« Why pro-choice is pro-family | Main | The real reason why Europe is more liberal »

November 02, 2009


You mix up to different numbers:
- The number of Jews who are libertarian
- The number of Libertarians who are Jewish.
Very different. One is large, the other is small.

Jews were also the engine of much of leftism, too. The Communist Jew was a long-standing stereotype, not wholly without reason.

There are probably more political philosophy extremists among extremely smart people than among people of normal intelligence. I figure that's because most people's politics are group identity markers, while extremely smart people are actually trying to find the absolutely best/most correct politics.

Jews do well in any academic field that is secular/atheist/agnostic leaning.

We are only underrepresented in theology where Roman Catholics such as Princeton's Robert P George tend to dominate.

Jews dominate any intellectual movement (or game - like chess). This is just about IQ, not Hitler.

This is similar to the recent hubbub about Jason Richwine's piece on the intelligence of liberals and conservatives.
Libertarianism isn't normal, you have to be odd in some way to go for it, generally meaning intelligent & interested enough to even have an ideology (which according to Converse excludes most of the general public).

Another odd thing is that libertarianism is a very American movement, but of your list only Nozick and Rothbard were born here. Thomas Szasz, Ludwig von Mises and Karl Popper were all apparently born in the same general area.

So, do you theorize that Jewish women rewarded such men with more children? If so, how do you reconcile that with the current low popularity of male libertarians with women?

I agree that Jews tend to dominate any intellectual movement and they are passionately political. The rest is... history.

Also, calling Hayek a "token" is worse than dumb. Are you familiar with his writings?

Is multiculturalism a concotion from the Jews? (Kevin MacDonald argues that multiculturalism is created by Jews to cause strife among Europeans so they could take their resources.) Multiculturalism isn't libertarian.

Shouldn't title read "Why are all the Libertarians Jews (and why is the overwhelming majority Jews well left of center?)"

>>>>>>Maybe the reason that Europe is to the left of the United States is because Hitler killed all of the Jews in the Holocaust, leaving no one in Europe to lead the libertarian opposition to leftism.<<<<<


(wipes tear from eye)

Who do you think made up the intellectual vanguard of the Leftists/Marxists/Communists?

You could extend it to David Ricardo, who was so influential in keeping Britain libertarian in the first half of the 19th Century.

America is conducive to libertarianism because it has a democratic constitution which people have taken seriously for 200+ years. Most countries in Europe do not have that and are under constant threat of military coup or a benevolent tyrant. Its easier to believe property and personal rights in a constitutional republic.

Another difference is that America has always been an ethnically and religiously inhomogeneous place which makes it less communal.

This is why libertarianism was more important here than in Europe. I agree with the above comments on the Jewish enthusiasm for intellectual concepts.

Libertarianism appeals to smart people because they're the ones who would benefit. Jews are overwhelmingly smart, so many are libertarians.

Much as I would like to claim libertarianism is the way to go, I do think government plays a useful role in improving society -- interstate highways, national parks, public libraries. It would be nice to think a fully free enterprise system would provide those things at reasonable cost. But when you look at cable and satellite TV, for instance, or the practices of credit card companies, you see how non-competitive commerce can be.

Off topic, but up your alley,

ALL of the current ethics probes in the House of Representatives concern black lawmakers. And, just recently, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was taken off that list because of an intervention by the Justice Department. Here's the link:


"Libertarianism appeals to smart people because they're the ones who would benefit."

In theory. In practice, it seems to appeal mainly to social misfits ("losertarians"). Why, I don't know.


[HS: Peter has a point. People who are successful generally like the status quo.]

I like Bruce Charlton's explanation (not specifically about Jews, but more generally about why people with high IQs tend to believe silly things):


"...I do think government plays a useful role in improving society -- interstate highways, national parks, public libraries."

'Improving society' is the usual justification for the use of government force to appropriate wealth and spend it on various projects. And most people have their limited, specific areas where they feel this force should be used. And when you take the union of all those people's Venn diagrams of what government should do, you get a gigantic bureaucracy that controls or has regulatory power in every (legal) economic transaction, business creation, and many aspects of private life.

I would consider myself a libertarian in most regards, but I understand that it's not practical as a system of governance. A lot of the tenets of libertarianism (e.g. drug legalization, open borders, abolition of the welfare state, etc. etc.) run up against practical obstacles to their implementation, not to mention that ideas like open borders are at odds with private property rights.

A libertarian republic may have been possible at one time in this country, but in order for it to work, you need to have a high trust, culturally homogenous society with people of above average intelligence and an above average work ethic. Those conditions haven't existed since Grover Cleveland's day, maybe not even since the days of the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, the direction we're headed is low trust, multicultural, and below average intelligence due mainly to 3rd world immigration. In other words, to borrow a phrase from John Derbyshire, we are doomed.

All governments, including "democratic" governments, grow. They do so until they reach a point of gross overreach in every area of life. Eventually, they become so stiffling and unsustainable, it leads to disaster of one kind or another.

From the collapse of society, people try to start a limited government to do just all the important stuff but not overreach like the last government. They sometimes even create a grand constitution with certain inalienable rights and limitations on government power.

This is where Libertarians see the best chance for society, very much in line with the Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately, we slip further and further away from that every year that goes by. We have gone from a country explicitly against "foreign entanglements" to a country with the largest military in the world and which engages in major international war action every 5-10 years. We have gone from a country with a near 0% tax rate to taxing away half the income of the productive people and giving it to the most irresponsible people of society. We have gone from a country with strong protections of personal privacy and liberty, to a country that throws people in jail for using medical marijuana (a substance about an order of magnitude less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes).

It's not hard to project that this will all only get worse over time as government continues to grow and infringe.

Ever heard about isteve.blogspot.com? Recently he's posted that about half of the Atlantic Monthly's Atlantic 50 is Jewish. About one third of the Forbe's 400 are Jews. The numbers are similar in political talk radio with at least two of the top seven "progressive" hosts and two of the top ten conservative hosts being Jewish. The tiny Jewish population is usually on top... which is good.

You should reconsider your past posts accusing Ron Paul of anti-Semitism. He's a lifelong acolyte of several of the Jews on your list. He, like Lew Rockwell, knew Rothbard personally (although he doesn't swoon over Rothbard quite as much.)

[HS: Rothbard probably became a self-hating Jew, joining up with paleoconservatives and forsaking traditional libertarianism.

The Stormfront crowd loves Rothbard:


Hanging with Rothbard actually paints Ron Paul as anti-Semitic.]

Sorry that this comment is so long.

I followed the Stormfront link, then read its link to LRC:


1)If Rothbard (and by extension Ron Paul) can be damned by Stormfront's love of him, then so can you and everyone in the Steveosphere. I don't know how many Stormfronters you cull, but they're clearly sympathetic to many of your beliefs.

2)This whole anti-Semitic thing smacks of calling people racist. And I don't see why you can't call Walter Williams an Uncle Tom if Rothbard is to be called a self-hating Jew.

3)There's no such thing as "traditional libertarianism." Really. Follow the proto-libertarians like Smith to the squishitarians like McArdle and Wilkinson. They only agree on a few things.

4)Rothbard goes to the heart here regarding Duke. The truth is that politicos are usually hideous people (which you can see in Jan Helfeld's interviews of Stark and Torres):

'They said in the 60s, when they gently chided the violent left: "stop using violence, work within the system." And sure enough it worked, as the former New Left now leads the respectable intellectual classes. So why wasn't the Establishment willing to forgive and forget when a right-wing radical like David Duke stopped advocating violence, took off the Klan robes, and started working within the system? If it was OK to be a Commie, or a Weatherman, or whatever in your wild youth, why isn't it OK to have been Klansmen? Or to put it more precisely, if it was OK for the revered Justice Hugo Black, or for the lion of the Senate, Robert Byrd, to have been a Klansman, why not David Duke? The answer is obvious: Black and Byrd became members of the liberal elite, of the Establishment, whereas Duke continued to be a right-wing populist, and therefore anti-Establishment, this time even more dangerous because "within the system."'

5)His views don't seem that removed from yours (based on my minimal reading of this blog.) Here's the platform he'd recommend to politicos (with explanations removed.)

1)Slash Taxes
2)Slash Welfare
3)Abolish Racial or Group Priveleges
4)Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals
5)Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums
6)Abolish the Fed: Attack the Banksters
7)America First
8)Defend Family Values

My guess is that you'd agree with five of these and be partial on two if you read his descriptions.

6)Bonus (aside from the dig at Obama's supposed ghostwriter):

"The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks."

I am surprised no one else has made what I would assume is a rather obvious motivation:
Minorities feel alienated and persecuted by existing establishment.
Minorities therefore embrace embrace radical political ideology that seeks to destroy or overturn unjust establishment.

Though they haven't faced many hard times lately, both libertarian Jews and socialist Jews constantly cite the holocaust as the logical outcome of the current liberal-democratic regime we currently live under. That Piekoff character or whatever from the Ayn Rand thing wrote an entire book about how we are basically living in 1932 Weimar already.

The whole "Holocaust 2 is just around the corner" mantra tends to be quite popular in elite, intellectual Jewish circles, I find, which makes it unsurprising that radicalism would be seen a sort of appropriate moral response.

The comments to this entry are closed.