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?

        • David

          Let’s say I go to the grocery store and purchase a sack of potatoes. If I stop you from stealing it from me, I am defending my property (which I have acquired without aggression) from your aggression (your attempt to steal it from me). Or let’s say I find an apple tree that nobody else has even encountered. Picking an apple from the tree would be acquiring property without aggression. When you attempt to steal my apple from my hand, you are committing aggression.

          And gold and silver are not imaginary made-up money. They are very valuable material to a lot of people. They can be used for specific purposes other than money which nothing else would suffice because of specific physical properties. Their specific properties also make them good to use as money. Their use as money comes about through the market process of trying to trade for something that you think other people will accept as trade. Money used in this way enables people to get around the problem of a lack of coincidence of wants. Say I have a painting and I need some dental work. Do I search the world for a dentist who needs a painting? No, I trade my painting for something that the dentist will want, and then trade that thing with the dentist. Whatever people will commonly accept, people will try to acquire to get around the lack of double coincidence of wants.

          • jeff4justice

            Sure, the apple and potatoes should be yours in that
            scenario. Though I think land cannot be property without aggression since everyone is born into it equally.

            Next, unless gold or silver are in my auto or electronic then
            I’ve never had a use for them.

      • Allen

        This is why minority groups don’t want anything to do with libertarians for the most part. You can’t be ok with discriminating against someone for nothing, be ok with the idea of deny them equal access and the ask them why they don’t side with you. That’s like asking an unpopular kid does he like hanging out with a group that teases him everyday and steals his lunch . Only an idiot would say yes.

        • David

          Every single person on the planet discriminates against others every day. You no doubt do it in your daily life. For example, every time you see someone who is not physically attractive and don’t ask them out you are discriminating based on physical attributes. Would that make you a bad person? You are free to discriminate against discriminators, and I won’t try to stop you.

          • Allen

            true!! but there is a difference in privately choosing to date someone and the fact that Libertarianism ideas can lead to segregated society that systematically oppress certain groups. The point being whatever the majority says goes and the minority groups will have no protection. For instance gays are 4% or 5% of the population ,if the southern states wanted to they could have continued denying them marrying rights or even the right to stay in their county or state if they wanted to and Libertarian ideas say that they can do just that. It wouldnt affect businesses because the lgtb population is so low of a minoirty figure and it wouldn’t be a big blow to not serve them. Now if you are a white person or a Christian i would understand why you would be a libertarian because you wouldn’t have anything to worry about but if you are in a minority group you will have to go where u are wanted . You know that tho that’s why you are trying drive the point home that if its ok for a person to discriminate on dating preferences then maybe its also ok to discriminate on serving blacks and maybe its alright to prevent those gays from moving into our neighborhood.If libertarians got their day it would be segregation all over again with minority groups suffering especially the ones in lower numbers…..

          • David Higgs

            This is simply historically not true.
            For example, slavery in the united states (probably the most obvious and oppressive racist social phenomena in U.S. history) was only able to exist as long as it did due to a myriad of state laws outlawing setting slaves free, mandating that escaped slaves be returned to plantations on taxpayer dollars, etc. Slavery is economically inefficient in the extreme, which is why the North’s economy vastly outstripped the south. It survived so long BECAUSE OF THE STATE. Similarly, black discrimination after the end of the Civil War lasted so long because it was enforced by the state. “Separate but equal laws,” “Jim Crow” laws, etc., this is all state caused.

            Moreover, state indoctrination (public “education”, which is a joke to most poor black people who live in inner cities) and the violent entrenchment of the ideas of the past into coercive law by the state certainly serves to retard the progress of tolerance, peace, love and co-operation in society. The fact is, blatant racism is economically inefficient (as it always has been) AND immoral (as it always has been) AND irrational (as it always has been).
            In any society where individuals are not indoctrinated but rather allowed to follow the inquiry of their own minds and competing with each other for economic efficiency, there will be a strong tendency towards elimination of bigoted public practices, coupled with a reduction in bigoted beliefs.

            You don’t need to enforce logic, morality efficiency in a free society, because people want to choose those things. More importantly, if people in general tended to choose away from those things given the choice, the state couldn’t possibly help, because it is composed of people. Additionally the state is inherently irrational, arbitrary, and immoral, so it would make things far worse (as it has throughout history in societies where overt racism and hatred of certain ‘non-humans’ was normal, such as the holocaust).

          • Allen

            “You don’t need to enforce logic, morality efficiency in a free society, because people want to choose those things” This is why i think Libertarians are living in a fantasy world. Yes in a fantasy world humans do choose these things logically where gay people, blacks, and no one is discriminated against … i don’t know if you have looked around at those things we called “religious institutions” but large numbers of people do not act logically. i don’t know if you have forgotten but people constantly want to compete with others. A system without a government would lead to the largest groups getting rid of the smaller groups that they have a problem with. I think the ideas of natural selection and social Darwinism are true but i don’t want a society ran that way. Minority groups will be more disadvantage than they already are. if society was logical then people wouldn’t hate gays and blacks currently. Take for example Chickfila. Chickfila increased their sales by speaking ill of gay people. Increased!! and is currently increasing their sales. Gay people are only 3 % of the population. Gay people not buying at chickflia does nothing to their sales.Chickfil doesn’t need gays to be successful. They could have told gays to go fuck themselves and they would have generated a bunch of revenue because the majority were behind them. So u are really kinda crazy to think that without the state there will be a strong tendency towards elimination of bigoted public practices, coupled with a reduction in bigoted beliefs. Chickfila can be bigoted and wont mean a damn thing because gays are only 3 % of the population and which wont effect sales at all because a large majority will still go there. The only difference now is gays can go there if they want and gays are not denied service which could become reality if the state didnt exist. .Without some kind of protection gays would be disadvantage. Without the state gays would have to find someone some place that would serve them. Whether it be down the street or 56 miles in the next town if that.It would be really bad in the south for gays because religion is a big part of life down there. There really wouldn’t be an incentive to make accommodations for 3% of the population because the 3% of the population doesn’t move money sweetie. The majority is what would be focused on. The point being only large majority of people will be treated right. if you don’t belong to the majority you are gonna get shit on. Libertarian ideas and ideas such as anarchy make sense only if people act logically. People do not act logically there are large numbers of people who think logic is a bad thing. I understand what you are trying to achieve but your take on human nature is fairy tale ish. i understand a person who might be a white heterosexual Christians wanting to bring about the end of the state in America but not a minority group. Even with a state it is hard to get protections for minority groups but i am to believe that once the state is gone everyone will come together and start loving everyone all of sudden.Without a state minority groups are pretty much disadvantaged. i understand the state can and does get out of the control but it does protect minority groups in which they do have legal rights and can sue for damages. i know that may angry you if you aren’t a minority I respect the pie in the sky attitude you have but you need to think this one thru a little further and pause the Stefan Molyneux vids……

  • 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,

          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.

          • Bitchass nigga

            I have one STEM undergrad and two masters degrees. Paper qualifications don’t mean shit. The fact is that people like you would give a shit if your metaphorical room was full of non-white people.

            Who can forget the cancerous faction of libertarians such as Goldwater, who opposed civil rights and denied blacks the right to vote on the basis of a misrepresentation of libertarian ism? If you people are so special, why has every single progressive measure, be it giving minorities and women citizenship rights and social security for the destitute(its beneficiaries are overwhelmingly white, by the way) come from the left? Even within libertarian ism, why do people like you become two-faced hypocritical bitches when it comes to personal freedoms like abortion, when you conveniently become pro-life ?
            Have you spent a day in your life on the street opposing the wars, as a libertarian? I have. What have you done to oppose injustices dealt out to minorities? Aren’t these two example of statist force? The fact that you oppose force only when it directly affects you renders you complicit to this statist force that is selectively dealt out to minorities?

            This is an utter misrepresentation of the libertarian doctrine. The classical Rothbardian position is far more nuanced, in their understanding of the word ‘force’. Also, you are allowed to deviate from classical libertarian positions- we aren’t under a libertarian sharia, are we?

            These things are done keeping in mind that every person if of equal mental , physical and financial capacity, and anything else should be accepted as an accident of birth. Guess who would like this to be the status quo? The people who already have those privileges. So, who is the privileged class when it comes to political power? Surprise, surprise, white men. And they would also like to retain their privilege.Hence you find more white men in the room.
            Now that people from every section of the society have opportunity(due to the dreaded leftists), you are seeing more people look beyond the prison of skin color that was holding them back and enter the libertarian fold.
            I am a libertarian myself. I have seen my positions being misrepresented, and only a select few of my positions finding their way into the government.
            The libertarian government is like what the Christians call the rapture. It cannot be properly implemented or work effectively unless there is a degree of equality in our society. Not the everyone need be exactly equal, of course not. But under the magnitude of inequality that is found in the world today, such things are not sustainable. I will turn creed the day our Gini index drops below 0.25 . That would be true libertarian ism.

      • 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.

        • Israel Navas Duran

          “I believe that a person should be paid according to how they perform, no matter their sex, etc. etc. etc.”
          — You’ve been lied, and you know 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.

        • David Higgs

          The reason he said “we” in that particular statement is obvious in context: he was talking about white males. One possible reason for a white male to like libertarianism is because it supports paying people according to their productivity rather than assuming all people should be paid the same if they have the same job (and then coercively forcing employers to pay their employees in such a manner).

          While most of the article was meant to talk about individuals in general, that particular section was talking about white males, and since he was a white male, he used “we.”

          All this being said, the way he replied to your comment was indeed stupid and rude, despite the fact that he was right and you were wrong.

  • 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”


        • Bastion

          So I guess you’re asking, in a manner, whether Wenzel cited Orwell? 😉 LOL – history is fun, no?

      • Zach

        True, but what isn’t common is when the exact same analogy is used to make the exact same point on the exact same subject, almost the exact same week.

  • 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.

    • Mark McCarrion

      IT’s more than just thought. It is the reality of the Libertarian Party. It actually IS mostly white males.

  • 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.

      • Allen

        Separate but equal is totally a libertarian idea. Libertarians aren’t against business leaders being racist or homophobic and barring anyone they want from they business. They say “it might be in bad taste” or “it might destroy business profit” but this not true at all. If a minority group like gays are a blacked balled from a business in an area known for its homophobia or an area known for religious adherence the business wouldn’t suffer at all because the majority of people who spend their money in that business would side with business owner. The only person affected would be a gay person. The same thing could spill over into employment and housing making it impossible for a gay person to live there. That means the gay person would have to move some where that they aren’t discriminated against.This is how you create segregated societies. And once the federal government is taken away that leaves corporations and religious institution. These two are probably even more oppressive then the government. Religion alone has destroy many lives and forced or coerced people into doing all kinds of crazy things…

        • David Higgs

          Once again, a number of difficulties in your post:

          Most importantly is your statement in the end:
          “And once the federal government is taken away that leaves corporations and religious institution. These two are probably even more oppressive then the government.”

          This contains a number of fallacies.
          First, once the government is taken away, it leaves all voluntary forms of association and organization, which includes a whole lot more than corporations and religious institutions. Non-profits, charities, activist associations, small-businesses, recreational groups, etc., etc.
          Secondly, neither of these could possibly be construed so as to be “more oppressive than the government,” in either a theoretical or historical manner. Governments were responsible for the vast majority of non-natural deaths in the last century, due to either wars between states or democide (governments killing their own citizens such as the holocaust, Russian and Chinese purges, etc. that killed over 100 million combined). Corporations on the other hand can only “inflict” any kind of harm on others that is voluntarily agreed to *unless they use the state* to get around this market-voluntary restriction. And religious institutions… *sigh* Religious institutions only inflict significant harm on other when they use the state as a means of enforcing their ideas. To put this more clearly:

          What do the Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, the Islamic jihad, the Russian and Chinese mass genocides, etc. all have in common? Not religion, much less which specific religion. THE STATE. The Spanish inquisition involved the Catholic church using its POLITICAL authority over Kings (states) to enforce its dogma violently on others. The holocaust involved the Nazi party enforcing its racist, eugenicist ideologies violently on others via THE STATE. etc.

          The state is precisely what libertarians are opposed to, not whatever particular depraved humans, corrupt ideologies, etc. *use or used the state* to impose oppression on other human beings.

      • Bastion

        Hmm, you speak of business, and the liberal approach is that a free market will take care of itself. But, isn’t the collective mind also a “free market”? And philosophies vie in that market for support, for adherents.
        So, how is liberalism doing in the market these days? Because your idea that people engaging in commerce will shun those business that discriminate is COMPLETELY dependent upon the vast majority of people in the market place of the mind being liberal. If they are not, if they agree with the bigots, then your model for the expected outcome – that the biased businesses will LOSE business unless they adapt – comes crashing down.
        Liberalism has a long way to go to regain its dominate position in the market place of the mind before I will believe that government is no longer needed to ensure civil rights (i.e. natural rights) are protected.
        But really, according to the very beginning of liberalism, isn’t that the ONLY job of government anyway? To secure the natural rights of the citizens?

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

  • Mark McCarrion

    Why would any minority sign up for Libertarians if it allows racists and supremacists to be even more free with their ideologies? It favors white males and does nothing to address the overwhelming percentage of gun owners who are Libertarian, male and white and living in the Pacific Northwest. Libertarians really have nothing to offer non-white, or non-male people.

    • Bastion

      When it comes to thought, how can one be “even more free”? Either one is permitted to think what they want, and say what they want, or they are prohibited. I don’t understand your argument…

      Now, action that affects the liberty of others – 100% agree with you on that. That is the purpose of government, anyway – to secure and protect the liberties of everyone. So, if the bigot takes action that diminishes the freedom of a minority, then the government should punish them. And PS: it is NOT anyone’s right to be “free” of hearing or being exposed to an idea that they disagree with. This is the problem with “hate speech”. It exists, and the government has no business policing it. That said, inciting violence and conspiracy is NOT protected. This should be self-evident.

      But thought and ideologies, no – of course everyone is free to believe what they want.

      • Mark McCarrion

        I actually agree with much of the Libertarian platform. Unfortunately, because of centuries of entrenchment and several decades of overt segregation and racial/classist periods in American history, the starting blocks have been unfairly placed and the start of the race is already severely rigged. Allowing a Libertarian government to begin in this nation where the wealth of slavery times and unbalanced taxation have created billionaires and concentrated the wealth into 2% of white male pockets is not a good thing. Let the wealth and power be evenly distributed before allowing true freedom. Arm EVERYONE evenly. Divide the land evenly. Is this even possible?

        At this point in time, the only group which seems to be able to act with impunity is straight white males. The Bundy’s showed us exactly how that works. Had the standoff in Nevada with Cliven Bundy been a black rancher or a Latino rancher or any non-white rancher, 20 years would never have passed without him paying grazing fees. He would have been dead on that day, shot by the Feds and been Twittered as “he deserved it” by white male commenters. The Malheur standoff would have been over in less than half a day, if it had been anyone but white male Libertarians wearing cowboy hats.

        The Libertarian platform is actually very attractive, but it needs to be set on a proper foundation and right now America does not provide that foundation for all.

  • Bitchass nigga

    All this is done on the assumption that all races, cultures and genders are equally privileged. That is not the case.