Cathy Reisenwitz was on Voluntary Virtues the first hour to discuss gender, race, individualism, and much more. It turned into a discussion about whether we should focus on race or not.
-Some take the individualistic approach in which they want to live free from past mind barriers (racism) and just seeing everyone as individuals instead of groups or niches… not wanting to play the “race game” and treating people as individuals without labels,… being the change they want to see in the world. They try to limit use of devise terminology that creates and perpetuates the division in the first place.
-Some take the pluralistic approach of using racial and gender based terminology that would be required to point out the infringements of freedom that racism has led to, in order to pull in people who still think in terms of these groups and niches, into the freedom “movement”.
(I hope I adequately represented both sides.)
Neither side denied race nor racism existed,… just a discussion on how to end racism from a group of voluntaryists who understand that all humans should be equal under non-aggression and property rights. Good discussion…
Last week Chris Cantwell posted an article explaining how Cathy Reisenwitz doesn’t quite understand libertarianism, and is still stuck in the dogma of race and gender collectivism. I read some of Cathy’s articles and was shocked to see some of the things I saw coming from her various blogs. Before I get into what I read, I first want to apologize to Cathy. I called her a few names I shouldn’t have and it was completely unprofessional. As many of you know, I take individual freedom personally. After all, a lack of clear language is what enables the state, and what leads to thousands of children being bombed and victimless crimes and legalized theft, etc… all the bad of the state comes from a lack of communication and a lack of clear language. When I see someone who claims the mantle of libertarianism (free will and voluntary association), and then goes completely against libertarianism , it gets me a little heated under the collar. Needless to say I have reason to take issue with her statements, but my reaction was out of line.
So what exactly did Cathy write/say that got me and thousands of other principled libertarians so upset with her? The 3 reasons I was upset with Cathy are below…
1) Cathy has stated that “shaming others is coercion”, but this is not true and please give me a second to explain. I think it’s important to start with definitions. The definition of coercion is, “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The definition of threat is, “a statement (or action) of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.”
…but shaming is NOT coercion, shaming does not “use force or threats” (a statement of intention to inflict injury)… it’s simply a form of personal association. Voluntary association is the backbone of you and your grandchildren’s freedom. I will summarize the rest of this point in point #3, but next…
2) Cathy writes articles in defense of states rights (although I agree with her that federal tyranny is horrible)… you can’t defend ANY state and be a true libertarian, as every state must infringe on property to exist in the first place. I don’t respect state laws,… only victim based laws. The rest of the victimless crime state laws are tyranny and should be rejected by everyone, not defended in a plea to look favorable to minarchist organizations. Watering down the message of freedom does not help advance the message of freedom.
3) Cathy writes “I would argue that denying someone goods or services on the basis of their sex, gender, orientation, religion, etc. is a curtailment of their liberty”
Liberty is the right to not be infringed upon, to be secure in person and property.
Voluntary association (the act of including and excluding someone) however, does not infringe on another person’s property nor body… they have not been deprived their freedom, … they haven’t been harmed by another person, just excluded, and exclusion is a part of voluntary interaction and personal choice.
I agree racism and sexism and all that collectivist groupthink nonsense is ridiculous, but to come out and say that voluntary interaction “is a curtailment of liberty” only goes to show that she doesn’t truly understand the free market and peaceful interaction.
Cathy is basically saying that voluntary interaction is involuntary interaction… that you can’t have freedom because it might infringe on someone else’s freedom.
This is a serious threat to freedom, just as if someone was stating you can’t use self-defense because it aggresses on someone else.
This is fuel for tyrants, not freedom lovers, and this line of thinking needs to be eradicated from as many human minds as possible if we are to find a world resembling a more peaceful coexistence, a world of freedom.
I welcome Cathy onto my Voluntary Virtues show this upcoming Tuesday night so we can discuss these topics, maturely and civilly.