 |
| Jo Jorgensen |
In the end, I passed it off as a poorly thought out outreach effort.
But now she has tweeted this:
Why can't someone be passively not racist? For that matter, why is it a concern of libertarians if someone is a racist but does not violate the non-aggression principle?It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.#BlackLivesMatter #VoteGold— Jo Jorgensen (@Jorgensen4POTUS) July 10, 2020
Why must libertarians be actively anti-racist? Why should it be demanded of us, under the libertarian banner, to be an active participant in a black public relations effort?
Really, lady, I have enough of my own problems.
I have explained before that I think racists are clowns but if these clowns are not violating the non-aggression principle why is it a concern of libertarians qua libertarians?
Further, Jorgensen, may or may not realize it, but she is jumping on the bandwagon that is being run by very shrewd Marxist revolutionaries who want to destroy capitalism.
Even if I thought there was some merit to the BLM movement, which I don't, I would stay far away from this effort. The top operators know how to take advantage of alliances. As one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization put it, "We are trained Marxists."
If you are not part of the inner circle, you are a useful idiot to them. Jorgensen is not part of the inner circle. She is falling into a trap fighting to eliminate "systemic racism" that doesn't exist (Not to be confused with a few random racists who do exist). BLM is a front group, a tool, of some very strategically-skilled power-hungry communists.
What the hell is Jorgensen thinking?
-RW
I agree with everything you typed here.
ReplyDeleteThis is a disappointing thing for the head of the Libertarian Party to do.
She is upholding the long tradition of the Libertarian Party of nominating non- or left libertarians for president.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not libertarian, it’s politician. That’s all she is in the end.
ReplyDeleteShe was a VP candidate with Harry Browne. RIP. She sounded OK on Tom Woods interview but this is disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, Thomas Sowell was saying back in 1979 that racism and sexism explain virtually nothing about market outcomes. The reason people demand tariffs is because people as a rule do not bother to discriminate in the market against hiring foreigners or buying foreign goods even if they might not care for those people. Jo Jo's attitude suggests that there really is a race problem that the market cannot solve. That's nonsense and it should be denounced by all libertarians. Instead, to celebrate Thomas Sowell's 90th birthday, she's besmirching his most important discovery and contribution in order to suck up to the SJWs and Marxists.
ReplyDeleteHow disgusting. I thought if myself as libertarian but the "party" really must be over.
ReplyDeleteRW - how is allowing Marxists to monopolize the conversation on police brutality going to advance the cause of liberty?
ReplyDeleteShe was imprecise with her language, but acquiescence in this aspect is not an option. We MUST educate the world that Marxism will not solve any ills as Statism is the cause behind it.
She was imprecise? That doesn’t cut it when you are supposedly going to be a legitimate candidate that isn’t part of the 2 party system.
DeleteYou have to be precise, and know what you are talking about when you open your big mouth.
Politics is for losers.
And power hungry freak shows.
One small point: we do indeed have systemic racism. It is called "affirmative action".
ReplyDeleteI don't know why libertarians ever look to the Libertarian Party for anything; there really is nothing to be gained by it. In the end, the only way for the party to make progress by its own political metrics is to play the political game, which rarely, if ever, overlaps with libertarian concepts.
ReplyDeleteWenzell writes: "For that matter, why is it a concern of libertarians if someone is a racist but does not violate the non-aggression principle?" So, in this instance, how are you explicitly defining this principle? Locke states: "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." By this standard, most racist acts would violate liberty (e.g., redlining, segregation, bans on inter-racial marriage, landlord's failure to rent an apartment to those of a certain ethnicity, etc.) In fact, I'd be curious to hear which acts you think do not. But by, say, the Rothbard standard -- "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property." -- none of the above actions would seem worthy of concern, despite their repression of individual liberty. So, please elaborate which acts of racism do and do not violate your principle? Which acts should be of concern to Libertarians (by your definition) and which should not be?
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about acts of racism, but she is talking about taking action against racism, thinking racist, pre-crime action, and being a presidential candidate, we can assume she means to use the office for such things.
DeleteLibertarians believe in freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and if one wants to be racist, it may not be beneficial to that person, but it’s his choice. If a racist acts out against the liberty of another, then we are talking about something different. But no different from anyone who violates another’s liberty.
Reply to Unknown: All racism is harmless. Violence is harm. Disliking and/or avoiding someone is not a harm. Redlining, failure to rent, etc., are harmless because no one owes trade to another. Segregation by law and bans on interracial marriage, on the other hand, are clearly examples of violence. It is irrelevant that racism is the motive. It is the violence that is wrong, not the motive.
DeleteExactly. 👍
DeleteThe most racist organization in our society is the state. Being effectively anti against real racism dovetails nicely into libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the best organized elements of the current anti-police movement are hard-core Marxists shouldn't interfere with us evangelizing the ideas of liberty to pissed off minorities.
You're not undermining BLM. They don't know who you are and they don't need your support. But you might be sabotaging your own ability to communicate effectively with the pissed off people whom BLM is steering towards commietown.
I don't understand why so many libertarians want to cede the market of pissed off people to the Marxists so easily. Seems like they got no fight in them and they're rolling over and asking for a tummy rub from the cops, who are just going to disarm them anyway.
I am way more afraid of the police state backlash to all this than I am of the rioters. The cops steal and destroy WAY more private property than any of these kollege kommies ever could, but for some reason libertarians don't call the cops a mob of looters. Something about those snazzy uniforms transforms otherwise sensible adults into bootlicking wimps.
I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's not a policy stance, just an opinion concerning personal behavior, for the purpose of pandering for votes. Certainly not on the level of of the Ayn Rand Institute receiving stolen/extorted funds (Covid-19 bail-outs).
ReplyDeleteTo Sui Juris: Why is it wrong to receive back some of what was lost to the extortion racket called taxation? Further, taxation is minor compared to the counterfeiting racket called fractional reserve banking. How can it be right to suffer from but not benefit from these rackets? Is it not self-defense to reduce one's losses when there is a chance to do so?
DeleteIf by "actively anti-racist", she means laws, regulations,mandates,quotas, i.e. actions that utilize violence to force associations, uh,no brainer, not libertarian. At best she is speaking in muddled politician speak, at worst she is a statist willing to club people into compliance.
ReplyDeleteall of the political parties have been infiltrated.
ReplyDeletewhere is harry brown
I regret ever donating to her campaign. After that tweet she totally lost my support. What a disappointment.
ReplyDeleteIs it as disappointing as four more years of Biden/Trump?
Delete"If you are not part of the inner circle, you are a useful idiot to them." -RW
ReplyDeleteExactly! That means all those people in the crowd are ALSO useful idiots and NOT committed communists. They're hearts and minds are up for grabs. The commies win them over because they actually bother to attune their messaging to the target's sentiments.
Like always, the dorky libertarians want to talk theory while the commies are too busy winning.