Libertarians sometimes tend to focus on political freedom in isolation, and to view cultural authoritarianism (at least as long as the state isn’t directly involved) as something libertarianism as such has nothing to say about.
I believe this is a mistake. Cultural authoritarianism — such as occurs in the family, church and workplace — tends to exist in a mutually reinforcing relationship with political authoritarianism. Authoritarianism isn’t easily compartmentalized. People who are in the habit of unquestioning obedience to authority in a major part of their lives, and have their freedom of judgment subordinated to the will of others, are unlikely to fight very vigorously for their personal liberties against the claimed authority of the state.
And people who are used to unquestioning obedience from others are unlikely to scruple at using the state to get things their way. When such people do become libertarians, they generally view libertarianism as a doctrine promoting the equal liberty of masters, owners, and patriarchs to dominate those in their petty kingdoms without outside interference.
And in most cases, we see that those with the most authoritarian cultural attitudes are often among the most energetic advocates of using government to meddle in other people’s private business.
Cultural authoritarianism begets political authoritarianism. And frankly, some of the cultural authoritarianism out there is pretty extreme.
Take, for example, the cultural authoritarianism prevalent in much of fundamentalist Christianity. Bob Jones University is probably the most over-the-top form of it. Every aspect of life is monitored and regulated, in the most intrusive ways imaginable. And the standard response to any conflict with an authority figure of any kind is “No doubt the fault lies with you.”
But the same cultural authoritarianism runs quite strong through much of fundamentalism. A typical (if horrifying) example is “Check Your Attitude,” by Dr. Dale Robbins (1994), in which he states that “persons who have a bad attitude toward authority figures always have a bad attitude toward God.”
In the idealized fundamentalist vision of society (based on the principles stated in the thirteenth chapter of Romans, the fifth and sixth chapters of Ephesians, and First Peter chapter two), the twin pillars of society are authority and submission. Children obey their parents, wives obey their husbands, Church members have a “humble, submissive attitude toward the loving correction of sin” they receive from their pastors, slaves obey their masters, employees obey their employers, citizens obey the state, and so on. Of course the superiors in all these relationships have a duty to promote the welfare of their subordinates in a loving manner. But this latter duty isn’t actually enforceable against the superior by the subordinate. It’s enforced through their accountability to still higher authority figures, going all the way up to God.
Robbins provides a very informative list of the proper Christian attitudes in a number of areas of life. Among other things: The proper attitude toward authority is ” respectful, cooperative, accountable, humble, helpful, encouraging, loyal. Not resentful, defiant or disrespectful.” Our attitude toward unfairness should be “patience, humility, confident in God’s justice.” And our attitude toward sin should be “uncompromising, unaccepting, intolerant, unsympathetic, yet compassionate and reconciliatory for the repentant.”
Putting it all together, our attitude sin apparently should be “uncompromising, unaccepting, intolerant, unsympathetic” — unless, that is, it’s a sin of unfairness committed by someone in a position of authority. So what the authority-submission paradigm translates to in practice is that we should be intolerant and uncompromising toward sin committed by people who are under our thumbs, while showing patience and humility toward those in authority who screw us over. Sounds like the dog’s rule for successful living: “Know when to bark and when to lick.”
Needless to say, such pathological attitudes aren’t exactly conducive to the kind of society that can maintain freedom on a stable basis.
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, Cultural Authoritarianism Breeds Political Authoritarianism, The Skanner, Portland, Oregon, 28 Sep 2010
- Kevin Carson, Cultural Authoritarianism Breeds Political Authoritarianism, Woodstock, Ontario Oxford Review, 1 Nov 2010
I am so glad to hear this here. I feel it is way too often overlooked and just passed over. I try to bring some light and voice to it on my blog, but overall it's hard to get those posts any attention. They seem to be the ones with the least traffic, and often they stir up some anger with others.
And opposition to cultural authoritarianism often leads to political interference as well. Consider those who oppose Muslim culture norms with respect to women. In France, they've banned the niqab and in Switzerland they've banned the production of new minarets.
On point all around. Isn't this what Stefan Molyneux over at freedomainradio.com is all about – working towards a free society with a focus on the individual and family relationships first?
Absolutely right, Michael—though of course the political interference is itself reflective of a different kind of cultural authoritarianism. That's why I think the basic ground-rule has to be: no use of force against people or justly acquire property. That leaves all kinds of non-violent options on the table, but it rules out the kinds of abuses you've highlighted.
Also interesting in the case of the French, their political efforts to quash the use of certain headwear has only increased the interest in it, whereas it had been a very minority usage within the Muslim community and showed no sign of gaining in popularity.
And this is why libertarians need to start talking about not only a political revolution but a social and cultural one as well, well done Kevin.
Michael: What Gary said. I'm not at all advocating the kind of authoritarian anticlericalism associated with France after 1870, or Mexico under the PRI. Just more awareness of the problem, and advocacy for the victims.
I was once a fundamentalist myself. From roughly 1969 to 1981, I attended a small Christian school in Lynchburg, Virginia everyday, and my school had an ongoing relationship with Bob Jones University. I grew up interacting with Bob Jones people all the time. Jerry Falwell's headquarters was in my hometown, and my parents were personal friends of his and attended his church at one point. My family attended a very conservative Presbyterian church that was associated with Christian Reconstructionism. Suffice to say, I've seen fundamentalism up close and in person. By the time I was fifteen, I had lost all interest in Christianity of any kind. After flirting with occult religions for a number of years, I became an atheist by the age of twenty-two. Today, I am a Nietzschean. As an adult, I don't particularly care for hard-core fundamentalists, either. I just choose not to associate with them and haven't done so for thirty years.
I really have to disagree that fundamentalists are the primary threat to liberty in contemporary America. The "religious right" politically and evangelical culture generally grew a bit in the 70s and 80s, but its growth leveled off twenty years ago, and has remained static ever since. Its political influence has continued to decline, and it is particularly unpopular with younger people. Even younger evangelicals are moving leftward on many issues. What were the religious right's biggest issues? Banning abortions? It ain't happening. Opposing gay rights? Gays are more out of the closet and have more rights and social standing today than ever before. Putting prayer back in school? It ain't happening. Banning pornography? A cornucopia of free pornography is available online.
Fundamentalists are not the driving force behind seat belt laws, smoking bans, firearms prohibition, the feminist star chamber of family courts, the paramilitary nannies of CPS systems, speech codes, affirmative action, regulating the economy to death in the name of saving the environment, or political crusades against salt, fatty foods, or soda vending machines in schools. Nowadays, proponents of censorship of pornography or opponents of sex worker rights are just as likely to be feminists motivated by misandry as Bible-bangers. Drug prohibitionists are just as likely to be liberal therapeutic statists as right-wing law and order types. Right now, the Republican governor of Virginia is trying to privatize the state's liquor monopoly. He's a social conservative, a graduate of Pat Robertson's law school in Virginia Beach. Where is the opposition to private liquor stores coming from? Mostly liberal churches and Democrats in the state legislature. Meanwhile, Falwell's son and successor has supported the effort. The things I've mentioned here only scratch the surface so far as liberal and leftist authoritarianism is concerned. Fundamentalists certainly are not responsible for scenarios such as this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314438/3…
Left-libertarianism's biggest weakness, in my view, is its persistent attacks on the mote of fringe figures like Fred Phelps, while ignoring the beam of liberal and leftist forms of authoritarianism that grow more pervasive and more extreme annually, and with the support of the vast majority of the educated and professional classes.
Keith, I don't think Kevin claimed that fundamentalist Christianity was the primary threat to freedom in the US today—it seems as if he clearly identifies fundamentalist cultural authoritarianism as only one example of a broader trend. And it seems to me that his detailed indictment of Progressive managerialism is some evidence that left-libertarians aren't blind to the threats nanny-statists pose. My own instinct is to say that the real elites aren't overly invested in the moralisms of either fundies or Progs, but are perfectly happy to support implementing the preferences of both, in order to attract political support and legitimate increases in state power.
"And it seems to me that his detailed indictment of Progressive managerialism is some evidence that left-libertarians aren’t blind to the threats nanny-statists pose."
Yes, his criticisms of that stuff are actually quite good.
"My own instinct is to say that the real elites aren’t overly invested in the moralisms of either fundies or Progs, but are perfectly happy to support implementing the preferences of both, in order to attract political support and legitimate increases in state power."
I think that's true of the older, more conventionally plutocratic elites of the traditional WASPish country-clubber variety. The Republican elite had no problem courting the religious right as a counterpart to the New Left's entryism and takeover of the apparatus of the Democratic Party in the 70s. I've discussed the role of "movement conservatives" as useful idiots for the military-industrial complex and plutocratic Republican elites before:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-r…
However, I also think that the more newly rich in the economic sector, the rising upper middle class, and in particular the "new class" managerial bureaucracy in the public sector are more ideologically committed to the nanny state than the older elites who were mostly just about making money, protecting their social position, and advancing "American interests" internationally. What has happened is that since the 1960s and 1970s, the nanny state faction of liberalism has essentially taken over the apparatus of the state's social bureaucracy, education, many professions such as law, media and entertainment, and much else. The bourgeois bohemians and the New Class bureaucrats really do believe in the nanny state as an ideal. I see this as a matter of tremendous historical significance, akin to the eclipsing of the traditional aristocracies of Europe by the rising bourgeoisie of the 19th century (who, after all, were the liberals of their time). This is true not just in the U.S. but in the entire Western world.
I think that's a plausible distinction. But I wonder how you'd react to these possible qualifiers:
1. I wonder if there isn't an important difference between the real members of the power elite on the one hand and their New Class functionaries on the other. I don't doubt that the latter endorse the ideology that legitimates their power and underscores the purported value of the expertise, but I think it's at least worth asking whether the former do.
2. To the extent that some members of the power elite do share the New Class's managerialist ideology, would you agree that it plays a subsidiary role in explaining their behavior? I have no burden to argue that all members of the elite are uninfluenced by ideology, but it's hard for me to see it as the dominant factor. But I wonder what you think about this.
that's why the vulgars are afraid of anarchy. they don't wanna give up their privilege. they want their "petty kingdoms"
anarchy means NO gods and NO masters. not just no state.
"To the extent that some members of the power elite do share the New Class’s managerialist ideology, would you agree that it plays a subsidiary role in explaining their behavior? I have no burden to argue that all members of the elite are uninfluenced by ideology, but it’s hard for me to see it as the dominant factor. But I wonder what you think about this."
The difference between the power elite and the New Class is that the New Class actually believes in the managerialist ideology and takes it seriously. I think the true power elites have a more mafia-like view of life and society where everything is just about power and rivalry. Henry Kissinger, for example. The upper class adheres more to the ideology of the old bourgeoisie. As for the the upper middle class and its New Class counterpart in the public sector, I agree with Paul Gottfried:
"Although PC is taught at elite universities, its function there is entirely different from what it is elsewhere. In the Ivies, for example, PC constitutes the ideological basis of the present managerial order. It is the sacral and legitimating teaching of the ruling class that has to be passed on to a new generation of priests, in order to maintain the system. PC and diversity as transmitted at the top are not at all what they are at the bottom. At less than distinguished colleges, they are the candy of the intellectually challenged or hopelessly mediocre, which is pushed for among other reasons to keep government agencies and leftist accreditation boards off the backs of college administrators."
One of the best analysts of the New Class that I'm aware of was Alvin Gouldner who referred to the New Class as a "cultural bourgeoisie" and as the "most internationalist and most universalist of all social strata" and "the most cosmopolitan of all elites." Here's a quote from the neocon James Q. Wilson that describes this group fairly well:
"In the United States the higher levels of the federal government are staffed by bureaucrats who are more liberal than the population at large and certainly more liberal than the population at large and certainly more liberal than business executives. Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Litcher interviewed two hundred top-level career adminstrators in a variety of federal agencies. Over half described themselves as politically liberal and said they voted for George McGovern…and Jimmy Carter. Overwhelmingly they supported a woman's right to an abortion and agreed that environmental problems are serious. On the other hand, they displayed no generalized antipathy toward American society: the great majority believed that private enterprise is fair to workers and that less regulation of business would be good for the country; only a tiny fraction thought the nation should move toward socialism."
I would point out that Wilson was writing in the 80s and the study he cited was conducted in the 70s. The bureaucratic class has moved much further leftward since then as the 60s generation has gotten older and come to dominate the professions. He was also writing before the rise of the new rich and bobos. These are the people who really do take the nanny state ideology seriously. These are the folks who are always pushing for smoking bans, seat belts laws, more gun laws, this or that "safety" regulation, this or that zoning ordinance, yadda, yadda. But they are also among the most culturally liberal of any socio-economic layer. For instance, I'm sure more people from this class would be sympathetic to something like gay marriage than the more traditional middle class of white collar workers, small business owners, and middle managers, and certainly more so than the working classes or the poor on the bottom or the upper class and the power elite.
Having spent years around the social service professions and university humanities departments, I know a whole lot of these people personally. They're about as liberal as they come on social and cultural issues, but revere the federal government and the welfare state and generally adhere to middle class values in their personal and economic lives.
The best summary of the ideology of the New Class that I've yet to encounter is this passage from Thomas Szasz:
"In the nineteenth century, a liberal was a person who championed individual liberty in a context of laissez-faire economics, who defined liberty as the absence of coercion, and who regarded the state as an ever-present threat to personal freedom and responsibility. Today, a liberal is a person who champions social justice in a context of socialist economics, who defines liberty as access to the means for a good life, and who regards the state as a benevolent provider whose duty is to protect people from poverty, racism, sexism, illness, and drugs.”
The prevailing political consensus among the New Class is corporatist-social democracy in economics and center-left positions on social issues. This is very much reflected in court rulings on social matters, especially the federal courts, and most especially the upper levels of the federal courts. American law on the majority of issues represents the dominant values of the New Class. If we look at Supreme Court rulings from the 19th century, we see that legal decisions from that time were much more reflective of the old bourgeoisie ideology. A famous example was the Lochner decision, which vulgar libertarians like Richard Epstein champion as a model of libertarian jurisprudence. We see the same thing today among the minority of jurists who do not share the values of the prevailing New Class consensus (e.g. Scalia and Thomas).
Lochner was the liberal "judicial activism" of the era, which Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out in his dissent: "The Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's 'Social Statics'." Only the ideology was classical liberalism rather than modern progressive liberalism. Nowadays, liberal jurists are more likely to read the welfare state and leftist cultural values into constitutional law because that is the foundation of their personal and class values.
"Cultural authoritarianism" sounds scary, but all organisms tend to reproduce & spread so our govt. is no different.
Change the culture to their desires sounds like all other tyrannys in history. Great article & I might suggest everyone to read a new book out about a small town in America that takes a stand against tyranny. It's a great read cause it could be our home town one day that we have to defend.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
@Keith Preston – Definitely a lot of relevant points. The parallels between Fundamentalists and the New Class are interesting. Both believe that their vision of morality and social good are not only valid, but should be legally enforced. Both use the state as a vehicle for their oppressive ends. Both are happy to depredations of the socialist-corporate hegemony go on, so long as their goals are satisfied. While the fundies appeal to the authority of a deity, the New Class appeals to the authority of social science. Ultimately, though, both approaches are just window dressing on the real machinery of power which rules our property and controls our time on Earth.
“I wonder if there isn’t an important difference between the real members of the power elite on the one hand and their New Class functionaries on the other. I don’t doubt that the latter endorse the ideology that legitimates their power and underscores the purported value of the expertise, but I think it’s at least worth asking whether the former do.”
I’m not arguing that the power elite that C. Wright Mills or William Domhoff wrote about no longer exists, or has become irrelevant. The power elite revealed itself very transparently with the bailouts of 2008. Also, we have to make a distinction between the power elite and the upper class. This distinction is vital to a proper anarchist understanding of class theory, in my view, and a lot of anarchists seem to miss the boat on this question. I should have made a sharper distinction myself in my previous post. Mills defined the power elite not as the plutocracy itself but as the leadership of the upper class and upper middle class, those holding key positions of institutional leadership in the state, the military and the economy (e.g. banking, major manufacturing). I’d add to Mills’ analysis those who control the media as well. The media was less significant in Mills’ time. This power elite has to be distinguished from Marx’s concept of the ruling class, which mostly consisted of property owners employing wage labor. The Marxist ruling class is the upper class or the upper middle class, depending on their individual sources of wealth, not the power elite. True power elite theory is more compatible with Bakunin’s idea of the state as a class unto itself with its own class interests, over and above capitalism per se.
I’d say the upper class is comparable to the old European aristocracies in that it mostly possesses inherited wealth and its elite status is defined by its social position as well as by its control over money and property. The Kennedys are one of the more famous examples of this. This class certainly still exists but I think it’s dying class as it’s not really producing much of value or sustainability, but largely exists off residual wealth from the past. This class is being supplanted by the newly rich, usually self-made, or the so-called “bourgeoisie bohemians.” Examples of this would be Bill Gates, John Mackey, or, in England, Richard Branson. The elite among the professional class would also fit into this category.
As for the ideology of the power elite or the traditional upper-class, I’d say the old bourgeoisie ideology that regards wealth as the product merely of individual effort and ability, a more traditional conservative view of elites as naturally superior people, and a belief in American exceptionalism are the guiding political values of these people. Of course, in some individual cases we also have to consider personality traits (like sociopathology).
GreenClover,
Change the culture to their desires sounds like all other tyrannys in history.
Yes! That's what the Jacobins did. That's what the Nazis did. That's what every commie regime has done. It's what the neocons tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It never works. Edmund Burke had it right. Efforts of that type produce nothing but horrors.
Pat,
"The parallels between Fundamentalists and the New Class are interesting. Both believe that their vision of morality and social good are not only valid, but should be legally enforced."
Yes! My critique of the nanny state and the PC ideology behind it (which I call "totalitarian humanism") is that it is simply a secularized theocracy. The PC ideologues are simply the "Moral Majority of the Left." Check out the works of Paul Gottfried and Thomas Szasz on the question of the "therapeutic state." You'll get a much clearer picture of how that works.
Seat belt laws, gun control, drug prohibition, family courts and CPS, antidiscrimination laws, smoking bans, speech codes, hate crimes laws, affirmative action, the chilling effect of PC on free inquiry and free speech, hate speech prosecutions, anti-sex worker feminism, the "war on Christmas," crusades against salt and fatty foods- all of these seemingly unrelated things are manifestations of the totalitarian humanist ideology. Traditional theocracy considered it to be the role of the state to protect individuals and society at large from heresy, blasphemy, apostasy, witchcraft, etc. Totalitarian humanism considers it to be the role of the state to save everyone from, as Szasz says, "poverty, illness, racism, sexism, and drugs" (among other things).
Keith, in general I think the kind of PC authoritarianism you describe is found mainly in the middle and lower ranks of the New Class, and has little effect on the primary purpose of the real Power Elite: extracting rents from the rest of us. To that extent, they serve mainly as useful idiots for the Power Elite, in the same way that the Religious Right serve as useful idiots for the real economic interests behind the Delay/Armey model. No doubt there are a lot of bobos in the middle ranks of corporate management, and being in charge of the sensitivity training seminars is a comparatively advantageous job. But no matter how "progressive" the millionaire CEOs and folks like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are, they only believe in a state that can save everyone from poverty to the extent that it's compatible with a society dominated by millionaire CEOs and billionaire plutocrats. To that extent, I don't think they're much different from earlier progressive plutocrats like Gerard Swope.
I suppose I'm one of those vulgar libertarians (or is it "thin" libertarian?) that sees the desire to include opposition to cultural authoritarianism into libertarianism to be an unnecessary distraction from what libertarianism is explicitly (I would think) about: Liberty.
As long as aggression is not being committed (i.e., liberty is respected), why should a libertarian qua libertarian care what people decide to do with their lives and property?
It's not that promoting one's cultural preferences is necessarily incompatible with libertarianism. It's just that it's irrelevant to the very simple philosophy of liberty.
So what if the fundamentalists use the threat of hell to scare people into submitting to their "authority"? As long as such compliance is voluntary (that is aggression against person and property is not threatened), then I remain unconvinced that the liberty of those badgered into conforming/submitting is truly being violated. It's still ultimately up to the submitter if he'll conform to the fundamentalist authority.
Will there be potential consequences in the form of social pressure, shaming, and even ostracization for not conforming in a predominately authoritarian culture? Sure, but I hardly see how this concerns libertarianism. In fact, it seems to be fully consistent with libertarianism because liberty logically implies the right of association (and thus disassociation). If Pat Robertson won't be my friend unless I jump through his hoops, then that's his business. If I want him to be my friend, I'll comply with his criteria. If I don't like his criteria and won't comply, I'm then just whining to complain that he doesn't want to be my friend on my terms. Likewise, if he wants to be judgmental and I don't like people like that, he'll have to put up with my rejection of him.
So what if some people want to be authoritarian and if some want to submit to authoritarians? As long as aggression isn't involved, I don't see how it's of concern to the libertarian philosophy. The fact that Kevin Carson dislikes cultural authoritarianism (as do I actually, though as a personal preference, not as an outgrowth of my understanding of liberty) is proof enough that there is at least one other person to trade and interact with for those who refuse to voluntarily submit to cultural pressures (and therefore hypothetical "shunned into starvation which would then equate to aggression" situations are already not going to happen).
I like the example Walter Block (gasp, I uttered a four-letter name) uses of an orchestra. Is there anything more totalitarian than a man with a stick dictating the very breath of those under his authority? Yet as long as the wind and brass section is there voluntarily, their submission to the severe authoritarianism of the conductor is not in any way a concern to the libertarian.
Nor would I find liberty at all threatened by contractual servitude (i.e., slavery by all appearances except that it's voluntary). Heck, many people demonstrate through their voting for politicians that they desire to be servile and look to power-hungry psychopaths to run their lives. In a libertarian society, who are we to condemn them if they'd like to contract with power-hungry psychopaths to be servants in exchange for being relieved of self-reliance? If anything, I find this an (admittedly odd) affirmation of liberty because such arrangements first require recognition that the servant alone can decide to submit to authority (in contrast to authority being imposed by aggression, as the state does).
As long as people reject aggression, they'll reject the state. But aggression and authoritarianism (at least as Kevin defined it using Christian Fundamentalism, which is ultimately purely voluntary) are not synonymous. "You can't be in our club unless you obey our leader" is not the same as "obey our leader or we'll shoot you." Though it'd be nice if everyone who opposed the state also opposed authoritarianism, it's not a necessary prerequisite and the desire for hierarchy is not incompatible with recognition of the evil of statism.
Kevin,
"Keith, in general I think the kind of PC authoritarianism you describe is found mainly in the middle and lower ranks of the New Class, and has little effect on the primary purpose of the real Power Elite: extracting rents from the rest of us. To that extent, they serve mainly as useful idiots for the Power Elite, in the same way that the Religious Right serve as useful idiots for the real economic interests behind the Delay/Armey model."
I would agree that PC has nothing to do with the reason purpose of the Power Elite, which long pre-dates the rise of PC. I also agree that it's the "middle and lower ranks of the New Class" that exhibits the most fanatical zeal for PC (e.g. social services bureaucrats, teachers unions, university administrators, mid-level journalists, the sensitivity-trainers you mention). I agree that the left-wing political interests groups that comprise the Democratic Party "base" are useful idiots for the Power Elite elements with their hands in both parties (e.g. Goldman-Sachs). To be sure, "progressive" capitalists aren't about to become mutualists or anarcho-syndicalists. They may support the welfare state, but that's a far cry from opposing capitalism or the corporate system itself.
But I also think PC is far more representative of the values of the educated and influential classes than something like fundamentalist Christianity. I don't think it's just do-gooder left-liberal social workers and post-Marxist university professors who are committed to PC ideology, either. What are we to make of (billionaire) Michael Bloomberg's crusades against smoking and salt? Most court rulings on social and cultural matters, particularly by the upper levels of the federal courts, generally reflect the prevailing left-of-center consensus of the educated classes (what conservatives deride as the "liberal elite"). The former city councilman for my district, Tim Kaine, who later become governor and is now chairman of the DNC was a zealous proponent of nanny state laws and policies. His wife is the daughter of a former liberal Republican governor and a juvenile court judge. They may not be part of the Power Elite proper, but their values are representative of their class.
My point is that PC is being used as the legitimating ideology of the state and as a tool of social, political, and intellectual control in the same way Islam might be used for such purposes in a nation where that is the prevailing religion, or Marxist-Leninist ideology in a Communist state.
BrianDrake,
I more or less agree with you, with the qualification that at present there are ostensibly "private" institutions or individuals whose position of success and authority is rooted in their relationship to the state, e.g. welfare corporations, licensing systems that create monopolies in professions and industries, the constriction of credit availability, access to land and housing, and so forth by a wide assortment of state interventions.
Without state intervention in society at large, I think we'd see a much greater number and variety of enterprises that would probably represent a much greater variety of organizational forms and institutional or cultural values.
This issue of cultural norms is the primary thing that sets me apart from left-libertarians and left-anarchists. Most of them believe that the standard laundry list of left-wing cultural values must be universalized and adopted by all institutions and, ultimately, by all individuals. This, in my view, is what "thick libertarianism" amounts to, an effort to fuse libertarianism with the standard leftist social agenda. I critiqued "thick libertarianism" in this article:
http://attackthesystem.com/should-libertarianism-…
For instance, one of the leading proponents of "thick libertarianism" argues that thick libertarianism “has often arisen in the context of debates over whether or not libertarianism should be integrated into a broader commitment to some of the social concerns traditionally associated with the anti-authoritarian Left, such as feminism, anti-racism, gay liberation, counterculturalism, labor organizing, mutual aid, and environmentalism.”
To which I would reply: how the hell does any of this have anything more to do with libertarianism than opposing gun laws, zoning ordinances, hate speech laws, or liquor licensing laws?
I prefer a pluralist approach. My guess is that without the state there would be systems of private property, voluntary associations, and, by extension, local communities and regional federations representing all kinds of value systems.
Brian: Read that part again about people culturally steeped in unquestioning deference to authority being less likely to question or disobey the state's authority claims. While it's theoretically possible for people to live most of their lives in private spheres of unquestioning obedience while drawing the line at state aggression, I don't think most actual people compartmentalize things that well. Most fundamentalists read the authority claims of the state in Romans ch. 13 and the authority claims of the father-husband-employer in Ephesians, as expressions of a unitary principle: all Earthly authority figures are vicars of Almighty God, and are to be obeyed as one would obey God. While thin "libertarianism qua libertarianism" may be logically possible and internally consistent, I don't think it's very sustainable with real human beings.
Note that the founding generation didn't just oppose standing armies because of the potential for using their force against outside society. They saw them as insidious because, as one of the few large hierarchical institutions that existed at the time, they inculcated an internal culture of authority/submission in their members that was inimical to liberty. They were a school of authoritarianism that would breed fifth columnist enemies of freedom and undermine the culture of liberty in society at large.
Consider, also, that there's a question of how "voluntary" arrangements are that involve children, and often damage them in all sorts of ways they can't even question until the damage is long done — Alice Miller and all that stuff.
In an article I wrote for LRC a few years ago, I quoted some of those biblical passages as an explanation for the enthusiasm for war shown among some on the religious right. LOL-Lew told me I had to take that part of the article out if I wanted it to be published on LRC. I guess he either found it to be sacrilegious or was worried about it offending his religious readers.
I'm not so sure a society dominated by Protestant fundamentalists would ever bother to abolish the state in the first place. Classical anarchism was a lot less popular in the Protestant countries of Northern Europe than it was in Catholic ones where the lower classes had become alienated from the Church: Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Latin America, the Slavic nations. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are unique to the English-speaking countries and barely heard of anywhere else. I see these as derivative of the English liberal tradition associated with John Locke rather than with any kind of Christianity. The founding generation of Americans was a rather irreligious generation. The Great Awakening had died down and the evangelical revival of the early nineteenth century had yet to really get underway.
"that’s why the vulgars are afraid of anarchy. they don’t wanna give up their privilege. they want their “petty kingdoms”
anarchy means NO gods and NO masters. not just no state."
I'm not quite clear on what you are advocating. It is fine to promote atheism as an alternative to religion. I'm not even 100% on religion myself, but are you saying that people will be forced to have "no gods?" I find Statism and ever-increasing government to a little more threatening than a few people meeting in church on Sunday.
Keith Preston's own cultural opinions on his own website are here:
http://attackthesystem.com/2009/05/is-extremism-i…
"As for the rest of us in the anarchist milieu, I say it’s time for a purge, if not an outright pogrom…. The typical convert to anarchism is an angry, young, white, male from an upper strata working class to upper middle class socio-economic background, one who possesses above average levels of intelligence and education, and an interest in history, philosophy, political science and related fields. Do we really attract more people into our ranks by having so many self-hating whites, bearded ladies, cock-ringed queers, or persons of one or another surgically altered “gender identity” in our midst? Is this really something the average rebellious young person wants to be associated with?"
Just so you guys and girls know. Kevin Carson is a good fellow but this is homophobic anti-anarchist shit.
I've believed for a while that "thick" libertarianism is the only thing that made any sense whatsoever, for the reasons Kevin laid out in this article. On the other hand, I tend to deviate from the echo chamber in that I don't believe that there is one, singular thick conception that applies at all times in all places to all people. I think that there exist many thick conceptions, mutually exclusive, that can support stateless (or near stateless) societies. And I believe that while we can rank certain attributes as more or less supportive of such societies, we have no way of determining, prior to actual performance, how any such attribute might work inside a system of attributes that form a hypothetical society. If human beings were capable of that, centrally planned states could work perpetually.
I'm fairly anti-religious, and therefore anti – "crusade for objective morality that EVERYONE in the world must obey." We've seen that one play out repeatedly in history, and it's never pretty.
Gay Anarchist,
You're taking that out of context.
http://notreason.com/2009/06/21/on-rejecting-keit…
I wrote that article after I began noticing the efforts of some in the left-libertarian milieu to import a rather extreme variation of PC moralism into libertarianism. Some of those individuals were also waging a crusade of personal attacks against me, and attempting to create conflict between myself and others in the libertarian milieu where none had previously existed. They were doing this for the simple reason that they did not want my views to be heard. I had previously experienced the same thing with other factions or individuals in the wider left-anarchist milieu.
The actual content of that article was somewhat tongue in cheek, but it's purpose was to throw a bomb to expose the left-libertarian milieu for the dysfunctional mess it had become due to the presence of the individuals in question. The reaction I got to that was what I wanted and what I had expected. The barrage of calls for me to "repent," "have a change of heart," etc. confirmed my suspicion that the kind of PC moralism that left-libertarianism was succumbing to is in fact a type of quasi-religious morality, and that the nanny state morality which had infected left-libertarianism was indeed comparable to a fundamentalist theocratic outlook of the kind we've been discussing on this thread.
Any kind of serious anti-state movement in a 21st century Western society is going to have to recognize and confront the therapeutic-managerial state and the totalitarian humanist ideology behind it. This issue is an important as any when it comes to attacking the present manifestation of the state that we see in our own societies.
Anyway, I won the battle. Most of the individuals who had been attacking me seem to have disappeared from libertarianism or remain only on the periphery, and the leading figure in those attacks has formally renounced libertarianism. All of their forums have died down and become much less active. Meanwhile, the tendencies with which I am associated have grown exponentially since that time, much more so than I would have ever expected, and we're starting to bring our ideas to an ever-increasing variety of population groups.
Ironically, there were a number of "non-leftoidal" gays in my circle who read that article, expressed agreement, and mentioned their disgust with the kinds of elements I was attacking as giving gays a bad name.
If you want libertarianism to remain a club for angry straight white men, then by all means, listen to Mr. Preston. Wave off marginalized people's concerns about even the most intimate state interference in our lives, dismiss anyone with insufficient formal education as incapable of making a contribution, fret about whether the gay men have cock rings or the women are getting everything waxed or the white people are sufficiently proud of being white to belong in your club.
The only libertarianism that I'm interested in is thick libertarianism. Thin libertarians just want to move me from one tyranny to another.
"Marcia Brady,"
You have revealed how little you know about my actual views.
Marcia Brady: Seriously… have you bothered to even look at the links at the side of the ATS website?
As far I'm concerned, the only way to be on the "opposing side" of Preston is to be a member of any group that forces its ideology on others.
I'm not going to lie, the association with National Anarchists did raise my eyebrow, (mainly because I'm black) but his criticism of the cultural imperialist left is way too good to pass up.
"As far I’m concerned, the only way to be on the “opposing side” of Preston is to be a member of any group that forces its ideology on others."
That's it.
Ephesians 6:5-9 (NIV):
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
From "Master-Slave Relationship in Hegel’s Dialectic"
Muhammad Kamal, Hegel Summer School 2004
"Human beings become self-conscious through desire and become slaves due to the fear of death. The apprehension of ‘Nothingness’ or ‘Death’ is a necessary condition for the revelation of one’s own existence or authenticity. If we agree with Heidegger, that being towards death or dying is not a communal occurrence, and an individual must die on its own, then the experience of death and the realisation of that experience individualise human existence. [15] In this case, it is the slave and not the master who grasps the meaning of authenticity and becomes aware of his own individuality and the condition in which he is moulded by the master. At this point, Hegel believes that the slave becomes the agent of historical revolution. The slave, therefore, comes to a different conception of individuality and authenticity, but since his product is for the master the slave is still alienated from it.
In Hegel’s philosophy the terror of death or ‘Fear’ has become the source of oppression in human history. It had led to the rise of the institution of slavery and class distinction. The recognising desire or the slave is afraid of death and cannot go beyond his animal desire and biological needs. But labour creates a new existential condition for self-realisation. With this, and under the influence of this new condition, the slave becomes aware of the contradictions between the master and himself, which could be superseded only in a new fight to death. But what happens when the slave is aware of these contradictions and yet not ready to fight?
In this case, according to Hegel, the slave searches for an excuse to avoid fighting and advocates an ideology on which he could justify his indifference towards social responsibility. Hegel calls this ideology ‘slave ideology’, such as Stoicism, Scepticism and Unhappy Consciousness. In Stoicism human freedom is internal as a mental property having no external content. The stoic slave rejects the essentiality of the external content for his freedom and disengages himself with it. For this reason a stoic slave is passive and bored. To abandon boredom the slave must acknowledge the necessity of the external content for freedom. [16] This can be done by solving his contradictions with the master in a new fight to death but as mentioned before the slave is not ready to fight. These contradictions, however, leads to another stage and another form of slave’s ideology known as Scepticism. In Scepticism the slave does not think that the reality of the external content to be essential for freedom but instead he becomes a sceptic about it. [17]
Scepticism also suffers contradictions. It pronounces the non-being of the external content and making it disappear before consciousness. This negation is at the same time an acceptance of that external content. Scepticism is, therefore, alienates consciousness from reality and for Hegel this alienation is a new form of slave’s ideology called “Unhappy Consciousness”, or religion. [18] A religious slave is not interested in solving social contradictions. He believes that true equality, justice and freedom are found in another world in an afterlife where all human beings become equal in the eyes of supreme master. The contradictions in unhappy consciousness arise between eternity and temporality, universality and individuality, which are in Hegel’s view, superseded in the personality of Christ. Another question, which arises here is that how does a religious slave solve the contradictions between the master and himself?
Hegel believes that in human history the war among the states resulted in assimilating the weaker ones. The strongest state among them was able to survive and expand its territory and became an empire. The citizens of this state were no longer obsessed by war as the external threat was eliminated. Since there was no more war, the master did not claim superiority over the slave, because that superiority would be affirmed in the fight to death. As a consequence of this, the master became a peace loving master, accepted slave’s ideology and became a Christian. A Christian master is a master without a slave, and a Christian slave is a slave without master. Since there is no master without slave and no slave without master, the Christian master and slave are, therefore, pseudo-master and pseudo-slave."
I don't know if Kamal had ever read the Epistles, but if he did this I think is an excellent interpretation.
Cultural authoritarianism and political authoritarianism usually go together which is one of the reasons that the attempt to mold libertarianism with populism such as in the tea parties will most likely be a fruitless endeavor. On the other hand, thick libertarianism of the left-libertarian type which focuses mostly on cultural issues will also not go very far if divorced from the fact that people to have the necessities of life before they can worry about broader cultural issues. I think this is way Kevin's great work on economics is essential because he shows that libertarianism can offer a real viable alternative to the current system of big government and big business which both mainstream conservatives and liberals support.
Marcia Brady,
It's interesting that you complain about libertarianism being a club for "angry white males" yet of the two issues that you list, gay rights and women's rights, the reality is that it is usually privileged white people who have the most tolerant views on these issues, and probably, I would add even on the issue of race. On any indicator of political correctness, I will come out and make the claim that "angry white males" would score better than angry males of any other race or ethnic group. If only whites voted on Prop 8 in California, it would have been legal back in 2008. I write that these things not to attack ethnic minorities, but rather that if want to play the race card than I can play the same game.
The sort of cultural authoritarianism of the Bob Jones type is as already pointed out here, a dying phenomenon. The authoritarian left will become more of the threat in the future not just because of their politically correct tyranny, but also because of the views of those who hold to managerial liberalism on people in general. The authoritarian left sees the bulk of humanity as stupid and incompetent losers who need to be organized and controlled by their betters. That is one the reason's that they are vehemently opposed to things like alternative economic institutions and other means lying outside the approved structure of the big business-government economy. Check out Kevin's most recent study on this site for a excellent analysis of what I have mentioned.
I believe that anarchists should be, above all else, free-thinkers in the tradition of Voltaire or Bertrand Russell who challenge dogma and obscurantism wherever it arises. What happened in my case is that is kept moving so far left that I ended up on the right in some respects, illustrating that the political spectrum is more of a circle than a straight line.
Most Republicans I know think of me as an America-hating, left-wing, Communist, or something to that effect. I know plenty of left-liberals who will express the ritualistic outrage at all of the taboo Isms, Archies, and Phobia, but who are appalled by my views on drugs, guns, crime, prisoners, police, law, prostitution, consensual crimes, etc. I know plenty of left-anarchists/left-libertarians who agree with me on the lumpenproletarian issues but who are appalled by my view that National-Anarchists, paleoconservatives, the French New Right, and others bring many quite valid issues to the table.
Cultural liberalism can be taken so far that it becomes a force for oppression in its own right. Some examples have already been mention. Since the issue of children and authoritarian cultures has been raised, it's important to point out that many PC Leftist do-gooders would have no qualms about the forcible removal of children from families with objectionable political or religious views (fundamentalists, Mormons, "cults," racists, sexists, homophobes) and placing them in state institutions. Some would go further and remove children from families where there is a gun in the house or where parents smoke in front of the children. This kind of thing seemed to be a major impetus for the massacre at Waco, and that was years ago. PC has made considerable inroads since then.
"Since the issue of children and authoritarian cultures has been raised, it’s important to point out that many PC Leftist do-gooders would have no qualms about the forcible removal of children from families with objectionable political or religious views (fundamentalists, Mormons, “cults,” racists, sexists, homophobes) and placing them in state institutions."
Although I acknowledge that children born and grown in those types of families you mentioned must suffered irrational indoctrination, I also think liberal indoctrination, however rational and scientific, is not the lesser of the two evils.
INevertheless, I do not advocate teaching Creationism in public classrooms.
It’s interesting that you complain about libertarianism being a club for “angry white males” yet of the two issues that you list, gay rights and women’s rights, the reality is that it is usually privileged white people who have the most tolerant views on these issues, and probably, I would add even on the issue of race.
Citation please.
I write that these things not to attack ethnic minorities, but rather that if want to play the race card than I can play the same game.
I don’t see where I “played the race card”. I just don’t think encouraging anti-racist white libertarians to cultivate more white pride, lest they offend the white-power fringe of the anarchist movement, is a worthwhile exercise.
Really I’m more amused by the notion that women should have to pass a beauty test (or at least invest in some salon visits) to be in the libertarian movement. Mr. Preston’s tolerance is indeed breathtaking.
I don't think women should have to pass a beauty test or go to a salon to be in the libertarian movement, or any other movement. I do think it's unfortunate, however, that the PC fundamentalism of the Left has infested libertarianism as well. If you want my actual views on feminism, here they are:
http://nationalanarchistwomen.wordpress.com/2010/…
Fear not. I'm only on the periphery of libertarianism. I agree with libertarians on many things, and count many of them among my friends and allies, but I've since moved on to other things. Today, I'm just an old-fashioned elitist and egoist in the tradition of Nietzsche, Stirner, Ernst Junger, and H.L. Mencken. Politically, I'm a pan-separatist. Dissolve the state and give every political interest groups its own territory to create whatever kind of society they wish: liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists, fascists, anarchists, black nationalists, white nationalists, Muslims, Christians, on down the line.
"Dissolve the state and give every political interest groups its own territory to create whatever kind of society they wish: liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists, fascists, anarchists, black nationalists, white nationalists, Muslims, Christians, on down the line."
Is it very realistic that each of these groups could have its own little self-insulated geographical location? This strikes me as utopian. I'm all for dissolving the state and nobody in any of those groups should be so self-deluded as to believe that the dissolution of the state will guarantee them the ideal subculture of their choice. Reality tends to be a bit messier and more complicated than that. It's far more likely that even in a stateless society members of each of those groups will have to at the very least cross paths from time to time, if not actively engage in trade and cooperation with one another for mutual benefit. Anyone in any of those groups who have a problem with that fact will either have to be content to cut off his nose to spite his own face or just grow up.
"Is it very realistic that each of these groups could have its own little self-insulated geographical location? This strikes me as utopian."
Perhaps, but far less so than the view that all of humanity will ultimately adopt some universalist ideology, much less some kind of universalist anarchism.
"I’m all for dissolving the state and nobody in any of those groups should be so self-deluded as to believe that the dissolution of the state will guarantee them the ideal subculture of their choice."
I advocate a tactic I call "pan-secessionism" as a means of attacking the state. Let's say there were secessionist actions by numerous regions and localities against the U.S. federal regime. It is likely the ideological leanings of these would vary significantly. The Vermonters might have some left-Green outlook, the New Hampshirites might be libertarians, the Texans conservatives, the Black Belt or inner cities black nationalism, the Idahoans white nationalism, the New Englanders or Californians would be liberals, etc. If we break it down further to the local or neighborhood level we might see enclaves for fundamentalist Christians, Hasidic Jews, Muslims, Koreans, Hmong, pagans, or vegetarians.
"Reality tends to be a bit messier and more complicated than that."
No doubt about it.
"t’s far more likely that even in a stateless society members of each of those groups will have to at the very least cross paths from time to time, if not actively engage in trade and cooperation with one another for mutual benefit."
Sure, that's what they do now.
Regarding Keith's earlier expressed skepticism toward the whole idea of the authoritarian personality, I'd like to add that it seems to correspond particularly to ESFJ in the Myers-Briggs typology, and I know a lot of people with a cluster of personality traits that is described very well by that Myers-Briggs type. And I'm sure that type exists in all nations and cuts across ideological lines.
I can easily imagine an Archie Bunker type in the old Soviet Union railing about how they needed another "Nikita E. Khrushchev" who knew how to "teach the imperialists who's boss," or a Marie Barrone saying "I'll show you how to keep house like a good Communist, dear." I've actually seen obituaries in the old Soviet press for just such people, describing them as "a good, hardworking, reliable family man and a good Communist" in language that would be exactly the same in the U.S. (if you substituted "American Legion" for "CPSU").
But I also think that particular kind of authoritarian is especially drawn to the Right in America's cultural milieu. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: liberalism and conservatism both have their unattractive sides, but they're not mirror images of each other. A different kind of unattractive personality predominates in each of the two camps. I think it's pretty clear that the general Tea Party/ talk radio / Fox News milieu has a disproportionate number of the sort of enraged, paranoid authoritarians who want to use violence to "show them" or "teach them a lesson," etc. In the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," on the other hand, there's a disproportionate number of people prone to intellectual smugness about what all right-thinking people agree, and about their own cultural enlightenment and compassion.
Little Green Footballs and Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler readers were much more prone to publishing maps to some liberal's home address and foaming at the mouth over the prospect of hunting them down and killing them as an "anti-American traitor." But Daily Kos readers are far more prone to repeating historical dogma of the "everybody knows" type ("If you want lassez-faire, go back to the Gilded Age and see how you like it, and you'll find out why we needed government intervention in the market") as if it were so self-evident that only some knuckle-dragging product of a home school could believe otherwise.
In the interests of full disclosure, I found the F-Scale test that Adorno developed for the authoritarian personality. I scored a 2.3666, which apparently puts me in the "liberal airhead" category.
"I can easily imagine an Archie Bunker type in the old Soviet Union railing about how they needed another “Nikita E. Khrushchev” who knew how to “teach the imperialists who’s boss,” or a Marie Barrone saying “I’ll show you how to keep house like a good Communist, dear.”
They didn't call the hard-line commies among the old Soviets "conservatives" for nothing.
I'd say the nanny state left and the moralist evangelicals are more or less the same personality types. I've known plenty of feminazi leftists who smugly wear their commitment to "social justice" on their sleeves who are really just misandrists, and who are the mirror image of all the church lady types I grew up around who always seemed to have a hair up their ass about other people's morals. It's interesting that support for Prohibition was just as likely to be found on the progressive left as it was on the religious right. I think the only thing that really separates the two are cultural norms. The liberals have their seatbelt laws, smoking bans, and gun control. The right has its blue laws and vice laws. One might raise the banner of "Health" or "Safety," while the other might raise the banner of "Morality" or "Family Values" but they seem to be coming pretty much from the same place, and even overlap at times.
I'd say the violent right-wing "tea party" dullards are more or less the same thing as the "antifa" hooligans. They certainly use a lot of the same tactics. And the "anti-racism" and "anti-fascism" hysterics on the left seem remarkably similar the anti-communist hysterics from previous generations. The SPLC and ADL stuff, for instance, reads like the tracts from the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade I used to see when I was a kid.
I would agree that the nanny statists tend not to be overtly violent. They prefer the violence of the state instead. But so do the traditional "Moral Majority" types. Very few of them advocated extra-legal political violence. The right-wing "USA! USA!" types use violent rhetoric at times, threatening vigilate action against un-American liberal traitors and all that. But I see the same kind of rhetoric in all the forums maintained by the "anti-fascists." There really doesn't seem to be any difference.
Interestingly, there's a psychologist named William Kreml who uses the "authoritarian personality" model to argue that anti-authoritarian personalities show somewhat similar character traits.
Bob Kaercher,
I'd recommend the book The Big Sort by Bill Bishop on this question. It's a very mainstream book that describes how Americans are self-separating along political and cultural lines at the local level. He shows, for instance, that the red-state/blue-state thing is more a sort by county, town, or precinct than by region. It's major weakness is that it focuses mostly on political and cultural conflict within the middle class. If he applied his analysis to questions of class and race, his thesis would be even stronger.
Pan-separatism as I outlined it above simply involves removing the overarching apparatus of the state and allowing communities to do what they do anyway. No change in human nature is required, nor is the adoption of a rigid prescriptive ideology required. It's more like a political divorce.
Regarding Keith’s earlier expressed skepticism toward the whole idea of the authoritarian personality, I’d like to add that it seems to correspond particularly to ESFJ in the Myers-Briggs typology, and I know a lot of people with a cluster of personality traits that is described very well by that Myers-Briggs type. And I’m sure that type exists in all nations and cuts across ideological lines.
As the diametric opposite (INTP), I am often having to duck the pervasive influence of such types, whether in the workplace or other social situations. I wonder if there's any great correlation between certain personality types and non-coercive political beliefs.
Nathan: I'm an INTP myself, and two of the people I work with are the most extreme ESFJs (my amateur diagnosis) I've ever met. When one of them sees me doing something and says "They don't want us to do it that way," I always just smile and say "Yeah, I know." Their expression never fails to amuse me.
Keith: Part of the personality type, regardless of ideology, is a fixation on "the rules," a belief that "there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything" (with the identity of the guardian of the "right" way being obvious), a dislike of "troublemakers" and people with "bad attitudes," an automatic tendency to obey whatever directions come from authority, etc.
You've probably met the type in formation in grade school. In every single class, it seems there's at least one person — usually a girl — who goes around saying "Teacher says to do this. Teacher says to do that. Teacher wants us to do it this way. Ahhhmmmm–I'm tellin' teacher!" The most extreme ESFJ I work with was that girl in every single class she ever attended.
Ah, yes, the perpetual tattletale.
Just to be fair, I should note that one of my aunts is most likely ESFJ, and she's actually pretty anti-authoritarian and open to quite a lot of unorthodox beliefs, while at the same time very community-centric and does all the social bonding you'd expect of an ESFJ. So I wasn't implying it's some kind of hard-wiring where people are just going to be a certain way. There is just more of a tendency for certain personalities to view group harmony as a positive, and since I've never been much of a joiner, I tend to be the squeaky wheel that gets scrutinized for making others uncomfortable (not intentionally, usually). Oh, and I did take an interest in astrology at one point, but it was more because of my interest in mathematics and symmetry than any belief that one could predict the future. And I don't recall turning more authoritarian during that time period, but who knows.
“I wonder if there’s any great correlation between certain personality types and non-coercive political beliefs.”
Pareto argued that political beliefs are as much a reflection of individual psychological traits as anything else, and Emma Goldman said anarchists are born not made.
Obviously, there’s a relationship between individual personalities and political beliefs. People form value systems based on a combination of experience, exposure to contending ideas, perception of their own interests, reference group influences, and innate characteristics. But the problem with Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory is that it’s simply an attempt to claim that everyone who does not belong to the far left politically is somehow mentally ill. That’s not the same thing as simply recognizing that some people have obnoxious, abrasive, or caustic personalities.
For instance, the F-Scale test that supposedly measures authoritarian personalities includes questions related to belief in astrology as a sign of a supposed authoritarian personality. What’s the point of such a question? I would guess it’s supposed to mean that an “authoritarian” lacks scientific and rational enlightenment and takes superstitions like astrology seriously, but it’s hardly just “right-wing authoritarians” who exhibit such characteristics. There are plenty of 19 yr old hippie chicks who will exhibit a similar fascination with astrology. There are plenty of liberal humanitarians who participate in New Age metaphysical quackery.
Your list of groups to oppose included *transgendered people*. You also conflate gender identity with biological sex, describe feminists as "smelly dykes with armpit hair" and dismiss white critics of white privilege as "self-hating". I am a teenaged white male of lower-middle class upbringing and above-average intelligence, and I'd much rather hang out with "bearded ladies and cock-ringed queers" then Third Positionist leftist-bashing transphobes who speak of pogroms as if they were a good thing.
Of course, I'm a PC leftoidal totalitarian, so what do I know?
Actually this translates to this: The sadist, who is against ANOTHER kind of sadism, but is himself sadistic, bans self-flagellation for flagellation-enthusiasts but forces them to engage in asphyxia. Somewhere else Kevin & many other C4SS fellows mention peaceful, freed-market solutions to these problems.
Personally, I think there are very few genuine masochists. Most people are conditioned through "education" to become masochists so that sadists on top can torture them. In a freed-market, non-masochists would undoubtedly choose pleasure rather than pain, so sadists impose state policies to wipe out pleasant alternatives, & thus non-masochists must choose within a narrow range of BDSM practices. I wouldn't mind leaving genuine masochists alone, I just hate that some masochists (genuine or conditioned), because they like to be dominated, joined the sadists' choir to force people to become masochists like them.