Yes, @VeryBritishDude, comparing liberal campaigners to the thought police does sound like identity politics

First of all, thanks for the apostrophe head up, I was tired, I know that’s no excuse, I’m ashamed, I’ll do better. It has been corrected. Grocer’s s’houldn’t use so many apostraphe’s and neither s’hould I.

Why would I call Libertarianism a sort of Identity Politics for selfish, white men?

To be honest, that is a general reading of lots of actually-existing Libertarianism. Mostly from the US. I ummed and erred in the conclusion of my last post about putting that “people” instead of “(usually white) males” because but I thought I’d stay consistent with what I’ve written previously.

A lot of Libertarian writing, and ranting has little to no historic understanding of where the state came from or what it has done and an awful lot of incoherent nonsense which just so happens to perfectly justify the lifestyle of a western, relatively well off, white person (see long postscript to this long post).

Brian Caplan is one prominent Libertarian who has written very strongly in favour of late C19th America despite all the oppression of women and blacks and poor people and trade unionists. Likewise a large and probably dominant strand of Libertarianism has adopted the Thatcherite slogan “Let Management Manage” which is nonsense. Getting bossed around at work feels often worse than being bossed around by the state. Consider: “Unpaid overtime or your sacked” versus “Eat Less Salt” (Jackart is not among these, and is in fact self-employed, such is his dislike of hierarchy, a position I applaud).

But my last post was, in fact, focussed on the other side of the identity politics thing. One significant part of the identity politics of Libertarians is creating a “left” which is authoritarian, which is, even when using bone fide, tried and tested, liberal methods of changing the world, actually still, secretly a bunch of nazis waiting to (somewhat ironically) lynch anyone insulting Obama. [1]

Look, there is evidence that gender roles are socially constructed and that this will impact women’s opportunities in a measurable way. Using liberal methods those on the left are seeking to change this and this is an entirely good thing. The downside to this action is that a vulgar tacky T-Shirt will be more difficult for terrible parents to buy for their children. Another, less reputable, internet retailer will almost certainly have picked design up taken to reselling it, or something very similar with an added $5 idiot tax/notoriety surcharge.

Jackart’s argument seemed to hinge on the idea that “Lefties” who are trying to make the world a slightly better place for women (and slightly worse for selfish, privileged men) are not actually trying to make the world a slightly better place for women, they are just warming up for a clusterfucking of all the freedoms and blah blah blahs, fought a war, etc. and shouldn’t I be worried?

No, you shouldn’t be worried. People trying to make the world a better place are good things to be welcomed. Dynamism in search of new markets, or products or ways of generating a profit are always lauded by the right, dynamism in support of other causes should also be supported. Phrasing your opposition in terms of shadowy opponents and hidden plans just highlighted a fascinating facet of Libertarian Identity Politics.

____

[1] Jackart, have you read any left-wing american blogs? All they do is criticise Obama.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Yes, @VeryBritishDude, comparing liberal campaigners to the thought police does sound like identity politics

  1. Where is your dislike button? What utter, utter tripe you have written. Have you explored this mote of rock we all share? You seem to suggest that a person at the lower echelons of a company, has as much intellect and forevision as a managing director of a company that he may have started from a one man business! The strongest and cleverest will always be at the top of the chain. This applies to corporatism as well as socialism. Grow the fuck up and observe nature.

    1. The strongest and cleverest will always be at the top of the chain. This applies to corporatism as well as socialism. Grow the fuck up and observe nature.

      So speaketh someone definitely at the bottom of the chain. Lol!

      You seem to suggest that a person at the lower echelons of a company, has as much intellect and forevision as a managing director of a company that he may have started from a one man business!

      No I haven’t, don’t be ridiculous. But unless that managing director is psychic that person working at the “lower echelons” does know things the managing director doesn’t, and without that person’s information an information will not be run as effectively as it could be. Read some Hayek!

  2. “Jackart’s argument seemed to hinge on the idea that “Lefties” who are trying to make the world a slightly better place for women (and slightly worse for selfish, privileged men) are not actually trying to make the world a slightly better place for women, they are just warming up for a clusterfucking of all the freedoms and blah blah blahs, fought a war, etc. and shouldn’t I be worried?”

    Banning the sale of products makes nothing better for anyone because every individual is the legitimate owner and director of their own life. You do not make the world a better place by forcing everyone to conform to your opinion of what is right and what is wrong.

  3. My apologies. I have made a more informed post on a different thread after reading your blog a bit.

    If a ban on certain t-shirt slogans was the object of the campaign (lets say the kind that you believe make women grow up believing in certain things and behaving in certain ways), would you support it? Does it matter to you how the goal is achieved?

    1. It does matter. One involves devolved voluntary action, the other involves concentrated violent action.

      I wouldn’t support a ban on T-Shirts for a few reasons. One, is about priorities, what a waste of time and effort! Secondly, it is very illiberal, don’t use the state to ban things that don’t directly ham people. Thirdly, it may have unintended consequences, like provoking a backlash, proving counterproductive.

Comments are closed.