7 votes

Misesian/Rothbardian Rebuke vs Fabian Socialists' "Brutalism/Thick/Thin"-BS Definition-Hijack of libertarianism!

The Future of Libertarianism
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
May 1, 2014

Marxists were notorious for infighting over the most trivial differences. One group would secede from another, reverse the word order of the group it had seceded from, and declare itself the new and pure group. The first group, the new group would declare to the world, was part of the fascist conspiracy to suppress the coming workers’ triumph, even though the differences between the two groups were completely undetectable even to an expert.

An informal debate taking place among libertarians these days, regarding whether people ought to be “thick” or “thin” libertarians, is of a different character. It strikes at the very heart of what libertarianism is.

The “thin” libertarian believes in the nonaggression principle, that one may not initiate physical force against anyone else. The thin libertarian thinks of himself simply as a libertarian, without labels. Most “thick” libertarians likewise believe in the nonaggression principle, but they believe that for the struggle for liberty to be coherent, libertarians must be committed to a slate of other views as well.

Both left and right are guilty
Walter E. Block
8:42 pm on May 13, 2014

This is my attempt to help temper the rancor I currently see in the liberty community. I am a staunch thin or pure libertarian. For me, the correct (Rothbardian) libertarianism is firmly predicated on the non aggression principle (NAP): the law should prohibit the initiation of violence against innocent people and their property. That is it. That is entirely it. There is no more to thin libertarianism, other than implications of this basic axiom; well, that’s quite a lot.

Of late however, many leftists have been attempting to hijack the good ship libertarian in their own direction, adding to the NAP their own pet projects: opposition to bossism, racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice, bigotry, brutalism, etc. Some call this humanitarian libertarianism, many call it thick libertarianism, and others characterize this as “New Libertarianism” (http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-lib...). Whatever it is called, it is an unwarranted and unjustified attack on pure or thin or Rothbardian libertarianism.

But this isn’t simply an issue of leftism trying to envelop libertarianism. The push towards the right has been going on just as long and just as forcefully; for example, some right wing thickists urge acceptance of conservatism. This article of mine was an attempt to make the case that not one but both sides are guilty of this misunderstanding of libertarianism, and to point out errors on not one but both sides:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf; http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/JLS%20articl...
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf; http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf

I am not sure whether or not it will temper the rancor now racing through the libertarian community to point out that not only leftists, but rightists too are guilty of thickism. I am being even handed, criticizing attacks on pure libertarianism from whichever direction they emanate, one, in an attempt to reduce hostility, name-calling, flaming, etc., but more important, because it is the truth. Both sides are guilty of making this elementary mistake, not just the lefties.

For voices of sanity on this issue other than (hopefully) my own, see anything written on the subject by Bob Wenzel, and also this magnificent essay by Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/lew-rockwell/the-future-.... Wait, here’s one more excellent essay on this topic, by Laurence Vance: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/i-am-a-...

I Am a Libertarian
By Laurence M. Vance
May 6, 2014

I am a libertarian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.

I am a libertarian. I am not thin or thick. I am not brutalist or humanitarian. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old libertarian, one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.

I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

******************************************************************

There has been a disturbing rift in the Force...as of late within AnCap/libertarian circles.

Mainly two culprit: Jeff Tucker (noooooooooooooo! another one bites the dust?? .o( & Cathy 'Who?' Reisenwitz, a KOCHtopus beltarian/faketarian/Cosmotarian Fabian Socialist infiltrator who first 'made her name' personally attacking/name-calling sweet ol Julie Boroswki completely uninitiated:

Sex, Butts & Orgasms: A Response to Julie Borowski

http://youtu.be/a49r8iGdOJ0
thelibertarienne
Published on Jan 6, 2013

Libertarian vlogger Julie Borowski, aka Token Libertarian Girl, recently posted a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjB...) where she gave her opinion on why there aren't more libertarian women. In doing so, she definitely helped answer the question, but probably not in the way she intended.

In this video I address some of my problems with her approach and offer my own solutions to libertarianism's girl problem.

If you want to read more about me, check out my blog: http://anarcho-capitalism-blog.com.

The Libertarienne Show is hosted by Cathy Reisenwitz and produced by Sean W. Malone of CitizenA Media, LLC

...in response to this video by Julie:

Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians

http://youtu.be/nASPjBVQkQk
Julie Borowski
Published on Jan 2, 2013

Why are there so few female libertarians? It has nothing to do with our philosophy. It is because libertarianism is not yet mainstream and part of popular culture. Women are more likely to care about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers. There is more societal pressure for them to fit in and be "normal" by popular culture standards. They are less likely to have political views that are considered outside the mainstream.

There is more societal pressure on women to fit in and conform to what is considered "normal" by popular culture standards. This does not apply to every woman (obviously.) All women are individuals.

Some libertarian blogosphere discussion about the two:

Women, Libertarianism, Paleos, Cosmos, and Cosmo
By Lucy Steigerwald On January 8, 2013


Does This Miniskirt Make My Butt Look Libertarian Enough?

by Shaunna on January 15, 2013

...and check this: Cathy had the nerve to call bitcoin "bigoted" while invoking the current ongoing latest trend of Left social engineers: "Check Your [White] Privilege!"-BS, and much, much, much more forever recorded socially engineered imbecility. Time to call out, those who need calling out; perhaps, this is why Jeff Tucker has 'amicably' left as Pres. of Mises Inst.

If Cathy is 'libertarian,' then so is Rachel Maddow, Obama, and Glenn Beck. LOL!

No seriously, Reisenwitz actually said the following, with ZERO PROOF!

'Bitcoin is bigoted!'

Cathy Reisenwitz Accuses Bitcoin of Bigotry, Loses 2 Klout Points
Cathy Reisenwitz Klout Score Drops Two Points After Accusing Bitcoin of Bigotry
by Christopher Cantwell • March 3, 2014

With left “libertarians” like Cathy Reisenwitz, it’s all about privilege. There’s basically no issue that cannot be boiled down to racism, sexism, or homophobia. Not even Bitcoin. In a hysterical twitter fit, Cathy makes the case that there is some diabolical plot causing Bitcoin to be primarily used by white males.

'Libertarians are Racist!' Actually, no, not just, but apparently: "SUPER racist"!!!

"Maybe it's American libertarians who are super racist"

Cathy Reisenwitz Says American Libertarians are “Super Racist”
by Christopher Cantwell • May 11, 2014 • 9 Comments

From Bob Wenzel at Econ Policy Journal: Justin Raimondo (Misesian) at AntiWar.com SMOKES Cathy 'Fabian Socialist' Reisenwitz PsyOp peddler OUT!

Justin Raimondo Smokes Out Absurd Racism Charges Made By Cathy Reisenwitz
Friday, May 9, 2014
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 7:04 PM

It started with these tweets by Reisenwitz:

Raimondo responded with a barrage of tweets, including these:

A sickening lie: https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC This liar needs to be called out but good.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou https://t.co/wbqToCdMBC Names, links please. u can't make this kind of accusation and just run away.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou So you throw out a blanket smear & refuse to be specific. Nice.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MrMcAdooForYou U said libertarian publications regularly "bash blacks." I ask u who & where. Simple question.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@mvmustafin She said there are libertarian _publications_ that "regularly bash blacks." Asked which ones & when, she had a fit & said "bye."
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou This latest comment is confirmation that no one should take @CathyReisenweitz seriously.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou A message board is like a comments section: anyone can post anything. LvMi has no control over
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

@CathyReisenwitz @MarcusHbert @MrMcAdooForYou Cathy sez libertarians racist: asked 4 evidence she points to a ... public message board.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) May 9, 2014

And so Reisenwitz makes charges of racism against Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul, Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard. Her proof: She directs Raimondo to the Ludwig von Mises message boards, which weren't up when Rothbard was alive. And I have never seen Hoppe, Block, Ron Paul or Rockwell ever post on the LvMi message boards. Reisenwitz logic. She has done it before:

A "Humanitarian" Libertarian Considers the Hyper-Inflations of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe "Experiments"

Cathy Reisenwitz Takes On Money Laundering Theory

Fake Apologies, or Race Pimping – Which is Worse?
by Christopher Cantwell • May 12, 2014

One thing you almost never see me do is apologize. That’s because I’m almost never sorry about what I say or do, and I tend to reserve apologies for when I’m actually sorry. This is sort of a rare feature in humanity, as you may have noticed in life. Most people will throw out an apology whenever it suits their purposes, and this makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit every time.

Yesterday I published a screenshot of tweets from Cathy Reisenwitz accusing “American libertarians” of being “super racist”. If that seems a little bit too collectivist for your taste, don’t worry, she later specifically named Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Walter Block, and Hoppe as being racists. This isn’t actually all that unusual, except for the fact that she named names that people actually care about. Cathy has been calling libertarians and libertarianism itself racist for a long time, with her implication that not caring about race, is racist. You know, like bitcoin.

and...the very libertarian act of voluntary disassociation & shunning followed, as consequence of her exposing herself to be utterly unprincipled and definitionally clueless...and nerd hilarity ensued! lol: her "Klout" points went from 77

...to 75!

What is Klout? In Cantwell's words:

Klout is a system that aggregates a user’s social networking activity over various social networks, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, etc… and returns an “influence” score of 1-100. It’s basically a measure of your ability to get a message out over social media. If people become less interested in what you have to say, your Klout score drops. My own Klout score has dropped by 5 points over the last 20 days, but that’s because I’m on a 30 day ban from posting to Facebook, where 70% of my audience is.

I certainly had no idea what Klout was/is, until this whole back & forth between Catwell & Reisenwitz.

Chris Cantwell was interviewed on this on going 'issue' on the Tom Woods Show, on the Peter Schiff network:

Libertarianism Hijacked - May 14, 2014

Christopher Cantwell joins Tom to discuss recent efforts to make libertarianism "complete" by making it into something different.

Download

Tom Woods Reacts to the Reisenwitz Apology
Monday, May 12, 2014

Following my post on the Cathy Reisenwitz apology (SEE: BREAKING Reisenwitz Issues Apology for Making Racist Charges), Tom Woods added this in the comment section of the post:

Tom Woods May 11, 2014 at 9:30 PM

To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.

Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn't spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let's hope this phase passes soon.

Posted by Robert Wenzel at 2:07 AM

*******************************************************************

Personally I ABHOR seeing needless infighting, but when it's obviously intentional, INorganic and viciously orchestrated, one would be remiss to not call them out.

*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************

UPDATE 1: Bretigne Shaffer corrects Cathy on proper usage of "coercion;" no, you feeling bad is not me "coercing" you, Cathy! xD

Cathy Reisenwitz Remains Confused
by Bretigne Shaffer
Friday, July 11, 2014

Last January I wrote a piece for EPJ on “Libertarians and Privilege” in response to an online debate between Cathy Reisenwitz and Julie Borowski on the topic of “privilege.” In it, I argued against Reisenwitz’s position that libertarians ought to not only oppose the initiation of force, but should also be concerned with “...the cultural attitudes, ignorance and prejudices that form the basis of (the desire to preserve unearned power)” I also reiterated my rejection of the term “privilege” as she uses it, and explained my reasons for rejecting it. Yesterday, LewRockwell.com re-posted my article and Reisenwitz responded here.

Reisenwitz starts off by chiding me for focusing on this particular debate but failing to cite her contribution to another online debate - a contribution she wrote some five months after my article had appeared. She then takes me to task for claiming that she failed to address the criticism she had received regarding her claim that shaming is a form of coercion. She writes:

“...the first mistake Shaffer makes is to claim I failed to address criticisms to my “shaming is coercion” article that I actually did address. In the follow-up article.

“...Also funny: When writers don’t do their due diligence. In fact I clarified that although I do acknowledge that shaming can be a form of coercion (something I’m not the only writer to assert) that fact doesn’t justify using even more coercion to punish it.”

In fact, I did read Reisenwitz’s follow-up article. Far from “addressing” the criticism she received, she simply redefined the word “coercion” to make it appear that there was no problem with what she had said. She writes:

“In my mind, this is the key difference between coercion and persuasion: persuasion is pointing out the natural consequences to another person of possible courses of action for them. Coercion is creating those consequences.”

So, while you and I may have grown up believing that “coercion” refers to the use of violence or the threat of violence to get others to do what you want them to, in Cathy-Land, coercion means “creating negative consequences” for actions or behavior.

Related Thread: Chris Cantwell: Politically Correct Libertarianism Must Die! Libertarianism Definition Hijack Rebuke 2.0!

*******************************************************************

UPDATE 2: Relevant video to the fauxnarchist "libertarian brutalism"-neologism BS 'discussion'

There seems to be an ongoing trend among those who may have recently 'shunned' progressivism in favor of what they want to understand libertarianism to be, without really understanding what even the word means, or as a political philosophy what ideas and concepts it embodies.

Such as this one man, Will Moyer and his 'critique' of something that he obviously has never understood. He apparently wants libertarianism to solve world hunger, and human psychosis, and create unicorns; Stefan Molyneux provides timely p0wnage, to his former 'pupil:'

The Limits of Libertarianism - Rebutted!

http://youtu.be/EeqaRyrdcCY
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Jul 9, 2014

Stefan Molyneux responds to the article "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology" by Will Moyer which recently appeared on Salon.
http://willmoyer.com/limits-of-libertarianism-responses/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

updated

UPDATE 1: Bretigne Shaffer corrects Cathy on proper usage of "coercion;" no, you feeling bad is not me "coercing" you, Cathy! xD

Cathy Reisenwitz Remains Confused
by Bretigne Shaffer
Friday, July 11, 2014

Last January I wrote a piece for EPJ on “Libertarians and Privilege” in response to an online debate between Cathy Reisenwitz and Julie Borowski on the topic of “privilege.” In it, I argued against Reisenwitz’s position that libertarians ought to not only oppose the initiation of force, but should also be concerned with “...the cultural attitudes, ignorance and prejudices that form the basis of (the desire to preserve unearned power)” I also reiterated my rejection of the term “privilege” as she uses it, and explained my reasons for rejecting it. Yesterday, LewRockwell.com re-posted my article and Reisenwitz responded here.

Reisenwitz starts off by chiding me for focusing on this particular debate but failing to cite her contribution to another online debate - a contribution she wrote some five months after my article had appeared. She then takes me to task for claiming that she failed to address the criticism she had received regarding her claim that shaming is a form of coercion. She writes:

“...the first mistake Shaffer makes is to claim I failed to address criticisms to my “shaming is coercion” article that I actually did address. In the follow-up article.

“...Also funny: When writers don’t do their due diligence. In fact I clarified that although I do acknowledge that shaming can be a form of coercion (something I’m not the only writer to assert) that fact doesn’t justify using even more coercion to punish it.”

In fact, I did read Reisenwitz’s follow-up article. Far from “addressing” the criticism she received, she simply redefined the word “coercion” to make it appear that there was no problem with what she had said. She writes:

“In my mind, this is the key difference between coercion and persuasion: persuasion is pointing out the natural consequences to another person of possible courses of action for them. Coercion is creating those consequences.”

So, while you and I may have grown up believing that “coercion” refers to the use of violence or the threat of violence to get others to do what you want them to, in Cathy-Land, coercion means “creating negative consequences” for actions or behavior.

Related Thread: Chris Cantwell: Politically Correct Libertarianism Must Die! Libertarianism Definition Hijack Rebuke 2.0!

*******************************************************************

UPDATE 2: Relevant video to the fauxnarchist "libertarian brutalism"-neologism BS 'discussion'

There seems to be an ongoing trend among those who may have recently 'shunned' progressivism in favor of what they want to understand libertarianism to be, without really understanding what even the word means, or as a political philosophy what ideas and concepts it embodies.

Such as this one man, Will Moyer and his 'critique' of something that he obviously has never understood. He apparently wants libertarianism to solve world hunger, and human psychosis, and create unicorns; Stefan Molyneux provides timely p0wnage, to his former 'pupil:'

The Limits of Libertarianism - Rebutted!

http://youtu.be/EeqaRyrdcCY
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Jul 9, 2014

Stefan Molyneux responds to the article "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology" by Will Moyer which recently appeared on Salon.
http://willmoyer.com/limits-of-libertarianism-responses/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Thick vs Thin

I see a lot of angst but I haven't seen any clarification.

If I had to self appellate I couldn't because the distinction is muddy.

I do care about things other than the NAP. I do. So am I thick?

I won't violate the NAP to achieve those things. I won't. So am I thin?

In my opinion whatever you call yourself, if you won't violate the NAP, then you are a libertarian, or at least if you will only condone NAP violations if they are allowed by the Constitution then you are a libertarian.

(Hopefully in the latter case you will grow past those violations, but that's another topic:)

So I don't think thick vs thin is really terribly useful. The key isn't what your social agenda is. I know lots of libertarians disapprove of recreational drugs. I know lots of libertarians disapprove of poverty.

Whether you are a left leaning libertarian or right leaning libertarian is interesting but so long as you are not willing to violate the NAP, or at least not willing to violate the Constitution (assuming you're American) to achieve your ends.. then you are libertarian.

If you are willing to commit aggression to achieve your ends you are not libertarian.

It seems to me this Riesenwitless bint is just a garden variety fascist who called herself 'libertarian' so she could get a job. In general it seems most people calling themselves 'thick' libertarians aren't libertarians.

And it's not because they care about other things than the NAP. Because we all do. It's because they are willing to use government guns to achieve their ends.

I care about poverty and inequality. One reason I am a libertarian is because I know government causes poverty and inequality.

Once you have a grasp on economics, you understand violating your principles is not the solution, it is in fact the cause of the problems we face.

Sadly people like Riesenwitless have no capacity to understand economics and while the world is doomed to suffer such self righteous fascists, it's really just insult to injury that she's getting a Koch paycheck.

(and no I am not a Koch fanboy, just compared to the likes of Soros or Gates or Buffet)

ditto

that.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Where can I find

the Cliffs Notes for this post AnCap ;P

Really j/k you post wonderfully put together articles and well articulated....I just have a "short-attention span theatre" type mind.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

aww... shucks. thanx ;cD

welps. me hates infighting, but thought this one needed some clear, well-deserved airing; but can't do the ye ol 'he said - she said' without providing evidence, nor the very libertarian nerdy thing of supplying some philosophical retort from even more patient minds than moi's, ie. uber minds at LRC .D

I aim to 'libertarian-infect' patience, to the 'impatient' ,o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Oh graciousness!

Someone prayed for me patience 20+ years ago and I'm still "paying for it" today!

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

check your privilege

Check your premises
Check your head
How many goddamn things do I have to check before I say the next stupid thing? Whatcha, whatcha, whatcha want?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

yup. guess they'd be demanding

"Check your DNA!" next, a la return of the 20th century Malthusian Eugenicists .o/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I could care less about Cathy

I don't foresee her having much influence for long.

Jeff Tucker....Oh my.....He definitely would be a loss. Although I have heard him praise Walter Block in past interviews. Been so long. will have to dig around. Now that i think about it, never seen him even say the name Ron Paul.

In Tucker's defense, he's an anarchist and Ron Paul is Minarchist. Tucker has been around for some time now and has been anarchist for a long time. Not like many of us who became anarchist, through Ron Paul. I am some what confused with Tucker, what his deal anyway?

The infighting is silly considering who were are up against. Even together we are a minority.

ditto. precisely!

yup. as if 'we' are not already a 'minority' within a minority: 'thought-criminals.'

oy veh .0/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Fantastic post

I've got to say, I've been totally blindsided by this thick/think libertarian thing. I didn't realize it existed until about a week ago, and didn't quite get what the 'thick' side was blabbering about when Tom Woods tried to get an explanation.

I do remember the attack on Julie though. I didn't pay too much attention, but it definitely seemed like unnecessary bitchery at the time.

yup. me too. when something becomes a 'thang,' when it isn't

a 'thang,' you know something's rotten in the State of Denmark.

I too, sooooo abhor needless infighting, especially instigated by an individual who self-evidently doesn't even understand the definition of the thing that she claims to be, and has personally attacked others, on her ill-informed, or intentionally propagandistic premise; nevertheless, me thinks it needs to be called out.

just when everything seem to be entropying, more divide-and-conquer nonsense.

egads.o/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Wolves in sheeps clothing.

What libertarianism actually needs and actually has (though they are more reluctant than they should be) is a competent band of heretic hunters, and no that was not meant to be pejorative. I've only had a couple run-ins with Cathy Reisenwitz, but her viewpoints are more in line with kooky 3rd wave feminism and post-critical theory Marxism than anything that could even pretend to be libertarian.

Everyone has done well to put distance between themselves and her, but I don't think they've gone far enough. People who conduct themselves this way should be given 4 times as much as what they've dished out if they are ever to get the message, though I doubt Reisenwitz cares what the message actually is unless it involves a dismembered fetus.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

updated

...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul