Comment: updated

(See in situ)


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, 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!
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.

Predictions in due Time...

"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