This piece has been getting a lot of play today in which Michael Lind accuses both Mises and Hayek of being friends of autocracy and fascism (you can guess why - the Liberalism quote ripped out of context and the supposed Hayek-Pinochet connection). He also misunderstands the libertarian critique of democracy. Others have responded nicely to the fascism stuff, including Jeff Tucker and Jason Kuznicki.
I, however, want to raise a different objection. Lind writes:
For that matter, where was the libertarian right during the great struggles for individual liberty in America in the last half-century? The libertarian movement has been conspicuously absent from the campaigns for civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians.
Aside from the fact that there wasn't much of a libertarian movement in the 1960s, which might explain the small number of libertarians on the civil rights for nonwhites issues, I would ask Lind which US political party was the first one to have a gay rights plank in its platform? It wasn't the Democrats Michael, it was the Libertarian Party, back in 1980.
[UPDATE: Make that 1976. HT: Less Antman]
And the current LP platform reads:
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
So really Michael, where were liberals when it came to gay and lesbian rights issues? Behind those fascist libertarians, it would appear.
Smear jobs like this are a sign of progress because they come from a place of fear. You don't have to smear folks you think are irrelevant. It's when ideas matter that they meet the bar of warranting a smear. Thanks for the compliment Michael.