Note: For the record, there are two Libertarian Alliances – both with the same logo and identical claims to apostolic succession from the LA established in 1979. This article refers to the other Libertarian Alliance, not to the Gabb/Davis/Meek/Kersey et al organisation that is descended from the Tame/Micklethwait reconstruction of the 1980s. Also for the record, our LA does not encourage derogatory speech about people of different colours or sexualities.
All this being said, I have spoken a number of times at meetings of the other LA, and I have spent time afterwards in the bar at the Institute of Education. Never once have I heard derogatory comments of the sort alleged in the article below. I have known David McDonagh since the 1970s and Jan Lester since the 1990s. Other people who regularly attend these meetings also attend functions of our LA. I simply do not believe such words would be uttered. I also find it hard to believe that, if overheard, such words would be tolerated by third parties: the bar staff in the IoE are usually black, as are many of the students.
I will go further. The LA of which I am Director is generally sceptical about mass-immigration. The other LA is more relaxed about open borders. Nico Metten, for example, often posts on this blog in opposition to those of us who do not share his fundamentalist belief in open borders. I do not believe that he would sit quiet while someone spoke about “macaroons.”
I suggest that, unless he can produce a recording, we should assume that Mr Ezra is mistaken. I might also ask why he appears to have made no protest at the time, but chose to denounce the other LA in a blog posting.
We take no responsibility for anything said or done by the other LA. At the same time, each organisation enjoys a close, if perhaps complex, relationship with the other. I do not like to see my friends insulted, and take this chance to protest at the insults offered in the article reposted below. SIG
Racism at the Libertarian Alliance
Michael Ezra, May 23rd 2014, 1:45 pm
On Tuesday evening I attended
Like many political meetings across the political spectrum โ and I have attended many such gatherings โ the evening ended with a visit to the bar. In the last year I have attended a few meetings by the Libertarian Alliance and the same faces turn up.
I was quite shocked by the brazenly racist comments made by some of the people in the bar.
As examples, I heard black people referred to as โmacaroonsโ โ where the term macaroons was explained as a derivative of โcoons.โ One of the attendees (who is white) mentioned that he was once, physically assaulted for no reason by a black man. He concluded from this that this was evidence of โa race war.โ
Libertarians would view it as a violation of the liberty of a racist to prevent him from expressing racist views. People have the right, in libertarian theory, to be racist. Libertarians are in favour of free speech and would be against any laws that would make the expression of a racist view illegal. A libertarian would also permit a company to have a sign on its door saying โNo black people admitted.โ Likewise a company would be permitted to advertise for jobs saying โIt is our company policy not to employ black people.โ
This might be shocking to some but it is important to understand what libertarianism is about. And what it is about is liberty. According to the libertarian conception of justice, there is justice if everyone acts within his rights. As a black person has no right to be employed by a company, he has not been wronged if a company will not offer him a job. A black person might be offended if a company does not offer him a job โ but he has no right not to be offended. This is what libertarians think.
But just because libertarians would permit racist views and racist employment practices in the private sector, it does not necessarily follow that they either approve of or encourage racism. As a comparison, libertarians are also in favour of repealing any laws that make drugs or guns illegal โ but that does not mean to say that they wish to start injecting heroin or shooting people. In fact, racism as a concept would be an anathema to many libertarians qua libertarians for the following reason: libertarians champion the individual, not the collective. Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness, [Signet, 1964], pp.147-48) expressed it as follows:
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to manโs genetic lineage โ the notion that a manโs intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestorsโฆ..
Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements โ and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.
Tuesday nightโs meeting was not the first Libertarian Alliance meeting I have attended where I joined people in the bar after the talk and heard racist views expressed. And quite frankly I find it disgusting.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Tariffs, Trade and Trump – an Austro-Libertarian Response
Machines Without Meaning: A Libertarian View of Duncan Whitmoreโs AI Trilogy
Humans versus Politicals: Part Seven – My philosophical perspective
Humans versus Politicals: Part Eight – Some political deductions
Humans versus Politicals: Part Nine – Our enemies’ nature
Reform UK Local Election Results 2025
The Crownโs Secret Sword: MI5, Legal Impunity, and the End of Constitutional Government
Minds, Means and Machines – The Anatomy of the AI Revolution, Part I
Government: Why do we need it? And what can we do when it goes wrong?
A brief history of the green agenda, Part One: 1968 to 1992
“Contingent Libertarianism” Dissected – a Further Reply to Bryan Mercadente
Whoโs a Fascist?
Powered by YARPP.
What is more disturbing about this is the presumption that it is morally accpetable to publicly denounce private speech. The private becomes the public. This is the classic behaviour of social tyrants.
We do not know the context, we do not know if this was just one or two attendees, we do not know how these isolated comments came up, but we sure as shit know that Mr Ezra is following the behaviour of the Progressives in using the public sphere to attack private speech, and for this he must be condemned. Publicly, since has has himself chosen to bring this into the public sphere.
The private sphere is of great importance currently. Our Enemy attacks it relentlessly, using tactics precisely the same as this. What you do in your business, your private organisation, the pub, your home, your bedroom, etc, become a matter for public dissection and denunciation. The situation is little better than mediaeval Europe under hegemonic Catholicism, or the Protestant tyrannies like Geneva and Massachussetts Bay. Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, and we are apparently just so doomed.
Comments in the bar remain comments in the bar, Mr Ezra. Shame on you.
Good point. Even assuming the words were uttered, private conversations are just that.
“Comments in the bar remain comments in the bar”
Is it just a naive American assumption, or aren’t most bars in England called “public houses?”
Anyone and everyone does and should have the right to say anything he or she wants.
Nobody has some inherent right to have what they say go unnoticed or unremarked upon.
If you don’t want what you say to be repeated later, either don’t say it or get all those who might hear it to sign non-disclosure contracts in advance.
If licensed premises form part of some other building, they are referred to in English as a bar.
As for your main comment, there is more to civilisation than respect for rights. There is polite confidentiality. Conversation is more enjoyable when its various parties don’t need to watch what they are saying.
They’re called Public houses, interestingly, because they are private. I believe the term comes from the fact that a person would open their home for members of the community to come and drink ale (in the days when it was all home brew). People often use the idea that Public houses are “public” to support our disgraceful smoking ban; in reality pubs are anything but public.
It’s not about rights, Thomas. It’s about behaviour. There is a reason that most societies and cultures recognise “sneaking” or “snitching” as being undesirable. In societies which are authoritarian, as ours is currently, it is (particualrly from a libertarian perspective) reprehensible, since- on this issue of race, for instance- it may well draw unwelcome attention from the authorities.
As I said above, it is similar to conditions under hegemonic religion, in which an unguarded comment about the nature of the Holy Trinity can get somebody into serious trouble.
” There is a reason that most societies and cultures recognise โsneakingโ or โsnitchingโ as being undesirable.”
In that context it is indeed a grim symptom that in the modern surveillance state, “snitching” becomes a positive patriotic duty [e.g. the American Transportation Security Administration (the TSA) and its current slogan :”If you see something, say something”)]
The fact that it is considered necessary, here of all places, to give a damn about this kind of thing is cause for concern. I agree with Rand, but i generally don’t feel the need to proclaim it. Indeed, allegations of racism, especially of the low level type complained of here, produce in me not merely a yawn but a determination not to rise to the bait.
Sean and Ed,
Thanks for the bit of education on bars and “public houses” in the English vocabulary. Here in the US we’re pretty promiscuous with various designations — bar, saloon, tavern, night club, pub, etc. — and don’t really distinguish between them in the ways that they used to have separate meanings (except perhaps for night club, which tends to imply dancing and music).
Sean, I agree that there is more to civilization than respect for rights, and that it’s only polite to treat personal talk as private unless there’s some compelling reason not to.
On the other hand, if I say something I’d rather not hear repeated in public, I’m damn careful with respect to whom I say it, to who might be around and hear it, etc.
Thomas, because I’m not a pub person – I prefer coffee when I’m out, and drink only at home with Mrs G – I’m not a real expert on the terminology of drinking establishments. As for conversations, I grew up in a country where a) it didn’t matter what anyone said in public, b) private conversations were private. I’ve lived in a police state long enough to accustom myself to doing without a) Living without b) continues to shock me.
It’s that word again. What is ‘racist’ about referring to someone as a ‘macaroon’? If someone were to call me a ‘piece of sh*t’, that would clearly be offensive. But ‘macaroon’? Bizarre, perhaps, but offensive? How?
What about ‘Paki’. Is that to be deemed offensive? ‘Pakistani’ is not, or not yet anyway, deemed offensive. So are we now forbidden to use abbreviations? Am I supposed to be offended if someone calls me a Brit?
The whole thing is insane.
Perhaps I should have said “It’s dat word again”. Ha ha.
Hugo Miller, quite. And while we’re on the subject, please can someone explain why blacking up is a) racist, b) offensive? And can we please get over the word ‘nigger’?
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger.
Its just a word, like cunt, honky, limey, kike. And like almost any word, its offensiveness stems from how it is said, not from the fact of the word.
I mean, if i contort my face with rage and hatred, and spit the word ‘pillock’ at, well, anyone, i guarantee theyll feel it more deeply than i fondly call them a ‘twat’.
If this person is accusing someone of using racist language (not that this is a crime anyway) he should say who he is talking about – “people at the bar” is not very informative.
As for it being terrible to believe that stupid bigots have the right to throw money away by refusing to trade with or employ people with the “wrong” colour skin – that is what Classical Liberals (not just libertarians believe).
Ayn Rand is quoted by the person – but he forgets to mention that Rand totally OPPOSED such late Roman legal doctrines as “common carriers” and “public accommodations” – the very basis of “anti discrimination law” (i.e. treating a private business as a “public” STATE place – because it is “open to the public”).
The 1965 Act (which violated private property rights with its anti discrimination doctrine) also violated freedom of speech.
Does Mr Ezra also support that aspect of the Act of 1965?
As for libertarians believing that “blacks have no right to be offended” that is utter nonsense.
Anyone of any colour may be as offended as they like.
What liberals (not just libertarians) believe is that someone does not have the right to use VIOLENCE (or get the state to do their dirty work for them)because they are “offended”.
For example if I do not like a film – I do NOT have the right to have the state ban it (no matter how much it offends me).
And if someone says they do not wish to employ short, bald, half Jews – I may be as offended as I like (I can stamp my foot and scream – if I really want to).
But I do NOT have the right to get the state to use force to get me “compensation” or whatever.
Thomas at 2:26 p.m., Paul at 8:06 p.m.: Agree strongly with both.
(Of course, when one family member says to another, “You have no right to be offended!” what he usually means is either “Lissen, bud, you were the one who started in on me!” or, “Don’t get mad at me for telling you what’s only the truth!” Then the two of them can have a most satisfactory Family Fight. However, that’s not what the discussion here is about. ๐ )
Paul, it’s not the half-Jewish part that’s the worry (neither part is particularly offensive, sorry), it’s the half-Irish part. No Woman Is Safe Around You Guys. Even without the red hair & freckles. *grin*
I’m not a libertarian, but I don’t think libertarians can ever achieve their ends without strict immigration control. Without it, their policies contain the seeds of their own destruction.
Dear Dr. Gabb,
Firstly, I apologise for not making clear the information about two different Libertarian Alliances using the same name. I was not aware of that fact.
In terms of open borders, I find it against freedom and against liberty to support anything but open borders, but this is a different matter entirely.
I can assure you that I am not mistaken about what I heard. I have not gone deaf. I also noted that this is not the first time I have heard racist comments from people who have attended the meetings of the other Libertarian Alliance at the bar after the meeting. On a previous occasion I was so annoyed about some of the racist views expressed that I stormed off in disgust. I was not recording the conversations in the bar at any occasion but I do have email correspondence with David McDonagh (who was not a person I heard make racist comments) from last June where I discussed the racism I heard in the bar at that time.
The only people who would have overheard the comments at the IoE bar last week were those who had attended the Libertarian Alliance meeting. The words were not shouted but spoken such they were likely to be heard only by the people (all who had attended the Libertarian Alliance meeting) around the table. Hence no bar staff or other students would have heard the comments.
You have accused me of insuting your friends at the other LA. I am not sure what I have possibly done to insult them. I have reported what they said. Unless they are embarassed of what they said, and I am expected to know they are embarrassed about what they said then reporting on them is hardly insulting behaviour. From a libertarian point of view it is not a violation of rights to report speech.
You might think it is morally wrong to report private speech in a bar without seeking permission, but then again I am not sure you are in a good position to accuse me of wrong doing here. It can be seen that you have copied my complete blog post without seeking my permission. Depending on your view of intellectual property rights, copying my blog post could be seen as rights violating. For what it is worth I do not mind you having copied my blog post, but that does not take away from the fact that doing so suggests your own breeches of etiquette bother you.
*do not bother you.
And yet, then went back again to be in this place which “annoyed” you. Peculiar behaviour.
PC is protectionist, concerned with privileging favoured groups and thereby under-privileging other groups, to make up for imagined harm that earlier such groups suffered or inflicted that Romantic history cooks up, as does sociology and psychology; all three PC paradigms most of all. Equality is the ideal of PC, which it usually seeks to enforce by law.
Political Correctness as an ideology pretends to be about politeness, but it is very clear that PCers are out to be offensive, and that they are quite clearly offensive in all that they say and do. Politeness is the cover for the sheer intolerance of the PC paradigm. They long to ban free speech and they always lack tolerance.
The pet hate of PC is discrimination, of any sort, but discrimination is vital to any choice, so it is really choice that PC hates. Pristine liberalism favours individual choice in all things, in speech and in freedom of association. So the LA meetings welcome one and all and they will retain that principle. Liberals have no enemies. Any assumption is good enough to begin a discussion from.
Political Correctness hates is free speech. It bans it completely on its taboo topics and lately on global warming/climate change too, as well as free speech on its older taboo topics of race and sex.
As pristine liberals favour liberty, free trade, free speech, and choice then it is not hard to see why many of the liberals are against PC, for it is anti-liberal in its drive for the protection of favoured groups, in its drive for ever more totalitarian laws as to what we are free to say, in its drive for regulation about equality, it is against freedom of association or choice in elementary civil liberties.
If PC kept out of politics and dropped the aim of more and more statutory laws it would not be so bad, but then its whole aim is to increase the laws still further. Its aim is to censor. It glories in state regulation as its acme.
Michael Ezra,
Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger
Cunt, cunt,cunt,cunt,cunt, cunt
Commie, commie, commie, commie, commie
Pikey, pikey, pikey, pikey, pikey, pikey, pikey.
And?
Put it another way. Let’s assume the people you heard are indeed racist. Provided they don’t seek to coerce others with those views, what of it?
Or is this a drive for ideological purity?
You report like a witch-finder.
I suppose this means we’ll never be unbanned by Starbucks.
In my blog post I tried to explain what the libertarian view is to racist speech. Specifically, I stated the following:
I went to the LA meeting knowing this was the case. Hence I am not sure what the complaint is from Edward Lud. He seems to have created a straw man argument by pretending I am complaining about something that is different to what I am actually disgusted about. It is not the libertarian principle of free speech that concerns me. It is precisely because I believe in free speech that I feel some kind of personal responsibility to speak out where people express views in the “market place of ideas” that I think abhorrent.
If a libertarian organisation wishes to host a racist that is their prerogative. But a libertarian should also respect my right to speak out against that hosting if I so wish.
As well as creating a straw man argument, Edward Lud seems to have contributed to demonstrating my point about what self-declared libertarians might say. Earlier in this thread he said the following:
Not a single contributor to this thread (apart from me and now) has deigned it worthwhile to criticise him for this. QED.
I’ve only attended a couple of those meetings, but never have I heard any racist speech. One time I went with a Japanese friend, and he managed to come away without being abused for his origins. Perhaps the writer overhead a discussion about the impending World Cup, and what he heard was someone discussing the chances of the Cameroon team?
As for Edward Lud’s comments, surely ‘don’t feed the troll’ is the correct response?
Julie – yes I have freckles (I also get a red neck), but (alas) not much hair (and what little I have is grey).
My late father used to look at me and say “thick neck, big hands, big feet – typical Irish peasant” (perhaps I should have complained of his “racism”).
Mr Ezra – you are still talking about “people” or “people at the bar”.
Who used the racist language? It is time for you to “put up or shut up”.
As you have not given any names (just talked vaguely about “people at the bar”) it would be natural to assume that you are just making this up.
If you are not making this up – then say who you are talking about.
“But I do not want to be an informer” – sorry Mr Ezra but you already are an informer. You have said that some members of a specific group of people have used racist language, thus casting a cloud over all of the people in this specific group.
Now it is time for you to be specific.
Perhaps you should give a list of the people at the meeting and then a FULL list of those people who did NOT use racist language.
Then you could tell yourself that you are not an informer.
By the way – the “n word” was perfectly normal a few years ago (used in paint catalogues – for a form of brown) and given as a name to beloved pets.
The Battle of Britain film is now censored to cut out this word – because it was the name of the squadron leader’s beloved pet.
A statue of beloved pet at the Hoover Dam (a dog who the workers loved) was actually concreted over – because of the forbidden word (which was the name written on the statue).
Men in the very recent past used all sort of now forbidden words – as nicknames, for their FRIENDS.
A Welsh friend would be “Taffy” , a Scotsman would be “Jock” (and so on). A black FRIEND would (often) be greeted with such language as “how are you doing, you black bastard” and (yes) the forbidden “n word” would also be used (including on BBC entertainment shows – not so long ago).
For example Winston Churchill (like nearly everyone before very recently) used language that would now get him sent to prison for “racism”. “sexism”. “homophobia” (and so on).
You see Britain used to be a free country – and the mark of a free country (for example the United Kingdom in 1964) is that people do not have live in fear about what they say.
So I ask again – WHO at the meeting used the racist language.
Put up – or shut up.
By the way – David’s comment is very good indeed.
But Michael Ezra, you’re not “speaking out”. You’re reporting, like a witchfinder.
And are you seriously suggesting that the relative absence of responses to my tourette’s-like outbursts demonstrates that most other commenters here are closet racists?
Why not throw ’em in the village pond, see if they float?
What Michael is saying is correct. There were people talking about a race war. I, just as Michael disagreed with that. I even published an article on the LA Blog defending PC last week after that discussion. That is the nature of debate. Not everyone always hold opinions that you like.
Although I think they are mistaken, I could see why they were assuming that there was a race war going on. They had made some truly bad experiences that were then in my view misinterpreted. For example one of the person’s mother was beaten up so badly by black people on the street that she died. It is hard to argue against personal experiences. But the LA is not some kind of white power club. I would leave immediately if that was the case. And the people arguing about a race war going on are absolute Libertarians. That includes that they are perfectly in favour of open borders. That is all I can say about that. I can only invite people to come to our meeting and decide for themselves. Those meeting are, btw open to everyone. We don’t do any background checks and everyone can come along, even racists.
Sorry, I have to add that I did not hear anyone call black people macaroons. So I don’t know were that is coming from.
It would depend anyway what is meant by the “war” in “race war”. It is not considered particularly inflammatory to talk of a “class war” for instance, or to present examples one class’s actions against another as evidence of it. Considering the word “war” is so widely used- “wars” on drugs, terrorism, “want”, etc, one wonders why a discussion on racial class antagonisms cannot use the word without igniting such ire.
I would like to thank Nico Metten for confirming that he heard at least part of what I heard last Tuesday evening. Unless Paul Marks wishes to accuse not only myself but also Nico Metten of lying, his assumption that I am “just making this up” falls away.
Yes, but I still don’t understand why you are writing this, in this form, not attacking racism on its own, but the LA in particular. You making it look like the LA is some kind of secret racist organisation. You know full well that that is not the case. There are all kinds of races showing up to these meeting and I don’t think anyone has ever complained about being treated negatively. Besides, I was there opposing it these racist remarks. None of the people suggested any form of racist policies. Their solution were private roads. Racists do not get an easy ride in this organisation.
You could have at least acknowledged that becoming the victim of a crime may easily mislead someone in his reasoning. This same false reasoning is at work when black people assume that they are the victim of a hate crime, just because the attacker was white.
Nico,
Please do not resort to your own straw man argument. At no point have I suggested anyone has been treated negatively for their race in a Libertarian Alliance meeting. Moreover, I have not tried to suggest that the organisation is racist. In fact, I was quite deliberate to try and explain what I believe is the libertarian approach to racism and I utilised a quote from Ayn Rand to try and demonstrate what I think is the case that racism is an anathema to many libertarians, despite the same libertarians being opposed to race hate and discriminatory laws.
It is certainly true that you also spoke out against such views and I do accept that perhaps I could have mentioned in my blog post that someone did speak out. For that, I accept your criticism as valid.
As to your final point that I should acknowledge that “becoming the victim of a crime may easily mislead someone in his reasoning.” There are circumstances where I would excuse someone for this. But if (for example) the person is well educated and very familiar with libertarian theory I do not think that excuse is a valid one.
I will close with the following. I honestly did not think my blog post would stir up as much controversy and ire as it seems to have done. In part because my post was too long, in the editing I ditched the last few sentences of my draft. I feel it is appropriate to copy those drafted sentences below:
Perhaps you ought to explain what you were trying to suggest then.
Then what is your point? Your headline is ” Racism at the Libertarian Alliance”, not even explaining to the reader that these meetings are open for anyone to come along. This clearly seems to suggest that racism is an essential part of the LA. If that was not the purpose then why mention the LA at all, let alone in the headline? Why not just say I met some racists and I found them disgusting? Does it matter were you met them? If it does, well then you are indeed attacking the LA. The paragraph you just added is pure collectivism. They at the LA? Who are they? There is not even a formal membership in this organisation. An clearly they would then also include me, although I was clearly apposed to these views. You don’t even mention the context of the debate and the line of arguing. What you don’t seem to realise is that this particular person you are most annoyed about is NOT a libertarian. No one takes him seriously. I literally zone out every time he speaks. You just assume, since he was at the meeting, he must have been a libertarian. Why? Everyone can come to these meetings. You see, we are a truly tolerant organisation. We don’t kick anyone out as long as they are peaceful. And these meetings are free speech zones in which anyone can say what they want to say.
Sorry, but as it looks like, this is either a deliberate attempt to smear the LA or you simply have not thought through what you were doing. If the latter is the case then please correct that. Either way this is the last thing I say about this.
My point is precisely to highlight the fact that the LA are not bothered about racists in their midsts. This is not smearing the organisation but pointing out a fact. As you said earlier in this thread yourself: “everyone can come along, even racists.” What I have said is that racist views were expressed. This should not bother you. As I said, I thought the opinion of people at the LA in relation to me pointing out racist views were expressed would be as much interest to LA members (or generally supportive attendees if you are not a membership organisation) as a story headlined “Man obeys the law.”
In other words, why is it that you feel happy to say “everyone can come along, even racists,” but you seem very upset that I say that I went along to an LA meeting and racist views were expressed?
Yes, it is a fact that everyone is welcome. A fact that is advertised everywhere, so it should not surprise you. It does not bother me that racist opinions were expressed, and that although I am quite opposed myself to them.
The reason why I am happy to say that, is because in case you have not noticed, Libertarianism is all about Liberty! It is all about leaving people alone and respecting their privacy. We can hardly go out and promote liberty and then act cultish on the inside. How is that suppose to work anyway? Are we suppose to organize a network of snitchers who report to the dear leader whenever someone breaks the party line? There are political movements that do that, but they are not interested in liberty. No, we very much promote open debates. And debates are more interesting when people do not agree with each other.
But debates require a certain mutual respect. What bothers me about your behavior is not that you are against racism. Again, I am myself against it and speak out against it. But you do not argue at all. What are your arguments against racism? The closest that I can get to an argument in your piece is that it is collectivist. All the rest is just an attempt to shut people up by shaming them. Your message is clear. Don’t dare to make certain arguments in my present. I will not attack your argument, I will publicly attack your reputation. That is a mind control strategy and it is poisoning the climate in which debate takes place. You have simply broken a very important social rule and that is trust. All you do is trying to scare people to even privately voice their opinion. And that is just really not cool, sorry.
Nico,
I will take your points where I have some kind of disagreement in turn:
1. You have said that libertarianism “is all about leaving people alone and respecting their privacy.” This is not libertarian theory as I understand it. If that were the case libertarians would be bothered about blackmail. But many aren’t. I give you Murray Rothbard from Man, Economy and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and the Market: Government and the Economy: Scholars Edition, (Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2009), p.183n49:
For a far more detailed argument, see Walter Block, “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Blackmail,” Journal of Libertarian Studies,
Volume 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 55โ88.
Now, while Robert Nozick, (Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” [Blackwell, 1974],p.86) is opposed to blackmail, he does not see libertarianism as about leaving people alone – he sees it about not violating rights. (Ibid. p.ix.)
2. You have accused me of not arguing against racism in my post. I wrote a short a blog post on a blog where the readers are not necessarily familiar with libertarian theory. My post dealt with two issues: the first one being that racist expressions were voiced and the second one briefly discussing the libertarian attitude to racist speech. I ended my post saying that I was disgusted that racist expressions were used. It is true I did not discuss why I am opposed to racism. But I have also not discussed the climate in Boston.
I do not think it necessary for bloggers on a libertarian blog to explain why they believe in free will every time they discuss legalistion of drugs, because the readers are either likely to accept that point or can read about it elsewhere. In the same way I do not think it necessary for bloggers for Harry’s Place to provide an argument against racism every time they write about racism. It is about having some regard for the intended audience. Writers for the Financial Times do not need to say that bond prices go in the inverse direction to bond yields every time they discuss the bond markets but if there was an article in a less specialist newspaper it might be appropriate for the journalist to include that information.
3. You ask what my arguments are against racism. Without writing at length on the matter, the key point is the ones I used from Ayn Rand: it is collective. Someone is not treated as an individual but as a member of a race. If person A of Race P does bad thing X, it does not follow that person B of Race P also does or is inclined to do bad thing X. Likewise, if person C of Race Q does good thing Y, it does not follow that person D of Race Q also does or is inclined to do good thing Y. I think Ayn Rand is quite clear on this subject and that is why I quoted her.
3. You state:
This is a very odd argument. You stated quite clearly “It does not bother me that racist opinions were expressed.” If this is so then you should also not be ashamed that I say “racist opinions were expressed.” I am just stating a fact that you admit does not bother you. If you were ashamed that I have said “racist opinions were expressed” then that would presumably negate your argument that you are not bothered that racist opinions were expressed. The retort you could make might be “It does not bother me that racist opinions were expressed if and only if nobody publicly mentions it.” But that would not work either as you have publicly mentioned “It does not bother me that racist opinions were expressed.” In that case you have shamed your organisation by your own statement and one might genuinely ask why you did so
As to publicly attacking your reputation, I haven’t done so. I just stated a fact: racist views were expressed in the bar. If I had wanted to do a hatchet job on Libertarianism and the Libertarian Alliance (the LA you are associated with) I could have done so simply by quoting from the published work of people associated with your organisation. To provide but one example – here is J C Lester from page 31 of his book, Arguments for Liberty: A Libertarian Miscellany, (University of Buckingham Press, 2011): “The IRA sensibly killed Airey Neave (Thatcher’s aide and mentor) before he could implement his policies for getting Ulster into normal UK politics.” Such statements (and there are plenty more) provide easy pickings for ridicule. But this is not what I wish to do. I am interested in libertarian theory. That is why I both attend LA meetings and read books and articles on libertarianism.
Arguments about words causing “mind control” and “poisoning the climate” and an attempt to “shut people up” as well as “trying to scare people to even privately voice their opinion” are very surprising when coming from a libertarian. Whatever happened to free will? If you accept the validity of your own argument then it seems that you should a fortiori accept the argument that racist hate speech itself can silence people. An example provided by Caroline West, (“Words That Silence? Freedom of Expression and Racist Hate Speech,” in Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan (Eds.) Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech [Oxford University Press, 2012], p.234.) is a flyer that was distributed to students by White Supremacists at Northwest Missouri State University. The words on the flyer, as reported by West, were “The Knights of the Klu [sic] Klux Klan are watching you.”
You simply can’t have it both ways.
Michael, I am not accusing you of violating anyone’s rights, nor do I want to know why you are against racism. I am accusing you of very bad manners and trying to smear the LA. It simply is a very bad style to not argue about arguments but attacking people personally. It is even worst if you do this by making a private conversation public. It is not just a fact what you are saying. You are quoting completely out of context.
I have no problem sitting next to someone making a racist argument. But I do have a problem of being affectively accused, being a sympathiser of racism, just because I let him talk. But I see that you have no intention of getting yourself some manners. So I will simply stop arguing with you.
Nico,
So it seems the worst I am accused of is making a private conversation public which is not rights violating but bad manners. I find it interesting that it seems you feel it is worse manners to report racist speech than to engage in racist speech.
You again accuse me of trying to smear the LA. You have not even attempted to deal with my argument that if you are happy to publicly admit that you have no problem sitting next to someone at an LA meeting making a racist argument then you should not view it is a smear that I mention that racist views were expressed at an LA meeting. I assume that is because you have no valid and sound response.
The question remains though as to what you intend to achieve by repeating this conversation, Mr Ezra. It is hard to see anything other than thought policing, which is profoundly illibertarian whether done by the State or private individuals.
One interesting thing is Mr Metten’s testimony. One wonders if a black person had had their mother beaten to death by white thugs, whether they might consider a racial motivation likely. Was not this the automatic interpretation of the Stephen Lawrence murder? If we can interpret that as a war of whites on blacks, why does it become unspeakable to suggest the same when the colours are reversed?
Mr Ezra – actually Nico said he had NOT heard anyone call black people “macaroons” (he is silent about the use of the “n word”).
In the United States the principle target of the Black Panthers and other violent Marxist organisations was actually other black people (which would have amused Karl Marx himself – who hated blacks, something his modern admirers do not seem to know), but they hate white people also (indeed were always quite open about hating white people).
When the “New Black Panther Party” intimidated voters in the 2008 elections (people in para military uniforms with weapons at polling stations) the new A.G. Mr Holder quietly dropped the case in 2009. This was not a surprise Mr Holder was an admirer of Malcolm X – indeed led violent agitation in New York in his student days in support of Malcolm X (violent agitation for which he should have been expelled from university – instead he was given a degree and a series of comfortable government jobs).
“That was in his student days – decades ago”.
Well 2009 is not decades ago – and Mr Holder (and Mr Obama) appeared at gatherings organised by Al Sharpton (a racist hater of white people) only this year – 2014 (still just students?).
Rev Sharpton in New York (like Rev Jackson in Chicago) specialises in making up false accusations against individuals and business enterprises and organising agitation against them – till his organisation is PAID OFF.
That is called extortion and criminal conspiracy Mr Ezra.
Yet neither Al Sharpton or J. Jackson have ever been sent to prison for their “shake down” operations (sounds hip when one calls it a “shake down” – but that is EXTORTION and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY). Being part of a “victim group” (as the Frankfurt School of Marxism, i.e. “PC” and “Critical Theory” has taught the world to see these people) seems to give them license to make up false accusations (for example Rev Sharpton organised a fake “rape” case in New York City) and profit by them.
And Mr Holder and Mr Obama endorse these activities by attending conferences organised by these groups – and at least Mr Obama benefitted from them in his Chicago years (he even trained ACORN activists in the use of such money making tactics).
You see Mr Ezra when I talk about racists I name names – Rev. Sharpton, Rev. Jackson, President Obama and Justice Department head Eric Holder are all race baiters (and profit, financially or politically, from their activities).
Now your turn Mr Ezra.
State the name of the person who called black people “macaroons”.
And state the name of the person who used the “n word”.
Oh dear, Paul, you DO have freckles? Sorry, not evident to me from the video on German Thought. Will have to watch again, for the FIFTH time.
And I KNEW I was right to be worried! ๐
Good video, that.
The reason that the Black Panthers targeted more black people than white people was the need to get rid of “capitalists” (i.e. black small business owners) in the areas of cities they the (Black Panthers) wished to controls
[To this day most violent crime, even political violent crime, committed by blacks is directed at other blacks – it is about creating a climate of terror in the “black community” to make sure that few people even think of stepping-out-of-line in places like Chicago. so that the work of the “Progressive” cause can continue].
White “liberals” (read Reds) deliberately overlooked the crimes of the Black Panthers (and other such groups) because it was not “Politically Correct” to care about their victims (black or white).
David Horowitz (then a leftist from a old Communist family) found this out the hard way, when he sent a lady to help the Black Panthers with their book keeping.
The (rather mature) lady uncovered some fraud (some Comrades were putting the money in their own pockets rather than spending it on the Revolutionary cause).
The Black Panthers responded by murdering the woman.
Mr Horowitz appealed to his fellow “liberals” – only to find THEY DID NOT CARE.
Perhaps they were more concerned with the “n word” and “macaroons”.
Now Mr Ezra name the person who said that black people were “macaroons” and name the person who used the “n word”.
Yes Julie – for example my arms are a mess of them (but they are on my face also).
No doubt they will turn into cancer and carry me off (unless one of many other bits of ill health kills me first).
Off to “Redneck” Heaven (or Redneck Hell).
Mr Ezra – still waiting for you to name the person you say called black people “macaroons” and the person you say used the “n word”.
Either name names – or stop wasting everyone’s time.
Name the people you accuse – or go away.
Put up – or shut up.
A couple of thoughts:
1) Libertarians, being a rather marginalized/fringe group, are naturally going to attract a certain number of otherwise marginalized/fringe individuals. I ran into this early on in libertarian politics, when I organized a meeting of a new political party in 1995 (it was called the Constitution Party, but was not the organization now going by that name). A raving anti-Jewish guy showed up to rave about DA JOOOZ. He didn’t get a particularly friendly reception and I never saw him again.
2) Libertarians by definition tend to think outside the approved ideological box, and therefore can be expected to entertain other “outside the approved ideological box” ideas. That doesn’t necessarily mean we buy those ideas, but we’re probably going to think/talk about them as if they deserved to be thought/talked about instead of vocally rejecting them out of hand.
Both of those things make it easy to paint us as [insert bad thing here].
The latter thing also makes us targets for people who are careful to be a bit more subtle and persuasive in how they go about expressing their bad ideas such that those bad ideas are likely to get longer, more respectful hearings and maybe even some buy-in.
Mr Ezra – you can not “have it both ways” either.
Either name the individuals you are making charges against – or STOP MESSING ABOUT.
As for KKK – what has this collectivist anti “big business” organisation got to do with anything?
Mr Ezra – the only name you seem to be prepared to use is “Nico”.
Because (you claim) that Nico “did not have a problem” with “someone” “making a racist argument”.
Who is “someone”?
And how do you know that Nico “did not have a problem” with their argument?
And who is the individual who is supposed to have called black people “macaroons”.?
And who is the individual who is supposed to have used the “n word”?
The more I read of this thread (Mr Ezra’s endless evasions and refusal to answer basic questions about his charges) the more I am convinced that Dr Sean Gabb’s introduction is correct.
I am not shy of disagreeing with Sean Gabb (as everyone around here knows) – but credit where credit is due, he seems to have nailed Mr Ezra right from the introduction.
Indeed, Mr Ezra is coming across in his comment as a rather evasive and disingenuous individual.
Agreed Ian.
If someone makes charges he must say WHO (specifically) he is making charges against – “people at the bar” will not do, as that smears EVERYONE who was at the bar.
Crikey, some of you could do with taking a course in elementary logic.
Mr Ezra – “elementary logic” dictates that if you make specific charges (that people have called black people “macaroons” and used the “n word”) you should say what specific individuals you are making the charges against.
Not smear an entire group of people.
Mr Ezra, you could do with taking a course in basic honesty. Frankly this “I don’t know what the fuss is” line is absurd and insulting to the intellect.
Compare, “there was some racist bloke down the pub last night” with “I was shocked by the blatant racism in The Queens Head”. The former is just a general observation, the latter associates the specific pub, and all associated with it, with the charge. At least be honest and admit that that is your intention, and stop this ridiculous evasiveness.
So far, you’ve won this year’s Libertarian Wooden Spoon Award. Well done.
Ian – agreed.