Reason accuses Krikorian of racism because he hat-tipped me

(Note: see, after the initial entry, my reply to Ken Hechtman’s demand that the left, which he says is now in charge of the culture, show patience and tolerance toward non-leftists.)

An e-mail I just sent to Mark Krikorian:

Oh boy, Mark, you’ve really done it now. You’ve copied the text of the Univision interview of Sarah Palin from a post at my site, which in fact I SENT TO YOU, as I sent it to my entire e-mail list, but the fact that you gave me a hat tip for it means, according to Michael Moynihan writing at Reason magazine, that YOU READ MY SITE, which means that you ARE ASSOCIATED WITH all my evil views, on racial differences in intelligence, on differences between men and women, the whole bit! And not only are you associated with my views, but you APPROVE of them, because, as Moynihan puts it, you “approvingly” linked and hat-tipped VFR. This “approving” link and hat tip consisted of: “(h/t Auster).” Furthermore, the name of Moynihan’s article is “The Company You Keep.” Meaning that by copying a transcript of a TV interview that was copied at my site, and that was sent to you by e-mail, you are keeping my company.

And this is from the magazine called REASON!!!!! A magazine devoted to LIBERTY!!!!

We knew about guilt by association. Now we have guilt by hat tip.

P.S. Delete this e-mail as soon as you read it. They’re comin’ for ya!

P.P.S. I’ve always said that Randians and libertarians are Communists turned inside out. Moynihan’s article proves it.

- end of initial entry -

Ken Hechtman writes:

In a free country I expect to be called to answer for what I write. I do not expect to be called to answer for what I read.

LA replies:

Well put. [See my further reply KH’s point here.]

But this ought to make you question your leftism. Because leftism leads ineluctably to the mental slavery you fear.

Ken Hechtman replies:

“Ineluctably”? I wonder about that.

As the fictional Bill Clinton famously said in Primary Colors “If it’s clean then we win because our ideas are better”. We don’t need to muzzle anybody. We’re right, you’re wrong and in a free and fair exchange of ideas that’ll come out.

Seriously though, the left itself now has to undergo a change no less drastic than the one it wishes on everybody else. We’re now the culture, you’re now the counter-culture. We now have to practice the same patience and tolerance and open-mindedness we used to demand from everyone else.

LA replies:

If the left has to change so drastically, if the change that is required in the left in order for the left NOT to be oppressive to non-lefltists is as radical as the change that the left wants to impose on the rest of society, i.e., a change in the very nature of the society, then you are saying that the left is naturally oppressive toward non-leftists, which means that this change in the left that you hope for is extremely unlikely to happen. Further, the change the left wants to carry out on the rest of society can only be carried out through force and coercion, for example, by using state power to take away the natural freedom of doctors and patients to do business with each other as they choose, to turn physicians and other medical personnel into de facto or de jure agents of the state and patients into clients of the state. To deprive people of their natural freedom, force is needed. To attempt to change the very nature of something into its opposite, to change a free society into an unfree society, the coercive power of government, backed by police power, the power to arrest people and put them in jail, is needed. From which it follows that the only way to get the left to change its nature and get it to respect the freedom and rights of non-leftists, would be through the exercise of the police power of the state on the left. But since the left, according to you, is now already in charge of the society and controls the police power of the state, how likely is it that this police power will be used against the left?

Which points to a fundamental and incurable problem of the left: the left contains no principle within itself (a principle analogous to the restrictive power of the original U.S. Constitution on the powers of the U.S. government) by which it can restrict its own hungry impulse to transform and control the world. The left can only keep seeking greater and greater power, until the society is impoverished and rendered unworkable and the leftist system breaks down. Thus the leftist tolerance for non-leftists that you hope for is another of your pipe dreams, along with your dream of a world without nations and borders.

LA continues:

As an example of the inherent dynamic of the left toward greater and greater tyranny, consider the Sexual Orientation Regulations in Britain, which prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services in Great Britain. The language is categorical. At the time the law was passed, Catholic adoption agencies appealed for an exemption so that they would not be forced to adopt to homosexuals. The government after mulling it over replied that the language of the SOR was clear and allowed for no exceptions. Melanie Phillips said that the refusal of the government to exempt Catholic adoption services from the reach of the anti-discrimination law, which meant forcing Catholic institutions either to approve of homosexual adoptions or to go out of business, meant that Britain was no longer a liberal society. She was right that Britain is no longer a liberal (i.e., a free) society, but it wasn’t the government’s refusal to provide an exemption to the SOR that made Britain no longer free, it was the SOR itself. The prohibition of discrimination means the end of freedom, period. But the prohibition of discrimination (or, more precisely, the prohibition of discrimination by traditional majorities against favored minorities) is the central idea of modern liberalism. The case exemplifies the idea that there is nothing within liberalism by which it can moderate its own tyrannical logic.

Gintas writes:

Have you seen the comments over there at “Reason”? Such tough words!

You know how every movement has the occasional kook or radical that just ruins everything by going all out overboard? It’s almost a sign of an authentic movement. Look at all those courageous anarchists, anti-statists, gun-defenders, tax-fighters in Libertarianism; why, somewhere, sometime, after all these years the odds are the Libertarian movement would spawn at least one radical libertarian who would go off half-cocked and shoot up an IRS office or wreck a census effort or blow up a polling station, do something crazy violent that has to do with, you know, anarchism and anti-statism and fighting the government. But has any Libertarian ever done such a thing? No, and why is that? Because Libertarians have already gone off half-cocked—by becoming Libertarians. There’s nothing left but to talk big on the web.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes from Canada:

I know that Ken Hechtman’s views have been discussed at length in previous entries, but this phrase really stuck out for me in his most recent interaction:

We’re right, you’re wrong and in a free exchange of ideas that’ll come out.

I wonder if he thinks this when Sikhs insist on being Sikh, and have no interest in a “free exchange of ideas,” in the one-world amalgam of a borderless Canada that he dreams of? Does he really think that Muslims will give him a “free exchange of ideas” when their life depends (spiritually, and often literally) on a non-free exchange of ideas as commanded by the holy Koran?

In the end, just like those he advocates for, Ken Hechtman will have to insist dictatorially and dogmatically on his perspective of the world through a mandated “free exchange of ideas.” So much for that concept!

By the way, I read quite a large part of the above-linked exchange KH had at VFR, “What do liberals want?”, and it was an eye-opener. I think credit can only be given to you (and of course to Ken for obliging) for allowing such an insightful and open discussion to take place; the “free exchange of ideas” that KH envisions. But I think KH has been spoiled into thinking that he will get this across the board.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 24, 2008 07:29 PM | Send