Blogs > Liberty and Power > Last Words on Hoppe

Feb 22, 2005 6:40 pm


Last Words on Hoppe



I have had time to listen to the relevant sections of the lecture, and I must say that it confirmed many of my suspicions. I still do not believe that Hoppe should be punished for his comments, but he certainly deserves the public outcry he's been getting.

Yes, the student who attacked Hoppe was being foolish when he demanded that his education be"as politically correct as possible." Education should be uncomfortable, disconcerting, and if need be, politically incorrect. It's not an education if it doesn't shake you up a bit. Would that there were any party I could champion in this debate, but there is not.

Via No Treason, here is a statement with which I completely agree:
One thing I'll note is that Hoppe does not present his remarks on Keynes as a joke, as some have suggested. While Charles Murray prudently warned Bell Curve readers not to view individuals in terms of group traits, Hoppe invites his audience to consider an individual's sexual preference as a possible source of deficiencies in his economic theories.
Contra several commenters at Liberty & Power, Prof. Hoppe very clearly was associating sexual orientation with bad economic decisions and even with utterly depraved criminal behavior.

Having listened to the lecture, I can say with confidence that Hoppe was not referring merely to some value-neutral preference toward risk. Every single one of the examples he used in the lecture declared that a high time preference is negative, and to the effect that homosexuals have a high time preference because they do not care about the rest of society. A student ignorant of this area of economics could not have walked away from the lecture with any other conclusion.

Here is a partial transcript I've just done. It's incomplete, but it gets the sense of the remarks and most of their content too. Sections in quotes are word-for-word or nearly so with ellipses noted; otherwise I have paraphrased closely:

--Children turn down an interest rate of 100% per day; they need their"big gulp" right now. This behavior is presented as foolish in the extreme, which it certainly is.

"Very old people are sometimes said to go through a second childhood, not necessarily so, because very old people can also provide for future generations. But assuming that they do not care for future generations, they might not have any offspring or friends that they want to hand over their own fortune [to]... They have not much of a future left; they again go through the phase of a second childhood, by and large consuming and stopping more or less entirely to accumulate..."

"The example of criminals, which are also typically speaking, and I mean the normal run of the mill type criminal... the muggers, the murders, the rapists... [are] characterized typically by high time preference..."

[He gives the example of"normal" dating, which requires time and investment before the"reward," which is presumably sex. How charming. I'd thought that the relationship too was a reward, but I digress.]"If you have a childlike mentality in an adult body, then [normal dating] is almost an impossible sacrifice... You become a rapist or something of that nature... But what if a day of waiting is too long? ...[You] Look for some old lady and rob her of her purse, and this way satisfy your desires."

[Democratic politicians are in power for only a short time.]"What they do not loot right now, they will not be able to loot in 5-6 years, so their intention... is to milk the public as much as possible, because then with a lot of tax income I can make myself a lot of friends. And who cares about the future?"

"The last example is one that has gotten me into deep trouble at my university... some fanatic wanted to bring me down, this whole process is still underway, so I warn you not to bring harassment suits against me again... If you compare regular heterosexuals with families to homosexuals, you can also say that homosexuals have a higher time preference, because life ends with them."

Yes, life ends with us. Homosexuals don't have families like heterosexuals. Both of these statements are preposterous lies and represent nothing less than pure, naked bigotry.

Hoppe may find these claims"obvious" and"beyond dispute," but I do not. Hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians have children in the United States alone. And all of us most certainly have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and other relatives.

Now, a few studies do suggest that there is some truth behind Hoppe's claims, but this is in a very narrow sense only, and studies of homosexuals suffer greatly from the statistical difficulties that I have already noted.

It's crucial to note these studies do not support Hoppe's claims that homosexuals care less about society merely because they are homosexuals, and that"life ends with them." This is why his (otherwise quite misguided) student took offense, and--in this sense alone--I have to say I agree with the firebrand student.

Let's consider the question of cause and effect: Is it really that homosexuals don't care about long-term plans because they are homosexual? Or is it at all thinkable that perhaps homosexuals have been shunned from mainstream society for as long as anyone can remember--and thus they tend to have less interest in giving back to mainstream society?

Gay people are discouraged from forming families or even permanent unions, both by pervasive social attitudes and by direct government attack. They are told every single day that their families are inconsequential--or even that they don't have families, and that"life ends with them." They hear this stuff all the time, and frankly, it can rub off. To the extent that Hoppe's comments in this lecture are true, they are merely self-fulfilling prophecies of the very worst sort.

Let me give just one recent example from my own life: In response to one of my very first posts at Liberty & Power (on an utterly unrelated topic), I was informed, quite out of the blue, that I was not in a real marriage but merely in a"relationship." Talk about a warm welcome!

The overwhelming majority of gay people hear subtle messages from day to day telling them that society does not want or need them, that they are expendable, that they do not count for anything. They hear comments just like Hoppe's, and these things have an effect.

An historical analogy immediately suggests itself: At one time, it was argued that Negroes were inherently intellectually inferior, and that it was therefore a waste of time to bother sending them to schools. Unsurprisingly, they seemed far less intelligent, and they probably were less intelligent--as a direct result of their lack of education. Things have improved considerably in the meantime, to the point where it is a matter of heated debate whether any genetic disparity exists at all. I'm inclined to think it doesn't, but that's another question.

No, it's not brainwashing or anything so crude as that--but given the institutional and informal pressures against us, Hoppe's comments are frankly akin to blaming the victim. So a gay student made a protest? Good for him. It's about time someone stood up against this nonsense. Would that he'd done it in a more decent fashion, but I have to say my heart still goes out to him.

And here's the delicious irony of it all: The student in question is demonstrating exactly the sort of economic behavior that Hoppe said gay people do not usually exhibit: In sacrificing (for the moment) his peace and quiet, his reputation, his ordinary course of studies, this student is acting for the good of gay people everywhere, over the longest term I can imagine. If I'm not mistaken, economists refer to that as a low time preference.

[Cross-posted at Positive Liberty.]

Update: No Treason adds a further conundrum for Hoppe's defenders:
...one of the most important aspects of Hoppean theory is the ability to expel certain undesirables from a community. ...But if a community has the right to expel certain undesirables, then it would seem that a university would certainly have the right to expel or censure certain undesirables.
Happily, I don't subscribe to Hoppe's proposition: I believe that unless the person in question is an actual criminal, the community has no right to expel anyone. Thus I disagree vehemently with what Hoppe says, yet I defend his right to say it.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

My God, what an infernal cry-baby. Where is the free speech issue? The HNN discussion boards are governed by rules. You've broken the rules more egregiously than anyone I can remember in recent memory. I've asked the editor to consider banning you, and I don't regret it. He's agreed to look into it without agreeing one way or the other. Sorry, I don't see the "free speech" issue.

When did I ever "question whether Hoppe is a libertarian"? In the same place that I claimed to be a Muslim, I guess, i.e., nowhere.

When did I ever say that I myself was a libertarian? Same place: Nowhere.

Suppose that I did accept the UN Declaration's prohibition on degrading punishments. How does this erase the distinction between torture and humiliation that I made on a previous website? It doesn't.

Suppose again that I accept it. How does this disprove what I said about Palmer's comment on that website? It doesn't.

So where are you best at argument? Where you're free to confabulate, fabricate, misrepresent, and lie.

But suppose that the ISIS website is simply inaccurate in its representation of the views of its Executive Director? Then your red herring of an argument washes ashore, gasps for breath--and dies.

Why are you bringing up issues on this website that were discussed on a different one, so that people here have no idea of the context of that discussion? Answer: because you perform best when people have no idea of the context of what you are discussing. Knowledge is a disinfectant that kills every argument you make.

NOTHING you've written here bears the LEAST relevance to any argument I've made against you. Confronted on one issue, you scurry hastily to the next. Confronted there, you move to the next, and then the next and the next. Talking with you is like watching someone enact an infinite regress of evasion. A bit of advice: infinite regresses never get you where you want to go.

Another piece of a piece of advice: for your sake, I think you should drop the whole Atlas Shrugged "face without guilt" melodrama. Your countenance may not bear the hallmarks of guilt, but the self-avowed comparison to John Galt is a bit of a stretch: it tells us something about your propensities to grandiosity and narcissism, but little else. We already know more than we need to know about you. Don't take a bad thing farther than it's gone.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Ah, I see. So when Khawaja notifies the editor of Kinsella's behavior contrary to forum rules, it is an assault on "free speech." When Kinsella does the same of unnamed parties, it is Kinsella nobly upholding forum rules. A man of principles--with a new principle for every situation.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Remind me, where did I identify myself as a Muslim? You're a big math whiz, I know, so I think you can do better in the precision department than "your site about muslims or something...made me think that you are all into that grouping stuff." And what grade are you in, again? Fourth? Fifth?

As it happens, I'm married to a Jew. But then, I'm not a Muslim. The ISIS site is not a site of Muslims, but of apostates. So the site you've confused as a "Muslim" site is in fact just the reverse of one. So much for the inference from "Khawaja's site is Muslim" to "he's a Muslim" to "he's clannish." Actually, it isn't actually "my" site, but let's not split hairs.

As for the "n" word, I've never used it, but it's been applied to me by others several times in recent memory. On the broader point, I have actually accused members of my own family in print of anti-Semitism. It is in the book advertised on my "Muslim" site. Remember that site? It's the one you seem so assiduously to have read.

As for my "children" and their sexual habits, I don't have any children (that I know of) and don't plan on having any, but since their "father" has never balked at sharing his bed with anyone on grounds of color or religion, it would be the greatest hypocrisy for "Dad" to deny them the pleasures to be had on that score. Just to be clear: If I had kids, they would be able to marry anyone of any race, religion or gender that they wanted, and with my blessing.

I have to hand it to you: I don't think I could have had the ingenuity to ask a series of questions more perfectly designed to make you look like an idiot than the ones you've come up with yourself. And so we reach yet another proof of Dwight Eisenhower's dictum that there really is no final answer to the question, "How stupid can you get?"


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

That's a rather concise response from a person who is otherwise a fount of volubility. What'sa matter, Kinsella? Cat got your tongue? Can't think of anything to say now that I've pissed all over your brilliantly-conceived questions? Try getting something right next time, and you won't make such an ass of yourself in public. Not that I can imagine success from you on either front.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Kinsella, do you specialize in non-sequiturs? They begin with the first line of your post, and make it pointless to read on: From "I did not accuse Hoppe of not being a libertarian," how *exactly* did you get to "So you will admit that he IS a libertarian"? Apparently, NOT making a claim has become the equivalent of making one in this demented universe. Maybe we can go further with this line of "reasoning," as in:

"I haven't seen the weather report, so I don't know if it's raining." Aha! So you ADMIT that it's sunny!

"I don't know whether Jennifer has a blue car." Oho! So you ADMIT that it's yellow!

"Dammit, I don't know where my keys are." Ha! So you ADMIT they're in you're pocket!

An error, to put it mildly. We're dealing here with stupidity than which nothing greater can be conceived, and I think at this point I'd rather let Kinsella self-destruct than do any more to ease him along the path to that terminus. Not only have you been refuted every time you've opened your mouth, you've managed to alienate your friends, defend bigotry, engage in bigotry, tell outright lies, and look like an idiot in the process. Fine work.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

You may wish to seek the help of a qualified mental health practitioner.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

No, I don't have a question. I know enough to know that you don't have answers.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Very well said.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Roderick,

Sorry, but there simply is no moral equivalence between Kinsella's invective and my responses to them.

There is first the simple fact that in every single case without exception, he has been the one to resort to invective and done so first, and in every case, I have merely responded in what I take to be an appropriately forceful way. And while I'm not going to re-argue every post (actually, I'm not going to re-argue anyone of them: once was more than enough), I would also say that the quality of my rhetoric and my arguments exceeds his by a fair measure--again, in every single case without exception. There was not one case in which I responded to him hastily or in uncontrolled anger. And there's not one post that I regret having written. Compare that with the endless proliferation of weirdly giddy responses from him (rarely on anything of relevance to the original claim I made in a thread, which in the present case, if anyone cares to remember, was the rather terse message "Bravo. Very well said," intended for Jason Kuznicki). Question: WHICH of us is out of control?

Second: Kinsella has indeed told outright lies, and my claim is not an exaggeration, or born of "wrath." What he has done is to divide his claims between several websites, bringing up different claims on different ones, feeling free to bring up on one website claims he's made on another without bothering to supply the relevant context.

In one case, he's accused Tom Palmer of endorsing "torture." The claim was/is a brazen lie; I called it one there, I repeat the claim here, and I'm pretty sure Tom would agree with my assessment.

But I wonder: have I done anything comparable to the website "Palmer Periscope," which is a WHOLE WEBSITE devoted exclusively to attacks on and the defamation of one person?

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/

You'll note the sly use of pastel colors, e.g., lavender and the like. Is it accidental that the site is in pastel colors, while the issue of Tom's sexual orientation has been so prominently at issue? Oh well; maybe it is. But maybe it isn't. An inference to the best explanation is in order.

This is the site at which Kinsella described Tom as endorsing torture, but there were a series of similarly mendacious claims on Tom's website before Tom eventually banned Kinsella (Tom: what took you so long?).

I don't think I bear the burden of having to hunt down every URL that substantiates what I'm saying; I've already argued most of this multiple times over at the relevant places. I would say that anyone who wants to make judgments bears the burden of reading the entire mess, on every relevant site, before saying a word in judgment of me.

So let me ask you bluntly: what is your moral evaluation of a site like Palmer Periscope, and of the person(s) behind it? Is it comparable to anything I've said here? And what would be the "discursively" politic response to it? Should one politely "take issue" with it, or is the frank expression of displeasure with it somehow problematic? If it is, can it really be MORE problematic...than the site?

Have I said anything comparable to Kinsella's description of me (itself based on a comical set of mis-inferences) to the effect that I have "clannish" tendencies? This old anti-Semitic chestnut isn't much better when it's directed at a (supposed) Muslim than when directed at Jews.

And what was the evidence for Kinsella's assumption that I would object to my (hypothetical) son's marrying a Jew? His claim on that count explicitly takes the form: IK sounds like he's a Muslim; all Muslims, being clannish, hate Jews; so if IK had children, he would follow his clannish propensities in not permitting his children to marry a Jew. Hmm. Well, considering that my partner IS a Jew, and that I've probably done more to fight Muslim anti-Semitism than StephAn Kinsella will in his sorry lifespan, this strikes me as not the sort of claim I'm obliged to receive with equanimity.

So I am not merely "chiding" someone's overheated rhetoric. I am objecting forcefully to systematic, sustained defamation of a friend of mine (and, well, of me: but I'm a friend of mine, too). The claims that have been aimed at Tom throughout this discussion--their substance and style--are simply an obscenity. They're not something that brooks polite discussion, or an equivalence between offender and defender. Nor do they require a response in a flat tone of voice.

That is why, incidentally, I told Rick Shenkman that he ought to look into banning Kinsella from HNN--a claim I hereby renew. L&P has essentially become a forum for a smear merchant (dragging HNN into the bargain). Meanwhile, we're obliged to pretend that Kinsella's ravings are all part of the "conversation," and we should all just put up with the sporadic "excesses" of an oddball guy with a few eccentricities. Sorry, but to think that way is to flout evidence--LOTS of evidence.

Incidentally, while I'm on the subject of defamation, I notice that not a single person at L&P--including the target of the critique--noticed my response to Arthur Silber's inept (despite recycled) attack on Christopher Hitchens. Here we have more defamation, trundled forth under the guise of informed commentary, but immediately forgotten the minute the author encounters an actual challenge to his views:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10075.html

Read Silber's blog, and my response. Who is trading in overheated invective and who is discussing evidence: texts and issues? Now go back and read the last dozen posts by Silber. What do you see? Calm and measured argument? A sincere attempt at Nozickian truth-tracking? I don't think so.

I don't think it's appropriate to be admonishing me about the tone of my posts without first dealing with the HUNDREDS of posts right here at L&P that consist of nothing but invective. Again, I have (very occasionally) responded to the more egregious lapses from obvious discursive norms--describing them that way. Unlike, say, Kinsella or Silber, I haven't gone out of my way specifically to defame people, but rather to defend them.

And I don't mind saying that unlike, say, Kinsella or Silber I have a pretty enviable record of defending people of every conceivable ideological persuasion against defamation: from Norman Finkelstein to Bernard Lewis, from Christopher Hitchens to the Muslim student who defended "jihad" at Harvard to the Jews of North Jersey (when defamed by an Arab newspaper). What I've done in Tom's case is merely a continuation of that. As it happens, it's a task that takes a certain rhetorical force to be effective.

As for the paraphrase of Anselm, the joke turns on my ironic use of "greater." It may not strike everyone as funny, but "greater" was precisely what I meant.


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Where did I accuse Hoppe of not being a libertarian? I didn't. You fudge this issue on another website by saying that "Khawaja and his ilk" make this accusation. A brilliant claim, except that Khawaja and "his ilk" are not metaphysically identical entities, so that what Khawaja says and what "his ilk" say are two different things. Guess they never taught you the relevant logical law while you were getting any of your vaunted degrees. It's called the law of identity.

Actually, I've never said that *I* was a libertarian. I'm not. Indeed, where did I take issue with that term? In an essay in Reason Papers (vol. 25, year 2000)--the place where you claim first to have noticed my name. Good job.

But then, I never said that I was a Muslim and you claimed that I was. Alas, you imagined that, too. Imagination is something you seem to be really good at. Too bad we aren't engaged in creative writing just now.

Three colossal swings--three colossal misses.

Even if I were a socialist, how would that be relevant to anything under discussion? It wouldn't. The discussion isn't about socialism, and I never judged Hoppe by libertarian standards. A real forensic tour de force, so far....

And any apologies forthcoming for your previous offenses against the truth? No way, sure as your name is StephAn Kinsella.

As re the "unqualified endorsement", I just took over the Ex Directorship of ISIS a few weeks ago. I don't agree with the part of the Mission Statement you've quoted and didn't write it, but haven't had the chance to do anything about it. It was written in 1998 by the previous director. It would be an understandable inference to draw about my views that I endorsed the UN Dec, but it doesn't happen to be true. Relevance to the topic at hand? Zero.

How many strikes are we up to at this point? How much more of an idiot and an asshole are you willing to make yourself in public? It comes at no cost to me; it's at least mildly amusing to watch an unself-conscious buffoon unself-consciously make a fool of himself over and over and over with the persistence of the Energizer Bunny. I just wonder what's in it for you. But then, what difference does it make?


Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

Kinsella,

I think I need to clarify something before I answer your questions. First, what exactly is a "clan-oriented type" and how do you know that Kuznicki and I qualify? Second, what exactly gave you the "suspicions" that inspired your questions? Could you be a little more explicit?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

I see. YOU are the ones hurling personal smears--ridiculous, hateful, harmful, unjusifiable ones at that--and you have the temerity to say I'm the bully. It's actually funny.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Ghertner: "As someone who represents the Mises Institute,"

do I?

"it's disheartening to see you make light of bigotry and pretend that it's nothing to worry about."

Did I? By disagreeing with your and your ilk's silly little standards for what constitues bigotry, I'm making light of it, eh? Nice subtle way to beg the question.

"I gave you an honest, personal answer, and you treated it like a joke."

Sorry, the "personal" thing you've done that most comes to mind is mindlessly malign someone whose company you don't even deserve to be in.

" What does that indicate to the general public about the Institute's priorities and values?"

The general public thinks you are all a bunch of hypersensitive twits.

"It's a shame, because there are genuinely good people associated with the Institute, and its unfair to sully their reputation with your bad behavior."

Wow. Wow. Talk about punks.

"If Hoppe wishes to say nasty, hateful, intolerant things about homosexuals, Mexican immigrants, and other groups he doesn't like, fine. But he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions. One consequence is that he will be labeled a bigot, because bigotry is exactly what he espouses. Yet you seem to want to have it both ways: Hoppe can say whatever hateful he likes about other people, but you don't think he should be criticized as a bigot for expressing bigoted ideas. Why is that?"

He said nothing bigoted.

"You still have not explained how the views he expressed do not fall under the classification of bigotry."

Ahhh. You people drum up a stuipd charge without defining your terms and now the burden is on the accusee to disprove a negative. Nice.

"Do you believe that there is no such thing as bigotry?"

No, I think what you peoepl are doing is actually an example of it.

"If not -- if you believe the term does have some meaning and describes something that exists -- what, then, constitutes bigotry in your opinion?"

No no, you jerks are the ones making the positive charge, it's up to you to justify it--that includes defining and justifying the relevant standards, and then adducing solid evidence of violation of that standard. Of course, none of you have done any of these things. You use some hairbrained, hairtrigger standards you've been brainwashed into accepting. You people simply crazed advocates of the state's moral code. Good job. You think it's obvious to accept ridiculous, incoherent, hypocritical standards, and then to reverse-engineer them to fit people whose substantive views you don't like. Wow. Impressive. What will you for an encore.

What is heartening about all this is that these increasingly shrill and absurd tactics indicate desperation and bankruptucy... just like the left.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Justin, I don't disagree with what you say, except when you say: "The Hoppeans, on the other hand, are up in arms (and rightly so) about the legal-political issue of a tyrannical "gay rights" dogma being enforced on campus, but simplify the theoretical issues involved to the point of meaninglessness."

I can only defend myself--I have not tried to justify the accuracy of Hoppe's comments. I think it's a broad generalization and he was probably just using an example; but in any event, the nuances you suggest seem sensible to me. My point was only that the examples were not evidence of bigotry.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Clan-oriented--people who identify themselves by reference to a member of some collective with which they share some irrelevant trait, like race, etc. Muslims, Indians, Jews, blacks, Cajun-Americans, whatever. By ascribing importance in your life to these groupings (as a Rand-inspired individualist and as an adoptee I never had much interest in putting stock in genetic connections or irrational ones like religion), you necessarily favor some things and exclude others. You demonstrate, say, a preference that, say, your daughter marry into the same race and maybe religion. I personally see nothing wrong with this but by the totalitarian, state-promulgated standards you people are using to judge Hoppe, all these clan-centered people are also a big racist, bigoted, etc.

My suspcisions? Oh, your site about muslims or something. Made me think you are all into that grouping stuff. Would you be okay with your daughter coming home as a lesbian dating a black Jew? Or are you a bigot. Just curious.

My other point is to make all those so eager to cast personal attacks on the character of Hoppe reflect on how uncomfortable it is to be under the other end of the magnifiying lens--to make you realize how inappropriate it is to make half-cocked personal charges like this.

I doubt it will work but at least some neutral people reading will realize you are all just a bunch of arrogant hypocrites.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Weird reply, dude. I made a comment that it's not libertarian to endorse the actions of a student in effect using a mechanism to punish a professor in this way. Your response is nonresponsivel


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"These are silly questions indeed. My personal guess is that Mr. Kinsella plans to accuse us of hypocrisy if we have ever let the N-word pass our lips."

No, I meant if you used it in a racist way. Not in some descriptive or innocuous way.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Roderick, what good does it do to be reasonable when someone calls you a bigot? What can one do? Simply reply in a casual tone as if nothing out of bounds was said, as if the other side deserves to be treated in civilized, respectful fashion? What, really, is your suggestion in such cases?

I think the situation is not really mutual. The only problem I have with Palmer et al. (other than substantive disagreements) is his personal attacks on a fellow libertarian that I know, like, admire, and respect, and now, me. So if those people would retract their bigotry accusations and stop the personal attacks, I would have no problem being civil.

But see your subject line.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

I guess it's okay to be hate-filled as long as it's directed as people, not groups of people, eh?

Steve, are you insinuating I'm a bigot? I suggest you think carefully before you answer. And if you don't answer I will take that as a no.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"All that Mr. Kinsella's remarks do is make it more clear to readers that Kinsella thinks that being prejudiced against blacks or other groups is just another part of life, a taste like preferring vanilla to chocolate. What a strange and collectivist view."

Why, no, that's not my view at all. Racism etc. is collectivist, rude, mean, and unfair.

"It's typical of the whole group of collectivists who swarm around Hoppe and Rockwell. Then if you say, "well, it's ugly and irrational to have such prejudices regarding individuals and their moral worth," the response is that you are prejudiced against Germans (Hoppe) and Southerners (Kinsella), even though you've not uttered a word about the national origin of those two."

Psychologizing is evidence of bigotry now? Don't blame us from trying to understand what motives might be driving your bizarre claims.

"But what to make of this unhinged claim from Kinsella?:
+++++
I'll bet you've at least used the word "bigger". Many times. And that's very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism. Sure, almost everyone says "bigger" sometimes. But just because everone does it does not mean it's justified.

Shame on you. Whether the N-word, or its close-cousin, "bigger"--shame, shame, shame.
+++++
People who write such bizarre claims as the above,"

I already explained it here:

It was simply showing how your own standards for adjudging bigotry are ridiculous, but using a similarly ridiculous example.

" who express indifference as to whether the Institute for Historical Review is a neo-Nazi organization,"

I know nothing about all these groups you people obsess over. If they are anti-semitic, that's terrible. From what I've heard, they probably are. I just wouldn't take you word alone for it, given your utter lack of credibility in this regard.

" array of defenses of Hoppe's bigotry (he's not; so what?; it's funny; you're bigoted, too; etc., etc.)"

This is disingenuous. I denied that it is bigotry. I didn't defend bigotry. I didn't say real bigotry is funny, or that it's okay since everyone is bigoted.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Rod, I tend to agree with you in general. And it's a very good point--it's harder to accept an attack on a friend than on oneself. That is exactly right.

But I think in your attempt to conciliate, you are conflating some things. You are burying "libel" and personal attacks under "unjust criticism". An unjust criticism is one thing, if it is on substantive matters. If someone says my views are really socialistic, or would lead to chaos, I can respond to that. If they label me as a bigot ... then it's akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" syndrome.

But even if you say that personal attacks are just a type of criticism that one might believe to be unjust, when it gets personal it's a whole different ballgame. At least you could say, "I disagree with your view here because I think it is (perhaps unintentionally) bigoted [or racist]", rather than saying YOU are a racist.

I agree with Sudha Shenoy, as well; well put. (And the more I learn about and hear from Shenoy, the more and more impressed I get.) I am always personally frustrated and baffled when these things turn personal. Had I low self-esteem I might enjoy being the object of attention even if it's hostile; but it's just a time-waster.

But I agree w/ you Roderick that how to deal w/ conflicts over personalities is a grave issue of general principle. My view is that we can recognize our varying degrees of allies. I have always seen other libertarian individuals (of all stripes: hobbyists, students, academics, dabblers, innovators, strategists, theorists) and groups, such as FEE, Cato, Mises Institute, IHS, Liberty Magazine, Reason, FFF, Independent Institute, as all being allies in a common battle against statism and statists. Even if I have both substantive and strategical differences with some of them. Most of all, *personally*, I admire the libertarian theorists who put pen to paper and write things down that stand the test of time. But that's just me.

That there is some gossiping and sniping between these groups is to be expected. But outright hostility and personality assassinations are just beyon the pale, in my view.

You mention general principles. How about the general principle among men of good will--especially those fighting for liberty, to one large degree or anohter--charitably interpreting each other and giving the benefit of the doubt. And yes, Roderick, we ought to try act more as we would interact in person, rather than the way people act with the distance of cold electronic words as mediator. I myself always try to be direct and stick to substance when the other person is doing the same; but when it's clear to me they are nonserious, or have an agenda, or are making personal attacks, I move from substantive response to something different--game playing, ridicule, poking fun, or responding in kind. Maybe this is wrong and it just helps escalate. Maybe one should just turn the other cheek or remain silent.

I fear the answer is that when, as in this case, A has maintained vociferously for a long time that B's friend is a terrible human (which is really just an exaggerated way of saying "I don't like him" for such and such reason), and B knows for a fact from longtime direct experience that this is not so, there is little chance B will change his mind, and he might be reasonable in thinking A is too invested by now in his history of smears to make a retraction. Therefore, there is no resolution or compromise possible. There is too much entrenched hate and bias one one side.

It's also a matter of respect. Thank GOD I'm not a professional academic. I don't mean this as a slight to you, Rod, or others; but events like these make me despair of the ability to maintain one's intellectual integrity. And as an academic--who has presumably given up other, more worldly rewards like higher income for the academic, intelectual life and pursuits--what else do you have? If you mar your intellectual integrity for some persoanl vendetta or bias, ... it's just sad beyond words.

What I mean is this. I have always, and would still, to this day, despite the amazingly nasty things Palmer has said about me personally (which are manifestly false), readily acknowledge his brilliance in some of his IP research years ago. If I were to, say, decide not to cite his work in mine, where I thought it relevant, for some political or personal motives, I am sacrificing the intellectual integrity of my work... but (if I were an academic) my work is what I sacrified other rewards for.. if I sacrifice it, I have nothing left.

Yet Palmer, because, I believe, he really simply dislikes Hoppe on a personal level (as is his right), for some reason cannot let go of this, and it bugs him for some reason that Rockwell and the Mises Institute are viewed "on a par with" the Cato Institute by many people. I will tell you it does not bother me, and people I know, that most people who like Mises Institute would also generally think positively of the other libertarian groups. It's not a competition, really; if any of us wins, we all win (with caveats).

Palmer has gone from some kind of general dislike of those old school southern homophobe racist types (which I share with him) to a dislike of anyone who despises Lincoln. Just as hypersensitive Zionists accuse you of anti-semitism if you even oppose American AID to Israel; or as liberals accuse you of racism if you oppose affirmative action; so Palmer seems to instantly jump to the conclusion that you are a neo-Confederate if you have a view of the 14th and 10th amendments different from that of Cato's house con law scholar. There can be no doubt, IMO, that this jump is not only no warranted, but is such a wild leap to make that it cannot be squared with benign motives. At the very least, it would be reasonable for the recipients of such diatribes to conclude that it's a "hopeless cause".

And I think this is one error of your conciliatory approach. It wants to believe nothing is a hopeless cause. But just as marriages can end over literally irreconcilable differences, so here.

I do not mean to reject your suggestions or close my mind. I do not see how fruitful discourse can be had, however, when one side is steadfast in maintaining that the other side is nothing but a group of racist bigots. At the very least, the group on the receiving end realizes it is viewed by the accusing party as utter lowlifes, and that whatever they say will be on the defensive, and not likely to be heard.

The only real solution I can think of is for people like Palmer to stick to substantive disagreements, but to refrain from jumping to conclusions and discourse-stopping accusations of racism, bigotry, etc. What odds to you want to lay, Rod? I'll be generous. Name your terms.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Rod, I tend to agree with you in general. And it's a very good point--it's harder to accept an attack on a friend than on oneself. That is exactly right.

But I think in your attempt to conciliate, you are conflating some things. You are burying "libel" and personal attacks under "unjust criticism". An unjust criticism is one thing, if it is on substantive matters. If someone says my views are really socialistic, or would lead to chaos, I can respond to that. If they label me as a bigot ... then it's akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" syndrome.

But even if you say that personal attacks are just a type of criticism that one might believe to be unjust, when it gets personal it's a whole different ballgame. At least you could say, "I disagree with your view here because I think it is (perhaps unintentionally) bigoted [or racist]", rather than saying YOU are a racist.

I agree with Sudha Shenoy, as well; well put. (And the more I learn about and hear from Shenoy, the more and more impressed I get.) I am always personally frustrated and baffled when these things turn personal. Had I low self-esteem I might enjoy being the object of attention even if it's hostile; but it's just a time-waster.

But I agree w/ you Roderick that how to deal w/ conflicts over personalities is a grave issue of general principle. My view is that we can recognize our varying degrees of allies. I have always seen other libertarian individuals (of all stripes: hobbyists, students, academics, dabblers, innovators, strategists, theorists) and groups, such as FEE, Cato, Mises Institute, IHS, Liberty Magazine, Reason, FFF, Independent Institute, as all being allies in a common battle against statism and statists. Even if I have both substantive and strategical differences with some of them. Most of all, *personally*, I admire the libertarian theorists who put pen to paper and write things down that stand the test of time. But that's just me.

That there is some gossiping and sniping between these groups is to be expected. But outright hostility and personality assassinations are just beyon the pale, in my view.

You mention general principles. How about the general principle among men of good will--especially those fighting for liberty, to one large degree or anohter--charitably interpreting each other and giving the benefit of the doubt. And yes, Roderick, we ought to try act more as we would interact in person, rather than the way people act with the distance of cold electronic words as mediator. I myself always try to be direct and stick to substance when the other person is doing the same; but when it's clear to me they are nonserious, or have an agenda, or are making personal attacks, I move from substantive response to something different--game playing, ridicule, poking fun, or responding in kind. Maybe this is wrong and it just helps escalate. Maybe one should just turn the other cheek or remain silent.

I fear the answer is that when, as in this case, A has maintained vociferously for a long time that B's friend is a terrible human (which is really just an exaggerated way of saying "I don't like him" for such and such reason), and B knows for a fact from longtime direct experience that this is not so, there is little chance B will change his mind, and he might be reasonable in thinking A is too invested by now in his history of smears to make a retraction. Therefore, there is no resolution or compromise possible. There is too much entrenched hate and bias one one side.

It's also a matter of respect. Thank GOD I'm not a professional academic. I don't mean this as a slight to you, Rod, or others; but events like these make me despair of the ability to maintain one's intellectual integrity. And as an academic--who has presumably given up other, more worldly rewards like higher income for the academic, intelectual life and pursuits--what else do you have? If you mar your intellectual integrity for some persoanl vendetta or bias, ... it's just sad beyond words.

What I mean is this. I have always, and would still, to this day, despite the amazingly nasty things Palmer has said about me personally (which are manifestly false), readily acknowledge his brilliance in some of his IP research years ago. If I were to, say, decide not to cite his work in mine, where I thought it relevant, for some political or personal motives, I am sacrificing the intellectual integrity of my work... but (if I were an academic) my work is what I sacrified other rewards for.. if I sacrifice it, I have nothing left.

Yet Palmer, because, I believe, he really simply dislikes Hoppe on a personal level (as is his right), for some reason cannot let go of this, and it bugs him for some reason that Rockwell and the Mises Institute are viewed "on a par with" the Cato Institute by many people. I will tell you it does not bother me, and people I know, that most people who like Mises Institute would also generally think positively of the other libertarian groups. It's not a competition, really; if any of us wins, we all win (with caveats).

Palmer has gone from some kind of general dislike of those old school southern homophobe racist types (which I share with him) to a dislike of anyone who despises Lincoln. Just as hypersensitive Zionists accuse you of anti-semitism if you even oppose American AID to Israel; or as liberals accuse you of racism if you oppose affirmative action; so Palmer seems to instantly jump to the conclusion that you are a neo-Confederate if you have a view of the 14th and 10th amendments different from that of Cato's house con law scholar. There can be no doubt, IMO, that this jump is not only no warranted, but is such a wild leap to make that it cannot be squared with benign motives. At the very least, it would be reasonable for the recipients of such diatribes to conclude that it's a "hopeless cause".

And I think this is one error of your conciliatory approach. It wants to believe nothing is a hopeless cause. But just as marriages can end over literally irreconcilable differences, so here.

I do not mean to reject your suggestions or close my mind. I do not see how fruitful discourse can be had, however, when one side is steadfast in maintaining that the other side is nothing but a group of racist bigots. At the very least, the group on the receiving end realizes it is viewed by the accusing party as utter lowlifes, and that whatever they say will be on the defensive, and not likely to be heard.

The only real solution I can think of is for people like Palmer to stick to substantive disagreements, but to refrain from jumping to conclusions and discourse-stopping accusations of racism, bigotry, etc. What odds to you want to lay, Rod? I'll be generous. Name your terms.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Khawaja:

"Where did I accuse Hoppe of not being a libertarian? I didn't."

... So, you will admit he IS a libertarian? You will gainsay Palmer? Great. Next issue--

"You fudge this issue on another website by saying that "Khawaja and his ilk" make this accusation. A brilliant claim, except that Khawaja and "his ilk" are not metaphysically identical entities, so that what Khawaja says and what "his ilk" say are two different things. Guess they never taught you the relevant logical law while you were getting any of your vaunted degrees. It's called the law of identity."

Let's remain civil, and not get personal, Mr. Khawaja. It's really okay that you aren't an engineer or lawyer.

"Actually, I've never said that *I* was a libertarian. I'm not."

Ahh.. thanks. This clears up a lot. Thanks for admitting it; I'd have had a hell of a time squaring the Universal Declration of Socialist Rights with libertarianism.

And please, everyone, forgive me for thinking Liberty and Power was an ostensible libertarian list; but I'm just a newbie, only a lowlife commentator. :)

" Indeed, where did I take issue with that term? In an essay in Reason Papers (vol. 25, year 2000)--the place where you claim first to have noticed my name. Good job."

Khawaja, sorry I didn't have time to re-read your essay in preparation for my post. Unfortunately, the half-assed Reason Papers is not online.

"But then, I never said that I was a Muslim and you claimed that I was. Alas, you imagined that, too."

Sorry for assuming that you were a muslim, simply because you are Executive Directory of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society and have that possibly-muslim-sounding exotic name. I realize that under the new PC rules, no inferences whatsoever are to be permitted.

Incidentally, though I was born a white Catholic Southerner, please tell me how to join the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, or at least your white Catholic Southerner focus group.

"Imagination is something you seem to be really good at. Too bad we aren't engaged in creative writing just now."

Oh, some of us are. But I'll mention no names.

"Even if I were a socialist, how would that be relevant to anything under discussion? It wouldn't."

Oh, it would mean you should be shot. Ha ha.

"The discussion isn't about socialism, and I never judged Hoppe by libertarian standards. A real forensic tour de force, so far...."

I am glad to know that in your eyes, Hoppe fails to live up to non-libertarian standards. I can only hope to fail as successfully.

"As re the "unqualified endorsement", I just took over the Ex Directorship of ISIS a few weeks ago. I don't agree with the part of the Mission Statement you've quoted and didn't write it, but haven't had the chance to do anything about it."

I can help if you like. But as you now admit you are not a libertarian, ... I'm not sure why you disagree with it. Can you enlighten me?

"It was written in 1998 by the previous director."

you forgot to add, "who was a goddamn socialist". Just kidding. :)

"It would be an understandable inference to draw about my views that I endorsed the UN Dec, but it doesn't happen to be true. Relevance to the topic at hand? Zero."

Well, silly me, I like to konw if I'm debating about libertarian minutaie with a socialist or a fellow libertarian. Call me crazy.

"How many strikes are we up to at this point? How much more of an idiot and an asshole are you willing to make yourself in public? It comes at no cost to me; it's at least mildly amusing to watch an unself-conscious buffoon unself-consciously make a fool of himself over and over and over with the persistence of the Energizer Bunny. I just wonder what's in it for you. But then, what difference does it make?"

Now you're getting it. It makes no difference. I am not an activist or strategerist libertarian. I'm a realist, and therefore a depressed one.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Khawaja, sorry, do you have a question? When did I accuse you of an assault on free speech? I assume you support at least THAT part of the socialist Universal Declaration, but then what do I know?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Khawaja:

I remember liking you from you Reason Paper days (yet another reason--no pun intended, ha ha--that I--silly me--thought you were holding yourself out as a libertarian. I mean plenty of nonlibertarians publish in Reason Papers. Er, I guess. :) So in Long-ian-inspired terms, how do we regain our former love for each other? For the sake of the kids, let's try. <grin>

"My God, what an infernal cry-baby."

My my, my cheeks are flushed. Such LANGUAGE, suh!

"Where is the free speech issue? The HNN discussion boards are governed by rules. You've broken the rules more egregiously than anyone I can remember in recent memory. I've asked the editor to consider banning you, and I don't regret it."

I am really happy for you, Khawaja. It's no fun living wiht regret.

"He's agreed to look into it without agreeing one way or the other."

As an attorney, let me advise you to make sure you have it in writing, if you really want to rely on it as an "agreement." No charge! <g>

"Sorry, I don't see the "free speech" issue.""

I don't either, Sir! But then, I'm a Rothbardian, unlike most libertarians... and you... on this list.

"When did I ever "question whether Hoppe is a libertarian"? In the same place that I claimed to be a Muslim, I guess, i.e., nowhere."

Everyone knows Irfan is Muslim is all get out.

Just kidding. I thought, as Executive Director of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, PERHAPS you were Islamic... but I see now my inference was not only mistaken, but bigoted. I was going to punish myself, but I realize that my judgment is so biased I need an outside veiw. Please tell me how much punishemnt I need. (JUST kidding :) BTW, there's an opening for President of the Neo-Confederate Redneck IP Attorneys section of the Texas Bar--would you like to apply? <g>

"When did I ever say that I myself was a libertarian? Same place: Nowhere."

Khawaja, I sincerely apologize for thinking you were ... a ... good guy.

"Suppose that I did accept the UN Declaration's prohibition on degrading punishments. How does this erase the distinction between torture and humiliation that I made on a previous website? It doesn't."

Well... yes, it does. Torture is a broad term, no? It includes both physical and mental torture. Follow me? I can see some Muslim (I wish there was one on the list we could ask, but there seem to be none around) being "humiliated" by menstral blood being swiped on him. Come to think of it, even li'l ole ex-Catholic me might not like it so much.

"So where are you best at argument? Where you're free to confabulate, fabricate, misrepresent, and lie."

I like confabulate, but it's not meraly as good as my coined term "malorific".

"But suppose that the ISIS website is simply inaccurate in its representation of the views of its Executive Director?"

Well, then, its Executive Director should SUE IT! ha ha. Just kidding ol' buddy Khawaja. The Khawajinator, we always called him in school....

"Then your red herring of an argument washes ashore, gasps for breath--and dies."

Man, that is like, beautiful imagery, man... =sob=

"Why are you bringing up issues on this website that were discussed on a different one, so that people here have no idea of the context of that discussion? Answer: because you perform best when people have no idea of the context of what you are discussing. Knowledge is a disinfectant that kills every argument you make."

You got me there, man. No one else has EVER been able to see my m.o. before. But you did it--just like THAT [snaps fingers]. I think,... I LOVE you, man.

"NOTHING you've written here bears the LEAST relevance to any argument I've made against you. Confronted on one issue, you scurry hastily to the next."

I always a quick little monkey. Good noseguard.

"Confronted there, you move to the next, and then the next and the next. Talking with you is like watching someone enact an infinite regress of evasion. A bit of advice: infinite regresses never get you where you want to go."

Or DOES it, hmmm, Mr. Khawaja? [mock james bond villain voice]

"Another piece of a piece of advice: for your sake, I think you should drop the whole Atlas Shrugged "face without guilt" melodrama. Your countenance may not bear the hallmarks of guilt, but the self-avowed comparison to John Galt is a bit of a stretch: it tells us something about your propensities to grandiosity and narcissism, but little else. We already know more than we need to know about you. Don't take a bad thing farther than it's gone."

You mean further, dude, I think. <g>

Stephan STILL "the face without pain or fear or guilt" Kinsella! Yeeeee hawww!!


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Rod, again, good points. But what you view as a cycle, the justice-minded in me wants to point to the origin of the cycle, not is ensuing cyclical character.

Still, you have a good point. I'm afraid in practice it means the Christian (funny you and I are not Christians--well, I'm an atheist Catholic, if that counts--yet all you hear is Mises Insiters are a bunch of neo-Confederate Catholics) idea of turning the other cheek.

But I will mull your advice, Obi-Wan. Maybe I can learn to ignore those that malign me and mine... this is more likely than them learning not to malign.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Speaking of evolution.. I have long wondered why men and women would tend to be distribured 50/50 or close to that. Why can't there be a runaway trend, like 99 women to 1 man?

I finally figured it out, I think. Evolutionary reasoning is fun (no offense, Mr. Palmer). Let's say more women are being born than men; presumably for some genetic reason. But that means that every man that is born is more unlikely; he was the result of parents who together for wahtever reason had a less-pro-female gene combo. So let's say there are 5 women to every man. But when they mate, it's one man to one woman. It's an even mix. But the guy carries genes far from the norm--because he was born a male! so he mixes w/ the woman. To put it crudely: she is the product of 90%-favoring-femail gene combinations; he is not. So his less-than-90% mixes wiht her 90% to lower it. So you can see a negative feedback effect always pulling towards 50%. How far the deviation is, is another question.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"Kinsella: "As for the ACLU's position, that's just a quesiton of legal strategy or tactics. Real world, practical stuff."

"Do you think that "real world, practical stuff" is detached from the question of what rights Hoppe does or doesn't actually have in the matter?"

I have 2 answers. First, if you ask a real-world attorney this question, he will have no idea what you mean by the ambiguous question "detached".

Second, ... well I confess I am not really sure exactly waht you are asking. I guess I'm a bit too practical; apologies all around; and ... the next round's on me! [yayyyy!!! cheeer arises]

Third... well could you just clarify you question? What exactly are you asking?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

You're too damned reasonable Roderick. For THIS crowd! I kid! I kid!

Aside: there is a joke, about the teacher asking the kids to make up a sentence using the word "geometry." So little Jimmy raises his hand, and says, "There was an acorn that fell down into the ground. It grew and grew, and one day looked up, and said, 'Gee, om a tree"."

Ummm, I had a reason for telling this, but it's lost in my bourbon-induced fog. Maybe I was thinking of the word "bigotry" in a sentence, like, "That's a big o' tree". I dunno. g'night.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Being thought of as an idiot by the likes of you is high praise. Sort of like being told you are going to lose negative one million dollars.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Roderick, nice try. I applaud your efforts. I will repeat that I have nothing whatsoever personal against Khawaja--for all I know he's a fine person and a decent scholar and activist, albeit probably a bit more prone to see certain views and individuals as "bigoted" than I would--and do agree that we should all try--myself included--to put forth an effort to be more civil. It might be useful to try to refrain from saying anything you would not say to the person's face if at a dinner party in the company of spouses.

And I will reiterate that my main impetus was to defend someone whom I know personally to be NOT a bigot from what I view as clearly false accusations against him in this regard. I'd be happy to do so in a civil way, but I fear no matter what my tone, I'd be ensnared in the bigotry net and called an "apologist for bigotry" (and therefore a bigot), no matter how polite I was.

But as it happens, I do not intend to sit through a list of charges against Hoppe and systematically refute them; at a certain point, one may decide it is not worth the effort, or that to do so gives too much credence to the allegation in the first place.

This forum is probably not the place to discuss it--or this thread, at least--but what might be fruitful is a general discussion, instead of one focused on a particular person, discussing exactly what the criteria for "bigotry," "racism," etc. should be--what is a fair way to decide IF someone is a racist, and /or IF their views or statements are racist. What criteria are wide enough to capture clear racists like, say, KKK members, but narrow enough not to include things like (a) recognizing racial differences; (b) having race-correlated preferences (e.g., a white Jew preferring his daughter to marry another white Jew--or even just another Jew, which is correlated with whites and still tends to de-select blacks).

Clearly there has been at times, and in our day, an uncareful application of and sometimes unfair resort to such personal attacks, to shut others up or to make them appear so horrible as to not be worth listening to; and with political correctness as rampant as it has been, the standards have undeniably been too lax for determining what is racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.--some people will view you as racist or indifferent to the poor if you oppose the Head Start program. Others will label you racist if you are a Republican or libertarian. Some will say you are anti-semitic if you oppose US foreign aid to Israel. Etc.

Clearly the standards have been all too often abused by those who hurl such charges. If any such charges are to have any meaning any more--if we are to be able to identify a *real* vile racist or similar threat or view when the need arises, and have people listening pay attention and not blow it off as just more PC huffing and puffing--the standards need to be carefully defined and fairly and charitably applied.

So I return to my previous question to Rod--what is bigotry. I think you made a good stab at it, but as I answered in my reply, it does not seem to take into account the possibility of innocent mistake. Moreoever, the application of this definition to various views and preferences/practices would be of interest.

Of course, for those who have already earmarked me as a bigot, they will not want to engage in this discussion at all, for a plurality (as we say in patent law) of reasons.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"If Stephan's point is that I shouldn't criticize Hoppe or anyone else because they are libertarians and because all of the good things MI/LRC has supposedly done, then that's just not acceptable."

Steve, I have never said this at all, nor do I believe it. There is a difference between refraining from (what I view as, or what arguably is) libel and potentially very dangerous personal charges, and criticizing someone's positions.

I hope you agree with me that at the very least, one ought to be very cautious and careful about making such charges. It ought not to be done lightly, or based on flimsy evidence. I am speaking generally here, not trying to open up the whole can of worms again.

As for the MI, I have almost never heard the type of complaints you report; I see tons of people from around the world very grateful for the wealth of information and articles they find there. Most of them would have no idea what you are talking about.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Since he has now said he does not agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I can see how that's possible. I do not believe any classical liberal can endorse the Declaration, however. It is thoroughly socialist.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

And that, Irfan, is the beginning of wisdom.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

AEON I APOLOGIZE! I did NOT mean to slam RP. I love it, and agree it's great. By "half-assed" I meant its website and that it is not online. That's all. It was a poor choice of words. I like you and Tibor.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"Kinsella, do you specialize in non-sequiturs?"

Well, it is in my top 3. Others include the ability to flatten a beer can with my hands and that trick where you put quarters on your elbow and catch them with your hand. <g>

"They begin with the first line of your post, and make it pointless to read on: From "I did not accuse Hoppe of not being a libertarian," how *exactly* did you get to "So you will admit that he IS a libertarian"? Apparently, NOT making a claim has become the equivalent of making one in this demented universe."

Khawaja, I confess you've confused me. You are not a libertarian, but you are not a socialist... and someone else assures me you are a classical liberal, which you have not confirmed.

You spank me for assuming you are Muslim because you are Exec Director of a group about Islamic Society... but you don't deny it or confirm it. But you do make it clear your wife is Jewish.

You say you didn't say Hoppe is not a libertarian and yet won't say he is, either.

Man, you are almost as slippery as me! <g> But whatever is a girl to think? <bats eyes>

"Maybe we can go further with this line of "reasoning," as in:

"I haven't seen the weather report, so I don't know if it's raining." Aha! So you ADMIT that it's sunny!"

I'm sorry, but who is talking about the weather?

"An error, to put it mildly. We're dealing here with stupidity than which nothing greater can be conceived,"

Well, come on, you have to admit, that's a pretty significant achievement.

" and I think at this point I'd rather let Kinsella self-destruct than do any more to ease him along the path to that terminus."

password to stop the self-destruct sequence, captain! <g>

"Not only have you been refuted every time you've opened your mouth,"

Like someone said, every word he ever said was a lie, including "a" and "the". Cute!

"you've managed to alienate your friends, defend bigotry, engage in bigotry, tell outright lies, and look like an idiot in the process. Fine work."

Well, you have to admit it would be worse to be a *smart* bigot than a *stupid* one.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Hear hear! Roderick the Great spaketh! I am willing to appoint him mediator and arbiter supreme! I urge the Khawajinator to abide by the Peacemaker's suggestions!


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Are you saying we is friends agin?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Okay, Aeon, let me clearly make a FULL APOLOGY. I was explaining what i meant, not justifying it. I should not have called the website halfassed either. You are the one doing something, at least, i realize, and I am grateful for that. Sorry again. I know how it can be--I run Hoppe's and Walter Block's sites and they could be better, but like you, my skills and time are limited.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"(I'm also not trying to flap my arms and fly to the moon, if you were wondering"

This reminds me of the Outland (or was it the previous one by the same guy) cartoon, where Opus the penguin is sitting on a bench, and some curmudgeon wanders by, mutterig, "Left wingers ... I HATE 'em!" and Opus just looks down at his left wing, puzzled.

BTW, Roderick, is humour permitted or not, in your rules of discourse?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Irfan, FYI I posted on my blog a note clarifying that you do not in fact endorse the Universal Declaration, contrary to my previously posted guess that you did.

Incidentally, speaking of secularizing Islamic culture--I am the only atheist Catholic I know of. People tell me you can't be an atheist and a Catholic at the same time. However I know many Jews who claim to be atheist. They have some fancy reasoning about why this is possible, but the bottom line is, although I of course am not anti-semitic, I think Catholicism is as good as Judaism. If Judaism is strong enough to tolerate atheist members, so is Catholicism, damnit!

Strangely enough, most of my fellow Catholics don't like my argument.

Nor my conservative argument for abortion, which runs as follows: probably the majority of abortions are done by women who are either liberal or poor (and thus more likely to vote democrat). And since the parents' views have some effect on the kids' views, children of liberals are (I would guess) more likely than average to be liberal. Therefore, by allowing abortion, at least future liberals are being eliminated early on.

Hey, I am not saying I LIKE this argument, but I can't help how my little mind wanders.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Irfan, FYI, I posted a note about a correction here.

Do you like my conservative argument for abortion?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Mr. Sonnenworth,

Your calling someone "bigoted assholes" is not consistent with civilized discourse or with the rules of this forum.

I am not sure what exactly all this is about re Israel. When did this become about Israel? From what I can tell, you think anyone anti-Israel is anti-Semitic or, if Jewish, not a very good Jew. Whatever dude, I don't know why you are trotting out your little club's internal rules here (about who is a good Jew; or about the standards of pro-Israelis); I am not reciting to you the rules of Castle Risk, after all.

In any event, I have no idea what this has to do with libertarianism, which clearly has no positions on Israel or Judaism.

"Lew's group of anti-Israel or anti-Semites or whatever the hell they are (I don't care about labels)"

Interesting. Thanks for admitting that you and your fellow dimwit-serioso libertarians have totally corrupted and diluted the term "anti-semite" by your overuse and hypersensivite standards. For now you equate it with anti-Israel! Anti-Israel, anti-semite--what's the difference, after all. I can just see your fellow Seriosos cringing, "shit! he just gave away our game!"

"Even your idiot comment "Hypersensitive Zionists"...shows you to be an insensitive idiot."

Just curious--which is worse? To be insensitive, or an idiot?

"I guess those of us who don't hate Israel are just overly sensitive to the smear campaigns of such luminaries as Alexander Cockburn, Raimondo, Sobran, Reese, Margolis, P.C. Roberts, and the list goes on..."

Sobran is not an Israel hater. Only dimwit-Serioso libertarians think so.

"Does Lew have Jewish columnists? Yep. His partner in his venture is Bert Blumert. Does that prove Lew is no anti-Semite? Maybe."

No one needs to "prove" anything to you. Who are you, some unimpeachable Grand Inquisitor? Sorry, but we are not playing your game anymore.

"But as of late, all I read is one article after another, on the ones that do mention Israel, by the likes of the bunch above, i.e. there is nothing but the most vicious words against Israel."

I actually am not interested in that Israel-Jew stuff. I skip most of it. Only Israel stuff on LRC that I'm aware of is my column New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal, which is of course not anti-semitic. It proposes relocating all Israelis to Utah. I got tons of hate mail from real anti-semites. Unfortunately, calling these people anti-semites means nothing nowadays since you Serioso types have totally diluted the term by overusing it. Hell, if the mailman delivers your mail late, he's an anti-semite. Yawn.

"More pieces lately...defending the Poles as defenders of freedom, not the collaborators in Auschwitz."

I visited Dachau about 15 years ago. Not Auschwitz. Does that count?

"I know, she was another hypersensitive Jew. Like me."

Word to the wise--don't air your dirty laundry in public.

"I do realize there are many who don't like Israel's politics (including some Jews who are not rabid Jew haters as I can only suspect Margolis is), including many Israelis!"

Wow! I know many people who don't like America's politics--even many Americans!

"I would be happy to point out the complete and UTTER CRAP espoused by some of these people) on LRC that they would be quite content if Israel were to be destroyed tomorrow.

"Kinsella, you might disagree with that. You might say, "but where did anyone say that"? They don't have to explicitly say it. It is the one country (outside of the U.S.) that is attacked over and over on LRC, and not for the foreign aid nonsense."

Like pornography--you know it when you see it, eh?

"Ron Paul espouses that view (and yes, I know he is attacked as an anti-Semite or anti-Israel person), but Ron Paul at least says to cut out ALL foreign aid, which would include...guess who's the 2nd largest donor recipient...those close friends of ours the Egyptians!"

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for only using single exclamation points.

"Gosh, golly, not once do I recall seeing any of the jerks on LRC mention that a whole lot of countries get huge sums of American cash also, and are SO friendly to the U.S...Egypt has TONS of pro-U.S. propaganda being spread, is a true friend of ours...but this is the kind of BULLSHIT the LRC anti-Israel crowd conveniently likes to forget in its rush to blame Israel for the world's woes."

When you talk like this, I feel like Marlin in Finding Nemo who says to Squirt, after he just told him in surfer-dude language how to disembark from the current--"You're awfully cute and your lips are moving so I know you're trying to say something, but I have no idea what it is!" (paraphrasing)

"Some of the LRC writing brings to mind the same fictional qualities of that masterpiece of anti-Jewish lit., "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"..."

Oh my God, if I hear about this stupid fricking book one more time, I'm gonna blow my brains out. That, or the fricking "Black Panthers" and SDS.

"the ADL is so powerful, neo-con Jews are ruining the U.S. (and yes, some LRC's did make that connection fairly obvious..that neo-con=Jew..though not all did so), Israel wants to push the U.S. to invade Iran and Syria solely for its own good (gosh, nice to know Israel is SO powerful!), the Arabs would be our best friends (and they're nicer, too) if we'd only let Israel go..."

I may have missed something in Israel-education class... but are you implying that these views are obviously false, or that merely holding them means you are anti-semitic? What is anti-semitism for you Seriosos, anyway? I mean how do you even stay married? Surely with such hair-trigger standards, your spouse does anti-semitic things all the time, e.g. if she forgets to pick up the dry cleaning.

"If libertarianism equates with letting Arabs destroy Israel, then to hell with it."

Nooooo! Please don't leave us!

"But I don't believe most libertarians believe that. I hope not. They may not like Israeli policies, and that's another story. I have friends, Jewish, non-Jewish,"

Hey hey HEY--how come if I say I have Jewish friends, I get crap for it...? I sense a double standard here...

"You can get into long debates over what a "bigot" is,"

Or, you can just save time and accuse them of it.

"...but Roderick, Steve Horwitz is correct...sending people to learn about libertarianism and the idea of no-aggression against others...to read some of the truly hate-filled obnoxious screed on LRC SULLIES THE LIBERTARIAN MESSAGE."

And my God, we don't want to "sully" that message! It must remain unsullied! Everyone knows that!

"Why am I so worked up about this? Because at times, as I wrote above, Lew can have such incredibly SMART things to say and intellectually brilliant columnists,"

Awwww, shucks

"I'll read one of these columns...and then read a smear piece of shit like Margolis' latest piece or the one Murphy wrote (in his defense, Bob Murphy wrote a very nice letter to me stating that I had either misread it or had not gotten the point, and that maybe he had not gotten that point across to ME as well as he might have...and I believe him; but...Kinsella, do I need to subjected to a piece of contemptible shit like Alex Cockburn and his diatribes against Jews "using" the Holocaust?"

How are you "subjected" to it? you chose to read it, no? Are you saying there is some obligation only to publish things you agree with? Are is the crime making it easier for others to find the objectionable piece? But then you are doing it here, since I never heard of this Margolis piece--and now I'm going to look it up. Good job, sommerschein, you have helped spread his word! I guess you're anti-semite now. I'm so confused.

"So yeah, I am hypersensitive to jerks like you who lie about Israel and its critics."

I think that goes in the "lighten up" file.

"LRC has far too much stuff against the memory of the Holocaust (interestingly, Elie Wiesel, the author, spoke at the U.N. about how the world should remember the other horrible things going on RIGHT NOW, the murders of others, non-Jews...this was at a Holocaust rememberance event that came 60 years too late...but my, he didn't use the Holocaust only to defend Israel or the Jews...he wanted to save the Darfur Sudanese etc. Not that anyone at LRC would ever bother to notice). The ADL is attacked...though many Jews are not supportive of it...we have to read about how 10 million Ukranians were murdered by Stalin, and how those who "promote" the Holocaust are insensitive to that, or that the Holocaust, gosh, let's waste more time on this, wasn't unique and quit bothering us about it...yeah, 'tis true, I care nothing about what happens to any stinking person in the whole world except Jews...heck, I give out candy when I hear about Moslems getting blammed, even by fellow Moslems as the Sunnis are doing to the Shias in Iraq (but that' the U.S.' fault, I forgot!)..just like the Palis do when there's been a successful bombing of a bus in Israel...yeah, that's us Jews. Kinsella, you'll no doubt shoot this down, but that's the kind of utter stupidity on LRC at times."

I read a Primo Levi book--the Drowned and the Saved. Does that count?

"LRC loses its credibility time and again when it comes up with some of the friggin' most lunatic hate-filled things. Again, I use the Zionist thing because it is what I am most qualified to write about. Kinsella, I can guarantee you, I have studied far more of the history of modern day Israel pre and post-state, than any of the LRC writers."

Er... yeah, you seem like it's your thing. You do, er, um, realize this is a ... libertarian blog, no?

"I've been to Israel, I have friends and relatives in Israel. I do not see Israel as purely right about things, and am intellectually willing to agree that Israel at times has made tremendous mistakes."

Tell us more about your experiences with Israel. Really.

"But the last word I'll write on this tonight is that therein lies the problem with LRC. There is never a gray zone. Lew's lousy columnists (again, I am not saying that everyone who writes for him...but unfortunately, it's some of his most prolific group of authors) are purely hate-filled and see only one thing. Israel wrong, U.S. wrong, Arabs lovely, peace-like and right."

Look--I'm not saying this is the last word or antyhing, and of course it's in part anecdotal... but didn't you see Lawrence of Arabia?

"Sickening stuff. If it were only about foreign aid...but even then...has one columnist ever mentioned that, Kinsella? Probably someone has, but I can't recall it...but numerous are the articles on how foreign aid to Israel is evil and part of the neo-con plot to take over the world!"

Congrats, again, for using only one exclamation point.

I have to admit I am adopted. My name was originally Kinsellaberg. We dropped the -berg. I'm so ashamed. =sob=


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Mmm, I don't think I know. This sounds like the stuff for philosophy majors. I don't tend to think that way.

One thing about being an attorney is you work to represent someone and you work diligently in their intersts--as they define it. You take it as a given, and go for it. It's presumptuous for the agent for someone to substitute their own views for that of the client.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Rod, are racism and bigotry wrong from the point of view of the libertarian *as libertarian*? what is your view on this?

Also, what is your view as to what a proper *definition* is for these terms (apologies to Horwitz et al. for asking for a definition of these terms).


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Khawaja informs me on the Palmer Periscope: "BTW, I've suggested to the editor of HNN that you be banned from the website. Don't know if he'll take my advice, but if Allah wills it, it will happen."

I've replied at length to, as Peikoff would say, "that entity," at the same place. And I will say here, as I did there: "if you think being banned from your nest of wooping hyenas bugs me more than I mind a scab falling off, you are mistaken. Any group so craven and corrupt as to have the judgment to reject me is one that I have no wish whatsoever to be associated with, as they thereby demonstrate their worthlessness. Remember, and remember well--it may gnaw at you, it may bug you, but I have the face without pain or fear or guilt. I am not afraif of you; I see you for the social roaches that you are."


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

I'll allow Palmer to wallow in his fantasy world, he seems to enjoy it, and it's no skin off my back. Really.

Interesting that Khawaja and his ilk question whether Hoppe is a libertarian. I see now, it's because they are not libertarians at all, yet apparently want to pretend to be. Therefore, they have to try to purge the real ones.

Khawaja is apparently Executive Director of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS). The mission statement of which says:

We endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights without qualification.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [sic] (2) is a veritable socialistic manifesto:

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


http://www.pdhre.org/conventionsum/covsum.html

The others referred to include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provides for similar welfare rights.

These treaties are socialistic abominations.

Of course, the flaw in these treaties is their recitation of egalitarianism and positive welfare rights; but they do also recite some negative rights (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). I will note that Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration does provide: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This provision--which Khawaja endorses "without qualification"--seems to be aimed at the type of "mental torture" Palmer was flirting with and that Khawaja defended him from. Eeenn-tah-restig, Meester Khawja.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"I have had time to listen to the relevant sections of the lecture, and I must say that it confirmed many of my suspicions. I still do not believe that Hoppe should be punished for his comments, but he certainly deserves the public outcry he's been getting."

But, the "public outcry" is only the result of a process aimed at possibly punishing him. So you are in favor of process that might punish him, yet you are not in favor of punishing him.... wow, that's a nuanced, fine-tuned view, dude. Congrats.

"Every single one of the examples he used in the lecture declared that a high time preference is negative, and to the effect that homosexuals have a high time preference because they do not care about the rest of society. A student ignorant of this area of economics could not have walked away from the lecture with any other conclusion."

Hmm, oh really? Is it really "bad" that children have high time preference? Or would we prefer them to save their Big Gulp money for a down payment on their first home? Is it "bad" that old people have higher time preference than younger adults?

"[He gives the example of "normal" dating, which requires time and investment before the "reward," which is presumably sex. How charming. I'd thought that the relationship too was a reward, but I digress.]"

Nice aside--why not try to ridicule Hoppe now for having a sense of humor. Yeah, got to be a humorless drone like Randroids and the cocktail party libertarians, eh?

"Yes, life ends with us. Homosexuals don't have families like heterosexuals. Both of these statements are preposterous lies and represent nothing less than pure, naked bigotry."

Nice assertion. Jason, just curious, HAVE YOU EVER SAID THE "N-WORD"?

"Let me give just one recent example from my own life: In response to one of my very first posts at Liberty & Power (on an utterly unrelated topic), I was informed, quite out of the blue, that I was not in a real marriage but merely in a "relationship." Talk about a warm welcome!"

Why people have to make everything about them is a mystery.

"No, it's not brainwashing or anything so crude as that--but given the institutional and informal pressures against us, Hoppe's comments are frankly akin to blaming the victim. So a gay student made a protest? Good for him. It's about time someone stood up against this nonsense. Would that he'd done it in a more decent fashion, but I have to say my heart still goes out to him."

How can a libertarian say this. Amazing what we have fallen to. It'a pathetic, really.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

The bottom line is all the arrogant, smug pricks out there casting "bigotry" judgment on HHH

Steve, just curious, HAVE YOU EVER SAID THE "N-WORD"? Or the Yiddish equivalent, what is it, Schwartze or something? Have you ever had a close family member--uncle, father, brother, cousin, grandfather, family friend--use that term or the N-word, and you still didn't "break" with them, condemn with them, or proclaim publicly to high heaven how terrible they were? Just curious.

I mean, not to get personal, but since the rules of late are apparently that it's perfectly fine to casually observe and suppose about others' character, even if it's likely false, and no matter how much harm it might do to them.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Khawaja, just curious--since you are endorsing and adoping that idiot kipzinki or wahtever his name is, his charges of bigotry: HAVE YOU EVER SAID THE "N-WORD"? Have you ever had a close family member--uncle, father, brother, cousin, grandfather, family friend--use the N-word or its equivalent, and you still didn't "break" with them, condemn with them, or proclaim publicly to high heaven how terrible they were? Just curious.

I mean, not to get personal, but since the rules of late are apparently that it's perfectly fine to casually observe and suppose about others' character, even if it's likely false, and no matter how much harm it might do to them.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Great reply from Brian Macker on a related thrad on No Treason

John,

I listened and there was nothing in the lecture that gives grounds for believing he is a homophobe spreading hate. It is a fact that Keynes didn't give a damn about the future. He did say "Were all dead in the long run". Whether gays on balance have lower time preferences is a matter of fact or not. The student should have either asked for statistics backing that up or researched it himself.

I don't buy your complaint that he is throwing gays in with criminals. Should all the children start screaming discrimination because they have been thrown in with criminals and homosexuals? A fact is a fact and if homosexuals have a higher time preference or not is simply that. It is a perfectly acceptable example.

If the class was on STDs I would expect that male homosexuals would also be used as an example of a group that is more promiscuous. That's just a fact the gay fellow is going to have to live with.

I still have not read his book where you claim his point was that homosexuals do not belong in any libertarian society at all. You may or may not be correct in that case but you are not correct here or in the the case of the article you pointed to in the other post.

It really does seem like you are on a witch hunt. Lets suppose he doesn't like gays. So what? Him and a large proportion of the rest of the population. Are we going to kick them all out of their jobs?

Comment by Brian Macker — 2/12/2005 @ Feb 12, 05 | 3:32 pm


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Roderick, that seems reasonable. I don't disagree of course that racism as a practical matter undermines libertarianism, and that non-libertarian views like statism and racism share some common features--such as collectivism and irrationality, not to mention economic ignorance.

Your definition seems reasoonable but I wonder if it is complete. You say bigotry is the "unjustified ascription of negative/inferior traits to someone on the basis of that person's group membership." But this would imply even a good faith mistake is bigotry. Seems like some extra element has to be added, but it's not clear what it is.

Mr. Palmer writes: "Rod's treatment seems eminently reasonable. What, however, is Mr. Kinsella getting at? That he's a libertarian and has no problem with racism?"

Why Mr. Palmer seems to think he is in a position to adopt the stance of unimpeachable High Commissar judging others character, I have no idea. This suggestion is mindless and typically unfair. But then Palmer has no problems falsely charging others with racism (which he could not do if he followed a reasonable definition like Long's, instead of the hair-trigger, poltically-correct, vague, malleable ones implicit in his condemnations).

"What is the significance of his bizarre baiting of people on this list with queries about whether they would be upset by their children wedding people of other racial or ethnic groups?"

Obviously, to demonstrate to people what it's like to be on the receiving end of an unfair inquisition, so they will reflect on the wisdom and propriety of jumping in your own bandwagon doing the same to Hoppe et al. For example outragous assertions that those libertarians who don't join the Lincoln cult are thereby Southern neo-confederates.

To complain about "baiting" which is merely in response to unjustified, unprovoked, personal, unfair attacks by you on others is laughable.

"Or demanding to know if they have ever said the "N-word" or even the word "bigger"?"

I've explaiend this several times. I'm making fun of your own ridiculous standards for what constitutes racism, by using a similarly inapt and unfair test. Asking them if they use the N-word is a way of showing people what it's like to be put on the defensive with racist accusations, and the problems with "when did you stop beating your wife" type accusations, none of which are acceptable in civilized discourse.

"Suggesting that there just isn't any such thing as bigotry or racism,"

Of course there's bigotry and racism. Some of those on this list seem to have bigotry as Rod defines it-- "unjustified ascription of negative/inferior traits to someone on the basis of that person's group membership". For example, my membership in certain groups--those who oppose Lincoln's war, or who support the right to secession of the Souther states, or who affiliate with the Mises Institute, are having negative traits (racism) ascribed to them unjustifiably. Assuming Roderick's definition of bigotry is a good one, this is without question an example of bigotry.

"and going on to suggest that, anyway, if it's not the same as wielding violence, what's the big deal?,"

Boy, Palmer, you are good at intentionally, flagrantly, dishonestly trying to twist people's words. Not good enough for me, however. Like all (real) libertarians I recognize the difference between aggression based on racist motivations, and mere non-violent racism, which is a categorically different matter, though I of course would agree it is immoral and wicked, and even undermines libertarianism.

"insisting that to say that someone is a bigot is a sign of hatred of "Germans" (Hoppe) and "Southerners" (Kinsella), despite no such identification of either having been made....it all seems to add up to something very, very odd about Mr. Kinsella's commitments."

Psychologizing or trying to guess what could possibly be your motivation to make the false, hateful statements you make, or who you actually hate ... is not very odd at all.

As for oddness... this is kind of funny. I'd be happy to let any random audience judge which of us is the odder, Palmer. I'll even give you a 20% lead.

"I should add that that's the same Kinsella (could there be two people so odd?) who refers on his blog to a Danish commentator, Henri Hein, as "Froggy" (apparently because of his name, Henri),"

A sense of humour is not a sign of bigotry. Since I'm not a pussy, Palmer, I see no reason to let your Princess and the Pea bigotry standards chill my speech. Sorry, you can't get to me.

"who pretends not to be convinced (or even to care) that the Institute for Historical Review is a neo-Nazi group,"

Why no, as I've written, I've since looked into this group, and from what I can tell, they seem to have anti-semitic aspects. I was not "convinced" before b/c I knew almost nothing about them, and your pronouncements carry zero weight with me (talk about credibility).

"and who baits Jews and Muslims (even more oddly, non-practicing Jews and former Muslims) as "clannish types.""

Oh, I'm an equal opportunity baiter. As an atheist and individualist, I do regard all these collectivist groupings as ... distasteful. That's my personal preference. In fact, I believe that undue adherence to such groupings is a major source of racism and bigotry. It is people who care too much about irrelevant characteristics that are willing to shun or harm others who do not share them. For examply my best friend's Muslim parents threatened until the last minute to boycott his wedding to a Jew. The Jewish parents did the same, but gave in earlier; the Muslims at the last minute. In my view, this is the problem with religion and other collectivist, irrelevant groupings--that it would lead you to be cruel to your child... to show that your little club membership is more important to you than your child, shows the danger of such groupings.

Now while as a more "Paleo" type I'm very tolerant of religious types, as an individualist I'm always wary of the dangers of this groupism.

Anyway my point in bringing up the clannishness was to demonstrate that IF you use hair-trigger standards as you do, then merely belonging to such a group and, say, wanting your daughter to marry within that group, would be considered racist. And I think that's absurd. Nothing wrong with wanting to associate with your own kind (although again, for me, that's not really my bag; but different strokes for differnet folks, right?).

"Keep it up, Mr. Kinsella. Those are just the sorts of things guaranteed to convince others that you're not-- nuh uh, no way! -- a remarkably thick bigot."

I could not give a flying fig whether anyone thinks I'm a bigot. If they are so stupid as to misidentify that aspect of reality, so be it. Their loss. Face without pain or fear or guilt, Palmer.

What does it say about someone who continues to--nay escalates--the hurling of ridiculous charges of bigotry? Wow, what a Princess and the Pea.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Ghertner, you've used the N-word, haven't you? Admit it.

What does "calling them on it" mean? You stood up like Howard Roark while grandpa was ladling gravy over the turkey, while everyone looked bug-eyed at you, all the kiddies stopped watching TV... the birds paused in their chirping... and then what?

Do tell us what one's "duty" is in response to "close family members" being bigots. We know one mustn't "break with" them; but you must "call them" on it. What does this mean, exactly? And what if they keep doing it? Do you need to vary your "calling"? Can you repeat the same one from last time? Can you just do it like every 10th time, and then say "and ditto for the next 9 times"? Just curious what the bigotry police rules nowadays are. I haven't kept up, obviously.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

I imagine that a discussion about ... names... is not that fascinating to people, nor a Grand Inquisition aimed at a given person. Give it a rest.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Oh, come now, let's get back on something of substanc.e Such as--what other socialist programs are you in favor of? (By the way, if I've incorrectly identified your endorsing of an entire host of socilialistic welfare rights, I'd be happy to retract it. Just correct me. Unlike others, I don't want to unfairly accuse people.)


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Palmer: "Mr. Kinsella's idea of a defense against a charge of bigotry is to insist that the person isn't a bigot; that if he were, so what?; that the charge of bigotry is irrelevant, since the group in question in fact has those characteristics; and, anyway, that what the person said was funny. Really funny."

No, Mr. Palmer--my idea of a "defense" to a ridiculous charge of bigotry from people like you is to deny you the right to demand a defense; to ridicule and lampoon your standards to reveal how, well, ridiculous they are.

As I pointed out here, I am not implying that "bigger" and the N-word are the same. Of course you types would instantly jump to this conclusion. This is how your mind works (sic). After all, I'm from Louisiana. Surely I must be a racist, and itching to show that racial slurs are nothing more than normal words (funny, when I've been condemning those using words like "bigot" irresponsibly, thus admitting the power of some words to cause harm).

Instead, I was lampooning the silly PC standards that would have to be used to show HHH is a bigot. If you lower, dilute, and bias the standards to get the result you want, then it would also be easy to show that someone's use of "bigger" is almost racist. Sure the latter claim is stupid.... see the connection?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Palmer's hostility against HHH is evidence of his own bigotry. Against WHAT---ahhh, that's the question.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Tut tut tut, Mr. Palmer, once again attributing to me views I do not hold. As I have stated before (you have to bow down before the commissar and confess), the only problem I have with my boy bringing home a black girl is all the democrats he'll likely bring into the family.

Soo.... is that good enough? Or do I need to post a scan of a canceled check of a donation to the NAACP?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Steve, I was referring not to the criticism of HHH, but to the statement: "So a gay student made a protest? Good for him." This protest, after all, was a formal complaint lodged for the purpose of punishing HHH for his statements. It does not seem libertarian to me to endorse this--which is exactly why so many libertarians have opposed UNLV's actions.

Your seem to imply that LR and MI are not libertarian. Are you serious?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

"Sorry, but there simply is no moral equivalence between Kinsella's invective and my responses to them."

As everyone knows, a response to invective is never equivalent to the invective. This is self-evident! <g>

"There is first the simple fact that in every single case without exception, he has been the one to resort to invective and done so first, and in every case, I have merely responded in what I take to be an appropriately forceful way."

Well, this is just a question of "who started it". As I see it, personal attacks were hurled by you guys at Hoppe. I have defended him; and for doing so, haven been accused of being a bigot myself. Interesting tactic: try to make the target of bigotry accusations look bad for denying it; and make others afraid to defend him for fear of being hauled before the Thought Police Tribunal. Luckily, some of us have no fear of the last gasps of a dying political correctness.

"And while I'm not going to re-argue every post (actually, I'm not going to re-argue anyone of them: once was more than enough), I would also say that the quality of my rhetoric and my arguments exceeds his by a fair measure--again, in every single case without exception."

I'd say only by about 28%. Whether that's a "fair measure," I don't know. But don't my degrees outweigh that anyway? <g>

"There was not one case in which I responded to him hastily or in uncontrolled anger."

Me neither--I'm not angry. These are just pixels, after all.

"And there's not one post that I regret having written. Compare that with the endless proliferation of weirdly giddy responses from him (rarely on anything of relevance to the original claim I made in a thread, which in the present case, if anyone cares to remember, was the rather terse message "Bravo. Very well said," intended for Jason Kuznicki). Question: WHICH of us is out of control?"

I guess I just don't see reacting to the High Seriousness of the Grand Inquisitors with ridicule and humor is out of control.
"In one case, he's accused Tom Palmer of endorsing "torture.""

No, not endorsing it; of toying with the idea. As torture includes physical and mental abuse, and as mental abuse was what he was talking about...

"The claim was/is a brazen lie; I called it one there, I repeat the claim here, and I'm pretty sure Tom would agree with my assessment."

Oh, I'll grant you that one.

"But I wonder: have I done anything comparable to the website "Palmer Periscope," which is a WHOLE WEBSITE devoted exclusively to attacks on and the defamation of one person?"

PP is not defamatory. It's not defamation to criticize or even poke fun at someone. Anyway, I had nothing to do with it. I just learned about its existence, and posted first on it after Palmer cut off responses to a given thread.

"You'll note the sly use of pastel colors, e.g., lavender and the like. Is it accidental that the site is in pastel colors, while the issue of Tom's sexual orientation has been so prominently at issue? Oh well; maybe it is."

First, I had nothing to do w/ that. Second, I think it's homophobic to realize that pastel colors are associated wiht homosexuality. How dare you notice that? (just kidding)

"This is the site at which Kinsella described Tom as endorsing torture, but there were a series of similarly mendacious claims on Tom's website before Tom eventually banned Kinsella (Tom: what took you so long?)."

I am not responsible for others' claims. This is a simple matter. On Palmer's site, he recounded this:

"The inquiry uncovered numerous instances in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to spread menstrual blood on Muslim men, the official said. Separately, in court papers and public statements, three detainees say that women smeared them with blood." And he said: "is it out of bounds to threaten such a humiliation if the information you get might break up a terrorist cell? It’s shocking. It’s degrading. It’s disgusting. Is it immoral? It’s not obvious to me what the answer to the last question is."

Now, I don't think this is endorsing torture; but it's wondering about whether mental humiliation and things like the menstrual blood tectics can be justified. This is not physical torture but it is a type of mental or psycological abuse. And I believe it arguably falls under the definition of torture endorsed by relevant treaties.

What I said about this was: "What is also remarkable about Palmer's criticism of Rockwell's views about proportionate beatings of actual street criminals -- is that it appears in a post in which Palmer himself muses about whether torture of possibly innocent foreign prisoners of a unjust and illegal war is possibly moral! I.e., in a column where he dabbles with justifying torture he dares to criticize Rockwell's defense of non-lethal, non-torture force used to apprehend an actual street criminal resisting arrest"

Now, I did not say Palmer endorses torture; I said he "muses about whether torture of possibly innocent foreign prisoners of a unjust and illegal war is possibly moral". I did not say physical torture; perhaps I should have said "mental/pschological abuse defined as a type of torture under relevant treaties," to make the term "torture" clear, but it was not a lie. You may disagree with me but I did not lie. I was pointing out how odd it is to feign outrage over someone advocating proportional punishment against an ACTUAL criminal, when one is not sure if (mental) torture of (possibly innocent) foreign POWs of an illegal war is immoral.

You can disagree with my view that this is hypocritical or odd; but it is not a lie. I described what was said, and then opined about it.

"So let me ask you bluntly: what is your moral evaluation of a site like Palmer Periscope, and of the person(s) behind it?"

I suspect it was set up by people annoyed by Palmer's sanctimony and faux-righteousness and political correctness, but I have no idea. In any event I am not responsible for nor to blame for it. If you blame me merely for posting on it--well, you, Khawaja, ALSO posted on it. So is your claim coherent?

"Have I said anything comparable to Kinsella's description of me (itself based on a comical set of mis-inferences) to the effect that I have "clannish" tendencies? This old anti-Semitic chestnut isn't much better when it's directed at a (supposed) Muslim than when directed at Jews."

Oh, for God's sake, here we go with the anti-semitic stuff again. I can't reply to this nonsense.

"And what was the evidence for Kinsella's assumption that I would object to my (hypothetical) son's marrying a Jew?"

You have to have evidence for questions now? Teh PC types just make up the rules as they go along, don't they? <g>

"His claim on that count explicitly takes the form: IK sounds like he's a Muslim; all Muslims, being clannish, hate Jews; so if IK had children, he would follow his clannish propensities in not permitting his children to marry a Jew. Hmm. Well, considering that my partner IS a Jew, and that I've probably done more to fight Muslim anti-Semitism than StephAn Kinsella will in his sorry lifespan, this strikes me as not the sort of claim I'm obliged to receive with equanimity."

I think self-righteousness like this doesn't really work any more. Just an observation.

"So I am not merely "chiding" someone's overheated rhetoric. I am objecting forcefully to systematic, sustained defamation of a friend of mine (and, well, of me: but I'm a friend of mine, too). The claims that have been aimed at Tom throughout this discussion--their substance and style--are simply an obscenity."

Right--How DARE someone challenge the character of a your good frien'ds challenging my own good friend's character? Why, the audacity...! the impertinence! AFter alll, you are on the PC side, not us! We are supposed to just lie down and take our medicine.

"That is why, incidentally, I told Rick Shenkman that he ought to look into banning Kinsella from HNN--a claim I hereby renew."

So noted. I second that motion. All in favor?

"L&P has essentially become a forum for a smear merchant (dragging HNN into the bargain). Meanwhile, we're obliged to pretend that Kinsella's ravings are all part of the "conversation," and we should all just put up with the sporadic "excesses" of an oddball guy with a few eccentricities."

I'm "just" an "oddball". The PC crowd continually comes up with more and more desperate tactics as the wall of PC continues to crumble. Just dismiss someone as an oddball... there's a good one.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

I'm just curious how many of the whites here with children would be bothered if their son or daughter came home with a black boy or girl. Would it be hunky dory with everyone, or are their bigots on the list?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Charles: my original comment... I thought Jason had said "good for him" about the student *lodging the complaint*. He has since clarified he was not endorsing this.

I was assuming arguendo that loding the complaint is not libertarian--because most of the defenders of Hoppe seem to agree that for whatever reason--contract, constitution, etc.--UNLV should not punish Hoppe.

I did not myself state any argument for this view, since it was assumed most here already shared this view.

So no, I'm not at all confusing any of these things, like academic freedom and first amendment or contract rights. As for the ACLU's position, that's just a quesiton of legal strategy or tactics. Real world, practical stuff.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

I agree 1 and 2 are not inconsistent; but 2 is a horrible accusation to make based on flimsy reasoning and hair-trigger, politically-correct standards.

Any problem if your kids want to marry African-American Christians? I know this is personal, but what the hell, apparently it's fair game to speculate about this stuff in public now.

Who are these bigoted relatives of yours? Did they impart some of their bigotry on you initially, and then you rejected it...? if so, at what age?

Are your relatives worse bigots than Hoppe, or better bigots than Hoppe? If you are willing to call HHH a bigot in public, why not name names of your relatives? Or do you have some complicated set of rules about this?

How about gay sex--have you ever wondered about some of the details of it and gotten ... icked out? Just curious. Just want to make sure there are no bigots or homophobes here.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

So, given this thread, I take it you would all agree that HHH's views in time preference etc. are debatable. Seems evident that this is so.


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Irfan, re Roderick's calls for civility (I hope that does not make him a bigot in your eyes, but one never knows), engage in a thought experiment with me.

Let's say you and I find ourselves seated next to each other, by random coincidence, on a plane. Do you think we'd talk? make up? Become friends? Okay, suppose we ignored each other with dirty looks and wrinkled nose. Now the plane crashes and you and I are the sole survivors on a desert island. I daresay that in short order we'd be fast friends. Who knows maybe even--some day--lovers.

So Khawaja and Kinsella live together in peace and survive against the odds for a year. Then we is rescued. Would you go back to these kind of comments and attitudes about me on L&P list?

Interesting gedankenexperiment, no?

p.s. just kidding about the "lovers" part. <g>


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Kuznicki, Khawaja, would you mind if your son or daughter wanted to marry an African American? Just curious. Apparently witch-hunts are in vogue, and I don't want to miss the boat. I personally would not mind at all if my son wanted to marry a black chick, as long as she was not a democrat. But I suspect that some of you more ... clan-oriented types would have a problem with it.

What about your kid marrying someone of a different faith? Like a Jew marrying a Christian, or Muslim marrying a Jew, etc.? Just curious. Is that okay by you, or are you bigoted?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Steve, do you have any preference as to whether your kids are gay or straight--or are you a homophobe?


Stephan (K-dog) Kinsella - 7/14/2005

Someone here told me he would try to get me banned from this list. I would be happy to leave if asked to by the editor.

I've notified the editor that contrary to the forum rules, several participants are posting comments that are defamatory (libelous), personal and ad hominem attacks, and incivil.


Maurice Sonnenwirth - 2/22/2005

What's there to discuss? Kinsella defends LRC and brings up us hypersensitive Zionists who happen to find some of the, excuse the expression, dreck about Israel to be more than a little offensive. Kinsella, Lew's group of anti-Israel or anti-Semites or whatever the hell they are (I don't care about labels) don't merely deride foreign aid to Israel. They manage to smear Israel with every kind of poisonous nonsense they can, ignoring anything that might be a historical fact they don't like (e.g. that the Palestinians are not such a pure bunch of nice people who only decided to fight back when settlements popped up, instead of recalling that Arabs were murdering defenseless Jews in Hebron and Jerusalem in 1929...that the U.S.S.R. Shtupped (look it up Kinsella) massive amounts of arms and aid to Egypt and Syria, and Israel could've been wiped out by them in the earlier years...not that any of these stellar columnists on Lew's Hate Israel Brigade would have cared then or now...)

Nah, it's the same old crap. Israel no good, Israel secretly poisoned Arafat (recent column by Eric Margolis), Sharon means to take over the entire Mideast for Greater Israel (except Gaza which he is trying to get rid of), Israel 100% to blame for EVERYTHING and Arabs nothing, and if the U.S. would just be supportive of the Arabs and ignore Israel, there'd be no problems in the world.

Oh yeah, and a recent article by Bob Murphy tried to reason that if the Allies hadn't threated the Germans, there'd possibly have been no Holocaust...yep, it was all the Allies' fault. And gosh, look at how the U.S. interred the Japanese, and my gosh, we're torturing Afghanis and Iraqis, we're the same as the Nazis...but don't bring up the Holocaust, because then I'm just grandstanding and USING the Holocaust and it happened back when and it's old hat..and...and...over and over, denigration of Israel, denigration of anyone who might find Lew's stand (for he chooses which articles to put in)
reprehensible...

Rothbard, brilliant as he may have been, was a Jew who was anti-Israel. He also excelled at wonderful screeds against those who he did not like...mean-spirited personal attacks in his essays (yes, Kinsella, I made the mistake of picking up a book with those essays..and I read that in person he was the kindest, gentlest soul...big damn deal..in print, he was a nasty bastard and indulged in a lot of ad hominem stuff.) Lew and some, not all, of his columnists like to do the same thing.

It IS a shame, because some of his columnists are brilliant, fascinating and have incredible things to say from a libertarian perspective. And no, Israel is not the only thing I could pick on, but it's the subject that THIS HYPERSENSITIVE ZIONIST


Maurice Sonnenwirth - 2/22/2005

I hit the submit button by accident, before I finished. Israel is the subject I know best. And Kinsella, I will be glad to show you the lies, twisted "facts", propaganda and convenient lapses in accuracy used by those who continuously attack Israel.

Even your idiot comment "Hypersensitive Zionists"...shows you to be an insensitive idiot. I guess those of us who don't hate Israel are just overly sensitive to the smear campaigns of such luminaries as Alexander Cockburn, Raimondo, Sobran, Reese, Margolis, P.C. Roberts, and the list goes on...

Does Lew have Jewish columnists? Yep. His partner in his venture is Bert Blumert. Does that prove Lew is no anti-Semite? Maybe. But as of late, all I read is one article after another, on the ones that do mention Israel, by the likes of the bunch above, i.e. there is nothing but the most vicious words against Israel. The Margolis column (yep, a Jew, shamefully) was one of the most sickening pieces of anti-Israel screed I had read in a LONG time from any source, and over the couple of years I have read LRC, it seems to be getting more and more shrill in its anti-Israel, anti-Jewish (I am not sure what word to use for the pieces denigrating the ADL, those who are accused of "promoting" the Holocaust etc.) outlook.

More pieces lately...defending the Poles as defenders of freedom, not the collaborators in Auschwitz. As many of the articles on LRC, it was blatantly one-sided. Yes, there were good Poles, and Poles murdered by the Germans, Poles that were Catholic and not Jews. Poles who helped Jews escape. But Poland was not exactly a bastion of philo-Semitism either. My POLISH-JEWISH grandmother came to this country 40 years before the Holocaust..and spit on the ground when she saw anything Polish or especially Polish Catholic, because she had such fear and dislike of these brave, freedom-loving non-Jewish Poles...and again, this was before the Holocaust.

I know, she was another hypersensitive Jew. Like me.

I do realize there are many who don't like Israel's politics (including some Jews who are not rabid Jew haters as I can only suspect Margolis is), including many Israelis! I also realize there is a problem when some will label those who have a different take on the conflict are labeled anti-Semites, because many or even maybe most are not willing to let Israel be destroyed...but these folks often will see that perhaps the Israelis aren't 100% wrong, nor the Palis 100% victims.

One can only get the impression, from the visciousness and outright lies in many of the anti-Israel columns (and Kinsella, again, I would be happy to point out the complete and UTTER CRAP espoused by some of these people) on LRC that they would be quite content if Israel were to be destroyed tomorrow.

Kinsella, you might disagree with that. You might say, "but where did anyone say that"? They don't have to explicitly say it. It is the one country (outside of the U.S.) that is attacked over and over on LRC, and not for the foreign aid nonsense. Ron Paul espouses that view (and yes, I know he is attacked as an anti-Semite or anti-Israel person), but Ron Paul at least says to cut out ALL foreign aid, which would include...guess who's the 2nd largest donor recipient...those close friends of ours the Egyptians!

Gosh, golly, not once do I recall seeing any of the jerks on LRC mention that a whole lot of countries get huge sums of American cash also, and are SO friendly to the U.S...Egypt has TONS of pro-U.S. propaganda being spread, is a true friend of ours...but this is the kind of BULLSHIT the LRC anti-Israel crowd conveniently likes to forget in its rush to blame Israel for the world's woes.

Some of the LRC writing brings to mind the same fictional qualities of that masterpiece of anti-Jewish lit., "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"...the ADL is so powerful, neo-con Jews are ruining the U.S. (and yes, some LRC's did make that connection fairly obvious..that neo-con=Jew..though not all did so), Israel wants to push the U.S. to invade Iran and Syria solely for its own good (gosh, nice to know Israel is SO powerful!), the Arabs would be our best friends (and they're nicer, too) if we'd only let Israel go...

If libertarianism equates with letting Arabs destroy Israel, then to hell with it. But I don't believe most libertarians believe that. I hope not. They may not like Israeli policies, and that's another story. I have friends, Jewish, non-Jewish, who disagree about Israel with me...they ain't anti-semites...but some of the sickening things that have been written on LRC...no, it goes beyond just disagreement...

You can get into long debates over what a "bigot" is, what the definition of hate crime and anti-Semitism or racism is...Rothbard loved to play those little games...and while I think he was not always wrong, at times, he was so blatantly jerking off, i.e. intellectually masturbating but not dealing with how things were in the real world...but Roderick, Steve Horwitz is correct...sending people to learn about libertarianism and the idea of no-aggression against others...to read some of the truly hate-filled obnoxious screed on LRC SULLIES THE LIBERTARIAN MESSAGE.

Or, maybe it's just us hypersensitive Zionists who are so completely offended, and have found LRC to be a dismal swap at times.

Why am I so worked up about this? Because at times, as I wrote above, Lew can have such incredibly SMART things to say and intellectually brilliant columnists, and I AGREE with much of the Austrian economic and political writings. I'll read one of these columns...and then read a smear piece of shit like Margolis' latest piece or the one Murphy wrote (in his defense, Bob Murphy wrote a very nice letter to me stating that I had either misread it or had not gotten the point, and that maybe he had not gotten that point across to ME as well as he might have...and I believe him; but...Kinsella, do I need to subjected to a piece of contemptible shit like Alex Cockburn and his diatribes against Jews "using" the Holocaust? Like he has nothing better to do than worry about that? That Lew uses pieces from this asinine dog-dropping of a human being just galls me to no end....)..and I just shake my head, and then it gets me to wondering...are the same kind of lies being propagated about all the historical revisionist stuff on Lew's site, from the Civil War (excuse me, war of Northern Aggression) to WW2 to the present)? Is the rest of Lew's message valid, or is he just an obnoxious, incredibly INSENSITIVE traditional Catholic (who doesn't exactly worry too much about what us hypersensitive Jews care about?). But not to label Lew, or anything.

Kinsella, I am gonna admit something. My grandparents were murdered in Auschwitz, by Nazis, aided and abetted by Poles, in June 1944. My dad was almost killed, but survived one year of slave labor, 8 different camps...and came here. Had a passport to "Palestine", though, as he almost went there, but was persuaded to come to the States instead. (In Hebrew, on the Passport, interestingly, it read "Eretz Yisrael, Land of Israel, i.e. there was no FUCKING ARAB PALESTINE, but that's another story).

So yeah, I am hypersensitive to jerks like you who lie about Israel and its critics. LRC has far too much stuff against the memory of the Holocaust (interestingly, Elie Wiesel, the author, spoke at the U.N. about how the world should remember the other horrible things going on RIGHT NOW, the murders of others, non-Jews...this was at a Holocaust rememberance event that came 60 years too late...but my, he didn't use the Holocaust only to defend Israel or the Jews...he wanted to save the Darfur Sudanese etc. Not that anyone at LRC would ever bother to notice). The ADL is attacked...though many Jews are not supportive of it...we have to read about how 10 million Ukranians were murdered by Stalin, and how those who "promote" the Holocaust are insensitive to that, or that the Holocaust, gosh, let's waste more time on this, wasn't unique and quit bothering us about it...yeah, 'tis true, I care nothing about what happens to any stinking person in the whole world except Jews...heck, I give out candy when I hear about Moslems getting blammed, even by fellow Moslems as the Sunnis are doing to the Shias in Iraq (but that' the U.S.' fault, I forgot!)..just like the Palis do when there's been a successful bombing of a bus in Israel...yeah, that's us Jews. Kinsella, you'll no doubt shoot this down, but that's the kind of utter stupidity on LRC at times.

Yes, I am way too worked up about this. I am just one damn sensitive Jew with a Holocaust and Israel chip on my shoulder. But I submit that Lew is an insensitive shmuck, and some of his writers are classic anti-semites and Jew haters, (including some of the Jews). Quibbling over definitions and playing games over whose a real bigot is just bunkum.

LRC loses its credibility time and again when it comes up with some of the friggin' most lunatic hate-filled things. Again, I use the Zionist thing because it is what I am most qualified to write about. Kinsella, I can guarantee you, I have studied far more of the history of modern day Israel pre and post-state, than any of the LRC writers. I've been to Israel, I have friends and relatives in Israel. I do not see Israel as purely right about things, and am intellectually willing to agree that Israel at times has made tremendous mistakes.

But the last word I'll write on this tonight is that therein lies the problem with LRC. There is never a gray zone. Lew's lousy columnists (again, I am not saying that everyone who writes for him...but unfortunately, it's some of his most prolific group of authors) are purely hate-filled and see only one thing. Israel wrong, U.S. wrong, Arabs lovely, peace-like and right.

Sickening stuff. If it were only about foreign aid...but even then...has one columnist ever mentioned that, Kinsella? Probably someone has, but I can't recall it...but numerous are the articles on how foreign aid to Israel is evil and part of the neo-con plot to take over the world!

Some of Lew's bunch unfortunately are just nasty bastards. Not because they oppose Israel, only, but it's evident in the style of writing. Anger abounds, personal attacks are frequent. And that's why there is no middle ground with that particular site and that particular group of writers on that site. Lew can do whatever he damn well pleases, but I don't want to have any friends of mine go there to learn about libertarianism. That would be the LAST place I'd want them to do so, when there are many sites that teach about the bad side of governments, socialism and other political things, and places that teach the positive qualities of Austrian econ. thought, anarchism, philosophy etc. without the lies, anger and sometimes immoral nonsense spouted by particular writers on LRC.

Maurice Sonnenwirth


Maurice Sonnenwirth - 2/22/2005

Steven, yeah, I got onto a roll last night. But the prevarications of the pro-LRC anti-Israel columnists, with the added fillip of Kinsella's "hypersensitive Zionist" remark...(and maybe I proved him correct! I am proud of being hypersensitive, if that's what it's called. Jews were pretty passive in pre-war Germany and Europe and...well, the results speak for themselves. I'm no extremist, but I won't put up with lies and utter nonsense.)

Thanks for that definition from Dershowitz. I had not seen it before, and it's exactly right. It's interesting to see that the Lebanese are now demonstrating to get rid of their Syrian occupiers..and not a peep now or in the past about this from the LRC gang. The only "occupation" they EVER rail about is Israel's. And I'm sure we'll get to read some article about Sharon's perfidy in wanting to pull out of Gaza as well as the West Bank settlements he's chosen, something that'll show that this is another sneaky attempt to take over the Middle East and keep those Palestinians down! That calculating SOB Sharon, first murdering Arafat with poisons, and now...giving back Gaza, no doubt, to hurt and murder more Palestinians...it's this kind of upside-down thinking that just gives one a headache.

I can deal with principled argument about foreign aid. I have more and more come around to your position, it should be cut out to everyone. Israel will be able to stand on its own feet at this point, and there are plenty inside Israel too that would like to actually get out from under the thumb of U.S. aid, since it imposes a sense of obligation and servitude on the part of the Israelis...American governmental opinion and bullying has NOT always been in Israel's best interest. And now that the Russians no longer are huge supporters of the countries against Israel...there is not even that argument to make. If anything, it's a total waste of U.S. monies, if we supply Egypt et al, so they can buy arms...and Israel to buy arms...and Jordan to buy arms...I don't really understand it. If we gave ONLY to Israel...but that's a rant of the anti-Semites, always has been, that the U.S. is beholden to Israel and gives away its monies to Israel..and I hear this on talk shows on the radio and now see it on the Net...not one single other country that's a recipient of U.S. largesse is EVER mentioned.

There are some on LRC that do make that argument. Some do not single out Israel. Fine. But that group I named, plus others Lew has posted, certainly are waging their own little verbal war against BIG BAD ISRAEL.

If libertarianism has an element of "live and let live" to it...if I understand it correctly...then yes, Israel needs to come to some kind of accomodation with its "neighbors", the Palestinians...but the Palestinians have to quit mouthing off about how they're going to destroy and take over Israel. How much simpler can it be? (And the crap about the "settlements"...again, was what the argument before '67, when Arabs were murdering Jews within the later "Green Line"? NONE OF THIS HAD OR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OCCUPATION OR SETTLEMENTS. That's a modern excuse. While I am not defending "occupation", it's such a crock of lies to use it as the Palestinians' excuse to be able to shoot up a bunch of Jews at a festival meal, as they did in Netanya. What was the excuse before '67? Before '48? Before '29?)

Arafat, who was defended in some of the LRC columns (particularly by that scumbag Margolis) had his lousy headgear in the shape of "Greater Palestine", which interestingly included all of current Israel, inside the Green Line. And he went to the U.N. with his sidearm strapped to his side. Very peace-like gesture. While I am FOR the right-to-bear-arms, I found this a bit sickening. Hamas et al have not changed their charters. Palestinians are still not exactly supporting letting Israel just BE. All of this, ALL OF IT, conveniently ignored by Kinsella and the LRC bigots.

Very UN-libertarian..but then, maybe I don't really understand what libertarianism is about, or Lew's "anti-War" deal. If anti-War means that Israel should roll over for Hamas...and of course, all the excuses FOR Hamas and Fatah et al to excuse the bus and disco bombings...Lew wrote me once that Israel had all the arms and the power and so....and I thought, what? So does that excuse the Palestinians desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Beating wayward Israelis into flattened pancakes as they did the two reservists who were lost in Ramallah in 2000? Arab "youths" that stoned and beat to death two young kids who wondered into a cave near their home? Those kids had all the power?

That's libertarianism and anti-war?

I do hope the Palestinians DO get a state. Because then, the other excuse, that they are countryless/stateless and Israel is an evil "state" can't be used anymore. Then if the Palestinians want to continue with their little terror games, Israel can make war on a STATE. (And, of course, I actually want everyone to come to their senses and make a real and lasting peace, because no, unlike the Palestinians, I am NOT pleased to hear of Palestinian deaths, even of those actively trying to kill Jews. I'm happy they can't kill, but I'm saddened they are so deluded as to think this is a way to live..or more accurately, die. Nope, haven't passed any candy out yet for the death of a single Pali...)

NO, this bit of anti-Israel screed on LRC has nothing to do with libertarianism, peace-making, foreign aid or anything else. And as I said in my first prolix reply, that means there is no point in trying to make peace with bigots and mean-spirited liars masquerading as anti-war and libertarian folks.

Of course, I'm not even really touching on their mean-spirited attacks on everyone who doesn't follow their extreme positions on about anything...so why bother? There are enough other libertarians out there who aren't so "paleo" (i.e. like troglodytes=paleolithic) and will entertain peacable discourse and disagreement over differences.

I do want to end with this, though. The above does not include everyone who contributes to LRC. Even Lew has put on some wonderful essays against anti-Semitism...but the messages are SO mixed and so senseless, that he will quickly ruin whatever good he does by putting on the bigoted anti-Israel stuff. So at the least he is inconsistent...what good that does I have no idea...and at the worst, he is a closet bigot or is willing to stand by and let the bigotry of these particular folks out of the sewer where it belongs. How this is supposed to help the libertarian cause is beyond me.

Yeah, this is again overlong...but I'm tired of the apologists for Lew's Liars, that group of bigoted assholes.


Maurice Sonnenwirth - 2/22/2005

Forgot one thing. How many Muslims died in Muslim-Muslim violence yesterday in Iraq? How many other places are Muslims killing others? Ah, but this is also blamed on the U.S., Israel...anyone but the Muslims themselves. Gets old. Not all ills of the Muslim world were caused by the West. But the same crowd of LRC Israel bashers are quick to blame anyone but the Muslims themselves for any terror attacks, murders, suppression of their own peoples etc. Muslim regimes are the least libertarian by any definition of that term I can find anywhere. But I read bleating apologetics for some of these same regimes, and how, if there are problems, these are caused by the imperial tendencies of Israel or the U.S.

Sorry Kinsella. Shia and Sunni violence and hatred goes back a LONG way...gosh, they hate each other almost...almost as much as they hate Israel (being about the only thing they can agree on). But you'd never know that from the revisionist propagandists and Lawrence of Arabia crowd at LRC. Can't blame all those deaths and bombings on the U.S.(even if the U.S. shouldn't have gone into Iraq.).

Islam COULD be a religion of peace, depending on how it's interpreted...but it's being interpreted and lived by far too many in the opposite way. And for LRC to blame all that on anyone else is historical BUNKUM.


Steven Horwitz - 2/20/2005

Maurice,

I really think you need to learn to let things out. If you keep it all pent up like that, you're gonna die young. ;)

Seriously, I largely agree with what you have to say. As someone who thinks ALL foreign aid should disappear, including, of course, aid to Israel, I still believe there are criticisms of Israel that cross the line into anti-Semitism. Dershowitz's definition of anti-Semitism with respect to Israel works for me: being opposed, even strongly opposed, to Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism. Holding Israel to standards that no other country is held to, or continually singling out Israel for problems at are as bad or worse elsewhere, is.


Roderick T. Long - 2/17/2005

Okay, those links don't seem to be working. But here are the relevant quotes:

IRFAN: "So I am not merely "chiding" someone's overheated rhetoric. I am objecting forcefully to systematic, sustained defamation of a friend of mine (and, well, of me: but I'm a friend of mine, too). The claims that have been aimed at Tom throughout this discussion--their substance and style--are simply an obscenity. They're not something that brooks polite discussion, or an equivalence between offender and defender. Nor do they require a response in a flat tone of voice."

STEPHAN: "Roderick, what good does it do to be reasonable when someone calls you a bigot? What can one do? Simply reply in a casual tone as if nothing out of bounds was said, as if the other side deserves to be treated in civilized, respectful fashion? What, really, is your suggestion in such cases? I think the situation is not really mutual. The only problem I have with Palmer et al. (other than substantive disagreements) is his personal attacks on a fellow libertarian that I know, like, admire, and respect, and now, me. So if those people would retract their bigotry accusations and stop the personal attacks, I would have no problem being civil. ... I think in your attempt to conciliate, you are conflating some things. You are burying "libel" and personal attacks under "unjust criticism". An unjust criticism is one thing, if it is on substantive matters. If someone says my views are really socialistic, or would lead to chaos, I can respond to that. If they label me as a bigot ... then it's akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" syndrome. But even if you say that personal attacks are just a type of criticism that one might believe to be unjust, when it gets personal it's a whole different ballgame. At least you could say, "I disagree with your view here because I think it is (perhaps unintentionally) bigoted [or racist]", rather than saying YOU are a racist."

I'm not saying the two cases are identical. But is it really plausible to conclude that the author of one of these quotations is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY justified and the other side is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY unreasonable?


Roderick T. Long - 2/17/2005

Irfan, please notice how similar the questions you ask me are to the questions Stephan asks me here and here.

I think it would be great if people on each side of this debate were to stop and at least consider the hypothesis that some of the people on the other side who are making offensive remarks might be motivated by something other than looniness and/or malice.

I'm not asking for either side to conclude that the other side is "no worse." Let each side think the other side's sins really are worse than its own sins -- whatever. That's still consistent with the hypothesis whose consideration I'm proposing.


Roderick T. Long - 2/17/2005

> have covered the full range from
> more reasonable to less unreasonable

I meant, the full range from more unreasonable to less unreasonable. Obviously a Freudian slip prompted by my conciliatory nature.


Roderick T. Long - 2/17/2005

Irfan, of course I object to the Palmer Periscope website and would happily blot it out of existence. (For what it's worth, I would also object to an analogously-purposed Kinsella Kinescope website.) But your argument seems to be: it's OK for you to be insulting because you're responding to Stephan's insults. And Stephan's counter-argument seems to be: well, it's OK for him to be insulting because he's responding to people who've insulted Hoppe. And this can go on and on: but it's OK to insult Hoppe, because he insulted Tom Palmer! Well, but that's OK, because Tom Palmer insulted Lew Rockwell! Well, but .... And on and on back to some indiscernible First Act of Appropriation. There have been plenty of insults on both sides, and it's been going on for years, but each side tends to treat the latest insult from the other side as if it's a bolt from the blue.

So I'm not moved by the question of who started it, nor by the question of which side has been worse (people on both sides of this debate have covered the full range from more reasonable to less unreasonable, but they're all contributing to the situation).

The other problem with saying "this person has been insulting so I can start being insulting too" is that it alienates not just the particular person but all the people who know that person but not you. (On this see my discussion with Stephan here.) There are people on both sides of this debate that I like and respect, but if all I knew about the people on one side (either side) were what they said about the other side I'd think the first side was just loony or malicious. I know the people on each side well enough to know that each side is genuinely baffled by what it perceives as the other side's looniness or malice, but I understand why those who know one side better might honestly conclude that the otehr side is not worthy of serious discussion.


Charles Johnson - 2/17/2005

"well could you just clarify you question? What exactly are you asking?"

Sure. Here's what I mean: you're recommending a particular strategy by the ACLU on behalf of Hoppe because it's "practical, real world stuff." But I don't know what "practicality" means unless you are choosing about different possible means to get something that's worth having. If you manage to pull off getting something that isn't worth having, you haven't been "practical"; you've been wasting your time and effort.

But whether a particular result in court for Hoppe is worth having or not depends, in part, on what he does or doesn't have a right to. Now, either it's true or its false that UNLV's decision to punish Hoppe is a violation of his rights (by breaching contract).

It's not clear at all that the First Amendment ought to have anything to do with the matter at all: the First Amendment is a protection of speech from government censorship, not an entitlement to keep your job and your same salary no matter what you say. (You might point out UNLV is tax-funded. True, but so what? At the strongest that's an argument to de-fund UNLV--which is a good idea on its own merits. In the meantime, though, state-funded Universities rightly punish professors all the time for Constitutionally-protected speech that doesn't fall within the bounds of acceptable scholarly work or appropriate faculty conduct.) But the ACLU's argument on behalf of Hoppe (I assume that Hoppe is consenting to the arguments that the ACLU is making on his behalf) is based, in part, on the First Amendment. So one of two things is true:

(1) Hoppe's allowing the people representing him to make a crappy argument in court in order to force results that he doesn't have a right to force, or

(2) Hoppe's allowing the people representing him to make a crappy argument in court as a legal feint in order to force results that he does have some right to force, for other reasons.

Now of course you can say, "Hey, Hoppe is trying to get by in the real world, not in Libertarian La-La Land, so he has to try to work with the prevailing winds." But if (1) is the case, then victory in court isn't anything that would be worth winning at all (since it would be unjust); and if (2) is the case, then why use the deceptive argument when you could just point to the other reasons you have for seeking redress? (Is achieving some result dishonestly when there are honest means to come by it something that you should want to have?)


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Well, when I call for conciliation I'm not asking anyone to be silent when he thinks someone is bigoted, and I'm not asking anyone on the other side to refrain from protesting when he thinks he or a friend is being unfairly accused of bigotry. (I'm also not trying to flap my arms and fly to the moon, if you were wondering.)

I think Stephan had a good point when he suggested the following sort of thing:

> At least you could say, "I disagree with
> your view here because I think it is (perhaps
> unintentionally) bigoted [or racist]", rather
> than saying YOU are a racist.

When you're talking about a person who's likely, or whose friends are likely, to be in the audience this just seems more polite, while still allowing you to make the same points you wanted to make. (Note: even if you're personally convinced that the person you're criticising is Satan and is making no innocent error, there may be people of good will listening who aren't so convinced of that, and whether they listen to your arguments or dismiss you may depend on how you word your criticisms.)

But on the other side, rather than saying "you are an evil libeler!" it's possible to say something like "from what I know of the person in question I really don't think that's a fair judgment, I think you're being misled by blah blah blah." (And here too, even if you think the critic is Satan, there may be people of good will who aren't so convinced of that, and whether they listen to your replies or dismiss you may depend on how you word your replies.)


Bill Woolsey - 2/16/2005

There seem to be two issues here.

Richman seems to be saying that an
Austrian economist (of the Mises school)
can say nothing about the saving behavior
of classes of people.

Horowitz is repeating his point that
an Austrian ecnonomist (as economist)
wouldn't judge people's preferences as
being good or bad.

I find Richman's view doubtful. It would
seem that some kind of deductions from
assumptions would be appropriate. While
I don't really think there is an infinite
number of reasons to save, no doubt there
is a very large number. If we have a ceteris
paribus-type assumption that one group is like
another but lacks one reason to save, then
I would think a deduction that they would save
less would be reasonable.

I particularly would find it troubling to think
that Austrian economists would deal with the
life-cycle hypothesis regarding saving with total
rejection. People save for a million reasons,
so economics can say nothing about patterns
of saving whereby the young (not children) save
little, the middle aged save alot, and the
old have negative saving. Of course, these
statements about groups are not supposed to
be true of everyone. (And it has to do with
smoothing consumption over variations in income
rather than changes in ones degree of patience.)

But I may be wrong. One of those--economic theory
says nothing--it is in the realm of history.

And then one could ask if this is one of those
areas whether Hayekian economics is different from
the Misean version.

As for Horowitz's position, I think it is a bit
odd for an economist to act as if more patience is
always better.

I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that
Hoppe was adopting an old classical notion that
saving and capital accumulation is the source of
most economic progress, so saving is good.



Aeon J. Skoble - 2/16/2005

Ok, thanks.


Aeon J. Skoble - 2/16/2005

Semi-apology semi-accepted -- I made and run the website, so even restricting the scope of the half-assedness to the website, you're still slamming me. Indeed, it's even more of a personal slam, since unlike RP as a whole, the website is entirely my creation. Now, I freely admit it's not that great a website, but it does contain (a) submission guidelines, (b) subscription and back-issue ordering iformation, (c) information about the journal as a whole and about the current issue, (d) a full archive of contents back to vol. 1 in 1974. It doesn't have frames or flash or jpg or links to porn sites. I don't have pdf's of every freakin' article back to 1974, although as I said, I do have a couple, and I hope to do more in the future. I don't have a staff, and I don't have much budget, so the relevant pop culture reference is from "The City on the Edge of Forever," where Kirk and Spock are on Earth during the 1930's, working for 22 cents an hour. Kirk comes in with some groceries, and Spock announces he needs some platinum. Picture me with the expression on Kirk's face.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Actually, all my efforts at conciliation are really a plot on my part to get myself appointed Supreme Arbiter. Once that happens I'll seize power, it'll be like Palpatine .... YOU WILL ALL CRINGE AND SUFFER.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

> You spank me for assuming you are
> Muslim because you are Exec Director
> of a group about Islamic Society

Well, after all it's a group for the Secularization of Islamic Society ....


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Irfan, the chidings I sent Stephan's way below I send your way now, for much the same reasons. You can say that Stephan is guilty of insults and overheated rhetoric -- though I would note that there's plenty of that to go around. But "outright lies"? Isn't that a bit much? What are his outright lies?

And anyway, criticising someone's overheated rhetoric and sweeping statements is more effective if one isn't using overheated rhetoric and sweeping statements oneself. "Stupidity than which nothing greater can be conceived"? I'm sure you know it's not stupidity on his part, it's sloppiness born of wrath. (Anyway, I think you meant "nothing stupider," not "nothing greater." More sloppiness born of wrath?)


Steven Horwitz - 2/16/2005

and painful.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Stephan -- Irfan may not call himself a libertarian, but he is certainly a classical liberal.


Aeon J. Skoble - 2/16/2005

Steve says "I've had friends see the Chronicle story about Hoppe and ask me what the hell his bigotry (they've used other words I wouldn't) has to do with Austrian economics and libertarianism - as in "do libertarians really believe this?"."
FWIW, I have to deal with exactly that also. I'm the only one in my building who is widely known to be libertarianish, so colleagues who hear "libertarian X says obnoxious thing A" are forever coming to ask me "Is that really what libertarianism is?" Since the Hoppe case has been in the MSM and Chronicle, I've had the exact same conversations Steven has. It gets old.


Steven Horwitz - 2/16/2005

The irony of all of this, for me, is that in most situations like these, especially in online communities, I'm the peacemaker. :)

My "Leninist" remark was a genuine question, although perhaps phrased hyperbolically. My apologies if it came out worse than I meant it.

Bottom line for me: I will not be accused of libel for making the claim that person X is a bigot, especially having presented evidence for that claim. You can tell me I'm wrong, you can deny the evidence proves the point, or you can even tell me my definition of bigot is wrong, but don't accuse me of libel without a substantive response.

And as for the "why can't all us libertarians get along?" question: sorry, but specific things I've read from particular people associated with the MI/LRC organizations are so offensive to what I consider to be the libertarian, if not the whole liberal, tradition, that I simply cannot stand in silence in the face of them. When I see what I consider to be racism or xenophobia or anti-Semitism from *anyone*, I'll name it for what it is. Just because the speaker has contributed to forwarding the libertarian cause in other ways doesn't exempt him or her from criticism for other things they say that I find to be offensive and *destructive of the libertarian cause.* If Stephan's point is that I shouldn't criticize Hoppe or anyone else because they are libertarians and because all of the good things MI/LRC has supposedly done, then that's just not acceptable.

Let me be frank: I would *never* send *anyone* I wanted to either persuade to become a libertarian or who I wanted to take libertarian arguments seriously to the MI or LRC websites. Period. I've had friends see the Chronicle story about Hoppe and ask me what the hell his bigotry (they've used other words I wouldn't) has to do with Austrian economics and libertarianism - as in "do libertarians really believe this?". There are things on both those sites that I find to be embarassing to me as a libertarian scholar and I'm just sick of having to explain why people who call themselves Austrians and libertarians are saying things like that.

If you want say this is my problem not yours, then that's fine. But that's the explanation for where I'm coming from, and while I'm happy to take additional efforts to keep my tone civil, I will *not* back away from the substantive disagreements and my claim that people associated with MI/LRC are bigots of various stripes.


Aeon J. Skoble - 2/16/2005

Stephan says:
"Unfortunately, the half-assed Reason Papers is not online"
I had been refraining from joining this thread, but now I'm going to have flame you til you're crisp. You have forced my hand.
1, I suspect you're slamming RP as a way to slam Irfan, since he has published therein. But RP has also published the work of every important libertarian theorist since 1974 except Nozick and Rothbard. If you think RP's cast of characters is half-assed, that speaks very poorly of your knowldege of libertarianism.
And, it's published YOU! So if slamming RP = a crtitism of Irfan, then it's as much a knock on you.
2, Where do you get "half-assed"? Production values may be lower than that of the far-better-funded JLS, but being a scholarly journal, the non-superficial point of relevance is content. It's good stuff.
3, if it were half-assed, why would you complain that it's not on-line? That's like saying the food is bad, but complaining about the small portions.
4, anyway, we are starting to have some on-line content. Daniel Klein's latest, very significant essay is on-line, and at least one recent book review is online also. In the future, more content will be available on-line, but I don't have a staff, and I don't have much budget, and I don't have endless amounts of time. So [rude comment deleted].


Dan Mahoney - 2/16/2005

From the fact that choice depends on the will, it does
not follow that choice depends *solely* on the will.
There is no tension between praxeology and the claim that
there exist will-independent (e.g., natural or
biological) factors influencing behavior, such as the
(manifested) rate of time preference.

For example, you are free to choose when you eat, what
you eat, and how you go about getting your food. Do you
seriously doubt, though, that sometime today you will
(involuntarily) get hungry, such that the pursuit of
food is ranked higher than alternative ends? Plainly
biology impacts our behavior, and by extension, our
social organizations. Believing so does not make one a
determinist.

Prof. Long's rejection of sociobiology seems premature to
me.


Tom G Palmer - 2/16/2005

I agree with one of the earlier commentators. It's time to consider Mr. Kinsella an irrelevant and obnoxious troll and move on. It's unpleasant to have to wince with sympathetic embarrassment every time he hits the keyboard.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Thanks for your response, Stephan. In counter-response let me focus on what for me is a secondary point but might be more persuasive in this context. Suppose you're arguing with Mr. A (not necessarily the Steve Ditko cartoon character) and you become convinced that there is no hope of getting Mr. A to be civil/reasonable to you or your allies. So is it then reasonable to conclude that there's nothing to be lost by "game playing, ridicule, poking fun, or responding in kind"?

Maybe that would be so if Mr. A were your only audience. But there's also Mr. A's friends Mr. B, Ms. C, and Dr. D. They might initially be open to reasonable/civil discourse with you even if Mr. A isn't. But they see you being rude to Mr. A, and they know and like Mr. A (because they think of Mr. A in the entire context of everything they know about him rather than focusing on the particular incivilities that have attracted your ire), so they feel inclined to respond uncivilly to you for precisely the same reasons that you felt inclined to respond uncivilly to Mr. A. (Think how you feel when you judge that a friend is being unfairly attacked, and then imagine how they feel when they see their friend being, as they (rightly or wrongly) judge, unfairly attacked by you.)

Now your friends and admirers, named Reverend E, General F, and Comrade G, who might have been willing and able to engage in civil dialogue with Messrs. B, C, and D, quickly leap to your defense by being uncivil to them -- and so on throughout the alphabet.

In other words, even if one is right that a particular interlocutor is hopeless (and yes, I'm more optimistic about such things than you are, but I'll grant your point arguendo), by responding in kind one may be alienating third-party observers who are not hopeless, or who anyway were less hopeless before being alienated. And so "responses in kind" perpetuate the cycle not just with those whose minds can't be changed but also with those whose minds could be.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Well, how to deal with conflicts over "personalities" is also a "grave issues of general principle," one whose imperfect resolution has dogged the libertarian movement for many decades.

Plus, I have a selfish personal preference for not seeing people I like and respect ripping each other verbally to shreds. It's a preference that's unlikely to be satisfied any time soon, especially in the "movement I have chosen," but my time-preference is low enough that I still find the preference worth acting on.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Well, as I wrote in one of the corresponding threads on No Treason:

The rapidity and anonymity, or at least non-face-to-face-ness, of the internet do tend to encourage a culture of flaming; people tend to say things to each other online that they would be far less likely to say in person. Anyway, I certainly think civility is something that all the various factions in the libertarian movement could use more of. There's a general tendency I've noticed -- again on all sides (I'm not picking on anyone in particular here, and I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself, though I do try to avoid it) -- where if person A has said something rude then person B takes that as authorization to be rude not only about person A but about everyone who offers any defense of person A, and then person C feels licensed to say rude things about person B and everyone associated with person B, and it goes on and on until everyone is convinced that everyone else is a total jerk. I'm not a Christian, but I think if more people tried to apply the principle "love thine enemy" we might all find one another easier to love.

So, yes Stephan -- if someone makes a criticism you think is unjust, I do think the right thing to do before reaching for the rhetorical revolver is to think whether this is just going to escalate the hostility without convincing anyone. I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying I live up to this lofty standard myself (and I think it's even harder when it's a friend rather than oneself that's being criticised), but I do think it's usually the right response. And I'm not saying one has to "reply in a casual tone as if nothing out of bounds was said" -- but there's a lot of space between that and going ballistic or expanding one's response from objecting to the specific criticism the other person has made, be it just or unjust, to a general indictment of the critic's entire character, worldview, and associates.

But Steven, all this applies on the other side also. Your disagreements with Stephan, for example, however intense they may be, are on a specific range of issues. Why expand them into a general accusation of his being a "Leninist" who "can't tolerate disagreement among libertarians"?

In general, I think it's good to stop and think "Whatever is annoying/offending me about what this person is saying may not be the whole story on this person, so even if I think what they're saying is unjust it's possible that if I respond as strongly as I'm inclined to I may be doing an injustice too, in addition to alienating observers who might otherwise have been won over."

That doesn't mean one concedes that the other side is right or blameless or whatever; it just means trying to move the discussion toward rather than farther away from civility. (I also don't think it matters so much which side "did it first" and/or "did it worst." No flamewar can be cooled down if cooling it down presupposes getting both sides to agree on the answer to that question.)

Like I said, probably hopeless but worth a try....


Sudha Shenoy - 2/16/2005

There are grave issues of *general principle* at stake here. The personalities are irrelevant.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

(I see that my earlier italics error has flowed over into your post -- apparently it does that if the post is directly under it but not if it's indented.) Anyway -- I think children start off with an unchosen pattern of behaviour, and that can't be changed overnight, so that's one reason for the characteristics children share; another is that they haven't developed certain cognitive abilities yet.


Dan Mahoney - 2/16/2005

Prof. Long:

As you note, time preference manifests itself as a rate
or degree, an exchange ratio between present and future
goods. Do you really deny that it is possible to
categorize people, based on will-independent facts of
nature, according to the rate at which they prefer
present to future goods? What does any of this have to
do with free will? Children have free will, no? Do
you doubt that, on average, they require a higher amount
of future goods to part with a given amount of present
goods than adults do? Alternatively, do you think one
would err very often in anticipating childrens' behavior
relative to adults' based on such considerations? If
so, why could not the same be true of other
categorizations, such as race or sexual orientation?


Steven Horwitz - 2/16/2005

So basically we have to shut up, even though we've presented evidence that we believe substantiates his bigotry? Are you that much of a Leninist that you can't tolerate disagreement among libertarians? These aren't empty charges - we have provided what we believe is substantive evidence to back them up. When we do, you redefine bigotry so you can continue to attack Hoppe's critics as engaging in "personal attacks." Sorry, but if you have evidence, it's not a personal attack. You can dispute whether the evidence proves the charge, but it doesn't make the charge frivolous or an attack.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Sorry for the run-on italics; I goofed HTML-ly.


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

Dan Mahoney's comments blur the distinction between genetically innate traits, acquired traits that are environmentally determined, and acquired traits that are freely chosen. In the two posts to which I originally linked, for example, I distinguished between intelligence (which I called partly innate and partly acquired), preferences embodied in action (which I argued cannot possibly be innately determined), and preferences in the sense of patterns of activity (which I argued are initially innately determined and subsequently cease to be so). Mr. Mahoney seems to have read those two posts with more haste than care.

> I know in other commentaries Prof.
> Long has been happy to use evolutionary
> theories to bash those he dislikes, such
> as cultural conservatives/Christians

I have no idea what this last remark is a reference to. I have certainly never claimed that the ideological preferences of cultural conservatives or Christians are genetically determined. (And I don't "dislike" those people either.)


Dan Mahoney - 2/16/2005

Roderick Long's comments strike me as straw-man
bashing. One need not deny the existence of free will
to note that, e.g., knowing that a person is black tells
you more than simply knowing he is a human or that it
tells you something different than knowing he is white.
I might be incorrect, e.g., to claim that a particular
individual black's IQ is lower than average, but making
that claim in regards to large numbers of blacks would
not seem to lead to error that much. Might not the same
case hold true for time preference?

I know in other commentaries Prof. Long has been happy
to use evolutionary theories to bash those he dislikes,
such as cultural conservatives/Christians. Why does he
apparently not believe that biological science can inform
us about the reality of race and racial differences (as
detailed by writers such as Levin, Rushton,
MacDonald, etc.)?


Roderick T. Long - 2/16/2005

> You say bigotry is the "unjustified > ascription of negative/inferior traits > to someone on the basis of that person's > group membership." But this would imply > even a good faith mistake is bigotry. Well, I suppose that might depend on how much weight one places on "unjustified." But more broadly I think that "good faith" is a matter of degree; I think it's a mistake to draw a hard-and-fast line between purely innocent errors (calling for education/persuasion) and non-innocent errors (calling for condemnation). In social/ethical matters I think errors are rarely purely innocent; one could almost always have avoided them by being more diligent, more thoughtful, more attentive/sensitive, more open-minded, more consistent, more honest with oneself, or something. (And in this area, which of us is without sin?) But these errors are rarely a matter of consciously embracing evil either; we find our way to them through a combination of unconscious social pressures, bad intellectual habits, paying a bit too much attention to some things and a bit too little to others, etc.

So I feel about "bigotry" rather the way I feel about statism. Most people are statists of some sort. Do I think they're all wicked? Of course not. So are they excusable? Well, they're partly excusable, and some more than others depending on circumstances. But they all could -- and should -- have been more alert to certain cogitive dissonances than they are, and if they had been, they would have been more likely to find their way out of statism -- so they're not completely excusable. But I try not to hold myself in too much smug superiority over my statist neighbours, because even if I'm free of that aprticular vice, well, I have others.


Charles Johnson - 2/15/2005

Roderick: "Well, I guess the first question is ambiguous. If the question is whether racism and bigotry are logically incompatible with libertarianism, then no, I don't think they are. But I do think racism and bigotry tend to undermine libertarian attitudes (or vice versa); I also think racism and bigotry are wrong for some of the same reasons that statism is wrong. (But then I accept the Socratic unity-of-virtue thesis, so I think just about any two things that are wrong are wrong for similar reasons....)"

I think this is all correct; it might also be worth adding that there are at least some historical cases (and I think also some contemporary ones) where racism and bigotry have been directly connected with specific violent political orders, in more or less the same way that statist propaganda and ideology are connected with state aggression. (Think of the connexion between slavery or lynch law and the and public proclamations of white supremacist beliefs.)

In contexts like that it's <em>still</em> true that you can be a bigot without endorsing a violation of rights (many white Southerners in the 1950s would be aghast at violations of Jim Crow racial etiquette but did not support Klan or WCC-style violence), but the connexion between the bigoted beliefs and the systematic violations of rights--and so the way in which the bigotry is corrosive to libertarianism--is in some important sense even more direct than just sharing a common (or analogical) fallacy.


Roderick T. Long - 2/15/2005

C'mon guys, ratcheting up one's own rhetoric is rarely the most effective strategy for getting one's opponent to moderate his rhetoric. This is addressed to both sides; I know most of the people on this thread and you all seem so much more reasonable when you're not talking to each other.


Charles Johnson - 2/15/2005

Kinsella: "I was assuming arguendo that loding the complaint is not libertarian--because most of the defenders of Hoppe seem to agree that for whatever reason--contract, constitution, etc.--UNLV should not punish Hoppe."

I don't think that UNLV should punish Hoppe either, but I have not yet seen any very clear indication that by punishing him they would be violating his rights (by breach of contract or otherwise). When it comes to cases being fought in court, the difference between vices and crimes is important, yet nearly all of the commentary on Hoppe and his legal prospects seems to have glossed over this.

Kinsella: "As for the ACLU's position, that's just a quesiton of legal strategy or tactics. Real world, practical stuff."

Do you think that "real world, practical stuff" is detached from the question of what rights Hoppe does or doesn't actually have in the matter?


Charles Johnson - 2/15/2005

"He does have a contract,"

Sure, but like most academic contracts it's unclear at best whether what is being done to him is actually excluded by any of the terms of his contracts. (Most academic contracts these days allow the administration a fair amount of leniency in punishing professors for violations of "discriminatory harassment policies.") In any case, Kinsella didn't just say that the University is breaching its contract with Hoppe in this specific case. He said that it's "not libertarian" (i.e., promoting rights-violations) to endorse the actions of a student using a college disciplinary code to "punish" a professor "in this way".

Another way to put it: Kinsella seems to be confusing violations of academic freedom (which are bad, but not necessarily rights-violating) with censorship of free speech (which is necessarily rights-violating). Maybe he's not; maybe he's just speaking loosely. But given that Hoppe's defenders at the ACLU seem to be pushing the same confusion as an argument in court, it seems like there's some good reasons to be a bit studious about being more precise.


"... and I must insist that, contrary to Kinsella's statement, I never endorsed the student's actions."

Sure. I never intended to suggest that you did--and I'm sorry if that's what I seemed to be implying.


Sheldon Richman - 2/15/2005

Roderick--Excellent points all. If there were no free choice, the use of language (and therefore language itself) would be impossible--for what is the use of language if not the intentional, purposeful selection of sounds to communicate a chosen meaning to another who is capable of choosing to decipher the code? Thus to even say "There is no free will" is to contradict oneself. If one means something by it, the statement is in contradiction with itself (a full elaboration of it would be "I have chosen to say that there is no capacity to choose."), and if one doesn't mean something by it, then it requires no response--as random noise never does.


Tom G Palmer - 2/15/2005

Mr. Kuznicki, you've put it quite well.

And just for the record, it wouldn't affect me one way or the other if a son or daughter or niece or nephew of mine were to fall in love with a black man or woman. Apparently unlike Mr. Kinsella, I think that it's the character of the person that matters, and not his or her skin color. I can only gather that it *would* bother Mr. Kinsella, or he wouldn't keep demanding on a multitude of web sites, to know if people would be upset by interracial love, or have ever said the "N-word," or have even ever said the word "bigger," which in his book is somehow equivalent to a slur:
-----
I'll bet you've at least used the word "bigger". Many times. And that's very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism. Sure, almost everyone says "bigger" sometimes. But just because everone does it does not mean it's justified.
Shame on you. Whether the N-word, or its close-cousin, "bigger"--shame, shame, shame.
------
What a weird, bizarre, strange man. Please do take Mr. Kiznicki's advice and slink back into your little Orc Hole, where you can worry about interracial romance and mutter "bigger" all you want as the rest of the world goes about its business.


Tom G Palmer - 2/15/2005

I should add that that's the same Kinsella (could there be two people so odd?) who refers on his blog to a Danish commentator, Henri Hein, as "Froggy" (apparently because of his name, Henri), who pretends not to be convinced (or even to care) that the Institute for Historical Review is a neo-Nazi group, and who baits Jews and Muslims (even more oddly, non-practicing Jews and former Muslims) as "clannish types." Keep it up, Mr. Kinsella. Those are just the sorts of things guaranteed to convince others that you're not-- nuh uh, no way! -- a remarkably thick bigot.


Tom G Palmer - 2/15/2005

Rod's treatment seems eminently reasonable. What, however, is Mr. Kinsella getting at? That he's a libertarian and has no problem with racism? What is the significance of his bizarre baiting of people on this list with queries about whether they would be upset by their children wedding people of other racial or ethnic groups? Or demanding to know if they have ever said the "N-word" or even the word "bigger"?

Suggesting that there just isn't any such thing as bigotry or racism, and going on to suggest that, anyway, if it's not the same as wielding violence, what's the big deal?, insisting that to say that someone is a bigot is a sign of hatred of "Germans" (Hoppe) and "Southerners" (Kinsella), despite no such identification of either having been made....it all seems to add up to something very, very odd about Mr. Kinsella's commitments. Very, very odd.


Roderick T. Long - 2/15/2005

Well, I guess the first question is ambiguous. If the question is whether racism and bigotry are logically incompatible with libertarianism, then no, I don't think they are. But I do think racism and bigotry tend to undermine libertarian attitudes (or vice versa); I also think racism and bigotry are wrong for some of the same reasons that statism is wrong. (But then I accept the Socratic unity-of-virtue thesis, so I think just about any two things that are wrong are wrong for similar reasons....)

On the second question, I guess I'd define bigotry -- at least at a first attempt -- as something like: the unjustified ascription of negative/inferior traits to someone on the basis of that person's group membership. Then racism would be bigotry where the relevant group is racial.


Tom G Palmer - 2/15/2005

Mr. Kinsella is ever the diplomat. I don't believe that I have ever read anyone who manages to disgrace and embarrass himself so often. His questions about "the N-word," about whether one should feel guilty about saying the word "bigger," about whether various people would be upset if their children were to wed people from other racial or ethnic groups, and so on, all offered in a vain attempt to defend his guru Hoppe from being exposed as a nasty bigot (albeit one who should not be punished with loss of contractual rights, as everyone seems to agree) are....well, the right words are difficult to find. At the very least, truly astonishing. I hope that he keeps up the good work, because every time he sits down at a keyboard, he manages to dig himself and Hoppe into an ever deeper hole.


Roderick T. Long - 2/15/2005

When I said the hypothesis could be ruled out on praxeological grounds, I didn't just mean that it couldn't be praxeologically defended, I meant that it can be praxeologically refuted (so if my arguments are right, nothing could count as empirical support for it, just as nothing could count as empirical evidence that 2 + 2= 5).


Roderick T. Long - 2/15/2005

Initiatory violence is not the only bad thing in the universe. It may be the only rights-violating bad thing, but there are plenty of bad things that don't involve rights-violations. What's wrong with racism and bigotry is presumably that they disrespect people's full personhood and/or contribute to a climate that systematically disadvantages them. Those are bad things; so long as they're done nonviolently they shouldn't be any of the law's business, but they're still our business as human beings.

I'm not sure how much is implied in having "some sort" of factual basis.


Dan Mahoney - 2/15/2005

If not praxeologically, how about empirically? BTW,
did Hoppe ever claim that his ideas about time
preference were praxeologically, as opposed to
empirically, based? I am not referring to his
praxeological understanding of time preference, only
his application of the concept to different groups,
society, etc.


Dan Mahoney - 2/15/2005

Simple question:

What is so wrong with bigotry and racism anyway, so
long as they do not entail advocacy of violence and
especially if they involve some sort of factual claims
or rational basis?


Steven Horwitz - 2/15/2005

Your point, Mark? I would endorse their sentiments too - I'd like to make the world a better place. But I can think they'd be wrong about the actions necessary to make that happen. Seems to me that exactly what Jason is saying.


M.D. Fulwiler - 2/14/2005

Well Jason, if you want to endorse "sentiments," I know a number of socialists who really, truly think they are making the world a better place. Who cares?


Jason Kuznicki - 2/14/2005

He does have a contract, and I must insist that, contrary to Kinsella's statement, I never endorsed the student's actions. I endorsed one of the sentiments behind them and nothing more.


Charles Johnson - 2/14/2005

Kinsella: "I made a comment that it's not libertarian to endorse the actions of a student in effect using a mechanism to punish a professor in this way."

Since when did Hoppe acquire a natural right to keep his job whatever the administration thinks of his performance?

There are lots of reasons to think that endorsing the disciplinary actions threatened against Hoppe would be foolish. There are none to think that it would be "not libertarian."


Jonathan Dresner - 2/14/2005

Mr. Kinsella,

Is it a bit odd to be so specific about your own name that you incorporate a preemptive correction into your screen handle and yet so disrespectfully dismissive of an interlocuter's name you could just copy and paste into your text? By "odd" of course, I mean "hypocritical"...


Jason Kuznicki - 2/14/2005

One of the most interesting things about Hoppe's theories of the "community" is how tyrannical that community can become in excluding others. What, pray tell, distinguishes his community from an exclusionist state of the very worst sort? The more I learn about him, the more I have to ask: Is this guy a libertarian at all?


Tom G Palmer - 2/14/2005

Had Hoppe said, "X is nothing but a Dirty Jew," would you find it of merely personal interest to X, and therefore not evidence of hateful and collectivist attitudes? Mr. Raimondo has, how shall we put this, a remarkable flair for flying off the handle on some issues, but he's quite willing to find excuses for homophobia (in case anyone is thinking of saying "Hoppe has shown no fear of sameness," let's call it "invidious prejudice toward gay people") when he's allowed to spend time in the big house. As we defend "academic freedom," let's not forget that Hoppe has given ample evidence that he is a bigot (he ties theories to ascriptive identities, e.g., Keynes and sexuality, and is quite eager to keep "undesirables" out of the country, which includes, well all the groups -- racial, sexual, ethnic, etc. -- that he, standing in for rulers of the state, thinks should not be allowed into his house).

The issue isn't in fact all that complex. People with contracts specifying their rights to enjoy "academic freedom" shouldn't be punished by suffering a loss of contractual rights for holding unpopular or nasty views. There is quite strong evidence that Hoppe holds unpopular and nasty views. He shouldn't be punished by suffering a loss of contractual rights. What's so complex about that?


Roderick T. Long - 2/14/2005

For what it's worth, I've argued here and here that the hypothesis that the rate of time-preference is innate in certain groups can be ruled out strictly on praxeological grounds.


M.D. Fulwiler - 2/14/2005

Geez Mr. Palmer, Justin posts a reasonable comment and you still can't resist jumping on his ass...


John Lopez - 2/14/2005

The thread Micha Ghertner mentions is located here (link is to the relevant post):

http://tinyurl.com/6totl


Bill Woolsey - 2/14/2005

The portions of the lecture I heard pretty
clearly were about saving.

It starts with a preference for present goods
over future goods (present consumption over saving and
future consumption.) And there is a mention that
older people may cease to "accumulate," which
I presume means save and add to net worth.

In the examples, Hoppe mixes up preferences with
constraints.

He starts with children. They have odd preferences.
They are absurdly impatient.

He then goes into the elderly. He says that they
sometimes have a second childhood.

That is odd, because the elderly are in a different
situation.

But then he explains that if they are to die soon
and have no one they want to leave a bequest to,
they have no children, don't like their children,
and have no other friend, then they won't accumulate.
They won't save.

Here we have a situation where someone's degree of
impatience may be unchanged, but because of his or
her situation, he or she may not save.

Then we go into criminals. We are back at the
highly impatient people. And it really isn't
saving, but rather impatience regarding labor!
Working for something takes too long!

There is probably some truth to Hoppe's notion
that criminals have a childlike impatience, but
he goes far afield from saving behavior.

Then we go into politicians who he says "loot."
Like criminals, really. But again, a politician
may be quite patient in his or her private affairs,
but it is the constraint of not being able to
save after the term of office for public purposes
that will deter public saving. (Future public
officials get the benefit of the saving one does.)

And then finally we get to gays. In this lecture,
he doesn't say anything about high-risk behavior.

(I was interested in more evidence as to whether
high time prefence purportedly leads to high risk
behavior or, as I had assumed, a smaller probabilty
of being alive in the distant future makes a person
of given patience save less.)

He just goes with the gay people are less likely to
have children.

It is like the elderly person. Regardless of some
gay person's degree of patience (being more or less
child and criminal like,) the constraints of a finite
life and being less likely to have children result in
less saving. Really, I suppose, it would directly
apply to elderly gay people.

Finally, we have Keynes. Here we have a transition
from private actions--trades of present for future
goods or accumulation, to support for public policy.

Of course, Ricardian equivalence suggests that public
policy regarding debt finance of current spending does
equate to personal finance.

But Hoppe hardly goes into that.

Perhaps I should listen to the whole lecture--yuck!

I agree there seems to be some notion that saving
is good.

And while I think patience is a virtue, I don't
believe that it shows wicked impatience when
elderly people finance their retirement with
assets they accumulated while working.

I am not sure that it is terribly sensible to try
to leave a big bequest to one's decendants. Still,
to the degree people want to do such things, I
would hardly consider it some kind of wicked
impatience to fail to save to provide a bequest
for nonexistent decendants.

So the sensible way to organize the lecture would
be to discuss impatience like children and maybe
criminals. Then to discuss situations where people
of a given degree of patience would save more or
less. For example, being about to die, having
children for whom one might want to give bequests.

The actual organization is foolish children, elderly
who are said to have a second childhood (senile?,)
criminals, criminal politicians, gays, and then
the evil one--the gay economist Keynes.

I don't know that it makes Hoppe a bigot, really.

It just doesn't inform about the actual issues.
And it all seems aimed at slamming Keynes as an
idiot.


M.D. Fulwiler - 2/13/2005

Well, the student lost any sympathy he might have gotten from me the second he filed the official complaint. I couldn't care less that he felt insulted.


Tom G Palmer - 2/13/2005

As usual, Raimondo has mischaracterized the issue. I don't believe that most of the people who have exressed A) agreement that Hoppe should not be punished for being a bigot and B) affirmation that there is evidence that he is a bigot and that that's a bad thing are part of a "gay team." Nice try, though.

I actually have lost no sleep at the fact that Hoppe has maligned me. It's just evidence that he considers such remarks to be an appropriate way to dismiss someone, just as Keynes can be dismissed as an economic theorist, not because he was in error (that would mean reading a very difficult book and -- shudder! -- looking at actual evidence), but because he was bisexual. In Raimondo's book to point out that that is an evasion, an act of intellectual cowardice, and an example of the very polylogism that Mises (or, as the Rockwell clones would say, "Mises himself") rejected must make me....a Keynesian!

What a pathetic passle of excuses for rank bigotry and collectivism.


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

Again, what's so hard to understand?

1) One can be sympathetic to the student feeling insulted and praise his willingness not to stand by idly when something bigoted was said.

2) One can believe that his using the force of administrative power to punish Hoppe was wrong.

1) and 2) are perfectly consistent if your mind is open enough to imagine other ways for the student to react publically - a blog, a letter to the student newspaper, raising his hand in class and saying what he thinks, etc.. All of which, it seems to me, are ways that libertarians should find congenial.

But maybe I should check my premise there....


M.D. Fulwiler - 2/13/2005

Jason: You seem to think the kid's heart was in the right place. I will grant that maybe he was just an idiot who didn't realize what a formal complaint to the University really meant when he filed it. However, he has not withdrawn the complaint as of today. I can only conclude that he is malicious at this point.


Jason Kuznicki - 2/13/2005

I never endorsed his methods.


Tom G Palmer - 2/13/2005

All that Mr. Kinsella's remarks do is make it more clear to readers that Kinsella thinks that being prejudiced against blacks or other groups is just another part of life, a taste like preferring vanilla to chocolate. What a strange and collectivist view. It's typical of the whole group of collectivists who swarm around Hoppe and Rockwell. Then if you say, "well, it's ugly and irrational to have such prejudices regarding individuals and their moral worth," the response is that you are prejudiced against Germans (Hoppe) and Southerners (Kinsella), even though you've not uttered a word about the national origin of those two.

But what to make of this unhinged claim from Kinsella?:
+++++
I'll bet you've at least used the word "bigger". Many times. And that's very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism. Sure, almost everyone says "bigger" sometimes. But just because everone does it does not mean it's justified.

Shame on you. Whether the N-word, or its close-cousin, "bigger"--shame, shame, shame.
+++++
People who write such bizarre claims as the above, who express indifference as to whether the Institute for Historical Review is a neo-Nazi organization, and who vehemently deny that people who speak there and who rant about "The Jewish Party" are anti-Semitic, and who offer such a wide array of defenses of Hoppe's bigotry (he's not; so what?; it's funny; you're bigoted, too; etc., etc.) are not making matters better for themselves. It's not necessary to hand Mr. Kinsella a shovel, as he's quite willing to dig the hole he and Hoppe & Co. are in ever deeper with his big mouth.


Micha Ghertner - 2/13/2005

You are acting like a child, Stephan - a child who cannot admit that he has is wrong. Bigotry has a commonly understood meaning, which was thoroughly defined and addressed in a recent No Treason thread in which you participated. We addressed questions to you and you did not answer them. I'm not going to repeat everything that was written in that thread. We put forth a definition of the term and we did not receive any substantive objections. We are still waiting for you and other Hoppe apologists to explain exactly what you think constitutes bigotry and why you think Hoppe's hateful remarks don't qualify. The ball is in your court and has been for a while.


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

No I don't. Although people like you and Hoppe could make me change my mind.


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

Indeed.

But if either of my kids told me they were in love with someone who made them happy and they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together, bully for them. As long as this person treats them well and is not engaged in criminal or unethical behavior, I don't care a whit about their race, religion, ethnicity *or even their gender*. Bring on the black, Christian, lesbian!! I sure as hell rather have either of my kids with her than your average paleo.

Now run along Stephan and play with all the other playground bullies.


Sheldon Richman - 2/13/2005

In this case, Professor Hoppe has not applied the Misesian theory of human action, including time preference, properly.


Jason Kuznicki - 2/13/2005

Can we all just declare Mr. Kinsella an absurd, obnoxious troll and move on?


Micha Ghertner - 2/13/2005

As someone who represents the Mises Institute, it's disheartening to see you make light of bigotry and pretend that it's nothing to worry about. I gave you an honest, personal answer, and you treated it like a joke. What does that indicate to the general public about the Institute's priorities and values?

It's a shame, because there are genuinely good people associated with the Institute, and its unfair to sully their reputation with your bad behavior.

If Hoppe wishes to say nasty, hateful, intolerant things about homosexuals, Mexican immigrants, and other groups he doesn't like, fine. But he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions. One consequence is that he will be labeled a bigot, because bigotry is exactly what he espouses. Yet you seem to want to have it both ways: Hoppe can say whatever hateful he likes about other people, but you don't think he should be criticized as a bigot for expressing bigoted ideas. Why is that?

You still have not explained how the views he expressed do not fall under the classification of bigotry. Do you believe that there is no such thing as bigotry? If not -- if you believe the term does have some meaning and describes something that exists -- what, then, constitutes bigotry in your opinion?


Jason Kuznicki - 2/13/2005

Sure, lift two lines out of context and pounce all over them. Now that's an argument.


Justin Raimondo - 2/13/2005

I think everyone is simplifying a very complex issue, and using it to work out their various fixations. The Palmer is using this "homosexuals have a higher time preference" meme as a bludgeon to bash someone he personally hates. This is not only unconvincing, it is also ... boring. Yeah, yeah, so Hans called you the "ambassador of homosexuality"-- so who cares? Only Palmer cares.

The Hoppeans, on the other hand, are up in arms (and rightly so) about the legal-political issue of a tyrannical "gay rights" dogma being enforced on campus, but simplify the theoretical issues involved to the point of meaninglessness. For example, isn't it possible that (male) homosexuals have a high time preference regarding sexual issues -- but a low time preference when it comes to, say, artistic or professional achievement? One doesn't write a book, or start a career in the arts, without husbanding resources and thinking long-range.

Another issue: Hoppe talks about "homosexuals" as if lesbians do not exist. What about their time-preferences? Doesn't the "homos-don't-care-about-the-future" premise apply to them, too? But anyone who actually knows any lesbians realizes that it surely does not....

The point is that people on both "sides" of this are attempting to simplify a very complex issue -- and are also burdening their arguments with so much emotional baggage that they sink below the level of coherent argument.

I have to say, though, that the extreme ... touchiness of the "gay team" here is troubling. People who are secure and self-confident don't react hysterically to every slight, either real or perceived. So what if Hans doesn't like homosexuality? Are gay people really so brittle that they crumble at the least criticism? The whole spectacle of such exaggerated outrage at what is, after all, a highly speculative and abstract argument on Hoppe's part, is unseemly.

What seems clear is this: there are differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, both learned and also (perhaps) intrinsic -- although I don't necessarily buy the latter, I'll admit to the possibility. In any case, isn't this what "diversity" is supposed to be about? Yet we have the weird spectacle of an attempt to outlaw any discussion of those differences -- and this is the issue that concerns us as libertarians.


Sheldon Richman - 2/13/2005

Steve, I agree. Here's another way to put what I am getting at: even IF homosexuals have one less reason to save for the future (children--I'm not conceding this), infinity minus one is still a very large number of possible reasons to invest.


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

How can a libertarian say WHAT Stephan? We're not allowed to criticize people for saying things we find offensive? Geez, who's the sensitive one now? Is Hoppe so fragile that he can't take people criticizing his views on homosexuals?

Why Stephan, you sound just like the student in Hoppe's class, completely unable to accept that sometims people say things you don't like.

And to call it unlibertarian? High irony from anyone associated with Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

Thank you Sheldon, thank you. It probably got lost in my earlier comment, but I find it astounding that any self-proclaimed Austrian/Misesian would pass judgment on the subjective preference of another, or assume that *all* members of a particular group have higher or lower time preferences (averages are different).


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

Let me say it loud and clear Stephan:

1) Hoppe is being unjustly punished. What he said is protected by academic freedom and all of us should be rightfully afraid of the broader consequences if the university punishes him in ANY way.

2) Hoppe is a bigot. I will not stop criticizing him for the content of his views, whether or not those views are protected speech.

Propositions 1) and 2) are not inconsistent with each other and both are perfectly consistent with libertarian principles.

And yes, I have been known to suggest to family and friends that they not use particular language around me, and especially around my children.


Jason Kuznicki - 2/13/2005

These are silly questions indeed. My personal guess is that Mr. Kinsella plans to accuse us of hypocrisy if we have ever let the N-word pass our lips.

If my suspicion is correct, then Mr. Kinsella is being remarkably juvenile. But for the record, I do not believe the word "nigger" has ever been in my active vocabulary. If I was not raised to be perfectly race-blind, at the very least I was raised to be polite.

I was also raised to be forgiving: Should anyone who has used this disagreeable word ever have a change of heart and decide that African-Americans deserve the same dignity as everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.

Now, as a historian, I will say have used the words nigger, faggot, kike, and even a few things I consider far worse. But these were all in direct quotations from historical sources. It would be fraudulent to represent these sources otherwise, and it would be absurd to suggest that I in any way subscribed to what they were saying.

Repeating a word in the purely demonstrative sense does not imply agreement with the underlying concepts. If it did, I would be completely unable to teach about well over 95% of all recorded history.


Tom G Palmer - 2/13/2005

Having thought a bit more about the very (VERY) strange questions about the "N-word" that Mr. Kinsella has posted on this site, on my web site (it was even stranger on mine), and elsewhere, it seems that he is trying to tell us that Hoppe uses the "N-word," but that that is not good enough reason for Mr. Kinsella to "break." Otherwise, Mr. Kinsella's remarks simply make no sense at all. (On my site he also asked if I had ever used the word "bigger," which, he said, is "very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism." The only sense that I can make of Mr. Kinsella's bizarre quetions and claims is that Hoppe is a bigot and uses hateful slurs, but....so what?)


Jason Kuznicki - 2/13/2005

I wrote, "Would that there were any party I could champion in this debate, but there is not." I have some sympathies for the student, but fundamentally, he's an idiot. If anything, he, and not Hoppe, is the one who deserves punishment.

Given that I have written--at least three specific times--that I don't support any punishment for Hoppe, I am astonished at how many accuse me of being on the "wrong" side. Want to see the new face of political correctness? Try looking in the mirror, people.


Sheldon Richman - 2/13/2005

I'm a little perplexed by the abuse of Austrian time-preference theory. Austrians are nothing if not subjectivists in the Mengerian-Misesian sense. Economics, Mises said, is not about things; it's about men, their meanings, and their actions. People, regardless sexual orientation, are capable of finding limitless reasons to think of the future: family, society, the environment, the poor, retirement, the desire to travel. We can't predict what people will come up with in this regard because in essence they are entrepreneurs. Some reasons will make good sense; others may not (to the observer). The point is that there is no telling what motives for investment and saving people will think of. Surely, no Austrian should want to slip into sexual-orientation determinism, implying that sexuality furnishes one with a high or low time preference.


Tom G Palmer - 2/13/2005

Mr. Kinsella has posted a similar bizarre question on my web site (along with a number of other remarks nearly as strange) http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018766.php#comments :
------
Mr. Palmer, speaking of bigotry--I'm just curious. Have you ever used the N-word? Oh hell, I'll be generous. Since you turned 25. Have you ever use the N-word?

I'll bet you've at least used the word "bigger". Many times. And that's very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism. Sure, almost everyone says "bigger" sometimes. But just because everone does it does not mean it's justified.
Shame on you. Whether the N-word, or its close-cousin, "bigger"--shame, shame, shame.
------
What is Mr. Kinsella suggesting? That the two terms are equally offensive or equally inoffensive?

I find his posting one of the most bizarre comments I have ever read, especially in defense of someone who is believed by others to be a bigot. (I agree that merely *being* a bigot does not justify punishment by the administration).

Mr. Kinsella's idea of a defense against a charge of bigotry is to insist that the person isn't a bigot; that if he were, so what?; that the charge of bigotry is irrelevant, since the group in question in fact has those characteristics; and, anyway, that what the person said was funny. Really funny.

Very weak.


Micha Ghertner - 2/13/2005

I've had close family members make racist, homophobic remarks. And I called them on it. Of course I didn't "break" with them; they are my family. And I don't recall any libertarian critic of Hoppe calling for his excommunication. But that doesn't me we can't or shouldn't criticize him vigorously for his bigotry. Just as we would do for a close friend or family member.


M.D. Fulwiler - 2/13/2005


The fact is that this student did not challenge Hoppe in class, he didn't offer to a debate him and he didn't write a column rebutting him --- what this whining, snot-nosed brat did was file a complaint to the University administration. Now the only reason you would file an "official" complaint would be if you expected the administration to "do something" to Hoppe -- fire him, threaten him, censure him, deny him a raise, or tell him to be more "politically correct." All of these actions would be a violation of Hoppe's academic freedom.

I am amazed the people are "defending" this student jerk. Look, I have a college degree and was subjected to loads of offensive leftist tripe along the way. But did I ever file a "complaint" about any of my professors? Of course not. This kid needs to grow up.

And btw, I'm as gay as anyone, but the discussion of whether Hoppe was "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to the fact that he is being subjected to a politically correct witch hunt. The student should never have filed an official complaint and it should have been dismissed as frivolous by the administration once he did. Case closed.


Jason Kuznicki - 2/13/2005

Thank you Steven. The student certainly could have dealt with his disagreement more constructively in any number of ways, including writing to the student newspaper, holding a peaceful teach-in type protest, or blogging about it. We have these freedoms for a reason, after all.


Steven Horwitz - 2/13/2005

I think Jason raises a number of good points here.

First, now seeing the transcript (I wouldn't waste my time listening to an hour of Hoppe), I'm much less willing to defend the particulars of his talk. I can *imagine* a way of using homosexuals as an example of high time preference that was not bigoted. Jason gets to it - in the absence of legal protections for their relationships, of course gays and lesbians will be less likely to plan for the future. Without protectable rights, there's no incentive for long-term investments. But, as Jason rightly says, this is not about *being* homosexual; this is about the current legal status of homosexual relationships.

Second, seeing Hoppe frame the issue in terms of family makes it even more troubling. It's one thing to say that homosexuals are more likely to be childless (which itself is a product of the current legal system, and not inherent in homosexuality - they, like the infertile, could adopt), but to suggest that gays/lesbians have no families (oh? did they drop in from outer space?) and that life "ends with them" is another thing entirely.

Third, given Hoppe's social theory, yes he probably was claiming that high time preference is a bad thing, but that makes him the outlier. For most economists, the degree of time preference is a fact about individuals. To make it a value judgment requires importing some additional beliefs/theories/judgments. Hoppe's broader work has those, but they were clearly not on display in a lecture in a money and banking course. My point is only that high time preference is not *of necessity* a "bad" thing.

I can't help note the irony of a supposed Austrian passing *theoretical* judgment about the supposedly subjective preferences of individuals. I wonder whether Hoppe can concoct other scenarios where supposedly, and I say supposedly, Misesian subjectivism allows us to say that the preferences of others, where those preferences don't involve coercion, are objectively wrong.

In any case, thanks Jason. Your willingness to transcribe the lecture is most appreciated. I could have told you what you'd be likely to find (ooooh, channeling Planet of the Apes there for a sec... "his destiny") and that it wouldn't be pretty.

And, having said all this, I will gladly hold my nose and defend his right to say what he said in the classroom and further suggest that the student, sad to say, had better get used to it.

Subscribe to our mailing list