Across Difficult Country observes:
"Some outré opinions printed years ago in a few of Ron Paul’s newsletters have precipitated a widespread libertarian moral panic. For believers in an inalienable right to necrophilia the Libertarianoids are surprisingly delicate about certain things, aren’t they?"
One test of how politically correct libertarians have become is to examine their flagship publication's coverage of James Watson. Before the recent contretemps, Reason loved Watson, as these examples show:
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > James Watson--Genetic Libertarian
The current issue of Discover has a fascinating interview with biologist James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. For example: ...Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > "I'm Basically a Libertarian."
That's James Watson, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA, talking in the January 2007 issue of Esquire. More of that here (full disclosure: the ...
But, when the chips were down, and Watson needed defenders, all Reason provided was this hemming and hawing, without a defense of "free minds" anywhere to be found:
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Is Nobelist James Watson, Co ...
Is Nobelist James Watson, Co-Discoverer of the Structure of DNA, a Racist? Ronald Bailey | October 16, 2007, 10:21pm. According to the Independent, James ...Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Race and I.Q. Debate Blanks Slate*
Race and I.Q. Debate Blanks Slate*. Ronald Bailey | December 3, 2007, 11:55am. Slate's science and technology columnist, Will Saletan, is now stumbling back ...
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
26 comments:
That is a very funny, and very accurate, new slogan for Reason Magazine.
I sometimes wonder whether everyone is a racist, albeit there are different flavours.
Hysteria: "Free Markets, Frightened Minds"
I like it, Steve!
Does Reason even have a large enough readership to worry about being perceived as racist? I know the article on Ron Paul left me unable even to click on a link to Reason which would presumably be filled with articles reeking original thought and a resistance to PC thought blocking.
Open borders, closed minds
Libertarian is just a useful term for leftists/liberals who don't want to be referred to as leftists/liberals. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, but not too many. I'd also like to point out that liberal once meant something very different but became the name of choice for leftists/jacobins/bolsheviks who didn't want to be labeled with those terms. Someday soon this will be the case with libertarian.
Sorry, but what is Steve's basis for claiming that Reason Mag is being "politically correct"? Has he considered the possibility that maybe they're genuinely anti-racist?
Since we're talking slogans here, here's one for you paleo's: "Libertarianism for white people"
Steve, I think this post is a glib and rather cheap shot at Reason.
In neither one of the post-Watson controversy articles do the Reason writers jump on the Watson-hating bandwagon. In fact, they seem comfortable with the idea of genetic/ racial differences in intelligence.
What's this thing you seem to have against libertarians?
What's this thing you seem to have against libertarians?
The folks at Reason are proving that they're *not* libertarians.
Libertarians are a political dead end like the Dodo. Reason Magazine is well, reason #1. It's elitist, pandering to people who read Vanity Fair or shop at Whole Foods to buy expensive organic stuff.
Libertarians never plan to gain an electoral advantage by going out and winning the middle-working class votes. They'd rather be "cool" and so on.
OF COURSE they will throw Watson under the bus (and Watson was right and was not racist in his remarks). Because all Libertarianism is really is a social status posturing. Nothing really serious about changing policy or politics.
Wow, look at the new image they're using on the Kirchick article.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/e028eb9a-84d6-4def-93db-73f7261fb08f/ronpaul-o-rama.jpg?size=l
Man I love this TNR ad:
http://www.tnr.com/barterads/TNR_hacks_300x250.jpg
Come on folks, libertarians are weenies. The "mainstream" libertarians -i.e. the Cato Institute/Grover Norquist types- are just a bunch of pro-corporate anarchists anyway. Notice how libertarians emphasize ECONOMIC freedom above all else? What they mean by that is wealthy corporations should have total freedom. Nobody else, just corporations. Thats why you can't count on them on immigration.
Ron Paul should quit calling himself a libertarian, so that he's not confused with this bunch. He is obviously more of a Constitutionalist than a libertarian anyway.
I've always thought of libertarians as people who compounded the mistake of reading Ayn Rand novels by the further mistake of believing them to be profound.
Very few people (except the ultra-rich) would actually want to live in a libertarian society - and that goes for most libertarians too. If their dream came true, they'd soon be shouting "Help me, Mr. Wizard. I don't want to be a libertarian anymore."
Also, Reason's slogan should be:
"Free Markets, Better Weed"
OF COURSE they will throw Watson under the bus (and Watson was right and was not racist in his remarks). Because all Libertarianism is really is a social status posturing. Nothing really serious about changing policy or politics.
I think there is some truth to this. After all, any pragmatic libertarian (oxymoron?) would quickly realize that the continued influx of Mexicans cannot possibly advance the libertarian political agenda or even Reason's readership. I think libertarians are often more interested in criticizing current policies from the sidelines than pushing for political change.
Libertarian is just a useful term for leftists/liberals who don't want to be referred to as leftists/liberals.
Not always, but quite true for Reason's staff and most of the readers. It's most obvious in the subjects they don't cover (e.g. welfare, crime) and what they omit from discussion (e.g. musn't mention AA or anti-male/anti-white collegiate indoctrination in aan article about "more women than men in college' - or in nearly any other context). They parrot the ever-so-PC "failing schools" mantra and studiously ignore any evidence that's it's pure nonsense.
Sorry, but what is Steve's basis for claiming that Reason Mag is being "politically correct"? Has he considered the possibility that maybe they're genuinely anti-racist?
"Anti-racist" as preached and practiced is the epitome of PC.
Anyway, I had a good laugh at their overweening case of "the vapours" regarding R. Paul's old newsletters.
Personally, I'm no big fan of Ron Paul, but if anyone doubts that Reason is swinging left, I'd invite them to read Will Wilkinson's recent defense of Political Correctness as an often necessary corrective to "racism". So much for "Free Minds", I guess. Ron Paul has his problems, but I'd take him over the posturing limousine libertarians over at Reason any day...
"Free Markets, Frightened Minds"
Sounds like a great slogan for them. Since we're making everything else in China these days, why not get our political ideas from there, too?
Nice posting.
I came up with a few other reasons to let the Reason subscription lapse ...
Libertarianism, I think, is a diversion from doing the real things that need doing in the country. It's a safety value that allows nerdy White guys to think they're advancing "the Founding Fathers' vision," when really they're merely typing and posing no physical or political threat to the system whatever.
A few self-described Libertarians have been elected dogcatcher; they've achieved some success on the local political level. But Ron Paul, unfortunately, won't win the presidency (absent a disaster or a miracle).
The writers in Reason are just hobbyists, like skateboarders debating the demerits of this or that board. Any readers serious about liberty are led to relax on the grounds that "the message is getting out." It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the whole Reason staff laughs its butt off at Ron Paul and everyone who is really serious about him.
Reason does not want closed borders. Reason does not want an end to affirmative action. Reason does not want the abolition of taxes. Reason does not want to shrink government to 10% of its current size. Reason worships Dr. Rev. Martin Luther Plagiarist. Reason does not want the Constitution. The only time any of the Founding Fathers appear in Reason is as the butt of a (mild) joke.
Reason is for four things only: Israel, pot, federal funding of science (stem cells), and the "freedom" to be a transsexual.
Everything else is up for debate (flat tax? fair tax? let's talk it to death - it's so entertaining!). Just so much pilpul to amuse the slow-witted!
In the meantime, our country dies - our manufacturing basis is gone, our borders are overrun by parasites, our blood and treasure are being spilled senselessly in the sand, the White middle class are headed to pauperization. Virginia Postrel, former editor, might positively characterize such events as "dynamic," being of the "creative destruction" school; but real people in the real world, not in an intellectual's fantasy, are being destroyed.
The Lew Rockwell people are better than the Reason people, but have their own problems. They seriously debate closing the borders (Hoppe is excellent on this topic), and they are consistently anti-war. But no well-researched HBD article by Steve could ever be published on lewrockwell.com. Verboten!
The movement is largely worthless.
Of course the newsletter opinions weren't really outré.
Sorry, but what is Steve's basis for claiming that Reason Mag is being "politically correct"? Has he considered the possibility that maybe they're genuinely anti-racist?
It's not possible to be generally anti-racist. It's possible to be anti-white (or anti-another-race) for particularistic reasons, but there is no principle on which a universal opposition to "racism" can be based.
ben tillman:
I'd say that depends on your definition of racist. If you define it as the belief that there are any important differences between racial groups, then it's possible to have an internally consistent anti-racist belief, but it's hard to make it consistent with the facts. If you define it as a moral position, basically opposing ethnic nepotism, then you can have a consitent belief against racism, but you'll find yourself condemning a lot of minority political movements. (Note how many blacks will openly say they intend to vote for Obama because he's black. Not many whites will say that they intend to vote against him for the same reason, though I have to guess that a lot of voters feel that way.)
Ben g wrote:
"Sorry, but what is Steve's basis for claiming that Reason Mag is being "politically correct"? Has he considered the possibility that maybe they're genuinely anti-racist?"
But REASON has been consistently critical of those who express disapproval of homosexuality. In fact, it has been rather supportive of those who are gay. Since gayness is a preference for your own sex, why should REASON be so put out by racism, which is just a preference for your own race?
Besides, what’s the matter with “Libertarianism for white people”? Can’t whites be libertarian if they want to?
generally=genuinely
Just a heads-ups.
Post a Comment