In trying to ferret out the doctrine of the libertarians, it is important to understand that these are not normal people. They are abnormal, eccentric in their thoughts. That doesn’t mean you can’t like a libertarian, that you cannot communicate with a libertarian.
I believe that fostering racism is racism. This is my opinion only.
Technically, you could foster racism without being racist, appealing to some other higher calling. That is what Schiff and others appeal to, a higher calling of liberty that makes the need for laws against racism unnecessary. Even if I give them the benefit of the doubt, it is a hard rationale to accept. But let’s just say that their fanaticism is so focused, so pure that this higher freedom aspiration were true.
Even if this passion for liberty above the fray of racial debate were true and they really were not racists in their own minds, the libertarians believe that racism is a civil liberty. Got that? Racism is a civil liberty to the libertarians. That is the higher calling they appeal to!
If that is not technically racism in their minds, surely they could see that racists cannot be entrusted with a civil right. Racism does not rise to the level of a civil right. It is a perversion of liberty to be racist. Racism is NOT A CIVIL LIBERTY any more than murder or mayhem is a personal liberty.
I have been communicating with Andrew Schiff regarding the views of the libertarians and of his brother. I am, in this article, in answer to a previous article, retracting my claim that Peter Schiff is a racist in the narrow sense, but said this to Andrew:
Sorry, Andrew, even if Peter is not a racist in the narrow definition of racist, racism is not a civil right. Ever. So I am writing an article where I retract the technical definition of racism applying to Peter. But I don’t believe that appealing to a higher liberty, that of guaranteeing the rights of racists to be racists is normal. It is perverse. Gary
I am pretty well convinced that Peter Schiff is not a racist but is rather a advocate of giving racists rights by law due to his principles. But certainly, it is not difficult to conclude that this attributing a civil liberty to racists is eccentric and wacko.
So then, racism is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. And the embracing of this racism as a civil right is just really odd, and in my view, disgusting. Andrew Schiff told me that it was just a matter of clearing up that Peter Schiff was not a racist. He said:
“THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUALS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE IN HIRING (FOR A PRIVATE BUSINESS) ARE NOT RACISTS BY DEFINITION, JUST LIKE THOSE WHO DEFEND A RACIST’S WRITE TO SPEAK ARE NOT RACIST BY DEFINITION. I hope that clears things up.”
Well, if that clears things up then why do libertarians consider Rothbard among the most pure and highest of the libertarian high priests? Rothbard was clearly a racist when he advocated that whites separate voluntarily from blacks and that blacks should be given their own nation if it didn’t cost so much!
If racism is the advocacy of discrimination, then Rothbard was a racist. He blatantly advocated discrimination and separation in the marketplace. I acknowledge that many libertarians do not advocate outright discrimination like Rothbard did. But they need to repudiate him!
Andrew Schiff told me that racism is irrational. I agree. But if racism is irrational, why keep it as a fundamental civil right? He is banking on the rationality of the marketplace, to self police people from being racist. I don’t believe that would happen. I don’t trust the power of racism to just dissolve itself in the rationality of the marketplace.
On a similar subject, Andrew Schiff confirmed that Peter Schiff believes in limiting universal suffrage. He would not be against women’s suffrage, but would limit it with the same rules as men’s limited suffrage, based upon property or tax paying qualification:
“As to suffrage, yes, peter would argue that some tax paying qualifications are justified, since those who pay for government should have a large voice in determining how their money is spent.”
And finally, with regard to Glass-Steagall, Schiff said that government only required it because government decided to insure deposits. Well, we know that there is no protection of life savings any other way. Who would want to put money into a bank without insurance? Well, the Schiff’s may if they hold more capital than can be insured, But certainly that is a recipe for disaster for the average guy on main street.
In closing I would just like to say that I am not interested in accusing someone of racism when they are not, but that there is a tight wire act here on the part of libertarians. There is no justification for allowing racism to have the status of a civil right if it is irrational. So libertarians need to reject this concept entirely and quit seeking the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act where it applies to discrimination in the workplace and where it applies to the freedom to get a meal in a restaurant. I have written that while libertarianism is not technically racism, it is a smokescreen for racism and elevates racism to a civil right, which is totally without defence.
Iif we are to understand human nature correctly we must conclude that racism should not be a civil right. Do we give libertarians a pass because they don’t appear to understand the nature of man, as played out in history, correctly? Or do we consider their thought to be just weird? I think to label libertarians as being wacko is a valid label, if racism in the strictest sense is not. It is wacko to believe that setting up institutional racism will not result in acts of racism on the part of a society that is not always guided by the invisible hand of spontaneous order!
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.