Aggregating the best in libertarian news daily from a number of leading sites:
The Beacon, FEE, Laissez-Faire, Lew Rockwell, Personal Liberty,
Reason, Scott Adams & Sex & The State. See our Sources

The Armed Wing of Political Correctness

Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked and a columnist for reason.com. O’Neill, who calls himself a “Marxist libertarian,” writes about free speech, environmentalism, and other issues at the nexus of politics and culture. In December, Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie sat down with the 41-year-old Londoner.

Q: What do you think is the biggest enemy or opponent of free speech today?

A: I don’t think it’s the state. It used to be the state—it would smash its boot down on any ideology it thought was dangerous. That still happens, particularly in Europe. We have hate speech laws which have seen religious people being arrested and critics of Islam being fined. But the real threat, I think, is conformism and cowardice. A reluctance among ordinary people to have the debate out, to take risks intellectually, to express what’s in their minds.

Q: But it seems like just as political correctness and tenured radicals took over the university, American politics went very much to the right.

A: I think political correctness is quite right-wing. This is the great myth. I would say this, as a sort of lefty libertarian old-school Marxist, I suppose, but I think political correctness is a very conservative idea in that it’s about stamping down on risky ideas, anything that might rattle the apple cart. If you think of the radical left of the ’60s and ’70s, they spoke entirely in the language of “liberation.” National liberation, women’s liberation, gay liberation. It’s only quite recently the left has adopted the language of being anti-liberal, pro-state, wanting to squash dangerous ideas.

Q: You’ve critiqued left-wing environmentalism as really puritanical.

A: It’s my least favorite ideology. It’s an apology for poverty, a justification for unequal development across the world. But you can’t come out and say, “I oppose economic development in Africa,” because that would be a bit racist. So instead you have to doll it up in these P.C., acceptable-sounding terms like “saving the planet.” But it is about preventing people from growing, from progressing, from having the industrial leap forward that we in the West enjoyed 200 years ago.

Q: What do you do to stop Muslims in Europe from being radicalized?

A: I think it’s not so much the lure of the Islamic State as it is the push of our own societies. Western Europe has lost any sense of how to make [the next generation] feel part of a liberal, democratic, enlightened Western project….The punishment of Islamophobia, the clamping down on anyone who criticizes Islam, that actually fuels the victim mentality among some young radical Muslims.

Think about the Charlie Hebdo massacre—everyone thought, “This was some foreign attack.” But I think it was actually a very French attack. This is a country in which it’s potentially against the law to criticize Muslims. Charlie Hebdo itself had been taken to court for “religious hatred.” These guys who killed the cartoonists grew up in a country that told them, “It is really bad for people to offend your religious faith.” And then we wonder why they acted the way they did.

Q: So do you see terrorism in the West as a problem with the West turning its back on the Enlightenment?

A: Yeah. I think the Charlie Hebdo massacre—that was the armed wing of political correctness. These are products of a society that has abandoned the idea of freedom of speech, abandoned the idea of democracy, abandoned the idea of real robust debate, and tough luck if it hurts your feelings. And in that climate, you give rise to groups who are super-sensitive [and] who think everything that goes against their way of life should be crushed.

Read More →
It’s the Worst Day on the Internet, Reddit Removes ‘Warrant Canary’ From Transparency Report, Milo Yiannopoulos ‘Does Not Exist’: A.M. Links

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and dont forget to sign up for Reasons daily updates for more content.

Read More →
Lawsuits and Legislation Threaten the ‘Sharing’ Economy: New at Reason

Legislators in California see something wrong with sharing economy services like Uber and Lyft, and yet evidence of their benefits are abound. Steven Greenhut observes:

As an occasional cab rider in Sacramento, I’ve noticed something that isn’t always a given: fleets of newer cabs, polite drivers and the use of modern credit card machines. This is a city where the cabs can be so shabby, the City Council two years ago passed new regulations that require drivers to have a rudimentary understanding of local geography and English, to drive non-jalopies and “be hygienically clean.”

“The ordinance was written in response to reports of fistfights among cabbies, rude exchanges with customers and high-speed rides,” according to the Sacramento Bee. But few would credit the new rules for a quickly improving cab-riding experience. The credit properly goes to Uber and Lyft—those ride-booking services that introduced competition.

In San Diego, pressure from these upstarts caused the city to deregulate its “medallion” system that imposed a limit on the number of cabs in the city. Because of the cartel, operating permits cost more than $100,000, which forced cabbies to work long hours (earning only $5 an hour, according to one study) paying off the cab owners’ medallion fees. Now anyone who meets some basic standards is free to buy and operate a cab.

This is how markets work.

California legislators don’t like that, and are coming up with new ways to hamper such market forces.

View this article.

Read More →