 |
| Jo Jorgensen |
During a recent interview with Reason magazine, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen told Zuri Davis, "We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention."
But it is difficult to understand what Jorgensen will accomplish with this stance.
She went on to mouth some libertarian talking points, "But their answer is more government," she says, and "big government is what got us here to begin with."
But Jorgensen's vague statement that big government is not the answer, when not going into details, can certainly mislead many into thinking that libertarianism is in favor of the BLM defund the police demands which happen to be closely tied to their anti-capitalist position.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about official BLM, which is run by Marxists or some grassroots version. The fundamental premise of both is that somehow there is "systemic" racism in the country. Which as far as I can tell is an absurd claim. It is a claim rooted in PostModernism and Critical Theory identity politics that is about as far as you can get from libertarianism. Official or grassroots, BLM is a Marxist front.
A real libertarian position would not be to pretend to be in alignment with the BLM movement. What the hell is that going to accomplish other than indicating that libertarianism is joining the echo chamber designed by the Marxists?
The libertarian position should indicate that BLM is a movement going in a wrong direction. That blacks have been screwed by government because of poor quality education in public schools and that it should be ended. By minimum wage laws which make it impossible for low-skilled urban youth to get that first job. In other words, blacks should not look for government aid and police replaced by "community workers" but rather for the opportunity to advance uninhibited by government.
Government should get out of the way.
This should be the message Jorgensen should deliver when the topic of BLM is brought up. Not only being discussed by her when she is talking on libertarian podcasts.
Jorgensen often says things in a manner, where if you understand libertarianism, you get she is implying end minimum wages, etc. But she is not saying them in a straightforward manner. She is slick about her presentation to blacks that really will really mislead into giving the impression that she does indeed support the wrong-direction BLM movement.
That is, she sounds like a politician trying to capture votes as though she is going to win the presidency rather than using her position as Libertarian Party presidential nominee to introduce the masses to real hardcore libertarianism.
I will be impressed if Jorgensen shows up at a BLM protest with a sign that reads:
BLM Capitalist Hate is Not the Answer, Libertarianism Is The Best Thing That Could Happen to the Black CommunityA sign like this would undoubtedly clarify the libertarian position.
-RW
And that's why they should have nominated the eloquent, plum-line libertarian, Bumper Hornberger.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why systemic racism is a difficult concept for libertarians. Agents of the state are well aware of where people land in the informal, but very real, social hierarchies, and they act accordingly. This is true in every society regardless of racial composition. Because of America's history of sequential waves of immigration, the informal social hierarchies take on a racial flavor that is usually absent in more racially homogenous societies, and therefore the way agents of the states treat different people is often heavily colored by race.
ReplyDeleteBoom. Systemic racism sans leftist. It wasn't even hard to do. What's the problem?
Watch this video for 60 seconds. Look at all the BLM memorabilia being worn and sold, and look at all the capitalism and respect for private property it is surrounded by. These people are not communist.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/24NXxuxIkAc
" . . . she sounds like a politician trying to capture votes as though she is going to win the presidency rather than using her position as Libertarian Party presidential nominee to introduce the masses to real hardcore libertarianism."
ReplyDeleteJacob Hornberger would not be making these mistakes. What a monumental fail by the LP not to have nominated him.
People who are already libertarians can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that converting others will involved something more than what it took to convert you. They've already heard the message that changed your mind, and it didn't change theirs. Are you just going to keep repeating it while you click your heels together, or are you going to try a message that will actually convert them? Are we going to do what we want to work or are we going to do what works?
DeleteJust once I'd like to see someone running as the LP nominee come out with a simple platform such as "We believe in self-ownership, and we're against the initiation of violence against peaceful people. The other parties' platforms and candidates are against those ideas. If you agree with these concepts, then vote for us."
ReplyDeleteShe and Jacob Hornberger are in some ways what I will always call libertardians. So what is the libertarian stance on 30 million unemployed Americans but libertarians still want open borders? How is that supposed to work?
ReplyDeleteHornberger has addressed this. But I'm sure you know nothing about him.
Delete"The fundamental premise of both is that somehow there is "systemic" racism in the country. Which as far as I can tell is an absurd claim. It is a claim rooted in PostModernism and Critical Theory identity politics that is about as far as you can get from libertarianism."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is rooted in racist government policies that continue to cause racial divides in our society and should be abandoned - a very libertarian position.
Actual libertarianism (A.L.), AKA An-Cap or PPS in practice would generally mean private streets and sidewalks. Strangers could be banned from even entering a community based upon nothing other than whim or even overt racism. There would be hardly any criminals just walking around communities and the need for police would be greatly diminished. All police would generally owe a contractual duty to the residents to protect them and to abide by their terms of service. This would solve the problem of police brutality.
ReplyDeleteThe LP has been around since 1972. Isn't it about time that actual libertarianism was explained to the public? If you are ashamed of A.L., just say so, get out of our movement and start your own movement.