The International Libertarian

Monday, October 02, 2006

Leftist Students Attack Free State Project Founder

Free State Project founder, Professor Jason P Sorens, graduate of Yale University, and currently faculty at the University of Buffalo, has come under attack in an on-campus email campaign by leftist group "Truth Out" for his libertarian views. Most specifically, the emails being sent to all UB students completely slander and defame the Free State Project, libertarians in general as "extreme right-wingers" who "care more about property than human beings".

From: Truth Out
To: *snip*
Subject: politics of the psc 341 professor
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:21:56 -0500

Hello

Ever wonder about the politics of our professor?

Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project, a group trying to get 20,000 people who plan to move out to rural New Hampshire, never pay taxes, never contribute anything of value to American society, and who value private property over human life. So they are taking their belongings and their guns out to New Hampshire to live in isolation from the rest of the American population. They are trying to privatize nearly everything and fundamentally dismantle public education and many social programs and services. This organization is sympathetic toward secessionist movements in general. Libertarianism is a extreme right-wing philsophy which believes that private property and the free market has a greater value than human life and society. And he teaches here at UB... So why exactly is someone teaching at UB who believes in dismantling public education? Is there a connection between his politics and how his courses are organized?

The email then lists several web pages of interviews with Sorens and about the FSP.

"Wow," Sorens commented, "I guess some people don't know the meaning of
academic freedom, eh?"

Apparently not, though such attacks are part and parcel of an entrenched left wing campaign among students and faculty to drive libertarian and conservative faculty members and student groups off campus. Long time readers of IntLib will recall our previous activism in support of libertarian Professors Zywicki and Robinson (regular contributors to The Volokh Conspiracy) in their insurgent campaigns for election to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees by alumni against entrenched insider candidates, and the ensuing left wing hostility. Those of you who track conservatives like David Horowitz may note his campaign against these sorts of left wing persecutions and discriminations against conservatives and libertarians on campus.

Our leader is under attack, it is time to bring attention nationally to this sort of intolerance by the left wing of other political views on campus, and establish once and for all that attacking faculty on their honest and rational political views is not acceptable.

What is more hypocritical is that, at the same time that the left is attacking Sorens for his rational libertarian views, they are shielding radical leftist professors who promote radical, irrational, moonbat conspiracy theories about events like 9/11, as we've reported previously. One would expect that, given that hypocrisy is the only crime that the left apparently recognises, that they'd try to avoid it, but apparently this is one more case of "Do as I say, Not as I Do" by the moonbats.

19 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Thanks for the report. It is greats news that the FSP and libertarianism were put before all of the students of UB that read the email.

One question though, who's leader is Jason? I know of no libertarian organization that he leads.; 1:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Freedom of speach does not mean freedom from criticism. And having someone campaign agains you in various elections is what democracy is all about; 5:17:00 PM
Anonymous said...: While I can take issue with the tone of the e-mail sent out, I really take greater issue with the tone of your reply. By constantly referring to the group as 'leftist' you are no better than them referring to you as right-wing extremists, which according to the original definition of right-wing, you are.

To call this a persecution is just as dumb as saying that 9/11 was a plot by the US-government. These are students sending out e-mails arguing about political issues they care about, not inquisitors. Granted their arguments aren't backed up by fact and in some cases are purposefully untrue (you DO value human life above private property I hope?). However, your rebuttal uses the exact same methods, for example you pointing out the hypocracy of the students then as proof linking to your article that concerns a professor at a completely different university alltogether and makes any mentions of students defending him.

In general you insult and belittle 'leftists' and their views, maybe you should take to rational argument instead?; 5:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I would like to say, that as a person who is the on the liberal side of the spectrum, this makes me embarrassed. I see no reason why any person should be attacked for their beliefs. If they are willing to have an earnest exchange of ideas, thats one thing, but what is happening to that professor is unacceptable.; 5:58:00 PM
Anonymous said...: As a graduate of the University of Buffalo, I have to say that this example of left-wing propaganda is not exactly "new" news. UB was left of center when I went there, and it remains predominantly so today.; 6:21:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree. These "liberals" are embarrassments to the rest of us lefties (the sane ones, anyway).

If your cause is right, then people will listen. Attacking ideas and actions can make you legitimate...attacking people because you believe differently from them makes you a partisan hack. Shame on them. They crossed the line when they criticized someone for having an idea. That's never okay.

Please don't let this reflect badly on the rest of us.; 6:32:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Liberals and libertarians are the same thing to different degrees, to argue any different is blurring the definition of the terms. Neither are really sane, but who is? A healthy dose of insanity is necessary to live in the real world.

How is being outed as a libertarian at a public university anything other than hilarious? He got caught on his hypocrisy, and should probably resign and get a job at a private institution if he's really a libertarian.

No, this isn't an attack, but it is hilarious.; 9:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...: 1) Mike Lorrey: there's a problem with your blog - at least viewed with FireFox: the portion of the main text area between where it says "Ads and Google" and where it says "Advertise on this site" in the sidebar has the first few characters cut off, making the post hard to read.

2) Person who said "referring to you as right-wing extremists, which according to the original definition of right-wing, you are.": according to the original definition of left/right in the political spectrum, Libertarians are left-wing! (E.g., Frederic Bastiat sat on the left - that's why modern left-wingers are called "liberals" in American English, though of course they don't fit the original definition of "liberal" - libertarians do); 10:25:00 PM
Mike Lorrey said...: To the last Anonymous: I looked at the blog in Mozilla as well as IE, and there is no problem unless you shrink the width of the browser down to less than about 700 pixels, with the browser text size set on medium. Suggest getting a more normal screen resolution or reducing your text size.

Secondly, Libertarianism is NEITHER left, nor right, it is "UP", as in the upper quadrant on the Nolan Chart, which is a two axis ideospace using economic freedom and personal freedom as the two axes. The "Right", or Conservatives, believe in economic freedom but not personal freedom. Modern US "Liberals" aka Socialists, believe in personal freedoms, but not economic freedoms. Libertarians believe in both economic and personal freedoms. The logical and ideological flaw in the arguments of both the right and the left is that they assume that economic and personal freedoms are mutually exclusive. This erroneous belief is typically the result of belief in the existence of certain "freedoms" which are not, in fact freedoms, but are instead power-derived coersions upon others.

For example, conservatives believe they have the right to force creationism, prayer, and theocratic morals into the public school systems, while socialists believe that they have the right to have jobs without working, get paid without working, take property from private citizens, and tell private citizens what to do with the property they let them keep. None of these things are "freedoms". They are initiations of force upon individuals.

Thus, it becomes clear that libertarianism is neither left, nor right. We are "up", as in, "We are above your pathetic but heinous ideas about forcing others to behave as you wish them to."; 10:55:00 PM
Tom said...: Well, you might reasonably ask why someone with such belief system would choose to live off public tax money. The article brings up that question and I don't actually see where you answer it...; 11:29:00 PM
Mike Lorrey said...: Gee, Tom, why don't you go ask your good moonbat leftist buddy, Noam Chomsky, who condemns anyone who earns a living off the Dept of Defense, calling it, "the most vile institution on the face of the earth", why it is Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS...

What about "paying his fair share", as you lefties like to keep crying about?

Ralph Nader is another liberal who claims that unions are essential to protect worker rights. But when an editor of one of his publications tried to form a union to ameliorate miserable working conditions, the editor was fired and the locks changed on the office door.

Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American.

Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS. One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji. Another family member, environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr., has said that it is not moral to profit from natural resources. But he receives an annual check from the family's large holdings in the oil industry.

Barbra Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages.

As Peter Schweitzer said, "If these ideas do not work for the very individuals who practice them, how can they work for the rest of us?" The answer is simple, they cannot.

We libertarians, particularly pragmatic libertarians like Sorens and myself, recognise that the world we live in is not a libertarian world. So long as we are coerced into paying our earnings to a government that disregards our wishes, we are acting in self defense, and cannot be faulted, for seeking to earn our professional livings with whatever institution wishes to pay us the best.

Additionally, libertarians have far less problem with the university system than they do with the public primary and secondary school systems. Any college student can go to any college or university that will accept them. Thus post-secondary education is a free market.

Sorens, myself, and others real beef is with the primary and secondary schools, which trap children by geographical area into one singular, monolithic, one-size-fits-all educational product, which is not motivated by the competition of a free market to produce quality product or be answerable to customers on pricing for value given.

So, no, there is no hypocrisy for a libertarian to teach at a university. Furthermore, for a libertarian to teach in a primary or secondary school (or even a University, given the amount of anti-freedom sentiment on campus these days), should be seen as a mitzvah, a personal sacrifice in order to reach the hearts and minds of developing citizens before they become completely programmed by the government indoctrination system.; 11:59:00 PM
Dave said...: As quite a few people have said - since when are libertarians "right-wing" ?

They're, in my mind, a bit farther left, but without economic restrictions.

If I was going to vote for a party in the United States (I don't live there so I can't) - I'd vote libertarian, because the Socialist party isn't that widely respected, and they actually don't hold the same views as myself.

Libertarians are great!

The only flaw I'm noticing from a libertarian's argument is that there is no support given (or very little) for the underprivileged. Public education is torn down rather than reformed, for instance - and there is a great number of people who would not be able to afford private schooling.; 1:40:00 AM
Anonymous said...: MLorrey: To the last Anonymous: I looked at the blog in Mozilla as well as IE, and there is no problem unless you shrink the width of the browser down to less than about 700 pixels, with the browser text size set on medium. Suggest getting a more normal screen resolution or reducing your text size.

I am that last anonymous. You're right, it's better with a wider window. [FWIW, I keep my browser about 800px wide; I don't like it taking up the whole screen. The font size is whatever your style sheet sets]

Secondly, Libertarianism is NEITHER left, nor right, it is "UP", as in the upper quadrant on the Nolan Chart,

The person to whom I was replying was talking about the original definition of (left and) right, as was I. By the original definition, libertarianism is leftist. [See my digg posts, under the name "Misesean"]

------------

Dave: The only flaw I'm noticing from a libertarian's argument is that there is no support given (or very little) for the underprivileged.

Given by whom? Libertarians don't believe the government should provide support for anyone, but that's only because the government has no legitimate source of income - any "support" it provides to anyone is paid for at the expense of someone else, who is robbed to get the money. Anybody who has a legitimate source of income is welcome to provide whatever support they like to the "underprivileged". [And in a libertarian world, people would have a lot more wealth to part with, and most things would be cheaper, so your "underprivileged" would need less support and get more]

Public education is torn down rather than reformed, for instance - and there is a great number of people who would not be able to afford private schooling.

People can't afford private education because they pay out 50% of their income in taxes!

Public education actually costs more per child-year than equivalent (or better) private education - and more people were better educated before public education: literacy rates have been falling since public education was instituted. [It's not that public education has been a failure, although any attempt in that direction would be, but the purpose of public education has never been to educate anyway - google "John Taylor Gatto"]; 8:07:00 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anybody who has a legitimate source of income is welcome to provide whatever support they like to the 'underprivileged.'"

Yeah... cause history has taught us that the free market and human charity can really be relied on to help out the less fortunate. If history should have taught us anything, it's that, without restrictions, the "free market" turns into monopolies, destroys the middle class and consistantly puts more and more of the wealth into the hands of a smaller and small group of people. Admittedly, our government is allowing this to happen right under our noses, but that's the fault of a particular set of people in power who are majorly/purposefully dropping the ball. We've had good honest leaders before, if we ever wise up, we'll elect more of them, someday.; 9:11:00 AM
A. Magnus said...: The left and right wings of this country are both owned by the anti-capitalist (meaning corporations that hate free market competition) robber barons of Wall Street. Both believe in big government's ascendancy over the individual, in true collectivist fashion. They only differ on whom they would prefer to be their masters.; 12:23:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Under the "original definition" of left and right, libertarians would definitely be left, because most of you (I assume) oppose the King of France.

Obviously these terms are not meaningful today, so left and right usually refer to the stance on economic issues, so referring to libertarians as "extreme right-wing" does have some validity, because by your own admission you vigorously support a free market.

There's nothing wrong with that, in fact I'd object more strenuously to a fascist party (like the British National Party) being referred to as extreme right-wing, because they are better described as centrist-authoritarian. "Liberal" parties should be in the same quadrant as libertarians (individual rights and a free market), but unfortunately they have drifted toward authoritarianism in many countries.; 3:15:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I am the one who made the original "right-wing" assertion, it was really only a side note but since it seems to have sparked a debate I'd like to explain myself and offer my apologies for the misunderstanding.

In Europe right and left usually means implies the spectrum between free market (right) and planned market (left). That is also how I understand the french revolution heritage of the terms (not so sure about this).

Whereas in the US it usually has to do with social liberalism (left) and conservatism (right).

Many parties in Europe are considered politically right-wing despite advocating social liberties. Therefore I automatically put libertarians in that category, advocating social as well as economic liberties. I have since researched this a bit fruther and realised my mistake and would like to apologize. I never meant "right-wing" as an insult.

I still think the rest of my post was appropriate though: get of your high horse and examine the tone of your response.; 5:10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: If history should have taught us anything, it's that, without restrictions, the "free market" turns into monopolies, destroys the middle class and consistantly puts more and more of the wealth into the hands of a smaller and small group of people.

You obviously haven't actually looked at any history, because you would have seen that it shows exactly the opposite! Monopolies are solely a result of non-free markets (government intervention), and the middle class arose under more laissez-faire conditions, as more and more of the wealth was distributed more evenly.

----------

In Europe right and left usually means implies the spectrum between free market (right) and planned market (left). That is also how I understand the french revolution heritage of the terms (not so sure about this).

The original distinction was one of "radicalism" (essentially, wanting change) vs. "conservatism" (wanting to conserve/return to the status quo ante). Both "planned society" socialists and "free market" liberals were on the left.

Nowadays, it's more or less a distinction between socialism on the left and fascism on the right - which is not much of a distinction at all, but because, at the extremes, the "socialists" are anti-property, and the "fascists" claim to be pro-property (which they are in name only - the right are not about free markets), people who really are pro-property (libertarians) get (incorrectly) labeled as "right-wing".

I still think the rest of my post was appropriate though: get of your high horse and examine the tone of your response.

I think perhaps you read something into the tone of my response that wasn't there.; 12:36:00 AM
Anonymous said...: One note related to many of the comments below, left-wing, right-wing, statist and libertarian belief systems are not simply different views which are equally good in different ways. A libertarian's belief system forces nothing upon his or her neighbors while all other views mandate the use of force to achieve some social agenda. Force is bad unless it is being used in self defense.

Why do people feel so comfortable outsourcing force to get their own way?; 11:42:00 PM