Billy invokes the truth. But, I don’t get it, Billy. Clearly, Cato and Lew Rockwell aren’t comrades-in-arms. But I don’t know what "our movement" means. I have my ideas. I post them here. I support, agree with, and disagree with a variety of people, some of them the same people on different things. I suppose I’m part of the libertarian "movement," but calling it "our" is insolent and presumptuous. Calling it a "movement" without qualification is rather like calling the herding of cats a "movement." Yea, they’re "moving," I suppose.
I guess that to large extent, the whole kit & caboodle looks libertarian to me, from all corners, including the fighting and taking offense (some of it false, I am convinced). …Which is to say that when I hear talk of defining libertarianism in terms of what "self-proclaimed" libertarians aren’t part of it, it’s kind of a self-contradictory thing, to me. You get what I mean?
I don’t know anything of the alleged racism of LRC. I’ve been reading them only for about six months, for the sole purpose of getting Ron Paul updates (I’ve really not seen anything that smelled of racism). I’ve seen lots of religious crap there, and I hate it. For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone arrives at such contradictory premises, but I see neither Cato nor LRC advocating guns, clubs, trails and jails against those who hold different values. Having had some association with Cato in the past, they are certainly not what I’d call anti-state, which to me means they can’t possibly have any serious long-term effect, other than to perhaps incubate people who become anti-state. LRC seems to be largely anti-state, and they certainly support those who are. So what’s more oppressive for blacks, the state with its drug war and malicious prosecutorial "case-closed" abuse, or anti-statists, a few of whom also happen to be bigots but have no real political power?
So what mystifies me (and this is really all new to me; I wasn’t aware of this rift in the libertarian space-time continuum) is how anyone thinks that keeping the "libertarian" ranks clear of small-mined racists and bigots is important. Don’t we recognize that it’s the state that makes such stupidity magnified, by playing on the fears, passions, hatreds, emotions of people who would otherwise have little voice or power?
Now, my credentials as a non-racist or bigot will go up against anyone. I’ve shared rented living quarters with black people for years at a time, most of my girlfriends have been Asian, I’m married to an Hispanic, and I have lots of gay and lesbian friends; and I even go to dinner on occasion with my gay-partner neighbors, who look the part, and I could give a shit what people in the restaurant think. Let their imaginations run wild. I wonder how many people who profess "cleanliness" could actually walk that talk.
Yet at the same time, I keep coming back to the state. It’s the state that fucks everything up and keeps people focussed on the differences rather than the common values. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: how many racists did you do business with, today; at the mini-mart, the department store, and whatnot? That’s your anarchist life, and does it matter what they think and how small their minds might be?
But perhaps I’m missing the point, and if I am, I’ll be happy to know about it. Honestly: I do not see how libertarianism can be an honest movement without frank acknowledgment that it includes some racists and other loons, and so long as they don’t condone force to advance their values, their small minds are simply, though regretfully, welcome, as are all peaceful people regardless of idiosyncrasy. I see this as the kind of dreadful task where you say to yourself: let’s get it over with.