Shining a Bit of Light Under the Rock
I was sent an email the other day about a new blog that is dedicated to shining some light on the creepy collectivists who have been attempting to gain some respectability by asserting that they are “libertarians” because they oppose the actions of the U.S. government. (Sometimes that’s a necessary condition for being a libertarian, but it’s hardly a sufficient one, since one could oppose various actions of the U.S. government for lots of other reasons, too.) I have no idea who the anonymous author of the web log is. But he or she seems to have some interesting things to say about the growth of what was once “paleoconservatism” and is now called by some “paleolibertarianism,” a marginal group that is heavy on spooky nostalgia for some very particular acts of resistance to the U.S. government (most especially the one that was triggered by the desire to keep the “peculiar institution” of the southern states).
I’ve written a bit on some of the unsavory characters involved. (The entries can be found under the category of The Fever Swamp.) Those interested in what’s scurrying around under the rock at lewrockwell.com, for example, may want to check out the RightWatch blog.
Not being from the US I’m just curious about what numbers we are talking about in terms of the libertarian “movement” and these paleos. Very roughly of course, what % of all political activists would be (self-described is perhaps the best measure) libertarians in the US and what % of this group would be these paleos?
Well, like Clement (and like Tom), I’ve known Justin since the late ’70s. I was there every day from June 1978 to January 1981 in the Libertarian Review offices (next door to the SLS offices and down the block from the Cato Institute offices), and I know damned well that the sex and drug allegations being disputed here are true. Justin used to brag in the office about his “Italian Stallion” ad and the part-time income it provided him.
I agree with Tom that whatever victimless crimes he and other members of the Radical Caucus may have committed thirty years ago is unimportant. I don’t agree with him about LewRockwell.com and AntiWar.com, which I think are two of the best libertarian sites on the Internet. His efforts (and those of a handful of others) to make a mountain out of a molehill in connection with Lew’s staunch anti-Lincolnism and Justin’s hatred of the U.S. war machine do not impress me.
JR
Well, like Clement (and like Tom), I’ve known Justin since the late ’70s. I was there every day from June 1978 to January 1981 in the Libertarian Review offices (next door to the SLS offices and down the block from the Cato Institute offices), and I know damned well that the sex and drug allegations being disputed here are true. Justin used to brag in the office about his “Italian Stallion” ad and the part-time income it provided him.
I agree with Tom that whatever victimless crimes he and other members of the Radical Caucus may have committed thirty years ago is unimportant. I don’t agree with him about LewRockwell.com and AntiWar.com, which I think are two of the best libertarian sites on the Internet. His efforts (and those of a handful of others) to make a mountain out of a molehill in connection with Lew’s staunch anti-Lincolnism and Justin’s hatred of the U.S. war machine do not impress me.
JR
LB’s question is hard to answer; there’s little (perhaps no) hard data on such matters. As an educated conjecture, I’d say that only a tiny minority of self-identified libertarians (and I do meet a lot, especially through college lecture tours, teaching at seminars, and the like) would identify with the views of the “paleos.” It’s sometimes such an odd mix that it would be hard to work out on one’s own the “logic” that might connect them all together, in any case. What I find worrying is that the name of a great and intellectually powerful champion of classical liberalism (not of hard-core libertarianism, and certainly not of kooky Rockwellism), Ludwig von Mises, is used to attract people to that witch’s brew of opinions.
I disagree with Mr. Riggenbach’s evaluation of the two websites in question (obviously), but I can verify that what he says is true. Clement insists on bringing up bits of history that most people would rather not know about. Sometimes it’s best not to be too insistent in defense of the reputation of another.
As someone who had heard the same things from the horse’s mouth, here’s another confirmation of what Jeff has written and Clement was foolish enough to blurt out, except that I don’t want my name used for the simple reason that I still live here. If you have ever seen Raimondo all worked up in a tizzy, you would definitely not want him coming after you, either. If he only embarrassed himself, I could care less. It’s the ideas he puts out that suffer from his big mouth and from his buddy-buddy relationship with bigots like Pat Buchanan and Hans-Herman Hoppe (the one who’s been repeatedly censured — maybe unjustly, but apparently for cause, nonetheless — for bigoted remarks) and with the goober brigade.
Polling has shown that about 2% of Americans self-identify as “libertarian.” That is, when asked if they are conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc., they choose libertarian.
Polling also shows that 1/2 of 1% are Libertarian Party partisans. That is, when asked if they are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or whatever, they say “Libertarian.”
Among libertarians, there are many disputes as to what counts as being a libertarian. Many libertarians would claim that at least some of those who say that they are “libertarian” really aren’t. It is at least possible that some of those who claim to be “libertarians” are “civil libertarians” and more social democrat than libertarian.
According to some of the more inclusive views as what it means to be a libertarian, about 20% of the U.S. population is libertarian. According to that approach, no more than 10% of that number knows that they are libertarian.
That 20% number is people who think goverment should be smaller and don’t believe government should promote traditional moral values.
For the general reader with interest in Ukraine: Just to be clear, I was refuting the apparent claim that the investigation of Yuschenko’s poisoning wasn’t moving along, not arguing that Yuschenko had definitely been poisoned at the dinner at Satsyuk’s dacha.
Also, I was refuting the claim that Yuschenko is pursuing socialist policies. Timoshenko’s price caps on Russian natural gas (a bad policy over which Yuschenko and Timoshenko clashed) do not constitute socialism.
Yuschenko is unquestionably pursuing liberal pro-market reform He’s doing so in an environment filled with old soviet bureaucrats and corrupt “businessmen” who were cronies of the old regime — powerful people who oppose change. He needs to hold together a coalition that includes populist allies (e.g. Timoshenko) who are more interested in ending the enormous corruption in the system than in promoting market reform.
All of these Orange Revolutionaries are prefereable to the Kuchma/Yanukovych mafia.
(Clement: please excuse me for getting off topic. I realize that this discussion is supposed to focus on uncivil attacks on Tom Palmer.)
Tom Palmer is an idiot
Someone just sent me this thread. If I can state for the record: I have never engaged in prostitution. It is a profession that requires the sort of discipline that I did not have at the tender age of 20-something, and is far too much like work to have any appeal for me.
Someone just sent me this thread. If I can state for the record: I have never engaged in prostitution. It is a profession that requires the sort of discipline that I did not have at the tender age of 20-something, and is far too much like work to have any appeal for me.
Well, that settles it, right? Of course, maybe Justin shouldn’t have boasted about his “business” enterprise, his advertisements, and his conquests so grossly and so publicly. Justin, you should tell Clement not to be so eager to out you the next time.
Back to the main issue, though: what happened to “libertarianism” that people like Hoppe and Rockwell want to take it over? They swing from far left (promoting burning police cars and prostitution and drug deals) to far right (so far right as to be cheerleaders for slavery defending Confederates!), each time ensuring that the rational part of the population will find them repulsive. They remind me of nothing more than the weird zombie cults on the far left and right, e.g., the LaRoucheies, complete with “cancellation of previous realities” when it suits them. They did lots of damage here in the Bay Area to our reputation. With the Internet, now they’re taking it global.
The author (or authors) of RightWatch makes the same point as Palmer (the interesting issue isn’t Raimondo’s hobbies, but the relationship with “racists, bigots and the lunatic fringe of the Right) in his/her/their latest posting:
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=rightwatch&static=1969700825
*
It seems that our posting on countercultural matters and the Paleolibertarians has erupted into a full out donnybrook on another web site. [link]
The one thing I find disturbing is that people are concentrating on the issues of prostitution and drugs. My point was not that at all but the double standards and false claims that the Rothbardians rescued us from such counter culturialists. They were the counter culturialists. I did not identify the Rothbardians by name unless it was documented material. Now I myself saw the things I described. I have spoken to numerous people who saw the same thing. I saw the “Italian Stallion” ad once as a friend of the advertiser showed it to me. Yet one Paleo defender kept insisting such comments, though not the primary focus of our blog, were false.
Others posted comments there and said they saw it. But since they didn’t identify themselves they were dismissed. The one noted: “If you have ever seen [deleted for our site] all worked up in a tizzy, you would definitely not want him coming after you, either.” See this poster still lives near the person in question.
But the interesting comment came from Jeff Riggenbach who is someone I don’t always agree with but whom I’ve always respected. Jeff notes that he worked from June 1978 to January 1982 in the Libertarian Review offices “(next door to the SLS offices and down the block from the Cato Institute offices), and I know damned well that the sex and drug allegations being disputed here are true. X [deleted for our site] used to brag in the office about his ‘Italian Stallion’ ad and the part-time income it provided him.”
I hope we have that out of the way. The comment I made on prostitution and drugs was not a key element of the discussion. I don’t think it should be the focus of our attention. It is not these things the hypocrisy of the Paleos that concerns me as much as the links to racists, bigots and the lunatic fringe of the Right. That is what I think is the issue. And that is what I’m concentrating on. As far as I’m concerned Mr. Stallion and the substance entrepreneurs are a non-issue compared to the advocates of the New Confederacy, theocrats and white supremacists. Concentrating on such consention actions between adults only diverts attention from the real issue — which may be why some Paleo defenders keep naming names — which is the Paleo links to very suspect ideologies.
*
Sounds like the right issues to me.
Oh, and “SFLib”, I wouldn’t worry about me “coming after” you. It’s all in your fevered imagination, along with the charges you make. I suppose anonymity is your only protection against ridicule. I see “Rightwatch” is also anonymous, and no doubt for the same reason. I have never written anything that can be remotely described as “white supremacist,” never mind theocratic or advocating a “New Confederacy,” whatever that may mean. That Tom Palmer is making such accusations, or even giving them any credence on his website, is yet more evidence that he has allowed his weird personal vendetta to get in the way of his reasoning powers.
I believe that Rothbardians are extremists–anarcho-capitalism is a bit extreme. The reason for the wide swings involves an effort to form alliances with other sorts of extremists. The _key_ element of agreement they find with these folks is _hatred_ of the current U.S. government.
There is another “complication” regarding this “left libertarian” business.
Even during the seventies, Rothbard supported a “radical in content,” “conservative in appearance” standard for LP candidates.
For example, in 1976, Roger McBride won the LP nomination. I have forgetten the name, but an openly gay man was slated to win the VP nod, but McBride nixed him. While McBride wasn’t against homosexuals, he didn’t think that was the right image for the ticket.
Anyway, there was a bunch of LP activists who had long hair, etc. Openly counter-cultural. They were very upset about this decision.
It has been many years, but I am pretty sure Rothbard supported the “conservative in appearance,” “radical in content” approach.
So, no long hair, hippy-type, pinko fags, in spokesman positions. (I don’t know that he Rothbard really insisted that gays in such positions be literally in the closet, but maybe as long as they aren’t runing for office in San Francisco, their sexuality shouldn’t be worn on their sleaves.)
The issue comes up from time to time. Like whether the prostitution activist (Amodovar or something) should be a political candidate. I think she contrasted “lifestyle libertarians” like herself, with “political libertarians.”
Even in the heyday of the Rothbard-centered radical wing of the LP, Rothbard insisted that”political libertarianism” (if one were to call it that) was it!
I recollect a dispute between Rothbard and one of the libertarian feminist writers. This woman was defending “psychological libertarianism” and contrasting it with “economic libertarianism.” (I think those were the terms.) Anyway, psychological libertarianism was “free your mind, and the rest will follow.” Well, I don’t know about the rest following, but a sort of free thinking individualism was what libertarianism was really about. Rothbard insisted libertarianism was about the proper legal structure for society–laws based on self-ownership etc. Whether people were free thinking individualists or devoted Catholics, or whatever, had nothing to do with libertarianism.
As long as I was aware of Rothbard’s thought, this was included. I think it came out in some of his opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, too. This was all long before the paleo days.
So Rothbard definitely came out with this theory and “line” that libertarians were the true leftists, oppositite of conservatives with the socialists being in between.
He was all in favor of alliance with the New Left during the hight of opposition to the Vietnam War. (Exactly how many of those ex-S.D.S. anarchists came into “our” libertarian movement? Is that just a myth? Is “It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand,” much more the real story of late sixties libertarianism?
During the “radical” faction days of the seventies, bludgening the libertarian movement into strict noninterventionism seemed to be the key goal. But maybe there was some effort to exorcise the “big businessman as hero” business.
I think what happened is that Rothbard’s extreme libertarianism was just more appealing to people who were really, really alienated from society because of some “deviant” personal habit or characteristic. Obviously, not always.
Anyway, so while Evers, Raico, Grinder, and the like all appeared reasonably conservative and if they had any unconventional habits, they didn’t advertise, when one looked at the rank-and-file of the libertarian movement, the counter-culture types tended to follow Rothbard.
They liked the “state is a bunch of crooks and criminals.” Maybe they felt they fit in better at the Grateful Dead Concert if they were more peaceniks that the rest of the hippies. Hey, I don’t just smoke pot and drop acid, I think all drugs should be legal!
Those that stuck to a more neo-objectivist line or else were some kind of quasi old-line Christian libertarian for FEE, always seemed more conventional. I remember Jeff Friedman complaining years ago that the LP was full of these rancher types from out west wearing Bolo ties.
During the seventies, Rothbard could domimate the LP (and maybe the libertarian movement.)
Then when he took the paleo turn, most of these folks didn’t follow him in his effort to replace anti-communism on the right with isolationism. And so the new attack on “left-libertarians.”
Now, on the right, who were actually inclined to move to isolationism? Who were showing a proper hatred of the state? Well, mostly right wing wackos. You know, neo-conferates hate that state in Washington. Not all opponents of a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy are anti-Israel, much less anti-Semitic. But the anti-semites generally take a dim view of Israel and any U.S. alliance with it. The fringe of the Christian right is scared to death of that statanic, secular regime in Washington that is trying to brainwash their children into thinking man evolved from apes, that gay sex is fine, and that there should be no traditional sex roles for men and women. Some of them hate the state.
Of course, with Republican control in Washington and the “Islamic threat” and the fact that God gave Palestine to the Jews, etc., etc., the Rothbardians are coming to give up on that strategic turn in the late eighties.
We will see the next twist. But it looks like they are heading back to the left. Correct?
So, no doubt those who fail to follow them will be subjected to some new sort of attack.
Bill Woolsey makes many valid points. In particular the desire of Murray Rothbard to make alliances with opponents of the U.S. government, regardless of the statism promoted by such opponents, on the left or the right.
I have fantasized about starting a new group of “Left Paleo-Libs” to combine the ’60s Rothbard and the 90’s Rothbard. The slogan would be “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Pat Buchanan’s gonna win.”
However, it is wrong to say that the “counter-culture” types in the Libertarian movement were most likely to follow Dr Rothbard. There was a time when Ed Crane, Cato, and the whole Koch funded LP machine was pushing Rothbard as “Mr Libertarian” and it was hard to dissent in such a climate.
Dissent from Rothbard’s line in libertarian circles usually came about because Dr Rothbard would change his mind, and denounce people who had agreed with his previous strategy.
We need a new generation of libertarian scholars and intellectuals, and less dependence on the writings of the previous generation, who were operating in a context many of us would not recognize or understand.
If your a German and don’t want Berlin to turn into Istanbul north, your a Nazi.
If your a Californian and are sick of the wages of working people being lowered by illegal immigration, your a racist.
If you want to see Russia wake up from its decade and a half of kow-towing to ‘market forces’ and rescue its beautiful culture and people from oblivian, you are ‘soft on authoritarianism’.
If you are a Christian or just a member of Western Civilization and don’t want to see an institution (marriage) transformed beyond all recognition by ‘rights activists’, you are a bigot.
If you know something about US history, and understand that Abraham Lincoln suspended rights and did in fact destroy the old Republic, in his zeal to do God’s will in crushing slavery (abolished peacefully other countries, like Brazil, before the 19th century was out), you are a neo-Confederate.
If you notice that some Jewish groups use the Holocaust as a fund raiser, as a way of mobilizing their ethnicity for group goals, and as a way of extracting wealth from countries and corporations, you are an anti-Semite.
It that just about right, Mr. Palmer?
BTW, I would like quotes on where Sobran or Francis have *denied* the Holocaust.
If your a German and don’t want Berlin to turn into Istanbul north, your a Nazi.
If your a Californian and are sick of the wages of working people being lowered by illegal immigration, your a racist.
If you want to see Russia wake up from its decade and a half of kow-towing to ‘market forces’ and rescue its beautiful culture and people from oblivian, you are ‘soft on authoritarianism’.
If you are a Christian or just a member of Western Civilization and don’t want to see an institution (marriage) transformed beyond all recognition by ‘rights activists’, you are a bigot.
If you know something about US history, and understand that Abraham Lincoln suspended rights and did in fact destroy the old Republic, in his zeal to do God’s will in crushing slavery (abolished peacefully other countries, like Brazil, before the 19th century was out), you are a neo-Confederate.
If you notice that some Jewish groups use the Holocaust as a fund raiser, as a way of mobilizing their ethnicity for group goals, and as a way of extracting wealth from countries and corporations, you are an anti-Semite.
It that just about right, Mr. Palmer?
BTW, I would like quotes on where Sobran or Francis have *denied* the Holocaust.
Mr. Young.
First, it would be wise to learn how to spell before you pose as a defender of western civilization.
Second, I’m not aware that anyone has ever said that Sam Francis had denied the holocaust. He was merely the editor of a racist publication of the KKK-friendly “Council of Conservative Citizens,” the successor to the “Council of Concerned Citizens,” which was known in the South as the Klan in suits. Visit their web site and read all of the articles about black people. Then try to deny that they are racists.
Third, for links to evidence of holocaust denial, visit this page: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php#comments. Mr. Sobran says he doesn’t “deny” the holocaust — he just can’t affirm that it happened, either, since he doesn’t read German and doesn’t “know chemistry.” As another commenter pointed out, that’s the same as saying that you don’t deny that Pearl Harbor was attacked, but you can’t affirm it, either, since you don’t read Japanese and don’t know how the Zero fighter plane was engineered. Sobran made his remarks, of course, at a conference of holocaust deniers (the Institute for Hitorical Review).
I’d recommend, in addition to learning grammar and spelling, that you learn some logic, some history, and some economics. Then return to the questions you posed above.
card consolidate consolidate credit debt