Wednesday, January 29, 2014

“Other Perverts”

By Laurence M. Vance

The Mises quote from Human Action that Tom DiLorenzo brought to our attention is a fine one for discussing the nature of libertarianism. Mises referred to “fetishists, homosexuals, and sadists” as “other perverts.” Libertarianism, in the words of Murray Rothbard,
is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only apolitical theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. . . . Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism. It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.
This is a point lost on some libertarians. They broaden libertarianism to mean acceptance of alternative lifestyles and rejection of moral absolutes. Thus, if you say something negative about same-sex marriage, homosexuality, gay pride parades, evolution, abortion, paganism, Islam, black crime and illegitimacy rates, the Union, hedonism, feminism, rap music, etc., then you are accused by some broadminded, cosmopolitan libertarians of being a fascist who is aggressing or wants to aggress against the persons who favor these things. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. One can despise any or all of these things and be perfectly tolerant and peaceful toward them. Libertarianism is not a lifestyle. And as my Jewish atheist friend Walter Block has written, libertarianism is not libertinism.
The above originally appeared at LewRockwell.com.

11 comments:

  1. Does this mean we'll finally find out who wrote Ron Paul's racist newsletters?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Newsletters weren't racist.
      There were a few columns within many years of newsletters that were politically incorrect, and maybe two or three lines that were possibly racist.
      But, you know, you can assume it was whoever you want it to be.

      Delete
  2. I am the Emperor Napoleon. When you are in my presence I expect you to bow and to address me as "Your Highness". When referring to me in conversation you should always refer to me as L'Empereur. If you refuse?... well then you must be intolerant. You see, tolerance is the accommodation and confirmation of my every whim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "One can despise any or all of these things and be perfectly tolerant and peaceful toward them."

    But isn't that the key? So you are saying yourself now that Mises is tolerant and peaceful and cosmopolitan towards them.

    For me this is a classic case of talking past each other. I think that it would make sense to differentiate between two kinds of racist, sexist, homophobe etc. One kind, the strong sense, is aggressive and thinks it should be regulated by law e.g. same sex marriage should be forbidden, certain people should be subjugated, should be the property of others (Like slaves) etc... That is the kind of thinking which is really despicable, which definitely is evil. In this meaning Mises clearly is not guilty.

    And then there is the other kind, the weak sense, of racist, homophobe etc, which only means that you obviously may have prejudices against them, you may not want to talk to them, you may not want to interact with them, or you just can’t understand their affections and think therefore they are in a certain way abnormal (perverse). However that doesn’t mean that you think those people are of any lower value automatically, that they should have different or even no rights etc… I think that those two kinds of racist etc get mixed up. In this meaning Mises could be considered to be homophobe. And since I guess everybody has prejudices, even if it doesn’t carry a fancy name (like thinking hairdressers or football players or bodybuilders are dumb, or illegal drug users are junkies and thieves etc; those kinds haven’t one), I would argue all are guilty of that to a more or less degree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, of course it wasn't you saying this but Laurence M. Vance, but I guess you agree.

      Delete
  4. It's not at all surprising that Mises thought homosexuality was a kind of perversion. It was considered a psychiatric illness until the 1970s. The medical view of homosexuality has changed quite a bit since then and I would be surprised, if he were still alive, if he maintained the same opinion today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Vance sounds like another Christian extremist idiot trying to redefine Libertarianism.

    Rothbard was a libertarian-directionist and wasn't even a pledged Libertarian when he wrote this. He in fact changed his mind and accepted that Libertarianism is the Libertarian Arts and Sciences, what www.libertarianinternational.org calls SMILE. When he and Gilson developed the CLS in that period it defined Libertarianism as an interdisciplinary approach.

    Vance elsewhere attacks Libertarian-direction triumphs such as the EITC. Block is also wrong, since modern libertarianism is derived from renaissance Libertinism. They even sponsored a conference on that a few years back.

    These guys write as if nothing has happened since 1969 and are out of touch with the actual movement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who is and isn't a libertarian? Who is to say? But I especially like definitions found in Brian Patrick Michael's book "Eight Ways to Run the Country". He defines the Mises.org ideology as Paleo-Libertarian, while the Cato crowd as Individualist. http://www.amazon.com/Eight-Ways-Run-Country-Revealing/dp/0275993582/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357782089&sr=8-2&keywords=eight+ways+to+run

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we could purchase government services on the open market, we wouldn't have to define what a libertarian is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you could purchase government services on the open market, society would be libertarian.

      Delete