fractional slacker Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 There are two recent articles that deal with this topic. The first proposes there is such opposing camps within the libertarian camp. You can read more in this link. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/against-libertarian-brutalism The second article takes exception to/criticizes the notion that such a distinction can, or should be made. http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/03/12/jeffrey-tuckers-case-libertarianism/ If you accept such a distinction, which camp do you identify with?
Josh -Lel- Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Definitely a "brutalist." Screw the poor and minorities.
fractional slacker Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 The poor per se are not a protected class according to the 'humanitarians.' To be a 'brutalist' you would need to hate poor women and poor 'minorities' but be quite charitable towards all other poor. Does that make sense?
cab21 Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 so with these catagories... Ayn rand would be a humanitarian, yet the left always labels her as brutalist? so she would be fit neither box, or one box?
Culain Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/against-libertarian-brutalism An article that I came across today where Tucker separates libertarians into two groups: Humanitarians and Brutalists. I really enjoy listening to Tucker, but reading this article sent off flares in my brain as I honestly had no idea of what he is talking about and if he is attacking me or not. He never labels who these Brutalists are other than a vague description of how they are unbending, strict, and rigid with ideals. For example, does using Stefan's "Against me" argument make me a Brutalist because I will end a debate instead of pretending to debate with a clear statist? The term itself "Brutalist" sounds very demeaning, while he takes the position of Humanitarian. In the end I feel as if I'm being mislead by his advanced written word play and just had to stop reading.
cab21 Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 "It is a main source for racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic strains within the libertarian world—at once denying that this sentence is true while asserting with equal passion the rights of individuals to hold and act on such views. After all, say the brutalists, what is human liberty without the right to behave in ways that put our most precious sensibilities, and even civilization itself, to the test?" so a person against racism, that says the state should not be on some quest to abolish racism, is a brutalist? i'm not sure what he means about acting on racist views, but if the action is still within individual liberty, what is the problem? who should force a person to not act in a racist way? i would say racism is at odds with libertarianism, but it's not a system that tries initiates force to stamp out racism.
fractional slacker Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 JT penned another article ,in defense of the original article, when he was amused to "...find the debate and frenzy to be great. A writer aspires to write a piece that achieves that." And so he goes on kicking more sand in the eyes of 'brutalists' all the while exclaiming how great his idea is. This is not what I consider an open and honest approach to proposing an idea. "If I had any doubts that my piece was necessary, the reactions, some of them give new meaning to the phrase “violent prose,” removed them all." In other words, they were upset I found a fancy new term/label for racists so I must be correct in my labeling because they were upset. RBE redux http://libertarianstandard.com/2014/03/18/what-explains-the-brutalism-uproar
ribuck Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 The way I see it, the brutalists are out to improve their situation, and stuff everyone else. The humanists realise that freedom allows win-win situations where everyone benefits, without their benefit causing harm to others. Ultimately, the distinction doesn't matter. The brutalists don't care about others, but in a free world the brutalists can be as selfish as they like and everyone else still gets the win-win advantages (even though the brutalists don't realise this).
PatrickC Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 I've been mulling over Jeffrey's article for while now. Whilst he does make some very decent qualifiers, I can't help but find the genesis of what he says as an appeal to the 'Left'.. I'm still undecided entirely.. I'm just conscious the 'Left' would enjoy co-opting yet another movement. But meh, call me paranoid..
labmath2 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I find his article a compelling case for anyone who is on the fence to join the libertarian movement. I think he expressed a concern on most unsure libertarians minds about whether libertarians have actually taken their arguments to its worst conclusion.Here he shows in fact they have considered the worst case, which is freedom to be unkind. How would you convince the Americans in the early 1800s to free their slaves in a society where slavery was accepted short of using force? Would they not have a right to own slaves since the slave group was considered subhuman and to require them to relinquish their slaves was a violation of property rights? It is such considerations that makes many of us on the fence wonder if libertarians have really done what JT did in his article.
dsayers Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Would they not have a right to own slaves since the slave group was considered subhuman and to require them to relinquish their slaves was a violation of property rights? Check out Stef's . There was no such consideration and that the biggest movement to end slavery was done by way of voluntary trade as if such a suggestion were true. Not that "was considered" equates to "was". "Was considered subhuman," were it true, would be unprincipled intellectual sloth.
Recommended Posts