Tucker’s new form of libertarianism: responses

Tucker: A New Form of Libertarianism:

I’ve known that Reason Magazine has taken up an editorial stance outside in some areas that are irrelevant and even inimical to libertarian philosophy, though not as much as Tucker seems to have done in the quotes found at the Economic Policy Journal web site.

He wrote at FEE last October:

I see within Students for Liberty the emergence of a new form of libertarianism—something more intellectually and strategically sophisticated than forms from the last century… here are some non-negotiables, and they aren’t only about the ban on the use of power. As an extension of the above point, this generation puts a premium on civilized thinking and behaving that includes absolute exclusion of bigotry in all its forms. Racist, sexist, and anti-gay attitudes are not only tacky, but embody the opposite of the tolerance that old liberalism identified as a main bulwark against State oppression. This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression and remain so in many parts if the world.

So, for example, it is true that in our time many feminists look to the State for privilege, but it is also true that many racial minorities (and people of all races and classes) look to the State. But the fundamental history and drive of feminism and the anti-slavery movement, historically understood, are about empowering every member of the human family with the freedom that is his or her right.

If we love capitalism, we must remember that it alone has done more to bring about that empowerment than any political change. For this reason, we should embrace the ideals of feminism in the same way we embrace the anti-slavery cause. It is our cause, our banner, our history, our movement. We should never give this up to the oppressor class.

Robert Wenzel does a good job at refuting this cockamamie idea by simply quoting some famous feminists:

“This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression”? What the hell is he thinking? Does he think that businessmen and taxpayers aren’t oppressed by the state? Does he think that drug dealers aren’t oppressed by the state? Where exactly does he get the idea that a bunch of loudmouth feminists who will use state power at every opportunity are victims of the state?

How can this be anything but a through the looking glass house of horrors libertarianism?

Do I really have to run these quotes once again to point out that feminism has nothing to do with libertarianism? Feminists are a bunch of family-hating, state-loving, men-haters:

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” —Robin Morgan

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone; Actress

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.

And they have no problem with making this an embedded part of government:

The most senior feminist minister in the U.K., Harriet Harman, wants businesses to hire women preferentially over White men http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/harman-defends-positive-discrimination-plans-854475.html

In India, the minister for Women and Child Development Renuka Chaudhary has promoted and defended the blatantly anti-male Domestic Violence Act, a law under which a man can be jailed for insulting any female relative.

In Sweden, they even have a party – Feminist Initiative – that promotes the feminist ideology e.g. the abolition of marriage, and a special ‘man tax’ to pay for the cost of domestic violence against women.

Feminists are also about promoting the absurd idea that women are paid unequally. Here’s feminist Lauren Berg calling for government action to end the “unfairness.”

On Wednesday, every U.S. Senate Republican voted against proceeding to debate the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women…U.S. Census Bureau data shows that women who work full-time earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn in a year….People need to stop thinking about feminism being unnecessary or simply a “women’s issue.”… Feminism is not just a women’s issue, it is a humanitarian issue. It is a question of “do you think men and women should be equal?”

See: WaPo Slams Obama on Talk of a Male-Female Wage Gap on the distortion about the wage gap claim.

I can’t think of one issue that modern day feminists are attempting to advance that has anything to do with libertarianism. Not one. In fact, most things on the feminist agenda are anti-libertarian.

Of course feminism has nothing to do with the anti-slavery movement, as Wenzel points out.

But Wenzel himself was less forthcoming about the things Tucker said about the gay activism movement. This embrace of political fad, and following thought police dictates in lock step merely shows a lack of conviction about keeping the state monsters out of our lives and our pocketbooks. Like the Bible warns against being “tossed about by every wind and doctrine”. Some of these guys that despise Biblical wisdom so much could double their IQ with counsel like that if they only heeded it.

So Tucker agrees to put away “bigotry in all its forms”? Oh yeah? Then why not put away the bigotry of mindlessly thinking that gays should be able to get state licenses for same-sex marriage and that anybody is a bigot who disagrees with their ideas of marriage (including little old heterosexual me, who wants the state to bug out of it already!)

And “minorities”?

What about the Christian minority? How about the dark-skinned Christian minority? What about the even smaller creationist Christian minority? They’re getting persecuted by the feminists and the militant government-loving Act-Up Queer Nation lookalikes, by government, by militant proselytizing atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who was by the way a sometimes guest at www.reason.com


%d bloggers like this: