GOP Primary Debate #1

[Martinus]

Nobody likes fraternité.

I would say it is the liberté that tends to get ignored sadly. But let's not get sidetracked

Let's get started a discussion in a separate thread about it.

[dps]

Could it be said that (unlike certain other political ideologies, especially on the left) libertarianism does not generally consider combating racism its top priority and it is willing to tolerate racism in the name of personal freedom?

Racism is now (rightly or wrongly) considered one of the greatest evils of the world by certain portions of the public (the so-called "liberal left", for example) and it seems clear to me that libertarians do not necessarily share this view.

I'd generally agree with your post, except I think that most libertarians do share the view that the view that racism is evil, but I'd also say that it's possible to regard racism as one of the greatest evils of the world and still believe that combatting should not a top priority for governments or even an appropriate task for governments at all.  The extreme type of libertarian who would go so far to say that government should have no role in fighting racism I think are pretty naïve, not racist.  And not naïve just about racism, either--they tend to think that maximizing personal freedom will somehow magically solve all of society's problems.  I think that we should allow everyone as much personal freedom as possible, but doing so certainly isn't going to solve all of our social ails, and some limits on personal freedoms are required simply to have a functioning government in the first place--and we need a functioning government to provide a civilized legal framework, because otherwise, our personal freedom is replaced by the law of the jungle.  A balance between government authority and personal freedom has to be set.

Now, as to at what point that balance needs to be set, I'd pick some point well to the libertarian side of the spectrum, but I want to still stay well away from the point where libertarianism and anarchism start blending together.

[Valmy]

I feel the same way about individual freedom and social equality/justice. They are both very good things that should be fought for to the highest extent possible because they are obviously good things in themselves. But I do not think they are the cure alls some think they are going to be. I am not convinced our more diverse institutions actually function better than the old non-diverse ones did. But that is not the point of diversity.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I'll give a last piece article, from Reason magazine, which as I said is the big libertarian magazine.  The authors the article are libertarians.  They describe the same strategy that I am describing.  So if it's just some conspiracy and delusion that is my head, I'm not alone.

So the big libertarian magazine is publishing an expose criticizing some big name libertarians for voicing racist views or not taking responsibility for such views being voiced under the names.  That isn't very convincing proof that libertarianism as a political ideology is inherently racist.

Good, cause I didn't say that.  I said that there are racist elements to the libertarian movement.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

[So the big libertarian magazine is publishing an expose criticizing some big name libertarians for voicing racist views or not taking responsibility for such views being voiced under the names.  That isn't very convincing proof that libertarianism as a political ideology is inherently racist.

Good, cause I didn't say that.  I said that there are racist elements to the libertarian movement.

You said yesterday, "There has been a strong element of racism in libertarian ideology."  That is much stronger than "there are racist elements to the libertarian movement".  The former implies racism is inherent to the ideology.  The latter implies the ideology is attractive to racists, who have thus embraced it.  So, which are you actually claiming?

[derspiess]

Is there really much difference between saying the two, anyway?

[Barrister]

Is there really much difference between saying the two, anyway?

Yes.

Preston Manning once said "a bright light attracts a few moths".  I have no problem with the assertion that some racists have, from time to time, attached themselves to the libertarian movement.  Any political movement will attract the occasional nutjob.

But Raz wants to go further, and to say that racism is somehow inherent to the movement or to the ideology itself.

[Razgovory]

No, there is no real difference.  Some libertarians are racist.  Some peddle to racists.  Some libertarian theorists were racists and that filtered into their work.  Is libertarianism devoid of racists?  No.  Are all libertarians racist?  No.  Are most?  I don't know.  Do I believe that elements of libertarianism is especially attractive to racists?  Yes.  An Ideology that celebrates inegality and inequality would seem a natural fit for people who believe that some races are better then others.


I do not think that libertarianism is about individual freedom, though most of it's adherents probably think it is.  It is about reduction of government.  The assumption that reducing government automatically increases individual freedom I believe is wrong.  Most of the things that limit freedom are not government, but circumstance.  Take for instance a man living in London in 1715 London and a man living 2015 London.  The man living in 18th century London is theoretically free to fly over the city without restriction, unlike his counterpart in modern London where flying over the city is heavily restricted.  However, despite heavy regulations that exist on flying around the city of the London the modern man is has far more freedom of flight then the 18th century man because of circumstance.  The man in 1715 has no means to fly, so government regulation or lack there are meaningless to him.  It is not freedom from government that liberates him and gives him the freedom to fly but technology, a type of circumstance.

[Razgovory]

Is there really much difference between saying the two, anyway?

Yes.

Preston Manning once said "a bright light attracts a few moths".  I have no problem with the assertion that some racists have, from time to time, attached themselves to the libertarian movement.  Any political movement will attract the occasional nutjob.

But Raz wants to go further, and to say that racism is somehow inherent to the movement or to the ideology itself.

What happens when the racists are also the theorists of the movement?  What happens when the racism comes from party's Presidential candidate.

[Valmy]

What happens when the racists are also the theorists of the movement?  What happens when the racism comes from party's Presidential candidate.

But enough about our two major parties.

[Berkut]

Could it be said that (unlike certain other political ideologies, especially on the left) libertarianism does not generally consider combating racism its top priority and it is willing to tolerate racism in the name of personal freedom?

I don't see them as even being at odds with one another.

What do you mean by "tolerating racism"? Tolerating it in other people? Certainly that is a libertarian view, even a more generally liberal view, if by "tolerate" you mean "Don't use the power of the state to enforce private morality", then yeah, a libertarian would value another right to be a racist.

Of course, that is kind of trivial - I do NOT think it is a libertarian view to tolerate state or institutional racism. There is nothing about being a libertarian that ought to make one ok with state enforeced segregation - indeed, that is a clear violation of libertarian principles to restrict one groups liberty in that manner based on race.

[MadImmortalMan]

Take for instance a man living in London in 1715 London and a man living 2015 London.  The man living in 18th century London is theoretically free to fly over the city without restriction, unlike his counterpart in modern London where flying over the city is heavily restricted.  However, despite heavy regulations that exist on flying around the city of the London the modern man is has far more freedom of flight then the 18th century man because of circumstance.  The man in 1715 has no means to fly, so government regulation or lack there are meaningless to him.  It is not freedom from government that liberates him and gives him the freedom to fly but technology, a type of circumstance.

Whether or not you can fly is not a political question. Some things are not under the jurisdiction of the electorate. The laws of physics are among those.

[Razgovory]

Take for instance a man living in London in 1715 London and a man living 2015 London.  The man living in 18th century London is theoretically free to fly over the city without restriction, unlike his counterpart in modern London where flying over the city is heavily restricted.  However, despite heavy regulations that exist on flying around the city of the London the modern man is has far more freedom of flight then the 18th century man because of circumstance.  The man in 1715 has no means to fly, so government regulation or lack there are meaningless to him.  It is not freedom from government that liberates him and gives him the freedom to fly but technology, a type of circumstance.

Whether or not you can fly is not a political question. Some things are not under the jurisdiction of the electorate. The laws of physics are among those.

I gave a circumstance that we can all agree on.  What if the circumstance is poverty, or lack of supply?  If I can't do something because I don't have money, then I'm not free to do it.  I have a right to bear arms, but what if nobody will sell me a weapon because I'm the wrong race?  In practice I do not have that right.

[Razgovory]

Berkut, honest question.  Why do you think South Africa had Apartheid?

[Barrister]

Berkut, honest question.  Why do you think South Africa had Apartheid?

This sure is a fascinating debate you're trying to get started here Raz.