Comments on: Invisible Hand vs. Rod Long

By: Wirkman Netizen Â» Blog Archive » One of the benefits of being an individualist is never having to truck with feminism

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:17:29 +0000

[...] I read through Seavey first, “The Invisible Hand vs. Rod Long.â€ Seavey, in addressing a paper by Roderick Long and Charles Johnson, lists a few questions to be answered. So I will try to respond to each one: Isn’t libertarianism’s great strength (such as it is) precisely that it does not attempt to smuggle some specific vision of how life must be lived into its definition of freedom, as long as everyone respects everyone else’s property rights (including the right not to be bodily harmed)? [...]

By: John David Galt

John David Galt — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:33:41 +0000

I believe there’s room for more than one meaning of “libertarian” just as the word “free” can refer to freedom or price.

There are, and should be, a wide variety of voluntary social organizations, not limited to churches, some of which impose restrictions on their members that I would not care to live under. So long as everyone so restricted joined voluntarily and is free to leave (not subject to conditions that would imperil his safety), I don’t see that a libertarian case can be made for state intervention in how those people treat each other. (If those conditions are not met, that’s another story; and in many religious communities, both traditional and un-, I would find that many children born into them, at least, did not join voluntarily.)

Nevertheless, I do see a strong case for libertarians to engage in nonviolent social protests such as boycotts against such an organization. And to create counter-organizations to help people escape from, or avoid getting drawn into, the restrictive ones.

And while we’re at it: I see both workplaces and families as organizations to which all of the above can apply.

By: Ladyblog » Blog Archive » I am Sometimes a Libertarian and Sometimes a Feminist, but Never Both at the Same Time

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:10:59 +0000

[...] The blog war between Kerry Howley and Will Wilkinson on one side and Todd Seavey on the other has attracted the attention of other bloggers, including our own Elizabeth Nolan Brown, and it’s such an interesting controversy that I can’t help weighing in (thereby perfecting the symmetry described here). The basic dilemma is easy to explain: Everybody agrees that women are treated differently than men in ways that sometimes make their lives difficult and constrain their choices; everybody also agrees that most of this discrimination stops short of a gun to the head; Kerry thinks that social pressure is a kind of coercion that libertarians should care about; Todd thinks social pressure is, at most, coercion-lite, and therefore not something that libertarians have to oppose. (Some libertarians might, but, Hell, some libertarians hate asparagus and we don’t make a plank out of that, even if the asparagus-haters are objectively correct.) [...]

By: Todd Seavey

Todd Seavey — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:41 +0000

All right, if we’ve descended to this level, I will just leave this comment thread (returning to these topics in a full, more serious entry tonight or so) with the following tiny bit of cultural warfare: elevating things from Sir Mix-a-Lot to…Sir Mix-a-Lot/Gilbert and Sullivan mash-up (it’s been two and a half years since last I linked to it, so why not?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkJdEFf_Qg4

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:35:36 +0000

Damn, Xine beat me to it, so to speak.

“I’m long, and I’m strong, and I’m down to get the friction on.” –Sir Mix Alot.

By: x. trapnel

x. trapnel — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:01:38 +0000

Charles Johnson's "Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin" is quite good about distinguishing the different sorts of thickness, and why a commitment to non-aggression (or perhaps liberty more broadly) might require or incline one to supporting them. I strongly recommend it.

By: Xine

Xine — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:24:46 +0000

Todd, was that a joke? It sounded so dirty!

I would encourage feminists to welcome, rather than resist, a “thick long Johnson.”

By: Todd Seavey

Todd Seavey — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:45 +0000

Let’s just say for now that I would like to see female libertarians in particular resist the thick Long/Johnson but that some thickness might be useful, as I’ll go into later.

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:04:47 +0000

I am not, at this point, comparing it to their “tactic.” I am trying to refresh my memory, to see how closely your early’90s argument resembles what is now called thick libertarianism. There are many different flavors of thick libertarianism, and you can embrace thickness without embracing (indeed, while firmly opposing) Will and Kerry’s particular variant. But I seem to remember you making statements that go beyond what you’ve said in these posts, and which would (if you still believe them) disqualify you from objecting to thickness per se — though not, again, to the feminist variety of thickness for which Will and Kerry are arguing.

I realize that “seem to remember” is not a strong basis for anything, and that I should probably find a copy of the article if I want to carry this line of discussion any further.

By: Todd Seavey

Todd Seavey — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:55:23 +0000

Reread my previous response. By describing the _Liberty_ article in sufficiently vague terms, you can make it _sound_ comparable to the Wilkinson/Howley tactic. This is something you should stop doing.