Thursday, March 13, 2014

"Jeffrey Tucker Reduces Core Libertarian Ideals To 'Brutalism' "

In a new article, Christopher Cantwell objects to the direction he sees Jeffrey Tucker attempting to take libertarianism.

You can read the essay here.

Next week, during a debate with Jesse Ventura,I will be taking an anti-gay rights position. See: About My Racist Friends, My Homophobic Friends and My Own Prejudices , for my views on this.


  1. Between Mr. Bow Tie and Mr. Toupee/Hair System Libertarianism is dead.

    I know another commenter in another thread was warning Libertarians to change their label and the commenter appears right.

    You brutalists you !
    Be Nice !

    1. Tucker has gone right off the deep end logically speaking. Since 'libertarianism' as a word is becoming an increasingly meaningless label...thanks to people like Tucker, can I now call him a "Pussyist" if I'm a Brutalist?

      "to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions"

      So not only does it seem he's admitting to being a statist(otherwise why even use the word "political"?), we also have him railing against "homogeneous tribes" I guess that puts him against freedom of association too.

      So I'd say given the new label I've given him, that's "Purrrrrfect".

  2. Is he still associated with the Mises Institute?

  3. The problem with feminized left libertarians like Tucker is that they think they can create a leftist/libertarian popular front by grafting left wing rhetoric and ideas on to a libertarian philosophy which is antithetical to those degenerate values. The complete intellectual bankruptcy of his viewpoint is proven by the juvenile and self serving way he labels uncompromising libertarians as racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, etc. without naming names or providing specific examples. Christopher Cantwell is right, it's pure, unadulterated drivel from a pissy little pseudo-libertarian nobody with delusions of relevance.

    That he has stooped this low to characterize people with whom he has arcane philosophical disagreements shows his desperation to be noticed. Now I understand why he got fired by the Mises Institute. He's like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum so Mommy will give him attention. Maybe he should just light his hair on fire and post it on YouTube instead.

    1. Anonymous (March 13th 5:57 PM),

      I couldn't agree more with your assessment. I've noticed this tendency in the libertarian movement, but usually amongst younger libertarians. They've been brought up in such a politically correct, culturally Marxist, environment that they feel that they have to be good liberal/leftists to be good libertarians. On the one hand they support the NAP, which makes them libertarians, but on the other hand they are supporting cultural views that reinforce the rhetoric of statists who are attacking liberty. I guess your argument coincides with the thick vs. thin libertarian divide. T

  4. I just keep telling myself, "All that matters is NAP". That leaves a LOT of room.

  5. I propose "private ethnic neighborhoods" and private religious neighborhoods as an improvement on the black market of the drug war and as an alternative to ethnic cleansing. IF you are going to hate people, do it peacefully.

    I would expect criticism of such views from MMTers, not from other libertarians.

  6. In a sense I think Tucker is right. Tucker's Brutalists see libertarianism as purely a political theory, as did Rothhbard. That leaves out aesthetics, manners and much morality for instance. (I am reminded of Ayn Rand's efforts to force her aesthetics on her followers) Take the ten commandments, thou shall not kill or steal would in line with libertarian philosophy. Bearing false witness a grayer area. Honoring your mother and father, not idolizing false gods or taking the Lord's name in vain are outside the realm of libertarian theory. Tucker seems to include all these issues under the libertarian banner and the humanitarian label.

    1. Rothbard: "The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life."

      The other aspects of one's life would/should/could be guided contractually by the by-laws of voluntary communities . It has bothered me for a long time that libertarians fail to point that out, but that is not a criticism of Rothbardian libertarianism per se.

  7. Jeffrey had a Facebook post about the AZ religious freedom law last week that was quite remarkable coming from a libertarian. He took his lumps in the comments section.

  8. Robert, it's not anti gay rights, it's anti homosexual special rights.
    Nobody has any problem leaving the homosexuals alone. The trouble is, they aren't happy with that, but want to be the center of attention.
    Hence the perverse redefinition of equal opportunity to mean equal outcome.
    Everybody has a "right" - not an opportunity - to get married and since the homosexuals don't want the from time immemorial version of a marriage, we got to make sure they can still get "married" by redefining it.
    That we don't/society is interested in jumping off the Empire State building in the long run generational sense means we are prejudiced and guilty of discrimination.
    Well, yeah suit yourself, but I like steak better than dirt. You do what you want, but don't think telling me dirt is steak is constitutional and non homophobic.

  9. Okay, so i defended Jeffrey Tucker in the past. I thought it was silly that he was attacked because he didn't have enough Rothbard in his book lists.

    But i have no intention of defending some P.C. pussy that tries to smuggle that egalitarian sensitivity propaganda into libertarianism. Aside from that, he thinks that liberal infiltrator twit masquerading as a libertarian Cathy Reisenwitz is saying good things when she brings "privilege" into a discussion about Bitcoin.

    If not giving a damn about overly sensitive "can't we all just get along" types who basically dislike the concept of freedom of association and expression means i am a "brutist" in the eyes of Jeffrey Tucker, then a brutist i am. It sounds good, especially as compared to Pansy libertarian.

  10. "We must abandon libertarian principles to save libertarianism."

    Now where have we heard something like THAT before?

    Also, have you noticed that a main feature of what I call the "Tucker Diaspora" is an aversion to what they complained was "libertarian factionalism?" Basically, it was a backhanded jab at Lew Rockwell, et al. comprising the old garde opponents of the Cato/Reason "L"ibertarians. Yet, what do we see, but a constant stream of compartmentalizing terms, "thick," "thin," "bleeding-heart," "skeptical," and now "humanist," and "brutalist." Boy, for people who profess to detest bigotry, discrimination, and collectivism, they really are putting a lot of people into neat little packages to attack and exclude.

    Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It's almost as if all of those years with Murray Rothbard at LvMI meant nothing. Shame. But I always thought Tucker was a bullshit artist; my rightful and justified prejudice is confirmed.

  11. @JFF
    My very brief interaction with Mr. Tucker confirms your observation. .
    They're paying him near half a million at Agora, so I hear.
    And he gets his own show, a big promotional machine, and a following.
    Nice pay for leading the controlled opposition.

    1. Oh good Lord ... they are not paying him half a million.....what ITF (in the fuck) are you smoking?

    2. @Ms. De Coster,

      Please read:

      "I read" - as in, on the liberty forums

      "NEAR half a million" - an approximation.

      Tucker's salary at Mises was listed publicly for a while on the net.
      Assume Tucker was paid more than that to be lured away from Mises, if not near half a million, perhaps, nearly near....including what he benefits from in other ways.
      Definitely plausible.

      I know auld lang syne and all....

      Kind regards.
      Lila Rajiva

    3. I have to be honest, I doubted your claim about half a million...I like some of your commentary Lila...but I have a hard time imagining someone ponying up a cool half mil for Tucker.

      I have a hard time thinking someone would pony up over $200k for him...but I'm just a lowly small business owner with no real clue as to how lucrative(or not) the 'libertarian industry' is.

  12. Isabel Paterson on Jeffrey Tucker's humanitarian libertarians:

  13. @ Ms. De Coster,

    Mr. Tucker was brought in in 2011-2012 some five years after the public figures that I saw, which means his salary must have been greater than at that time.

    Is the suggestion that a billion-dollar plus online financial publishing company (the biggest of its kind in the world) might pay a manager from a prestigious non-profit several hundred thousand dollars in salary, equity, and benefits, when they needed to upgrade their profile so very strange?

    Well-to-do schools pay their principals nearly $200,000.

    Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks Mr. Tucker might be paid around twice that all told has to be "smoking something" ?

    By the way, as a close associate of Mr. Tucker's, yet an adherent of traditionalist views and a somewhat razor-tongued woman, do you get to be a brutalist(e) or a humanitarienne?

    Just curious.

    Have a lovely day,

    Lila Rajiva

    1. De Coster is definitely a brutalist in my estimation, but I love her for it. You too Lila.


    2. @Nick

      Ta, very much.
      Love Ms. De Coster too, prickles and all.
      For that matter, I don't have anything personal against Mr. Tucker either.
      The "tyrants of nice" (to paraphrase Ms. Shaidle), actually have nothing against bigotry, anger, and the rest of the things they claim characterize traditionalists. They are the past masters of that kind of behavior, they just do it in a polished, underhanded, astro-turfed way, while the poor sods yelling on the alt-right blogs are simply voicing their frustration at the juggernaut crushing the life out of them.

      Lila Rajiva

  14. @Anonymous,

    I actually think Tucker brings a lot to the table:

    He has connections; he's extremely personable; he's musical; he's Catholic, but doesn't come across as particularly dogmatic; he knows everyone in the liberty business (and it's a business, isn't it?); he's suave and photogenic; he writes well and is technologically oriented; he has several books to his credit; he's entrepreneurial; there is no scandal attached to his name; he knew Rothbard personally.

    Several hundred thousands doesn't seem a stretch to me at all.
    But maybe he took a pay-cut to work with them...I heard otherwise, but it's nothing written in stone.

    I can't see them paying him LESS than their best money-makers, but maybe they are.
    To me that would be crazy. He's a gold-mine. Anyone can see that.

    If he has a good head for business (which he seems to have, having been involved with Mises), they should let him build his empire there. He'd be worth every penny to them.

    That doesn't mean I think the argument he made was solid, I don't, although I agree we should all be nicer and take context into account.

    (I believe I've made that argument dozens of times myself).

    But I can be fair-minded about his value to them.