A Christian Brutalist?!? A Response to Tucker’s Thick Libertarianism

By Jim Fedako

“Brutalism can appear in many ideological guises. Bolshevism and Nazism are both obvious examples…Religious fundamentalism is yet another obvious form.” Jeffrey Tucker

A brutalist?!? Akin to a Bolshevik or Nazi?!? At least that is how Jeffrey Tucker categorized me[1], and those like me. Why? Because I dare sit at my computer contemplating the libertarian sufficiency of the nonaggression principle during those periods when I am not searching the Internet for a better understanding of the fundamentals of Christianity, all in preparation for a forthcoming discussion with a group of self-sorted, like-minded brethren. Yet, that which I consider a hint of liberty in a world of increasing oppression qualifies me as a brutalist in the mind of Tucker? Really?

Tucker caught me off guard. His essay shocked with
“implausible [and] uncomfortable implications of an idea.” Not my idea of liberty, but his formulation of a notion that is perverse indeed.
I had always thought acceptance of the nonaggression principle was sufficient to claim full membership in the liberty movement. But when Tucker “shouted down” those who adhere to that notion, I was shocked. Truly. According to him, those of us who embrace so-called thin libertarianism – and its sufficiency of nonaggression principle – share a similar underlying ethic with Bolshevism, Nazism, and religious fundamentalism.

A Bolshevik and Nazi I am not, but a Christian fundamentalist I am, i.e., one who believes the Bible is fundamental to the understanding of truth. So he brands me a brutalist even before considering my views on the sufficiency of nonaggression principle. And, to read Tucker at his word, there is no means for me shed brutalism save renouncing my faith – shades of Ayn Rand’s demand of Murray Rothbard’s wife. [2]

This attitude defines Tucker’s formulation of liberty, and this form of discourse defines his “civil standard,” which leads me to view the possibility of any instantiation of his utopian dream as both “terrifying and threatening.”

Ironically, Tucker uses brutalism as the analogy to denounce adherence to the sufficiency of nonaggression principle. Who were the Brutalist? They were those who desired an architectural expression for the ideals of socialism and collectivism. Starting some 60 years ago, and proceeding for a period of three decades, the Brutalists used their influence within the state to advocate for government buildings that conveyed socialist utopian ideology. Neither the private sector nor those who adhered to the sufficiency of nonaggression principle adopted brutalism. So, while his analogy is logically weak, it is rhetorically brutal.

Now, the use of an epithet with a vulgar tone like “brutalist” is similar to the indictments liberals make against those who stand against their liberty-strangulating worldview. And it is similar to the vulgarizations coined by Trotsky and Lenin, where every opponent was grouped as an ‘ist’ under some ‘ism.’ It is as if Tucker recently read Lenin’s State and Revolution or Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed and found in their voices a siren’s song of sorts. But if he is drawn to adopt the voice of the Bolsheviki, he needs to understand he is being neither social nor civil.

I can imagine followers of Tucker shouting down a line of thought such as mine, claiming it does not satisfactorily argue against Tucker. But they have not demanded that Tucker define his question begging epithets, such as modernity, antisocial norms, civil standards of values, life well lived, gut level prejudice, and on and on – the verbal building blocks that form the edifice of his system and the essence of the straw man he so valiantly slays.

Even though Tucker argument is nothing more than invectives strung together in a vapid mush, some have defended his arguments as valid and cogent. However, an argument requires the use of terms generally understood by all, yet those definitions are nowhere to be found.

What exactly is this concept of modernity Tucker so wondrously cherishes? By all accounts (except his), that period ended decades ago with the advent of postmodernity, or its subsequent post of a post progeny. What are his characteristics a life well lived? And how is his denouncement of Bible-believing Christians something other than a “stripped-down” example of “gut level prejudice” – lacking any form of finesse, grace, or refinement?

Most importantly, Tucker does not provide examples of his main indictment: that thin libertarians as a group – the so-called brutalists – have “asserted the rights and even the merits of racism and hate.” Nor, do I suspect, will he. Why? The shrill voice of the Bolsheviki – his adopted voice – is not used to argue for truth, it is used to coerce compliance and conformity with its vulgar, raw language.

Maybe Tucker’s supporters can explain it all? Or maybe polylogism allows them to dispel any obvious contradiction and wave it all away.

Are there racists within thin libertarianism? Certainly, just as there are racists within his beloved group of cosmopolitan free-thinkers. One should not be shocked, there are even sinners in the most God-fearing church – in fact, all are sinners, coming short of the glory of God. Additionally, just as there are hypocrites in the church, there are hypocrites in all movements – with Tucker exposing his hypocrisy by asserting his right to a crude and ugly pen, even while indicting others for doing the very same.

Between the lines, Tucker argues as if those adhering to the sufficiency of nonaggression principle advocate for the state to legalize and justify the aggression of one group over another, hence the inferred claim that only his form of libertarianism has led to improving social conditions. Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

But here’s the real irony in all of this: my view of liberty allows both Tucker and his clique to argue against my faith and other ideas, even while their view condemns me, and those like me, as anathema to the liberty movement. So, who are the real intellectual brutalists here? I think that answer is self-evident.

Notes:

1. Of course, Tucker’s article was not a direct attack against me personally, though it was an uncivilized and rude indirect attack against me and those like me.

2. Keep in mind Tucker is referring to the ideas central to Christian fundamentalism, not necessarily instances where folks looking to use the state for their benefit perverted those ideas.