Collective rights, petty debates and real pain.

Because many libertarians came to their philosophy from the Right they often bring with them a style of discussion that betrays their roots. While philosophically their position may be correct the way in which they express themselves conveys meanings they do not intend and alienate the people whom they are hoping to address.

Libertarians believe in individual rights. I have no problem with that. Rights do reside entirely in the individual. There is no such thing as collective rights, just the rights of the individual. So it would seem logical for a libertarian to shun terms like “woman’s rights” or “gay rights” or “minority rights,” etc.

We should be clear that people use the term “rights” in two different ways, and without clarifying which one is using can lead to unnecessary confusion. When a libertarian says that someone has “rights” they are referring to the ideal situation, not to the actual situation. It is to the libertarian vision of individual rights that they are referring.

This causes an immediate problem as others may be using the term to describe the actual legal state of rights, not the ideal state of rights. Yes, gay people have precisely the same rights as straight people in the ideal sense of the term. In the actual sense of the term they do not.

Two men, each identical in every important sense of the word, who attempt to join the military may be treated entirely differently if one of those men is gay and the other is not. There is an inequality of legal rights, even if in the ideal sense of the word the two men should have precisely the same rights. Similarly two couples will be treated very differently when it comes to marriage rights if one couple is gay and the other is straight. Legally the rights of gay people in America today are not co-equal to the legal rights enjoyed by their heterosexual siblings.

Often when the term “gay rights” is used it is a term meant to address the inequality of rights that exist, not the ideal sense of rights. It is an attempt to move the actual rights enjoyed by gay people to an equal plain with the rights enjoyed by straight people. The term “gay rights” is often used by someone who has no intention of creating a system of unequal rights. It is not a “special” right that is being sought but precisely the same rights that have been denied gay people by law. Similarly the term “women’s rights” is not generally meant to be a situation where women have different, or superior rights, but precisely the same rights as men. This does not mean that some people use the terms to disguise a campaign for unequal rights, but most people who use these terms do not mean that at all. More often than not their opponents are actually the advocates of unequal rights before the law, individuals who wish to reserve special privileges to a class, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Consider the likes of Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Roback Morse. They fight for a system of marriage rights that excludes one class of people—gay couples. They want legal privileges reserved to another specific class of people alone. Yet opponents of equality of rights argue that it is the gay couples that are seeking “special” rights, when in truth they are attempting to eradicate special rights in favor of equality of rights.

There is also another aspect of “rights” which libertarians simply tend to forget, or never realized. While it is true that a person does not have rights because he is a member of a specific group it is true that individuals frequently have their rights violated precisely because he is a member of a specific group.

A woman who is gay may ideally have precisely the same rights as any other adult, but she may be denied some of those rights because she is gay. Taxation may violate rights on a relatively equal basis. A general sales tax hurts everyone regardless of what group he may be a member of while Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell disqualifies individuals on the basis of a collective trait, not an individual one.

Racists attack blacks, or Jews, or foreigners, not on the basis of their individuality, but on the basis of some collective trait. Ayn Rand described racism as the “lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.” Rand is correct this is what racism does.

Modern prejudices or bigotries basically argue that an individual is not judged by his individual characteristics but simply because he is a member of some larger collective. Instead of judging on the basis of the content of their character the stigmatized individual is judged on the basis of his membership in some collective. Thus a woman may be deemed of lesser value because she is a woman, a black man may be treated like a criminal because he is black, and a gay man may be attacked physically or verbally simply because he is gay.

The bigot ignores all the aspects of the individual and instead focus on some shared collective trait. “All Muslims are... All homosexuals do... The problem with Jews is...” They don’t need to evaluate the individual because they assume the collective trait dominates. Thus all homosexual men are disqualified from the military, not because of any trait of the individual, but because of their group status. A Jew may be attacked, not because he or she has done anything wring, but just because they are Jew.

When individuals are attacked because of their group membership they will quite naturally and reasonable focus on how members of their group are being singled out for attacks. While the terms “gay rights” or “minority rights” or “woman’s rights” are not philosophical precise they are a reasonable response to the attacks these people suffer because they are members of groups. They are not singled out for attack on the basis of their individuality, but on the basis of a shared collective trait, usually one of no significance.

But, consider how libertarians respond to this understandable reaction by members of oppressed classes. The libertarian will often tend to ignore the fact that such people are being attacked for their membership in some larger collective. Instead of recognizing what is being conveyed they will attack the use of the collective rights terminology. So they will launch a high-sounding dismissal of the concept of “gay rights” while ignoring the way gay people are denied their rights due to the shared trait of their sexual orientation.

They are technically correct but they have defeated their own purpose. They are ignoring the real troubling issue at stake to concentrate on a less significant detail. By launching into a discourse on how rights are not collective traits they are not informing their listener about the nature of individual rights. They may mean to do that but they are not doing that. They are actually sending the message that they don’t care that the rights of certain people are being denied because of some collective trait. And that makes them sound like conservatives who are often the most vocal collectivists when it comes to denying equality of rights before the law.

The libertarian sentiment should naturally side with those who suffer oppression in a state or culture because of collective traits. Libertarians, who tend to be individualists, ought to be on the side of individuals who are being singled out because of collective, insignificant traits.

Libertarians ought to weigh the two sins being committed. On the one hand the victim uses a term that is imprecise and seems to convey that rights reside in collectives. On the other hand what they are addressing is how they are being harmed by a hate that singles them out collectively not individually. Of these two the violation of individual rights is surely far more severe than a loose use of a term.

The first reaction of the libertarian should be to acknowledge that an individual is having their rights violated due to a collectivist concept regarding who they are. First address the issues of the oppression and collectivist hate. Before you begin lecturing someone about loose terms address the real, significant violation of rights that these victims are attempting to convey. Don’t major on minors.

When I hear the terms “woman’s rights” or “gay rights” I see what people are attempting to convey, not a philosophical debate. Turning it into a philosophical debate ignores the pain and oppression that these people have experienced at the hands of bigots. That is what I would expect from conservatives, not from libertarians. Focus first on the main issues, defend the rights of the individual which are being violated, make an ally and a friend, and they worry about terminology. Put the intent of the phrase ahead of the literal interpretation and give the philosophy lecture after you are established your credibility.

Signs that the culture war is all but over.

The joke used to be that Lydon Johnson declared war on poverty and poverty won. Conservatives declared a culture war, and lost. I have long been convinced that we have entered a post-Christian America. I have argued that the independent voters are more libertarian than either Democrats and Republicans. With these shifts social attitudes will change.

Quite amazingly a recent poll showed men are now more sympathetic to equality of rights for gay people than women. For just about forever polls showed the opposite to be true.

Symbols are important in a culture, they send cultural messages to people which help them to form their values. So consider a couple such symbols.

The Chicago Cubs play at Wrigley Field, built in 1914. It is on the north side, not far from New Town, and only a few blocks from an apartment where I lived for a few years. The New Town was the chic, heavily gay area of the city, not so much where I was at, but more toward the lake. And it is in this area of the city that the annual Gay Pride parade is held.

The first gay pride festival I ever saw would have been in Chicago and I refuse to remember how many years ago it was. So, there you have Wrigley Field, the symbol of Chicago baseball, of masculine sports. And there you have New Town, dubbed Boy's Town by many because of its heavily male population. And, for all the time I lived in the area, never the twain were to meet. There was Wrigley Field in its isolation, like some giant fortress hung over the neighborhood and there was Boy's Town, as different as night and day.

This Sunday something different will happen as the Gay Pride parade weaves through Boy's Town. In the parade will be a float from the Chicago Cubs. Sports Illustrated noted that just that gesture alone would have won them new friends and fans. But the Cubs went farther than that. Riding the float will be Mr. Cubs himself, the legendary Ernie Banks.

In the world of symbols this gesture tells us just how much America has changed—and I think for the better, at least in this regard.

Chicagoans take their sports seriously and they have been a happy lot since the Chicago Blackhawks won hockey's Stanley Cup in a 2010 victory against the Philadelphia Flyers. A group of gay hockey players sent a letter to the Chicago Blackhawks inviting them to the Pride parade and the team accepted.

The decision was made to take the Stanley Cup into the Pride parade and display it along the route. Defenseman Brent Sopel volunteered to represent the team and will accompany the Cup. Sopel has said he intends to bring his wife and his four kids, Jacob 12, Lyla 8, Jayla 6, and Paul, 20 who was adopted three years when he lost both his parents. Sopel said he wanted to do this and is honored that he can.

Sopel said he was doing as his chance to honor Brendan Burke, the son the Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke. Brendan, who played hockey and helped manage a team at university admitted he was gay and many in the hockey world openly showed their support for him. He was killed in a tragic car accident not long ago. Sopel said:

"When Brendan came out, Brian stood by him, and his whole family stood by him, like every family should," said Sopel. "We teach our kids about accepting everybody. Tolerate everybody, to understand where everyone is coming from."

Blackhawks President John McDonough says he understands the symbolic power of the cup and "we recognize the importance of doing this." He made special arrangements to have the cup flown into Chicago, it was on display at the NHL draft in Los Angeles, earlier than scheduled because, "It's important for the city and important for the franchise."

Toronto will be holding its Pride parade as well and Brian Burke will be there. He will be marching the parade route with the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays group. Many people don't realize that the U.S. Olympics hockey team all wore name tags saying: "In memory of Branden Burke."

These are all just symbols but behind the symbols there is a shift of gigantic proportions taking place in America.

God-awful parents and a good mother

In the past I've discovered some pretty horrendous parents. There was the woman who used her adult son's stroke as an excuse to claim guardianship of him in order to forbid him from seeing his partner of 25 years—because her religion didn't approve of his lifestyle. And because there are no equality-of-marriage rights she got away with it.

Then there was the case of Derrick Martin who fought for his right to go to his school prom with the date of his choice: Richard Goodman. Since this was happening in rural Georgia, where possums are plentiful and brains scarce, Derrick's parents threw him out of the house.

While their are some god-awful parents out there, by which I mean parents who are awful because of their god this doesn't tell the story of all parents. There are actually good and decent parents in the world and they don't get enough publicity.

Consider Leesa Nixon as an example. What she did was not covered by the media. Leesa has five kids and lives in North Carolina, not precisely one of the centers of enlightenment. (That's Leesa on the left.)

The story begins with a boy named Chase, who is not related to Leesa. Chase had gone through the bureaucratic BS that schools impose these days to attend the prom dance. He turned in the paperwork and waited for permission. Instead he got called to the Principal's office.

Chase described the experience himself:

“Today, April 6, 2010 I was called into the Principal’s office, I was unaware of the reason at the time. When I entered the office, Mrs. Parker was in the room, sitting at her desk and so was Mr. Samuel, the Vice Principal. Mr. Samuel was sitting in the corner of her office. I went in and Mrs. Parker, the Principal, asked me to shut the door, which, I did.

Mrs. Parker then asked me to sit down, and I think I did, though I only remember standing, but I believe I sat down. Mrs. Parker then tells me, that she didn’t realize it until she looked at my permission form for prom again that I was planning to bring a boy to the prom or something like that, and then she informed me that I couldn’t bring a friend as my date.

Mrs. Parker stated, that it was because other people would want to bring friends and it’s a rule that they’ve had for a while now, that you could not bring friends to the prom. I informed Mrs. Parker that Jordan is not my friend, but my boyfriend and she replied that she knew my situation was different but she couldn’t let me bring him.

According to Chase the school suggested he bring a "back-up friend" who is female instead. Chase said he'd rather not attend if he couldn't bring a date. Leesa very quickly learned of the situation and intervened. "I called and spoke with his principal and informed her that not allowing Chase to bring his boyfriend to the prom was discrimination and a violation of his constitutionally protect rights. I threatened to call the ACLU, (which I did) and go to the media."

The school got hold of their attorney and decided to change their policy. But they couldn't bring themselves to accept that gay students date members of the same sex. So now all such dates are referred to as "guests" instead. Because the school left the matter alone it didn't get much publicity.

So why did Leesa Nixon intervene on behalf of Chase? Simple: she was protecting her son, Jordan. Jordan (left) and Chase (right) are dating. When Jordan was 14 he went to a gay couple, friends of the family, and told them he was gay. They told him that he really needed to tell his mother and that there was nothing to worry about. He did. Soon after he started dating Chase. And not only did he fall in love with Chase but his mother absolutely approves of his choice. Leesa says that Chase "is a part of my family. I love him so much! He is a wonderful person and I could not have picked a better person for my son to fall in love with, if I had made him myself!!!"

On her blog Leesa wrote:

My son came home from their house...I remember we didn't even make in the door before he said, "Mom, I need to tell you something." Well, I looked him straight in the eye and replied, "Your gay aren't you?" Shocked the living shit out of him!!!! Hey I didn't become Queen Faghag to my friends for my lack of gaydar!!!

My son just looked at me and said, "yes, how did you know?" I will admit I started to cry, not because he is gay, but because I was watching all my dreams of a look-a-like grandchild fly right out the window. (he is the only child that looks like me...in fact he is more like me then I readily admit..we even have the same taste in men.)

Truthfully, the main thing I felt was fear...fear that some asshole would find out my son was gay and kill him or hurt him in someway. He is so young and trusting! The thought of loosing him is terrifying. I love this child more then my life, it was never a question of accepting him just the way he is for me, but of protecting him from the crazy, bible thumping idiots in this world, who although their bible tells them not to...judge anyone and everyone who isn't just like them, harshly.

Leesa not only display a caring, loving attitude but a sense of humor as well. She wrote about a school sponsored over-nighter and how the teachers came to her because they weren't sure where to put Jordan. They wondered if he should share a room with girls instead of other guys. (If a school announced that policy every straight male in school would "come out" within in the hour.) Leesa first joked that they could put Jordan with the girls and "they would be perfectly safe" but then "I told them to put him with the other boys, that he was gay... not a rapist."

In another post she told of Jordan getting into a big fight with Chase right in front of her. "Unfortunately, for him, he was in the wrong and then had to spend the next 6 hours begging for forgiveness, just like a straight man." Jordan may have bite off more than he can chew. Mom is so pleased with his boyfriend she writes: "I live in fear that they will break up and Chase will no longer be around... I would miss him so much and I love like one of my own." I believe here. And actually I think that Chase and Jordan are very lucky. Leesa says that her son did buy a ring for Chased and popped "the big question... but they are still so young. I can only hope that are in forever because I couldn't ask for a better son-in-law!" This may also be the dream mother-in-law as well.

Given the bad news from some parents I felt that it proper to acknowledge a good parent as well.

As a libertarian I look a social relationships. Libertarianism is really all about how we treat one another—that none of us have the right to violate the life, liberty or property of others. Libertarianism requires us to respect others. Libertarianism restrains us, by forbidding us from violating the rights of others. In this sense it is an "other-directed" morality. True, it doesn't speak to many private matters. But I do think libertarian principles are good ones and useful within the family. Of course, religious fanatics like Jenny Roeback Morse, contend just the opposite, that the "laissez-faire family" is inherently deficient. (As expected she is also an antigay campaigner.)

It seems to be that Leesa is inherently libertarian in her parenting skills. She is respecting the fact that her son is gay and respecting his choices in his relationships. She is protecting his rights (and no government school has the right to discriminate) and supporting him. She is basically following a libertarian maxim: live and let live. But there is another derivation of that slogan that is equally libertarian and equally important: love and let love. And she has done that.

The Other is Us.

Humans have a concept of self and other. The other is not them. On an individual basis that makes sense. But humans tend to collectivize that concept. So we end up with “Us” and “Others.”

Defining the “Us” is difficult. So we take shortcuts, we define “Us” by an exclusionary rule: Us is not Other. Instead of trying to define what makes “Us” us, we concentrate on what makes us different from the Other.

Each of Us tends to assume that the Us group is good. It must be, we are part of it. So the Other must be not good, since they are not Us. If they are good they may well then be evil, or even a threat and danger. So every Us group tends to distrust and attack those it classifies as Other.

In human history the Us tended to be defined on arbitrary, nonsensical criteria. To be Us you were of our race, our nationality, spoke our language, or belonged to our religion. Those were basic categories of group. Each Us group tended to despise each Other group. Yet the moral character of the individual is not determined by which of these groups he happens to be born into. The German Us group distrusted the French Us group and neither trusted the British Us group.

Us groups benefit from the presence of the Other. If those who see themselves as Us feel threatened by the Other, whether the threat is real or imaginary matters not, they the Us group will tend to be more united. People will lock arms in the face of a common enemy. Political leaders have long known this to be the case, which is why they tend to invent common enemies who present a threat. Politicians raise the matter of “threats” in order to force their Us group to coalesce around them and give them the power they claim they need in order to face the dangerous Other.

To a large degree this tendency to define humans as Us and Other has led to a great deal of misery. Yet many individuals continually push this destructive concept. Such is the nature of the rabid fundamentalist or the patriotic nationalist.

But we don’t just engage in the Us and Other dichotomy on a global level but on a community level as well. In the United States, both the Right and the Left, try to use this Us/Other concept for their own political agenda. The Right will define immigrants as Other, or gays as Other. The Left demonizes businessmen or gun owners. The problem with Left-wing demonization is that it doesn’t resonate as well as does the Right-wing kind. It isn’t that the Left doesn’t engage in such practice, it’s just that they are not currently as good at it — no matter how hard Michael Moore tries.

That isn’t to say that the Left has not been very good at using the Other for political purposes. Contrary to common perception the main advocates of anti-Semitic hatred in the West were Left-wing theorists. What Hitler and the Nazis did was adopt a scapegoating technique used by people like Marx. Marx claimed that the spirit of capitalism was Jewish. The rabid anti-Semites of the 19th century were Marxists and socialists of various stripes. Hitler’s National Socialists merely appropriated a technique that had been used in European politics. And the anti-Jewish images he played on were ones used previously by Marx and others. It should be noted there was no shortage of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union under Communist rule either.

I was reading a description of a debate in New England where people were asked to testify on the matter of gay marriage. The author spoke of how confusing it was. Individuals that one would assume were against the equality of marriage rights stood up and defended them. Others, who people assumed to be supportive, were not. It became difficult to look out on the sea of faces and tell who was who.

One of the great difficulties that gay people have faced, in the battle for marriage equality, has been that so many gay people are in hiding. The closet, forged by centuries of violent political repression, is still strong. People enter this world with the assumption by everyone around them, that they are straight. When they aren’t it confuses things.

But this is precisely why I think that gays can win the battle. While silly old women like Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Morse try to define gays as the Other, and as a threat to the great Us, they face an insurmountable problem. Gay Others are not like Jewish Others. One does noit discover that one accidentally gave birth to Jew, but many parents do discover they have a gay child.

The hateful Religious Right tries to classify gays as the Other. But this Other is unlike most other Others. They are us. Gay people are our children, our cousins, our friends, and our neighbors. And as more and more realize that gays are not the Other, but Us, the Right loses its ability to stop the progress that is being made. This is a point that legal theorist Charles Fried, often called a conservative, tends to make in his interesting book Modern Liberty. Fried noted individuals could either imagine how they would feel if they were gay, and thus grant equal rights, or deny such rights. But the denial, he said, also means “to deny their humanity, which would be hideous, for we are talking of thinking, feeling human beings who are literally our brothers and sisters.”

There are so many Others who need to be included with Us. I think of the poor immigrants who are blamed so unfairly, and treated so badly, by the political Right and unionists and similar groups. Are they not Us as well? Are they not Us because they speak Spanish? Because their skin is browner than our own?

When the Abolitionists fought slavery they first had to destroy the concept that slaves were Others. The great liberal and pottery make, Josiah Wedgewood, created a symbol of a slave in chains with the motto “AM I NOT A MAN AND A BROTHER?”

Where is the dividing line between Us and Other? Is not the greater Us, the human race, sufficient? Why must we seek out Others and isolate them?

It isn’t that there are no differences. There are. And there are some that are important. The violent man, the one who would harm others, or destroy the lives of others, these are people worthy of shunning. But race, nationality, language, and other such criteria are not worthy of consideration.

What we need to do, and something we libertarians must always emphasize as individualists, is to stress the common humanity of each of us. We are all human. All Others are human. When we realize this simple premise we understand that the Other is Us. There is no distinction.

Let's put it to a vote.

A cute commercial from Ireland about the absurdity of putting the rights of people to a public vote.

Bureacrats have no right to discriminate.

In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan the so-called Justice Minister, Don Morgan, has announced they will entertain legislation to exempt marriage commissioners from having to perform same-sex weddings. The reason given is that this “respects” the freedom of religion of these state employees. Morgan said: “We also have rights of people that have deeply held religious beliefs, and if we can accommodate both sets of beliefs or both views... that would be our preferred course.”

Not long ago a fundamentalist Christian in England refused to perform civil unions for gay couples because it offends her religious beliefs.

There is some really confused thinking on this matter. This idea that the “rights” of antigay Christians are being violated is absurd. An employee is in a contractual relationship with their employer. They are hired to perform a specific job. If they refuse to perform that job, for any reason, then it is the right of the employer to remove them from that position.

What if gay employees of the state announced that they would not perform their job for anyone who was a born-again Christian? Would anyone argue that it is their “right” to do this and still keep their job?

That the beliefs in question are “religious” is of absolutely no consequence. The “religious beliefs” of a Christian are no more sacrosanct than the political beliefs of a socialist, or the ethical beliefs of a humanist. People have the right to believe anything they want. But, what they don’t have is a right to a specific job, if they are unwilling to do the work.

Any employer would have the right to fire workers who refuse to work, even if those workers pretend their temporary strike is inspired by God and that the Holy Ghost is directing them to the picket line.

While any employer is free to fire workers who refuse to do their jobs, whether on orders from Jesus or Marx, the government is in aposition which actually mandates that it fire such workers. A private employer may choose to accommodate the religious fantasies of their employees whenever they want. Government may not. A church has the right to refuse to perform marriages for any reason. It may discriminate against others on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. But government employees are not private individuals but public servants. What a minister does in his church is one thing, what a Christian does in his job in government is quite another.

The difference is that government agencies are tax-supported. If an agency is going to give one class of citizens second rate service then it shouldn’t tax them. Government agencies are supported by tax money and there is no way for those who are discriminated against by it to avoid paying for that agency. If a particular grocery store refused to serve gay customers those customers could go elsewhere. But government is a monopoly provider. As such it has no right to discriminate and a positive obligation not to do so.

There are all sorts of prejudiced people in the world and they imagine all sorts of fantastical reasons to justify their petty and stupid beliefs. There are churches that still teach that black people are “beasts of the field” and that Jews are the “children of Satan.” Would a member of that church, who is employed in a state agency, have the right to refuse service to blacks and Jews? If not, why not? Does the right to refuse service, on the grounds of religious fantasies, only apply in some cases but not others? Is there a reason that antigay Christians are given exemptions from their jobs while religiously-inspired bigots of other kinds are denied those same rights?

Can a religiously-inspired firefighter refuse to douse the flames of the home of a gay couple? Can a Jesus-saturated police officer refuse to protect that gay couple from violence merely because he disproves of their “sinful lifestyle?” What if gay firefighters let churches burn and gay police officers turned their backs on Christians? Could a gay marriage commissioner refuse to perform marriages for Baptists?

Rights go in both directions. If a Christian bureaucrat can refuse service to gay taxpayers then why can’t gays refuse to pay taxes?

This is not a matter of Christians having their rights respected. There simply is no such thing as a right to a government pay check. They ought to have the right to seek state employment on the same terms as everyone else. And everyone else is expected to do the jobs for which they are hired. What we have here is a demand by Christians to gain special rights, that is rights that other groups are not allowed to have.

If this law is passed Christian bureaucrats can refuse service to the gay citizen but gay bureaucrats would not be free to refuse service to Christian citizens. It is clear that Christians are seeking a special privilege, not equal rights.

The libertarian would abolish most of these positions, given their druthers. But while those positions exist then the bureaucrats who hold those positions are not entitled to deny service based on their own prejudices—no matter what the source of those prejudices may be. As long as those positions exist, and I hope it won’t be long, they should be open to any citizen who has the ability to do the work in question. If they are unwilling to do the job, either all the time or some of the time, then they deserve to be fired. If a religious fanatic wishes to work for the state they have to do so on exactly the same terms as all other employees.

A libertarian look at Harvey Milk.

Above is a 90-minute documentary The Times of Harvey Milk. Milk, though he was once a Goldwater supporter, came on to the American political scene as a candidate of the Left. So why would a libertarian admire and respect Milk?

There is a false assumption, a grossly false assumption, that libertarianism is some sort of Right-wing philosophy. I would assert most strongly, it is not. Properly understood libertarianism in its “classical liberal” incarnation was the original Left wing of politics. The Right wished to “conserve” the prevalent social order. Liberals did not. They wished to reform it in many different way including ending the feudal system, abolition of the church/state alliance and ending the government coddling of certain business interests through subsidies, monopolies and protectionism. There was very, very little which classical liberals though worthy of conserving. The advocates of conserving the social order were called conservatives and their method for doing so was the use of State force.

When the socialists arose they embraced many of the goals that true liberals were seeking. But these socialists thought it possible to achieve liberal ends through the use of State force, in other words while adopting liberal goals they clung to conservative means. As the socialist/communist movement evolved certain erroneous premises which they had embraced pushed many into a totalitarian camp. At that point these “Leftists” had ceased seeking even liberal ends and had become full-fledged conservatives preserving the political power structure through coercive means.

This created a crisis within the political Left. Many in the Left still passionately embraced the ends of the classical liberals. They opposed the totalitarianism of the conservative Left yet they were having problems giving up the idea that state power was the best method of achieving liberal goals. Most of modern Leftists, Harvey included, fall into this category. For the libertarian they are as confused as the modern conservative. Neither consistently advocates freedom yet neither consistently wants to undermine it. Whether their premises undermine such freedom is a different matter, but neither does so intentionally, with the exception of the more extreme elements.

Conservatives today want economic liberalism but shy away from social liberalism. Socialists and Progressives want social liberalism, and the results of economic liberalism but cling to State power. So, for the true libertarian, both the Left and the Right share similar flaws and have similar virtues. But many libertarians, who came from the Right, still cling to irrational hatred for the Left. This blinds them to the common ground that libertarians share with our friends on the Left.

A rational discussion of modern politics, from a libertarian perspective, requires us to understand, and appreciate, the common ground that we share with the Left as well. Yet this is inadequately done.

It is from this perspective that I wish to discuss the impact of Harvey Milk.

One thing that is clear from this documentary is that Harvey did passionately believe in trying to help those who were hurt, or oppressed, by the legal/political system of his day. He spoke of the needs of the various minorities to work together to defend their rights. This passion comes right out of the historical natural of classical liberalism. Unfortunately it is a passion that many libertarians have forgotten, to the detriment of libertarianism in general.

Classical liberalism originated, not as an economic philosophy, but as a philosophy that defended the rights of minorities. Freedom of religious dissent was a battle that the nascent liberals were fighting well before Adam Smith penned his Wealth of Nations (1776). Milton’s neo-liberal defense of free speech, Areopagitica, was published in 1643. John Locke’s essay, A Letter Concerning Toleration, was published in 1689. Both of these documents, while pushing boundaries for freedom, still made compromises to state control that modern libertarians (or many left-liberals) would no longer make. But certainly in their day they were radical calls for expanding individual freedom.

It should be remembered that these early liberals, arguing for expansion of freedom of thought, faced obstacles that later economic liberals did not face. While advocates of free trade were opposed by the landed interests and big business of the day, they did not face the Holy Inquisition, trials for heresy, mob violence, or execution. Of course, even today, modern libertarians find it easier to defend economic liberalism as “conservatives” will still do their level best to punish us for any forays into social liberalism—hence the reason so many “libertarian” think tanks and organizations don’t talk about the social aspects of freedom. But, for a libertarian to avoid social freedom, it is like a sprinter trying to run with just one leg. You can do it, but is it really worth the effort?

Classical liberals were in the forefront of the Abolitionist movement, a cause that was very unpopular when they started. But the evil of human slavery, defended by Scripture and conservative interests, was eventually abolished. After the successful campaigns regarding religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and the abolition of slavery, we see the first real move toward economic liberalism. Freedom of markets did not lead the liberal movement until the creation of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839—slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 but Vermont had banned it in 1777 and Massachusetts in 1783.

Even when Richard Cobden and John Bright, created the Anti-Corn Law League the emphasis of much of their work was on the dire effects that state protectionism had on the working classes and the poor. Much of the impetus for promoting economic freedom was that it was necessary if poverty and hunger were to be abolished. That passion, to see the most vulnerable in society, made better off was a primary motivation of our liberal forefathers. And even our promotion of economic freedom was intimately tied to this desire.

State power always has been, and always will be, the sanctuary of the rich and powerful. It protects them from the competitive nature of markets and from the wishes and will of the consumers and workers. This is why true liberals have opposed efforts by pseudo-liberals on the Left to expand state power. We believe that such power is inherently counter-productive and destructive to the well being of all of but a rich and powerful elite. Such power structures, however, are particularly destructive to the well being of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

True liberalism was aligned with European movements that sought to end the ghettoization of the Jews, something promoted by the Church and religious elements of society. Liberalism worked to extend the franchise and legal rights to women. It was closely involved with the movement to extend equal rights before the law to African-Americans as well. And, for all ages, classical liberalism was a major force in opposition to imperialism and war.

Classical liberalism has always been about the emancipation of all people and the legal equality of all people, in regime of freedom. Economic liberty is incredibly important, but not as an end in itself. Economic freedom is necessary to achieve the social goals of classical liberalism. Economic freedom means that the power elites can’t confiscate the wealth of the working classes. Economic freedom makes emancipation of the Jews, women, gays, and even “illegal” immigrants possible. Economic freedom is always a necessary component in the real liberal’s agenda: the full emancipation of the individual to live their life, as they wish, provided they respect the equal rights of others. Economic freedom is the means to the social goals of liberalism. Classical liberals would argue that economic freedom is the necessary means for achieving those goals.

When one studies the life of Harvey Milk one finds that the passions he shared were, for the most part, liberal passions—and I mean classical liberal passions. In his short political career he broke ground for the rights of gay and lesbian people and opposed the horrendous efforts of the bigots around the Briggs Initiative. It should also be noted that many libertarians were very active in the campaign against Briggs and that the libertarian-leaning Ronald Reagan even opposed the measure and wrote an editorial against it.

Previously I quoted Nathaniel Branden as saying:

I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country.

Never mind that the Leftists had their own motives for doing so and that those motives would not be the motives of Libertarians. The fact remains that we should have never have involved ourselves in Viet Nam, the draft is evil, and racism is contemptible. Libertarians—the true defenders of individual rights—should have been the first to speak up on these subjects, loudly and clearly and publicly.

I don’t mean that these are the only issues to which Libertarians should address themselves. Far from it. But it would have been immensely important had Libertarians been the first to speak up on these problems. I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country.

It is vital, if modern libertarianism or classical liberalism is to remain true to its roots, that we revive this passionate defense of those most under threat by the expansion of state power. We are the only consistent advocates of freedom for the oppressed and the powerless. And when we see others, even those who fail to understand the link between social and economic freedom, who are passionate about individual rights we ought to applaud them and encourage them. There were aspects to Harvey’s political program that real liberals could not support. But we can appreciate his passion for the oppressed and embrace that aspect of who he was. We can acknowledge the important role he played in helping further individual rights in modern America. We can do these things—and we should.

The Left/Right assault on individual rights moves ahead.

No doubt conservatives are applauding the decision of the California Supreme Court. And while I don’t think that decision will mean the demise of equal marriage rights in California, I don’t think the decision is a good one. And, surely any conservative that believes in individual rights (and there must be a couple such creatures left in existence) shouldn’t applaud the decision.

There is much in this decision that ought to scare the shit out of anyone who believes in rights. Let’s look at just a couple of points.

The court said that the Attorney General, who supported the overturning of Prop 8, “characterizes certain rights as ‘inalienable’.” The court responds that, “the ‘inalienable nature of a constitutional right never has been understood to preclude the adoption of a constitutional amendment that limits or restricts the scope or application of such a right.”

The term “inalienable” means: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. But not in California. All inalienable rights in California apparently are alienable after all. A right that cannot be transferred is one that no one can transfer, including a vote of the majority of the voters. What the California court seems to be saying is that the very concept of “rights” is non-existent and all that anyone enjoys are legal privileges, which may be repealed anytime the dominant power in the state wishes to do so.

Of course the initiative process was pushed through in California in 1911, during the heyday of the Progressive movement there. It was a Left-wing “reform” which basically enshrined majority rule as the dominant principle. I don’t mean majority rule in the sense of the majority being able to elect officials. I mean that the majority can decide what rights the minorities have. That idea would horrify the Founders but the Progressives liked it.

What the Progressives liked about popular referendums was that they felt they could around Constitutional restraints on government power that way. Constitutions tended to limit state power and Progressives wanted big government with expansive powers. They argued that “the people” had unlimited powers and could do virtually anything they wished. Therefore “the people” could give the state such powers. Our Founders, of course, argued that while government comes from the people that there are rights, which precede, and are superior, to all government.

These rights, said the Founders, were inherent in human nature. The term “natural rights” was often used to explain them. They argued that since rights precede government that the purpose of government is protect such rights and that no government, not even one supported by the majority, could properly trespass on those rights. “Not so,” screamed the Progressives. And joining them in that chorus are the modern day conservatives.

The court actually noted that the Attorney General “cites selected excerpts from a number of mid-19th-century opinions that gave voice to the natural-rights jurisprudence that was common in that era.” To be fair, this “natural-rights jurisprudence” was also common to the Founding Fathers and inspired such things as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But, don’t worry say the Republican justices in California: “As pointed out in the response filed by interveners, however, the expansive natural-rights jurisprudence of that time long has been discredited….”

The “interveners” were those individuals who supported Prop 8. At least one of them, if not all of them, were thus arguing in the Supreme Court that there are no such things as rights, just legal privileges which the state, in the form of the majority, may take away whenever they feel like it. That is what conservatives were arguing in order to indulge their antigay passions. In a second passage the court says: “The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years….”

The justices said that while Constitutions often, I would say normally, restrict the power of majorities to strip minorities of their rights, “the California Constitution contains no such restraints” which “place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process…”

The concept of rights is not just a limitation on the powers of the state but also limitations on the powers that one person may exert over another person. Rights mark boundaries where no one, not even majorities are allowed to trespass. When conservatives are arguing that this doctrine is “discredited” and that majorities may do whatever damn well they please, then conservatives have joined the most radical wings of the Progressive movement.

In many ways this ruling had the world upside-down. Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, was appealing to natural rights and limitations on the power of majorities, while the conservatives were arguing for expansive powers for the state and claiming that natural rights are discredited and may be ignored. In the long run I suspect the conservative/Progressive theory will continue to dominate the courts since so many judges, as political appointees, are beholden to the powers that be. Since the Progressive/conservative alliance against individual rights loosens the reins of government power the political elites will tend to be drawn to this theory. After all, this theory says they may pretty much do what they wish since rights are a quant fiction from the 19th century.