printI’ve long since contended that establishment-endorsed libertarianism, touted on the Fox News and Business channels, is a left-libertarianism. Like neoconservatism, this “Libertarianism Lite” equates liberty with abstract propositions that—against all evidence, historic and other— purport to work when applied to every individual, Afghani, Israeli and Iraqi, provided he or she gets the proper (invariably American) instruction.
A libertarianism that refuses to recognize “Liberty’s Civilizational Dimension,” sadly, prevails among the young (leftism is, after all, second nature to youth).
Writes VDARE’s James Kirkpatrick:
Students for Liberty, forthrightly supports exterminating the American identity. It defends capitalism precisely on the grounds that it undermines conservatism and traditional values. Its campus coordinators enthusiastically champion the usual “civil rights” causes and are particularly obsessed with championing gay groups. They invite immigrants like Reason Magazine columnist Shikha Dalmia (email her) to punish us for letting her come here by lecturing their mostly white audiences on why their ideology requires more immigrants.
Needless to say, Students For Liberty avoids Politically Incorrect causes that may technically fall under the cause of “liberty.” A column posted on its website about an affirmative action bake sale by the College Republicans says the real root of racism is “statism.” [Don’t Just Bake, Strike the Root!, by James Padilioni, Jr., September 27, 2011] There’s even a defense of critical race theory, and needless to say, no mention of official multiculturalism and its reliance on state support. [The Law Perverted: A Libertarian Approach to Black History Month, February 1, 2012 by James Padilioni, Jr.]
Movements that supposedly champion the radical libertarian economist Murray Rothbard might want to look at what he actually said on the subject.
Note that, as a paleolibertarian, I do not give a tinker’s toss about gay marriage. It is NOT a libertarian issue (other than to stress that “whatever is not specified as a power of the federal government and is not prohibited to the states, is reserved to the states or the people“). However, it is incongruous to profess libertarianism, while supporting affirmative action, anti-private property Civil-Rights laws, and public education extended to all trespassers—these are policies that violate private property, which is the cornerstone of libertarianism.
MORE.
UPDATED: In reply to HBK on Facebook: The stand most libertarians take is that libertarianism is neither Right not Left; we are all supposed to uphold the non-aggression axiom (although left-libertarians, aka the Beltway think-tank type, were more likely to evince full-throated enthusiasm for Bush’s war than the Rightists; I came out against that war on Set. 19, 2002, and never again heard from Neal Boortz, who used to link to my stuff prior). There is something to the eschewing of Left and Right, but in my opinion, it is, for the most, a cop-out. Beltway lefties were also quite hostile to Ron Paul at the inception. Since the nation’s memory is non-existent, they now love him—talking about him gets them on TV.
I like this post and have linked it on some blogs. I am getting tired of reading people’s comments who paint all libertarians with the same broad brush. They seem to understand there is a world of difference between a Pat Buchanan paleocon and a Bill Kristol neocon. But when it comes to libertarians, they assume all are just another flavor of left of center liberalism.
There is vastly more ideological diversity among libertarians than among partisan Democrats or Republicans. Cultural fad rejection is probably something that will come with age.
I was more or less immune as a hard core non-conformist but most people like to run in the ideological herd.
What is harder for me to understand is why do “conservatives” despise Ron Paul so much when he is true to economic principles, is not into the leftist culture fads (gay rights, free condoms…), and supports the constitution (what the hell could be more “conservative” than that??). But – I think it is the same tunnel vision I encounter when trying to sell new solutions among the myopic people who run the Defense Department (ask the French along the Maginot line who communicated with messengers rather than use radio)… – hell, why tax your brain by THINKING??
Myron Pauli asks: “why tax your brain by THINKING??
That great English poet, A. E. Housman, once observed about an enemy’s slovenliness of mind: “Three minutes’ thought would suffice to work this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.”
Myron asks: “Why do Conservatives despise Ron Paul?” Simple, Conservatives are ‘traditional Socialists’ They accept Keynes as much as Liberals, but, they don’t go for willi-nelly Economics because it upsets the cart. Ron Paul is a Radical. Obama is an extremist but not a radical. Trash the military and leave us defenseless, trash the Fed and leave us without a system we have had for forty-five years. They and America would have to stand on their own and Conservatives are old men, almost as old as Liberals and change is dangerous. The home of the free and the brave doesn’t exist in either party anymore. America is old before its time and can not accept change. That’s why he’s hated. Perhaps, I had a bit more Irish music and Texas wine and vehemence at Washington last night; but, that’s the way it appears to me.