Walter Block emails:
Both essays are astounding and horribly wrong headed.A recent article of mine while not exactly on point, refutes both, well, particularly the latter (the former is even worse, if possible, “privilege” indeed):Block, Walter. 2014.
“Homosexuality, Feminism and Libertarianis; (response to Massimino.)” January 10;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/ homosexuality-feminism-and- libertarianism/;http://libertycrier.com/ homosexuality-feminism-and- libertarianism/? Why is FEE offering a choice between two articles, both of them very flawed? Maybe, this is a trick question, and the proper answer is to reject both?
I don't have the link to the two articles.
ReplyDeleteLet us all not forget that Julie Borowski is the co-author if this piece of tripe as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://sexandthestate.com/lrc-article-demonstrates-why-the-liberty-movement-has-a-women-problem/
This women has had her 15 minutes of fame now, can we go back to ignoring her?
FEE has gone momentarily insane.
"We should avoid making predetermined judgments about people based on their class, race, or gender. That is, after all, where we get the word prejudice. Instead, libertarians should promote an inclusive philosophy that respects every single human being."
DeleteJulie has balls of steel. Don't you doubters be prejudiced about it. Trust me, she has huge balls.
"Trust me, she has huge balls."
DeleteWell you like to think she does.
"libertarians should promote an inclusive philosophy that respects every single human being." We could call it the Non-Agression Principle.
ReplyDelete"libertarians should promote an inclusive philosophy that respects every single human being"
ReplyDeleteThe irony of that statement is that libertarians do promote such a philosophy, it's called "leaving people alone", or freedom, or voluntary interaction, etc.
It's too much of a stretch for Jules to consider that would mean allowing people the freedom to discriminate...but hey...we aren't talking about a Mises scholar here are we?
Let's just hope that not too many people actually thinks she represents libertarianism in any reasonable fashion(thanks FEE!), lest they actually think that the promotion of control over others thoughts/behavior might be deemed "acceptable" by libertarians.
Agree Cathy's article was horrible, but from what I recall Julie was much better. With regard to " "We should avoid making predetermined judgments about people based on their class, race, or gender. That is, after all, where we get the word prejudice. Instead, libertarians should promote an inclusive philosophy that respects every single human being."" I don't find anything unlibertarian about this... it's her OPINION and it is compatible with libertarianism to have an opinion.
ReplyDeleteSometimes we get a little to jumpy I think, voicing an opinion doesn't mean calling for aggression.
~MM
"Sometimes we get a little to jumpy I think, voicing an opinion doesn't mean calling for aggression."
DeleteI understand your point fully.
Looking at this in a different way, stating an opinion on HOW people should think, as opposed to WHY they should think/behave in a certain manner(via argument) can naturally lead people to think about controlling rather than convincing others.
In my OPINION, Julie's statement about "avoiding making predetermined judgments about people based on their class, race, or gender" is not only simply NOT libertarian, I have a hard time attributing it as an "argument"- that libertarianism isn't an "inclusive philosophy that respects every single human being" as a result of discriminatory thinking.(discrimination is the most fundamental right of a human being in a voluntary society)
It definitely borders on collectivist nonsense and seems as far from libertarian as one can get.
Further though, when Julie has packaged herself with someone like Reisenwitz who has taken Julie's thought one step further and said "libertarianism not worth having" if people discriminate, well, that is a direct attack on libertarianism(and freedom) itself.
Yea, I see plenty implicitly that says to me "aggression".(if you call attacking libertarianism in general as such, if people don't think they way you do but don't violate the NAP)
Now, if these two want to argue that discrimination is a violation of the NAP principle, I'm all ears. Somehow I doubt that argument will be forthcoming.
These chicks are feminists (and therefore not libertarians) so why expect anything other than gynocentric irrationality?
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, these women are privileged in the liberty movement because they are women and the largely male libertarian movement is smitten with pretty faces promoting their ideologies. Their articles are tedious, mediocre, and irrational. I have never been impressed with Boroski, Reisenwitz, or Amanda Billyrock. They are halfway decent at promotional YouTubes but they are largely incapable of original thought. If anything they are attention seekers promoting themselves and their careers with great success considering their mediocre talents. If these women were judged on their merits we would never have even heard their names.
ReplyDeleteCathy Reisenwitz is simply not a libertarian. That became plainly obvious when she argued that forms of insulting or demeaning speech (such as 'slut shaming') should be considered forms of "aggression" and therefor against the NAP.
ReplyDeleteShe is a Reasonite, a faux libertarian trying to smuggle feel-good liberal nonsense into the philosophy of libertarianism. Say what you will about Steve Horwitz but at least he tried hard to correct her on that.
If she argues that a libertarianism that doesn't conform to HER ideas about it is not a libertarianism worth having, then i hope she draws conclusions from that and realizes that she has been a liberal all along, and just stops pretending to be something she's not. and stops wasting our time.
I am sick to death of non-libertarians trying to jump on top of a "hip bandwagon" like libertarianism while trying to smuggle their own non-libertarian nonsense into it.
As far as Julie Borowski is concerned, i think she understands libertarianism a bit better than Reisenwitz, but i am not particularly impressed with her intelligence. Whenever i see one of her Youtube videos i can't help but wonder what she is contributing. She simply does not seem all that bright, and quite frankly i suspect she still has some conservative brainwashing in her.
Borowski and Reisenwitz are a bit like polar opposites, the one being still too informed by conservatism, the other by liberalism, and neither come across as having anything of value to say about libertarianism.
I do like Amanda BillyRock. She may still have to learn some things, but she's only been libertarian a short time, and almost immediately progressed from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism, so it seems she really gets it.