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.

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.

two october posts after a little hiatus? is ms. glibertarian poised for a comeback?