ron paul may not be racist, but racists sure like ron paul
Let’s start with a thumbnail sketch of libertarian theory: laissez-faire – hands-off, as long as it’s voluntary, it’s ok. Now, there’s two sides to this coin. You have the right to do good and bad. With regard to race, the libertarian position implies that we should be equally tolerant, for example, of people who want to live in mixed race neighborhoods and those who wish to live in segregated neighborhoods. As long as force isn’t used, we should tolerate it, even if we don’t approve of it.
That brings me to Ron Paul. He’s been dogged for years by inflammatory racial articles in his newsletters. If you read them, you’ll see that they are disgusting. The puzzling part is that there is not much to indicate that Paul himself hates Blacks. In fact, some of his arguments about policy might have been written by the most bleeding heart liberals. For example, he has publicly argued that the drug war disproportionately hurts minorities and has racist origins. Most observers have guessed that the inflammatory articles have been written by someone else who is very racist.
The problem with a philosophy of hyper-tolerance is that you attract repulsive people, like Paul’s racist associates. That’s doesn’t always happen. ACLU style free speech activists rarely share beds with the neo-Nazis whose rights they defend. But sometimes it is a problem. Since libertarian philosophy dictates a tolerance, but not an endorsement, of people who dislike other racial groups, hyper-tolerance may come off as a signal of approval for racism. Furthermore, followers of a hyper-tolerant philosophy, like libertarianism, may seek short term political gain by building coalitions with repulsive people. And of course, truly evil people, like hard core racists, may dress up their views with a sheen of tolerance. The result? The philosophy of tolerance co-mingles with the repulsive.
That’s a problem for libertarianism as a social practice. For it to become more mainstream, it will have to move beyond policy and come up with a more serious theory of social practice. It has to be a philosophy that breaks out of utilitarian arguments over economic policy, and provide an ethic beyond minimalist tolerance. Otherwise, libertarians who care, like Paul does, about the drug war, foreign wars, and other issues of wide appeal will be left explaining why their room mate has a David Duke poster on the wall.
Adverts: From Black Power/Grad Skool Rulz
Ayn Rand’s essay “Racism” in The Virtue of Selfishness should have ended any conservative, libertarian or Objectivist involvement with this, as effectively as if it were anti-trust laws or tariffs. Unfortunately, residual conservative racism continues disguised as tolerance for the intolerable. They say that you have a right to discriminate, even though it is illogical, unprofitable, etc. They do not heap scorn on racists.
Also, they are not alone in accepting the existence of race, even though it is only a social construct, lacking any objective reality. Millions of people across the political spectrum hold these fallacious ideas. Thus racism left and right continue.
By analogy, voluntary collectivism is easy to document. (See the classic California’s Utopian Colonies by Robert V. Hine.) The libertarians (and especially Objectivists) do not excuse voluntary collectivism as a bad choice, but your right. They argue well against it from the law of identity forward. With racism, the syllogisms stay locked up in the gun cabinet. But, again, they are not alone.
Left wing racism is the mirror image, nicely allowing us to collect ourselves into pre-chosen races including “two or more of the above” so that we can all be treated equally regardless of race. If all workers are comrades, what difference could race make, even if race could be scientifically demonstrated, which it cannot.
It’s a tough problem. Ain’t no doubt…
Michael Marotta
January 12, 2012 at 10:45 am
“That’s a problem for libertarianism as a social practice. For it to become more mainstream, it will have to move beyond policy and come up with a more serious theory of social practice.”
I can already hear Paul balking: “You want me to come up with a more ‘serious’ theory of social practice than Freedom?!??!”
And I think Noam Chomsky would actually back him up here. Mainstream political life is dominated by social so-called “theory”, social so-called science. But politics would really change if everyone stuck to commonsense observation and didn’t let themselves be duped by ideology.
See also Richard Feynman:
Thomas
January 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Libertarianism and racism make perfect compliments. Many libertarians are “race realists” who think that unfettered market forces will result in a racial hierarchy with black people at the bottom. Whites are thought to have superior intelligence and market acumen. There are certainly exceptions to this rule, but racial domination can be quickly recast as a market outcome.
See for example: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html. Rothbard was a “race realist”.
Hans Herman Hoppe held very similar ideas; http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/04/the-sick-mind-of-hans-hermann-hoppe.html and so does this guy: http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/a_tough_sell_in_the_marketplac.html
Rothbard, Hoppe and Block are basically saying “racism is bad but if we let the market work the racial stratification of the US will not change”. These are not ancillary figures in libertarian thought either.
Adam
January 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Interesting post, thanks. I second Thomas’ channeling of Paul in his reply to the ‘need a social theory’ argument. Libertarians argue that is exactly what they have. The problem, as you suggest, is they are wrong. To tear down institutions and think this brings freedom ignores the sociological reality that new institutions will arise, and will these be better and any more free? Paul has no serious vision of what society will look like if he (or his son) ever takes office.
In Paul’s favor, many institutions in America appear so broken and corrupt that they look worth tearing down, irrespective of what replaces them.
Austen
January 12, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Why are we taking Ron Paul and his supporters to be representative of libertarian politics? Rothbard, Hoppe, and Block really are ancillary to the movement. It’s akin to saying SDS was representative of liberal social practice.
If you want to know what libertarian social practice looks like, you have to take a look at the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, and George Mason University. They’ve been copying the liberal strategy, consisting of 1) moving into university positions and 2) fighting through the courts, for decades now.
Josh
January 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm
The racial tone of the newsletters was part of Rothbard’s attempt at attracting the racists- essentially to use them. Rothbard, in addition to being brilliant, thought it okay to lie in the attempt to achieve a free society. He was very wrong, and your post is an example of how wrong he was. Racists are instinctively socialist; they must be so, because they require the state to act against people based on whatever set of criteria is used to define the ‘race’ they don’t like. Not only within the state, but without it- a big, interfering government is necessary to systematically enforce their desires.
If liberty gains hold over this country, racists would be able to associate as they saw fit, but their enclaves would also become a very obvious reminder of how bankrupt their ideology is. In other words, their failures would be as instructive to young people tempted to join them as the grimness of a red light district would be to a woman considering prostitution. When the state claims universal jurisdiction and ‘sanitizes’ the society, folks can live in suburbia and pretend their actions don’t have any consequences. When we are free, we can see not only if our behavior leads to happiness, but what the behavior of others lead to.
August
January 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm