Privilege exists. There are people in fancy suits and black dresses who are given immunity for their heinous crimes. Their friends in the financial industry regularly launder money and get away with it while kids in Florida get arrested for some measly Bitcoin transactions. The government comprises the most privileged class in the US, but lately the topic of “privilege checking” doesn’t focus on the obviously privileged class, it focuses on those crushed under its thumb. The profits earned by Bitcoin investors are laughable compared to those made by any major bank or any government agency. It is as hard to take claims that the Bitcoin space is one of privilege seriously as it is to suggest that there is a place for this theory of privilege in libertarian thought.

Privilege simply means receiving special favors from an authority that others are not privy to. Libertarians would focus on the extra rights granted to people by the state, while progressives look at it from a social context. The rich guy who inherited his money is more privileged than the working class man. It is hard to argue that privilege, in either form, doesn’t exist, but there is a distinction between privilege and “privilege checking,” which is marketed as a way to the influence of privilege in a social context. The proposed solution to the inequalities is that those with privilege “check” it, but that is actually a flaccid solution to real systemic problems, especially when compared to tactics like direct action.

Where Does Privilege Checking Come From?

Privilege checking, though apparently new to some libertarians, is a fairly old idea that comes from the academic left. Some argue that libertarians just need to adopt the marketing techniques from the left, and that includes using terminology rooted in Marxism. While these techniques have no doubt been successful, they rarely offer solutions, and have a deceptive foundation. Fashionably injecting elements of critical theory to make libertarianism more palatable for the masses has been suggested by some prominent libertarians, but what is critical theory? Critical theory, according to Wikipedia, is:

“…an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks ‘to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.’”

Alright, I think most people can agree that any ideology should be held up to rigorous criticism as a way to prove its validity, but while critical theory offers criticism as the “gadfly of ideologies,” it doesn’t offer alternatives or solutions to the theories it critiques. I also reject its premise that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation. Let’s face it, the intellectual barriers we erect in our mind are not the same as the bars of a cell. While the person throwing you in that rape cage is acting on an ideology of statism, it is the physical imprisonment that is the principal obstacle to your freedom. The intellectual struggle is only one part of the battle for liberation. It must also be physical actions that actually free people.

So-called “thin” libertarians are criticized for knee jerk accusations of Marxism towards their more socially focused counterparts. In libertarianism there is a divide between the more economics focused side and those focused on social issues. There’s also a large portion who are somewhere in between, but the more vocal arguments come from right leaning “propertarians” and left leaning “social awareness” advocates. Both sides maintain that their approach is the morally correct one, and also the practical way to reach more people.

The Historical Roots of Critical Theory

It is unwise to dismiss a theory based on its origins, but it is important to realize the historical roots of these concepts. Critical theory is rooted in Marxist philosophy. As a panarchist, I accept that some people want to live in a Marxist society, but it is not compatible with libertarianism.

Historically, ideologies that have sought to balance social inequalities were developed by some of the most privileged people. Critical theory was established primarily by five Frankfurt School theoreticians: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. These philosophers were far from the struggling proletariat class described by Marxists. They were of the much derided bourgeoisie, just like Marx himself. Adorno and Horkheimer specifically advocated the replacement of free markets and private property with central planning and collectively managed means of production, and they sought to do this by injecting critical theory into society and state structures.

You cannot deny that critical theory has its origins in Marxist philosophy, nor that the main theorists overwhelmingly supported state intervention to correct inequalities. Likewise, academics today lean further left than average working people. Ironically the people they hope to liberate through state socialism overwhelmingly benefit from freed markets, and the people pushing critical theory on young minds are ones encouraging privilege checking.

Privilege Checking in Regard to Critical Theory

Privilege checking seeks to challenge notions of privilege among the general populace. The academic class is significantly more privileged than just about any other. Yet, they use this philosophy to divide those of lower socioeconomic status. Curiously absent from this prescription is encouragement to resist those at the top of the privilege ladder: government officials and police. The left, especially academia, views government as the solution to inequality, not the source of it. By shifting the focus away from the actual oppressors, the left has been successful in dividing people by class, race, gender, and sexual orientation, ranking them, and sitting back while they fight horizontally.

By keeping people divided and bickering, the state is able to maintain economic and social control over our lives. While it’s unlikely the academic class are involved in some great conspiracy, they are, to use another Marxist term, useful idiots for the actual oppressors.

Why would some libertarians want to adopt this idea when they already have the correct prescription for ending widespread oppression—lessen the power of the institution that perpetuates it? I have yet to see deeply held notions of racism, sexism, or bigotry among libertarians. I have seen quite the opposite, and while bigoted libertarians no doubt exist, you’ll find bigots in any movement. Statistically speaking, consistent libertarians make up around 7% of the population, whereas progressives make up a much larger percentage. The main difference between progressives and libertarians in regard to dealing with regressive social behaviors is that one seeks to use the violence of the state to discourage bad behavior, and one seeks social solutions like disassociation and other non-coercive solutions. One seeks to silence offensive speech, while the other realizes that upholding free speech—no matter how unpopular—is necessary for a free society. Silencing speech allows a privilege checker to pretend they’ve actually done something to end oppression.

Privilege Checking is Classist and Ineffective

Privilege checking creates an environment where the black, female, upper class college student can silence the white, male, working class college dropout, and it’s actively encouraged on college campuses. If we focus on individualism instead we can evaluate both equally on their merits and character. The focus on tolerance and judgment of character is a familiar tenet of the civil rights movement, which succeeded in being more progressive-minded without bringing in nebulous terminology and practices.

Even worse, privilege checking assumes that one person is more oppressed than another based only on arbitrary physical characteristics. How can you know who is more oppressed without taking the effort to actually get to know the individual? Is it not racist to make assumptions based on skin color? Privilege checking claims that the privileged are doing a noble service to the disenfranchised by relinquishing their power, but it does not address the systemic reasons why people are oppressed in the first place. The “power” an individual can possess is miniscule compared to what the state can do.

Let’s look at an example: You are planning to go to a city council meeting to speak about the unjust homeless ordinances being proposed. You are aware that these ordinances will harm homeless people, but if you follow Mia McKenzie’s advice, realizing that you have the resources to make it to a meeting is a sign of privilege and since the homeless can’t go you decide not to. You get a gold star for checking your privilege! Go you! Give yourself a high five!

Another example: You are in a public forum, say, at a protest against those same homeless ordinances. There are homeless people there asking for food. You realize that as a participant you are privileged, so instead of speaking you encourage a homeless person to speak. The person needs food, not someone to push them in front of a mic because they feel guilty about their privilege. Direct action gets the goods, not puny half-hearted attempts at pretending to rectify some perceived inequality. If a person needs food, you give them food, not a podium.

Direct action doesn’t have to be limited to local interactions, either. If a village is destroyed by a drone strike, start a fundraiser, or go there and help rebuild. Don’t pretend giving your Muslim friend special treatment addresses the problem. It speaks volumes of our “first world privilege” that privilege checking is taken seriously as a form of activism, while people in other countries have to worry about being killed by sky robots. It is only the excessively privileged that have the luxury to advocate privilege checking.

The privilege checking idea demands we evaluate our position in society and quietly acquiesce to certain oppressed groups. I’ve personally been told by an advocate of this divisive philosophy that I need to step down and be silent when a minority has something to say. I found it puzzling as I am keen to hear what anyone has to say and I’m not one who talks over anyone. Libertarians uphold the right to be brutish in speech, but very few are actually bigoted because individualist philosophy reveals bigotry as fallacious. I also differentiate between jokes made in poor taste, and actual racist tendencies. To say they are the same denigrates the experiences of people subjected to actual racism.

I come from the left, and I don’t mean democrat. I used to be a socialist. I have seen privilege checking taken to its logical conclusion. I’ve worked with activists that used privilege checking as a way to rank input in the conversation. We are all oppressed by government, and even with laws that have a disparate impact on certain groups we are nearer in equality to each other than to politicians and academics.

Horizontal Discipline is Perpetuated by Privilege Checking

Leftists don’t even realize they are engaging in horizontal discipline that keeps the actual privileged in power. It is easier to control a population that is fighting amongst themselves. Instead of fighting our common enemy, those with the wrong skin color or gender are then told that they can’t possibly empathize with those who don’t share their characteristics. I’ve even met a few leftists who were actual racists, meaning people who believe that those with less melanin are genetically inferior. Some leftists go so far as to claim a black person can never oppress a white person. Tell that to victims of police brutality or TSA molestations. Should I “check my privilege” because the boot on my neck is worn by a black officer? Context is thrown out the window by the privilege checkers.

Libertarians are bad at adopting Marxist rhetoric and should feel bad

Leftists love changing the definitions of words, which also comes from Marxist dialectical tradition. These tactics have succeeding at influencing culture, but efficacy is no substitute for principle. Racism is not “power plus prejudice” any more than murder is “power plus homicide.” This thinking quickly falls apart. Philosophers have been replaced with marketers. Principles should be stricken down if they are unsound. How unfortunate it is that the solid principles of libertarianism are being attacked from within by libertarians who lack an understanding of the philosophies they are attempting to sell out to.

Some younger libertarians have been influenced by ideas like critical theory and privilege checking without regarding their historical roots, or the utter failure of the theories. In their attempt to create a Harrison Bergeron-esque utopia, proponents of privilege checking focus on their fellow oppressed individuals instead of counteracting the actual perpetrators of backwards social mores.

Action Trumps Pandering

You can be compassionate without adopting the toxic idea of privilege checking by actually doing something to help people under the boot of the state. When a leftist, or even a libertarian tells me to check my privilege I just laugh, because I’ve only ever heard white, upwardly mobile young professionals say this, and none of them were doing any real work to help the oppressed. The practice is most often employed at the university level, an environment that is prohibitively expensive for most working class people. I could not finish college because I had to support myself and could not afford the state inflated tuition rates. I have not been able to afford to go back, but have been “privileged” enough to educate myself.

Privilege checking doesn’t strike at the root of the problem, and when I’ve written about Bitcoin and privilege it was those who would be categorized as unprivileged who gave the most positive feedback. Get this: homeless people want to be treated as equal human beings, NOT rescued by their privileged saviors. They want to be listened to not pigeonholed for their unfortunate lot in life. It is them who find the very idea of privilege checking extremely offensive. I’m sure privilege checkers have the best of intentions. I have yet to meet a Marxist with evil intentions, but their philosophy inevitably leads to a consolidation of power that is almost always destructive on a massive scale.

Privilege Checking is Racist

For the same reasons that KONY 2012 was unintentionally racist, privilege checking offers false hope in the meaningless statements of upper middle class, college indoctrinated whites. The untold psychological damage of relegating someone to an oppressed status may even make privilege checking more nefarious than useless. Numerous scientific studies have shown the harm caused by dividing people by race and gender, and growing up in an environment that perpetuates ideas of inequality. Centuries of racism told black people that they are inferior to whites, so why are universities pushing the idea that acknowledging their inferiority and providing them special accommodations is some kind of solution? It’s condescending to deem someone as inferior, and then graciously “check your privilege” instead of doing anything meaningful.

Consider this: Privilege checking perpetuates racism by patronizing black people who don’t need white people to give them permission to speak. Why not encourage all oppressed people to stand up and assert their right to speak, instead of asking permission to speak? If you see a black person being beaten by the police, get out of your car and film that shit, don’t just bitch on your Tumblr about how racist cops are.

Privilege Checking is Sexist

I used to identify as a feminist too. There is a lot of overlap between feminist theory and critical theory. The premise of feminism, that we live in a patriarchal society, in many ways feeds into a psychological inferiority. According to radical feminists an oppressed woman can never succeed in a male dominated world. But, surely it isn’t all men who are oppressors, merely the ones benefitting from state privilege. You can’t put a cop in the same category as some random guy on the street. The real patriarchy exists at the corporate government levels. Feminism, like critical theory, has been successful at shifting the focus away from the actual oppressors, and has divided the oppressed against each other.

Before the cries of “straw feminism” come hither, let me say that this mindset facilitates a victim mentality that I’ve not only seen demonstrated by feminists, but have experienced myself. When you have an enemy in your fellow man, it is easy to focus on the preposterous concept of “microaggressions” and ignore the macroaggression, which only bolsters the power of the state like all horizontal discipline.

A woman shouldn’t be given special privileges to speak over a man if her ideas are harmful or insane. Defining men and women by our sexual organs ignores the merit of our individual arguments or positions. I don’t want to be oppressed or elevated because of my chromosomes. It’s insulting either way. I am not a victim of patriarchy; I am a survivor of statism. You don’t have to be a feminist to be a libertarian, and contextually women are sometimes more privileged than men. Many women don’t identify as feminist because it is demeaning and ignores the real concerns of women worldwide. Privilege checking dictates that I am unprivileged because of my gender, even though I’m not, and neither are most women in this country. The priorities of American feminists, and privilege checkers are largely first world concerns, and don’t help women excel in less privileged countries.

The solution to gender inequity is not to let some arbitrary woman speak because she is a woman, but to empower women through education and skill building so that they can pave their own path to self-determination.

Privilege Checking is Bigoted

Guess what? Many people in LGBTQ community also want to be treated as individuals, not merely defined by their sexual orientation. You can’t stereotype people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or queer. While the LGBTQ community may statistically lean left politically, even that varies among individuals.

To elevate a person based on their sexual identity is as bad as focusing on their race or gender. People are human beings first, and deserve to be applauded for their achievements, not the traits they were born with. How rude would it be to introduce someone as, “Dan, my gay friend”? So, why do people want to do that on the academic level? “Step aside cis-gendered whitey, this queer person gets priority.” Yes, the enlightened thing to do is ignore people’s individuality and merit, and define them by their sex lives, whether they want that or not.

I have another idea. How about we treat people how we’d want to be treated, instead of assuming that heteronormative people are automatically oppressors? How about we get to know people as individuals instead of evaluating them by their sexual identifications?

Privilege Checking is Anti-Human

The quote from Malcolm X rings true, “Who taught you to hate yourself?” Privilege checking teaches those with “privilege” to hate themselves while simultaneously suggesting that those with different characteristics are oppressed and need their pity. The most ironic part is that it goes against the principles of the civil rights era. Privilege checking is itself prejudiced.

The realization came to me years ago when I participated in a discussion with a group keen on making sure I knew my place as a privileged white woman. I was frequently the butt of jokes about my “white privilege card,” but I took it in stride because I believed them. They showed me an emotional documentary on how blacks have been oppressed in this country (mostly by the state), and a fellow poet, possibly the least racist person I know, lamented, “I am ashamed that I was born white” followed with a thoughtful, downward looking gaze. Instead of understanding, our hosts beamed with glee, and congratulated him for hating his skin. These supposed activists for equality, who had suffered discrimination and were well acquainted with Malcolm’s works, were giddy that they were able to teach a young activist to hate himself for an unchosen physical characteristic. I was appalled, even when I believed that reverse racism didn’t exist and checked my privilege daily. Was this not the very thing Malcolm was talking about?

If privilege checking were reversed, its intolerant overtones would be crystal clear. That is the test of whether a philosophy is coherent. I am not against the idea of privilege checking because I am a “vulgar” libertarian, or a brutalist, or whatever the term is now being pushed by left libertarians. I am against privilege checking because it is racist, sexist, bigoted, and teaches people to accept being ranked by no more than their physical characteristics. We are all unique individuals with diverse experiences that shape our opinions, and those experiences should be given weight in a discussion about privilege. All people deserve to be heard, and shouldn’t have to “check their privilege” to do it. There are numerous other ways to address inequality that actually work, without placating those who advocate ways that don’t.

We should be lifting people up, not pulling people down. We can address the needs of the disprivileged through direct action, not insipid back patting. Those that elitist privilege checking advocates claim have less privilege are not as helpless as they are made out to be. They are strong, intelligent, and capable of self-determination. They don’t need the insulting pandering of people who cannot possibly understand their experiences. Privilege checking reeks of crab mentality and doesn’t lead to more equitable interactions between people. I implore you to look more deeply into privilege checking as it is both ineffective and offensive to thinking people, and those who wish to rectify the inequities caused by the state. Looking at privilege through a lens of power, instead of unchosen physical characteristics, provides the clearest picture for how to deal with subjugation. In most cases you’ll find that it is the person with the power of the state that is in the truly privileged position.

Tags: Malcolm X, Male Privilege, Marxism, Privilege Checking, White Privilege