Yan Leyzerovych: ‘Libertarianism includes right to avoid, embrace preferred personal pronoun use’

Column: American Insights

“Libertarianism is an extreme social and political laissez-faire ideology that reprehends the government’s intervention in the personal lives of its citizens. Thus, Libertarianism prioritizes all individual causes above communal ones.

Some famous Libertarians include American economist Milton Friedman, who was a 1932 Rutgers University graduate, Russian writer and philosopher Ayn Rand and Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek.

In my last column I gave an overview of my core political beliefs in extremely broad strokes, providing a crash course of my views on abortion, the Second Amendment and LGBTQ+ rights. I decided to add clarity to my argument by focusing on the latter part of my last column, specifically the question behind the theory of gender fluidity.”

Read the rest on The Daily Targum website, here.

14 thoughts on “Yan Leyzerovych: ‘Libertarianism includes right to avoid, embrace preferred personal pronoun use’

  1. Jim

    Referring to ourselves as extremists instantly turns off those who might otherwise be persuaded.

  2. Tony From Long Island

    I don’t even have to read it. The headline says enough.

    So libertarians now say they have a “right” to purposely insult people. Not surprising.

    What harm is it doing to yourself to refer to someone they way they would like to be referred to?

    Is this the kind of crap that keeps you up at night? Thinking about how the way someone would like to be referred to is SOOOOO unbearable that you have to proclaim your inalienable right to not give a crap?

    Yes, I realize that this is only one’s man’s personal opinion but I highly doubt he’s alone.

    I am more and more thankful every day to have left this garbage philosophy behind. What a waste of time it was. Can I get a refund on all of the books I bought?

  3. paulie

    I missed the LP angle. Despite the author’s use of big L, he appears to actually mean little l libertarian as far as I can tell. If there was an actual LP partisan reference somewhere in the article where was it?

  4. paulie

    So libertarians now say they have a “right” to purposely insult people. Not surprising.

    Having a right and doing the right thing are two different things. Is it otherwise in your world?

    Thinking about how the way someone would like to be referred to is SOOOOO unbearable that you have to proclaim your inalienable right to not give a crap?

    Of course not. I prefer to refer to people as they wish to be referred to if it’s not e.g. Dear Leader or Your Majesty, etc.

    I am more and more thankful every day to have left this garbage philosophy behind.

    Which garbage philosophy? You think all libertarians agree? I know you must know better.

    What a waste of time it was.

    Perhaps, if you haven’t learned to understand it better than that.

    Can I get a refund on all of the books I bought?

    You’d have to ask those you brought them from, unless you propose to use force to confiscate it.

  5. paulie

    Referring to ourselves as extremists instantly turns off those who might otherwise be persuaded.

    Yes, except for those who get a thrill out of being extreme for its own sake. I don’t have a problem with being an extremist per se, and in many ways I am, but I don’t seek it for its own sake. That attitude is as infantile, unproductive, and in fact counterproductive as conformity for its own sake.

  6. paulie

    I missed the LP angle. Despite the author’s use of big L, he appears to actually mean little l libertarian as far as I can tell. If there was an actual LP partisan reference somewhere in the article where was it?

    This should probably be addressed first before anything else. Otherwise I don’t understand why we are having this discussion *here* at all.

  7. dL

    Yes, I realize that this is only one’s man’s personal opinion but I highly doubt he’s alone.

    No, he is not, but I’m not sure the relevance of the article to IPR. Neither the Rutgers student code of conduct nor the conservative war on gender labels is a particular high priority item in LP party politics. It is also a bit sardonic that an author prefaces a rant about “labels” by mislabeling Ayn Rand a “libertarian,” a label she steadfastly rejected in no uncertain terms.

  8. dL

    Referring to ourselves as extremists instantly turns off those who might otherwise be persuaded.

    Radical is the correct adjective. Extremist better describes most republicans and democrats.

  9. paulie

    Paulie, your responses to my rants always make me smile

    Well, at least they are of some use to someone somewhere 🙂

    I’m not sure the relevance of the article to IPR.

    My point exactly. The original author keeps capitalizing Libertarian in error, but otherwise I detected exactly zero reference to big L (party) as opposed to small l (philosophy of libertarianism, however defined). It’s possible I missed something, which is why I asked. If I did, what did I miss (Marc, or anyone?); The LP, among other alternatives to the Ds and Rs (collectively, DNRs, as in do not resuscitate) is relevant to IPR; the amorphously defined philosophy of libertarianism, and the endless polishing of what it is or isn’t absent its direct intersection with electoral politics through a vehicle separate from the two larger political parties, is not.

    It is, if a direct connection to the LP is drawn in the article, but otherwise is not, any more than similar debates over the true nature of socialism, environmentalism, or constitutional conservatism, etc. That is, they are only relevant when it involves political parties or candidates which purport to try to apply these concepts through electoral politics outside of the duopoly.

    It is also a bit sardonic that an author prefaces a rant about “labels” by mislabeling Ayn Rand a “libertarian,” a label she steadfastly rejected in no uncertain terms.

    He’s only practicing what he preaches, that is his right to classify her as a libertarian even though she said she was not. That’s debatable, since she clearly had a lot in common with the ideas of libertarianism, and many of her actual or self-described followers have concluded the same despite her wishes. On the other hand, him describing her and Milton Friedman as big L Libertarians is indisputably erroneous. And absent that obvious error, the purported connection to IPR subject matter disappears, again if I am not missing something – and if I am, what is it?

  10. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie: I detected exactly zero reference to big L (party) as opposed to small l (philosophy of libertarianism, however defined).

    FWIW, the late anarchist philosopher, Samuel K. Konkin III, said that the philosophy is big L, and the party is small l.

    Konkin’s rationale was that the philosophy came first, and it was capitalized, as philosophies often are (e.g., Existentialism, Communism, etc.). The LP came later and (Konkin believed) hijacked the word “libertarian” from the philosophy, and then corrupted the philosophy while demoting it to small l.

    Konkin hated the LP. He believed the libertarian philosophy was anarchist, whereas the LP was statist because it recognized the legitimacy of state elections.

    He always “corrected” people who used the big L to refer to the party, and a small l to the philosophy.

  11. Jared

    Konkin was brilliant and deliberate with words. I suspect his capitalization scheme was more agorist/Agorist propaganda than fondness for 18th-century English grammar. Somehow I don’t think this author had SEK3 in mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *