Return to L&S: Miserable Libertarians

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64485)
by Steven Horwitz on July 11, 2005 at 5:20 PM

Well you can certainly find small numbers of libertarians who are skeptical about Darwinian evolution, for one thing. I do think that some of the pro-Confederacy stuff that has come out of LRC and the Mises Institute smacks of this sort of in-your-face contrarianism, as does the related take-downs of Lincoln. (The work on Lincoln certainly has significant truth to it, but I think goes way over the line in its demonization of the man. That smacks of the same sort of contrarianism.)

The "scholarship" that has attempted to "de-homogenize" Mises and Hayek, and more generally demonize Hayek as a socialist smacks of the same sort of contrarianism, although this is an "insider" form. Skepticism about the dangers of things like smoking (again, aside from the politics of what to do about it) can be found from time to time. And, of course, the usual array of Federal Reserve - Illuminatus type crazies.

More generally, it's a distrust of almost everything "everyone" thinks is true. It feels not just contrarian but conspriratorial in its worst manifestations. If I had more time, I'd hunt down links etc, but I just don't out here in CA.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64497)
by Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella on July 11, 2005 at 7:06 PM

Steve, I take your meaning on some of your points. But look--re Darwin: I have issues with the Darwin opponents, but I dont think their problem is that they're contrarians. I don't think they are, but there may be a bit of the "distrust of everything 'everyone' thinks is true" here. But why do you think this is a libertarian phenomenon? It's just religious. Many fundamentalist types have hated Darwin from the beginning. I don't see it as linked to libertarianism.

Pro-Confederacy stuff? I'm not aware of much of this. I am not pro-Confederacy at all and all these Dukes of Hazzard Rebel Flag types are definitely not my cup of tea, but that's primarily b/c I am too individualist and Randian to like the notion of all this collectivst membership crapola. (But then, many others do the same thing, with their religions and cultures; making a big deal about all this, insisting they are different and "part of" this other thing, all because of an accident of birth.)

Anti-Lincoln--yeah, you're right, there's much significant truth in it. You might call it contrarianism to try to expose Lincon's foibles but given his elevation to godhood in this country and the abysmal ignorance of what he did that was terrible, perhaps we need a teensy weensy bit of an antidote. Is it any different really than us Austrians/libertarians continuing to bitch about Bretton Woods and the Federal Reserve system, even though it appears we are stuck with the modern monetary system? Is it "contrarian" to try to fight the very idea of the modern money system, that is so accepted, ingrained, and established?

I think the Hayek dehomogenization debate and the socialist claims are separate. THe dehomogenization debate was not contrarianism at all, in my view, it was an attempt to highlight and examine crucial differences that had been sort of glossed over or not sufficienatly realized.

There may be a bit of the contrarian streak in Walter Block's fairly straightforward case that Hayek had many socialistic views, or whatever you want to call advocating government programs that most libertarians think are statist. But even if this is "contrarian," it of course does not prove the substance wrong.

Your complaint here seems to be almost bemoaning the fact that some libertarians won't just lie down and accept the "established" view, that they are continually rocking the boat.

Dunno what to say about the smoking thing, don't have much of an opinion, other than to note that I wrote an article, Let Kids Smoke, you would probalby consider contrarian. I did not downplay the dangers, so much (as far as I know, smoking does tend to cause cancer), as try to trace out the consequences of free will and individual responsibility and to argue against the common idea of addiction, as, say, Szasz has. Something like that is not so mcuh contrarian as maybe provocative. Yeah, maybe, but that's just a writing technique.

AS for the Illuminatis and conspiracy stuff, I myself have a strong aversion to all these kooky conspiracy theories. I think for example Oswald acted alone and killed Kennedy by himself. I think there is no need to look for conspiracies to explain what is wrong; in fact it diverts from the true problem by lookking for a hidden flaw that once fixed, everythying woudl be fine. YEt even here, this is not contrarian, it seems to me; conspiracy theorizing is widespread.

Steve, don't you think libertarianism is by its nature a bit contrarian? Don't you think we are viewed this way by others?

Also, as I noted on another comment, given the direction the world is moving, aren't you concerned about the menace of libertarian mainstreamism, the bias towards agreeing with the state. I don't mean to criticize successful libertairnas with mainstream careers; I am one of those. But I definitely see a great danger here, becuase there are innumerable pressures to conform, if one is cozily ensconced in mainstream jobs or positions. It is natural to want to go to cocktail parties and regular social events and be respected as a "serious" thinker, not some kook. Sure. But surely there is a gentle pressure from this to dull your sharp edges, to not mention so much all the problems that the cocktail party or watercooler-at-work set would think are nutty concerns. Surely we could use a few contrarians just to keep us on our toes. Think of Alan Greenspan. My personal view is that to the extent he was in favor of the gold standard and opposed the institution of a fed, I don't think he has really changed his mind. He just realizes it's not his job to challenge the fed's existence; that's not what he was hired to do. Nonetheless, someone as influential as he is could at least someday explain that the fed should be disbanded. But he does not and will not, b/c his wife is Andrea MItchell and he hobnobs w/ the powerbrokrs in DC and would be written off, after a while, as a kook if he did this. So he does not; and I cannot even say it is not rational of him. Hell, his own career and livelihood ougth to take an important place in his hierarchy of values. But isn't it good that there are some Austrians out there who are still unshackled and able to speak the truth about the Fed, even though this makes them contrarians?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64505)
by Tom G Palmer on July 11, 2005 at 10:51 PM

I think you've identified an important issue. I recall once a presentation at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting at Cambridge University by Edith Efron, whose book debunked a lot of silly myths about cancer. Up popped a libertarian who wanted to insist that smoking, as well, had no ill health effects. Efron cut him off at the knees, citing the evidence that smoking measurably increases risks of lung cancer and other lung diseases. She had effectively shown that other claims about cancer were bunk, but that wasn't enough for the questioner: he wanted all bad news about anthropogenic illnesses to be bunk, on the grounds, not of the evidence, but because everyone else believed it. It's an odd mind set.

On the fetish over the Confederacy at lewrockwell.com, I honestly think that there's another explanation for that, and it's a much simpler one. But that's been debated extensively elsewhere.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64521)
by Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella on July 12, 2005 at 10:35 AM

Of course, it is usually the Randroids who will defend smoking to the hilt, and deny that it "causes" cancer, because it "man's holding a piece of tamed fire at the fingertips is symbolic of his mastery of nature," or other such hokum.

Palmer's libel of Lew Rockwell et al. notwithstanding, there is not "fetish" over the "Confederacy" at LewRockwell.com. Palmer insists on labeling those who oppose Lincoln's war as neo-Confederate apologists for slavery. As everyone knows, resort to such hysterical, personal attacks is a sign one is out of ammo. I, for example, have condemned this ridiculous Confederacy-worship, rebel-flag waving yahoo nonsense many times, and have never "defended" the South; it would be hard to "defend" a nation that permits slavery, conscripts and taxes, and after all is a criminal state. But one does not need to defend the South to oppose Lincoln's blatant violation of the Constitution (including outrageous violations of rights, suspension of habeus corpus, assumption of constitutional powers not granted, including denial of the right to exit, or secede), imposition of a new central government, illegal coercion of the civil war amendments, and the deaths of over 600,000 people. It's a sad day when opposition to unlawful, tyrannical executive action and mass murder is equated--by supposed libertarians, no less--with advocacy of slavery. Very sad.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64526)
by Stephen W Carson on July 12, 2005 at 12:23 PM

The real significance in the criticism of Lincoln, in my mind, is quite apart from either antiquarian sympathy for the Confederacy or a personal animosity to Lincoln. It is two-fold and urgently relevant to current events.

First, The Lincoln Myth is used as a precedent. Since he has become a secular saint, his actions are appealed to as precedent for actions to be taken now. Did Lincoln crush secession? Then Russia ought to crush Chechnya. Did Lincoln make war on civilians? Then the U.S. ought to flatten Fallujah. Tellingly, one rarely (never?) hears Lincoln used as a precedent for going after slavery ("We ought to invade Sudan and stop slavery there! Lincoln would have.") even though that is supposedly his primary legacy.

Secondly, and more importantly, Lincoln is the founder of the current U.S. government, (as many critics and fans of Lincoln have concluded). To recognize this is to recognize that the original federalist intent of the Constitution has been a dead letter for nearly 150 years. We now have a centralized state. To be critical of Lincoln and what he wrought, then, is to be critical of the current centralized, militaristic, mercantilistic U.S. federal government.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64528)
by Tom G Palmer on July 12, 2005 at 1:47 PM

Mr. Carson's response is the most reasonable to come from those quarters. One can agree that the centralized state wrought by Mr. Lincoln is hardly desirable, without valorizing the thoroughly evil decision of South Carolina to secede for the purpose of maintaining slavery (I know that the Rockwellites will swarm out to say it had "nothing to do with slavery," as they always do, without having done the most basic research; a good start is the South Carolina resolution for secession, which puts slavery at the very center of the decision to secede: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm ).

Moreover, the Civil War happened well over a hundred years ago and I see little connection between that and, say, Chechnya (especially considering how eager Mr. Raimondo -- a staunch lewrockwell ally to whom Rockwell frequently links, especially in his zanier conspiracy theories about the Jews, er, Zionists -- is to support Putin's crushing of the Chechens).

The embrace of the Confederacy and of such retrograde racists as the late Sam Francis (of the KKK-friendly "Council of Conservative Citizens") and much more is documented in the postings at The Fever Swamp http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php , for anyone who wants to discover the depth of the yearning for the confederacy and the south's peculiar institution that Lew Rockwell has fostered.

Indeed, one reason for the general pessimism among that crowd is the lack of appreciation for the spread of freedom to previously excluded groups. Blacks don't have to get off the sidewalk in southern towns when a white man approaches. That's an advance of freedom. Gay people aren't arrested, beaten, and thrown in prison for holding hands with thier same-gender partners. That's an advance of freedom. And, of course, the economy is substantially freer overall of command-and-control regulations governing price and entry than it was in 1965 or 1975 or 1985. There has also been substantial retrograde motion in some areas (including "PC" restrictions on campus speech and the deeply threatening developments concerning civil liberties over the last three years), but in general the trend has been for more people to enjoy more freedom than ever before in human history. I find that uplifting, rather than -- as in the case of those who yearn for the Confederacy -- depressing.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64531)
by Steven Horwitz on July 12, 2005 at 1:56 PM

Why stop with South Carolina? Read three more here, all of which put slavery right up at the top:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64608)
by Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella on July 13, 2005 at 2:01 AM

Yeah! How about this document, which provides that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

In other words, the document recognizes slavery and that the slaves shall count as only 3/5 of a person! Anyone in favor of that document must be a racist, golly gee willickers!

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64542)
by Stephen W Carson on July 12, 2005 at 3:07 PM

"In April 1996, [Clinton] even compared Boris Yeltsin [in regards to Chechnya] to one of his famous American forebears and his attempt to keep the country together:

'I would remind you that we once had a civil war in our country ... over the proposition that Abraham Lincoln gave his life for - that no state had a right to withdrawal from our Union.' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/503804.stm

"If protecting innocent civilians is of paramount consideration in war, perhaps Bill Clinton should denounce Harry S. Truman for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - which were unquestionably civilian targets - and condemn his hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt, for the indiscriminate bombing of Germany's cities, particularly Dresden.

Similarly, Republicans, who take pride in being members of the party of Lincoln, should remember that it was President Abraham Lincoln who unleashed Gen. William T. Sherman on Georgia in a deliberate effort to terrorize its citizens and hasten the Confederacy's surrender."
from "Russia Has a Case in Chechyna", Nixon Center
http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/articles/12_14_99Chechnya.htm

...or search yourself for "Lincoln" and "Chechnya". I got 52,000 hits.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64552)
by Roderick T. Long on July 12, 2005 at 5:03 PM

Pessimism?? Is this pessimism?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64532)
by Anthony Gregory on July 12, 2005 at 2:19 PM

With the War Between the States came conscription. Since that war ended, somewhere around fifteen million Americans were enslaved under threat of death and sent all around the world to kill people. That's a loss of freedom. With the War Between the States came Lincoln's generals with a policy of attacking civilians and committing genocidal ethnic cleansing against the Plains Indians. Since that war ended, total war became dominant in U.S. foreign policy, especially by World War II. That's a loss of freedom, and for millions of people it was the end of their lives. With the War Between the States came the principle that the federal government can do whatever it wants, despite Constitutional barriers and the intended perpetual threat of secession and nullification, and no matter how many civil liberties or lives are destroyed in the process. That's a loss of freedom, and the U.S. government is now the largest, most interventionist and potentially most dangerous empire in the history of the world. With the war came income tax, gun control, censorship, deportaions of dissenters, national corporate statism, and many other horrible precedents for American society. Yes, in the chaos of the war, the slaves freed themselves. But, as we all know, racial equality and liberty hardly were won immediately after the war ended.

Everyone in the world knows that slavery is evil and that chattel slavery's demise was good, that in many ways liberty and effective freedom have advanced since 1789, or 1861, or 1898, or 1917 or 1933 or 1941 or 1965 or many of the other particularly horrible years for American liberty. No one who considers himself a libertarian wants slavery to return, or the Confederacy — an organization that, like Lincoln's government, sanctioned slavery, and implemented conscription and national economic policy — to come back to life. But given that most Americans know the evils of slavery but not of Lincoln and the American statism he gave birth to — given that the U.S. capital city has a disgusting monument sanctifying this lying, sociopathic Machiavellian piece of human trash, as if he were Jupiter and we were the Ancient Roman Empire — why should it be any surprise that libertarians interested in history might find time to critique Lincoln as if he still mattered? Or is there a statute of limitations for mass murder? After 140 years are we supposed to forget about one of the worst rulers in American history, the father of the consolidated U.S. nation state and accept the fact that so many Americans have an unfortunately distorted view of Father Abraham?

And I hated Lincoln long before I read LRC or knew who Rockwell or even what Austrian economics was. In 1996 Harry Browne's book Why Government Doesn't Work had a brief section on Lincoln that seemed to coincide with what one of my history teachers had said — that the Union's war against secession wasn't about slavery, nor was it necessary, yet it had plenty of ghastly long-term effects for American liberty, limited government and peace. This did not shock me too much at the time. The revisionist interpretations seemed to fall in place with the historical facts stipulated by most historians, even those who admired Lincoln. As time went on, I realized that many libertarians shared Browne's view of Lincoln. I saw that many of the libertarians in the California Bay Area, none of whom I would assume for a second had sympathies for Antebellum chattel slavery, also agreed that Lincoln was a tyrant, and that he had no right to stop Southern secession. In fact, I thought until recently that most or nearly all libertarians recognized the evils of Lincoln's regime. Everyone knows slavery is bad. It takes a libertarian methodological individualism to see how Lincoln was so bad in all the slavery he implemented. All my friends here in the supposedly liberal, PC Bay Area know I feel this way, and yet none thinks it's because I long for the oppressive race crimes of antebellum America.

Yes, to hate Lincoln is contrarian. But it is also quite libertarian, and in no way implies a defense of anything unlibertarian that Lincoln supposedly fought against.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64536)
by Tom G Palmer on July 12, 2005 at 2:35 PM

Mr. Gregory may not himself yearn for a return to the Confederacy and its peculiar labor policies, but why have there been so many connections between Lew Rockwell & Co. and those who *do* yearn for such policies, such as the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens (their newsletter editor was a favorite reference)? What accounts for the astonishing whitewashing of the Confederacy, starting with the risible claim with which I have been bombarded from those quarters that the decision to secede had nothing to do with slavery, that it was *really* about tariffs and nothing more?

And for Mr. Gregory's account of the Lincoln-bashing to be plausible, we would expect that others who have built the modern state would come in for comparable bashing. Why is there so little Wilson-bashing, for example, given the ways in which he brought back conscription and set it on an essentially permanent footing, sent U.S. soldiers to Europe to engage in an utterly stupid war, and effectively nationalized much of the economy? What is it about Lincoln that so enrages Lew Rockwell & Co? Could it be that he actually defeated the side they preferred, the one that broke away (referring to the initial secession, not Virginia's) in order to preserve slavery?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64537)
by Anthony Gregory on July 12, 2005 at 2:45 PM

Everything I've ever seen about Wilson on LRC has been very critical. According to Google, 361 pages on LRC mention "Abraham Lincoln." Only 247 mention "Woodrow Wilson." Of course, Wilson is a less well-known figure, less often discussed, than Lincoln.

But there are fewer critiques of Wilson. Only a little more than 2/3 as many pages mention Wilson. What is the proper ratio? How much more do we have to hate Wilson than Lincoln? What would qualify as "comparable Lincoln bashing"?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64538)
by Anthony Gregory on July 12, 2005 at 2:49 PM

Sorry, I meant, "comparable Wilson bashing."

But seriously. I mean, personally, I think Truman might even be worse than FDR or Wilson. I think a lot of libertarians don't hate Truman the "right" amount — in Dante's Libertarian Inferno, he's often assigned too posh and comfortable an eternal fate of torture, when compared to Wilson, FDR, Lincoln, LBJ and laughable choices for worst president like Bill Clinton.

So what? If you hate Wilson or FDR or LBJ or Lincoln more than Truman I don't assume it's for some malicious reason.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64539)
by Justin Raimondo on July 12, 2005 at 2:59 PM

Tom Palmer writes:

"Moreover, the Civil War happened well over a hundred years ago and I see little connection between that and, say, Chechnya (especially considering how eager Mr. Raimondo -- a staunch lewrockwell ally to whom Rockwell frequently links, especially in his zanier conspiracy theories about the Jews, er, Zionists -- is to support Putin's crushing of the Chechens)."

I have not written a single article about "the Jews," although I frequently criticize Israel. Israel and "the Jews" are not the same thing, in spite of neoconservative (and Israeli) efforts to conflate the two.

I do not support "Putin's crushing of the Chechens," as anyone who reads what I have to say on the subject can readily see. What I oppose is U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of the former Soviet Union, whether it be military, diplomatic, or propagandistic. It is interesting that someone who supports the U.S. military's effort to "crush" (his word) the Iraqi insurgents is lecturing the rest of us from a supposedly high moral plane.

Palmer's efforts to smear me -- and others -- in the midst of what ought to be a scholarly discussion are unconscionable, and I wonder why it is tolerated on this board. Does every discussion involving Palmer have to degenerate into a stream of invective directed at fellow libertarians?

I see from the posting times that the Cato Institute is now paying Palmer to smear people full-time. What I want to know is why "Liberty and Power" is allowing itself to become a sounding board for Palmer's personal vendettas.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64563)
by Charles Johnson on July 12, 2005 at 5:52 PM

Stephan: 'Pro-Confederacy stuff? I'm not aware of much of this [...] Palmer's libel of Lew Rockwell et al. notwithstanding, there is not "fetish" over the "Confederacy" at LewRockwell.com. Palmer insists on labeling those who oppose Lincoln's war as neo-Confederate apologists for slavery.'

Stephan, what do you think about Tom DiLorenzo's recent post on LRC blog, nominating pro-slavery, anti-secession statist warrior Robert E. Lee for the top of his list of "greatest Americans"? Or his decision to lie about Lee's role in the emancipation of his father-in-law's slaves? Or his follow-up suggestion of pro-slavery, pro-conscription, anti-secession Jeff Davis for the state of Mississippi? How about his repeated false claims that Lincoln "introduced" conscription in 1863, "for the first time ever", as an "unprecedented coercive measure", etc. without ever once mentioning that Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy implemented a national draft more than a year before the Union?

If these don't seem like indications of a fetish for the Confederacy and its leaders, which sometimes overcomes respect for documented historical fact, on the part of a prolific author at LewRockwell.com, what *do* they seem like to you?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64565)
by Charles Johnson on July 12, 2005 at 6:00 PM

Oh, I should add that besides what clearly looks like indulging in Lost Cause fantasy, DiLorenzo's posts also clearly indicate the supposed offense that his comments are giving to "liberventionist" bogey-men as one of the chief motives for putting out the claims that he put out. ("Cackling like a flock of hens," &c.) So in addition to unthinking pro-Confederate apologetics, it may also serve as a good example of unthinking contrarianism as well.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64571)
by Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella on July 12, 2005 at 6:18 PM

Charles, DiLorenzo is probably the leading expert on Lincoln and I'm glad he has not relented in his attempts to educate people about that monster's actions and true nature.

As I have almost no interest in the Confederacy issues, I have no opinion on DiLorenzo's comments on Jeff Davis etc. I don't know what it has to do with "Confederacy" worship. Do you know Tom DiLorenzo? I do. He has nothing to do w/ the bucktoothed yahoo type you must envisage. He is a cosmopolitan guy, and very intelligent and sincere, and not the type to pine for the plantation. So give it a rest. These continual character assassinations are of fellow libertarians are disgusting. Tom D. is a fine man and scholar. None of you have any reason to vilify him or to insinuate blatantly false, outrageous things about his character, or that of other fine libertarians like Hoppe and Rockwell. Enough is enough. Palmer's being an attack-dog does not justify others doing it.

And no, Tom D.'s attacks on Lincoln are not the same thing. Steve Horwitz complained about this: "The work on Lincoln certainly has significant truth to it, but I think goes way over the line in its demonization of the man. That smacks of the same sort of contrarianism."

Imagine the response if someone like me said, "The work on Hitler certainly has significant truth to it, but I think goes way over the line in its demonization of the man."

You know, some ***holes should be demonized. We have forgotten what it means to be libertarians, I think: it is about distinguishing victim from victimizer. We care about victims and their rights, not about criminals. That is why we kill and imprison them when we can.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64603)
by John Lopez on July 13, 2005 at 1:00 AM

"Do you know Tom DiLorenzo? I do. He has nothing to do w/ the bucktoothed yahoo type you must envisage."

Why would Johnson have to "envisage" any sort of caricature to make the notations that he did? Isn't he just stating what he judges to be the facts of the matter?

"Palmer's being an attack-dog does not justify others doing it."

Indeed: http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/

"You know, some ***holes should be demonized."

No, evil men should be recognized for what they are. Demonization is worse that futile, because by doing so it undercuts your own credibility.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64567)
by Tom G Palmer on July 12, 2005 at 6:06 PM

Oh, Mr. Raimondo. Let's agree to disagree on this for now. You have slimed, slandered, and assaulted with the most vile language imaginable every person with whom you have disagreed. Your complaint is implausible.

In any case, the question raised by the original posting remains an interesting one. Why are some people so remarkably pessimistic, and others optimistic? What should the objective evidence tell us? To a substantial degree, that will depend on what one considers the important freedoms that are realized or abrogated or imperiled. Those who care little for the freedom of black Americans would see no reason to rejoice in the victories of liberty over Jim Crow laws. They would likely be the same set of people who consider Jefferson Davis a truly great American. It's always struck me how odd it is that people who justly cry out against, say, laws against discrimination, see no advance for freedom when laws requiring discrimination were eliminated. (As was said of so many conservatives years ago, when they opposed forced busing: they didn't complain about it when children were forcibly bused to segregated schools.)

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64577)
by Anthony Gregory on July 12, 2005 at 6:43 PM

Who defended Jim Crow?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64578)
by Anthony Gregory on July 12, 2005 at 6:49 PM

Or, more specifically, who implied in any way that the end of Jim Crow was not something to cheer?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64592)
by Tom G Palmer on July 12, 2005 at 11:39 PM

I would not set the bar that high. Making a list of people who don't cheer the end of World War I, for example, would be an odd basis for issuing a criticism. But eagerly embracing the people who supported war would be indicative of one's attitude toward war. And the same goes for oppression of black people. Praising Jefferson Davis is indicative of one's attitudes toward the institutions that he sought to preserve. The idea that Jefferson Davis was a "great American" is revolting. How in the world could one be a "libertarian" and consider such a man a hero?

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64593)
by Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella on July 13, 2005 at 12:01 AM

P-dog-- is everyone who has a bust or print of Thomas Jefferson in his office automatically ruled out of court as being a libertarian? After all, the son of a bitch owned slaves.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64595)
by Manuel Lora on July 13, 2005 at 12:10 AM

Dear Lord. I must get rid of my nickels. Only pennies from now on.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64601)
by Tom G Palmer on July 13, 2005 at 12:56 AM

A very weak retort. Thomas Jefferson did not lead a revolution for the purpose of furthering slavery. The signers of the South Carolina secession resolution did. There's a difference. Evidently you don't get it. A libertarian, on the other hand, would.

[ Reply ]

Re: Libertarian Contrarian (#64606)
by Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella on July 13, 2005 at 1:37 AM

P-dog writes:

A very weak retort. Thomas Jefferson did not lead a revolution for the purpose of furthering slavery. The signers of the South Carolina secession resolution did. There's a difference. Evidently you don't get it. A libertarian, on the other hand, would.

Ah. I see. Can't reply direclty to my own post--don't want to sully your hands. It's all electrons, Tom, you know. And no one cares about you finnicky rules. You insinuate here I am not a libertarian. I think you are not one. So there. Where are we now? Fisticuffs? On Segways?

Look, you obviously have a carefully-mapped out list of what is permitted, and what is not. It's okay to worship Jefferson, even though he owned slaves and raped one of them... but not to admire Jeff Davis, who freed his slaves.... because of "the" "purpose" of the "secession." Jefferson was in favor of secession... so was Jeff Davis... both secessions resulted in independent nations where slavery was legal... hmm, but "the" "purpose" --heck, I didn't konw there was "a" "the" purpose. You sure are smart, Tom.

Jusy give us the list of officially approved rules (run it by your benefactor first, would you) so we will know how to conform to the new world order.

[ Reply ]

Return to L&S: Miserable Libertarians