In a recent debate on the Joe Rogan Experience, between Douglas Murray and Dave Smith, Murray accused libertarians as being the “bisexuals of politics.”

An interesting claim, one that assumes politics is in itself is a binary. Or that those in the ‘liberty’ spectrum, which can range from all types of anarchists, agorists and whatever passes for libertarian these days, have more in common than not. The belief that Right and Left are constants and relate specifically to the Western, mostly American politics, is shallow. Regardless.

During his tenure as a libertarian spokesperson, Penn Jillete would offer the simplistic explanation, “Left on sex and drugs, Right on economics,” to best explain his politics. Which for many would be how one could define modern libertarianism. Such summaries of politics and brief bytes reduce issues and philosophies into insignificant associations. Libertarian is far more complicated and interesting than political ‘bisexualism’.

Before Murray Rothbard, libertarian was associated with ‘left’ politics, as was various forms of anarchism and even agorism. Now, for whatever reasons it needs to be defined by either ‘left’ or ‘right’, both of which changes costume frequently enough. The modern, mostly American depiction of libertarian is frequently claimed to be Right wing or Right adjacent. Perhaps this is because, ‘free market economics’ are at least claimed to be Right wing?

The debate between Murray and Smith was mostly focused on foreign policy, rather than the nuances of libertarianism but it extends to the differentiating views between both men. One, of a collectivist who sees the world broken up into groups. The other, an individualist, who understands the world to be made up of individuals. Collectivist and Individualist, as such. Not, Left or Right.

The Left and Right, have more in common than not. It’s only in the extremes of both or from within specific niches, where actual principles according to both matter, on those fringes do real distinct differences occur. As political animals, both tend to be incestuous siblings.

The same can go for libertarians, who indulge in politics and alliances. The politics in itself transcending claimed principles. It is the nature of politics that leads to the temptations of bisexuality in this context. Deviant flirtation, making allies, of achieving shared goals. In the case of certain issues it seems that such political animals enjoy the orgiastic delights of agreement.

In this metaphor, would it not be more apt at claiming that libertarians are Asexual, unlike their more politically motivated associates, Libertarians, inc who may be outright ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ to whatever leaning takes their fancy.

It’s all rather confusing. And I say this as someone who is grappling with the writing of a book on complex sexuality.

Murray’s statement was thrown out as a slur, as though one must be either Gay or Straight. Or in this case, Left and Right. Which side do those who embrace Murray as their mouthpiece associate with being the likeness to their politics, Homo or Heterosexual? Murray could have also just said it as a gay old remark, frivolous and to be swallowed with little regard.

Political orientation assumes that one side of politics is wrong, and that the other side is correct. As an openly gay man, would this then assume that conservative politics is homosexual? Then again, it seems that many from such a political spectrum can in fact be gay, or even bisexual or whatever sexual convenience suits them. Albeit closeted. Despite the woke fetish to unite sexuality and partisan politics.

Murray has his views and many of them are rather conventional. That does not mean that they are entirely in line with the Right or Left zeitgeist. For example when it comes to his opinion on Palestine, only the extremes of both seem to view it as a genocide. Those who make up the politically generic or what some would call the ‘uniparty’, there seems to be wider support for Israeli policy. To the Palestinians and their dying and starving a ‘left’ Biden or a ‘right’ Trump administration have made little difference.

In the case of the Ukraine war, again it’s with the more Left leaning of generic politics that tends to favour support in the war against Russia. Then again, from within the mainstream of Right wing politics there is also an anti-Russia focus. A desire to keep the proxy war going for as long as possible to bleed Russia. The sacrifice of Ukrainian lives being a price that they are willing to pay.

Murray can also argue, that the Ukrainians are defending themselves from an invader. Though, in the case of Palestine, this would be incorrect in his mind. In the case of Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and so on, I am sure that it would also be incorrect. It all depends on who the invader is, and who such an invasion favours.

When it comes to prosecuting of war, there seems to be a consensus among Left and Right of party politics, a bi-partisan agreement. ‘Bisexual’ politics one might say.

Libertarians or those in the anti-war liberty movement are not “bi.” There is more to two sides, and two ideals when it comes to many issues. The nature of politics is conflation, coercion and seduction. Those with principles tend to remain pure and virginal, they don’t need to get fcucked by the bullshit breathed political class, nor do they need to sodomise another group of innocent people out of a need for political expedience. The vulgarity of politics is that it pretends to be decent, polite and intellectual when in reality it is crude, vile and plunges bayonets into the bellies of countless people all in the name of policy or, like any rapist, self interest.