Libertarians and dumb shit

I really should know better at my age (and educational state) than to be wading in to a debate that looks like it could be BLOG BEEF in the making, buuuuuuut...

On Pickled Politics this eve, after strenuous charades and serving of food/washing/loading of dishwashers for about 20 people or so, I sees this.

Now, I guess I have to comment because:

a) my boyfriend is a white libertarian and
b) he's demonstrated this kind of frankly depressing ignorance before.

Though I would like to hope that since that evening, he's going to think a little bit before he does it again. I keep reminding him of it every now and again so that he doesn't get complacent, and he fact-checks me. It's a great partnership. :-D

I don't actually mind libertarians at all. Barring the ones who are actually just selfish, semi-deranged conservatives who use 'libertarian' to mean 'extremely bigoted and misanthropic conservative-in-disguise' (or Randies, as one might term them, since these are also usually the kind of libertarian who thinks that 'not leaving poor people to die' is a crime against their god, the free market), libertarians are OK. I was about to say: hey, I married one.

Um, anyway. Charlotte Gore is OK. I'm not sure that my linking to her is really all that... necessary, but yeah, there you go. I don't really read her or anything, but she doesn't seem to be totally clueless. I mean, she seems to understand what 'racism' is (for anyone who was wondering, racism = prejudice + power) better than most other libertarians I've encountered online. Barring my bf who, let's be honest, is something of a miracle. I would elaborate, but I don't want to give away his identity wantonly.

However, as I've said to him, I often can't help agreeing that libertarianism is for rich, white people, or in the parlance of this country, white middle-class people. The problem is that so many of them argue from this cloud cuckoo land vision, where the world is all a beautiful place and nobody needs help to get anywhere. I know that they're not stupid per se, they're just ignorantly idealistic white liberals. If you are white and middle-class, you have had both racial privilege and class privilege handed to you throughout your life. Racial privilege, for me, is the bigger issue, because it's a lot harder to lose than is class privilege. You can 'downsize,' take a less high-flying job, or be 'an old Etonian on the median wage,' as Devil's Kitchen claims to be. However, if you're non-white, you can't dye your skin - or your family - white. I can pass for white occasionally, but I feel a strong affinity to parts of Indian culture that just isn't there for some parts of English culture. Give me the Mahabharat over the Bible any day.

Which is where my gripe comes in:

OK. So, my class must be defined by my parents; Sunny's race is defined by his parents. I can no more help the income of my parents than Sunny can affect the race of his.

So, there is an equivalence: yes?

Firstly, as LeftOutside points out in this EXCELLENT post, DK totally misunderstood what Sunny was talking about when he said 'class war.' He also misunderstood the definition of 'class' being used.

Secondly: FAIL. As I mentioned above, you can change your economic classification (which is how I generally understand 'class' as well) but you can't dye yourself white! Not that that stops the skin-lightening industry!

This is where the cloud cuckoo land bit comes in:

Once again, we see how the Left prefers to label people by their differences—and why? So that human beings can be kept at each others' throats—through the generation of class envy, race hatred, religious differences. This is an old, old tactic which I call divide et impera—divide and rule—and I have written about it extensively.

It is better for people to be labelled, put into boxes and the differences between them emphasised—rather than uniting them in the realision that we are all human beings together—because that causes problems and tensions.

(All quotes from here).

Um, excuse me, but I am a non-white female. As in, I am one of them who is often figured as the step above the Ultimate Imaginary Victim in bigots' mythology of racism - the one-legged black lesbian, with the implication that I, like she, doesn't exist and that if I do, it doesn't really matter.

Last time I checked - EVERY time I have checked - it was either right-wingers or self-proclaimed 'liberals' who practised racism (quick Q: is 'mild' or 'subtle' racism, as opposed to 'race hatred' OK then?) and the demonisation of religious difference (i.e. if it's non-Judaeo-Christian and it's making a fuss - BAN IT!). The practice of 'divide and rule' was also famously used in India (and Africa) by the British, and oddly enough, none of them were particularly left-wing by any stretch of the imagination. Just ask the Imperial War Graves Commission... What was it the British colonial authorities in Nigeria said when it was suggested that descendants of Africans killed in WWI might want proper graves when they were 'civilised enough to appreciate them' in 200-300 years' time by the then-head of the IWGC (apparently a liberal man for his time)? 'No.'

Misguided lefties in the SWP and Respect have been known to ally with Islamists in a desperate and moronic 'marriage of convenience,' it is true. Still, I would like DK to show me as many properly non-racist right-wingers or libertarians, as are among the regulars on PP, at least. When the debate about libertarians has reared its ugly head between my partner and I, even he struggles to name more 'positive' libertarians than himself and DK (and perchance, Gore?) and he is the only libertarian I've encountered who even remotely understands how much of a handicap - psychological as well as otherwise - not being white is.

I actually kinda like DK, even though I don't read him particularly, or necessarily agree with his views. I mean, it's about as white/male privilege as you can get to know that you can go and have a huge angry-child tantrum on your blog and have scores of white men come to make consoling, pacifying noises because, as with almost everything else, white men think and act like they are the powerful majority (as opposed to just one group of people) on the web (and in political blogging, they sure are). I was particularly impressed by his wife showing up on PP to upbraid Sunny for not using better language than him - nice one, Bella! Do you think you could have a word with the hubby too, though? Thanks.* But dumb shit is dumb shit, and really, there's little excuse when the Net is at your fingertips.

*(Side note: Oh my God, she reads I Blame The Patriarchy too! But she spouts Latin at random! I think I might sort of hate-love her).

Now my legs are aching fit to fall off, so I'm-a haul my freezing self under the covers and hopefully have a crying-free night of sleep. BYE, my pretties!

Libertarians skewered

Um, I may be lying to you. Or not so much lying, as omitting to mention the fact that I will not, obviously, do a Marina Hyde-style takedown-in-detail of the faults of all libertarianism EVARR. I also miss the French language, so prepare for my inserting it at random in a pretentious and untidy manner (I would quite like to skewer and lightly roast some libertarian ass, but all the wafting scent of deluded privilege would probably make me forcément rediscover my former vegetarianism de nouveau).

Also, I am for some inexplicable reason quite upset. It has a lot to do with a runaway, organic, nearly-fuckin'-THREE-POUND Stilton. Not even bought for myself - I would've been less upset if it had been! Getting thoroughly soaked, and then travelling like a Tube-bound pancake, may also have contributed.

For a laff, I went to the online home of what sometime-commentator here asquith hilariously refers to as 'LURPAK'. Although I must say, that would do Lurpak's firmness something of a disservice. Battling back the cattiness (oh, so nobly!), I took LPUK's 'Are You A Liberal?' test and sat back, lips quivering, in anticipation of the result.

It was oddly fitting - apparently I am '50% liberal'. I read through the sanctimonious breakdown of the results - green ticks for where I was liberal and 'right,' and red crosses for where I was illiberal and 'wrong.' Let me make it clear to anyone who may have been fooled - I didn't actually care about the results and what they apparently said about me, I was more interested in what it said about LPUK. The results did not disappoint!

Take this gem:

We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was illiberal

The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.

Now, I know that SOME libertarians have suggested replacing minimum wage with a Citizens' Basic Income, which sounds good to me. Otherwise... what the fuck? Ensuring that people who do the shittest of the shit jobs get paid a fair wage 'makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work'? If they mean that it makes it harder for businesses to employ whoever they want at shit rates, and that this is somehow bad, then they ought to say that.

Maybe they mean that the minimum wage is somehow bad for immigrants, because it denies them the opportunity to undercut local people? In which case I must say: darlings, most of the immigrants don't undercut them because they want to - they usually do it because they are at a racial disadvantage, desperate for money and there's no other way.


Et puis:

It should be illegal for members of the public to own guns?
Your answer was illiberal

In a liberal country people can protect themselves as they see fit. Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone. In addition it is very dangerous for a people to allow their state to have a monopoly over weaponry and therefore force.

What about accidental injuries sustained through use of firearms? What about children and firearms? See, I would have no problem with introducing guns if there was some way to educate people about how to store firearms responsibly (or somesuch), so as to avoid incidents like these. Somehow, though, I imagine such a suggestion would not sit too well with LURPAK - sorry, LPUK, as it would be 'authoritarian' or 'assuming people are inherently bad'. Or something.


The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was illiberal

In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.

This is really laughable, since the state doesn't really do much to 'tackle climate change' as it is. Maybe once we face that scenario, we can judge better. I personally feel that getting people to sort their recycling and generally give a shit about the planet on which they exist and the generations ahead of them (as well as those in other countries likely to be sooner affected by climate change, such as Bangladesh) is hardly an infringement of their human rights. Maybe if the state beat them up for not doing so... but it doesn't, and I find it unlikely that it would. Meanwhile, large corporations can use libel suits and professional intimidation to silence critics and whistleblowers. Unjust, much? However, I have just spotted the denier dog-whistle:

there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action

Er, maybe among the LURPAKers. The more sane and reasonable and unselfish among us have moved beyond this kind of debate-halting stalling tactic and on to trying to do something about the stuff that IS happening right now, like the retreat of the polar ice sheets. I'm no hardcore greenie, I'm sure I waste energy and have committed environmental crimes, but I am genuinely trying to STOP MYSELF DOING IT.


In the tradition of rhetoric, the third and final head-'splodey bit:

It is wrong for democratic nations to overthrow foreign dictators?
Your answer was illiberal

It is illiberal, and a sign of gross arrogance, for one state to impose their will on another in this way. These issues are for the people of said state to resolve themselves with their leader(s).


Pardon me while I have my Exorcist moment, and spit in French. Que c'est facile à dire pour vous! If we think of this in terms of Iraq - well, I agree entirely. That was totally illiberal. However, what about when the said dictator was installed with the help of 'democratic nations'? What about when the local people WANT outside help? Putting those two aside - what about when the people 'of said state' are in no position to resolve the issue with their leaders? An apparent case in point being Iran. This whole bit smacks powerfully of cultural relativism.

Obviously, one needs to be careful in such situations. What will you do, for example, if a certain state treats its citizens so badly that lots of them leave and make a bee-line for your state? I hate making this argument, because it veers into classic racist territory, but it is a genuine question. It's the whole current 'deserving VS undeserving' immigration debate summarised and I'd like to see the LURPAK's answers. Some of them are going to have trouble integrating and want to be recognised as different. Not even treated as special, just acknowledged as different but equal. What then, eh?

This is the beauty of being a libertarian. It's tailor-made for rich white middle-class types, men in particular. You can shrug your shoulders and repeat platitudes about seeing the good in people and believing in meritocracy. You can argue, de votre certitude béate de suffisance, insupportable, that to intervene in the affairs of another nation in any way is unthinkable.

Sadly, it doesn't change the fact that a load of white, mostly rich and mostly male people went around the world and exploited the people and resources of other countries for the benefit of their own countries and themselves. Hell, the slave trade turned people into resources. I would really like to believe in a lot of the nonsense that libertarians spout. However, I always have the urge to ask them to do one tiny little thing. Go to failing inner-city-London schools and tell them that we live in a meritocracy. Go to the mother of a teenager who has been killed in a gang attack and tell her:'Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone.' And, let us consider the Forced Marriage Act and its application in other countries, as in the case of Dr. Humayra Abedin. Without it, she may have died; Lord knows if she could have escaped alone.

It's all just so laughably naive. You can almost smell that it's coming from the perspective of people who have had either class, gender and race privilege, or the first and last if not the second. I can imagine many libertarians would go 'Yeah, but we're not disagreeing about the FMA...' or 'Well, gang murders only prove that guns should be legal, because they'll always find their way onto the streets...' However, I just want to laugh and go 'Well, of course you don't dare to disagree with this. However, why has the Libertarian Party never highlighted solutions to these? Why does it acknowledge, but not engage with, such things as forced marriage? Forced marriage is surely one of the greatest affronts to one's personal liberty. As is rape.'

And that is where the humming and hawing would start, because if you ACTUALLY wanted to address such problems as forced marriage (and rape), you have to act. Forced marriage in particular shows the callousness of the 'shrug my shoulders, if it's not MY personal liberty being threatened, then I don't care' philosophy. Rescuing women is not a 'public good,' why should people be taxed to pay for it? Also: poverty. If more libertarians actually saw that many ethnic minorities have to work twice as hard because of racism, they might understand why their ideology has such limited appeal. If libertarians really gave a shit about poverty, they would have to ask why (for example), there are so many poor Bangladeshis. Are they just racially genetically inferior? Are they not trying hard enough? Or *shock horror* might they be forced to acknowledge that racism and snobbery still exist in force, and that waiting around for the 'natural good' of white (middle-class) people to emerge, just isn't going to cut it for many people?

My own Libertarian is inherently quite sensible and generally diverges from the magical thinking of the others on a lot of these issues. Still, I thought that a blasting of libertarians was long overdue. I often rant about how most of them are simply deluded conservatives to him (which is patently obvious to most people), but really, the privilege overload I got today just had to be addressed. Dear Lord, deliver me from the day when I care more about 'illegals taking my tax' and 'the illiberal restrictions on free trade, that are ensuring decent conditions for workers.' Seriously, let me be run over by a Chelsea-tractor-driving, LURPAK-subscribing delusionary before I do such a thing!