Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
In case you aren’t yet aware of the happenstance, Julie Borowski (otherwise known as Token Libertarian Girl on YouTube) posted a misguided video pertaining to the relatively low female libertarian population and, in her opinion, the subsequent reasons for it. Over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire levied a proper retort, which then prompted the ever-insecure cultist Tom Woods to reply with some shallow whimpering about nonaggression. Apparently Matt Zwolinski’s supplications for a “thick” libertarianism of sorts make Woods & Co. feel yucky inside.
In light of the aforementioned discussion, I think it’s important to try and address something (again) that apparently Woods and those of his ilk seem to take issue with: anything that threatens their perceived monopoly on libertarianism. Either you worship at the altar of Murray Rothbard, or you’re a treasonous, masquerading statist – so sorry Milton Friedman. But excuse me for not being slavishly devoted to an unabashed cheerleader for David Duke. I suppose the whole free will and freedom of choice thing goes by the wayside when it comes to one’s affinity for philosophers. All of which leads me to the point I want to emphasize…
Lost in the larger struggle for which particular strain of libertarian thought stands tallest is the intolerant predisposition and antipathy of Tom Woods & Co. toward those that are considered to live and tolerate libertine lifestyles (or at least perceived as such by the likes of Woods and Borowski). Is Woods insinuating that if you – especially if you happen to be female – engage in casual sex and recreational drug use, for instance, you can’t possibly be a “real” libertarian? Consensual sexual activity simply for pleasure is, after all, part of some high liberal feminist agenda that no self-respecting libertarian would engage in, right?
Rather, the male species should stop shunning women into feeling ashamed for exploring the same urges and impulses that men so “casually” act upon. Perhaps its just too natural, and we should cease being so pious and judgmental about individual lifestyle choices – especially if there is no shred of aggression unto others, right Tom? I mean, Murray-forbid that women actually exude self-confidence and expresses their sexuality without wearing a colossal Scarlet Letter stemming from the hypocritical mockery of men branding them “sluts” while flippantly high fiving each other for the exact same shameless behavior.
And while Woods attempts to characterize BHL as some sort of “Central Committee” and “Libertarian Thought Police, Humorless P.C. Automaton division,” I’ve seen more civil disagreement and thought provoking diversity at BHL, not to mention good humor, in their almost two-year-old existence than the entire universe of Rothbard et al. (but hey, I’ve read plenty of xenophobic drivel).
Please don’t take my word, or anything else for that matter, as gospel. Explore, read on for yourselves, and make your own decision as to who is really trying to galvanize a libertarian “Central Committee” that one shall not deviate from. But caution, reading a diverse array of enlightened, abstract thought might lead to being branded a philosophical heretic.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
