Characterizing something as a “rant” may seem like a handy rhetorical way of waving it off without actually engaging with its argumentative structure. But that’s really uncharitable and not especially productive of reasoned discussion.

I think that LRC is more of a mixed bag than Aster does (not because I disagree with her particularly about the criticisms she lodges against some of the content and authors that appear there, but rather because I think that it’s important to keep in mind how many different authors post there, and that they are not all marching in lockstep, either in general or on the issues Aster has in mind). But be that as it may, the kind of responses she’s gotten from Tracy Saboe and Anon73 are just silly.

If the high readership ranking of LRC is being specifically mentioned as a sign of progress, and one believes that the high readership ranking of LRC is not a sign of progress, then it makes sense to reply with criticism specific to LRC, in order to show that its being widely read is not as good a development as was originally suggested. Replying to that criticism with “If you don’t like it, go start your own” is just a non sequitur. Aster was giving counter-evidence in reply to a particular claim that had already been made; this is just a change of subject.

Replying to her argument with “at least they’re attacking the State,” on the other hand, is like a cartoon of thoughtless “shoulder-to-shoulder” Popular Front rhetoric. At least Stalin was fighting Hitler. (And vice versa.) But, really, so what?

If you think that Aster’s comments are unfair to LRC or Antiwar.com, you can try replying to that, but these kind of remarks, passed off as replies, don’t really even rise to the level of successfully replying.

Obviously his partnership with the anti-war extreme left places him in a natural position of suspicion, but since he doesn’t write on a broad range of topics it’s hard to tell if he partakes fully of the social-anarchist philosophy of just picks and chooses.

Justin Raimondo has been a libertarian activist for at least two and a half decades now and, while he has been focusing very heavily on anti-war activism for the last ten or so, his positions on a lot of issues aren’t hard to find if you go looking for them. It is not that he is “picking and choosing” elements of social anarchism to follow. It’s just that he believes in a different political theory, specifically anarcho-capitalism in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, in its paleolibertarian form. Anarcho-capitalists are all pro-private property — indeed private property rights are the basis of their entire social philosophy — and paleolibertarians, like paleoconservatives, generally tend to believe in some fairly strong form of cultural nationalism.

Anarcho-capitalism has some important similarities with what is usually called social anarchism (hence the “anarcho”) and also some important differences (mainly having to do with private property rights, natch); it has even more similarities with individualist anarchism. But it is its own thing, and Raimondo is fairly closely identified with it, unless something changed while I wasn’t looking.

As typified by Justin Raimondo, they are the anti-property, anti-war and anti-nationalist element of libertarianism.

Dude, Justin Raimondo is a lot of things, but do you have any evidence at all, in print or in other media, that Justin Raimondo is either “anti-property” or “anti-nationalist”? If so, what is this evidence and where can I find it?

Please also note that “anti-property” and “anti-nationalist” are not synonyms for “extremist” or “anarchist” or “advocate for views I strongly disagree with.” I already know that he’s an extremist and I already know that he’s an anarchist and I also already know that he has many beliefs you would disagree with. But I am interested to know where you came up with the specific accusations that this Buchananite paleolibertarian is “anti-property” and “anti-nationalist.”