This isn’t an attack post or anything like that . I am just giving my thoughts on a recent interview jeffrey tucker had with blue republican radio. i don’t quite fit into either category but i’d like to take some time to talk about it. i suppose you could say that i am a moderate when it comes to the ideological purity debate.
“…[the brutalists believe that] they’re the only true believers in liberty, but actually I don’t think that they are. I think you’re right; I think that this brutalistic view is actually reductionist and unthoughtful, uncolored, and uncorrected by human experience.” – jeffrey tucker
i don’t believe that libertarian brutalists are the only believers in liberty. i believe that libertarian brutalists believe in no compromise when it comes to individual liberty. Libertarian conservatives are willing to allow a limited amount of coercion in order to get as much liberty as possible.
“So, if we have a sort of Libertarianism that is just really uninterested in the exigencies of technology“ – JT
i’d really love to see an example of libertarian brutalists having no interest in technology.
“I think that that is exactly right. I think you’re right too that I tend to use consequentialist language because I think that this is the way our minds work. None of us would like to live in a world of massive conflict, violence, contention, and hate. We want to live where there is human cooperation, where there are opportunities to creatively serve others; where violence is kept at bay in some way; where capital can be formed so prosperity can flourish; where human associations of all sorts can take place. That’s what I would call a good society. We want to live in a good society. If you can call that consequentialism, okay. I don’t find that necessarily contradictory to human rights and that sort of thing. But I do think we can get sort of carried away, asserting that Libertarianism is only about your right and my right to be jerks and to be left unimpeded in our malevolent desires. I bring up, for example, racism. Racism is a very hot topic and maybe one of the reasons why the article kind of went viral in a way. One thing you can always count on a brutalist to do is to come to the defense of racism, sexism, and other kind of socially destructive impulses insofar as they express themselves in non-violent terms. They get very passionate about this issue, but I think what you don’t get from the brutalist-style argument here is that these are after all regrettable things.“ – JT
I despise racism and i would love to live in a world where it did not exist. But i’ve accepted that it will exist as long as humans do . it would be better if racists believed in the non aggression priniciple and voluntary association instead government. Everybody has a right to be an asswhole as long as they aren’t hurting anyone or damaging property. A person’s right to be an asswhole ends when they start to get violent . Racism is extremely unpopular in modern society and many people will voluntarily choose to exclude racists from social gatherings. We discriminate every time we choose something to eat or drink .
Has anyone else noticed that the liberty movement is the only group that really has an issue with ideological purism ? I don’t really see conservatives complaining about a person being too conservative that often. They might disagree on an issue but you don’t see them using the term “purist” as an insult that often. I don’t really see libertarian purism as an issue. In every movement, you have your moderates and your purists but it seems to only be a big issue in libertarian circles. How you present your views can cause problems but being ideologically pure is not . You also don’t see marxists complaining about ideological purity. They do argue over which version is correct though . i suppose that would count as a purity fight .