AlphaPopper

I messed up. I meant 'cultural libertarian' - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/rise-of-the-cultural-libertarians/ Apologies. I do think Cultural Libertarians ARE Social Libertarians, but others might disagree.

Thank you for engaging. I have numbered your points for ease of reference. 3) Apologies; I have not been clear enough. The contract I am referring to is with Airbnb; if they insist that you sign an agreement that you don't discriminate in order to use that service, and you sign that agreement with every intention of continuing to discriminate, then you are committing fraud I think. 2) That feels like an assertion rather than an argument. Nonetheless, in this instance Airbnb are asserting *their* property rights. Not over your property, over their assets (which are admittedly primarily IP, but not entirely). You do not *have* to use their services. It's Airbnb's right to discriminate as a business owner that you appear to be denying. 1) Most libertarian thought is primarily deontological (e.g. UPB is deontological, not consequential). You can't really rationally say 'I'm a deontological libertarian, but I realise the consequences would be terrible in the current context'. Alt-right, if it was to be a coherent philosophy, either has to represent a change of deontology or a rejection of it. I don't think many alt-righters would be very keen on rejecting the idea that some things are just wrong in themselves. I tend to think that alt-right is largely about the practical realisation of negative liberty rights, in the face of 'The (Liberal) Establishment'.....if Airbnb are deemed part of this establishment, are their property rights deemed irrelevant? The Hoppean philosophy is interesting because it seems to assume that capital owners will be libertarian-conservative, and will de facto purge those who don't hold these views by withholding the means of survival. That's a naive view though, as I think the Alt-right have found out. 4) Well I tend to think that the above means something like a structuralist view of freedom. Out goes Patriachy/Capital, in comes the Establishment (I refer to Milo's very recent interview on this point here: ). A philosophically coherent Alt-right view is likely going to either a) admit a structuralist view, or b) come up with something pretty radical philosophically. Whilst I suspect we won't get a coherent alt-right philosophy any time soon, I remain interested to know what one would look like.

Hello all. Although the term 'Social Libertarian' seems to have fallen out of use, it still I think represents an important strand of thought amongst many both in or sympathetic to the Alt-Right. I think it fell out of use because it was too open to the charge that liberty claims contingent on the property of others (e.g. Twitter) are positive liberty claims, and not negative liberty claims i.e. freedom to speak on someone else's platform, rather than freedom from aggression, having spoken freely without aggressing on someone's property rights. There was an interesting article on LinkedIn about Airbnb making customers agree to non-discriminatory policies - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/airbnb-just-coughed-up-nasty-hairball-tony-chapman. The upshot of it appears to be, it's perfectly fine, in his opinion, to sign the agreement with the intention of continuing to discriminate in contravention of the agreement. In other words, he thinks that your right to discriminate can be extended to commit fraud and violate the property rights of others - he has other methods of securing accomodation or hosting others for money, but he feels he has the right to use Airbnb. Others, like Milo for example, will grudgingly admit that Twitter kinda sorta has the right to ban him - even if he thinks it's a terrible decision and that curbs on free speech are bad. But I don't think you can really see his view of what 'free speech' actually is as compatible with YAD theory. To him, if a property owner decides to 'no platform' you, for whatever reason, this is a curb on liberty. I think what I'm trying to say is that although there is a continuum of opinion amongst social libertarians on the matter, it seems to be fairly obvious that the narrative is pushing certain type of positive rights claims as being a fundamentally a moral issue, and not just an issue of aesthetics. Now these positive rights do often somewhat resemble negative liberty claims, but they do essentially demand coercion and so are pretty fundamentally different from a pure libertarian perspective in my view. I am interested in hearing if people think this leap in thinking can be justified, and if so, how. I see a few options: a) Deny the moral claims of social libertarians, perhaps admitting that the issue has weight as an aesthetics issue b) State that positive rights claims have a moral weight, but that they remain very much secondary to negative liberty (private property rights). c) State that positive liberty rights can, in certain situations, trump negative liberty rights - perhaps when they involve practical realisation of negative liberty rights. It seems to be that Social Libertarianism is pretty much c), but perhaps there are different views. It also seems to me that the 'brokers' like Twitter and Airbnb are potentially test cases for DROs - the functions they perform do not necessarily replicate or replace services that have often been performed by government, but they do essentially act as brokers. Social Libertarians seem to think that such brokers have moral obligations which they are contravening; is this perhaps a realisation that DROs wouldn't necessarily behave as we might expect, and the notion that you can just form your DRO/Twitter/Airbnb ignorant of structural reality? Is social libertarianism in fact a libertarianism that got mugged by reality and finally worked out what structural freedom is? I'm interested in your views. Thank you.