≡ Menu

A punk with a mission

From another thread:


Submitted by nskinsella on Wed, 2008-09-17 08:37.

Of course Hoppe is not a homophobe nor bigot; Ghertner has obviously appointed himself high PC commissar and is looking to root out deviations from his state-fostered PC faith. First: in the quote Ghertner uses, Hoppe is talking about “the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism”–not homosexuals, but “advocates” thereof. Second, this is arguably a prediction, not a policy Hoppe necessarily personally favors. Third, he’s speaking in stark language here but is obviously talking about tendencies, not ironclad 100% laws–he’s predicting that free societies would tend to shun those who advocate mores and practices that undercut the socio-cultural underpinnings of society. Fourth, the “physically removed from society” part does not imply aggression–a charitable reader would realize this probably only means physical separation–i.e., that societies would tend to shun enemies of society and to segregate with those of their own kind–fellow inhabitants of “society” who appreciate the cultural underpinnings necessary for it. This in no way implies that aggression is permissible, nor that living among homosexuals is problematic. But Ghertner is not a charitable reader. He’s a punk with a mission.


Submitted by nskinsella on Wed, 2008-09-17 09:27.

BTW, not that I have any attachment to the idea, but what is unlibertarian or even immoral about xenophobia? Isn’t it rather natural?

thick and xenophobia

Submitted by nskinsella on Wed, 2008-09-17 10:54.

Well even nasty xenophobia is not unlibertarian per se. But what I mean is, isn’t a degree of xenophobia natural and not even immoral at all, and not even violative of “thick” libertarianism? Even if we “ought” to be tolerant and cosmopolitan, does this imply that there ought to be no attachment whatsoever to “one’s own kind”? (which of course implies a degree of xenophobia). If xenophobia is wrong, then any preference for any individual based on their group memberships is also wrong. E.g., it would be “immoral” and against “thick” libertarian precepts for a black father to prefer his daughter marry a black man (or even for him to prefer that she be heterosexual); or to attend a black church; or for him to join the NAACP, etc. I don’t see that some inter-group preferences are necessarily immoral or illiberal; and they all imply (are correlatives of) a type or degree of xenophobia.

I.e., even if we ought to be “cosmopolitan” and “tolerant” and “individualist,” there is a range. I myself fall on the extreme “tolerant/individualist” range, personally, but *as* a genuinely tolerant liberal I have no gripe with those on the more “collectivist” end of the spectrum–so long as they don’t fall into irrationality, outright collectivism, real racism, and nastiness, rudeness, and intolerance. The real problem with genuine racism is that it’s rude, mean, petty, bad manners, self-destructive and irrational. And this is yet another problem with the princess-and-the-pea silly pinheads like Ghertner–like the boy who cried wolf, they make people skeptical of real claims of bigotry, by promoting the state’s irrational and politically-motivated concepts thereof.

Were we supposed to know that?

Submitted by nskinsella on Wed, 2008-09-17 15:16.

That “Micha” is Jewish? I had no idea–and don’t care. The problem with opposing “mild collectivisms” is they permeate human life. As I noted, I am much less into that stuff than most people–especially more than most religious people. Jews engage in a form of “mild collectivism” and xenophobia, no? I had a Jewish friend tell me, point blank, to my face one time, during lunch–an atheist Jew, mind you, who was nonetheless “kosher”–that one reason for advocating Jews to be kosher was to impose a cost on them to associate with goyem–to reduce the chance of intermarriage and loss of culture etc. Now I found that to be offensive and irrational, … but whatever.

Neither Jewish, nor Gay

Submitted by nskinsella on Wed, 2008-09-17 17:28.

Let’s get that straight, eh?

Hoppe never claimed gays “must be” removed. He said that *advocates* of alternative lifestyles and values contrary to that of a “covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin”–those who “habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal”–would be physically removed from society (which means ostracism, tendencies, voluntary segregation, not aggression or trespass). Now you may view gays as “habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with” the goal of “protecting family and kin,” but I, and Hoppe, do not. How intolerant, closed-minded, parochial, and biased of you. Tsk tsk.

Ghertner, can you read?

Submitted by nskinsella on Thu, 2008-09-18 17:22.

Do you have comprehension problems? Or general psychological ones? (as your bizarre castigation of your grandma and your family’s traditions would indicate)

I wrote: “Now you may view gays as “habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with” the goal of “protecting family and kin,” but I, and Hoppe, do not.”

You: “Then why did he bother mentioning them in his shit list of people who must be physically removed from society?”

Dude, the sentence–ONE sentence you keep taking out of context–was: “They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

The “such as … homosexuality” modifies “non-family-centered lifestyles.” He is talking about ADVOCATES of such lifestyles, not about those who merely practice such lifestyles. An advocate of a non-family-centered lifestyle seems to be just a way of describing someone openly hostile to the family-centered culture that many people believe must form the core or basis of any functioning society, even a libertarian one. Consider an example: There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to be a confirmed bachelor; say, a priest, or a single man. But such people usually live in a normal society that is constituted by the family-centered structure. Priests don’t run around saying everyone should practice abstinence. They are not hostile to a family-centered order. Likewise, gays are not either. It is those who openly oppose and are hostile to these traditional family-centered norms and institutions and values that would (it is argued) be ostracized and shunned. This argument is not bigoted at all; it is not even advocating it, it is merely an opinion about how libertarian societies would in practical reality be successfully implemented. You don’t have to agree with it, but it is not a bigoted analysis.

As for physically removing–this does not imply trespass or aggression or removing people from their own property. It means to segregate from.

You have issues

Submitted by Stephan Kinsella (not verified) on Mon, 2008-09-22 10:55.

Ghertner, it’s obvious you have a plurality of problems–mental, ethical, psychological, familial. You are just one messed up sad sack star trek geek aren’t you? With some kind of chip on your shoulder for authority and your betters. Hoppe does not say he “hates” those people. Homosexuality is not on the list anyway, but “advocates of”.

“What in the world does it mean to say that homosexuals do not habitually promote homosexuality? Do libertarians not habitually promote libertarianism?”

this is dishonest: libertarianism is a political philosophy. A belief system. Of course libertarians qua libertarians are advocates of it. Homosexuality is a sexual preference or condition. Are priests “advocates of celibacy”? Are heterosexuals “advocates of heterosexuality”? Are mixed-race couples “advocates of mixed-race marriage”? Are pot-smokers “advocates of pot-smoking”? Is a woman who chooses to have an abortion an “advocate of abortion”? Hoppe obviousuly was referring to those who are openly hostile to, who agitate against, the traditional, family-centered morals and institutions that arguably undergird any workable covenant-based libertarian society. Your dishonesty, your insecurity, your hatred of authority and your betters and your desire to petulantly lash out at them is reprehensible. Yes, you have the individual right to go around maligning good people who don’t deserve it. Yes, you can also utter curse words and go get drunk a bar. Enjoying your freedom, kiddie?

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Reply

© 2012-2024 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright