Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Fascist libertarians

Crooked Timber links to and samples from a couple of Corey Robin posts on Hayek's support for Pinochet and other un-democratic preferences. He didn't support apartheid per se, but thought South Africa was being unfairly punished, and that boycotts and embargoes could lead to "wholesale destruction of international
economic order". He defended Portugal's dictator Salazar as well, while von Mises defended Fascism as saving civilization.

Then of course there's Hans Hermann-Hoppe, monarchist apologist, but to be fair he's cited by libertarians far less than Hayek or Mises.

See the comment count unavailable DW comments at http://mindstalk.dreamwidth.org/327988.html#comments


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 12th, 2012 08:44 pm (UTC)
defended Fascism as saving civilization.

but only the parts they agreed with and liked.
Jul. 12th, 2012 09:33 pm (UTC)
ISTR, when I still paid attention to libertarian rhetoric to any significant degree, the phrase "tyranny of the majority" as an anti-democracy talking point.
Jul. 12th, 2012 10:23 pm (UTC)
That one's live, and I think ancient (Wikip says John Adams, then Tocqueville, then JSMill)[1], and not at all restricted to libertarians. See conservatives defending the electoral college and senate, or leftists worried about minority rights under direct democracy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Jul. 12th, 2012 10:27 pm (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying the concept is per se without merit (and, indeed, is implicitly part of sociological and economic privilege); it's more that I've seen right-libertarians, in particular, drag it out to imply democracy is inherently fatally flawed, typically to imply support for anarcho-capitalism.
Jul. 12th, 2012 10:32 pm (UTC)
I think the phrase is overrated myself; the flipside is tyranny of the minority, which for the rich minority already has a lot going for it. And the minority concerned about was often the rich and property-holders... Just noting that while libertarians use it a lot, so does almost everyone else.
Jul. 13th, 2012 12:29 am (UTC)
you don't often come across a genuine tyranny of the majority. Instead it's usually minorities - or even individuals - claiming to speak on behalf of majorities, who are themselves most often unknowable and/or unreachable.

...as for one or another writer or actor jumping in directions we no longer like, I've given up trying to trace such things. I only worry about what each individual utterance says. You can tell if it has tyranny bound up in it by reading it or seeing what people do with it. So, for instance, if Heidegger worked as a Nazi and also liked walks in the woods, I don't think that reduces the value of walks in the woods or of stuff Heidegger wrote.
I think you have to judge all of those things on their own merits and content (and I find Heidegger mostly incomprehensible and/or mystical and therefore not very valuable, but also not inherently dangerous or Nazi-leaning).

I went on this long detour because I've found the Crooked Timber writers don't often take this line.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )


Damien Sullivan

Latest Month

July 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner