A blogger over at Creative Deduction makes very clear why libertarians ought to leave virtue signalling to the left. It is advise that would especially serve the weak-kneed lillies over at organizations like Reason, Cato and others that try to play footie with mainstream progressive sentiment in order to come across as “reasonable” (hint: libertarianism will never be regarded as reasonable by inveterate statists of the left and right, no matter how politically correct you are.)
A 24 year old Latino student of UC Berkeley has fatally stabbed a woman, and is now in custody. Read the story here.
What is interesting, is that a friend of the suspect has made it clear to the Berkeleyside website (Berkeley’s “Independent News” site) that the suspect uses the pronoun “they” to describe
himself “themselves”. Continue Reading
Yes that’s right, white-knighting, politically correct, gender-feminist hippie. You don’t have a right to that hair style because that hair style belongs to people of color. Such micro-aggressiveness.
Leftist lunatics getting into a pushing and pulling match over dread locks.I suspect dozens of people will be hiding in their safe spaces tonight.
Where’s the pop corn?
Donald Trump is a rejection of the Republican Party mainstream in political form. As strange as it may seem because of Trump’s own lack of a clear philosophy, Trump is the logical extension of the sentiments of the Tea Party movement having grown more angry, more bitter and more contemptuous of their own supposed ”representatives.” Continue Reading
Hollywood can be repugnantly politically correct. It is most certainly overwhelmingly progressive (and statist). Nobody with any credibility could still claim otherwise. Name a typical progressive cause and you can count on many Hollywood stars to climb on their soapboxes and express either support for said cause or vehement criticism for anything that impedes it.
It is actually quite rare, especially from high level Hollywood people, to bust right through the politically correct culture not merely with acts or behavior that indicates liberal hypocrisy (such as liberal Alec Baldwin calling his own daughter a “piggy”), but with words, and in so doing show that they are not as brainwashed as most others in their field. And in a time, when people can be at least to a degree “blacklisted” for not being properly progressive (blacklisted by the kinds of people that have wailed about the 50s era McCarthyism, ironically enough), it is especially courageous if someone drops an un-PC bombs when they’re up for industry-wide acclaim.
Enter Charlotte Rampling, who had the temerity to suggest that if no black actors are currently nominated for an Academy Award, it may just be because they weren’t good enough. And furthermore, to suggest that there is a diversity deficit is racist to white people. To claim that there is such a thing as racism to white people, is itself unheard of among staunch progressives, who think racism was born from only white people, and is practiced only by white people. Continue Reading
Arizona senator Jeff Flake (R) is touted by some to be “libertarian-leaning”. See here, here and here. Libertarians know, of course, that this means virtually nothing. Especially when it comes to defending libertarianism on principle rather than utility.
One of the most important staples of the libertarian philosophy is private property rights, without which most other staples would fall. So if you do not have a right to freedom of association, one can basically say that: (a) one is not allowed to associate, or dissociate, oneself with or from whomever one wishes, and (b) one does not actually own one’s property, if the state can decide who you should do business with.
Without freedom of association, there simply cannot be private property rights. If someone else can dictate the terms under which your business, or any other property you own for that matter, operates, then you simply do not truly own that property.
Jeff Flake, held by many to be a “libertarian leaning” conservative Republican, is against freedom of association by wanting to see an “anti-gay” bill, which would allow businesses to choose not to do business with gay people, vetoed. In other words, he wants the state to dictate terms to businesses on whom they should be forced to do business with. This not only violates private property rights and freedom of association rights; it is also an anti-free market position period. These are three extremely important staples of libertarian philosophy without which many other libertarian positions cannot hold.
It should be said that it may very well be true that the motive behind this anti-gay bill is precisely that; it is anti-gay and therefore discriminatory. But libertarianism does not deal with motives. It does not matter for which reason you wish to have liberty. It merely states you ought to have it and that neither the government, nor anyone else, ought to have the right to take it from you. So as revolting as someone’s motives may be to exercise his decision-making over his own property, he should have the right to exercise it. Flake’s reasoning is based in legislating morality over supporting individual liberty. The only proper libertarian response from a pro-gay standpoint would be to boycott these businesses and spread the word on their business conduct to impel others to also boycott them.
Also, Flake argues that this bill would be bad for Arizona’s economy. You know what we call someone who puts money over individual liberty? We call that a corporatist; not a libertarian.
So Flake proves to be another one of those examples of politicians that is regarded in a moderately favorable light for having some positions that are good and thus held to be “libertarian leaning”, while being an utter failure on others. It is high time to get rid of this meaningless phrase “libertarian leaning” as it is too often applied to those who would alternate some good positions for other ones that just cement the state’s coercive power in matters that should be personal business.