| |
The Libertarian Blog of Stephan Kinsella
Mises Random Quote:
• BLOG ARCHIVES
• THE DAILY APOLOGY
• KINSELLALAW BLOG
February 27, 2005
Movie Beer:
Ever notice in movies the cool guys hold beers in a way no one ever does in real life? They hook their index or middle finger over the very tip of the bottle, as if it's a cigar, then with a flick of the wrist they upend the bottle, as if it's a cheroot. Real guys in the real world hold beer bottles by the fat part. And then they get jealous of the cool way the cool guys in movies hold them. 
Good Luck!:
When you buy a lottery ticket and the clerk tells you, "Good luck!," what exactly does he mean? Surely he is not telling this to you only. He says it to all customers. Does he wish that all of them win? Surely that's not what they wish.
February 26, 2005
A Theory of Incivility:
A Theory of Lopez's Theory on Incivility [posted here; it seems to be held up for moderation for now]
As I have noted elsewhere, many nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, losers, racists, cranks, etc., associate with movements like libertarianism, conservatism, militias, common law courts, etc. I think the reason is, in part, that when a view is marginalized by mainstream American--e.g., libertarianism, militias, etc.--then successful people tend not to associate with it, since they have something to lose. Some of us have the fortitude and type of careers that allow us to swim against the tide anyway, yet still keep a foot in a successful career, but not everyone. So these movements tend to draw disproportionate numbers of those who have little to lose--i.e., losers, uneducated, those on the bottom rungs of society. This is why, for example, at libertarian-party or similar events I've spoken at or attended, where, e.g., the topic might be something academic like whether decentralized legal systems (judge-made law, courts, common law, Roman law) are superior to centralized, legislation-based systems, many of the people who show up are uneducated Harley riders who ask you over and over again about the nutball "common law court" stuff (this happened to me one time at a FEE-sponsored discussion group in Valley Forge), or ask you to show where in the tax code you are "required" to pay income tax, etc. And this is why militia movements, for example, which in the older days would have upstanding citizens and "patriots" as its supporters, now are populated with gun nuts, racists, skinheads, anti-semites, etc. These are the type of people who have nothing to lose so have the luxury of joining a marginalized movement, thereby making it even more marginalized and crankish. So it's understandable that the only people willing, by and large, to openly challenge mainstream views by endorsing views marginalized or ridiculed by conventional society are those with little to lose. Sometimes someone with stature or courage or backbone will buck the trend, or become martyrs, but by and large, it's understandable why those with little to lose--who are either losers, or retired billionaires--predominate. (As an aside--something like this has been true for some time regarding politically correctness. For a couple decades now there were things you just could not say or question--especially if you were (no offense, Lopez) a white male). But just as explicit socialism has crumbled along with the Soviet empire, so the majority are starting to shrug, like Atlas, the burden continually placed on them by the PC Seriosos. They are sick of being told they are evil for being white or in the majority, or for holding preferences similar to those held by the whining minorities or special interests; and the escalating, shrill cries of the politically-correct have become ever more absurd, making them sound ever more like bleaters. They have diluted and distorted and twisted concepts like racism, bigotry, anti-semitism so much that no one bats an eye any more when a dimwit cries "racist!"; people roll their eyes and move on. And this is as it should be. So my point here is that it's becoming more and more acceptable to be "politically incorrect" as the PC standards are revealed as being hypocritical, strange, unfair. Again, no offense, Lopez.) This brings me to my point, though. Lopez (and Kennedy? I can't recall) seems remarkably passionate about not following any rules of civility. I suspect one reason for this is he is just a marginal nobody with nothing to lose. While I do criticize him elsewhere, I don't mean this to be a criticism at all, just a hypothesis. From what I know of Lopez, he is a blogger and a blogger only; no real publications or books, no credentials or status, no "name," etc. This is true of most of us so again, I don't mean this to be a criticism at all. It's in part a suggested explanation as to why some blogger types will be so incivil--because they have nothing to lose--no book deals, no TV interviews, no teaching positions, etc. Now, no doubt some might try to rebut this by saying that I, Kinsella, am also incivil. This would be ridiculous, for a few reasons. First, so what? So what if it applies to me too? So what if I'm a hypocrit? It does not mean I'm wrong. Second, I am not generally incivil, but only to the marginalized losers who are incivil because of this status. Mainstream society does not frown too much on responding to losers, as long as one is not a loser himself.
Muller and Horwitz on Woods:
heh heh, he said "Woods".
Steve Horwitz-- my bigot, can you please help me out with The Rules. If I understand you correctly, it's now anti-semitic for a bigot to ... ummm,... be in favor of usury laws ... you know, the kind most US states still have on the books?
Fine, fine, whatever, this bigot understands you here. This here bigot's question is a corollary one: if someone disagrees with you on this, is that also anti-semitic? Dis here bigot just needs to know, so I can adjust my behavior accordingly.
This is fun, playing these made up games. What do you call this one?
Respek! Booyakasha!
Stephan "your bigot" Kinsella | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 11:20 am | #
THE PRINCIPLES OF JEWISH BUDDHISM:
A couple items today:
1. THE PRINCIPLES OF JEWISH BUDDHISM -- from Eric Muller's blog. Hilarious, e.g., "To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the following: get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking?" I'll avoid quoting more, don't want to be charged with anti-semitism by the dimwit-Seriosos. Oh, who am I kidding, I don't care.
2. I like the expression, "come to find out," which my wife uses frequently.
February 25, 2005
bully:
Another annoying expression: when people say "bully for him!" What, do we live in the 1920s?
February 24, 2005
Ghertner the Bleater:
More replies to snot-nosed, hypocritical, ridiculously holier-than-thou punks on Catallarchy: Whaddya want? A cookie? and The N-Word.
First:
Kane–right on. Ghertner’s views are schizophrenic because he is in thrall to the incoherent standards of the PC left. Nesbit, a few points. First, I speak only for myself. So Garrison need not be “embarrassed” by me. Second, I am calm. Very calm. This is all a joke to me, as a matter of fact. I don’t take any of the PC gnats seriously. Third, who gives a rat’s ass if Ghertner “supports” Hoppe? With friends like him, who needs enemas? Fourth, my “ridiculous accusations about a comedian being quoted” are no more ridiculous than the bleatings of Ghertner and his brainwashed, hypocritical, leftist, dimwit-Serioso ilk about HHH being a “bigot". HHH is a great man who devotes his life to promoting liberty and individual rights for all; and in person is warm and gentle and does not have a bigoted bone in his body. If Ghertner could get his head out of his ass and have a bit of humility, and not be a snot-nosed punk like all the youngsters now apparently are becoming, he might see this, or at least bite his fucking tongue before making such stupid, evil statements. Fifth, don’t even imply Hoppe has made bigoted statements. It’s a lie, and anyone who makes such lies is a lowlife scumbag. You don’t want to be a scumbag, now, do you, Nesbit?
Second:
You don’t like being caught up in the hypersenstiive standards of your own making do you? HHH does not have “anti-homosexual views". Stupid, silly, petulant brat. Hypocrite. Grow up. Why are today’s boys such PUSSIES?
***
“They are upset at me because in the past I have called Hans-Hermann Hoppe a bigot for his anti-homosexual views.” Thank God you are such a nobody that no one has to be “upset” with what you say. You are just useful as an example of the brainwashed leftist punks college is generating nowadays.
***
“My problem with Hoppe has never been with his use of a particular epithet, but with his ordinary language hatred of homosexuals,” You brainwashed, insippied moron. He nowhere does that. “and his equating them with all sorts of (libertarian defined) criminals.” And he equated childern and old people with criminals too! He’s ageist too! Gasp! What a PUSSY! “As I explained then, this doesn’t mean that I hate Hoppe or think that he is terrible thinker or person.” Oh, how fucking GENEROUS of you! What petulant brats we see nowadays. “We all have our flaws, and much of what Hoppe has to say about economics and libertarianism is valuable and important.” Really? Then why did you join in the Not Reason ridicule and jeering of the idea that he is a world-renowned and important figure? You asshole. “But that does not mean that he should be given a free ride when he says hateful things about homosexuals. If we wish to remain thoughtful and reasonable people and not fall into the ideological traps that many orthodox Objectivists, Marxists–and for that matter many mainstream Democratic and Republican party activists fall into, then we must be willing to criticize each other’s flawed views.” Not when your comments are tantamount to character assassination and libel that are serious charges that demand more than your silly, college-boy politically correct Princess and the Pea standards, boy. Not when you join in the jeering of a great and significant thinker by a bunch of jealous, envious, malicious loser nihilists. Prove yourself before you dare to comment on a man as great as that. Punks, fucking punks. As for your little lecture on racial epithets, do you really think anyone needs you to explain to us in kindergarten language the various types of racial epithets? Please. “These critics were trying to make me look inconsistent or hypocritical for criticizing Hoppe’s anti-homosexual bigotry, and they did so in an abusive, unserious, and troll-like manner. That is not the kind of argument that deserves a reasonable response.” The reason you got such a reply is that YOU do not deserve a reasonable response, you irresponsible ingrate punk. YOU are the one who blithely joined with the PC mob in hurling the damaging “bigot” charge, based on stupid, flimsy, paltry “evidence,” and using ill-defined, vague, self-contradictory, incoherent, arbitrary, unjust, but obviously hair-trigger standards–standards which would no doubt ensnare your own comments. The point is to show that your STANDARDS ARE RIDICULOUS since they catch even you. You can tip-toe all you like and bend over backward trying to mollify the PC police but nothing you say will ever be good enough for them. To do this is to make the mistake of granting them the right to be the grand inquisitors, as if their character and standards are beyond reproach, or at least better than yours; when, far from it, they – and you, who have joined them – are far worse. Grow up, be a man, and get a conscience.
Stupid email signatures and quote marks:
I hate it when people put their name in the signature line of emails in a stupid, large, different-colored, script-like font. Like they are gonna fool me into thinking it's a "real" signature? Morons!
Also: people who use quotation marks for emphasis, or inappropiately. E.g., on a sign in a restaurant, it might say, "No cell phones, please." What are the quote marks for? What do they add? Are they trying to specify that they are quoting someone? If so, what would it matter? Dumb dumb dumb.
I feel like a big fish in the small pond that is the world.
Re: "Doctor" Lawyer?:
Some email from an old post about lawyers using the title "doctor":
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Kinsella [mailto:Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:20 AM
To: 'David Janson'
Subject: RE: Sorry-JD
Importance: High
Thanks for your comments.
Some of your points are good ones; some of my arguments are kind of silly, like the "doctor doctor" one. However, your extended argument is futile; it's like trying to argue a word "should" have a certain defintion; but it does not work this way; words DO have certain meanings by common usage and convention. Likewise, no matter what you say, it is just "not done" to call a lawyer a doctor. If any lawyer calls himself a doctor he is just an insecure, pretentious weirdo, in my view. PhD's can barely get away with it; medical doctors are the common usage. But JD--no way.
I agree w/ you that many PhD's now are a joke, but that is a sign of the times. Just b/c you can get a PhD in stupid things now does not mean that law ought to just be folded into the word.
It's just not gonna happen.
" The Supreme Court of Texas has said a lawyer can use the title "Doctor""
Where is this? I would be curious to see it.
" You say you consider it vain and even embarrassing for a lawyer to use the term "Doctor". You have your opinion,"
Correct. It's my view. It still is.
" and thats great, but
I on the other hand DO THINK the profession needs the recoginition it deserves."
Oh, I don't. Lawyers are by and large pretentious assholes, don't you agree?
" I am sure you have noticed all the garbage which is said about lawyers being unethical, and that they are liars who only want money."
That is true for some of them; but I don't think it's really the main problem. the main problem is they are greedy, selfish, workaholic bullies. Lots of them, anyway.
" I dont know about you, but I do not like the jokes and the stereotypes."
Honestly, I don't really care. I have thick skin. Being a libertarian makes you develop one!
"This profession was a noble one, and people like you help to take that away."
This is unfair. I'm a good attorney--a competent and honest and decent and nice one. Just because I *recognize* the current disrepute into which laywers *have fallen*--due to the actions of the slimes and jerks--does not mean it's my fault. You are blaming the messenger.
" The jokes and stereotypes are usually by ignorant people who dont know anything about the profession or how the legal system works, the difficulties a lawyer faces, and the ethics involved. Lawyers in fact need to be pretty strict in their ethics or they can easily be disbarred due to the strict ethical rules they must follow."
Yes, I do agree with this. I often tell people lawyers are much more ethical than they realize; and also, much of the bad rap lawyers get is because clients are pigheaded and insiste on suing etc., even when the lawyer tries to talk them out of it. I do not disagree with you at all. But I think there is nothing wrong with jokes and stereotypes; this is natural and normal human behavior.
" I am not saying lawyers should be able to be called
doctor just because the profession needs the respect;
I am saying they can be called doctors because they do
have doctorates,"
Law degrees say "Juris doctor", not "juris doctorate", I believe. I don't think they are doctorates. A long time ago it was an LL.B. Just because the decided to change the NAME of the degree does not all of a sudden make it a doctorate. That's my view. Anywya, it does not matter. Any lawyer who calls himself "Doctor" sounds like a pretentious fop. Do you not agree with it?
" and collaterally, the profession
certainly could use the bolster in respect which MAY
come from it. "
I really do not know why people say this. What do you mean the profession "needs" a bostering of respect...? Why? Do we need more money? or what? What exactly are you saying? I am serious, I am not being combative. I don't know what you mean. Are you saying lawyers are miserable because of this... that we don't attract enough potential law students? That we have a shortage of lawyers? What?
" A JD is a degree which is conferred after a B.A.
Yes, a BA in anything, but as noted, one can obtain
doctorates in many fields without undergraduate
training in the same field. Maybe you are not proud
of the school you went to and/or the education you
received. Unlike you, I am, and I dont consider it to
be vain or embarrassing. Just as any other person who
has a doctorate is not considered vain when he uses
the term "doctor", neither should a lawyer. "
I'm proud of it, sure. But I realize I had a lot of idiots as fellow calssmates. What do you call someoen who graduates at the bottom of his class in law school? A: a lawyer.
I know that my degree in EE was mcuh more difficult. You have to be pretty sharp to get that. Law is not that special. Lawyers want to be seen as special.
" A JD is not obtained more easily than a PH.D., or
more easily than most other doctorates for that
matter. Not that a JD is terribly hard to get, but
neither are many doctorates."
You could be right... but I think it's easy to just put your 3 years in and get a JD. A PhD is different. but they are being diluted now, I agree.
" As far as lawyers "vain
attempt" to garner recognition, as a lawyer, you
should support such efforts, and recognize the
advanced education of a J.D."
Why? Seriously, why should we support efforts to gain recognition? What is the reason yo usay this, what is the purpose of it? Why is there a glaring need? PLease explian to me where you are coming from.
" If not, do us all a
favor and pursue something else. (Talk about vain! YOU
have a picture of yourself on your site which one can
click on for it to be greatly enlarged! Thats
funny!!!) "
come on, don't get silly or personal. Why would I do you afavor and pursue something else? I'm a good attorney ,an excellent one. Why would I muzzle myself and keep my opinions to myself? FUrther, it's not vain to have my PR pic up there, I write a lot and often publishers want to see a high-res portrait, so it's available. It's not vain at all. I am not good looking enough to be vain!
Best, Stephan
-----Original Message-----
From: David Janson [mailto:davidj512@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:00 AM
To: stephan@kinsellalaw.com
Subject: Sorry-JD
A J.D. is defined as being a professional doctoral degree/doctorate, similar to a M.D. Just as Medical Doctors can use the term Doctor, therefore, a lawyer who has been conferred a JD can also use such a title.
You ask if a person who has a JD and subsequently
obtains a SJD is a "Doctor Doctor". Umm, NO, he is
still addressed as "Doctor", just as a person with a
JD and and MD or a person with two Ph.D.s is still
called "Doctor". You obviously dont call a person
with two Doctorates, whether they are Ph.D.s or
whatever, "Doctor Doctor". I submit, therefore, that
your question on that matter is a silly one.
You also indicate that since a lawyer can have an
undergrad degree in anything, he should not be able
to indicate that he has a doctorate (as if to say
other doctorates necessitate undergrad training in a
discipline related to the doctoral discipline). Here
too, you are ignorant. As a former academic advisor,
I can assure you there are many fields one can pursue
and obtain a doctorate in (and use the title "Doctor") regardless of his undergrad degree; business is one of them. One need not have a BBA to obtain either an MBA or to go directly into a DBA or Ph.D. program in business.
In addition, hours required toward the JD and Ph.D.
and other doctorates are similar. As you know, JDs
take 15 or so hrs a semester, while other grad
students consider 9 hrs full time study. As for the
doctoral dissertation, many doctoral programs do not
require one, such as the DBA (Doctor of Business
Administration) for one.
The Supreme Court of Texas has said a lawyer can use
the title "Doctor". You say you consider it vain and
even embarrassing for a lawyer to use the term
"Doctor". You have your opinion, and thats great, but
I on the other hand DO THINK the profession needs the recoginition it deserves. I am sure you have noticed all the garbage which is said about lawyers being unethical, and that they are liars who only want money. I dont know about you, but I do not like the jokes and the stereotypes. This profession was a noble one, and people like you help to take that away. The jokes and stereotypes are usually by ignorant people who dont know anything about the profession or how the legal system works, the difficulties a lawyer faces, and the ethics involved. Lawyers in fact need to be pretty strict in their ethics or they can easily be disbarred due to the strict ethical rules they must follow.
I am not saying lawyers should be able to be called
doctor just because the profession needs the respect;
I am saying they can be called doctors because they do
have doctorates, and collaterally, the profession
certainly could use the bolster in respect which MAY
come from it.
A JD is a degree which is conferred after a B.A.
Yes, a BA in anything, but as noted, one can obtain
doctorates in many fields without undergraduate
training in the same field. Maybe you are not proud
of the school you went to and/or the education you
received. Unlike you, I am, and I dont consider it to
be vain or embarrassing. Just as any other person who
has a doctorate is not considered vain when he uses
the term "doctor", neither should a lawyer.
A JD is not obtained more easily than a PH.D., or
more easily than most other doctorates for that
matter. Not that a JD is terribly hard to get, but
neither are many doctorates. As far as lawyers "vain
attempt" to garner recognition, as a lawyer, you
should support such efforts, and recognize the
advanced education of a J.D. If not, do us all a
favor and pursue something else. (Talk about vain! YOU
have a picture of yourself on your site which one can
click on for it to be greatly enlarged! Thats
funny!!!)
Perhaps youll consider putting this on your site to
show both sides.
Respectfully and Sincerely,
David Jansen, J.D.
The Bleaters:
What's worse--a hypocrite or a bigot? Answer: someone who's both (2). And speaking of obsessed losers, from my post at Not Reason:
Tom Palmer and his fellow Seriosos have made themselves laughingstocks and their silly little foot-stamping petulant cries of "bigotry" into ignored yelpings. Just as blacks have taken on the N-word and use it familiarly among themselves--in part a backlash from it being used as a pejorative against them; so we "bigots" (and that means everyone alive--we are all bigots according to the Princess and the Pea standards employed by our ridiculous, self-enthroned Grand Inquisitors) are doing to treat the word as the joke it has become. Ya dig, mah bigot? This inspires a new term to use for these yelping, petulant idiots: bleaters. Daddy like!
February 21, 2005
Picking on Israel--Matthew Bargainer:
Great response by Bargainer to the Serioso libertarians. And my reply is reproduced below [note: my reply on HNN has been taken down; HNN editors apparently received complaints and asked me to cool it; The editor wrote me: You have a lively style of writing, but you have repeatedly made belittling references to other people's ethnic backgrounds.
This has to stop or you will be bounced.
Unacceptable are references to your "little group" or "clan- oriented types." and Beito asked for a cooling off period and is asking others too. As I remarked to both of them, my sarcasm is being equated with the outright libelous statements and personal attacks of others. My "little group" and "clan-oriented" types comments is not about others' ethnic backgrounds; it's worse--it's meant to show I don't give a damn about their little clans, and their attempt to impose their internal standards on a substantive libertarian issue is pointless. It's their property so I'll indeed cool it, but I hope that if I drop my sarcasm the other shits on the list stop their outrageous libels and character assassinations. It's frankly getting old...]:
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=
More on Diamond:
As I said, for some reason into Neil Diamond lately. The lyrics to I Am, I Said are frickin' freaking Daddy out. Especially that fifth "but". And what does swearing have to do with being alone?
My Bigot:
Burger King Marcus had an interesting suggestion the other day. Since the hypersensitive, dimwit-Serioso libertarians and other intellectually bankrupt moral blowhards continue to label everything they don't like as racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc., why not adopt a strategy from the African-American community. Blacks often refer to each other by the N-word, as in, "What up, my N__?!" We should do the same with bigot. When greeting each other, for example, we could say, "How goes it, my bigot?" Or, "Bigot--what you up to?!" Two guys tangling in a bar: "Look, bigot, get OUT MY FACE!" To your unemployed brother-in-law: "Bigot--when you gonna get a J-O-B?" If you see a fine girl, you could say, "Man, oh, man, what this bigot would do with that!" Since we are slapped with their silly, overwrought labels, let's take it from them, make it our own! You dig, my bigot?
February 18, 2005
Respek:
Instead of the light-in-the-loafers sounding "hat tip to ...." to thank someone for a good link tip etc., I have decided to use "respek'", from Ali G's hilarious show. As in, "Respek' to John D. for the link." Respek' means "respect," as in, thanks, or I respect you for that, gentle sir.
Note to any Dimwit-Serioso libertarians who may be reading this--I apologize for my praise of humor. Re-SPEK!
Trademark Scams:
I received this official-looking $1450 "invoice" the other day. I have a European trademark registration pending so at first glance thought I owed this. But looking further, it's just some stupid scam. Amazing. I bet lots of legal departments just pay it.
February 17, 2005
Johnnie Cochran Defends Chewbacca:
link. Respek to JoJo Ridenfeldt.
Explaining Argumentation Ethics:
On No Treason, a reply to Ghertner, who thinks it's inconsistent with argumentation ethics "to use the state's own unjust laws to defend one's own rights":
"Both Stephan Kinsella and Stefan are confusing libertarianism with Argumentation Ethics." I don't think so. I am quite aware of the diff. The latter is just one proposed way of justifying the rights that underlie or are assumed by the former. "Of course, no one disputes that it is perfectly libertarian to use the state's own unjust laws to defend one's own rights. What is in dispute is whether one can do this in accordance with AE, that is, make an argument in favor of a proposition that one simultaneously rejects on other grounds, without committing a performative contradiction" See, this is your mistake. What does it mean to do something "in accordance" w/ AE? AE is NOT libertarianism, or even a code of conduct, as you seem to imply here. YOu are the one conflating them. AE does not "prevent" you from engaging in performative contradictions! It does not even say that this is *necessarily immoral*. It only says that a performative contradiction *shows that* the propositions being asserted cannot both be true, since one of them contradicts the others. This happens to be relevant *when one is trying to establish what rights there are*. Because if one asserts A is true, and it is a contradiction, then it cannot be true. Etc. And to the extent we care about what is true--about RIGHTS--then AE is relevant. But let's take another example. Suppose A kidnaps my wife. He tells me he will release her but only if I mouth the words, "I do not exist." Now, if I utter these words, I am engaging in a performative contradiction, true. But so what? All that this means is that my assertion is not, and cannot be, true--it contradicts the fact that i have to exist just to utter it. BUt who gives a flying crap? My goal is NOT TO UTTER SOMETHING TRUE BUT TO GET MY WIFE BACK. So could you say I am not acting "in accordance with AE" here? Of course not. THat would make no sense. AE is just a justifying technique. Sometimes you use it, sometimes not. It's not somethign you act in accordance with--that owuld be NORMS, which is what rightgs/libertarianism embodies, a set of rules or norms, that you ought to act in accordance with. AE just shows *why* libertarianism is true.
Yet another reply to Khawaja:
[with a few links added]
"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!
"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?
"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 recounted 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. [e.g., as I pointed out previously, the Geneva Conventions prohibit "torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental" (Art. 75(2) of Protocol I)]
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?
"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.
***
[Followup reply:]
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.
Malorific:
A new word I coined in discoursing (sic) with Tom Palmer: malorific, meaning sort of like a bad version of terrific; malevolent, horrible, bad.
Sex is for FAGS:
Hilarious site promoting "abstinence-only coolness for boys." (respek to Fulwiler)
The Sex-is-for-Fags Abstinence-Only pledge is hilarious, almost The Onion-ish in its brilliance:
I, [MY NAME], hereby pledge: 1. To stay massively cool by not having sex. Because only major losers have sex – which everyone knows is only for fags. 2. To never let any slutty girls peer pressure me into touching their vaginas – because vaginas are totally gay. 3. To ignore my raging hormones and burning drive to fondle, suckle, and thrust furiously into a hot gooey pit of creamy-soft fleshy ecstasy. 4. To keep my groinal giblets inside my GAP khakis, and to punch those sweaty bits into submission whenever they percolate with desire. 5. To never spill my sacred "dude milk" – unless it is inside of some hot babe who already married me and took my last name.
February 16, 2005
I'm no fag or anything, but...:
I've been listening to the heck out of Neil Diamond lately. That I Am, I Said, is one baaaad song! wow. I can't stop singing it, and Sweet Caroline.
Soon, I'll go back to my Pink Floyd, Yngwie Malmsteen, Rush, and Zebra staples.
Homer Simpson is a Genius:
Tim Swanson's blog posts this conversation between Homer and Lisa Simpson:
Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
What is beautiful about this is the way Homer is talking is the way I sometimes argue with people I find annoying or not worth taking seriously. I just eff with them big time, play dumb, confuse them, ask bizarre questions, change the subject, etc. It's fun. I am Homer Simpson!
Correction re Khawaja:
Followup/correction/clarification re post below: Khawaja has since clarified (somewhat): although he is not a libertarian (someone else said he is a classical liberal, and he has not denied it), he does not in fact endorse the entire Universal Declaration. He said "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."
Setting the record straight!
My reply to him:
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. And a followup reply to another post of his... I crack myself up:
"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.
"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! But whatever is a girl to think?
"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!
"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.
The Flag:
Last weekend I took my baby swimming. Some guy who had gotten out of the pool had a large "American Flag" beach towel over his shoulders. I had to restrain myself from shouting at him, in a voice dripping with malice and sarcasm, "I just HATE people who drape themselves in the flag!!"
Great Dilbert:
Worst. Tattoo. Ever:
You have to see it to believe it. Respek to the Gilster.
Me and Khawaja:
(see correction/comments above)
***
I'm all over this Liberty & Power thread (for now--Irfan Khawaja--tha'ts K, h, a, w, a, j, a--has demanded I be removed; meanwhile, I've called the editor's attention to the use of defamation on the list. Here is a post I like. Frickin' funny, eh? This dude, who is exec director of an Islamic group, and who published in a libertarian jounral (Reason Papers) and on Liberty and Power list, accuses me of some unfounded assumption when guessing he's Muslim and assuming he's libertarian. Little Irfan assure me he is married to a Jew, and not a libertarian. Wow, impressive.
***
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.
February 15, 2005
Khawaja on Socialist Welfare Rights:
[cross-posted as comments on HNN and Palmer Periscope]
This concerns comments made by Palmer's buddy Khawaja (that's K, h, a, w, a, j, a) --
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.
The International Covenants on Human Rights include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provides for similar welfare rights.
These treaties are socialistic abominations. They recite a whole host of positive welfare rights; but they 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-resting, Meester Khawaja.
February 14, 2005
Palmer on Rockwell and Rodney King:
[Cross-posted at Palmer Periscope]
More of Palmer's outright lies. He has no compunction about outright dishonesty in smearing those he hates. In this thread about torture of terrorists, Palmer manages to dredge up Lew Rockwell's 1991 comments about Rodney King. Now before I turn to that let me note that Palmer says in his post:
If you have a captured terrorist (and it seems that some of those who have been released were not terrorists, although there is evidence that others have indeed turned out to be), 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.
I.e., he at least entertains the possibility that torture of prisoners is okay. Now, in Rockwell's letter he writes: Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that's not the issue: It's safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other. "street criminals ... have the time preference of depraved infants. The prospect of a jail sentence 12 months from now has virtually no effect. As recently as the 1950s -- when street crime was not rampant in America -- the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing -- proportionate to the offense and the offender -- in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe. Today's criminals know that they probably won't be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence -- someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit. What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery. Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can't agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.
Palmer calls this "Rockwell's sickening thesis," and says: Quite a nice picture, isn't it? And a bit awkward for someone who now complains about brutality against captured prisoners. (And, no, I am not saying that the fact that Lew Rockwell favors torture of American citizens makes it ok or makes brutality against captured foreigners ok; it's bad in both cases. But Lew Rockwell favors it when the person nabbed on the street and not charged with a crime is beaten senseless in the back of a paddy wagon, especially if he's one of those people prone to having high time preferences, the ones who are like big children, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, the ones who used to be called "boy" in the successor states to Rockwell's beloved Confederate States of America, if you know what he means. It does undermine his credibility at least a bit, as a critic of mistreatment and as a "libertarian." And that's not even mentioning his remarkable suggestion that video cameras -- one of which captured the beating of Rodney King on film for all the world to see -- be banned.)
Note how dishonest this is. First, with the "boy" comment, he is clearly implying Rockwell is here calling for cops to beat blacks. This is a sickening libel. What Rockwell was talking about--explicitly--was street criminals. Here we have the constant resort of the "serioso and dimwit libertarians" (as Rothbard put it) to the tired old cries of racism to smear those with whom they have substantive disagreements. Palmer is still at it, of course; he seems not to have noticed that the '80s and early '90s are over--he and his ilk have cried wolf too many times, and no one pays any attention to their cries of "bigotry". Second, he writes--Oh so serioso--Rockwell's "remarkable suggestion that video cameras -- one of which captured the beating of Rodney King on film for all the world to see -- be banned". Thereby demonstrating another failing of the left and left-libertarians--their utter lack of humor. Of course Rockwell was joking. You could not expect the dour, grim, thought police libertarians to realize this, however. It's only acceptable to make fun of paleos, Southrons and "breeders," you see. 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! The chutzpah is just amazing! (If use of that word won't get me accused of anti-semitism by the schoolmarm and cocktail party libertarians.)
How to Shower:
From email to me, also on this site:
More differences between men and women. How to shower: | HOW TO SHOWER LIKE A WOMAN: 1. Take off clothing and place it in sectioned laundry hamper according tolights and darks. 2. Walk to bathroom wearing long dressing gown. If you see your husband along the way, cover up any exposed areas. 3. Look at your womanly physique in the mirror--make mental note—must do more sit-ups. 4. Get in the shower. Use face cloth, arm cloth,leg cloth, long loofah,wide loofah and pumice stone. 5. Wash your hair once with Cucumber and Sage shampoo with 43 added vitamins. 6. Wash your hair again to make sure it's clean. 7. Condition your hair with Grapefruit Mint conditioner enhanced with natural avocado oil. Leave on hair for fifteen minutes. 8. Wash your face with crushed apricot facial scrub for ten minutes until red. 9. Wash entire rest of body with Ginger Nut and Jaffa Cake body wash. 10. Rinse conditioner off hair (you must make sure that it has all come off). 11. Shave armpits and legs. Consider shaving bikini area but decide to get it waxed instead. 12. Scream loudly when your husband flushes the toilet and you lose the water pressure. 13. Turn off shower. 14. Squeegee off all wet surfaces in shower. Spray mold spots with Tilex. 15. Get out of shower. Dry with towel the size of a small country. Wrap hair in super absorbent second towel. 16. Check entire body for the remotest sign of a zit, tweeze hairs. 17. Return to bedroom wearing long dressing gown and towel on head. 18. If you see your husband along the way, cover up any exposed areas and then sashay to bedroom to spend an hour and a half getting dressed.
| HOW TO SHOWER LIKE A MAN:
1. Take off clothes while sitting on the edge of the bed and leave them in a pile. 2. Walk naked to the bathroom. If you see your wife along the way, shake wiener at her making the "woo-woo" sound. 3. Look at your manly physique in the mirror and suck in your gut to see if you have pecs (no). Admire the size of your wiener in the mirror and scratch your ass. 4. Get in the shower. 5. Don't bother to look for a washcloth (you don't use one). 6. Wash your face. 7. Wash your armpits. 8. Blow your nose in your hands, then let the water just rinse it off. 9. Crack up at how loud your fart sounds in the shower. 10. Majority of time is spent washing your privates and surrounding area. 11. Wash your butt, leaving those coarse butt hairs on the soap bar. 12. Shampoo your hair (do not use conditioner). 13. Make a shampoo Mohawk. 14. Peek out of shower curtain to look at yourself in the mirror again. 15. Pee (in the shower). 16. Rinse off and get out of the shower. Fail to notice water on the floor because you left the curtain hanging out of the tub the whole time. 17. Partially dry off. 18. Look at yourself in the mirror, flex muscles. Admire wiener size again. 19. Leave shower curtain open and wet bath mat on the floor. 20. Leave bathroom fan and light on. 21. Return to the bedroom with towel around your waist. If you pass your wife, pull off the towel, shake wiener at her, and make the "woo-woo" sound again. 22. Throw wet towel on the bed. Take 2 minutes to get dressed again. |
Palmer on Coase and Hoppe:
[cross-posted at Palmer Periscope] I've already debunked several Palmer distortions about Hoppe. In Outcome of the Hoppe Case, Palmer repeats the one about "involuntary unemployment" (which I had already explained); and also repeats his uniformed Coase comments, to the effect that Hoppe, Block and Rothbard don't understand Coase.
I have already posted (in Cato, Lessig and Intellectual Property, and Hoppe on Coase) links to several articles by Hoppe, Block, and others that clearly backup their interpretation of Coase. Palmer does not even attempt to address their arguments, but just asserts they are wrong. They are not; the wealth-maximization school does indeed favor judicially allocating property rights based on wealth-maximization considerations, and this has the implications Hoppe et al. ascribe to it.
Libertarian Girl a Fake:
I admit it, he got me! I was wondering how any self-proclaimed libertarian could be so stupid as to advocate a tax on breast implants. Good one.
A Good Woman:
I'd been hearing vague references over the past weeks about Valentine's Day so I assumed it was coming up, but had no idea when. It turns out it's today. This morning my wife, leaving for work, wakes me out of bleery slumber and gives me a kiss, saying, "Happy Valentine's Day. I didn't get you anything, so I only have a kiss." I said, "Great, that's all I want. I didn't get you anything either. Have a good day."
All these artificial "mandated celebrations" are stupid.
February 12, 2005
PALMER BANS ME:
KINSELLA BANNED FROM PALMER
The Palmer Courtroom Skit:
I'll reprint below my comment (#6) from this Palmer Periscope thread:
imagine this courtroom scene: Atty: And so, in closing, Your Honor, it is clear Mr. H. is a bigot! Judge: Excuse me, ... why is that, again? Atty: Well, Your Honor, ... my client claims he heard from someone that... Judge: You HEARD from someone? That's hearsay. But alright, what did he say? Atty: Well, he said he took Mr. H. into this restaurant in Guatemala, Judge: So? Why's that bigoted? Atty: If you will, Your Honor, I'm getting to that. So according to my client's friend, Mr. H. asked if Guatemalans ate in this restaurant too, and, well, Judge: What's wrong with that question? Atty: Well,... nothing, really, Your Honor, but in context -- anyway, what he did was--according to my client's friend, Mr. H. kind of got this disgusted look on his face. Judge: What? Atty: Ummm, he got all disgusted at the Guatemalans there. I mean, he had this disgusted look on his face. Or so my client says. I mean his friend, his friend. Judge: Hold on one goddamn minute. You mean, you are marching into MY courtroom, and telling me Mr. H is a bigot because someone said he got a disgusted look on his face? Atty: Well... I bet it was a REAL disgusted look, Your Honor, if I had to... ummm... guess. Judge: How in the world do you know what he was disgusted about? Maybe your client's friend had just farted?! Atty: Ummm, well. You see.... my client says Mr. H. is despicable and a big meany, your honor. And, umm, he's German. Also, he called my client an Ambassador of Homosexuality. Judge: What the.... Your client is gay? Atty: Yes, Your Honor. As far as I know. Judge: How would you know? Has he testifid to this under oath? Atty: Well... no, but he mentions it all the time on his .... libertarian site. Judge: What does his political philosophy have to do with his sexual orientation...? Atty: .... I'll have to get back with you on that one, Judge. Judge: Anyway, what in the name of tarnation is an Ambassador of Homosexuality? What does it even mean? Atty: Ummmm. We don't really know your honor. But... I think it probably means, um, that my client's gay. Judge: I thought you said your client is gay? Atty: Oh, he is, he is.... Let me rephrase that, Your Honor. It shows clear evidence of Mr. H's bigotry. Judge: [steamed] .... against Guatemalans? Gay ones?! Atty: Sure, sure, but... regular ones too. And non-Guateman gays. And there were Indians in the restaurant too. Judge: What the...? Indians? The woo-woo-woo kind or the dot-head kind? Atty: Your Honor, I don't think that's a very sensitive-- Judge: Alright, but which kind? Atty: Umm, the woo-woo kind, Sir. Judge: ... Atty: Your Honor? Judge: Jesus Christ. Why do I get stuck with these cases? Atty: Your Honor? Judge: Go AHEAD Counselor, I'm waiting. Atty: Well... one time he had a sarcastic comment about a friend of my client's doing LSD.... [trails off] Judge: A gay Guatemalan friend? Atty: Ha ha, um, that's pretty good Your Honor but ... No. Judge: Well, was your client's friend doing illegal drugs? Atty: Your Honor, I hardly see how that's relev-- Judge: YOU brought it up, Counselor. I'm just asking if what Mr. H. said was true or not. Atty: Umm, Your Honor, I'd rather not say. Judge: Fine. Strike it from the record. Judge: So let me get this straight. Because Mr. H. allegedly "looked disgusted" ... and referred to your client as gay, in some weird expression none of us know what it means... and does not like LSD addicts (I have to say, I don't much either) ... you claim this proves that Mr. H. hates (a) gay and non-gay Guatemalans; (b) gay and non-gay Indians (the woo-woo-woo type); and (c) gay non-Guatemalan non-Indians. Do I have this straight? Atty: .... Well. I mean, I would not ... You don't have to put it that way, Your Honor, .... Judge: What way?! Atty: Well, like ... like you're making fun of it. As if it's ... not really a serious charge. Judge: Shut up. Let me ask you, counsellor. What is the label for Mr. H's particular brand of bigotry. Would you call it anti-Guatemalan-Indian/homophobic...? Atty: Umm, well... that sort of makes it sound -- Judge: Silly?! Atty: Well, it is too narrow, and at the same time, too broad. Judge: How so? Atty: Because it doesn't say he hates Jews or blacks. Judge: Are you saying he's racist and anti-semitic too? What evidence do you have for that? Atty: Well.... none... exactly, but we just assume-- Judge: You ASSUME!? Counsellor, didn't you see the Bad News Bears?? Atty: Excuse me, Your Honor? Judge: Your remember it, Counselor. Jodi Foster. Don't bullshit a bullshitter. Now what did that movie teach you about assuming things? Atty: Ummmm. [cough] That... you make an ASS out of U and ME? Judge: EXACTLY. Now do you want to make an ass out of me, Counsellor? Atty: No, no, no sir, Your Honor. Judge: Good. Anything else? Atty: Pardon? Judge: Anything else to prove this strange bigotry claim? Atty: Well... he once said that you can't have involuntary unemmployment on the free market. And also, he was not nice to my client one time. Judge: Counselor. You do realize you are about to piss me off, don't you? Atty: Yes, Your Honor. I apologize. Judge: You better hope Mr. H. didn't spend a lot of money on legal bills, because you're about to pay them.
More Palmer Posts re Hoppe:
First, I was compelled to defend my "credibility," after it was impugned by Palmer. See The Credibility of Hoppe's Defenders.
And one more for the road-- Palmer Typography -- a debate about whether he's the Morton Downey Jr., or Michael Savage, of libertarianism. Inquiring minds want to know!
How to deal with lunatic loser nutjobs:
The only reason I can think of that I received this email is I once wrote an article for LewRockwell.com entitled: "New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal." These people are apparently utterly clueless about intellectual property law.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Kinsella [mailto:Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:25 PM
To: 'New Israel'
Subject: RE: Legal action will follow.
Go screw yourself, you irritating nutjob.
I'm posting this entire thread on my blog. Enjoy!
-----Original Message-----
From: New Israel [mailto:NewIsrael@kc.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:18 PM
To: Stephan Kinsella
Subject: Legal action will follow.
Legal action will follow.
Thank you for giving us the incentive and corroborating obscene language that we need. New Israel (sm)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephan Kinsella"
To: "'New Israel'"
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Important:
> Do you expect to be told "go fuck yourself, you mindless moron?"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: New Israel [mailto:NewIsrael@kc.rr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:50 AM
> To: Stephan@StephanKinsella.com
> Subject: Important:
>
> The name 'New Israel'R is a Nationally Registered Service Mark,
> protected by the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. All
> Rights (of that
> name) are Reserved.
> We expect you to cease using our name, immediately.
February 10, 2005
More Palmer Hoppe Distortions:
My discussion at the Palmer Periscope: More Palmer Hoppe Distortions -- exploding the Palmer cornucopia of scurrilous, groundless attacks on Hoppe.
Quantum Leap:
In some physics article I read a while back, the author made the point that a quantum leap is literally the smallest possible jump that can be made in the state of something; so it's a bit strange it's used in common parlance to denote a huge, dramatic change.
Bigots:
So now, "you're a bigot" apparently is the new way of saying, "I don't agree with you". Example 1, 2, 3. Disagreement, even personal dislike, is one thing. Ungrounded or false or even speculative accusations of racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, especially in today's hypersensitive world, are completely beyond the pale. You will note for example that I never have resorted to making fun of, or even referring to, Palmer's orientation, as an example. For one, it is not relevant. For two, it would be unnecessarily cruel and mean. Third, it is irresponsible and malevolent to attempt to damage someone that you disagree with; especially someone who is clearly at least in significant part a libertarian ally.
For those who have so little control of their emotion or sense of right and wrong that they will refer to a great and decent man as a "bigot" or "racist", I have decided not to converse with such despicable wastes of quarks as if they are engaged in civilized discourse. For they are not. They have gleefully demonstrated themselves to be human scum.
February 08, 2005
Raisins and Roaches:
My baby boy likes raisins. The little ones in the tiny boxes. I espied a tub of "jumbo seedless organic raisins" in Whole Foods so bought them for him. I had never seen them before. He likes them okay but I discovered that they resemble dead cockroaches, especially when he leaves them on the floor.
February 06, 2005
DEFEND HOPPE!:
ALERT: HOPPE UNDER ATTACK BY PC POLICE Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe is under attack by the PC police. As suggested by David Beito, all scholars and academics in favor of academic freedom, and all lovers of liberty and Hoppe's supporters are urged to follow Beito's suggestions to help support Hoppe and the cause of academic freedom. Contact info for people to email/fax (here).
In addition to Beito's suggestions, publicity from the likes of Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge can only help. Write them too...
February 05, 2005
External Posts: Sciabarra, Horwitz; definition of Socialism; the "case" for anarchy:
- Thoughts on Sciabarra by Steve Horwitz--says not convinced by the "case" for anarchy; my arguments why this gets the burden of argument backwards;
- "Capitalism": The Known Reality by Sciabarra; my comments about Hoppe's general definition of "socialism", in response to Roderick Long's comments about the word "capitalism"
February 04, 2005
Shake it:
50 Cent's new video, Disco Inferno, is amazing--just a relentless sequence of nearly naked black women shaking their large rears in the camera and topless white chicks french kissing. I suppose even MTV can't show this. Of, course, I really object to this misogynistic objectification of women. No one should watch this. Don't do it. (thanks to Pete Canning)
On Radicalism and Calling a Spade a Spade:
From an interview with Milton Friedman (2, 3), a good story about Mises and the Mont Pelerin Society. It's told to critique him; but to me, it shows Mises's integrity and principles.
INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian -- people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself -- Mises got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists," and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion. Lew Rockwell has a great discussion of all this here. All these conservatives who are in favor of social security, welfare, etc.--let's not ourselves--they're all a bunch of socialists!
Outing Kinsella:
In Provincetown Massachussets--gay nirvana--a few years ago (with my wife, okay?), a friend of a friend, an older, gay Austrian or German guy named Klaus, while unsuccessful at persuading me to do a "bump of coke" with him, did get me to admit, after getting me totally sloshed on scotch, that I was 1% gay. It made him so happy, and it's no skin off my back. Heck, even Joe Sobran admits he's gay, in a certain sense.
February 03, 2005
Per Christian Malloch -- Again:
Some time ago I posted about Per Christian Malloch, a smart college kid who apparently OD's on drugs a few years back. I had posted a few of his wacky works he had sent me, on Satanism and Amoralism. I just received a note from a friend of Per's, Canon Pence (so-called), stumbled across my post about Per and sent me this: For Per: Collected Works of Per Malloch, compiled by Canon Pence, 10/6/2001–12/6/2001. Not necessarily recommending it, but I might as well warehouse it, as he can't do it.
External Post: Palmer on Federalism; more:
and the Institute of Justice, and my reply.
Palmer also posted Phony "Radicalism" from a Reactionary Confederate Revivalist (attacking his bete noire, LRC, natch), to which Daddy also replied.
February 02, 2005
Horwitz et al. on Woods:
In my reply to the dreadful, malicious attack on Tom Woods and his new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History on the Is That Legal blog, the comments section cut my reply off, so I am posting it here so I can link to it from there.
***
Horwitz wrote: I'm a long-time libertarian and I *cringe* when people who claim to be libertarians write stuff like this. The romance by some small quarters of the libertarian movement with the lovers of the Confederacy is an unmitigated disaster, both morally and strategically.
For anyone who frequents this blog who knows little of libertarians, and history done by those with libertarian leanings, do not start with this crap. There's real scholarship out there.
[...]
my original comment was not about the book per se, but the wide variety of romances that the paleo right has with various racist, anti-Semitic, and otherwise unsavory folks, with lovers of the Confederacy being one such group. Whether this particular book is or isn't a species of this problem is one question, but Eric's evidence is pretty convincing. The real question for me is why people feel the need to smear shit all over the word "libertarian" by calling themselves one and then associating with the slimy folks that they do. Steve, it is outrageous and libelous for you to smear Dr. Woods as you do, to insinuate he is racist and anti-semitic, and not a real scholar. If you'll read him you'll see he's impeccable and very learned. The tacticts of of the cocktail party, rehabilitated PC libertarians--resort to ad hominem, etc.--is becoming, like that of regular PC liberals, increasingly shrill. It's as if you guys really hate the South and Southerners just like the arrogant, New York liberal intellectuals do. I believe it's actually this smug city-boy superiority that caused Bush to win--blue collar types who would normally be democratic are sick of being condescended to by the brie cheese set who think you have to live in a rent-conrolled apartment and go see Cats and vacation in P'town or Martha's Vineyard to really be a person worth associating with.
It is also a bit collectivist to keep lumping people together. On the one hand, you people accuse the Rockwell crowd of being almost a cult; on the other, the diversity of opinions there and the freewheeling nature of discourse and various types of people represetned there drive you batty. I am from the South and while I personally dislike the stupid Rebel Flag displaying, Lee Greenwood Proud to be an American singing, civil war reenactment bullshit, it is loathsome when the cocktail party libertarians continue to lump people together and attribute to them others' views, and to have a hare-trigger alert for any signs of deviation from the cocktail party model of "acceptable" opinions and to accuse any deviation as being a sign of racism etc. You guys have overussed the racism, antisemitism, etc. cards to the extent where it's now a joke. It's almost a badge of honor to be called that now. For a perceptive column on this, see Playing the Holocaust Card. The PC types have cried wolf too many times, they've shot their wad. It doesn't work any more.
You claim Eric's evidence is convincing. It is nothing but a libelous smear attack on a fine individual and scholar, Tom Woods, whose book, yes, does support the cause of liberty by debunking liberal and government-spread propaganda |
