Sunday, April 13, 2014

Tucker: A New Form of Libertarianism

If anyone doesn't think Jeffrey Tucker is completely out of the closet in his promotion of a new form of libertarianism: libertarianism of the politically correct, with apparently special advocacy for feminists, check this out.

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.

"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.

For the most part, they advance distorted economic theory, coupled with a desire for government power (over men).

Further, what the hell does the feminist movement have to do with the anti-slavery movement? And note Tucker's odd phrasing as though the anti-slavery movement still exists fighting some kind of battle. For the record, and again it is amazing that this kind of stuff has to be stated, but when slavery did exist human beings were coerced. That is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Who the hell is going out of their way to coerce feminists, women in general. etc.?

It is a terrible insult to the children and grandchildren of slaves to equate feminism with slavery.

Liberty is about liberty, nothing else. It is about freedom to think, say and write whatever one chooses, as long as one does not violate the non-aggression principle. It is about associating with those you want to associate with on your property and having the freedom to tell anyone you don't want to associate with to get the hell of your property.

This is so far from advocating for feminism, again a man-hating, state-loving movement, that it is really hard to understand  how the two can be matched up in anyway. It is perversion of the worst kind.

29 comments:

  1. "Jeffrey Tucker is now completely out of the closet in his promotion of a new form of libertarianism: libertarianism of the politically correct, with apparently special advocacy for feminists."

    And to think this guy was once Vice President of the Mises Institute.

    RW, what you're looking at here is what is known as a "white knight", a "mangina", or "male beta simp". As you already know this kind of thinking is not only sickening pathetic and weak but promotes THE STATE.

    "...feminism, again a man-hating, state-loving movement..."

    Bingo! The religion of political correctness has infected his bloodstream. It looks like he's now become a complete fool. Hell RW, remember that according to Murray Rothbard feminism was NEVER about equality even in the beginning. What were they trying to do? Get alcohol prohibition passed into law! What were the effects of this? ORGANIZED CRIME in this country! Gee, thanks you stupid bitches and the beta simps who supported them!

    Now we have this endless war on drugs, just another form of prohibition that has not only caused countless deaths but endless misery and the militarization of the police. How the f'ing hell can Jeff Tucker support this kind of crap?

    Jeff, you need a SERIOUS education on what feminism actually is. And it's not about anyone's "rights" but about power and control by women with penis envy who want power and taxpayer dollars to fund their insanity.

    Dammit Jeff I HATE saying this about you but come on! Get your head out of the clouds man!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tucker's first sentence lost me, with his "something more intellectually and strategically sophisticated than forms from the last century". Yeah, sure.

    "The most senior feminist minister in the U.K., Harriet Harman, wants businesses to hire women preferentially over White men"

    A terrible woman. The epitome of the man-hating Marxist-Feminist harridan.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He says the old classic liberals abhored anti gay speech?!?!?!? I guess he never read Mises then....

    ReplyDelete
  4. This isn’t a surprise. Tucker is a typical scared uncomfortable effeminate male (did he have an overly protective and domineering mother and a missing father as a child?). I laughed when reading “civilized thinking”. I never considered the sanction of absurd irrational behavior that is obviously at odds with reality “civilized thinking”. Instead I consider it being cowed by the cultural elite.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The white man is the victim. He is a slave, a 21st century nigger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hat tip to Wolfgang.
      A very good impersonation of LBJ, Castro, Hitler, or any other progressive heros of the 20th century.
      .
      Racist to the core.

      Delete
  6. I went ahead and read the piece. Tucker was engaged in reporting what he saw and heard at the conference. I don't think it constituted an endorsement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would disagree, he switched a little over halfway through the piece from observations to advocacy:

      "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. "

      So he's making a clear argument that feminism and anti-slavery should equal capitalism. The problem I see with this argument is:

      Involuntary slavery is a clear NAP violation, whereas it is not clear what NAP violation those against "feminism" would engage in.

      Delete
  7. So I guess Hillary is a Libertarian now too.
    .
    What the..............?
    .
    Bigots are people too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Funny thing about the feminist, GLBT, and minority populists, is that their political goals are all bumping into each other, messing things up for the other groups. Ex: destroying the family. A feminist dream, but yet, it's decimated the black community. Look at all the kids born out of wedlock, it's a huge problem, and the most accurate predictor of poverty. Then we have 85% of blacks in CA voting against gay marriage. And LGBT's protesting for marriage and the right adopt kids and have a family. How can the democrats juggle all three?

    Only in a (brutalist) libertarian society, could all three groups get what their after.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they'd never go for it because what they hate is discipline and restrictions on bad behavior . And that's essentially what we advocate for even though we are called libertarians. The liberty they want is what we don't allow, the liberty to aggress upon others, specifically whites and males.

      Delete
  9. "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-State attitudes are not only tacky, but embody the opposite of the tolerance that old liberalism identified as a main bulwark against brutalist oppression. This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of brutalist oppression and remain so in many parts if the world."

    Impeccable logic.

    The give away was the absolute lack of any reference to "coercion" / "freedom of association" in the introductory statement:

    "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. "

    I think Tucker may have confused libertarianism with libertinism or something else related to genitals. I wonder what's really going on with the young Tuckernack crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is very sad. Tucker has let his concern for those that may be harmed outside of the NAP distort his understanding of the very philosophy that would ultimately bring the "tolerance" he desires.

    Does it not occur to Tucker that feminism, for example could be considered a form of collectivism?

    "Fourth, there 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."

    Not only does Tucker not once mention the NAP in his new libertarianism(he only vaguely refers to "power"), but more importantly he suggests the importance of forming groups that exclude bigotry-suggesting that they not use the power he refers to in the same paragraph.

    Is this not a contradiction? Would such a group not naturally exclude bigots from their interactions, thereby using a form of power? Ask yourself why such a group would be entitled to use such power, but not bigots themselves?

    Since Tucker has not chosen to mention the NAP in his description of this new philosophy, but instead the term 'power'(which is not clearly defined), who gets to decide what is the acceptable use of power?

    I think ultimately that the only way mankind progresses, the one universal tenet free from the above contradictions is through the NAP.

    Humans inherently form phyles. I see Tucker as trying to label some phyles "good", some "bad", but the whole time ignoring the basic tenet required for peaceful coexistence, the NAP.

    Doug Casey has it right IMO:

    http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-phyles

    Libertarians have a phyle, statists have a phyle...bigots, feminists, etc. et al...the list can go on forever...but without the NAP how do any of them co-exist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, thanks for bringing up Doug Casey's 'phyles' concept. Something similar here: http://www.CantonMovement.com. As for me, I am proudly PALEO-libertarian.

      Delete
  11. I envision a time when if a man wants a relationship with a woman who acts like a woman, he'll almost have no other option than to hire a prostitute. How sad. Oh Lord, how far we've "progressed."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why not ask Tucker what, specifically, he advocates about feminism? He's not very clear about this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do agree that marriage is failed concept and only benefits women, enslaves the man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's gotten that way thanks to people's worship of the state. They're as superstitious as ancient pagan. The State breaks up families. It ruins relationships and givens women the incentive to not only misbehave but to make the state their husband. Government is a cruel taskmaster.

      Delete
  14. Tucker said this stuff is 'non-negotiable'.

    The NAP, according to Tucker, takes second place to these non-negotiable politically correct ideas. Definitely not libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think Tucker may about to come out.

    He is realizing a lot of things, and one of those things, is that advocacy for things other than libertarianism are trumping the NAP. So to be true to himself while still keeping his following, he is trying to combine the two. Soon he will be rejecting the NAP openly and supporting positive rights.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If anyone doesn't think Jeffrey Tucker is completely out of the closet in his promotion of a new form of libertarianism"

    I see what you did there...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't see why anyone would object to the feminism Tucker is talking about. It certainly isn't about special rights for women. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-feminism-of-ludwig-von-mises

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is why we object. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/justin-raimondo-vs-big-tent-students.html

      It isn't feminism itself that has drawn so much of our attention, but linking it to libertarianism at the disregard for actual core principles ie nonintervention. I don't see why anyone wouldn't object.

      Delete
    2. You don't see, eh? Why am I not surprised?

      Delete
    3. For the most detailed and best case against feminism, check out a youtube channel by a woman named Karen Straughan aka 'Girlwriteswhat'.

      Delete
  18. Remember that solutions to inequality such as solving the supposed wage gap are to be applied collectively. This has been the case since the late seventies when affirmative action policies were instituted and upheld by the courts.

    Example. My female co-worker and I are each paid the same hourly wage. But since women, on the whole, supposedly earn seventy-seven cents on the male dollar, if our employer were to raise her wage three dollars and change above mine or, conversely, were to lower my wage by nearly three dollars (which is how the numbers work out in this case), this would be perfectly legal and the employer would be doing his/her bit to move toward the goal of equal pay for equal genders.

    This is what is meant by "narrowing the wage gap." Employers, including the government, may or may not choose to go this route, but there is support for it, and it would be perfectly legal to do so. The point is that feminism and similar -isms are concerned with "social" not with individual justice, which, in their thinking, makes sense as it translates to "I gain at your expense." What, in that mindset, is not to like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Remember that solutions to inequality such as solving the supposed wage gap are to be applied collectively. This has been the case since the late seventies when affirmative action policies were instituted and upheld by the courts."

      Do you see the NAP violation in the above sentence? That's why what you are advocating is not any form of 'libertarianism'.

      Delete