Libertarian Thickness...

I was recently browsing Kos and found this new diary purportedly explaining Left-Libertarianism to the Kossacks. It provoked a fair number of comments (300 or so), some positive, some negative; however, I found the original diarist more or less conflating left-libertarianism with a sort of States Rights "liberaltarianism," thereby crippling the merit of the ensuing discussion.

The classic precepts of Libertarianism are:

Principle of Self-Ownership, the Principle of Non-Aggression, and the Lockean Principle of Land and Natural Resource Appropriation(Homesteading)

Left-Libertarianism typically, but not necessarily, takes a more egalitarian approach to the Homesteading principle, typically advocating that land/natural resource acquisition beyond fair use (based, on say, a per capita basis) should be offset by "rents" paid back to the community or appropriate collective body. This is the Georgian-modified Homesteading Principle.

Whether one ascribes to John Locke or Henry George in terms of Homesteading, SOP,NAP, and Homesteading form the basis of a moral/ethical philosophy from which you can derive Theory of Justice on how People should govern themselves.

However, any discussion involving Left-Libertarianism should also dutifully point out the opinion held by many in that camp of the "thinness" of the classic precepts(even if accounting for Georgian Homesteading). Led by such Left-Libertarian theorists as Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, and Kevin Carson, there is a movement afoot to "thicken" libertarianism by employing dialectical methods to consider context before blithely spouting off about, say, SOP or NAP. Without doubt, a principal critical target is the likes of Walter Block who, for example, defends voluntary "slave contracts" from an atomistic application of SOP and NAP. Typically, these "voluntary" slave contracts today may revolve around, say, the international sex trade.

It is exactly this type of Blockian "thin libertarianism," espoused devoid of any context, that ends up being any easy straw man for progressive critics. Left-Libertarians, in appealing to progressives, should employ dialectical methods to "thicken up" libertarian apologetics without having to resort to the doublethink of "liberaltarianism," which simultaneously accepts and rejects libertarianism at the same time.

Nevertheless, that all being said, there is a danger in a left-libertarian over-reliance on dialectical methods. No doubt, within Libertarianism, there is a need for inclusion of dialectical methods to thicken the atomistic classical precepts, but context itself, while important, is not a subsuming analytic methodology. Roderick Long's recent post Monster Thickburger Libertarianism illustrates the excesses of the left-libertarian dialecticians. In specific, Long links to this post by Charles Johnson who apparently believes the entire "sex industry" is indefensible from a libertarian position. This position reflects the radical feminist position that pornography is a by-product of female exploitation/oppression in the context of male-dominated patriarchical power systems. What a load of dialectical drivel. You know, there is a distinction to be made between certain "contractual" aspects of an international sex trade and the mainstream of American Adult Video. To the extent that both Johnson and Long persist in their efforts to fuse libertarianism with radical feminism, and to employ dialectical methods to somehow make a "thick libertarian" case against porn, they have thoroughly lost me.

Similarly, I have some critiques of Kevin Carson and his over-reliance on the State to explain away firm capital accumulation and division of labor. I especially have issues with his notion that a collapse event like "Peak Oil" will result in an anarchist, decentralized agrarian equilibrium. Even if it did, it wouldn't last.

When it comes to "libertarian thickness," I take the position somewhere between White Castle and Hardee's Monster Thickburger. When it comes to social bargaining, I ascribe to one part dialectics and 2 parts Game theory. It's thick enough to defend libertarianism against the unconverted, thin enough to avoid the ideological excess of trying to deduce the "Ought" from the "Is."

ka1igu1a,

I don't want to be rude here, but, in all frankness, how do you have any idea whether or not my position on the so-called "sex industry" is "a load of dialectical drivel" or not? The way to determine that would be to read and engage with the arguments that I give in favor of my conclusion; but your post doesn't show any signs of having engaged with such an argument, and the only writing of mine that you link to on the topic -- my remarks on MacKenzie's paper on exploitation -- deliberately doesn't give the argument in favor of that conclusion, bracketing that as something to discuss at a later date. (I decided to so bracket it because the remarks were intended as commentary on another paper, and I wanted to highlight one possibly interesting area of discussion, but didn't want to spend long elaborating on such a tagential point.)

If you want to find out what my argument actually is, the essay that Roderick and I co-wrote on Libertarian Feminism discusses some over-arching reasons for radical libertarians to prefer feminist commitments to non-feminist commitments (or a "thin" non-commitment); and some reasons for preferring radical feminist commitments to non-radical feminist commitments. On pornography and prostitution in particular, you will find some discussion of each at my blog (in the categories for Prostitution and for Pornography; however, note that I've been writing that blog for more than 7 years now, and I don't necessarily agree with everything in the earliest material I wrote on those topics). However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography -- works which certainly take a more complex position than simply claiming that the sex industry "is a by-product of female exploitation/oppression in the context of male-dominated patriarchical power systems" (for one thing, antipornography and antiprostitution feminists generally claim that pornography and prostitution are not mere by-products, but actually themselves serve to express and reinforce the oppression of women), and which also are certainly aware that there is a distinction between the labor conditions for women working in, say, "mainstream" American pornography and those faced by women and girls trafficked in the international sex trade. (Antipornography feminists are not especially positive on the former, but they recognize that the latter are much worse; however, the feminist case against pornography has to do not only with exploitation at the point of production, but also with what they argue to be the effects on men and male culture at the point of consumption.)

If you're interested in discussing these things at greater length, I would be happy to do so; or, if not, I'd be happy not to do so. But in either case it seems to me that you've hardly provided any evidence for the claim that you know whether my arguments are good arguments or bad arguments.

And, for what it's worth, while Roderick and I agree broadly about the desirability of libertarians committing to an anti-statist form of radical feminism, on this particular issue I am speaking only for myself. I don't know how far Roderick does or does not agree with my views on prostitution and pornography specifically. And whatever Roderick's specific views may be, in general, one could accept the argument for a thick libertarian commitment to radical feminism, while also arguing that the particular form of radical feminism one should be committed to is a form that is not antiprostitution or antipornography (e.g., the so-called "sex-positive" radical feminism of someone like Ellen Willis). That would be no less a form of "thick libertarianism" than the form I defend; although I would disagree with it on that specific point, I wouldn't characterize it as somehow less "thick" or more "thin" than what I do agree with.

Nah, you are not being rude; thanks for stopping by and commenting.

Although I'm not particularly interested in gender social class theory myself, I will, nevertheless, encroach--perhaps a bit too harshly--on the periphery of the issue if it involves what I consider the seeping of "anti-libertine" elements into libertarian advocacy. On this blog, I've been a frequent critic of anti-libertine sentiment that typically find it's way onto the pages of LRC, for example.

I have previously read your Libertarian Feminism paper that advocates fusion of radical libertarianism with a gender-based critique of State Power by the likes of Catharine MacKinnon. However, in your paper, there was no mention that the cost of such fusionism would be to accept some of the more puritanical(sex-negativist) elements that are also espoused by the likes of MacKinnon and others in the radical feminist "movement." The so-called "Feminist Sex Wars" in the 80s are generally credited with splitting up and effectively ending the second-wave feminism era that began in the 60s. I'm not sure why you advocate bringing over that same baggage into the libertarian movement. You are not going to find many takers.

I also have your blog in my xml subscription feeds. Although I am not an active participant, I am a casual reader, and I have never read any discussion that pertained to indefensibility of pornography. Perhaps I missed it. In any event, "load of dialectical drivel" was pertaining to the "sex-negativist" arguments espoused by the likes of MacKinnon and Dworkin, not yourself.

You say the Sex-Industry is "indefensible," I say it is entirely defensible and will address the 3 core radical feminist objections to pornography.

I) Point of Production: That is, contracts are coercive.
II) Point of Consumption I: That is, consumption of porn objectifies women as sexual objects to be exploited.
III) Point of Consumption II: The negative externality argument; that is, consumption of porn results in increased violence toward women(e.g., rape), child abuse, etc.

I) In 1980, MacKinnon and others made the public case that "Linda Lovelace" had been violently coerced contractually for her role in Deep Throat. They then formulated a rather novel legal theory that the "implied" coercive nature of Porn contracts therefore construed a a civil rights violation. This argument had some initial success but was subsequently struck down by the courts.

Im not interested in any counter-arguments that the court system is an organ of male patriarchy. It's beside the point. I'm only interested if there is an implied coercion at the Point of Production. For the sake of argument, let's say I'm willing to concede that there was an implied coercion at the Point of Production in the 70s and early 80s. However, anyone today with a computer, a web cam, and an internet connection can set up a "production studio." You can go to literally countless web sites and view web-cam pornographic productions, both amateur and professional. There is no coercion at the Point of Production in these cases. If there were still an implied coercion at the Point of production at the larger studios and distributors, then the coerced participants would rationally resort to forming their own production studios. In this case, Game Theory, not dialectics, leads one to the proper conclusion.

Therefore, the Point of Production argument holds little merit.

II) Point of Consumption I: Let's say just for the sake of argument that I am willing to concede the point that consumption of porn exploitively objectifies women in the male human brain. That in itself, from libertarian grounds via the principal of self-ownership, is not a sufficient condition to ban it. If MacKinnon doesn't like what I'm thinking while I'm watching a porn actress getting banged , that's her problem, not mine. If by NAP, I don't go out on the street and coercively try to replicate the scene I previously watched, there is no libertarian counter-argument to be made here. In fact, what's to stop this same feminist argument to be applied across the board to a whole host of objectionable content. Should we, for example, ban racist literature because of the "possibility" that it could exploitively objectify minorities if consumed?

III) Point of Consumption II: I'm not willing to concede anything on this point. There are no academic studies, nada, that have established a correlation between pornography and rape. There have been 2 presidential commissions on Pornography, the Johnson and Meese Commissions, that were certainly looking for such links and, trust me, would have found them if they existed. Your paper's link to a CDC study that found roughly a quarter of woman and a tenth of men had been the "victims" of sexual assault of some type over a given period did not address any statistical correlation with pornography. Therefore, it is irrelevant to our more narrow focus. In fact, I would point to evidence that implies a negative correlation between Internet Porn and Rape. I well aware that you may counter with the fact you don't trust the male patriarchal statist legal regime when it comes to accurately reflecting the crime of rape, but then again, you sort of lost the moral high ground by linking to the CDC study in your paper. What, the CDC are honest statists?

The fact is that pornography, like many things, for example, drugs, carries both positive and negative externalities. And as with drugs, banning pornography would simply interject a much higher negative externality that comes with enforcement that would overwhelm any negative externality associated with it's legality. Although I'm quite sure that your opposition to pornography likely doesn't extend to advocating monopoly enforcement banning, your embrace of the sex-negative views of those radical feminist who do advocate State banning hurts your overall cause.

Do you think the Non-Aggression Principle is as self-evident as many Libertarians treat it? I'm not even sure that it is meaningful, since the meaning of "aggression" is exactly what is at issue in political debates. I think this would be better summed up in a principle of formal individualism (all rights belong to individuals, not groups).

Similarly, I place an emphasis on the principle of non-alienation, as being a corollary to self-ownership. This makes slavery contracts invalid. I protect my neighbor's rights for a reason, and it is not in my interest to recognize (let alone enforce) their decision to relinquish certain rights.

Let's try to connect this back to the main issue of your post...

I guess I'm not a very "thick" person, in that all of this political activism and theorizing is simply a means to an end...so the principles are always contextual, and justice is conventional.

Enforcement is the single largest obstacle to libertarianism, IMHO.

I don't ascribe to monster thick libertarianism because an over reliance on context typically serves as pretext to explain away theoretically undesirable social bargaining outcomes...

Ka1igu1a, I will be a little rude and point out the pointlessness of your response to RadGeek.

He invited you to engage the arguments he actually made to support his conclusions on porn, and much of your reply instead consisted of criticism of MacKinnon's and other radical feminists' tactics and statements, as well as pure speculation of what MacKinnon would think or say of what you're thinking while while you watch young women get "banged" in pornographic films. These are nothing more than straw man arguments, as are your many presumptions of what RadGeek would have to say about this, that and the other.

Address his points, that is, what he's actually written. If you have objections to what Catherine MacKinnon said or did once upon a time, tell it to her. But keep in mind your objections to MacKinnon's claims are only relevant to RadGeek's claims insofar as he has written that he actually agrees with those specific claims of MacKinnon's that you cite. He's not obligated to defend the entire corpus of her or any other radical feminist's writings.

Most disingenuously, you presume that RadGeek is proposing physcial coercion and force (you use the word "ban") to eradicate the sex industry, when the fact of the matter is that he has never made any such proposal, which is why you can't actually cite anything he's actually written to back up that claim.

Speaking strictly for myself (not that I would ever assume that I could ever speak for anyone else in the first place - I don't), nobody in any place at any time can escape or evade the necessity of choosing values, and the values commonly chosen by people in a specific place will necessarily constitute a culture in that place, and that culture will affect every individual living within it, even as each individual simultaneously affects the larger culture. Human beings are continually affecting one another with their actions. We don't each live in our own individual vacuum that prevents our actions from affecting others.

There are some of us who oppose the force and coercion of government--statism--as a consequence of the values we choose, which themselves are rooted in the foundational value of non-aggression, as you point out. But why do we oppose non-aggression?

I oppose non-aggression b/c I desire a more humane society, one in which the integrity of each and every individual is fully respected by every other so that each has the equal opportunity to flourish to his or her fullest potential. It is on this basis that it is perfectly reasonable for libertarians to object to pornography. Dehumanizing aggression comes in many forms, including forms that are perhaps not so obvious. Government-issued billy clubs and guns used by people wearing badges and uniforms are particularly egregious forms of aggression, but by no means the only kinds.

If young women (or men, for that matter) are going into the professional sex trade due to the lack of economic opportunity in our rather unfree market combined with individuals' demands to view sex acts for their entertainment, then it is perfectly reasonable for libertarians to raise objections as they see fit, and to object to the pervasive attitudes about sexuality that are a cultural byproduct of those conditions.

This may disabuse you of some illusions, but you don't have any natural right per se to expect videos of young women being "banged" by other men to be produced for your own enjoyment. Nor do you have any right for the entire culture to bend itself to your voyeuristic proclivities.

Quoting Bob from The Art of the Possible

BTW, if you’ve ever seen any libertarians behaving like “high priests” preaching to the “sinning masses,” that was probably inherited from Ayn Rand. She had a really nasty habit of self-righteous, very polemical preaching that often ignored basic facts...

I have to say, Bob, your post was a nice exercise in sermonizing homiletics, but it didn't counter any of the arguments I made. Indeed, I'm wondering if you even bothered to read the entirety of the posts instead of apparently just resorting to cherry-picking certin chunks of mine that offended your sensibilities.

I) Let us review your claim that I made a Strawman argument:

Charles wrote:

If you want to find out what my argument actually is, the essay that Roderick and I co-wrote on Libertarian Feminism discusses some over-arching reasons for radical libertarians to prefer feminist commitments to non-feminist commitments (or a "thin" non-commitment); and some reasons for preferring radical feminist commitments to non-radical feminist commitments. On pornography and prostitution in particular, you will find some discussion of each at my blog (in the categories for Prostitution and for Pornography; however, note that I've been writing that blog for more than 7 years now, and I don't necessarily agree with everything in the earliest material I wrote on those topics). However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography

I wrote:

I have previously read your Libertarian Feminism paper that advocates fusion of radical libertarianism with a gender-based critique of State Power by the likes of Catharine MacKinnon. However, in your paper, there was no mention that the cost of such fusionism would be to accept some of the more puritanical(sex-negativist) elements that are also espoused by the likes of MacKinnon and others in the radical feminist "movement."

I also have your blog in my xml subscription feeds. Although I am not an active participant, I am a casual reader, and I have never read any discussion that pertained to indefensibility of pornography. Perhaps I missed it.

Just to emphasize, Charles wrote: "However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography."

Therefore, your contention that I'm making a Strawman argument is demonstratively false. As you wrote:

...and much of your reply instead consisted of criticism of MacKinnon's and other radical feminists' tactics and statements...These are nothing more than straw man arguments

Bob, it is not a Strawman argument if Person A (Charles) accepts the Person B's arguments(MacKinnon), and in writing, indicates Person B's arguments are the "best reasons" for Person A taking the position in the first place. This is elementary logic here.

II) Let us review your claim that I'm being disingenous

You wrote:

Most disingenuously, you presume that RadGeek is proposing physcial coercion and force (you use the word "ban") to eradicate the sex industry, when the fact of the matter is that he has never made any such proposal, which is why you can't actually cite anything he's actually written to back up that claim.

The only party guilty of disingenuty here is you, for I wrote:

Although I'm quite sure that your opposition to pornography likely doesn't extend to advocating monopoly enforcement banning, your embrace of the sex-negative views of those radical feminist who do advocate State banning hurts your overall cause.

Did you not bother to fully read my post? I specifically included that last sentence to avoid the exact "jump to conslusions" distractions that you just engaged in. I'm well aware that Charles is an anarchist. As I thought I made clear, I view Charles' embrace of the sex-negativist views of those feminists who do advocate State banning as huring his overall cause of a libertarian-radical feminist fusionism.

III) Conclusion

Your post failed to address my counter-points to the sex-negativist radical feminist critique of pornography, instead resorting to a more or less diversionary Ad Hominem tactics to avoid such. You also managed to squeeze in your own puritanical sermonizing about NAP and "sexual duhumanization." Finally, you ended your crap post with a total distortion of my position on the matter of self-ownsership. Where did I imply I had a "Natural Right" to expect a supply of pornography. And how in the fuck do you seriously even have the balls to pound out drivel that I claim culture has to bend itself to my voyeuristic proclivities. You sound like a SocialCon...you know if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Ka1igu1a: I think perhaps I was a bit unclear in my respsonse. I’m going to try for more specificity here.

You wrote:

“Charles wrote:

“‘If you want to find out what my argument actually is, the essay that Roderick and I co-wrote on Libertarian Feminism discusses some over-arching reasons for radical libertarians to prefer feminist commitments to non-feminist commitments (or a ‘thin’ non-commitment); [etc., etc., etc.,]…However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography.”

“I wrote:

“‘I have previously read your Libertarian Feminism paper that advocates fusion of radical libertarianism with a gender-based critique of State Power by the likes of Catharine MacKinnon. However, in your paper, there was no mention that the cost of such fusionism would be to accept some of the more puritanical(sex-negativist) elements that are also espoused by the likes of MacKinnon and others in the radical feminist ‘movement’.”

Please note here, ka1igu1a, that what Johnson said is that his own positions on prostitution and pornography are informed by “radical feminist works.” This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but to my knowledge that implies a fairly wide and varied canon in its own right. He cites Catherine MacKinnon, but has he ever given her a blanket endorsement? Does his citation of “radical feminist works” as having informed his own views on the sex industry naturally imply that he endorses the entire radical feminist canon without any criticism? I don’t see that it does, nor do I see on what basis it is to be assumed that to cite some aspects of that canon naturally implies you’re buying every single item in the store. Your response implies a presumption that the entire radical feminist corpus is one indistinguishable and naturally inseperable lumpen mass, and if Johnson is going to partake of any of it, he is somehow obliged to swallow the whole chicken without being allowed to decline some particular parts.

Note that in their draft “Libertarian Feminism” paper that Johnson and Long also cite libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy, who does not espouse the same views on pornograpny as Johnson does. (In fact, quite the oppposite: http://www.spectacle.org/1195/mcelroy.html.) They concur with McElroy to a degree while still being somewhat critical, such as when they wrote:

“McElroy and others have rightly called attention to a tradition of libertarian feminism that mostly been forgotten by both libertarians and feminists in the 20th century: the 19th century radical individualists, including Voltairine de Cleyre, Angela Heywood, Herbert Spencer, and Benjamin Tucker, among others. The individualists endorsed both radical anti-statism and also radical feminism (as well as, inter alia, allying with abolitionism and the labor movement), because they understood both statism and patriarchy as components of an interlocking system of oppression. An examination of the methods and thought of these individualists—-and of Second Wave feminism in light of the individualist tradition—-does show what McElroy and [Joan Kennedy] Taylor have argued it does—-but in a way very different from what they might have expected, and-—we argue—-with very different implications for the terms on which libertarianism and feminism can work together.”

But you don’t appear to even be concerned with these detailed nuances. In your response to Johnson’s response you simply trot out a straw man: Catherine MacKinnon’s efforts to prove in court that Linda Lovelace was coerced into making “Deep Throat.” What that has to do with Johnson’s own views as he has written them, I have absolutely no idea, unless one just assumes that MacKinnon’s actions vis-à-vis Linda Lovelace discredits Johnson’s arguments simply because Johnson has favorably cited some of MacKinnon’s work with respect to the sex industry, and I don’t see how there’s necessarily any logical connection. Johnson’s favorable citations of some aspects of MacKinnon’s writing does not automatically imply a blanket endorsement of all of MacKinnon’s tactics, unless he’s said as much. I doubt you could possibly ascertain someone’s specific views on something like the Linda Lovelace case unless you’ve actually asked them for those views (assuming they have any, or are knowledgable enough of that case to offer any views in the first place).

In any case, the point is that if you’re insisting that MacKinnon’s tactics in the Linda Lovelace case naturally casts aspersions on Johnson’s own stated views on the sex industry, or on his and Long’s proposals for libertarian/feminist fusion, then I believe you are required to explain just how you built that bridge. (Same goes for your citation of the Johnson and Meese commissions. Just because some government conservatoids who may have been looking for concrete links between porn and rape didn’t find those links—-a relationship that would be nearly impossibe to discover even if it did exist—-doesn’t automatically, ipso facto, nullify all other possible objections to pornography. If you think it does, then I’d say you’re obligated to explain how. Otherwise, ka1igu1a, that is just another straw man.)

Another straw man is your criticism of Johnson and Long for not mentioning in their paper that “the cost of [libertarian/feminist] fusionism would be to accept some of the more puritanical(sex-negativist) elements that are also espoused by the likes of MacKinnon and others in the radical feminist ‘movement’.” Again, ka1igu1a, you need to prove that which you’re simply assuming here to be the plainly self-evident facts of reality.

Even assuming simply for the sake of argument that your interpretation of MacKinnon’s and other radical feminists’ writings are correct in that they espouse “puritancial(sex-negativist) elements”—-and I don’t know for certain that they necessarily do, or to what extent they do if they do at all—-there is no logical basis for simply assuming that because some radical feminists have espoused such views automatically implies that incorporating libertarianism and feminism must naturally require or force one to include puritanical or sex-negativist views in the overall package. If you think it does, then again, you need to explain how that is logically the case, not just assume it. It is possible, isn’t it, to sort the wheat from the chaff?

You wrote:

“Just to emphasize, Charles wrote: ‘However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography’. Therefore, your contention that I'm making a Strawman argument is demonstratively false.”

I think I’ve adequately shown so far that your denial of making strawman arugments is demonstrably false, as I have explained in the above paragraphs.

You wrote:

“Bob, it is not a Strawman argument if Person A (Charles) accepts the Person B's arguments(MacKinnon), and in writing, indicates Person B's arguments are the ‘best reasons’ for Person A taking the position in the first place. This is elementary logic here.”

Sure it is, but I would think that Person C would understand that Person A’s endorsement of some of Person B’s arguments does not automatically imply Person A’s endorsement of other arguments made by Person B—-such as any arguments Person B may have made in favor of purtitanical sex-negativism (assuming that Person B really made such arguments in the first place)—-unless Person A has said or implied as much. If Person C is claiming that Person A does endorse those other arguments, then the burden of proof is on Person C to specifically show that to be the case, not just assume that the entirety of Person B’s (and others’) entire canon of work is one indistinguishable and naturally inseperable mass, and then try to throw it all into Person A’s face to see if any unattractive parts will stick to him.

As for my stating that you stated you believe Johnson ultimately favors coercive banning of pornogrpahy, I clearly misread that part of your post and for that I owe you an apology.

What I should have said is that you need to prove your assumption that Charles “embrace[s]...the sex-negativist views of those feminists who do advocate State banning.” It may be commendable of you to be concerned for how that wouldhurt his case, but from where and how, exactly, could you or anyone else infer that Charles “embrace[s]” such views in the first place? Again, another assumption that begs for proof. A straw man.

As for my characterizations of your overall views on pornography, I perhaps overreached, and if I did, then I owe you another apology.

But it’s not quite clear that you’re attempting to fully grasp Johnson’s views on pornography, or Johnson’s and Long’s proposition for a libertarian-feminst fusion, or that you’ve read their paper in its entirety. Otherwise, I think you would have engaged them in a far more constructive fashion than leaving comments on Long’s blog that his and Johnson’s views on porn are “social conservative garbage,” nor would you have characterized their (or radical feminist) views here as “dialectical drivel.” I’d say you’ve done more than your own fair share of ad hominem attacks and sermonizing in this discussion.

(BTW, the extent to which you are unfamiliar with Johnson’s views was clearly demonstrated in your comments on Long’s blog when you lumped him in with the Austrian school of economic theory. Johnson has actually been somewhat critical of many aspects of Austrian thought. You seem to have recurring difficulty distinguishing between the particular and nuanced differences between particular individuals whose seperate efforts may overlap in pursuit of some shared political goals, but yet differ on others, and where and when their respective goals converge and when and where they diverge.)

If you’re really interested in engaging Johnson and Long in serious discussion of their views, you may want to go back to Johnson’s reply to your post, and critique what he actually wrote and follow the links he provides, rather than respond to what you imagined he implied.

If you have read the “Libertarian Feminism” paper in its entirety, you may want to re-read it. It printed out at 44 pages on my printer, and contains a very thoroughgoing analysis of the radical feminists’ critiques of statism, and how those critiques mesh with various strands of libertarian thought, as well as the radical feminists’ insights into incest and sexual battery and how those crimes culturally correlate with or are perhaps reinforced by statism, militarism, etc., much of it cross-referenced with a wide variety of citations from the works of various other scholars and authors. (And by no means is that an exhaustive description...)

I find it rather astonishing that you chose to ignore much of that material in favor of non-sequiturs about the Lovelace/MacKinnon case and the Meese commission, varying epithets and unwarranted assumptions. That’s not to say there is no genuine criticism to be made of Charles Johnson’s and Roderick Long’s views on libertarian/feminist fusion, or on pornography, but as far as I can see, you haven’t come up with any.

After reading your latest reply, perhaps I need to clarify that my argument is much narrower in focus than you are assuming. My argument is solely concerned with the anti-pornography aspects of sex-negativist radical feminism and is not, contrary to your assumption, intended to be a wider critique of radical feminism or libertarian-feminism fusionism. If the latter were the case, you would be entirely correct in your assertion that I was engaging in a Strawman argumnet. After all, there are plenty of positive-sex radical feminist theorists such as Ellen Willis.

Perhaps, this is just an issue of honest miscommunication. But note that in my original post, I didn't criticize Long-Johnson's original paper on Libertarian Feminism but rather restricted my criticism to Charles' post (on RadGeek) stating that the sex-industry was indefensible.

In my initial reply to Charles on this thread I wrote:

Although I'm not particularly interested in gender social class theory myself, I will, nevertheless, encroach--perhaps a bit too harshly--on the periphery of the issue if it involves what I consider the seeping of "anti-libertine" elements into libertarian advocacy. On this blog, I've been a frequent critic of anti-libertine sentiment that typically find it's way onto the pages of LRC, for example.

Notice, I specifically used the term "anti-libertine," not anti-libertarian. There is a distinction to be made between those two terms. So let me re-state that last quote more plainly. I am neutral on the topic of libertarian-radical feminism fusion, neither accepting it nor rejecting it. I will stick my nose into the discussion only to the extent it involves advocacy of the anti-pornographic elements of sex-negativist radical feminism. And that's it.

So while I appreciate your long response, motivated by your attempts to provide greater clarity, I must re-emphasize the narrow scope of my argument pertaining only to the sex-negativist radical feminist critique of the sex industry. That's it.

Charles wrote:

However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography

Therefore, it is quite fair of me to counter Charles' claims of indefensibility of the sex industry by addressing the well-known, standard arguments against the sex-industry forwared by the sex-negativist feminists. Once agin, just to re-iterate, the applicable scope of my counter-arguments only applies to this narrow issue of sex-negativist radical feminism. It has no bearing on the wider elemnts of radical feminist theory.

I characterized the standard sex-negativist feminist critique of pornography and the sex-industry as being one part Point of production and 2 parts Point of Consumption. I brought up MacKinnon with respect to the Point of Production argument because she used the Linda Lovelace/Deep Throat issue to pioneer this very argument. If you noticed, in my reply post to Charles, I was quite willing, for the sake of argument, to concede MacKinnon's point that there may have been an implied coercion of contracts in the Porn Industry during the 70s and early 80s. However, the fact that anyone today can set up a low-cost Production Studio-and are doing so-- renders this argument rather moot. That's not to say the sex-industry is entirely devoid of implied coercion, because I can say from personal knowledge that there are both women and men, especially in the areas of prostitution, that will enter into unfavorable contracts to either support drug habits or their children(women only).

In terms of the negative externality argument against Pornography, I should point out it's not just "government conservatoids" who have been looking to establish positive correlation betwwen pornography and rape. I have a degree in mathematics, I understand quite well the difficulties in establishing positive or negative statistical correlation either way on this matter. But that is sort of my point. You are certainly free to have your own personal opinion on the matter, but you can't extend your own personal objections into a blanket claim that pornography itself is indefensible. If Charles would have restricted his comments to the fact that pornography was indefenisble from his own moral point of view, that's one thing. However, he said it was indefensible, period, without qualification. That's quite another thing.

Lastly, regarding my post on Roderick's blog, I admit my "social conservative garbage" was a bit harsh. However, I'm a bit perplexed by the claim that I somehow implied Charles ascribes fully to Austrian Economics. Perhaps it is my fault that I used the term "Austrian Praxis." Praxis, which Charles does ascribe to, is generally associated with the Austrian school, but it doesn't mean acceptance of Praxis implies full acceptance of Austrian Economics. There has never been any uniformity in the Austrian School. Jez, neither Mises nor Hayek were anarchists, for god sakes.

"My argument is solely concerned with the anti-pornography aspects of sex-negativist radical feminism and is not, contrary to your assumption, intended to be a wider critique of radical feminism or libertarian-feminism fusionism...I will stick my nose into the discussion only to the extent it involves advocacy of the anti-pornographic elements of sex-negativist radical feminism. And that's it...

"Charles wrote:

"'However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography'

"Therefore, it is quite fair of me to counter Charles' claims of indefensibility of the sex industry by addressing the well-known, standard arguments against the sex-industry forwared by the sex-negativist feminists..."

Ka1igu1a, you must first establish that Johnson actually concurs with any of those particular "well-known, standard arugments" in the first place, which can be sorted out by simply reading what Johnson wrote -- to read his own case against pornography. That way, one can see which specific radical feminist arguments with which he does concur, and whether or not any of those arguments that he does cite favorably can be reasonably deemed "sex-negativist".

Just addressing "well-known, standard arguments" that you pick from the radical feminist canon does not necessarily "counter" Johnson's own case if those specific arguments are not ones with which he agrees with in the first place.

Otherwise, however unintentional it may be, you're package dealing Johnson's own critique of the sex trade with specific arguments from the radical feminist canon that he may not even agree with (and vice-versa).

If you're going to address sex-negativist tendencies within the radical feminist movement and how that relates to their own criticism of porn and prostitution, that's one thing. But if you're claiming that any flaws in those views naturally discredit Johnson's own arguments against the sex trade, then you need to show that Johnson specifically agrees with those particular arguments to any extent in the first place, and if he does at all, in which aspects and to what degree, and how that agreement dovetails into his own position. There's a burden of proof on you to establish those specific connections, not just assume them.

Just picking out "well-known, standard arguments" from the radical feminist canon at your own discretion w/o bothering to verify whether or not Johnson himself agrees with those particular arguments in the first place doesn't prove anything as far as discussion and debate of his critique of the sex industry goes.

Just because my favorite snacks can be found in the chip aisle doesn't necessarily mean that I equally prefer Doritos to Frito-Lays.

Do you see my point here? I would say I'm being clear to the point of redundancy, but I just want to make sure that you understand what exactly you're arguing, and with whom.

if Charles wants to come here and elucidate how his views on the sex-industry differ from the standard arguments i laid out, he is more than free to do so. Other than that, I'm finished commenting in this thread.

In fact, ka1igu1a, here are even a couple of urls to posts by Johnson that you may take as a starting point, if you like, toward clearer understanding of not only his own particular feminist views and whether those views can be reasonably attributed to anything resembling "sex-negativism", but also those of a couple of leading radical feminists (including MacKinnon) whom he cites as major influences, and whether or not their views can be reasonably described as "sex-negativist":

http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/02/19/misquotation_in/

http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/02/17/over_my/

But I think there's a lot more homework for you to do before you start attributing specific views and attitudes to specific individuals.

OK?

nowhere in my posts did I imply I was ascribing "all sex is rape" meme to this classification. I'm well aware that neither MacKinnon nor Dworkin ever said that. I'm just using the same type of categorical language similar to the likes of Ellen Willis in using "sex-positive" radical feminism.