I think choice-loving libertarians have an obligation to foster a more liberal and feminist culture. Todd Seavey and Daniel McCarthy strenuously disagree. Our combative exchange in the November issue of Reason is now online.
Kerry Howley
October 20th, 2009 § 6
I think choice-loving libertarians have an obligation to foster a more liberal and feminist culture. Todd Seavey and Daniel McCarthy strenuously disagree. Our combative exchange in the November issue of Reason is now online.
Todd Seavey… Wow. That guy. Anyway, here in the real world where, you know, where for 60 years libertarians have been arguing that the appeal of libertarian philosophy is that it requires minimal commitment to “property rights” (What are those?!!?) and a “limited state” (How limited?!??) have gotten precisely… no where.
what do you they havent gotten anywhere? they’ve driven the economy off the cliff, and are utterly blind to how intellectually shallow and personally callous they really are.
two october posts after a little hiatus? is ms. glibertarian poised for a comeback?
Those two dudes scared me. You on the other hand made total sense to me, since I’m one of those illusive liberal libertarian feminist types. Right on.
[...] at least frankly says she wants libertarians to be more feminist, in this blog entry last week and in the course of her sparring with Ilya Somin, who also disagrees with her. Since she’s [...]
I just read the debate last night. You’re making valid points but even though I think reducing the Libertarian philosophy to property rights is narrow, I also believe your approach would de facto lead in less overall freedom, possibly freedom of speech. It makes the mistake of being borderline PC, judgmental or imposing some morality that everyone should adopt.
Furthermore, you tend to see people through groups (women, gays, etc…) and so it conflicts with true individualism. In that regard, you’re closer to identity politics on the left.
But it made me think. Shouldn’t cultural behavioral patterns and thoughts be seen as the result of collective thinking? Shouldn’t Libertarianism be defined as the opponent of collectivism? Collectivism encompasses more than property rights. It could encompass in that case cultures, religions or family structures that deny individual aspirations. Feminism is a collective movement for example.
I am not saying those groups are contrary to a Libertarian society. Au contraire, those collective structures provide people with a means to survival through sharing of common interests or resources. The State and collective ideas at the State level usually want to destroy those groups that constitute the civil society to establish and maintain their power. In that case, people don’t have a choice.
That is why I believe Libertarians should focus on the State, and not culture. Even though an abusive culture is strong to defeat, people still have a choice as your article showed with the example of the Chinese woman. Economic freedom, property rights create prosperity that is often the only way to defeat abusive cultures, especially for women or kids. Poverty requires people to have a more collective approach to life with kid labor, women making babies to have more workers and support the parents when they get old.
But again, we shall not force it as you have conveyed to me. People should be free, even if they have to be miserable before finding a happier life. That’s the human condition.
PS: I apologize if my English is broken as I’m not a native.
Overall, I think that you are making a mistake that desperately needs to be made. For decades at least, libertarianism has been dominated by a pollution of the social conservatism of those willing to vocally advocate for limited government.
Their mistake, and now yours, in my opinion, is one of boundary. (I could also also argue about the political exclusionism of both positions, but that’s just pragmatic politics and is beyond another boundary, again in my opinion.) As I see it, libertarianism is a particular perspective on coercive ethics, as it pertains to physical force and the threat thereof. It should therefore remain agnostic on matters of non-forceful coercion like social pressure and cultural indoctrination. When social pressure intrudes into force, the libertarian answer should be the rule of law, imperfect as that is.
I see your perspective as an incredibly important mistake in that the violation of that boundary by paleotarians seriously needs to be rolled back. For my part, I prefer to stress the boundary violation of things like the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul newsletters and such. I acknowledge that there are multiple facets of this effort and your attempts to violate the boundary from the cosmotarian perspective (something I share with you, Will, and much of the Reason staff) will help make the edges of libertarian politics clearer to those of the formerly dominant social perspective.