Archive for the ‘libertarians’ Category

Libertarian feminist writer and editor Joan Kennedy Taylor discovered Charles Murray, edited “Libertarian Review” magazine, and befriended a number of gay libertarians.

[Transcribed from the Libertarian Tradition podcast episodes “Joan Kennedy Taylor (1926–2005)” and“The Rediscovery of Libertarian Feminism”]
Joan Kennedy Taylor
Joan Kennedy Taylor first became involved in the libertarian movement in the early 1960s, when she was a student at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York City. As a student of Objectivism, she espoused the political views of Ayn Rand: the nonaggression principle, natural rights, a free market, and a state so minimal that it had no power to tax and had to raise its revenues by charging fees for its services or, perhaps, running a national lottery. Taylor was in her early 30s when she adopted these political views; before that time, she seems to have been pretty much apolitical. She did show distinct signs of a strong interest in individualism when she was in her teens and twenties (and I’ll describe that in more detail below). But before the late 1950s, she seems never to have evidenced any interest in specifically political issues or principles.
Joan Kennedy Taylor was born 84 years ago last month, on December 21, 1926, in Manhattan. Her father was the prominent composer and musical journalist Deems Taylor. Her mother, Mary Kennedy, though never as well known as her father, was also in the public eye: she starred in plays on Broadway, wrote plays of her own, and, in later years, wrote poetry and children’s books as well.
Both Taylor and Kennedy were fringe members of the famous Algonquin Round Table group. Both are depicted — in small, supporting roles, of course — in the 1994 film Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, which is well worth a viewing or two by anyone interested in Dorothy Parker, the Algonquin Round Table, or the 1920s generally.
Taylor and Kennedy divorced in 1933, when their daughter Joan was six years old; over the next nine years, Joan attended eight different schools in three different countries. As she explained to an interviewer 60 years later, her mother “traveled a lot. She believed in geographical solutions to problems. She was always looking for the perfect place.”
Mary Kennedy and her daughter returned to the United States at the end of the 1930s, having spent most of the decade abroad. But Mary had not yet found the perfect place, so she set out on her global travels again before long, this time leaving her daughter behind, first at St. Timothy’s, an Episcopal boarding school for girls in rural Maryland not far from Baltimore, then at Barnard Collegein Manhattan. Both these schools were exclusive and expensive.
Joan with her father
Barnard is, of course, one of the Seven Sisters, the group of colleges established in the 19th century to provide the equivalent of an Ivy League education for women of talent who were denied admission to Ivy League schools because of their gender — Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Radcliffe, Smith, Vassar, and Wellesley. Each of the original Seven Sisters was closely associated with one of the Ivy League colleges: Radcliffe with Harvard, for example, and Barnard with Columbia.
Mary was able to afford such high-priced schools for her daughter because her divorce settlement guaranteed her half of her ex-husband’s gross income, taxes prepaid, as well as a free house in Connecticut. And because Joan’s father prospered during the Depression and the war years as a network radio personality — he was, according to his biographer, “among the most listened to and recognizable voices of his time” — his ex-wife and his daughter prospered, too. Joan, for her part, not only availed herself of the elite education offered to her, as it were, on a silver platter, she also formed a habit of omnivorous reading which lasted for the rest of her life.
Sometime in the 1940s, she read and was greatly impressed by a passionately individualist novel called The Fountainhead, by an as yet unknown Russian immigrant who called herself Ayn Rand. Also during the ’40s, while a student at Barnard, she met and fell in love with a psychology major over at Columbia named Donald Cook. Cook introduced Joan to his close friend Allen Ginsberg, and through Ginsberg she met his friends Gregory CorsoWilliam S. Burroughs, and Jack Kerouac — the nucleus of what later came to be called the “beat generation.”
She found herself strongly drawn to the jazz that was favored by Donald’s beat friends, hearing in this predominantly African-American genre what the beat writer John Clellon Holmes later called “the music of inner freedom, of improvisation, of the creative individual rather than the interpretive group.”
She also found herself drawn to the intensely individualistic fiction written by the beat writers, with its focus on the individual sensibility, the individual point of view. She became interested during these same years in self-actualization, self-realization, the kinds of things that would come to be known a couple of decades later as elements in the “human-potential movement.”
In the ’40s and ’50s, it seemed to Joan (and to a lot of other people) that the thinkers who had the most to offer to individuals seeking to realize or actualize their previously untapped potential were the Russian G.I. Gurdjieff and his chief disciple, P.D. Ouspensky.
Joan in the early 1950s
A few years later, when very similar ideas were set forth by American psychologists like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow under the name of “Humanistic Psychology,” they would reach a much wider audience than Gurdjieff or Ouspensky had ever managed to attract. But Joan Kennedy Taylor was a very early convert to individualism in psychology, and she had to make do with what was available at the time of her conversion.
The Fountainhead, jazz, beat writing, the first vague stirrings of the human-potential movement — as I said earlier, all this bespeaks a general inclination in the direction of individualism, but it doesn’t really have any specifically political implications. It is, after all, possible to be an individualist without espousing any political views. The beats were mostly apolitical, as were Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and their students. And so was Joan.
But all this changed in 1957, when she was 30 years old. She had been acting — on stage, on radio, on television — since graduating from high school a dozen years before. Like most actors of any era, she had also held various day jobs. She had sold jewelry; she had done this, that, and the other. At the moment she was working as a publicity assistant at the book publishing company of Alfred A. Knopf. That summer, through an associate who worked in publicity over at Random House, she got hold of an advance copy of Ayn Rand’s new novel, which bore the somewhat mysterious title Atlas Shrugged.
“I read it over Labor Day Weekend 1957,” Joan told interviewer Duncan Scott in 2004, “and I was blown away, absolutely. I had read The Fountainhead before, but I was really impressed by this — so much so that I wrote her a fan letter.”
As it happened, Joan’s was only the second letter Rand had received from a reader about Atlas Shrugged. And, as Joan told Duncan Scott, Rand
was impressed with my letter, and she spoke to her publicity person at Random House, asking if she knew me — and she did — and so the next thing I knew I got a call from Jean Ennis, the publicity person at Random House, saying, “Ayn Rand got your letter, she liked it, and she wants to have lunch with you.”
They had lunch. They talked for hours. Then, as Joan told the tale, Rand “said that she wanted me to meet her ‘children,’ Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and we set up a date when I would come to her house and meet them.”
Barbara Branden in this period was putting in 40 hours a week as an editorial coordinator at St. Martin’s Press and teaching philosophy at Long Island University in her spare time. Nathaniel Branden, Joan recalled, “was working as a psychologist … and he was planning — or hoping — to give a lecture course on Ayn Rand’s philosophy. … I remember … him asking me if I would be interested in taking it, and I said yes.”
Mises Academy: Stephan Kinsella teaches Libertarian Legal Theory
The first lecture in Nathaniel’s completed course, “Basic Principles of Objectivism,” was first delivered, according to Barbara Branden “in January of 1958, a few months after the publication of Atlas Shrugged … in a small hotel room.” Joan was there, along with around two dozen others who had read Atlas Shrugged and seen the small ads in New York newspapers promoting a series of lectures on Rand’s ideas.
And as the Objectivist movement grew over the next ten years — and it grew by leaps and bounds — Joan was there. She was a personal friend of Ayn Rand and a frequent guest in her home. Her social life increasingly centered around the Nathaniel Branden Institute and the Objectivist movement. When she married her second husband, David Dawson, over Thanksgiving weekend of 1958, Ayn Rand and her husband Frank O’Connor were among the dozen guests in attendance.
It was six years later, during the 1964 Barry Goldwater for President campaign, Joan told interviewer Duncan Scott in 2004, that
my husband, David Dawson, and I were two of twenty-five students of Objectivism who went down to Republican Headquarters and signed up and registered as Republicans and petitioned to form a Young Republican Club. We did. We formed the Metropolitan Young Republican Club, which was an Objectivist front for Goldwater. We were all students of Objectivism.
Within a few months, the Metropolitan Young Republican Club established a newsletter — it was called Persuasion — and Joan Kennedy Taylor was named editor. Within a few more months, the campaign was over, and there was no further need for a newsletter whose chief reason for existing seemed to be promotion of Senator Goldwater’s effort to get elected president. But Joan had rather enjoyed her brief stint as editor of a political periodical and rather wanted to continue it. And at that point, Ayn Rand came riding to the rescue.
Rand had already let Joan know that she admired her work on Persuasion. As Joan described their conversation to Duncan Scott many years later, “She told me, ‘You’re a good editor. … I can tell that because [an editor of a small publication like Persuasion] might have just one or maybe two good writers, but all of your writers are good and that means the editor’s good.'”
But Rand had more than just praise for Joan. She also had a suggestion. If Joan wanted to keepPersuasion going, Rand told her, “Take it out of the Young Republican Club — buy it from them or something like that. Set up a corporation, so that I can endorse you in The Objectivist. Because I wouldn’t want to endorse anything that was specifically of a political party.”
This was an opportunity. Joan saw it and took it. She established an independent corporation, Persuasion, Inc., and took over the magazine from the Metropolitan Young Republican Club.
Rand’s endorsement, the only one she ever extended to any political magazine, appeared in the December 1965 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter under the headline “A Recommendation.” It began with a caveat. “One cannot recommend a magazine or a periodical over whose future content one has no control, except conditionally or provisionally.”
She described Persuasion as “a modest little periodical which I have watched for almost a year and found to be excellent in its particular field.” Persuasion, she wrote, was “not a philosophical or theoretical, but specifically a political publication,” one that did “a remarkable educational job in tying current political events to wider principles, evaluating specific events in a rational frame-of-reference, and maintaining a high degree of consistency.” The magazine would be “of particular interest and value,” Rand thought, “to all those who are eager to fight on the level of practical politics, but flounder hopelessly for lack of proper material.”
The endorsement launched the new, independent Persuasion in style. As Joan told Duncan Scott 40 years later, “we got like a thousand subscriptions or something from Ayn’s endorsement.”
In that same series of conversations in which Rand advised Joan to take her magazine out of the Metropolitan Young Republican Club and make it an independent publication, Joan asked her mentor’s advice on how she should portray Persuasion publicly. As she told a couple of interviewers in later years, the members of the editorial staff of Persuasion “were all students of her philosophy … but [Persuasion] was to deal entirely with politics.” So she put the question directly to Ayn Rand: “What do I call the view that we hold?” she asked. “It certainly isn’t Republican. On the other hand I can’t say it’s Objectivist; we have no position on art, epistemology, metaphysics, whatever, only on politics.”
Rand’s answer was straightforward, and so was her advice. “That was when she explained to me,” Joan wrote decades later, “that the name for her political philosophy, considered by itself, was libertarianism, and [she] suggested thatPersuasion should call itself a libertarian publication. And so we did.”
When the Objectivist movement collapsed in the wake of the Rand-Branden split four years later, Joan closed Persuasion. She felt she had no choice. If she failed to cave in to Rand’s demands that she denounce Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, she herself would be denounced, along with Persuasion, in the pages of Rand’s magazine, The Objectivist. So she closed Persuasion, not without regrets, and walked away.
She moved up to her summer home in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and pursued other interests. Joan had many other interests. And she pursued them for most of the next ten years, until one day in early 1977, she received an extremely interesting telephone call from an extremely interesting young man, one Roy A. Childs Jr., 28 years old, who was taking over the editorship of a small publication called Libertarian Review, with the assignment of turning it into a monthly magazine of issues, events, and ideas — a sort of National Review or The Nation or The New Republic, only monthly (rather than weekly or fortnightly), and from a libertarian perspective.
Childs had seen Rand’s endorsement of Persuasion when he was still in high school, had sent off for a sample copy and had then subscribed. For the new magazine he was launching, he hoped to attract an editorial staff and a group of associate editors who would represent both the Rothbardian and the Randian elements within the libertarian movement. Would Joan like to write for the magazine? Would she be interested in becoming an associate editor?
At this time, Libertarian Review was published out of offices in New York City, but it moved to San Francisco at the beginning of 1978, and by then, Childs was aggressively working to persuade his bosses, Charles Koch and Ed Crane, to make Joan a full-time member of the magazine’s staff. As she herself put it 15 years later,
I was a person who had worked in the anti-draft movement and who had done some political writing, but I had published nothing in this area for nine years. I was living in western Massachusetts in a rural setting, living a very domestic life. Roy didn’t care for that. Roy decided that I should be a political person. … And he assigned me articles to write. … He made me an associate editor of the Libertarian Review. We visited each other in New York, and he came to Massachusetts to visit me and my husband. And we were together a great deal. He educated me. He made me read books. He lobbied to get me on the staff of the Libertarian Review, and got me a staff job [there] which I took.
And so it was that Joan Kennedy Taylor completed the transition from individualism to libertarianism that she had begun in the 1960s under the tutelage of Ayn Rand. Now in her early 50s, she was at last ready to embark on the most important and productive period in her career — the period that would establish her as an important intellectual figure in the libertarian movement.
Joan with her second husband, David Dawson, in 1963
When Roy Childs phoned Joan Kennedy Taylor to let her know that he had finally won approval for his plan to add her to the full-time staff of theLibertarian Review, she was delighted. She had already discussed the idea with David Dawson, the man she had been married to for the past two decades, and they had decided to move to San Francisco if Roy’s plan did come to fruition and he actually made her an offer. They had spent much of the previous summer in the City by the Bay to make sure they’d be comfortable living so far from New York, and the experiment had been a success. They began making arrangements to leave their home in Stockbridge, Massachusetts and motor West.
At last, in mid-April of 1979, all was in readiness. Their car was fully checked out for the trip. They were scheduled to leave in three days. They were expected in San Francisco by the end of the month. Joan was to start work on May 1. And then, on April 15, income-tax day, David suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 52.
After recovering from the shock, Joan considered what to do. She could stay in Stockbridge and live off the meager fees she could collect for freelance writing, copyediting, and proofreading jobs, while dealing as best she could with the difficulty of getting around, especially in winter — for Joan had never learned to drive a car. She could go back to New York and earn her keep as a paralegal. She could even take attorney Paul Morofsky’s advice and go back to school; she could earn a law degree of her own. She had been working for Morofsky as a paralegal for a year and a half now, commuting back and forth from Stockbridge on the bus and staying a few nights every week in Manhattan. He thought she could have a brilliant future in the legal profession. Already, she had developed a strong interest in constitutional law.
On the other hand, she could pursue that emerging interest in constitutional law outside the legal profession, as a journalist, writing about Supreme Court cases and related matters in the pages of the Libertarian Review. She could go to San Francisco after all, find a place to live, and try to build a new life from scratch in a new place. And, after a bit of soul-searching, it was this last option that she decided to take.
She arrived in San Francisco one day in May of 1979, with little more than the clothes on her back and the contents of a couple of suitcases. As she herself told the tale nearly 15 years later,
When I arrived [in San Francisco, Roy] decided that I should room with him, and he introduced me to a whole new group of people. He made the difference between my being a disconsolate widow trying to pick up the pieces of her life, and being a writer that Roy projected he was very fortunate to have gotten onto the magazine. He gave me a new circle of friends, a new life, and created really a new family for me in the staff of theLibertarian Review.
Over the next year and a half, Joan also established ties with the Cato Institute, then in its second year of operation out of a suite of offices in San Francisco about half a block down the street from the ones that housed the Libertarian Review. These ties with Cato would last for the rest of her professional life. She began by accepting a position as a biweekly commentator on Byline, Cato’s daily radio program, which ran Monday through Friday on more than 150 radio stations coast to coast throughout the 1980s. Meanwhile, she was becoming more involved with the Libertarian Party.
She had first joined the party in 1976 in Massachusetts, and within the first year of her membership she had impressed her fellow party members with the depth of her knowledge, with her verbal facility, and with her gift for diplomacy — her ability to moderate differences, find common ground, and work with people toward mutual goals despite serious disagreements.
“It seemed to Joan that any individualist was by definition also a feminist. Were not women individuals, just as men were?”
To no one’s surprise, she was elected by her fellow Massachusetts party members to become the only woman on the 20-member Platform Committee at the 1977 national Libertarian Party convention in San Francisco. Two years later, in 1979, a few months after she arrived in San Francisco to work on the Libertarian Review, she served as chair of the Platform Committee at the National Libertarian Party Presidential Nominating Convention in Los Angeles, the convention that nominated the ticket of Ed Clark and David Koch to represent the party in the 1980 presidential election against John Anderson, Jimmy Carter, and, of course, the winner, Ronald Reagan.
Joan’s purpose in becoming involved in the Libertarian Party in the first place was to persuade the Massachusetts branch of the party to endorse the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment, which declared that
all people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
It further stipulated that “equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.” Joan’s purpose in becoming involved in the national party was to persuade its members to support the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution.
Such a position was not easily marketed to libertarians in the 1970s — though this fact never ceased to mystify Joan. It seemed to her that any individualist was by definition also a feminist. Were not women individuals, just as men were? It seemed to Joan that any libertarian was by definition also a feminist. Did not women own their own bodies, just as men did? Were they not entitled to the same rights that men enjoyed?
What sort of “libertarian” would balk at amending the US Constitution to recognize the equal rights of women, when these rights had been systematically abrogated and denied in large and small ways, both by the federal government and by state and local governments, ever since the founding of the United States?
Libertarians in the 1970s did not tend to view feminism in this way. They tended to view feminism with suspicion. Weren’t feminists those angry, whiny, bra-burning women who wanted the taxpayers to be forced to pay for their daycare? Weren’t feminists those women who hated men and blamed them for everything that was wrong in women’s lives? Well, yes, of course, there were feminists back then who corresponded rather well to that description. But was that the entire story about feminism?
Joan thought not. She had thought not ever since the early 1960s, when she had read Betty Friedan’s then-new book The Feminine Mystique. She had agreed with Edith Efron, who reviewed Friedan’s book for Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Newsletter (the July 1963 issue) and called it “a brilliant, informative and culturally explosive book” which “should be read by every woman — and by every man — in America.”
If most libertarians (and certainly most libertarian women) in the 1970s thought of feminism as a movement that sought special handouts and other privileges to be bestowed upon women by the federal government, Joan believed this situation was caused, fundamentally, by historical ignorance. Perhaps it was from Murray Rothbard, whom she knew and worked with during her period in San Francisco, that she learned the importance of revising the official historical record from time to time, so that the truth about what actually happened in the past is not forgotten.
In any case, the fact is that her next major libertarian project after her work at the Libertarian Review was done — and the principal reason libertarians of today should find Joan Kennedy Taylor a figure of enduring interest — was her revisionist history of the feminist movement, published in 1992 under the title Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered.
Joan’s work at the Libertarian Review was done soon enough, as things turned out. After three years in San Francisco, the magazine moved one final time, to Washington, DC. A year later, it ceased publication. Joan moved on to the Manhattan Institute — yes, that Manhattan Institute, theManhattan Institute, the standard-issue bloodthirsty neocon think tank in New York City, the last place any libertarian under 40 would expect to find anything or anyone libertarian. But the fact is that 30 years ago, under the presidency of Bill Hammett, a former student of Objectivism who had fallen under the sway of Friedrich Hayek while doing his undergraduate work at the University of Chicago in the early 1960s, the Manhattan Institute was essentially libertarian in its ideological orientation.
Joan in the 1990s
When Joan left the Manhattan Institute, she moved on to the Foundation for Economic Education, where she served as an editor of The Freeman, the original magazine of the modern American libertarian movement, a magazine that was around 35 years old when Joan was working on it in the 1980s and is now rapidly approaching its 60th anniversary. And, in her spare time, she worked out her revisionist history of feminism.
Joan placed the origins of the American feminist movement in the abolitionist movement of the 19th century. In the 1830s, as that movement began gathering steam and attracting more and more nationwide attention, it also began attracting more and more supporters — most of them men, but many of them women.
“It was in this cause,” Joan wrote, “that women became politically active in the United States.” There was a problem, however. Women in the America of the 1830s “had some legal rights, but they … did not have the political rights that men did. They could not vote, hold public office, or serve on juries.” In fact, “there was only one political avenue open to them, and they discovered it — the First Amendment right to petition.”
The petition process was an important tool of the abolitionists from early on. Joan noted that
when ex-president John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts and gave his first speech to the House in December of 1831, he presented petitions from a group of Quakers, asking for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. This was to become a major issue for him as a congressman.
The Quakers didn’t see their request granted, needless to say. “This first petition,” Joan wrote, “was routinely sent to Congress’s standing Committee on the District of Columbia, which didn’t act on it. But more and more petitions against slavery began arriving in Congress.” Within a couple of years, “in December 1833, a national American Antislavery Society was formed. … It promoted the sending of petitions to Congress.”
As a result, Joan wrote,
by the end of 1835, petitions were coming in, not just from Quakers and other abolitionists, but from ordinary citizens in almost every northern and western congressional district. In May 1836, the House of Representatives passed a gag resolution to dispose of the petitions by resolving that petitions relating to the subject of slavery should be ignored and that no action was to be taken on them — they would neither be printed nor referred to committee.
Adams fought against this, but the gag rule remained in effect for more than six years, “until December 3, 1842.” Over that six-year period, however, the petitioners did not give up hope. Nor did they stop working. Thanks to their tireless efforts, Joan wrote,
Mises Academy: Tom DiLorenzo teaches The Great Centralizer: Lincoln and the Growth of Statism
more and more petitions were collected and signed, even though they would be refused and unread. In the session of Congress that began in December 1837, more than 200,000 petitions were sent to Congress, signed by millions of citizens, at a time when the entire population of the North was only about 10 million. The petitioning continued, and most of the volunteers collecting and signing these petitions were women.
And those women could hardly fail to notice the treatment they too often received from their seemingly rather ungrateful male colleagues in the abolitionist movement. “In 1840,” Joan reported,
two antislavery workers, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, went to London as delegates to a World Anti-Slavery Convention. They were horrified to find that they and the other female delegates were not allowed to sit in the meeting with the male delegates, but were required to listen to the proceedings from seats in the gallery. The American abolitionist leader, William Lloyd Garrison, was so incensed by their treatment that he refused to take his seat as a delegate and sat with the women.
And it wasn’t just the men in the abolitionist movement whose behavior had begun to disturb these politically involved women. The laws that men had made — even here in the United States, the nation founded on the proposition that “all men are created equal” — treated women very badly indeed. It was no accident, Joan believed, that it was not until “women first banded together to agitate to end slavery” that they first “became aware of how many laws enslaved them.” The longer they thought about it, after that, the more preposterous it began to seem. “How could one believe that slaves should have civil rights and still believe in denying those rights to the women who were championing their cause?” Joan asked rhetorically.
Surely these supposedly free women were no less intelligent, no less worthy, no less human than these unfortunate members of another race enslaved on our shores. Yet, like the slaves, American married women in 1848 could not own property, could not sign contracts, could not vote, could not control their own earnings, could be physically beaten, and could be returned to their homes by force if they ran away.
So the abolitionist women turned their attention to what would later be called “feminist” concerns. Two of them, Stanton and Mott, organized what Joan called the “first Woman’s Rights Convention” in 1848. Stanton and Mott called it “a convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of women.” It was a resounding success, attracting some three hundred attendees, and became the first of a series of such conferences held over the next dozen years in other parts of the country.
Joan focused her attention most sharply, not on the conferences and alliances and election campaigns that these early feminists involved themselves in, but rather on the ideas that motivated them. “The thesis of this book,” she wrote, near the beginning of Reclaiming the Mainstream,
is that what we now call “feminism” began early in the nineteenth century as an individualist movement, and, further, that it is this individualism that has been the defining characteristic of the mainstream of that movement ever since. This does not mean that individualism has always predominated. Since the early days of the movement, there have been two philosophical strands of thought within it: individualism and collectivism, and from time to time one or the other strand has become dominant. When the collectivists predominate, the individualists become less active and return to cultivating their gardens.
In Joan’s view, if the contemporary feminist movement was earning itself a black eye among libertarians by extolling the supposed benefits of federal programs that would privilege certain women at the expense of everyone else, this merely showed that the collectivists in the feminist movement were temporarily in the ascendant.
Instead of cultivating their gardens, individualist feminists — libertarian feminists — should take the movement back from these collectivists. They should reclaim the mainstream.
Joan Kennedy Taylor was diagnosed with bladder cancer early in 2002 and was given less than a year to live. Nearly four years later, late in 2005, she died from the effects of the cancer and related kidney failure, just short of her 79th birthday. Not long before the cancer robbed her of the strength to write, so that she had at last to curtail her many years of service as an officer of the Association of Libertarian Feminists, she managed to complete one more book, outlining a libertarian solution to the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. At the time of her death, as a pioneer in the definition and promotion of individualist or libertarian feminism, Joan had earned an honored place in the libertarian tradition.

Read Full Post »


10, big, misconceptions, about, libertarianism,

10 Big Misconceptions About Libertarianism

Share on Facebook

Last weekend, America’s Future Foundation (AFF) – a national organization that educates young professionals on free market economics, politics, and current events – had a table at the Printers Row Lit Fest in Chicago. The event is billed as the largest outdoor literary festival in the Midwest, drawing over 125,000 people over two days. The sheer volume of curious minds at the event means it’s a great place for AFF to meet people who don’t normally seek political conversation, but are open to learning new ideas.
This is the second year AFF exhibited at the festival, and the second year festival-goers had the opportunity to learn about libertarianism, the political philosophy that holds liberty as its maxim. We offered books by libertarian luminaries and administered a short survey that polled people’s views on ten political issues, allowing us to place them on a grid that indicated whether the person was a libertarian or something else.
We discovered many new libertarians at the festival. Actually, it would be more accurate to say they discovered themselves. Most people understand liberty is indivisible – that a government cannot protect a person’s personal liberties without also protecting his or her economic freedoms. It is through having the freedom to earn a living in the occupation of one’s choice and to keep the vast majority of one’s earnings that a person can realize personal liberties, such as building a life with the person of their choice. Yes, a government is necessary to provide public goods, like courts and roads, and to offer a basic social safety net, but it is improper and destructive for government to bestow special favors or offer exemptions to the law.
Although most visitors were curious about libertarianism, a handful believed they understood libertarianism well enough to make some pretty confused or even outrageous statements. 
Here are the top ten misunderstandings about libertarianism shared at the Printers Row Lit Fest:
10. You must be a member of the Libertarian Party to identify as libertarian.
Rebuttal: They have the same name, but a libertarian can be a member of any political party (or none at all). In the upcoming presidential election, some libertarians support the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, others support Mitt Romney, and still others support Barack Obama (although there will be fewer of those this election).
9. Libertarians are pacifists. 
Rebuttal: Truthfully, libertarians tend to agree with Randolph Bourne who said, “War is the health of the state.” Government’s power grows when it mobilizes a people to fight. Self-defense is necessary when faced with a threat, but wars of choice must be opposed every time. Also, remember that a libertarian called Milton Friedman persuaded Richard Nixon to end the military draft.
8. Libertarians are against any and all economic regulation. 
 Rebuttal: Regulation is a crucial government duty. Government must take steps to address fraud, environmental pollution, and trade barriers wherever they appear. A free market can only work well when there are a few, simple rules by which everyone must abide.
7. Libertarians are for the few deciding the direction of the economy at the expense of the many. 
Rebuttal: One visitor tried to explain how we need “many minds” to determine how the economy is structured rather than it being planned by a few corporate bigwigs. These minds would plan the economy for everyone’s benefit. I then asked him whether a few government officials at the top would have superior knowledge or insight on how the economy should be planned, or whether the purchasing decisions of every participant in the market should “plan” the economy from the bottom-up. The government is comprised of people who are just as susceptible to corruption and just as limited in knowledge as anyone outside of government, and yet we’re all bound by their decisions.
6. Libertarians are indifferent to monopolies. 
Rebuttal: In fact, libertarians are against empowering the greatest monopoly of all: government. Why would someone be against a monopoly in computer software or food production, but support a monopoly in schooling or health insurance?
5. Libertarians advocate racist or sexist policies.
Rebuttal: Equal treatment under the law. Also, libertarians want to end the failed and destructive War on Drugs.
4. Libertarians are for private ownership of schools for the sake of private ownership of schools. 
Rebuttal: This fallacy emerges regularly in Chicago, where the high school graduation rate from traditional public schools is just over 50%. We’ve seen how a government monopoly in schooling continues to lower standards; incentives to improve are mostly absent. Schools that must serve students or face losing them (and their attendant tuition) perform better. Private incentives work to create innovative products for satisfied customers in nearly every other sector of the economy, and they work well today for the relatively few lucky students who can attend a non-government monopoly school. Libertarians seek to make consumer-driven schooling available to the most children possible.
3. Libertarians are “wing-men for private plutocrats.” 
Rebuttal: The guy who said that probably enjoyed using those words repeatedly in that particular sequence. When I explained libertarians are against every form of crony capitalism (whereby a private company or organization lobbies for special treatment or benefits from government), he argued that my not wanting government to do certain things cedes those functions to an unaccountable private plutocracy. He assumed (wrongly) private businesses can somehow survive in a free market without serving their customers well. He didn’t want to answer when I asked why he was a wing-man for public plutocrats who retain massive power over everyone’s lives, election after election despite public disapproval.
2. Libertarians are anarchists. 
Rebuttal: A couple people argued libertarians don’t want any government at all. In truth, libertarians advocate a strictly limited government that protects everyone’s rights equally.
1. Libertarians want poor people to die. 
Rebuttal: Someone actually said that after I tried to explain how prices work to direct goods and services to the people who value them most, particularly in the aftermath of a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina. A free price system doesn’t mean prices always rise necessarily, but that they change to address the scarcity and need of the moment. 
Libertarians are notorious for having their own spin on the philosophy, but these ideas represent the mainstream of libertarian thought today. Libertarians do not seek to create a heaven on earth, but to discover rules and institutions that maximize everyone’s freedom and prosperity. I was happy to see so many new people walk away from Printers Row with the understanding that there is a political philosophy that demands that government protect liberty as a whole, not just certain pieces of it.

10 Big Misconceptions About Libertarianism

Read Full Post »

Pride Calendar 2012

Have a gay pride event you want listed?  Just post the info in the comments section, we’ll check it out and add it to the calendar!

June 1.  Reel Affirmations screens “Auntie Mame,” Lunar Lawn, Hillwood Estates, Washington DC. 6:30 pm

June 2 Latino Gay Mass (Bilingual)
St. Thomas’s Episcopal Church

June 7 Latino Pride Dance 8:00 pm
2009 8th Street NW

June 7. Washington DC. Log Cabin Pride Social.  1701 16th Street NW.
June 9. Maplewood-South Orange Pride, NJ.

12pm-5pm Memorial Park 124 Dunnell Street

June 10.  Washington DC.  Capitol Pride.  Gary Johnson tabling.  7th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW
June 16.  Nashville TN. Libertarians table at Nashville Pride. Metro RiverFront Park. First Avenue and Broadway. 11:00-7:00.
June 18-24.  PorcFest.  Lancaster, NH.
Gay and bi friendly libertarian Woodstock.

Late May to early June: Baltic Gay Pride/Lithuania Gay Pride/Estonia Gay Pride/Latvia Gay Pride (held in Riga, Latvia this year).
Late May to Early June: Bucharest Gay Pride/Romania Gay Pride.
Late May to Early June: Cork Gay Pride (Ireland).
Late May to early June: Dresden Gay Pride (Germany).
Late May to Early June: Kitchener Gay Pride/Tri-Pride Cambridge-Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario).

June 23.  Chesapeake, MD.  Sunset River Pride Cruise. http://www.chesapeakepridefestival.org/id62.html

Early June: Buffalo Gay Pride.
Early June: Rome Gay Pride.
Early June: Fresno Gay Pride.
Early June: Honolulu Gay Pride.
Early June: Kansas City Gay Pride.
Early June: Queens Gay Pride.
Early June: Sacramento Gay Pride.
Early June: Santa Cruz Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Blackpool Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Bordeaux Gay Pride (France).
Early to mid-June: Boston Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Brooklyn Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Des Moines Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: El Paso Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Edmonton Gay Pride (Alberta).
Early to mid-June: Indianapolis Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Kalamazoo Gay Pride (MI).
Early to mid-June: Milan Gay Pride (Italy).
Early to mid-June: Milwaukee Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Newark Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Olympia Gay Pride (WA).
Early to mid-June: Philadelphia Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Pittsburgh Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: San Antonio Gay PrideFest.
Early to mid-June: Spokane Gay Pride (WA).
Early to mid-June: Tulsa Gay Pride.
Early to mid-June: Warsaw Gay Pride (Poland).
Early to mid-June: York Gay Pride (Ontario).
Mid- to late June: Baltimore Gay Pride.
Mid- to late June: Berlin Gay Pride.
Mid- to late June: Bisbee Gay Pride (AZ).
Mid- to late June: Boise Gay Pride.
Mid- to late June: Calderdale Gay Pride (UK).
Mid- to late June: Columbus Gay Pride (OH).
Mid- to late June: Denver Gay Pride.
Mid- to late June: Hamilton Gay Pride (Ontario).
Mid- to late June: Kingston Gay Pride (Ontario).
Mid- to late June: Lancaster Gay Pride (PA).
Mid- to late June: Lyon Gay Pride (France).
Mid- to late June: Memphis Black Gay Pride.
Mid- to late June: Nashville Gay Pride.
Mid- to late June: Zagreb Gay Pride (Croatia).
Mid- to late June: Zurich Gay Pride/Christopher Day Street Zurich/Switzerland Gay Pride.

June 2012 (exact dates TBD)

LGBTQQ Pride Picnic at Humboldt Park


June 1 – 2, 2012


Contact: Jasán Ward – 518-432-4188

June 6 -12, 2012


Contact: Khalil Edwards – 503 752 5766
Facebook: Portland Black Pride

June 8, 2012 (Tentative)

6TH ANNUAL DC LATINO PRIDE Presented by the Latino GLBT History Project (LHP)

Contact: David M. Perez – 202-670-5547

June 14 – 17, 2012


Contact: Anthony Hardaway – 901-522-8459

June 22 – 24, 2012


Contact: Michael Hodge – 347-846-0362
P. O. Box 157, New York, NY 10037

June 22 – 25, 2012


Contact: Dean Edwards
P.O. BOX 8191, Columbia, SC 29202

Portland – 7 June

Celebrate the Bearpocalypse in Portland, OR

San Francisco – 17 June

Phattest Events presents: Pre-Pride 2012

Fort lauderdale – 21 June

Non-profit convention for mature men and their admirers

San Francisco – 24 June

Official Bear and Chub Pride Event for San Francisco Pride 2012
Late June: Chicago Gay Pride.
Late June: Cleveland Gay Pride.
Late June: Houston Gay Pride.
Late June: Paris Gay Pride.
Late June: St. Louis Gay Pride.
Late June: Santa Fe Gay Pride.
Late June: Seattle Gay Pride.
Late June: Wichita Gay Pride.

June 28-July 1. Chicago.  Windy City Black Pride.  http://www.windycityblackpride.org/About-Us.html

Late June to early July: Barcelona Gay Pride.
Late June to early July: Helsinki Gay Pride/ Finland Gay Pride.
Late June to early July: London Gay Pride.
Late June to early July: Madrid Gay Pride.
Late June to early July: Toronto Gay Pride.

July 8-15.  Rural NE Maryland.  IMEN gay male nudist retreat (!). http://www.imeninc.org/  (For when you have a lot to be proud of!)
July 19-22.  Portland, Oregon.  Latino Pride.  http://latinogaypridepdx.com/
July 20-22.  San Diego, CA.  Gay Pride.  Stonewall Rally  http://sdpride.org/
July 17.  San Diego, CA.  Gay Pride Festival.  http://sdpride.org/
July 19.  Fargo, Minnesota. 5K run Fargo-Moorehead Pride.  http://www.pridecollective.com/fmpride/
July 4 – 8, 2012


Contact: Kelvin A. Okundaye – 323-285-4225
4859 W. Slauson Avenue, Suite 319, Los Angeles, CA 90056

July 13 – 15, 2012


Contact: TL Stewart or Jahaan Norvell – 704-890-6302 or 704-953-8813
8429 Ainsworth Street, Charlotte, NC 28216

July 14 – 17, 2012


Contact: David Martinez
503- 307-9143

July 19 – 22, 2012


Contact: Perris Straughter, Pride Committee Chair

July 19 – 22, 2012


Contact: Akil Campbell – 919-233-2044 or 980-229-9468
5000 Sedgewick Drive, Suite C, Raleigh, NC 27616

July 26 – 29, 2012


Contact: Curtis Lipscomb
KICK, The Center in Detroit, 41 Burroughs Street, Suite 109, Detroit, MI 48202

July 27 – 29, 2012


Contact: Michelle Mitchell – 510-385-2842
6460 Brann Street, Oakland, CA 94605

August 5.  Salem, Oregon.  http://www.capitolpride.org/

August 9-12.  Fargo, Minnesota.  Fargo-Moorehead Pride.  http://www.pridecollective.com/fmpride/

August 4.  Annapolis-Edgewater-Mayo Beach, Maryland.  Chesapeake Pride.  http://www.chesapeakepridefestival.org/

Guerneville – 1 August

The biggest, hairiest, beefiest, burliest,
craziest, laziest weekend of BEAR FUNdraising
on the planet! Our 16th Year!
August 7-12.  Walhall, MI.  Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival (women only). 


Seattle – 30 August

Labor Day Weekend, August 30th – September 3rd 2012 join us for a Bear Run full of friendly, furry fellas for an XL Weekend adventure. An awesome long weekend is planned, filled with fun events, crazy adventure, great food, belly rubs, and eye candy from

Chicago – 31 August

Chicago is hosting the largest gay big man & admirer event in North America on August 31 – September 3, 2012!

New Orleans – 31 August

4th Annual Bear Pool Party in a saltwater pool, jacuzzi, and other fun play places

August 2 – 5, 2012


Contact: Stephaun Wallace – 585-420-1400
MOCHA Center, 107 Liberty Pole Way, Rochester, NY 14604

August 3 – 5, 2012



Contact: Stephaun Wallace – 716-852-1142
MOCHA Center, 1092 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14209

August 3 – 5, 2012


Contact: Austin M. Anderson – 206-461-6910 Ext 231

August 9 – 12, 2012

Contact: Tanya Couch – 502-519-0065
321 Idlewylde Drive Suite 4, Louisville, KY 40206

August 10 – 12, 2012


Contact: Willie Kelly – 904-435-4529

August 10 – 12, 2012


Contact: Rosalyn Shepherd – 317-694-3482
Indiana Black Pride, Inc., P.O. Box 2985, Indianapolis, IN 46206

August 11, 2012


Contact: Carolina Ramos & Charles W. Patmon Jr.
619-459-8257 & 619-822-5793

August 17 – 19, 2012

Contact: Audrey Pearson – 314- 517-1434

August 18, 2012


Contact: Phyll Opoku-Gyimah

August 30 – September 3, 2012

Contact: Raymond Duke – 404-872-6410
In The Life Atlanta, 346 Auburn Avenue, NE Suite 126, Atlanta, GA 30312

September 27 – October 1, 2012


Contact: Derrick Spillman – 214-440-9300
3100 Main Street # 15, Dallas, TX 75226
derrickdfwpride@gmail.com or dfwpridemovement@gmail.com

Frisco – 4 October

It’s 2012 and you know that means….Earthquakes, tidal waves and more Pat Robertson telling us it’s our fault. Well, screw her! If 2012 is the end of the world (again), then head to Colorado Oct 4-7th for our biggest, sexiest and Bearist Bear Run ever: E

Florida – 10 October

Join The first Bear Arabia event in Morocco.
Join the many Arab Bears gathering from around in a unique concept and tour around the magical cities of Morocco.
to know more about it, visit http://www.BearArabia.org

October 5 – 8, 2012

Contact: Carlton Smith – 443-691-9669
PO Box 23744, Baltimore, MD 21203

October 11 – 14, 2012


Contact: Mark Knight – 405-812-4857

October 19 – 21, 2012


Contact: Dwayne Jenkins – 615-974-2832
PO Box 68335, Nashville, TN 37206

from Ft Lauderdale – 10 November

The Tenth Anniversary Sailing… don’t miss it!

New Orleans LA – 25 November

Join Tazbeaux and friends for another fun-filled adventure across the Caribbean. This 2012 cruise visits the exotic tropical ports of Costa Maya MX, Belize City Belize, Isla Roatan Honduras & Cozumel MX.

October 6.  Memphis/Mid-South Pride.  http://www.midsouthpride.org/

October 11-14.   San Diego.  Libertopia.  Counter-cultural libertarians.  www.libertopia.org

November 15 – 18, 2012

Joseph Lindsey – 601- 957-3625
P. O. Box 4682, Jackson, MS 39296

November 22 – 25, 2012


Contact: Ryan Rochon – 504-309-9551

More Monthly Gay Pride Calendars

Read Full Post »

A picture is worth a thousand words is one of the guiding principles of BigHomo as a blog.

Read Full Post »

Raico Booklet on Gay Rights (1)(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Read Full Post »

We plan to start a Gays and Lesbians at Libertopia and a Gays and Lesbians at the Libertarian Political Action Conference group, so people can be pre-networked before they get to these (and other, future) events.

Tentative Schedule*

Thursday October 20
5pm-8pm – Preregistration

Location To Be Announced
8pm – Sponsor party

Lysander Spooner Room
10:30pm-midnight – Film “Star Trek: Of Gods and Men”

Friday October 21 
Libertopia Hospitality Room (behind the stage)
8am-10am – Registration

Garden Green
9am-9:45 – Emily Richards – Yoga workshop
10am-noon – Kid’s Zone
2pm-6pm – Kid’s Zone

Main Stage
10am-10:45am – Stefan Molyneux – Welcome to Libertopia
11am-11:45am – Butler Shaffer – The Desire for Liberty Is Not Rational
During lunch from noon to 2pm:
noon- 1pm – Live music
1pm-1:30pm – open mic
1:30pm-2pm – comedy
2pm-2:45pm – Sharon Presley – How Government Harms Women – book signing at 2:45 in exhibitor area.
3pm-3:45 – Spencer MacCallum – A Skeptic’s View of Defensive Force
4pm-4:45 – Brian Doherty – Libertarians and the American Right – book signing at 4:45 in exhibitor area.
5pm-5:45 – Michael Strong – Creating a Free Future for All by Creating Free Cities Now.
6pm-8pm – dinner break – Join Us at the Bali Hai Restaurant – Make your reservation early (619) 222 -1181
8pm-9:30pm – “Fool For A Client” with Mark Whitney
9:30pm-10:30pm – Voluntaryist videos

Lysander Spooner Room
11am-11:45am – Sheldon Richman – The Articles of Confederation versus the US Constitution.
2pm-2:45pm – Jim Peron – How to Talk to The Left – book signing at 2:45 in exhibitor area.
3pm-3:45pm – Paul Lemberg – Freedom and Entrepreneurship: Is Running Your Own Business the Only Path to Self-determination?
4pm-4:45pm – Bill Rounds – How to Vanish
5pm-5:45pm – Angela Keaton – Come Home America!
10:30pm-midnight – Film “Libertopia

John Galt Room
11am-11:45am – Entertainment panel – Scott Beiser, Robert Anthony Peters, Larken Rose,  J. Neil Schulman
2pm -2:45pm – Carla Gericke – Liberty is Moving: Why the Free State Project’s Goal of Concentrating Activists in New Hampshire Is Working.
3pm-3:45pm – Lawrence Samuels – The Importance of Chaology & Swarm Intelligence to Liberty.
4pm-4:45pm – Desiree Dudley – Freedom to Innovate: A Necessity of Progress.
5pm-5:45pm – Perry Mason and Jonathan Logan – The Trans-National Vanguard and the Rise of Crypto-Tribes.

Robert LeFevre Room

11am-11:45am – Stacy Litz – The Future of the Student Movement for Liberty
2pm-2:45pm – Fred Stitt and Penny Burbank – Advances in world-wide libertarian outreach through social media
3pm-3:45pm – Marlene Damon – “You Can’t Not Communicate”
4pm-4:45pm – Paul Rosenberg – Digital Currencies & The New Economy
5pm-5:45pm – Tarrin Lupo – Tips for Self-Publishing.  How an indie author and liberty activist’s book became #1 on Amazon without copyright protection.

Ludwig Von Mises Room
11am-11:45am – Bruce Rottman – Challenges to Freedom: Ancient, Modern, and Future.
2pm-2:45pm – Bruce Rottman – Defending the Free Society: Two Approaches (Rights and Utility).
3pm-3:45pm – Robert Anthony Peters – The Revolution WILL be Televised: How Art and Culture are Necessary for the Freedom Movement.
4pm-4:45pm – Zaira Dynia – Women and the Agorist Family
5pm-5:45pm – John Rafanello – Living Free and Happy in an Unfree World

Saturday October 22

Backstage Room/Libertopia Hospitality Room (behind the stage)
8am-10am – Last Chance Registration

Garden Green

8am-8:45am – Marc Stevens – fitness workshop
9am-noon – Kid’s Zone
2pm-6pm – Kid’s Zone

Main Stage
9am-9:45am – J. Neil Schulman – Brother, Can You Spare a Million Bucks?
10am-10:45am – Gary Chartier – Your Most Important Contribution to the Cause of Freedom – book signing at 10:45 in exhibitor area.
11am-11:45am – Larken Rose – Seeing the Future – book signing at 11:45 in exhibitor area.
During lunch from noon to 2pm:
noon – Live music
1pm – 1:30pm – open mic
1:30pm – 2pm – comedy
2pm-2:45pm – Marc Stevens – Effective Damage Control
3pm-3:45pm – David Friedman – Should We Abolish the Criminal Law?
4pm-4:45pm – Jay Stuart Snelson – Win-Win Theory on the Unification of Science, Economics, and Religion.
5pm-5:45pm – Meet the A Team open forum discussion – Gary Chartier, David Friedman, Roderick Long, and Sheldon Richman.
6pm-8pm – dinner break – Join Us at the Humphrey’s Restaurant – Make your reservations early (619) 378-4281.
8pm-10:30pm – Anarchy in San Diego concert

Lysander Spooner Room

9am-9:45am – Ryan William Nohea Garcia – Seasteading
10am-10:45am – Roderick Long – Libertarianism and Class Struggle
3pm-3:45pm – Tom Bell – White Flag, Black Flag, and In Between
4pm-4:45pm – Jeff Berwick – The Road to Free Market Money and Banking
5pm-5:45pm – Peter Bos – The Road to Freedom: The Demise of the Nation-State
10:30pm-midnight – Film “V for Vendetta”

John Galt Room
9am-9:45am – Education panel – Debbie Harbeseon, Joey Hill, Bruce Rottman, Fred Stitt, and Erika Perkins.
10am-10:45am – Entrepreneurship panel – Jeff Berwick, Tom Garrett, Paul Lemberg, and Paul Rosenberg.
3pm-3:45pm – Debbie Harbeson – The Five Principles of Unschooling
4pm-4:45pm – Anthony Gregory – The Case for Abolishing the Police
5pm-5:45pm -Bill Buppert – Private Security and the Post-State World: The Virtue of Voluntary Defense.

Robert LeFevre Room

9am-9:45am – Adam Summers – Applying Free-Market Economics to State and National Problems.
10am-10:45am – Michael Cindrich – Marijuana Prohibition And Its Costs to Society
3pm-3:45pm – Barry Schwartz – Economics and Kepler’s Angels: Defending the Law of Marginal Utilities.
4pm-4:45pm – Fred Stitt – Problems and Solutions in Freedom-focused Higher Education.
5pm-5:45pm – Chelsea Krafve – The Student Movement for Liberty

Ludwig Von Mises Room

9am-9:45am – Scott Bieser – Pondering Intellectual Property
10am-10:45am – Bruce Rottman – Unemployment: A Crusoe Simulation
3pm-3:45pm – Bruce Rottman – A History of Money
4pm-4:45pm – Sharon Presley – A Critical Thinking Workshop for Libertarians
5pm-5:45pm – Bruce Rottman – Making Responsible Choices

Sunday October 23

Garden Green

8am-8:45am – Barry Schwartz – Aikido Workshop
10am-noon – Kid’s Zone
2pm-6pm – Kid’s Zone

Main Stage
9am-9:45am – David Friedman – Legal Systems Very Different From Ours
10am-10:45am – Declaration of Independence presentation – Sky Conway and Gary Chartier.
11am-11:45am – Meet the A Team open forum discussion – Stefan Molyneux, Larken Rose, Butler Shaffer, and Marc Stevens.
noon-2pm – lunch break
2pm-2:45pm – Global Strategies to Get to Libertopia – Peter Bos, Ryan William Nohea Garcia, and Michael Strong.
3pm-3:45pm – Individual Strategies to Get to Libertopia – Panelists to be announced
4pm-4:45pm – Stefan Molyneux – The Future Will Be Nothing like the Past!

Marina Ballroom

Noon-2pm – Sovereign Awards Banquet


There is a plethera of activities at Libertopia so check this section often as we update it.

Libertopia Signature Events
Sovereign Awards
Friday night Banquet at the Bali Hai
buy your tickets he re (Link)
“Anarchy in San Diego”
Saturday night Concert
The best and the brightest minds.

Over 30 Speakers




Anarchist All-Stars take on the tough questions

Open Mic

Sign up to get your 5 minutes on Stage. Please no politicians or despots (same difference)

Rothbard Band performing at Libertopia

Hailing from the Alamo city in Texas, Rothbard is a rock band that strives to advance the message of liberty with thoughtful and creative music. Their repertoire consists of carefully selected covers integrated with originals that lament such absurdities as “Helicopter Ben” and “Too Big to Fail” welfare queens while other songs offer a full throated defense of freedom and give props to Ron Paul whose 2008 presidential campaign is largely responsible for inspiring lead singer David White to educate himself and others on the principles of liberty and start the band in the first place.
Participatory Art
Sign up to create a participatory artwork to share with our community

Body Art Contest

Free Zones/Themed Areas
Create a cool themed communities.

Sign up here << (LINK coming soon!)

Bring your boat and enjoy Libertopia!
Meet Ups..hobbies…private group meetings
Sign up for private get togethers. Groups of max 20.
Trading Man
Pay homage to Libertopia‘s icon. Make a winning bid and take him home as reminder of a most excellent weekend
Libertopia Announces Special Program for Teens‏
Bruce RottmanBruce Rottman, Humanities teacher at Providence Hall and lecturer for the Foundation for Economic Education, will be presenting a special educational program for teens at Libertopia 2011.
High School
Challenges to Freedom: Ancient, Modern, and Future
What challenges to a free society do we face? This session explores the roots of statism, different ways of thinking about rights, and the confusion about “social justice.” We will also discuss the short video, “Lilliputian Liberty.”
Defending the Free Society:
Two Approaches (Rights and Utility) What are the best ways to defend voluntaryism? This session explores both utilitarian and rights-based arguments. We will also discuss the video “George Ought to Help.”
Grades 7–up
Unemployment: A Crusoe Simulation
What is unemployment, and where does it come from? Do government programs or wars reduce unemployment? Using a “Crusoe economics” simulation, this session shows why government programs not only don’t solve unemployment, but in fact make it worse. A History of Money What is money, and where did it come from? This session explores the history of money and government’s intervention with money. Comes with free money! (Unfortunately, it isn’t worth much, since it’s government money).
Final Talk: All Ages
Making Responsible Choices
Liberty necessitates responsible choices; we will examine what our responsibilities are in a free (and not so free) society. We will also discuss the short videos “We’re the Government, and You’re Not ” and “The Philosophy of Liberty.”
Reminder: All individuals under the age of 18 are admitted free when accompanied by an adult member. Please let us know the names of your children that will be attending. We will also have games and crafts and other activities for kids.
 Great f

Read Full Post »

I knew that DADT was being over-turned mainly by the work of small-l libertarians at the Log Cabin Republicans (while the Democrats mainly temporize and ask for donations to get the job done) and gay marriage in California was being defended in the courts in California by libertarian-leaning Republicans like Ted Olson.  And the Supreme Court decision that overturned “sodomy laws” quoted heavily from the amicus brief filed by the Constitutional Law scholars at the libertarian CATO Institute.

But now social conservative Star Parker informs me that gay marriage in New York is also a libertarian plot, funded by those evil speculators and hooked-nosed hedge fund managers that Obama warns us against:

A few rich libertarians undermine freedom 

The New York Magazine headline reads: “You Can Thank a Few
Rich Libertarians for Gay Marriage.”

The story is that a $1-million contribution by several rich Republican
hedge fund operators, ” inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom,
consistent with their libertarian views,” was key to legalization of same sex marriage
in New York.

One of these men, Paul Singer, also happens to be chairman of the Manhattan
Institute, the libertarian leaning think tank in New York City that describes its
mission “to foster greater economic choice and personal responsibility.”
But these latest efforts of Singer and his colleagues undermine that mission and
aspirations toward keeping this a free nation with limited government.

Their willingness to dismiss the meaning and relevance of a pillar of traditional
values — marriage — makes clear that in no way do they see our free nation
rooted in God-given truths. They must opt, then, for the only other alternative.
Human design. They’ll decide what is relevant and not, what is true and false.
So despite talk about freedom, they share an awful lot of common ground with
socialists. They think they’re clever enough to understand the whole world and
design how we should live. They depart from socialists in their formula, not in
their approach.

Certainly, when John Adams talked about a nation of “laws and not men,” he was
thinking about the importance in a free nation to have law grounded in truth, shielding
citizens from capricious rule.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a talk he gave at Singer’s Manhattan
Institute a number of years ago, referred to “the hateful phrase, the Living Constitution.”
He is an “originalist” who believes that words have meaning and that to have a
functioning constitution the essential meaning of its words cannot change with the
latest iPod model.

I would guess these libertarian Republicans share Justice Scalia’s sentiments about
the importance of the integrity of the language of our constitution and that they probably
see its degradation as a liberal scourge.

Whether Obamacare goes forward, with its unprecedented new intrusions by government
into our private lives, rides on courts accepting its reinvention of the meaning of the words
“tax” and “commerce.”

Yet these same libertarians, who accept the gravity of changing the meaning of words
in a document several hundred years old, in a blink of an eye use money and political
power to change the meaning of a word thousands of years old.

Not just any word. A word — marriage — central to human social reality.

Loving v. Virginia, in which prohibition of interracial marriage was found
unconstitutional, is brought up as a precedent to justify same sex marriage.

But Loving was about the right of any man and woman to marry. The same sex
marriage issue is about the right to redefine what marriage is. I defend the former.
I reject the latter.

Rosa Parks was not trying to redefine what a bus is. She was asserting her right to
sit wherever she wanted on it.

Preservation of language as a vessel for underlying truths has always been
central to racial justice in our nation. As Lincoln made clear at Gettysburg,
we wound up with over a half a million dead fighting over the integrity of the
word “equal.”

A free country depends not on clever individuals usurping power and designing
our world according to their tastes. It depends on transmission of prior truths and
the humility to accept and live by them.

Check on the quality of freedom in our inner cities today, where young black men
and women have the same regard for marriage as do these hedge fund managers.

It’s been said that when words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty. It’s
something all of us, even wealthy libertarians, should keep in mind.


Yea, yea, yea Star.  The 2% or so of the population who are gay, some of whom may
choose to marry, are undermining the country.  Extending marriage and its expectations
and responsibilities to those gay couples will undermine marriage (which looks like it
needs all the people it can get on its team, actually.)

I would suggest that the problems all those young unmarried black girls with fatherless
kids are having are because the welfare state has eliminated their ability to start a business,
 from a lemonade stand, to a sandwich cart, to delivering first class mail, to braiding hair,
without government permits.  And that many of them have been locked up for
selling pot (even as other ethnic groups are not arrested for doing the same thing).

And the jargon about Scalia, language etc is just that.  Thoughtless jargon. 
Extending marriage to same sex couples simply recognizes that they are in fact
married even though the law ignored it.  Just as blacks were not morally property,
but were morally entitled to self-ownership when the law did not recognize that
moral fact, and just as women had a right to the wealth they produced or homesteading 
even when the law did not recognize that moral fact and gave their productivity to
their husbands, gay couples in love, in long-term
relationships, buying property together and raising children together, are as a moral fact
married whether the law recognizes it or not.

And by the way Star, are libertarians acceptable if and when they aren’t wealthy?
Is it the money or the committment to liberty that you think keeps them from
entering the Kingdom?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »