Thank you for this.
I discovered a few logical disconnects after making it about 2/3 of the way through as I realized they were right about needing to better understand the minds of others. They should have gone and done that immediately instead of continuing the conversation.
And I think that when we talk to the left that seems to be another powerful entry point, is to say ‘Look, you understand the problems with design in the natural world, right? If you accept Darwinian theories of evolution, you get the idea of order without design. And all we’re saying is that it works in the social world, and by the way, Darwin got it from us.’ Different story, okay?
Do I understand incorrectly that Social Darwinism is a philosophical construct originating long after Charles Darwin died?
And it gets worse.
And boy that’s the kind of story libertarians should tell people on the left. Not that we “don’t see color;” not that we don’t care about race; not that we can just get rid of the Civil Rights Act and everything will be fine. We need to pinpoint the actual, legitimate causes of these phenomenon and they are with the state.
The state is made of people. Removing the state won't solve racism. I might be building a strawman here, but this passage reads to me in context as a criticism of state as <perpetuating racism> [edit: being the only cause of racism]. It is sloppy black-and-white logic.
I mean, some of my own work on gender and the family has really focused on the way in which markets made it possible for women to get out of the house, made it possible to help create equality in marriage, right, and even now it’s given us equality in marriage regardless of gender.
This is an oversimplification of a complex set of circumstances, and the market forces at work were not benevolent as implied here. To put a positive spin on this dynamic, though likely true, is tone deaf. It reminds me of the absent father who takes pride in the rugged individualism of his child that his absence created.
But to speak to the OP and the thread title, over and over these libertarians (I assume, since I don't know who they are) contrast themselves using The Left. Not once did I see, in that 2/3, a mention of the right. Libertarians support Republicans because, sloppily, the enemy of my enemy is my friend - in supporting the overall Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. Probably more accurate to intent, they see alignment. Laissez-faire Social Darwinism has a good handhold in both Libertarian and Republican ideals, generally speaking. It's more like libertarians would use the Republican Party to leapfrog.
So provoked, I better go finish it. It was really just getting off the rails.
---
The rest is why I stopped reading. Ignoring the value of anti-trust laws in talking about the Great Depression, suggesting that racism might not exist if the state never sanctioned it, stating that no one talks about racial disparity in public schools - not impressed. I hope these aren't the heavyweights in the libertarian community.
Some encouraging commentary at the end with some anecdote.
Enlighteningly unenlightening.
newrepublic.com
