At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


“Libertarians” and “Racism”

posted by Jack Kerwick

In the wake of the shooting death of a young black man by a white Ferguson, Missouri police officer, it is to no one’s surprise that the usual suspects on the left are screaming “racism” from the rooftops.

Infinitely more disturbing for the lover of liberty is that ever growing legions of “libertarians” are regurgitating this same talking point.  Moreover, the libertarian’s obsession with “the State” has endowed him with boundless sympathy for the hordes of violent black criminals that have been violating every principle that he claims to hold sacred while attributing the assault against civilization on display in Ferguson to “the militarization” of the police.

“Paleo-libertarian” and long-standing World Net Daily writer, Ilana Mercer, takes to task Paul Craig Roberts, who recently suggested that “racism” may very well play a role in accounting for why so many whites are inclined to think that the shooting was justified.  In her own inimitable way, Mercer puts this line out to pasture by noting it for the “nonsense” and “bullshit” that it is.

There could be any number of reasons for why white Americans are disposed to sympathize with the decorated police officer for whose death the rioters are now calling, Mercer notes. Among such reasons, she remarks, is that these “ordinary Americans who Paul Craig Roberts maligns as likely racists…have simply experienced ‘black crime’ first hand, or are fearful of experiencing ‘black-on-white’ violence in all its ferocity [.]”

Some remarks are in order here.

First, anyone who is interested in thinking clearly and honestly must realize that “racism” is the rhetorical ware of bumper stickers and t-shirts: Because it means—and is intended to mean—all things to all people, it has become meaningless.  All that we do know is that “racism” is a dreadful, probably the most dreadfulthing, of which a white person can be accused.

To be called a “racist,” then, is like being called a “creep” or a “jerk,” only much, much worse.

Of course, no one knows why it’s supposed to be so terrible to be a “racist.”  In and of itself, a “racist” could signify someone who has a special place in his heart, a certain partiality, toward the members of his own race. Yet such affection for the members of one’s race no more betrays a weakness in one’s character than does a fondness for one’s family or one’s nation.

May not “racism” be the moral equivalent to “family-ism” or “patriotism?”

However we choose to slice and dice this matter, the point is that “racism” is a vapid term that any thoughtful person should’ve abandoned long ago.

But there is another reason why this silly word should never spring from the lips of any self-professed lover of liberty: the word isn’t just silly, it is dangerous. 

In fact, “racism” has proven to be more inimical to liberty in our time than has any other.

It is under the pretext of combating “racism,” after all, that freedom of association, private property rights, “’states’ rights”—comprehensively, the principle of “equality under the law”—have been decisively routed.  Our national government has all but revoked the federal government ratified by our Founders.  To no slight measure, this has occurred in the name of securing “racial equality” (while generating more inequality than ever).

In fueling the notion that, to this day, white America remains consumed by “racism,” self-avowed “libertarians,” whether they realize it or not, hasten liberty’s extinction by exacerbating the steady impulse toward ever greater concentrations of power.

The verdict is unambiguous: Incessant chirping over “racism” is inimical to both good sense and freedom alike.



  • Apollo N. Morales

    I think the Libertarian reaction to Ferguson has been much worse than even the liberal reaction. Of course, you expect the left to be rabid and to take the evil side, but the Libertarians have gone beyond the pale. I think many Libertarians are so filled with white guilt AND a lust to gain political power that they will suck up to any group and compromise any basic moral principle in order to try to institute their politics.

    But how much better are the conservatives? To quote you,

    “anyone who is interested in thinking clearly and honestly must realize that “racism” is the rhetorical ware of bumper stickers and t-shirts: Because it means—and is intended to mean—all things to all people, it has become meaningless.”
    “Of course, no one knows why it’s supposed to be so terrible to be a “racist.” In and of itself, a “racist” could signify someone who has a special place in his heart, a certain partiality, toward the members of his own race. Yet such affection for the members of one’s race no more betrays a weakness in one’s character than does a fondness for one’s family or one’s nation.

    “May not “racism” be the moral equivalent to “family-ism” or “patriotism?”

    However we choose to slice and dice this matter, the point is that “racism” is a vapid term that any thoughtful person should’ve abandoned long ago.””

    While it might be true that racism is used in a dishonest manner, it does not mean that racism is an invalid concept. You take a completely illogical leap in your conclusion.

    I think you are representative of the anti-intellectuality of the modern conservative movement, instead of trying to clarify a concept and fight for their proper use, you instead you just want to abandon it to the liberals, and worse yet, you proposes that “racism” is just another type of bland collectivism, like valuing your larger extended family or your aunt Mary over your neighbor. When in reality racism is evil.

    Why not learn to combat the stream of conceptual fallacies that liberals produce? Why not challenge all the anti-concepts, stolen concepts,package deals, etc. that conservatives themselves accept, hook line and sinker. This is why the left has andis winning, and the government has grown for the last 100 years, because they set the terms of the debate and the right refuses to challenge those terms.

    It isn’t just the word racism that liberals have taken over and created to win “the debate”. Here is just a short list Extremism, McCarthtism, environmentalism, democracy, equality, fairness, and on and on. Should we discard those terms or accept them the way the left presents them?

    Here is a proper example on how to fight the left if you want a better representation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVQHBMNdk1Y

  • Mike Ibara

    Maybe he also contributed for his own death. Only if black people will learn to discipline themselves and stay away from bad influence on the street then they might have a better future. Let us also not forget that these people have done wrong in the society. Sometimes the consequences is even worse. “White Girl Bleed a Lot.”

  • Pingback: Ilana Mercer Takes Libertarians to Task on Ferguson | Conservative Heritage Times

Previous Posts

Abortion Reconsidered
Judith Jarvis Thomson is a veteran philosopher who, several decades ago, penned a thought-provoking essay that features in virtually all of the contemporary texts used in college-level ethics courses. Her objective is to show that what she takes to be the standard argument against abortion fails to

posted 8:08:09pm Sep. 30, 2014 | read full post »

ISIS: How You Know It's All Hype II
Recently, I cautioned my fellow Americans against falling for the notion that the so-called “Islamic State” is among the gravest threats, or any threat, that the United States had ever encountered. I noted that if the hyperbolic cries of politicians and their media propagandists in both parti

posted 8:37:02pm Sep. 27, 2014 | read full post »

ISIS: How You Know It's All Hype
There is much talk about “the Islamic State,” or “ISIS,” or “ISIL,” or whatever we are calling it. To listen to the talking heads, both Democrats and Republicans, one could be forgiven for thinking that these 15,000 or so Muslim butchers are the biggest threat that the Western world has

posted 8:05:29pm Sep. 24, 2014 | read full post »

The Politically Incorrect (?!) Language of the Politically Correct
It would seem that the Enlightened, i.e. those whose moral sensibilities are offended by the name of “Redskins” for a professional sports team, want to purge our language of every “racist,” “sexist,” “classist,” “imperialist,” “colonialist,” and “homophobic” word. The

posted 5:10:35pm Sep. 22, 2014 | read full post »

History, Not Ideology, is Our Guide for Iraq
While listening to Bill Bennett’s radio program the other morning, a caller, respectfully, yet passionately, expressed his incredulity over the fact that anyone continues to take the Bill Kristols and Max Boots (and, by implication, the Bill Bennetts) of the world seriously when it comes to issues

posted 8:13:07am Sep. 18, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.