Why Does Libertarianism Lack Ethnic/Gender Diversity?

The issue of diversity in libertarianism has reached a fevered pitch over the last 6 months. I suppose this debate has been going on in the “liberty movement” for awhile, but every so often there is a flare up, and this seems to be one of those times. I’d like to think I’m partially responsible for that, it’s dividing “the movement”, and I’m glad that it is. That said, while raising what I think to be some important points and accomplishing the very important goal of exposing charlatans, I don’t think I’ve yet written a very detailed article on the subject yet, so here goes.

Why isn't there more diversity in libertarianism?

Why isn’t there more diversity in libertarianism?

Libertarianism does not address race, gender, religion, sexuality, or any other class the left would like to see protected from offense. Nor should it. Libertarianism makes the radical assertion that these subjects are irrelevant outside of our own personal preferences, and that our own personal preferences are not how the whole of human society should be organized. So the short answer to libertarian diversity is, I don’t care, and neither should you.

Within the boundary of libertarianism, you are welcome to all the personal preferences you like. If you don’t want to go to the movies unless you have an equal number of men, women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, native Americans, Jews, and Muslims, fine, organize your life in that way. Personally, I don’t think I want to be your friend if you think that much about race and gender. If you prefer to only associate with bald white Protestant men, then you are free to do that as well, but again, we’re probably not going to be friends. Anyone who says libertarianism means something else, is either ignorant or dishonest. There really isn’t any legitimate debate about that subject, which is why I’m so dismissive of “left libertarians” or “thick libertarians”. What they are talking about isn’t libertarianism.

What Is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism addresses one thing, and one thing only. Force. Libertarianism claims to do nothing other than answer the question of when violence is permissible. The answer to the question, is in defense of person or property. This is what is known as the non-aggression principle. Initiatory force or fraud against person or property is impermissible, anything else, is permissible, including racism, sexism, homophobia, rape jokes, and all manner of other things leftists freak out about. Anyone who says otherwise, is either ignorant or dishonest, because there is absolutely zero legitimate debate about this.

If your philosophy includes something other than this, you’re more than welcome to that philosophy, just call it something else. Please stop trying to further undermine our efforts by inserting nonsense interpretations into our philosophy, because they have no place here.

This is not to say libertarianism is in any way incomplete as a body of thought, quite the contrary. People have been using violence to accomplish their ends for so long, that you really need to go into great detail describing how society can function without a giant killing machine known as the State ordering everyone around at gunpoint. In our efforts to rid society of violence, we’ve had to answer pretty much every question imaginable, because every time you fail to provide an answer, the State answers with violence.

 

So why isn’t there more diversity in libertarianism?

Like it or not, the short answer is, many members of these groups you want to attract, just plain won’t listen to reason. We’re making logical arguments, and certain segments of the population are responsive, while others prefer their comforting lies. If I say 2+2=4, and a bunch of people say something else, it’s not really my responsibility to teach them remedial math. If most of those people have blonde hair, I don’t say “Oh, those poor blondes are too stupid to understand addition, they need special treatment”.

Mind you who we’re competing with here, the State. We are competing with politicians who give away stolen money and tell people whatever they want to hear.

Even when we’re competing for the minds of white men, we have to convince them that our way is better than joining the military where they will get a “free education”, preference for job opportunities when they come home, social status, women, medical care, and everything else that comes with it. We have to convince them not to be politicians. Not to give into white guilt and support welfare and affirmative action. Not to be IRS agents, or cops, or any number of other statist things that just love to give white people money.

Many blacks have been convinced by decades of propaganda (which “left libertarians” shamelessly help perpetuate) that the white man is responsible for their problems, and a government made up of white men is somehow going to solve them. In 2012 less than 18% of the population of the US was black, and in 2014, 39.8% of welfare recipients are black. They are offered housing, education, transportation, food, and even cellular phones, by the State. If you tend to associate with black people, even if you yourself are not receiving any of these benefits, you tend to know someone who is. When people talk about taking these benefits away, recipients and people who care about the recipients feel like you are taking food off of their table, and to say the least, they react with hostility.

Usually when we bring up the subject of black people and welfare, liberals go into a tail spin trying to explain how race has nothing to do with welfare. I actually agree with them, too bad leftists don’t realize in other matters that demographics and racism are totally separate issues. So hopefully you’re actually reading this article and not off copying and pasting something from ThinkProgress in my comment section. This is a simple discussion about demographics. You are complaining that a disproportionate number of libertarians are white men, and I am telling you that a disproportionate number of black people are paid to not like libertarianism. This problem is not unique to libertarianism, blacks tend to identify as Democrats over Republicans as well, because of the nature of left wing politics, they pay off minorities for votes.

Black people also make up a disproportionate percentage of active duty military personnel. So the whole anti-war thing could be turning off a lot of them.

Women have been told one of two different lies, either that they can depend on men to carry them, or that men are oppressing them. If men will carry them, then they have no need for libertarianism, because politics, philosophy, and economics are none of their concern. If they believe that men are oppressing them, then they have also been told that the government is going to set them free. The government will make sure they get paid more, the government will make sure they get jobs, the government will give them birth control, medical care, and lots of other goodies. This problem isn’t unique to libertarianism, women voters tend to identify as Democrat over Republican, thanks to the nature of left wing politics, and the statist propaganda that “left libertarians” help to perpetuate.

White men on the other hand have been told, in large part, that they are not only on their own, but must carry others. We are the top income earners, which makes us the top tax payers, and we’re sick of having our money stolen. We see laws like affirmative action, we perceive that as being racially discriminant against us, and so we shun the State. We see government threatening to regulate wages so that women will make as much as we do even if they don’t perform as well, and so we shun the State. Independence is in our best interests, and so we embrace libertarianism.

Now, I know very well that free markets solve the problems of these groups of people you so desperately want to join our little club. I realize that regulatory entry barriers to business are the fault of the State. I know that welfare breeds dependency and doesn’t help minorities. I know that women can fend for themselves in the workplace. The problem is that the State feeds them this propaganda, and “left libertarians” whether out of blatant ignorance or for purposeful disinformation, repeat it ad nauseam.

To summarize, the reason there is not more diversity in libertarianism is State propaganda, and “left libertarians” who repeat it.

Additionally, I know very few women or ethnic minorities who wish to spend a great deal of time talking about their oppressed role in society. Most of my female/gay/black/Hispanic/Muslim friends just want to be treated like normal people, otherwise I wouldn’t be friends with them. That’s what eliminating “bigotry” is, treating people, like people. Leftists don’t do this. They want to treat protected classes differently, and since leftists seem to have all the main stream media contacts, they aren’t doing us any favors. They either feed into the State propaganda that keeps these groups dependent, or they turn off the independent minded ones who would join us if only we would treat them like normal human beings.

How can we bring more diversity to libertarianism?

I don’t care about the racial makeup of my peers. If they are all white, fine, if I’m the only white guy in the room, also fine. I am not interested in race, and the only reason I can think of why leftists would be so obsessed with it, is because they are the racists in this equation. Would it be nice to have more women at libertarian gatherings? Sure, so long as they are actually libertarians, and not leftist charlatans, that would be great. But that’s only because I want greater numbers, and because I might want to fuck some of them. It is not because it makes a shit bit of difference to the validity of my philosophy whether or not adherents to said philosophy sit down to pee. It surely is not because I think it’s going to help my philosophy gain any more traction than an equal number of white males. I want more people to be libertarians, but I’m not willing to, nor are any of us capable of, changing libertarianism to facilitate that.

If I say that 2+2=4, and most of the people who agree with me are white males, the answer is still 4. If Jewish men say the answer is 3, and black women say the answer is 5, and they decide to buy weapons and kill each other over their disagreement, my options are fairly limited. Perhaps, the best thing I can hope for is that they kill each other off and then a smaller percentage of the population will be mathematically illiterate fools.

Short of that, I can try to make easier to understand propaganda. I can make coloring books where two and two meet four while walking down the street. I can hire black and female actors to make YouTube videos explaining that 2+2=4. I can write songs about 2+2=4. Cartoons, books, whatever to get more education into their hands. Libertarianism is already doing all of this, just not on the scale of the public education system, main stream media, and political propaganda of the State.

What I don’t do, is tell them “Hey everybody, it doesn’t matter if you think 2+2=4 or 3, or 5, we’re all one big happy group, join us!”. 2+2=4. End of list. If I accept your bullshit answer to get you on my team, then we have completely defeated the purpose.

When “left/thick libertarians” start repeating statist race propaganda, they dilute, not improve, libertarianism.

They also promote initiatory violence. Take this segment from Cathy Reisenwitz on Center for a Stateless Society.

The position thick libertarians take on the non-aggression principle is that it’s a starting place, not a place to end. The trouble with it is that there are multiple ways to define aggression. As Jason Brennan points out, “What counts as aggression depends upon what rights people have.”

This is sort of important to understand before she starts backpedaling. As I mentioned earlier, libertarianism only describes the proper application of force as in defense of person or property. That’s what the non-aggression principle is. If you just change the meaning of aggression to be a violation of whatever rights you perceive you have, then you can forcefully “defend yourself” against paying rent, you can forcefully “defend yourself” against poverty by stealing from the rich, you can forcefully “defend yourself” against racism by assaulting people who say things you don’t like. Here’s a great example from the same article,

I would argue that denying someone goods or services on the basis of their sex, gender, orientation, religion, etc. is a curtailment of their liberty, at the very least to enjoy those goods and services.

What “left libertarians” fail to comprehend is, it isn’t up to them who does what or why. Remember, these people are basically just Democrats who gave up on politics. They aren’t libertarians, they just couldn’t gain any traction in left wing electoral politics. This is an antipropertarian perspective. Nobody has the “liberty” to use my goods or services. That’s my property, that’s my labor, and whether I want to deny them to you because you’re a dishonest liberal snob, or because I don’t like the color of your skin is entirely up to me. I have the liberty to choose who I provide goods or services to, and if you redefine aggression to include this choice, then we’re on the verge of a violent conflict. Now before you accuse me of taking her out of context, she goes on to say,

That does not justify legally forcing someone to stop discriminating. However, it does justify calling out the pernicious effects of discrimination. That, in essence, is thick libertarianism. It’s concerned with both kinds of threats to freedom, government-created and cultural. And it proposes voluntary solutions, like education, or reality television show suspensions, to those threats.

There’s a number of problems here though. First of all, leftists are perpetually dishonest, so there’s no reason to believe a word they say. There’s a reason this article is posted on C4SS, it’s an anticapitalist blog.

She openly promotes initiatory violence by redefining aggression, then defines a situation where a person who is acting perfectly within their property rights “curtails the liberty” to someone else’s property over a reason she doesn’t agree with. She can come back around and call that voluntary if she wants, but she’s talking out of both sides of her mouth, like liberals always do.

If “what counts as aggression depends upon what rights people have”, that question is already answered by libertarianism. You have the right to defend your person and property against force and fraud, end of list. The non-aggression principle is libertarianism, if you think you have other rights, then that’s not libertarianism. If you think you have rights other than the right to be left alone, then you subscribe to a different philosophy, and then your options are to say that there is no right of self defense, in which case you’ve given initiatory violence free reign, or you are an advocate of initiatory violence. No amount of dishonest liberal doublespeak changes that.

  • jeff4justice

    Interesting insights from Cantwell as usual. Some questions:

    1) How does one differentiate libertarianism vs anarchism or voluntaryism?

    2) Why shouldn’t a person’s allegiance be first and foremost be to their self-preservation by any means necessary before allegiance to any philosophical ideas or political ideologies?

    3) If you can’t/don’t/won’t offer dependants of statism a clear path to the preservation of their lives as utmost as possible, do you realistically think they will give up statism dependency just to appease your preferences of how the world should be? For instance, free-market proponents insist that the market will make things better for victims of discrimination. Really? Free-market boycotts (and some statism threats) didn’t put Chick Fill A or Duck Dynasty out of business. Pula Deen is making a comeback. Would the abolition of the state suddenly make those people of faith cheering the “kill the gays” or “jail the gays” bills any less hostile and restrained?

    4) What’s with this romanticizing of market? If you can imagine a world emancipated from government subservience then why can’t you envision a world free of the inter-dependency of any market or barter? Why is so-called free market coercion (or in-effect coercion) any better than government coercion if the end result continues to be subservience and dependency?

    • Christopher Cantwell

      1. Libertarianism is a word coined to put a nicer spin on anarchism, voluntaryism was a word coined to put a nicer spin on libertarianism, they are all the same term.

      2. A persons allegiance is first and foremost to their self preservation. Acting within the NAP is in your best interests if you actually study economics and think things through to their ultimate conclusion. While there may be a short term benefit to aggressing against others, you generally tend to make enemies when you do that, and it makes life extraordinarily dangerous.

      3. I don’t want Chick Fill A or Duck Dynasty put out of business, I want these whiny liberal twats to shut the fuck up. There are no victims of discrimination, discrimination is a victimless crime. If I have access to goods and services, as I said in the article, it doesn’t matter if I deny you access to them because you’re a dishonest liberal snob or because I don’t like the color of your skin, it’s my decision to make. If somebody hates gay people, then your choices are to do business with them or not do business with them. You don’t get to decide whether or not other people do, and I don’t see why leftists find this so difficult to comprehend. Do you want freedom or not? Freedom includes people doing things that you don’t like.

      4. When you say “free market coercion” you show your ignorance. It’s not that I can’t imagine a world free of trade, its that I don’t have any desire to. Trade is a good thing.

      • jeff4justice

        ● “Acting within the NAP is in your best interests if you actually study economics and think things through to their ultimate conclusion.”

        If it were evident that NAP was in one’s best interest it would be evident whether it’s studied it or not. That’s the equivalent of telling me that if I just read the Bible and surrender to Jesus then life will obviously be better. Any adult working, paying taxes, and paying bills is studying the statism market in the Matrix-like paradigm were born into.

        Speaking of studying economics, history seems to show that wealthy people or the creators of imaginary currencies often have an inclination for wannabe supremacist delusions (race, religion, family lines) and would rather control people they deem inferior though market, labor, and allotting the imaginary made up “money” in the monetary systems they force or in-effect force them into.

        Also, how is government not free-market if it’s bought and paid for by corporations and only a handful of corporations own mainstream media to perpetuate the narrative of the masters? Those masters of money simply used market to buy a system of mass population control. Government is a market that has gone to the logical conclusion of becoming psychotically addicted to controlling other people.

        Regardless, people born into statism are like people born into a religion – it’s indoctrinated into them from birth so deprogramming statism seems to have parallels to how atheists want a world where they are the majority and belief in unsupported concepts of gods are dismissed as nonsense.

        ● “While there may be a short term benefit to aggressing against others, you generally tend to make enemies when you do that, and it makes life extraordinarily dangerous.”

        Do people who proclaim to abide by NAP not make enemies within their own circles? No. Look at all the infighting (including your own publicly known conflicts) among the libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist crowd.

        ● While of course you’re not obligated to answer (and I do appreciate your insights btw), my question was not answered: “If you can’t/don’t/won’t offer dependants of statism a clear path to the preservation of their lives as utmost as possible, do you realistically think they will give up statism dependency just to appease your preferences of how the world should be?”

        ● “discrimination is a victimless crime”

        This is an overly-simplistic statement. I can only address it in the statism context that exists today. If a gay couple experiences hospital visitation discrimination then indeed there’s clearly a victim. If one is fired for nonsensical prejudicial reasons then yeah there’s a victim. I understand you want the freedom of that type of discriminatory power but let’s not pretend there wouldn’t be victims who suffer loss.

        ● “I don’t want Chick Fill A or Duck Dynasty put out of business”

        Likewise, there are people who didn’t want Paula Deen out of business. You’re admitting that business who engage in stoking anti-LGBT sentiment or other anti-whoever sentiments will be supported. This will of course include business that don’t want to serve atheists like you – which I know you are ok with.

        Let’s say tomorrow Uganda somehow became a totally voluntaryist society, kicked out all of the other nations, and somehow secured their borders from invasion. That’s still wouldn’t help the gays there any from having a shot at anything resembling a quality of life. With or without the state, due to religious nuttery, the gays there are endangered.

        “I don’t see why leftists find this so difficult to comprehend. Do you want freedom or not? Freedom includes people doing things that you don’t like.”

        Freedom is a subjective word. Anyway, you admit above understanding how there are short-term benefits to utilizing the tools of statism. Likewise, regardless of how you want the world to operate in the future, if it came down to your self-preservation being endangered and you had no recourse but to turn to statism for help, I have a hard time believing you wouldn’t resort to it. For instance, say you forget your gun one day or you leave it behind knowing you’d be going somewhere where you’d be arrested for carrying it. If you felt physically endangered in a way you could not defend yourself from, odds are you’d call 911.

        Next, discrimination is not an isolated act. It often goes hand in hand with stoking anti-whoever hysteria that manifests in people getting killed – as we see is happening to gays in places like Russia or Uganda. As we saw happened to Sikhs getting shot in the US after 9/11. Does that mean I advocate for censorship? No. But I’m not going to pretend that words cannot be dangerous.

        If your goal is real persuasion, you need a very compelling case to tell a statist who is a minority who does indeed experience damages caused by prejudice to forgo clinging to the (illusion of) protection by the state in exchange for NAP where you will support the right of people to cause damages to them.

        It’s like saying, come to Jesus. Sure, there’s lots of Christians in poverty and Hugh Hefner seems happy, but trust in Jesus and all is ok.

        So when you ask “do you want freedom or not” you know it’s nonsensically overly simplistic because there’s consequences to being “free” that don’t necessarily ensure a (chance at) a quality of life. And no it doesn’t mean statism is better. It means neither statism or a stateless world guarantees a quality of life. So if you want people to do something the equivalent of trading one religion for another (or to transition into atheism), when asked “how will this work” type questions, you need something more compelling than replies equivalent to “You don’t understand economics stupid.”

        ● “When you say “free market coercion” you show your ignorance. It’s not that I can’t imagine a world free of trade, its that I don’t have any desire to. Trade is a good thing.”

        I don’t mind showing my ignorance in an attempt to learn. Was that comment meant as a deflection by attempt at ridicule on your part or to shame me for the unforgivable crime of not having the insights you have?

        How can you abide by NAP and support the concept of market? Doesn’t market require property ownership? How do you attain property (even by homesteading) without aggression upon someone else?

        How do you have market without coercion or in-effect coercion?

        Do you think the exchange of imaginary made up money (Bitcoin, gold, silver, whatever) is better for people than sharing by voluntary mutual cooperation (not at all to be confused with any statism force)? If so why?

  • Christina Westcott

    I like and agree with most of this… However, I do not like this statement: “We see government threatening to regulate wages so that women will make as much as we do even if they don’t perform as well, and so we shun the State.” I agree that people who don’t perform as well should not be paid as much as those who do perform well. I am disgusted that it seems I’m the hardest working person in my department, and I don’t make as much as some of my (female) coworkers. However, it seems like the writer’s contempt is actually about women making just as much money as men for the same job. I understand that he wrote “even if they don’t perform as well,” but I think he just threw that in there to not sound (too) sexist. Why couldn’t he have just said some blanket statement about PEOPLE who don’t perform as well should not be paid the same or as much as those who do perform well? I don’t see why he had to specify WOMEN. It seems to me, that there is some underlying sexism there.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      Shut up, cunt.

      No, but seriously, your comment is ridiculous. You know very well what “equal pay for an equal day” means. So don’t be a dishonest gender baiting leftist.

      • Nikki Huelle

        Ad hominem =/= refuting an argument, buddy.

        • Disco Biscuits

          You want a refutation? An *individual* is only worth what he or she can negotiate. It is not my problem if women, in general, can not negotiate for higher salaries.

          Should they be paid the same as men for the same work? In general, probably. But no two individuals (there’s that word again) can perform exactly the same work. You are only worth what someone is willing to pay you. It is up to YOU to “sell yourself” to the highest bidder. If you can’t understand basic economics, I can’t help you in a few short paragraphs. But absolutely, no one has a *right* to an “equal wage”. What a person may deserve, and what they have a right to, are two different things.

        • dirtybluefl

          nah, Chris shit on that comment with a steaming pile of “fuck off with that bullshit” logic. Using a specific example does not mean racism/sexism is present in the argument. and the fact that people always rush to defend the honor of women, even when they are in the wrong, is ridiculous and it needs to stop. women are more than capable of being responsible for their own actions, and its time for society to stop treating them like children, or making up excuses for them.

      • Self_Manifesto

        Annnnd there goes any respect you would’ve gotten from me. This is my first time on this site, and it will also be my last. I came here genuinely curious about a libertarian perspective on diversity. I left feeling like I wasted my time reading myopic, uneducated drivel.

        • Chris

          Guess how much you’ll be missed?

          If you’re still reading, please tell me how you feel about the following words,

          Capitalism
          Labor Union
          Corporate Greed
          Wage Slavery

        • wakeup28

          I have no idea what is wrong with this guy but please don’t get the impression that he is what the movement is about, he has no idea how to deliver a message or present a message and comes off as sexist and ignorant. Please check out Free State Project Forums to get a real sense of what this community is about. I am a latin female and this is the first time I have read a libertarian article in 7 years that I did not like the way it was written and how the ideas came across.

        • challengeaccepted

          The article’s tone of communication did not utilize inclusive communication techniques. The article should have focused on how a voluntaryism society would benefit EVERYONE and should have included many examples of how it would benefit different minority groups and how voluntaryism society would look like and operate and why it is morally superior to other systems. He should have only done one or two paragraphs on why the movement is currently not very diverse and also done a paragraph on how this is changing and how the movement is growing to be more diverse. He did not do the best job writing this. There are all kinds of educational levels in this movement like all movements so keep this in mind.

        • Disco Biscuits

          Chris doesn’t pull punches or sugar coat anything. If you can’t handle that , then go back to your mommy.

      • Christina Westcott

        “Dishonest gender baiting leftist” haha. Wow, that was a very intelligent and convincing rebuttal. You are living up to the third “A” below your name. Too bad you don’t live up to the expectations that a reader has of an ‘author’ or of a supposed fellow libertarian one, at that. I believe that a person should be paid according to how they perform, no matter their sex, etc. etc. etc. This article was basically written for men. Because when I read “we” in your statement: “We see government threatening to regulate wages so that women will make as much as we do even if they don’t perform as well, and so we shun the State.” I am obviously not a part of that “we” because I am a woman. I think people like you are the real reason why there seems to be a lack of diversity in libertarianism. The diversity may be there, but you do not acknowledge it.

    • Delanynder

      No, dear. I can see where you may have taken this statement to be sexist, but only if you weren’t paying attention. We should be paid based on our individual performance and ability, gender aside, and if a man is worth more because he has greater experience or education in a field then so be it, and vice versa. Why would you want to know you’re getting paid the same rate as your coworker not because you are of the same quality employee, but rather just because you are a woman? That sounds like a slap in the face to all the individuals who have broken their backs to earn their keep in the workplace. While Mr. Cantwell may or may not have some sexist issues, his point was made aptly. Just because he didn’t use a blanket statement like “people” doesn’t make him incorrect.

      • Christina Westcott

        You said I wasn’t paying attention, but then you went on to say basically the *same* thing I said in slightly different words. No offense, but I think maybe you weren’t paying attention. Also, as I replied to him, this article was basically written for men. Because when I read “we” in his statement: “We see government threatening to regulate wages so that women will make as much as we do even if they don’t perform as well, and so we shun the State.” I am obviously not a part of that “we” because I am a woman. There may actually be some diversity in libertarianism, but he does not acknowledge it.

  • http://www.thelibertarianrepublic.com/ Austin Petersen

    Hey Chris, agree with some of what you’ve stated. Disagree with Cathy on the idea of being denied someone’s goods and services as a violation of their liberty to enjoy them.

    However, the NAP does have significant weaknesses that I believe keep it from being the end all/be all definition of what makes a libertarian. Mostly because the NAP does not help us in situations where negative externalities don’t fit the typical definition of aggression. An example would be someone who sneezes a bacteria in a park that then causes someone else an illness. They can’t be said to have aggressed in any sense. Taken to the extreme if someone has ebola they are not an aggressor, and a community may take appropriate self defense measures I believe to quarantine that person in order to defend themselves.

    The left libertarians seek to live in a world where your rights end where their feelings begin. And that is truly not libertarianism.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      Austin, that’s what libertarianism is. If you must insist on being a statist, then that just makes you a half assed libertarian.

      Your acceptance of the State is a far greater danger than any bacteria ever sneezed in a park. At least we all recognize ebola as a threat and can therefore do something to stop it when it makes itself known.

      What can the State do to prevent disease? Send in the National Guard? Put guns in our faces? Last I checked, germs weren’t afraid of tanks and rifles.

      If someone is a threat to your safety, you can do whatever is necessary to protect yourself from them under the NAP. If you see a sick person and you say “Stay the fuck away from me, leper” and they sneeze on you anyway, that’s assault.

      If you don’t know that the person is sick, then the State can’t help you anymore than you can help yourself.

      As for a quarantine, I don’t at all like the idea of a military forcing me to stay in the same place as sick people.

  • Pingback: Is George Geankoplis Counter Intelligence? | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Pingback: Jeffrey Tucker's Case Against Libertarianism | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Pingback: Libertarians And Social Work: #1 – The Questions | Social Work Unplugged()

  • Pingback: The Slow, Painful Death of Reason Magazine | Christopher Cantwell()

  • challengeaccepted

    The article’s tone of communication did not utilize inclusive
    communication techniques. The article should have focused on how a
    voluntaryism society would benefit EVERYONE and should have included
    many examples of how it would benefit different minority groups and how a
    voluntaryism society would look like and operate and why it is morally
    superior to other systems. He should have only done one or two
    paragraphs on why the movement is currently not very diverse and also
    done a paragraph on how this is changing and how the movement is growing
    to be more diverse. He did not do the best job writing this. There are
    all kinds of educational levels in this movement like all movements so
    keep this in mind.

  • Zach

    Chris, I jut found your blog last week, and as I am posting on a month old post, I am enjoying your archives.

    Why didn’t you source Wenzel’s speech “2+2=4″ in this post? Were you aware of it?

    I’d link to it but I don’t want spam filter to pick me up. It is in the archives of his show and is searchable.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      Believe it or not I haven’t read and listened to every bit of libertarian speech in the history of the world. 2+2=4 is a pretty common way of saying “This is a simple concept”

      • Disco Biscuits

        “Freedom is the freedom to say 2 and 2 is 4″

        “1984”

  • Odotry

    Nice observation Chris. I also came across a comment that pointed out that many immigrants tend to be in favor of big government.

    As an Egyptian who immigrated to Canada less than 10 years ago, I myself find this statistic baffling. I’ve seen first hand how destructive big government can be. I’m not sure why fellow immigrants, who most like immigrated from countries with intrusive governments, want bigger government in a country where they have more opportunity.

    I believe the reason why women, LGBT groups and minority on average are big government types is because the government caters to them with big government programs combined with the media leading them to believe that they’re victims with the government as the messiah that’ll liberate them.

  • Roy J Lores

    I think is very wrong to think that Libertarians is mostly a white males only club I’m Hispanic myself and know of many African American and Asian Libertarians. But yes large number of people in the aforementioned groups re pro big government mostly thanks to indoctrination.

  • Allen

    I can totally understand why a white straight Christian male or even a white atheist male like yourself would be a libertrian but the reason its not trickling down to everyone else is because libertarian views do not protect weak minority groups which include anyone outside the white male etc. Libertrians want a segregated social/econominc darwinsin type society. Darwinism is true but its not a good way to run society. This type of society works well with people who belong to majority groups but not so well for anyone who isn’t. Blacks, Jews,gays for years have suffered with libertarian style legislation like separate but equal. If whites don’t want to serve blacks then blacks go elsewhere or gays or women etc. Meaning they will be enclosed into their own little groups or just die out completely. Libertain viewpoints only work for people in the majority view who know they want be discriminated against or have some place to go if they happen to be. If you are in a minority group you will get pissed on and less “freedom” than anyone else. Most white straight males dont understand this because they have always either had or had opportunity to achieve if they wanted to. Blacks ,gays and women have been fired or given less not because of job performance( which should be the only reason) but because of the fact they were one of these things. that’s why affirmative action was put in place because employers were not hiring minioirtes on the bases of perfomance but because of race and gender. Libertarian viewpoints always fail minioirties but if you are in the majority i totally understand your reasoning. I totally get why you are but that’s not gonna work for someone who had terrible social and economic experiences and knows better that the free market of social and economics isn’t gonna be totally great with hugs and kisses. Its doesn’t and there loads of proof to that.You don’t have to worry about the red tape that someone who isn’t a white male has to worry about. Separate but equal is a crazy idea

    • chuckrobertpearson .

      There’s a lot of problems in your reply. Separate but equal would not be a libertarian view because libertarians do not agree in having a set edict for how schools should be run. Whether schools would be separate would be based on market factors.

      Businesses that discriminate on a basis of race or gender are not competitive because they drive away potential competitors and have a smaller talent pool to draw from. Keep in mind that a lot of the discrimination of the past was the result of government legislation.

  • http://macro-mastia.dk Spotted Pate

    *SWAT pigs descend from the ceiling with MP-5’s and flash grenades* CEASE ALL DISCUSSIONS OF FREEDOM AND HOPE.