One interesting discussion is about the intersections, commonalities and differences between libertariansm and the ``shared collectivities`` movements: gay rights, the civil rights movement and feminism
Obviously, there are many common principles: all three movements call for equality before laws, one of the dearest points for any libertarian.On the other hand, all three maintain this ``us and them`` mentality with a group agenda that many libertarians don't feel that much confortable about.
When it comes to the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, libertarians certainly support the freedom of gay people to marry ( although we would like to see this right extended to groups of three and more people that also want to marry) and obviously the support to the notion that any person's race is irrelevant to someone's character or value.
On the other hand, as a libertarian im not enthusiastic about special quotas or special anti discrimination laws.Why should anyone have easier acess to university just because of their race? This is exactly the opposite of Dr Martin Luther King's dream that he wished to see a world where his children would be judged by their character and not the color of their skin.
Also, special protection laws towards gay people seem unnecessary and a privilege.A crime is a crime, not matter against whom it was committed.Hate crimes, obviously, should be especially punished, but special laws that protect a class of individuals above anyone else don't seem egalitarian to me.
Now to feminism: once again, there are many common points: the notion of equality before the law and that every human being has the same value.
Abortion has always been a polemic issue inside libertarian circles: half of the movement believes that it should be legal since a human being can do what it wants to his or her own body.Half believe it should be forbidden because the woman's body is scientifically nothing more than a host, and freedom ends when someone else's freedom begins, in this case the unborn baby's freedom and life.And some, including me, fall somewhere in the middle believing abortion is a reality that won't vanish but it should be regulated and restricted.
Interestingly, abortion is a polemic among libertarian but prostitution is not: it is obvious to us that a private and consensual transaction between two adults is no one else's business.But for feminists prostitution is a polemic: some believe in the same thing that libertarians do, while others care less about the woman's freedom towards her own body than a pretense hierarchy between women and men, and therefore men would take advantage of prostitution and therefore it should be forbidden.Interestingly, the woman's freedom to her own bdy is sacred to feminists until it is not.We find this argument not only laughable but extremely machist: no libertarian would like to restrict prostitution when paid by a woman.Also, libertarians have no problem with gay prostitution of both sexes, as long, obvioussy as it is free and consensual.
Besides, feminists , or at least many of them, are not interested in equality when inequality is benefical to women: different ages for retirement in most countries, longer time out in case of many diseases ( there'ss a strong case to be made that at least when it comes to legal privileges, women nowadays have a better situation than men in many countries) but also even when it comes to social fabricated norms like splitting the check, many feminists are not really after equality, but just using some specific agenda to advance their own goals and to maximize their lives.
Obviously, to be fair, feminism, just like libertarianism, is a diverse movement and im using some specific things ive heards over the years from so called feminisnts that ive disagreed with.Many women inside some feminist movements certainly are libertarians and they just don't know yet.While others are consciously feminists and libertarians at the same time: as long as someone believes in no legal privileges ( and i stress the word legal) for either men or women, this person can certainly be a feminist and a libertarian at the same time.
Bellow, a text i found on Atlas Society about the topic:
Feminism and Objectivism
Question: What is feminism, according to Objectivism ? And what is the place of women in society according to Objectivism?
Answer: Objectivism is an individualist philosophy. It holds that each person is a rational animal and that all individuals deserve to be free to make any choices in life that do not involve initiating force against others (which also means that one's choices should not violate obligations one has chosen to take on, such as contracts). It holds that all men and women have essentially the same rights, and all should be free to live as they choose. It does not distinguish between men and women in its concepts of moral virtues or fundamental values.
Because it rejects traditional restrictions on women and regards productive work as a virtue for women as well as men, Objectivism shares many of the views of classical, individualist feminism. It rejects the traditional idea that men deserve to have power over women or that women should have different or less freedom than have men. This can be seen in the portrait of business executive Dagny Taggart inAtlas Shrugged , for example. In addition, Objectivists have generally been in favor of a woman's right to abortion , as an extension of the individual's general right to control the uses of his own body.
Ayn Rand herself rejected the label "feminist" and even went so far as to provocatively declare herself a "male chauvinist." In addition to her philosophical views per se, she had a view of sexual psychology that ascribed distinctive "masculine" and "feminine" attitudes to healthy men and women respectively. She argued that sexually, women should desire to engage in "hero worship," and that this required having at least one man to whom they could each look up. For this reason she argued in her essay "About a Woman President" that a women should not want to be the commander-in-chief. However, she was clear to explain in that context that she nevertheless held that ability was not the basic issue: "women are not inferior to men in ability or intelligence..." Neither I nor any Objectivist thinker of note today thinks Rand's psychological concepts of femininity and masculinity are integral to the philosophy of Objectivism .
There are strong strands of collectivism in today's feminism. These strands of thought treat men and women as hostile classes. Some infamously ascribe radically different thought patterns to men and women as such. Objectivism rejects group-think of this sort, and holds that each individual should be judged based on character, actions, and ability, not merely on the person's sex. Rand called herself a "male chauvinist" because she admired the many great men of history, to whom all of civilization owes so much. Her rhetoric was chosen in response to collectivist feminists and racists who denigrated "dead white men" as such.
Objectivism holds, based on the foregoing, that a woman's place is where she chooses to make it. As a rational being, a women needs to pursue relationships based on mutual respect and the honest exchange of value-for-value. She needs to engage in a career of productive work. She needs friendship and love. Child-rearing may be an important part of her life, but if she so chooses she should approach raising children with the seriousness of engaging in serious work. In short, there is no objective basis for restricting women's choices based merely on their sex. Like all individuals, women have the political right and the moral need to be free and choose their own courses in life.
