to be conservative after Bush.

True libertarians oppose govern forced equality(example the Civil Rights Act or Racial Quotas) but not immigration or gay marriage

Yes, let's see if we can find some true libertarians: how about Lew Rockwell, opining on the Rodney King beating?

As recently as the 1950s — when street crime was not rampant in America — the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing — proportionate to the offense and the offender — in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe.

Today’s criminals know that they probably won’t be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence — someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit.

What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery.

Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that’s not the issue: It’s safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other.

Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can’t agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Hear him! You all remember the 1950's as a time of prosperity for everyone, don't you? Or was there some sort of rampant and pervasive systematic disenfranchisement and oppression of some groupings in the 1950's? If only there was some way to know. Luckily for Lew, his white male gaze upon the Rodney King beating is apparently irony-impaired.

Also, taxation? HELP!!! STATE VIOLENCE!!!!!! Police beating down prisoners and suspects, for example Rodney King? That's just how it is if you want to live free and safe; one better it is even the necessity of a civilized society in Lew Rockwell's eyes. That actual state violence is sanctioned.

Or here's Lew Rockwell, true libertarian, in his piece Repeal '64, as in the Civil Rights Act.

The ethical gloss of civil rights has long since vanished, leaving only the brute power of statism to enforce an egalitarian agenda. White males, for example, are no longer fooled by the euphemisms. Whether its "set asides," "affirmative action," or "timetables," they know it means denying economic opportunity to them in order to benefit others.

You see? Lew is upset, because what about fairness? White males were getting almost all the cookies before, and now the government says white males don't get quite as many cookies. Why are the white males being denied their rights?

Or how about Lew Rockwell supposedly ghost-writing for true libertarian Ron Paul?

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.

Weird. It is almost as if true libertarian Lew Rockwell had some other reason for opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But let's see what Lew has to say on the subject of immigration:

The immigration policy of the country was deliberately changed in 1965 by a law that Johnson signed, that Hubert Humphrey and Teddy Kennedy (who’s still around) wrote to change the demographics of the country…. This is not a coincidence this all happened … they actually set out … and there were many think tanks writing papers about why this should happen … to change the demographics of the country. I don’t know if it’s a huge social experiment we’re undergoing, but you know … this is the way the government has designed it. I’ll make that point.

In case you're not sure, that's Lew Rockwell claiming that there was a conspiracy to undermine the white man. He does go on to say he thinks that immigration for cheap labor purposes is great as long as they don't go on welfare, and that states should decide, as opposed to a national policy.
And here's Murray Rothbard's take on immigration:

In a 1993 address before the Mont Pelerin Society, the late Murray N. Rothbard suggested an alternative libertarian approach to immigration. Imagine the pure private-property, or “anarcho-capitalist” model, in which all property, from streets to parks, is privately owned. There is no such thing as a “public space” under such an arrangement, and therefore no “immigration problem.” Individual property owners or contractual communities would be able to set their own immigration policy, and determine for themselves who would or would not be allowed to enter their private property.

Uh... okay. Rothbard solved the immigration issue by making every bit of earth under private ownership.
AML's buddy Hans Herman Hoppe offered a caveat, that if you had to live under a statist system, then immigration controls were necessary, else you would have forced integration, which of course is very, very, bad, especially when you are a white male.

I wonder if these qualify as true libertarians.

[AynMisesLibertarian]

I actually welcome immigrants.....they do heavy works that not overeducated western want to do("I have a philosophy degree,I don't want work for 2$/hour as bricklayer or miner or maiden!! ") and keep the cost of business low

I oppose to give them a free pass(free healthcare,free language courses,free school for their children and all "liberal" idea)

[livius drusus]

You're an immigrant and you get all that free stuff courtesy of the Italian socialist welfare state. Is there any way in which you are not a complete hypocrite?

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I don't want work for 2$/hour as bricklayer or miner or maiden!!

$2 an hour isn't that bad a rate to be paid for not having sex.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

You're an immigrant and you get all that free stuff courtesy of the Italian socialist welfare state. Is there any way in which you are not a complete hypocrite?

Yes, yes but at least he's not a woman!

[Sock Puppet]

But for the right price he might be a maiden!

[Gonzo]

I think he means a maid, guys. Like a kicken cleaner.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I think he means a maid, guys. Like a kicken cleaner.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Is there any way in which you are not a complete hypocrite?

Why no, no there isn't.

[Vivisectus]

But what when these immigrants flock to the state-sponsored schools to get useless non-hard science degrees that are of no use in any workplace, such as an economics degree? Do we order out for more immigrants?