So both Longrider and Jackart have the hump with me. Why oh why do I continue with this? Well the same reason I made a trilogy of posts arguing with Charlotte Gore, because I would quite like an actually existing, reality-based Libertarianism to exist. It doesn’t. Actually existing Libertarianism tends to asymmetry, it is most ruthless with the vulnerable and most forgiving with the privileged.
This all started when I remarked it odd that Jackart called a peaceful campaign of boycott of a company selling sexist T-Shits to terrible parents baring the slogan “I’m too pretty for homework so my brother has to do it for me.” They demanded online that this T-Shirt be pulled or they would no longer shop at whatever retailer it was that sold it (I really don’t care). At no point did anyone ask for this sort of thing to be banned (although I’m sure some have asked for similar things to be banned in the past). All they did was argue for a peaceful boycott.
Okay, where would that leave a Libertarian, you might ask. According to Jackart “Libertarianism is a mindset in which I don’t seek to impose my values on others, and simply ask the same courtesy in return.” I hope the hypocrisy is clear. Jackart isn’t won’t seek to impose his values on anyone… apart from Leftists upon whom he will unleash a terrible online screed about corpses and “hysteria” .
But wait, he hasn’t “forced” anything on anyone, he has just said mean things on the internet. Well, so did the people who he is arguing are closet totalitarians. They demanded no state action, they promised no action further than to discuss those they didn’t like and to not do business with those they didn’t like. That is exactly the point of Libertarians – things should be voluntary – and they were. The protests were peaceful, all that was threatened was damage to a retailer’s brand and reduced sales. But no firm has the right to respect or to sales.
Now Libertarians could argue here, “hold on, these protesters were not encouraging voluntary behaviour they were coercing a corporation  by making them look bad. That isn’t Libertarian!” Again, I hope the hypocrisy is obvious, but I will explain if needs be. As soon as the wealthy and powerful come under attack complex matters of social pressure and subtle sources of power become important. If Libertarians only want to be left alone, they find an exact analogy in these protesters.
Inhale, my Libertarian readers, let me explain in the second person.
You don’t want people to tell you what to do. That is why you felt outrage at some online protesters insulting and boycotting this retailer. You need to realise that a lot of those kicking up a fuss did so because they felt they, and their children, are being told what to do and they don’t like it either. In your cases being told what to do involves people preventing a specific retailer selling something.
In their case it involves a series of social cues, norms and customs which they feel hold them back. This sexist T-Shirt is but one way in which these norms are expressed and enforced. If you feel that non-violent, non-state action (i.e. societal) pressure can be illiberal when directed at a corporation then you must agree the same when that non-violent, non-state action (i.e. societal) pressure is directed at a gender, race or, well, anything. 
Enough second person. The reason these people were protesting (peacefully and without threat of coercion) about the sexist T-Shirt on sale was because it was sexist and they don’t want people telling them what to do, and sexism involves being told how to behave. Their definition of being left alone and to not be told what to do extended beyond merely what is legislated to include what those around say and do – just as Jackart and Longrider’s definition does. They are entirely analogous, much as I’m sure each is repulsed to find such common ground with the other.
I hope you Libertarians can understand what I mean when I call Libertarianism “asymmetric” now.  he argument is not that “Libertarians are all selfish white men”, that is obviously false. But when it is women, foreigners, the poor, the helpless who are in need of help actually existing Libertarianism tends to be implacable. Societal pressures are unimportant, only property rights and non-interference matter. There is no room at this inn, get on your bike (and no, I will not lend you mine). Libertarianism is its most pigheaded and most insistent, to the point of calling peaceful protesters totalitarian, when it is the wealthy and privileged who are attacked (even non-violently).
 A choicely sexist turn of phrase to use in a piece denying Libertarianism is at all male-orientated considering its origins. Although I don’t really sign up to the theory that using -ist words reveals some deep seated pathologies I do think, at the margin, using such words probably makes you slightly more prejudiced that is ideal. Hence my current attempt to say “retard” or “gay” less. I will continue to say cunt because it’s great, English and an historically vital part of this island’s history and literature. Basically, saying something like “paki” lots will probably make acting slightly racist more easily, so don’t say paki. But saying “paki” probably doesn’t make you a racist in itself. You might just be an ignorant cunt (hell bent on insisting “it’s only an abbreviation of Pakistan!” is a brilliant argument ending statement).
 I’ve always been curious of the right’s instinct to jump to the defense of corporations. Of course, they’re hierarchies often as lumbering and oafish as a state, enough reason surely to earn the right’s opprobrium rather than praise. But most curiously, large companies are creatures of the state. Corporation law makes them possible and state mandated monopolies on resources and ideas makes them necessary. Hey-ho, like I said, my faith in actually existing Libertarianism grows weaker every day.
 If a corporation is a legal fiction which you fell the need to defend then any of the others surely deserve equal, if not greater, efforts of protection.
 Please read this piece before responding, it has lots of evidence, on which I’d ask you to ponder. Not that this post isn’t long enough already of course.