BM’s rhetorical query aside, while I’m glad Tucker is taking the right stance, like everyone else who’s followed his work I’m perplexed as to how he came to that conclusion.
Tucker’s first article on brutalism critiques those who use their freedom in ways that, while adhering to the NAP, are not “humanitarian” in nature and thus should be discouraged within the libertarian movement because they are not conducive to its promotion. His description, however is ambiguous and defines brutalist by their intent or the motives for why they do what they do:
There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.
In his recent article, Tucker defends the right of business owners to discriminate against customers, including homosexuals. Many libertarians would argue that discrimination against gays does not fit the definition of a humanitarian libertarian (or fits that of a brutalist) and should be discouraged within libertarianism for the reasons Tucker stated in his first article.
So the question is this: Does such discrimination not fit Tucker’s description of a brutalist? If it doesn’t fit his description of a brutalist, why not, and why are those who would argue it does incorrect?
This is where honestly I get most confused on this particular topic: How does one practically differentiate a brutalist from a humanitarian libertarian? Is it contingent on one’s actions or one’s motives? And what is the purpose for differentiating?
In other words, if I wanted to find out if I am a brutalist or a humanitarian libertarian, how would I go about finding out? What’s an example of brutalist libertarian stance or behavior compared to that of humanitarian libertarians?
This has been my main issue with the whole “brutalist-humanitarian” debate, sheer confusion as to what specific issues are being argued about. Sometimes I can’t help wonder if it’s intentionally vague.