“You are missing the entire point whether your arguments are right or wrong does not matter the problem is that you are making them in the first place.” – Keith Halderman

Libertarian outreach by whom? By me in particular or by libertarians in general?

If the former, then I would find libertarian outreach to leftists much more palatable for me to do than libertarian outreach to white supremacists, because I know how to talk to state leftists in a way that some small number of them will find convincing, whereas I don’t really know how to talk to white supremacists in general, let alone statist white supremacists in particular, and I think it would be extremely unpleasant to learn.

If the latter, then I have much weaker preferences, because I think generally if people are going to do outreach they should specialize in what they are best at. But I would suggest that outreach to state leftists may be more likely to succeed in the long term than outreach to state white supremacists, because both of them tend to share the common cognitive or moral vices of statists (majoritarianism, legalism, constitutionalism, contempt for private property rights), but the state white supremacists tend to add some peculiar vices of their own on top of that (e.g. violent racism or xenophobia). Turning state leftists in an anti-state direction tends to produce anarchists, whereas turning statist white supremacists in an anti-state direction tends to produce paleocons at best.

In either case, I’m not sure what this has to do with the question of whether racism or majoritarianism is (1) more offensive, or (2) more dangerous. I’d rather have dinner with a polite absolute-monarchist than with a very rude individualist anarchist. Not because I think that rudeness is worse than absolute monarchy, but rather because other factors enter into my decisions about who I should dine with. Similarly, decisions about who you should reach out to in your propaganda are not necessarily decided solely based on whose deviations from your position you consider to be the least dangerous or destructive.

Kennedy,

In that is it any more offensive or dangerous than a reverence for majoritarian democracy?

Maybe more offensive; probably not more dangerous. How offensive a particular view is, on the whole, depends on a lot of factors, not merely how dangerous it is to individual rights. Vices aren’t crimes, but they are vices, and sometimes a vicious attitude merits taking offense.

Nobody gets atwitter about advocacy of democracy, so why should racism be any more alarming?

I don’t know what counts as getting “atwitter” or what domain you’re quantifying over when you say “nobody.” Most libertarian writers that I know are fairly contemptuous of majoritarian democracy. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three libertarians whose criticism of Ron Paul (Micha Ghertner’s, Wendy McElroy’s, and Brad Spangler’s) has specifically revolved around how the campaign promotes the myth that freedom can come about through majoritarian democracy.

As for Long, as far as I know, his position is not that racism is somehow worse or more alarming than political majoritarianism. The claim is just that racism is objectionable from a libertarian standpoint, not that it’s more objectionable than something else.

Kennedy,

Here’s the article from the Ron Paul Political Report. The passage about the Rodney King beating in particular starts about a third of the way down: Los Angeles Racial Terrorism.

Along the way the Mystery Writer also tries to poison the well by mentioning that a couple months later the cops caught Rodney King picking up a prostitute (so what?) and that when he tried to get away, he allegedly came close to running down one of the poor ol’ vice cops who so righteously “intervened.”

One of my favorite parts of the article, along the way, is when we’re referred to the testimony of “expert Burt Blumert” as to the role of commie splinter sects in the rioting. Not an “expert” on anything in particular, mind you; just an “expert,” ’cause he’s Burt Blumert. Goes to show that, in some ways, the LRC writing style hasn’t changed much in lo these many years.

Taylor:

However, if I remember right, he tried to argue that racism isn’t really congruent with libertarianism because it violates the NAP somehow.

This is certainly not Roderick Long’s position.

His position is that racism is (1) objectionable in its own right (as irrational and collectivist), and also (2) objectionable from a libertarian standpoint. (1) is a good enough reason to criticize racism; something doesn’t have to be criminal for it to be open to criticism as foolish or vicious. But he also argues (2), not because racism per se violates the nonaggression principle, but rather because of tensions between the two on levels other than that of logical entailment.

Specifically, Long thinks that racist collectivism tends to interfere with the correct application of the non-aggression principle, that racist ideology will tend to causally undermine the implementation of libertarianism in the real world, and also that racism is logically incompatible with the broader underlying principles that justify the libertarian theory of justice. So the claim is that a libertarian could be a nonviolent racist without being inconsistent; but she could not do so reasonably, which is something different.

For details, cf. Politics Against Politics, in both the post and in the comments.

Racism per se is not incompatible with libertarian principles, but a police state is. Which is what the Mystery Writer happened to be promoting, at least as far as the Negroes are concerned. More or less all of the nastiest remarks directed against black folks in the late-80s/early-90s race-baiting articles were made in the context of articles directly calling for more aggressive and violent tactics by urban police forces.

If I recall correctly, the article from 1992 that’s attracted so much notoriety (for the crack about welfare checks, and for the estimation that 95% of black men in D.C. can be considered “semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” whatever that means) also included, amongst other things, a charming extended passage defending the police beating the hell out of Rodney King.

In other words, Comrade Halderman, Roderick’s reasons for failing to whole-heartedly support Chairman Ron’s Great Libertarian Electoral Revolution may be subjectively neutral and nuanced, but clearly his position is objectively pro-fascist.

I also hear he’s a member of the international Trotskyist-anarchist conspiracy.

There’s no real trade-off between racism and statism involved in this scandal.

As far as I can tell, pretty much all of the nastiest things that were written about black people in the early-90s newsletter articles were said in the context of articles directly calling for more aggressive and violent police tactics. Or, sometimes, directly making excuses for actual acts of police brutality–among them the police beating of Rodney King (that was in the same article as the crack about the welfare checks, and also the line that about 95% of Black men in D.C. could be considered “semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” whatever that means).

So what we’ve actually got, in the case in question, is both racism and violent statism wrapped up in one vile package.

Not being a hip or “urbane” libertarian, perhaps these questions were not directed at me. Nevertheless…

Mark: Do you judge Thomas Jefferson so harshly? He was no less than a slave owner!

Of course I do. What a stupid question. Why would you take it for granted that libertarians must approve of slavers, rapists, hypocritical scoundrels, and Presidents of the United States?

Mark: Do you distance yourself from the Declaration of Independence because you worry what other people think that says about your views of racism?

No. Admiration for a document or an argument, and admiration for its author, are two different things.

Mark: Do you think that it was a tactical mistake for the founders to establish the minarchist government they did …

Yes. Also a moral mistake.

Mark: … should they have established a familiar tyranny on American soil until such time as they agreed on an ethically pure political philosophy?

No.

They should have simply left people alone. You act as if this were not an option. Why?

Kuznicki: I agree with almost all of what Horwitz writes here, though I will say there’s a mighty fine line between using secession as an interesting riff in libertarian theory, and using secession as a dog whistle to draw out the neo-Confederates. On one foot: While the right to secession for a just cause is inalienable, there’s an… interesting… tendency to forget all about causes, and justice, when talking about secession in the American context.

There surely is, and where it happens, including or especially among professed radical libertarians, it should be called out in the name of historical truth. But I’m not sure whether I understand the connection between your last sentence and the previous one. Are you claiming that the right of secession is qualified or limited if the motives behind secession include the pursuit or perpetuation of “an unjust cause”? If so, why?

If A is governing B, and B is violating C’s rights, and B ends up seceding from A in order to perpetuate the violation of C’s rights, then there may be a libertarian case for A having a right to intervene, as a third party, to aid C against B. Not because B lacked the right to secede, but because A has a right to intervene even against independent rights-violators in order to rescue their victims. But if so, then the right to intervene that A enjoys is surely conditional on a number of factors (such as the availability of other means for rescuing C, whether the proposed intervention will or will not create a state of affairs that materially improves on the former situation for C, whether the proposed intervention will or will not involve sins of commission against innocent bystanders, etc.). And I can see no basis for saying that the injustice of the cause that motivates B’s secession provides any kind of basis for A to blast his way in, occupy the territory, and forcibly restore an open-ended, ongoing regime. If C’s human rights and A’s right to rescue jointly establish a right for A to intervene against B, then that right only goes as far as the actual task of rescuing C, and no further.