Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Intolerant Anarchists
Browsing around different libertarian sites, I've noticed intolerance coming from some anarcho-libertarians. This intolerance takes two forms: political and cultural. The politically intolerant anarchist treats minarchists and constitutionalists as though they are evil. They act as though they were always anarchists and never held an incorrect belief. The goal of the liberty movement is liberty. You're not going to bring people into the movement if you challenge every little thing that they believe. This doesn't mean that you have to compromise your principles. You just have to recognize that people come to the anarchist viewpoint at different paces. This is why I like Gardner so much. He doesn't insult people who disagree with him. If someone's a constitutional conservative, he meets them on their own terms.
The cultural intolerance is also an impediment to getting new people into the movement. Most anarchists seem to be atheists or agnostics. Besides being rude, insulting a person's religion is not going to get people on our side. There should be no cultural litmus tests as to who is and who isn't a good libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that outlines when the use of force is appropriate. Calling people bigot,racist,anti-gay,prudes, etc. because they hold different cultural views is self-righteous and counterproductive. As long as these people eschew violence, they are libertarians.
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
Browsing around different libertarian sites, I've noticed intolerance coming from some anarcho-libertarians. This intolerance takes two forms: political and cultural. The politically intolerant anarchist treats minarchists and constitutionalists as though they are evil. They act as though they were always anarchists and never held an incorrect belief. The goal of the liberty movement is liberty. You're not going to bring people into the movement if you challenge every little thing that they believe. This doesn't mean that you have to compromise your principles. You just have to recognize that people come to the anarchist viewpoint at different paces. This is why I like Gardner so much. He doesn't insult people who disagree with him. If someone's a constitutional conservative, he meets them on their own terms.
Being a classical liberal I'm well of aware of the intolerance of anarcho-libertarians LOL
Anarcho-libertarians bang on about being free but its often as if you can't have the freedom to disagree with their perspective without having to endure their abuse.
One of the worse culprits unfortunately is Ian freeman of FTL
The cultural intolerance is also an impediment to getting new people into the movement. Most anarchists seem to be atheists or agnostics. Besides being rude, insulting a person's religion is not going to get people on our side. There should be no cultural litmus tests as to who is and who isn't a good libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that outlines when the use of force is appropriate. Calling people bigot,racist,anti-gay,prudes, etc. because they hold different cultural views is self-righteous and counterproductive. As long as these people eschew violence, they are libertarians.
I'm an atheist but I'm prepared to defend your right to believe in whatever & I'm prepared to do that at under the threat of death.
But do I think it's helpful that people worshiping mystical beings or using their belief in mystical beings to hate those who are homosexual? The answer is no I don't think its helpful & I'm going to say so, just as I'll say that bigotry in general is unhelpful.
No doubt that there are atheist bigots, I practically called Christopher Hitchens a bigot in the podcast Gard & I did just after New Year, because all flavours of bigotry tastes awful.
Measuring at 3.35 inches, this SparXXrX® bullet comes conveniently with a keychain – truly, what woman would not want to take her vibrator with her when she’s on the go? sparxx rx
Sometimes I wonder if my fellow anarchists have the same goal as I do. When I talk to non-libertarians, I tried to find common ground and demonstrate to them where they are being inconsistent. I don't fly off the handle and call them "kook", "conspiracy theorist", "bigot", "racist", "homophobe", "prude", etc. My goal is to win people over to my side, not to show the world that I'm holier than thou. Some people can be brought over when they are given the full anarchist package, but most can't. It's a slow process. I don't think that someone who is 90% in agreement with me is my enemy. What matters is the direction.
Let me expand a little more about the cultural issue. Many cultural issues have no bearing on politics. I find it rude and strategically stupid to challenge people on their cultural beliefs. A fundamentalist Christian can be just as good of a libertarian as libertine atheist. This point seems lost on many libertarians. They seem to think that opposition to political collectivism means that one has to be opposed to all forms of cultural collectivism. They believe that one has to be culturally accepting, not just tolerant of, every lifestyle. For example, I don't like tattoos, especially on women. Does that make me an intolerant? No, because I recognize the right of individuals to get tattoos.
Lysander,
I like the way you put it: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that outlines when the use of force is appropriate." Very succinct, but also very broad. As you and I have discussed before, I'm more a minarchist or classical liberal, but you and I would probably agree on about 99% of issues. I agree that the goal should be to simply wake people up and get them thinking about liberty, and hope that they become MORE libertarian rather than LESS libertarian.
Heck, at this point, I'd be happy if people simply stopped becoming less libertarian. First, I'd like to stop the federal takeover of healthcare. Then someday, we can worry about whether minarchism is preferable to anarchism. But if we don't slowly turn the ship around, we'll never get there, and giving people the impression that libertarians are cantankerous, argumentative jerks does nothing for the cause of liberty.
I agree. Too many libertarians, including myself, have been guilty of trying to bring people over to the libertarian position in one shot. And have acted rudely or insensitively when the other person didn't "get it". I have come to realize that that tactic only works about 10% of the time. What I have been trying to do is give people a spoonful at a time. Let them think about it. Another thing I do is try to point out where one of the positions contradicts their principles. I think it's better when someone figures things out for themselves and takes ownership of the "new" idea. Too many libertarians/anarchist, who happen to be atheists/agnostics, ironically sound just like the religious proselytizers that they despise.