Jamelle's apparent attempt to marginalize libertarianism is a common tactic, reducing the libertarian thinker to influences of gender, race and social status. Then he places liberalism in a superior position, because, of course, liberals have had more well rounded experiences. Libertarians, being mostly financially well-off white guys, have difficulty "grappling with cultural sources of oppression."
The libertarian, according to this theory, can't understand the plight of women and minorities, because his mind is formed by his privileged experiences as a well-off white guy, therefore libertarianism, which is made up primarily of well-off white guys, is insufficient. However, the liberal who is a financially well-off, white guy can somehow grapple with the sources of cultural oppression even though he hasn't directly experienced the oppression -- I assume this is because liberalism has more culturally diverse adherents, so the influence of diversity informs liberalism, while the homogeniety of libertarianism keeps it uninformed.
I think Jamelle will agree that most people who call themselves libertarians are well-read and fairly intelligent. I don't know of any studies which show a weakness in comprehension skills among libertarians, so we can safely say that most libertarians are familiar with the liberal positions. Surely there can't be any psychological factors which prevent RWG (rich white guy) libertarians from grappling with the sources of cultural oppression, if RWG liberals don't have this same psychological defect. Then, it must be within the ideas themselves. Libertarianism and modern liberalism differ mainly in the area of state involvement -- liberals support an interventionist government to solve societal problems, while libertarians are prone to support private realm solutions to societal problems, but this is a different subject -- it has nothing to do with whether libertarians have difficulty grappling with the sources of cultural oppression.
Jamelle's premise is that libertarians find it difficult to grapple with sources of cultural oppressision. Jamelle states that "libertarians experience oppression or constraints on their liberty....through the actions of the state rather than through culture", but, this is true not only for libertarians, it's true for RWG liberals, socialists, communists, independents, etc. The RWG liberal is not culturally oppressed, just oppressed by the state. So, what enables the RWG liberal to accept the liberal political movement? Since this is not making much sense, I guess we would have to focus on the heart of Jamelle's premise which is "grappling".
What does Jamelle mean by "grappling"? It makes more sense to discuss individual responses to discrimination than to marginalize libertarians with the charge of cultural retardation, which is in itself a form of cultural oppression applied by the left against libertarians.
Some individuals respond by involving the state in coercive measures to make laws prohibiting discrimination -- some individuals repond by leaving it to individuals in society to deal with discrimination.
It's true that the modern liberal political movement more often than not will favor state intervention, while the libertarian political movement will more often than not favor society dealing with discrimination without the coercive power of the state getting involved. Oppression might take different forms other than discrimination, but what we do about it seems to be the underlying problem -- whether to legislate against cultural oppression or not.
There's no evidence that I am aware of showing libertarians, as individuals, lack concern regarding cultural oppression. It is true that libertarians, politically, have no desire to violate an individual's right to discriminate, if the individual is not unlawfully using coercion. A business owner who owns a business and wants to hire only white men should have the freedom to do so. The libertarian might find this abominable and as a concerned citizen join a protest movement to ostracize the business owner, boycott the owner's products or services, write blogs showing how stupid and biased the owner is, and choose to help the owner fail in every legal manner possible, but aside from all this, the libertarian doesn't promote the state stepping in, as it has done, to violate the owner's right to hire as he sees fit. If the business owner was female and hired only females, then no one would likely mind, but the libertarian as an individual could be just as upset, personally, at such discrimination, yet still not want the state to step in.
So, I'm not sure about Jamelle's point. Does he mean by "grappling" that the Libertarian Party should take a stance against discrimination? The Libertarian Party platform says this:
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
This is about all that can be said by a party which advocates government be limited to protecting individual rights. I think most individuals who claim to be libertarian agree that bigotry is irrational and repugnant. There is nothing in the libertarian's psychological make-up, even the RWG, that creates callousness toward cultural oppression, and nothing which prevents that individual from protesting bigotry -- otherwise, the RWG liberal/socialist would be callous. So, what should be done?
What is Jamelle proposing as the proper libertarian response to cultural oppression? Where is his proof that libertarians experience difficulty grappling with the sources of cultural oppression? As individuals we should all condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant, and fight to stop it whenever we can, short of state coercion. We should all try to change our culture to one which respects women and minorities -- and this is taking place all over the world -- libertarians aren't excluded from this societal effort to change hearts and minds.
Jamelle's post appears to be a simplistic effort to place libertarians in a certain limited light -- for what purpose, I don't really know, but I imagine it's to marginalize the libertarian political position which is opposed to progressivism. Nice try, but it doesn't stick.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 12:42PM
Reader Comments (2)
Do we see some Democrats leaning back to their 19th century founders, like Jefferson to Jackson, instead of following Rousseau and Marx, as we see with Obama and Pelosi? This is cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and www.claysamerica.com. Is it too much to hope?
Clay, I hope so. The Democrats have been hi-jacked by progressives, but some are seeing the danger.