tBlog - Should we unite?

Should we unite?

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 June
2007 February
2006 September
2006 May
2005 December
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June

My Links
Cato Institute
Foundation for Economic Education
International Society for Individual Liberty
Independent Institute
Heartland Institute
Institute for Liberal Values
Institute for Economic Affairs
Tom Palmer Blog
Rational Review
Reason Magazine
Wendy McElroy
Future of Freedom Foundation
Freedom Summit
Dynamist (Virginia Postrel)
Free Speech Coalition

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Should we unite?

06.20.05 (6:35 am) [edit]

Short: to the point and a valid question, so I thought I’d post this comment on the main board along with my reply.

“Well, thanks for the quick reply. I'd prefer to be saved from the "counter-culturalist s" by discussing their ideas rather than their inconsistencies or history. But for those who see value in getting the history of the movement "right", I guess you'll provide one version of that history.”

“But from my narrow point of view, what's needed in the libertarian movement is not a "correct" history or more ways to differentiate between the players, but rather a unification of the already too numerous factions.”

“To have someone with your apparent lengthy background in the movement and your ability to write spend time on dividing instead of uniting seems to me to provide the ideal demonstration of why the movement has trouble getting out of its own way... :(“

Dear : (

Sorry to make you sad. You raise some valid points. I am not trying to save anyone from counter-culturalists as I said here. The issue was that some people, who have allied themselves with very unlibertarian people, are using “counter culturalism” to attack the libertarian movement. They wish to divide the movement. Not divide it as much as have it march in lock step with them. This was how they’ve been for a long time however.

When they were the Radical Caucus they were willing to “smash” anyone who disagreed with them. See George Smiths essay discussing this tactic. Mr. Smith explained their actions 20 years ago: “All enemies, and especially internal enemies (‘deviationists&rsq uo;”, must be “crushed.” The end justifies the means. Short of violating rights, Libertarian Leninists exhibit few constraints on their behavior. Their tactics run the gamut from gossip and personal attacks to serious.”
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/v is05.txt" title="http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/v is05.txt" target="_blank"http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/v...

Now I will not that unification is not necessarily good. First, which tactic is the right one? I don’t know. Better to allow diversity. Second, when the movement was centered in the LP their was one center of power, one center of resources, etc. That meant that the diffirent approaches were inevitably drawn to fighting with one another for control of that center. I don’t think that was good.

I don’t really care if the Paleo’s want to start some other movement. I wish they wouldn’t use the name of Mises to do so. I even think they are starting to get away from Rothbard to some extent. Here is where I have major problems. We are now getting messages that seem very close to crossing the line of being racist (if they haven’t already crossed the line). We have White Supremecists and anti-Semites getting plugged and endorsed by Paleo-Libertarians. Instead of being a principle alternative to the Left and Right, or extreme Left and far Right, they are allmost merging us with the far Right. They want us to downplay social freedom, they want us to join in a racist campaign to keep immigrants out (and it racist as I will try to show later). I think they are doing a great deal of harm to the name of libertarianism.

In the past we had our share of eccentrics, loonies, wierdos and strange ones. No one says the contrary. And a lot of people perceived us a strange or weird. But we were never associated with hate. We were never branded racists. We were seen as the people the Right knew they could rely on to support free enterprise--that was in the days when the Right believed in free enterprise--and we were seen by the Left as those people who would go to the wall for civil liberties. But we were never associated with Jew-haters, anti-gay bigots, racists, theocrats and so forth.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (7:25 am)

Interesting account of the history of the libertarian movement, but you don't back up anything you have to say about the LRC crowd wanting to downplay "social freedoms." They clearly advocate legalizing drugs. And I've never seen anything about banning homosexuality of Rockwell's site. So what's the problem? Immigration? One can make reasonable arguments against open borders from a libertarian viewpoint. I don't think that qualifies as "racism."

Seems like you have a personal grudge against the people involved.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (7:40 am)

Nahh, die hard advocacy of the Confederate States of American is just principaled anti-statism, not racism. What did the CSA ever do which was anti-libertarian (besides enslaving a third of its popluation)?

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (7:46 am)

Opposition to Lincoln's centralism is not "die hard advocacy of the CSA." It is, however, if you're trying to smear someone. Where have the LRC people ever advocated slavery?

posted by: rightwatch (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (8:10 am)

But there is more going on here than merely opposing Lincoln's centralism (as if that is a burning issue of the day). They go farther than that and praise the South.

I would be curious to see someone get a straight answer out of Gary North on this question: "Do you believe that in the Biblical "free society" that you advocate that slavery will exist and would be permissable?" Gary is a prominent Reconstructionist and many of his fellow theologians argue that slavery is a social good! And North is a regular writer for LRC.

posted by: rightwatch (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (8:21 am)

In regards to the Confederarcy and where these Paleos are going with it I would suggest looking at this article in Reason.
http://www.reason.com/0506/co.cy.behind.shtml

I do not agree with all the article and it is not what I have written but still it makes a point.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (9:04 am)

"Gary is a prominent Reconstructionist and many of his fellow theologians argue that slavery is a social good! And North is a regular writer for LRC."

Gary North is not the same thing as "many of his fellow theologians." This isn't even guilt-by-association -- it's a huge stretch, and a forced one at that. Please show where North has advocated slavery.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.20.05 (11:10 am)

Well I must be a neocon for thinking that any state that enforces chattle slavery can and should be destroyed by one that doesn't. Does this mean I support all of Lincoln's policies? NOPE, but I do support his "destruction of slave states" policies. But I forgot it is anarcho-goodness to defend slave states....

posted by: rightwatch (reply)
post date: 06.21.05 (2:51 am)

Comments below accusse an unspecified individual (previous commentator or myself who knows?) of being a neocon or Tom Palmer. This is the sort of extremist logic I see rampant with the Rockwellians. First no one has defended the neocons here or their program so not one person here exhibits neocon traits. But the Rockwellians label anyone a neocon or "left libertarian" as a slander just because they don't like the person. Now I can't make out if the reference is to me (but I am not a neocon) or to the poster who said something about the destruction of slave states (I saw the emphasis on the word state much the way Murray Rothbard rejoinced at the fall of Vietnam to the Communists). But even if he was proLincoln (which I am not) that doesn't make him a neocon. Let's get real. The neocons weren't around in Lincolns day and I don't think they ever wrote a defense of Lincoln's policies. One is allowed to disagree with tne New Confederacy without being a neocon.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.21.05 (3:37 am)

Neocon = Class Enemy

LeftLibertarian = Class Enemy

Both must be purged from the cadre, even if you have to lie and falsly classify people who are not "Neocons" or "LeftLibertarians" as them.

Looking at history; replace "Class Enemy" with Jews, Trotsykites, Fascists, Capitalists, Counter-Revolutionaries, etc. and you will see the Rothbardian mentality.

The "Neocons" in Rothbardian-Land are the "Squirrels" in Scientology, i.e. anyone who disagrees with L. Ron Rothbard's sacred teachings or the hierarchy of His chosen diciples.

Tracleer