In the past week, I have come to see a number of interesting and not so interesting Characters on Facebook, due to the discussion group started up by Christopher Cantwell called “Libertarian Brutalism”. This discussion form is a place for all sorts of people, mainly brutalists to join and give their views in an environment free from censorship. It has basically dissolved into a free-for-all, almost to the point that it has its own aura of being Facebook’s version of 4chan. Due to the influx of the number of members in the group, and the possibility that some readers of this blog have never heard of me, I thought it would be wise to define the meaning of these terms, their historical context, and clear confusion over what it means to be a Brutalist, because quite frankly, some people just don’t know.
The phrase Libertarian Brutalism or Brutalist Libertarians stems from a drawn out debate between those libertarians who have incorporated leftist ideology and insist that libertarianism is much more than just the non-aggression principle. This was originally classified as “thick libertarianism” by Charles Johnson and other left libertarians. In fact Reason magazine’s Sheldon Richman did an article six days ago stating that libertarianism is much more than just the non-aggression principle; this article can be read here. Thomas E. Woods, a libertarian celebrity wrote a blog piece defending what “thick libertarians” classified as “thin libertarianism”. “Thin Libertarianism” was once just classified as “libertarianism”. Thin libertarians claim that libertarianism is only about the proper role of physical force, and nothing else. Following a back and forth between several libertarians content producers, Jeffery Tucker joined ranks among the Thick libertarians and wrote an entire article in which he labeled himself and all those like him as “humanitarian” and the “thin libertarians” as Brutalists. These labels were particularly meant to turn people away from the thin aspect of libertarianism, making them believe that “brutalists” are somehow less compassionate, libertine, and a whole host of other things why the “humanitarians” are all righteous defenders of decency. Unfortunately for him Christopher Cantwell wrote a response piece that was later published by FEE, in which Cantwell defended Libertarian Brutalism and wore the title with honor, noting that simple architecture of the ancients were considered “brutal”. It may not be aesthetically pleasing, but it is architecture that functions for the purpose of which it was designed. The same for Libertarian Brutalism, it may not be aesthetically pleasing, sure we believe that one can be a libertarian and be a fucking bigoted asshole. We also believe that one can perfectly be a libertarian and be friendly to almost everyone you meat. It may not be aesthetically pleasing to to that some people are racist cunts, but as long as they don’t aggress against the property rights of another, they can do whatever they damn please.
Brutalism is not about Vulgarity
While those on the left want to make libertarianism into something it is not by adding onto it a list of things that in and of themselves have nothing to do with libertarianism, some within our ranks who call themselves “brutalists” seem to think Brutalism is a code word for “vulgar”. They deride anyone who has any sense of an ethical conduct or value a woman for something more than a sex object as “humanitarian”. Sorry, but just because you are an asshole to everyone and vulgar to woman does NOT make you a Brutalist. Brutalism is not about vulgarity, while we may allow it, and even engage in it, that is not what brutalism is. Brutalism is nothing more than the relabeling of what used to just be called “libertarianism.” Brutalism is the philosophical position that libertarianism asks one and only one question: “When is it okay to use physical force”? And the answer is always the same answer: “In defense of property”. Libertarianism is about nothing more than that. Libertarians can personally despise racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other kind of bigotry and separate from those who engage in such bigotry, but LIBERTARIANISM is silent on the issue, libertarians can be personally anti-religious or anti-atheists, but LIBERTARIANISM is silent on the issue of religion. Individual libertarians can be downright vulgar or just plain conservative in their demeanor and sexual behavior, but the philosophy of libertarianism doesn’t have anything to add to individual ethical preferences and behavior. Having an ethical code that one lives by or a respect for women as free thinking intelligent human beings and more than just a sex object doesn’t make one a humanitarian no more than be an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and being vulgar make you a Brutalists. In fact all that behavior makes you; is a fucking cunt that needs to learn how to respect people as people.
In Divine Anarchy,
Matthew Mencel (מתתיהו בן אברהם).
The phrase Libertarian Brutalism or Brutalist Libertarians stems from a drawn out debate between those libertarians who have incorporated leftist ideology and insist that libertarianism is much more than just the non-aggression principle. This was originally classified as “thick libertarianism” by Charles Johnson and other left libertarians. In fact Reason magazine’s Sheldon Richman did an article six days ago stating that libertarianism is much more than just the non-aggression principle; this article can be read here. Thomas E. Woods, a libertarian celebrity wrote a blog piece defending what “thick libertarians” classified as “thin libertarianism”. “Thin Libertarianism” was once just classified as “libertarianism”. Thin libertarians claim that libertarianism is only about the proper role of physical force, and nothing else. Following a back and forth between several libertarians content producers, Jeffery Tucker joined ranks among the Thick libertarians and wrote an entire article in which he labeled himself and all those like him as “humanitarian” and the “thin libertarians” as Brutalists. These labels were particularly meant to turn people away from the thin aspect of libertarianism, making them believe that “brutalists” are somehow less compassionate, libertine, and a whole host of other things why the “humanitarians” are all righteous defenders of decency. Unfortunately for him Christopher Cantwell wrote a response piece that was later published by FEE, in which Cantwell defended Libertarian Brutalism and wore the title with honor, noting that simple architecture of the ancients were considered “brutal”. It may not be aesthetically pleasing, but it is architecture that functions for the purpose of which it was designed. The same for Libertarian Brutalism, it may not be aesthetically pleasing, sure we believe that one can be a libertarian and be a fucking bigoted asshole. We also believe that one can perfectly be a libertarian and be friendly to almost everyone you meat. It may not be aesthetically pleasing to to that some people are racist cunts, but as long as they don’t aggress against the property rights of another, they can do whatever they damn please.
Brutalism is not about Vulgarity
While those on the left want to make libertarianism into something it is not by adding onto it a list of things that in and of themselves have nothing to do with libertarianism, some within our ranks who call themselves “brutalists” seem to think Brutalism is a code word for “vulgar”. They deride anyone who has any sense of an ethical conduct or value a woman for something more than a sex object as “humanitarian”. Sorry, but just because you are an asshole to everyone and vulgar to woman does NOT make you a Brutalist. Brutalism is not about vulgarity, while we may allow it, and even engage in it, that is not what brutalism is. Brutalism is nothing more than the relabeling of what used to just be called “libertarianism.” Brutalism is the philosophical position that libertarianism asks one and only one question: “When is it okay to use physical force”? And the answer is always the same answer: “In defense of property”. Libertarianism is about nothing more than that. Libertarians can personally despise racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other kind of bigotry and separate from those who engage in such bigotry, but LIBERTARIANISM is silent on the issue, libertarians can be personally anti-religious or anti-atheists, but LIBERTARIANISM is silent on the issue of religion. Individual libertarians can be downright vulgar or just plain conservative in their demeanor and sexual behavior, but the philosophy of libertarianism doesn’t have anything to add to individual ethical preferences and behavior. Having an ethical code that one lives by or a respect for women as free thinking intelligent human beings and more than just a sex object doesn’t make one a humanitarian no more than be an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and being vulgar make you a Brutalists. In fact all that behavior makes you; is a fucking cunt that needs to learn how to respect people as people.
In Divine Anarchy,
Matthew Mencel (מתתיהו בן אברהם).