Of course, I understand that the two need not be mutually exclusive. Yet, when one reads an appeal to libertarians, it seems reasonable to expect that the issues presented have something to do with libertarianism.
Recently a friend of mine sent me something written by an outspoken and reasonably well-known libertarian; I think it is fair to describe this individual as a left-libertarian. I am not comfortable offering the name of the author as the original reference is to a Facebook post; as I am not on Facebook, I cannot directly verify the source. Further, I am unable to offer a link. I suspect someone with a Facebook account can find this pretty easily.
So, why do I bother addressing this? Two reasons, I guess: first, the comment is on a topic that I have written about recently (more than once), one on which I place some value; second, it offers a case study to the question posed in the title (and clarified in my opening paragraph above).
Here is the post, in its entirety (based on the email I received):
Jordan Peterson is a huckster and charlatan and if you take him as a serious scholar you should not be taken seriously. He’s a slicker, more credentialed Molyneux, and real scholars know that he is misrepresenting those he disagrees with and offering a one-sided take on the issues he’s discussing.
To those libertarians, young and old, who are fans, you are hitching yourself to a doomed train. We can and should do much better than this nonsense. Find and follow real scholars who treat the left the way you’d want the left to treat you. Spit out this poison before it destroys you and the case for liberty. Seriously.
What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship,…