I Make History At The Mises Blog
Feb 07, 05 | 7:48 pm by John T. KennedyI’ve been banned from blogs before. And I’ve banned a couple of individuals from posting comments on this blog. I’ve never made a big deal about it either way. But I find what happened on the Mises Economic Blog today to be worth noting.
Last night after posting three comments there I found I was locked out and could no longer comment. I went to email Jeffrey Tucker (who I believe runs the blog) to ask why I could not comment. I found this already in my mailbox:
From: tucker@mises.org
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:00:42 -0600
Subject: private propertyYou have had your say. Now stay off the Mises blog.
Thank you.
jeff
When I looked this morning I found that Tucker had posted this comment:
“Professor Long and others have pointed out that the remarks quoted by Kennedy appear within a much larger framework of explaining the relationship between private-property anarchism and the current understandings of libertarian and conservative politics. Consider the entire narrative, Hoppe’s point is impossible to miss: with regard to group cultural preferences, you get what you contract for. He explains this via a close analysis of the property-covenant, an institution that is otherwise neglected within the libertarian framework. His work in this area is a genuine contribution to the literature (since covenantal property arrangements are essential to the continued growth of private communities). It is a gross distortion to quote one passage intended to illustrate the workings of one type of private community and highlight it as if it were a general apodictally true principle. Ironically, the passage appears within a chapter that includes a blistering assault on neo- and paleo-conservatism for their tendency to cultural, social, and national goals ahead of essential rights to liberty, property, and exchange.
As for Kennedy, he is the first person in the history of this blog, apart from spammers, to have his comment posting privileges removed. It’s one thing to disagree, and every user of this blog knows of its liberality in that regard, but to distort and inflame with bad faith and the intention to harm goes too far.”
My offending comments are here.
Tucker issued me a stern warning last April, for my second comment here.
I think it’s amusing and revealing that someone who claims that the free exchange of ideas is essential would ban someone for these comments, particularly in a thread which is supposed to defend Hoppe against those who would silence him.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 9:21 pm
I have exactly the same trouble reading that crap as I have reading the crap at Democrat Underground (to which I also recently had occasion to subject myself).
One of ‘em starts gibbering about how “physically removed” doesn’t mean “forcibly removed” (as though people are voluntarily physically removed every day somewhere) and then the hysteric De Coster pops right up and piles on with some tripe about how “physically removed” doesn’t mean “physically” at all. Both her comments in that thread are little more than ad hominem, but the first one is idiotic, too.
Furthermore, I fail to see the purported distinction between the lesser and larger contexts that Kennedy is so allegedly guilty of violating.
But, nah, such rubbish from such a smart bunch isn’t another sign of any endarkening, is it? Couldn’t be.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 9:48 pm
The larger context is the horror of having Mexicans move into the neighbourhood.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 10:15 pm
It’s hilarious how De Coster won’t say “Kennedy” or “No Treason” out loud. Looks like Beck joined the ranks of The Nameless last week.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 10:16 pm
Yeah, someone there said that that would be “forced integration”.
Those people are just applying any old definition to whatever pops into their heads.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 10:27 pm
Roderick Long’s comment is what shocked me. I’d always thought that he was a pretty indenpendent thinker before this.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 10:51 pm
Dear Mr. Lopez:
You recently wrote…”I’m not sure that the Mises/LRC types are cultists, but it’s clear that they can’t think straight about certain issues.”
You don’t see this most recent spat of hysterics as cultist beheviour?
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 11:04 pm
Not really. Political movements by nature tend to attract and keep people who will defend the party line.
February 7th, 2005 at Feb 07, 05 | 11:33 pm
A number of them answer arguments with: “But Hoppe (or Rockwell) has done so much for the movement/libertarianism!”
I find that mildly cultish. It’s not close to being as cultish as, for instance, ARIan Objectivists. And there are certainly contributors to Mises and LRC who seem unafflicted.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:02 am
John, what do you think about Charles Warren’s response:
I have not read Hoppe’s book, but I have seen the quote before. I was not familiar with the quote’s context or the footnote. How do you respond?
I think this explanation is reasonable, for if there were 100% agreement within a community to follow understood rules on the threat of expulsion (and therefore ultimately, their physical removal) and if a member of that 100% breaks that agreement, the consequences are clear.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:49 am
Charles,
I think this explanation requires one to believe that Hoppe uses the words “society” and “civilization” as synonyms for something in principle like a private contract between residents of a condominium complex. I don’t find this interpretation credible.
And as Lynette points out in the Mises blog thread: If you do have a covenant in place then who needs to be physically removed? How did you arrive at the covenant with dissenters in the territory?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 5:43 am
JTK, I would wear your being banned as a badge of honor. I have never been banned from a blog before -until I just recently was banned from the www.westernstandard.ca “Shotgun” blog of Canadian conservatives and libertarians, because I was insulting to a regular contributor who suggested first, that Canada needed to re-create government run residential schools to take Indian Children and raise them, again, and then secondly (a little later on) that “Canada needs institutions to lock up Aboriginal activists and apologists”.
Not one of the so-called “libertarians”, including Colby Cosh, were willing to publicly state that such a sentiments were repugnant.
I’ve left the Western Standard alone - aside from taking a few minutes to write to Canadian Minister of Justice to ask how much Canadian taxpayers subsidy was being used to assist “The Western Standard” in it’s publications (I do know they recieve some sort of pirate-booty) - and formally request that all such subsidies be stopped in the future due to the fact that their editorial policy as per the events on their blog appears to be one of promoting bigotry towards Aboriginals. I wonder how intellectually “consistent” these libertarian/conservatives will be about their claims of being free-market if/when they are forced to rely upon the free-market to stay afloat instead of milking the government tit.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 7:53 am
“Political movements by nature tend to attract and keep people who will defend the party line.”
Sounds like collectivism to me.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 8:27 am
John, what in Roderick’s comment(s) do you object to? He wrote a letter about Hoppe, which is reasonable, since as a Professor he has reasons to protest on behalf of academic freedom even for those with whom he strongly disagrees (a class which includes Hans Hermann-Hoppe). All of his other comments seem to me to be fairly diplomatic attempts to acknowledge that there are deep problems with the passages that Kennedy’s citing while calling attention to the fact that other readings are possible; indeed, plausible. (Others have reverentially invoked “Professor Long” in the course of throwing brickbats at Kennedy, but that isn’t Roderick’s fault.)
I think Kennedy and others are right that Hoppe’s work is fundamentally inconsistent on the questions of immigration and emigration, and so it shouldn’t be surprising that there are several ways that certain passages could be read. The ones that Kennedy quotes clearly show Hoppe to be a foolish bigot but it’s not clear whether they advocate any kind of violations of rights. (As Roderick points out, there are contextual reasons to suppose that he doesn’t mean that; as Lynette and JTK point out, there are reasons of empirical plausibility to think that separatist “covenant” communities on Hoppe’s model would be difficult to establish without either colonization on a foreign planet or someone violating someone else’s rights.)
Note that it’s “difficult,” not “impossible;” I can think of some examples, both concrete and hypothetical, that might emerge if the Magic No-State Button were pushed in the near-future (e.g. white supremacist imbeciles have owned flat-out large tracts of land, such as the National Alliance’s compound in West Virginia and until recently the Aryan Nation’s compound in Idaho, which might be converted into covenant Klan-towns without any trouble; Hoppeans might decide to start a Mexican-Free State Project by buying up land in Vermont or Maine and putting it into a covenant bloc). Roderick’s correct to point out that people in any covenant communities like this who breached the terms of the covenant could be physically removed without any violations of their rights, as trespassers (whether they’d be forcibly removed in any meaningful sense whatever depends on whether or not they forcibly resisted; but if they were being removed as trespassers, then proportional force would be defensive, not aggressive).
How would anyone end up in that position if they couldn’t buy the land without already signing onto the contract? Well, people can sign on to a covenant and then turn out to breach it; or they can have guests who end up breaching it. For example, in Hoppeville, you might have a closeted gay man who comes out after he’s already bought in to the community on the covenant terms; you might have a child of a proud Hoppeville citizen who ends up becoming a Marxist. If you have a covenant like the one Hoppe is discussing then the first case would be a breach of covenant, and in the second case Hoppeville parents would have to either evict their Marxist children or else be in breach of the covenant themselves. Of course, neither someone who breached the covenant nor someone who didn’t sign the covenant but is living in the home of someone who did has the right to unconditionally demand to stay on the property in Hoppeville. If you’ve actually created Hoppeville according to the specifications that HHH sets ou in his book, then you could indeed physically remove these people from the community as trespassers, without violating any of their rights. (I don’t think the use of the word “society” or “civilization” by Hoppe defeats this interpretation, either: people often talk about “civilization” or about being part of or outcast from “society” within a single town, neighborhood, or institution. I think it’s true that the unqualified general use of these terms seems to indicate that Hoppe suspects covenant communities like the ones he discusses may be a lot more widespread in a stateless society than any sensible person would suspect, but that’s a separate issue from whether he thinks that they can be forced on unwilling people who already reside in the area.)
On the other hand, it’s also true that spelling out in any detail what sort of life all of this means for inhabitants of the sort of community that Hoppe is talking about should make it very clear what an absolutely horrifying idea it would be–the covenant will either be unenforceable or else involve people contractually submitting to a private neighborhood Stasi or Holy Inquisition. That’s better than the real Stasi or Holy Inquisition, but what sort of nutcase (other than unhinged fanatics who are already buying in to separatist intentional communities) would actually want to live somewhere like that?
I don’t take anything I’ve said here, incidentally, to be inconsistent with what Roderick has said about Hoppe over in the comments at Mises Economics Blog. He’s been pretty diplomatically trying to clarify the issues quickly while also trying to sidestep a protracted debate over Hoppe’s views on migration; I don’t think that’s because of any defect in independent thought (he’s published his own views extensively elsewhere and the folks at VMI are well aware of it) but rather because the thread isn’t really about Hoppe’s views on migration at all, but rather about his circumstances at UNLV. I think Kennedy’s right to call attention to Hoppe’s (many) defects, and I think Jeffrey Tucker’s decision to ban Kennedy on the basis of the comments he put up is silly, but I also think it’s perfectly reasonable to try to defer any kind of extended debate over Hoppe on migration and covenant communities to a better forum for the discussion than the comments on a very tangentially connected article.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:23 am
Rad Geek, what I disagree with in re. Long is this:
That is utterly contradicted by what Long has previously written:
If advocating immigration restriction makes you a “collectivist”, then how on earth is it not “self-evidently un-libertarian”?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:33 am
Lopez:
… because it’s only self-evident if the collectivist premises behind the anti-immigration policy are in clear sight; and there are matters of degree as to how transparent the collectivist move in a given argument for an immigration control policy is.
I take it that Roderick regards Hoppe’s position to require a violation of individualist principles; that’s why he strongly disagrees with it. But the question is whether the violation is an obvious one or a subtle one. Mike Tuggle, who Roderick is jousting with in the article you cite, wears his collectivist premises on his sleeve and makes it fairly easy; Hans Hermann Hoppe, who claims to be a rights-absolutist and has spilled a lot of ink trying to defend enforcing immigration restrictions on rights-absolutist libertarian grounds, makes it somewhat harder. I think Hoppe’s arguments on the matter are a bunch of nonsense, but they are there; so showing how Hoppe’s position violates libertarian principles does require engaging with an argument of Hoppe’s and showing where it is fallacious. (I think that’s a task that y’all have done well enough here on several occasions and that Roderick and Walter Block have done well enough elsewhere.)
The difference here corresponds to the difference between arguing over whether or not libertarian principles are correct (as Roderick is in his argument with Mike Tuggle) and whether those principles, once agreed on, are being correctly applied (as Roderick is in his debates with Hans Hermann Hoppe).
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 12:12 pm
I think this a pointless quibble over semantics. Long has clearly stated that Hoppe is wrong, but with the added proviso that he is not “self-evidently” wrong. So what? The important part here is that Hoppe’s views on immigration are un-libertarian and hence are wrong.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 1:46 pm
Mises.org reeks of gangrene. You can almost smell the rot and infection. It is sad to see this stench associated with Ludwing von Mises.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:09 pm
Rad,
“but I also think it’s perfectly reasonable to try to defer any kind of extended debate over Hoppe on migration and covenant communities to a better forum for the discussion than the comments on a very tangentially connected article.”
I used the only forum they provide. They’re welcome here. When you’re sounding the call to defend a supposed champion of liberty I think it’s relvant to note that the actions his detractors contemplate against him are more benign than than what he advocates for some of them.
Long says Mises was a champion of liberty even if he endorsed conscription. Fine. Now suppose Mises were called up for something like mandatory jury duty and objected it was an assault on his freedom. Well it would be. It could be more of an assault on his rights than anything Hoppe is facing as far as I can see. But if you then call on me to defend Mises as a champion of liberty from aggression far milder than what he endorses against others I’m going to be suitably underwhelmed.
Obviously such a comment is not going to be welcomed by many in that thread. But isn’t it relevant to the call to arms?
The arguments spin out from there. Long says there’s no reason to think Hoppe would endorse aggression against others because he’s a rights absolutist. I beg to differ.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:22 pm
Stefan,
It’s not a matter of semantics, it’s actually quite odd for Long, as a praxeologist, to hold that his postion on immigration is not self evident. I think Long and Hoppe both think their positions are self evident.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:30 pm
I see this is turning into a thread about me; how exciting!
I meant “self-evident” in the ordinary-language sense of “so obvious that no reasonable person could fail to see it,” not in the philosophical sense of “knowable a priori.” “Lead is heavier than styrofoam” is self-evident in the ordinary-language sense but not in the philosophical sense; “963.2 x 44.9 = 43247.68″ is self-evident in the philosophical sense but not in the ordinary sense.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:51 pm
Rad,
“..because it’s only self-evident if the collectivist premises behind the anti-immigration policy are in clear sight.”
That’s not what a praxeologist means by “self-evident”.
And both Long and Hoppe are praxeologists.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:55 pm
I stand corrected about what Long meant.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 2:57 pm
Long,
So do you think Hoppe’s position on immigration is self-evidently wrong in the philosophical sense?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 3:09 pm
Well, no, but that’s because my definition of “self-evident in the philosophical sense” was a bit sloppy earlier; strictly speaking not everything knowable a priori is self-evident because self-evidence implies it’s not derived from some other knowledge. If I deduce a conclusion from self-evident premises, then I know the conclusion a priori but it sounds a bit odd to say that the conclusion is self-evident; the conclusion did need evidence beyond itself, namely the premises. I don’t think the incompatibility of libertarianism with immigration restrictions is a basic a priori premise; I think it needs argument. But I do think the incompatibility is knowable a priori.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 3:21 pm
Hoppe is small, treacherous, Austrian scum, Kinsella is a filth-sucking lawyer, and dear Karen is adorable but not very bright.
I’ll stick to that.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 3:22 pm
…it sounds a bit odd to say that the conclusion is self-evident…
I don’t think “We hold these truths to be self-evident..” sounds all that odd, but fine.
You think Hoppe’s postion is wrong on self-evident grounds.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 3:27 pm
“I’ll stick to that.”
The Kid goes his own way, like always.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 7:55 pm
Kennedy: I’ll give you one thing: unlike a certain other person mentioned this thread, you have never threatened physical violence before when we have disagreed on substantive matters. Do you threaten to kick someone’s ass if you don’t like what they say? Do you make inappropriate stalking-like sexual comments to females you disagree with? I doubt it. Though I disagree with some of your views and apparent interests, your are not a criminal aggressor. Neither is Hoppe–at most, in your view, he advocates policies you disagree with on libertarian grounds, but he himself is not an aggressor thug loser who threatens people he disagrees with, with violence.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 8:44 pm
Mr. Kennedy,
This thread has been characterized by vitriol. We don’t see this kind of stuff over on the Mises Blog, nor by those who have posting priviledges there.
I’ve read both side of the immigration issue. In a Stateless society, they converge, because the problem is then simple: expelling those whom you don’t want off of your private property.
I’ve commented on the entire thing on the Mises Blog. So what if we are to expel homosexuals from a voluntary covenant? I have the right to remove anyone In my house, don’t I have the right to kick someone out if I don’t want them there? If I don’t want someone in my house or on my property — for whatever reason — I can ask them to leave. If they refuse, I can use whatever force they require me to use by their level of resistance.
I think Hoppe’s argument against open immigration is sound. Public roads are not, for example, equivalent to unhomesteaded land. Rather, they were paid for with stolen money. Thus, they actually belong to the taxpayers in all rightfullness. Hoppe argues that ideally, the thievery would stop, but absent that, that we treat it as it is most likely private property owners would. I have a slight modification: the immigration question should be decided by weighted vote, the weight being based on the percentage of taxes that you pay. Thus, rich people, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, would have a greater say on the issue than poorer people (like myself), who pay fewer taxes.
If you think Hoppe is wrong on immigration, provide a real argument. I haven’t seen a convincing argument against Hoppe on immigration yet. All I’ve seen is a bunch of anger, and assertions that he’s inconsistent.
Obviously, each side thinks that their position is more in accord with libertarian principles. However, Hoppe doesn’t deserve to be considered a non-libertarian by those who don’t agree with him on immigration. Certainly, Prof. Block disagrees with Hoppe on immigration (and is the foremost proponent of the pro-immigration stance), but doesn’t consider Hoppe a non-libertarian.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:09 pm
Of course, as Gene Callahan, Walter Block and others have correctly argued, this is also an argument against allowing citizens to reproduce; that is, to bring new babies into the country, even though these babies have paid no taxes and thus have no right to use public property. Which is, of course, another way of demonstrating that the anti-immigration is totally preposterous and illiberal.
Kennedy’s comments on the Mises Blog cannot in any way be characterized as vitriolic. There are thoughtful and rational. Jeffrey Tucker was wrong to ban him, especially on a thread having to do with the academic freedom and the uninhibited exchange of ideas.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:25 pm
On the other hand Kinsella, you have to admit that de Coster is hilarious in her refusal to use the names of any No-Treasonites in her posts. As is your condemnation of Odell’s post after he simply pointed out Tom Tom was a bigger troll than Kennedy (”do you have a point, Mr. Odell?”, emphasis added).
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:36 pm
Rad Geek:
It seems to me that having a man with a gun stand at a line on a map and turn back peaceful people from “public property” is indeed pretty obviously unlibertarian.
But y’know what? It doesn’t really matter where the fuzzy line between “self-evident” and “subtle” is drawn: as you’ve said, the facts have been laid out time and again. Hoppe is definitely in the unlibertarian camp on immigration, and thus Kennedy’s comment above is quite topical:
Hoppe isn’t going to get a bullet in the head over this, yet a plain reading of his position on immigration means that the guy who comes to mow my lawn, sans government permission, would be risking just that, if Hoppe was in charge.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:46 pm
Mr. Ghertner,
Firstly, I do not support a ban on procreation. And I think I can also speak for Hoppe on that matter. I am sure that Prof. Callah and Prof. Block know this, and are not trying to imply that Hoppe supports a ban on procreation.
Secondly, however, despite Prof. Callahan’s rather clever essay, I don’t think that Hoppe’s position must logically lead to a baby-ban.
My reasons for this are several-fold. For one thing, I think Rothbard’s discussion of how libertarians should live in a State-run world is relevant, and would adapt his criteria for deciding whether or not a job is legitimate by libertarian principles: (1) work and agitate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its statism; and (3) to refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and criminal per se.
Absent a State, we would be free to procreate. There is nothing illegitimate, per se, about procreating. However, absent a State, immigrants wouuld not be able tresspass on the property of others, which is not theirs. Certainly, those currently in the US are (mostly) net tax-payers, thus Callahan’s point seems to largely disintegrate. Rothbard’s criteria seem to apply here. Given that there are roads, given that there are public schools, given that there are rent-controlled apartments, we may use them. To deny such would be sectarianism and would prevent any progress in libertarianism. Certainly, if we can use State-provided things where there is heavy intervention (as here is everywhere), or State-monopoly, then so too can our children.
I am not convinced at all by that reductio ad absurdum, because I think that it is a non-sequitar.
Regarding J.T. Kennedy, I can see how his comments can be seen to be intentional distortion or inflammatory, given what others on that same thread have pointed out: namely, that he quoted out of context, and ascribed to Hoppe a position which is not Hoppe’s. Being charitable, I could say that he mis-interpretted Hoppe, and that such was an honest mistake.
As for Tom Tom, he was definately obnoxious, insulting, and rude. However, simply the fact that he was worse than JTK doesn’t show that JTK shouldn’t have been banned. It only shows that Jeff should also ban Tom Tom (I’ve e-mailed Jeff about Tom Tom). Also, you didn’t seem to consider the possibility that Jeff hasn’t yet noticed Tom Tom’s insulting comments.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:46 pm
Heinrich:
Of course illegal immigrants are taxpayers, too, so thus those “public” roads “belong” to them the first time they buy a pack of smokes. Going further, a government employee is also paid with tax dollars, therefore he doesn’t own any “public property”.
The logical conclusion of Hoppe’s own argument is that Hoppe, working for a tax-funded institution, doesn’t own a share of “public property”, but just about every illegal immigrant does.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:48 pm
Heinrich,
“This thread has been characterized by vitriol.”
Officially?
Can you cite a single thing I’ve written in this thread or on the Mises blog that qualifies as vitriol?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 9:55 pm
You punks are at it again. What the fuck difference does it make if you don’t agree with Hoppe on his immigration stance? The issue at hand is damage threatened by a bunch of PC dunderheads to one of our most important allies and friends.
Micha: (are you the psycho who got banned a while back from Mises? or do I mistake you?):– “Of course, as Gene Callahan, Walter Block and others have correctly argued,”
Did it ever occur to you Block argued this in the J. Libertarian Studies in an issue edited by Hoppe, you pisant?
“Which is, of course, another way of demonstrating that the anti-immigration is totally preposterous and illiberal.”
What is your point? What is the relevance of this stupid opinion–even if true–to the issue at hand?
“Kennedy’s comments on the Mises Blog cannot in any way be characterized as vitriolic. There are thoughtful and rational. Jeffrey Tucker was wrong to ban him, especially on a thread having to do with the academic freedom and the uninhibited exchange of ideas.”
The term “especially” here is especially stupid. You are implying that if one expresses a view on academic freedom then one has less rights to use his own private property as he sees fit than if one did not express such viess. This is just stupid.
“On the other hand Kinsella, you have to admit that de Coster is hilarious in her refusal to use the names of any No-Treasonites in her posts.”
As I’m not a stalker, I don’t konw. I have no idea, and dont’ give a flying fuck.
>As is your condemnation of Odell’s post after he simply pointed out Tom Tom was a bigger troll than Kennedy (”do you have a point, Mr. Odell?”, emphasis added).<
I have no fucking idea what you are trying to say. You seem to imply my “condemnation” is “hilarious” but seem to be sarcastic in your use of “hilarious,” yet you seem to expect I will agree with you. Spit it out, Lopez, I hate lazy fucking poets (or do I repeat myself).
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:00 pm
Absent a state, we would be free to move about as we please, so long as we do not trespass on the property of those who do not wish to let us in. Absent a state, we would be free to procreate as we please, so long as we do not allow our children to trespass on the property of those who do not wish to less us in. If a Homeowners’ Association says no babies, that means no babies. If a HOA says no Mexicans or Jews, that means no Mexicans or Jews.
What were you saying again?
Except for the small fact that immigrants as a group are net taxpayers as well. Not that that matters a bit in determining the morality of anti-immigration laws, but there it is anyway.
But may we create more needy mouths to feed by having lots of sex? If so, why can’t we invite our Mexican or Jewish cousins over to join us as well?
And so too can immigrants, whose very presence neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:03 pm
Kinsella:
Now that is “vitriol”, Heinrich.
The “fuck difference it makes”, Kinsella, is that someone who wants to use the government against peaceful individuals may, suprising as it may seem, actually not be “our” ally and friend.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:10 pm
Kennedy is one of the most honest interlocuters I have ever encountered online or elsewhere. Only by intentionally uncharitably reading Kennedy could one consider his remarks purposely dishonest or inflammatory. There is certainly no clear distinction between the state of being “physically removed” and the state of being “forcefully removed.”
Hoppe’s comments could theoretically be justified under a very narrow understanding of libertarianism; one which also tolerates people like Gary North who wish to stone to death homosexuals, disbelievers, blasphemers, and rowdy children. It certainly requires a much greater charitable interpretation to consider these views in accordance with libertarianism than it does to consider Kennedy’s comments appropriate for the Mises blog.
No one has yet to specify exactly what larger context makes Hoppe’s comments any less heinous. Even if they can in some way be made congruent with a theoretical libertarian society, it is clear that Hoppe is speaking about what he thinks is true for all possible libertarian societies, not just a few odd ones at the margin.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:24 pm
Mr. Lopez,
It’s nice that you are the official determiner of what positions are libertarian vs. unlibertarian. I suppose there’s no room for honest disagreement in your mind on a very difficult question, due to the State’s interwining it’s tentacles in all aspects of life? Let’s be reasonable here. You think that Block’s position is more in accord with libertarian principles than Hoppe’s position. I happen to disagree. However, I hardly call Block’s position “unlibertarian” with any certainty, like you seem to be referring to Hoppe’s position.
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:24 pm
You mistake me. I am on excellent terms with the Mises Institute and Jeffrey Tucker. I rarely if ever comment on the blog, although I do read it frequently.
Of course that occurred to me, dude. I’m familiar with the issue and I still find Hoppe’s views illiberal (which I think even he would admit, considering he is putting forth an explicitely conservative - nay, paleoconservative - argument.)
Why do you call me a “pisant” [sic] for this? Do you consider all advocates of liberal immigration laws - Block and Callahan included - pissants?
My comments were made in direct response to comments made in this thread by David Heinrich.
You don’t see the irony here? I doubt someone as intelligent as yourself is unable to comprehend such a simple point. No one here has argued that Kennedy has a right to post at the Mises blog; after all, it is private property. So too, I don’t believe any of Hoppe’s defenders have argued that Hoppe has a right to work at will for UNLV (even though they may have stated publicly that they believe in academic freedom, they certainly have the right to be inconsistent with their own declarations, unless this was part of their employment contract with Hoppe, and as far as I know it was not). No, all anyone is arguing in both cases is that reasonable discussion - both Hoppe’s and Kennedy’s included - should be tolerated, even if they are controversial. That is the essence of academic freedom and intellectual discourse.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:25 pm
Ghertner:
Not really, it’s obvious that ideas that are against the party line at the Mises Institute aren’t for free exchange on their weblog.
And that’s fine. Sure it’s hypocritical, buy hypocrisy’s a vice, not a crime: they’d be better off if they held more ideas that could actually stand criticism, but they aren’t hurting anyone by summarily banning Kennedy when he points out their problems.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:35 pm
“Micha” wrote: “And so too can immigrants, whose very presence neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.”
Oh really? they are usually minorities, who thereby have the right to sue me based on affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws. Or they are more socialistic and vote for laws that pick my pocket.
“‘You punks are at it again.’”
“Now that is â��vitriol”, Heinrich.” That’s not vitriol, you moron.
“‘What the fuck difference does it make if you donâ??t agree with Hoppe on his immigration stance? The issue at hand is damage threatened by a bunch of PC dunderheads to one of our most important allies and friends.
“The â��fuck difference it makes”, Kinsella, is that someone who wants to use the government against peaceful individuals may, suprising as it may seem, actually not be â��ourâ�� ally and friend.”
So you are an unprincipled, unjustifiably arrogant idiot. What is news?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:40 pm
Heinrich,
Nice try at ignoring the flaws I’ve pointed out in Hoppe’s position. You “happen to disagree”, but you certainly aren’t putting forth anything like an argument, instead throwing down red herrings about who gets to decide what things mean.
You said Hoppe’s argument is sound. I showed why it’s not. Now you say the issue is “very difficult”. Why?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:44 pm
Micha the moron: “Kennedy is one of the most honest interlocuters I have ever encountered online or elsewhere. Only by intentionally uncharitably reading Kennedy could one consider his remarks purposely dishonest or inflammatory.”
I will not gainsay your first sentence; but you are likewise wrong in implying, via your second sentence, that Jeff Tucker is being intentionally uncharitable. AS well as you will vouch for JTK’s intentions, the same is true for Tucker. So drop it.
>There is certainly no clear distinction between the state of being �physically removed� and the state of being �forcefully removed.�< Ooo, and you can eject someone from your property and it's "forceful", and you can kill an aggressor too. Wow. You have proved so much, we are in your debt.
“Hoppeâ��s comments could theoretically be justified under a very narrow understanding of libertarianism; one which also tolerates people like Gary North who wish to stone to death homosexuals, disbelievers, blasphemers, and rowdy children.”
This is utterly despicable. You fucking people have to lie to malign those who irk you. Hoppe has never in his life and never would endorse what you say here. YOu are lying and malicious and full of shit. Despicable.
>No one has yet to specify exactly what larger context makes Hoppe�s comments any less heinous.<
What is heinous is maligning a tireless and genious advocate of liberty with totally baseless but potentially harmful charges of bigotry and the like. Go look in the mirror, you twisted monster.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 10:49 pm
Ghertner: “Of course that occurred to me, dude. I’m familiar with the issue and I still find Hoppes views illiberal (which I think even he would admit, considering he is putting forth an explicitely conservative - nay, paleoconservative - argument.)”
No, he would not admit it at all.
“Why do you call me a “pisant”�� [sic] for this? Do you consider all advocates of liberal immigration laws - Block and Callahan included - pissants?”
No, only punks.
“‘The term “especially” here is especially stupid. You are implying that if one expresses a view on academic freedom then one has less rights to use his own private property as he sees fit than if one did not express such viess. This is just stupid.’
“You don’t see the irony here? I doubt someone as intelligent as yourself is unable to comprehend such a simple point. No one here has argued that Kennedy has a right to post at the Mises blog; after all, it is private property. So too, I don’t believe any of Hoppe’s defenders have argued that Hoppe has a right to work at will for UNLV (even though they may have stated publicly that they believe in academic freedom, they certainly have the right to be inconsistent with their own declarations, unless this was part of their employment contract with Hoppe, and as far as I know it was not). No, all anyone is arguing in both cases is that reasonable discussion - both Hoppe’s and Kennedy’s included - should be tolerated, even if they are controversial. That is the essence of academic freedom and intellectual discourse.”
Of course i see the point you simpletons are making. But it is inane, nonetheless. A professor with tenure and a a job teaching is not equivalent to a random troller who wants to insert cute, snide ad hominems into someone else’s temporary forum.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:00 pm
Mr. Lopez,
What party line? I think Prof. Long pointed out that for any position that people claim is the “official LvMI position”, you will find some disagreement among those associated with the institute.
If they ban people who don’t tow the party line — which, according to you is apparently anti-immigration — why haven’t they kicked out Hoppe, or Callahan, or a number of other pro-immigration people? What about the disagreement over other significant issues, like whether or not fractional reserve banking is necessarily criminal, whether or not abortion should be legal by libertarian principles, and so-on and so-forth? Or is their party line anarcho-capitalism? When why is Reiseman allowed? And what about all of the stuff online by Mises himself that argues that we need a State, and disagrees with Rothbard on natural rights?
Mr. Ghertner,
I still do not think that Hoppe’s argument implies that we need to prevent people from having babies.
Sincerely,
David Heinrich
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:13 pm
Why do you continue to engage in unprovoked name calling in a thread in which you are trying to defend a moderator’s actions banning a non-vitriolic commenter like Kennedy? Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here?
In no way did I imply that Tucker was being intentionally uncharitable. I do not pretend to know Tucker’s motivations for banning Kennedy. Whatever they were, I believe they were misguided. I did say that David Heinrich is being intentionally uncharitable if he thinks that Kennedy’s comments on the Mises blog contained any vitriol.
He wouldn’t admit that physically removing homosexuals communists and other paleoconservative undesirables is illiberal? Or he wouldn’t admit that his argument is explicitely paleoconservative?
So I’m now a punk and a pissant? What did I ever do to you to provoke all this name calling?
Oh wait, let me guess: this is just another one of your “jokes.” I shouldn’t “lighten up,” it’s just your wicked sense of “humor,” right? That excuse always seems to get you off the hook for taking responsibility for your words.
I see no difference in kind, even though there may be some difference in degree. So what if Hoppe has tenure? Is tenure now some sort of libertarian right? No more so than a blog which claims to tolerate critical, peaceful discussion, but then changes its policy midstream. Are you claiming that Hoppe’s employment contract protects him from the university’s current repriment? If not, then I don’t see your point.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:17 pm
That’s nice, David. But I’m not really interested in your beliefs. I’m interested in your arguments. I’ve yet to hear an even remotely persuasive argument that distinguishes between anti-immigration laws and anti-procreation laws. I’ve come to the provisional conclusion that no such argument exists.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:22 pm
I think his point is that we’re insignificant “pisants [sic]” compared to great men like Hoppe since he’s a professor with tenure and we’re just people posting on an internet blog. I may be a professor with tenure in a decade or so–perhaps I’ll get some respect from Kinsella then? Nah, probably not…
At any rate, Kennedy’s observation about Hoppe’s errors may be true, but they are incidental to what’s important here, namely that academic freedom and free and open discourse seem to get no respect either in Vegas OR the Mises blog.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:27 pm
I’ve yet to hear an even remotely persuasive argument that distinguishes between anti-immigration laws and anti-procreation laws. I’ve come to the provisional conclusion that no such argument exists.
How about arguing that they are different in degree but not in kind since immigration will “overrun” the civilized world faster than procreation?
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:32 pm
“Why do you continue to engage in unprovoked name calling in a thread in which you are trying to defend a moderator’s actions banning a non-vitriolic commenter like Kennedy? Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here?”
I am not defending anyone. I don’t think the moderator needs “defending”.
“He wouldn’t admit that physically removing homosexuals communists and other paleoconservative undesirables is illiberal? Or he wouldn’t admit that his argument is explicitely paleoconservative?”
Is removing a trespasser from your house “illiberal”? Not all force is aggression.
>So I’m now a punk and a pissant? What did I ever do to you to provoke all this name calling?< Acted like a punk and pissant?
>Oh wait, let me guess: this is just another one of your ‘jokes.’ I should ‘lighten up,’ it’s just your wicked sense of ‘humor,’ right? That excuse always seems to get you off the hook for taking responsibility for your words.< Relax foreign-name guy.
>I see no difference in kind, even though there may be some difference in degree. So what if Hoppe has tenure?<
It’s his career; it matters. There are contractual aspects. Not so with free for all blogs with no or limited contractual aspects.
Stefan: “I think his point is that we’re insignificant ‘pisants [sic]’ compared to great men like Hoppe since he’s a professor with tenure and we’re just people posting on an internet blog. I may be a professor with tenure in a decade or so perhaps I’ll get some respect from Kinsella then? Nah, probably not”
No, tha’ts not it, not quite… but your attitude here shows that you guys are seething with anger over anyone with more profile than yourselves, evne if they did something to earn it. Get over it. Grow up. Be a good Eddie Willers. Be happy with your station in life.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:36 pm
“Why do you continue to engage in unprovoked name calling in a thread in which you are trying to defend a moderator’s actions banning a non-vitriolic commenter like Kennedy? Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here?”
I am not defending anyone. I don’t think the moderator needs “defending”.
“He wouldn’t admit that physically removing homosexuals communists and other paleoconservative undesirables is illiberal? Or he wouldn’t admit that his argument is explicitely paleoconservative?”
Is removing a trespasser from your house “illiberal”? Not all force is aggression.
>So I’m now a punk and a pissant? What did I ever do to you to provoke all this name calling?< Acted like a punk and pissant?
>Oh wait, let me guess: this is just another one of your ‘jokes.’ I should ‘lighten up,’ it’s just your wicked sense of ‘humor,’ right? That excuse always seems to get you off the hook for taking responsibility for your words.< Relax, foreign-name guy.
>I see no difference in kind, even though there may be some difference in degree. So what if Hoppe has tenure?<
It’s his career; it matters. There are contractual aspects. Not so with free for all blogs with no or limited contractual aspects.
Stefan: “I think his point is that we’re insignificant ‘pisants [sic]’ compared to great men like Hoppe since he’s a professor with tenure and we’re just people posting on an internet blog. I may be a professor with tenure in a decade or so perhaps I’ll get some respect from Kinsella then? Nah, probably not”
No, tha’ts not it, not quite… but your attitude here shows that you guys are seething with anger over anyone with more profile than yourselves, evne if they did something to earn it. Get over it. Grow up. Be a good Eddie Willers. Be happy with your station in life.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:38 pm
I am not defending anyone. I don’t think the moderator needs “defending”.
Is removing a trespasser from your house “illiberal”? Not all force is aggression.
Acted like a punk and pissant?
Relax, foreign-name guy.
It’s his career; it matters. There are contractual aspects. Not so with free for all blogs with no or limited contractual aspects.
Stefan: “I think his point is that we’re insignificant ‘pisants [sic]’ compared to great men like Hoppe since he’s a professor with tenure and we’re just people posting on an internet blog. I may be a professor with tenure in a decade or so perhaps I’ll get some respect from Kinsella then? Nah, probably not”
No, that’s not it, not quite… but your attitude here shows that you guys are seething with anger over anyone with more profile than yourselves, evne if they did something to earn it. Get over it. Grow up. Be a good Eddie Willers. Be happy with your station in life.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:39 pm
Stefan:
It’s still an argument that the State is necessary.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:41 pm
Ah true, I suppose I took Micha’s question too literally.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:45 pm
That might be an argument for a consequentialist libertarian to make, but not a natural rights advocate. Natural rights libertarians aren’t allowed to distinguish between differences in degree when it comes to coercion. Either it is or it isn’t.
February 8th, 2005 at Feb 08, 05 | 11:57 pm
“Micha” said, “That might be an argument for a consequentialist libertarian to make, but not a natural rights advocate. Natural rights libertarians aren’t allowed to distinguish between differences in degree when it comes to coercion. Either it is or it isn’t.”
And, “therefore,” as you are not “allowed” to distinguish, “therefore,” “of course,” the claims of those who want to defend Hoppe from significant career damage by the avowedly socialistic egalitarain-PC crowd, cannot be gainsaid. Hoppe’s supporters who want him to avoid this damage are obviously “incorrect”, since he is “wrong” on the immigration issue.
sure, that follows. Easy.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:00 am
Hoppe is not merely claiming that a theoretical libertarian homeowners association could remove homosexuals, democrats, communists and other undesirables if they felt like it. He is saying that these groups are fundamentally incompatable with a libertarian society and that all libertarian societies would need to remove them necessarily. “There can be no tolerance toward” these people. Does that sound liberal to you? Or illiberal?
By making calm and reasonable criticisms? Would you act like this on the Mises blog? Did Kennedy act like this?
Unless you are making an explicitly legal argument based on your understanding of contract law, I fail to your point. Why should any of us care more about his career than we do about the intellectual discourse that the Mises Institute either allows or disallows? Isn’t the intellectual reputation of the main organization representating Austrian Economics more important than a single academic?
Personally, Kennedy’s “profile” really doesn’t concern me here; he’s a big boy - he can handle it. What concerns me is the reputation the Mises Institute claims to have for tolerating reasonable criticism, and its apparent hypocrisy in this matter.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:03 am
Kinsella:
Whoa-kay.
It’s unclear what you’re basing that on, Kinsella. I’m not the one pretending to be some sort of radical free-market type and then turning around and using government IP law against net.kooks or wishing that the State were bigger.
That’s your gig.
I’m as consistent as I can be, Kinsella. If you have actual evidence of me being “unprincipled”, please link it up so I can better myself. Otherwise, it looks like you’re just projecting your vices onto me.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:13 am
Swedish-named Micha says, “There can be no tolerance toward” these people. Does that sound liberal to you? Or illiberal?”
Umm, liberal?
“By making calm and reasonable criticisms? Would you act like this on the Mises blog? Did Kennedy act like this?”
what’s the relevance? Are you saying I should be banned here, in some sick tit-for-tae? No need–anyone conneced w/ this site say the word, I’m gone, forever.
“Unless you are making an explicitly legal argument based on your understanding of contract law, I fail to your point.”
Okay.
“Why should any of us care more about his career than we do about the intellectual discourse that the Mises Institute either allows or disallows?”
Oh, you shouldn’t, if you don’t. But if you don’t, … -shoo now, shoo, litle fella.
“Isn’t the intellectual reputation of the main organization representating Austrian Economics more important than a single academic?”
Why, golly gee willickers, I dnn’t knwo, but I’ll endeavor to find out ASAP! :)
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:16 am
Lopez: “I’m not the one pretending to be some sort of radical free-market type and then turning around and using government IP law against net.kooks or wishing that the State were bigger.”
Sigh. Is this thread really about me and my wishes? Why do you people always do this? It’s old. Trust me–I’m really not a celebrity–I just play one on TV.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:34 am
I never made this argument. Stick to the facts. I’ve only responded to others who claimed that anti-immigration restrictions are just. I didn’t tie it in to this present issue.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:36 am
Micha,
The standards for posting comments at NT are very different from those at the Mises blog, and that’s fine with me. Kinsella is welcome to comment here as he has been doing.
You’re free to object to his treatment of you or anyone else, but I don’t object to it as a matter of comment policy.
I’ve always allowed the gloves to come off here. I don’t expect other blogs or forums to have the same policy.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 12:58 am
Of course, John. I just find it mildly hypocritical for Kinsella to be (implicitly) defending your banning while at the same time acting much worse than anyone accuses you of acting. Kinsella implores us to “avoid ad hominem or personal attacks” over at the Mises blog, but thinks that this behavior is just fine elsewhere. Sure, the difference can be explained by the moral liberal rules here, but doesn’t Kinsella believe in civil discourse and basic decency? Inquiring minds want to know…
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 1:30 am
De Coster on Those Who Shall Remain Nameless.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:17 am
Are you sure de Coster hasn’t completely lost it? Now she’s writing blog entries that are harder to understand than Sabotta’s.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:36 am
Lopez:
Sure. I agree with everything you have to say in your reply. As I said, I think it was foolish to ban Kennedy, and that the comments he put up were a welcome rejoinder. That doesn’t mean that a lengthy exegetical debate on what exactly Hoppe’s views on migration are would have been much to the point in the post. Better to have it here or in some other forum devoted to the question.
Bizarro Kinsella:
(etc. etc. etc.)
Hoppe is neither my ally nor my friend. Fortunately for him, that doesn’t matter; I’ll write a letter on his behalf anyway. You are aware that people who earnestly care about academic freedom usually care about it both for people they agree with and people they disagree with, right?
I will gladly go to the mat defending Hoppe’s freedom to be a bigot without retribution from University administrators. I will not lift a finger to portray him as anything other than a bigot. If you try to Mau Mau people into stifling criticism of positions they find detestable, just because the person who takes those positions is being unfairly treated, then you are telling them to be dishonest in the name of political expediency. To hell with that.
Heinrich:
1. Immigrants pay taxes too, in case you didn’t notice–and they throw money into the jar for road construction specifically whenever they buy gasoline (or pay for transportation that uses gasoline).
2. I want to create a private helicopter shuttle service for Mexican immigrants. Since I will be travelling through the air, I will make no use of “public” roads. There are lots of undocumented Mexican immigrants who would like to work and travel in the United States, so I expect that if the government doesn’t shoot my helicopters down, I can make a mint. Can I do this under current immigration control law? Could I do it under Hoppe’s second-best “libertarian” immigration control law?
If I can, how does Hoppe’s position substantially differ from the open borders position? If I can’t, then why can’t I?
Ludwig von Mises called. He wants you to know that socialist calculation is impossible.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:59 am
You think she’s flirting with him?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:28 am
I’m not sure whether I should be turned on or disgusted. I think a little bit of both.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:28 am
A logical impossibility.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 10:23 am
Micha–it turns out I was confusing you with someone else; I apologize. And I agree, I should be more civil with you. When I encounter certain attitudes and behavior I tend to resort to lampoonery, e.g. if the person is not worth a serious reply. That is not your case; as I said, I had you confused with someone else… and also, I was making the mistake of lumping you in with others who are using Hoppe’s current travails as an excuse to attack him. I see now you were not doing this. Anyway, I apologize for my incivility to you, and will stick to substance. Speaking of which–
I do believe it is in very poor taste for fellow libertarians to use the current problems Hoppe is facing as an excuse to attack him, or, worse, to imply that because he holds an immigration view they disagree with, maybe he’s getting his just desserts. I don’t accuse you of doing this, but others definitely have. I see that above simply entered into an immigration policy discussion. I agree, you have not tied it to the academic freedom issue.
I will say that I can understand why some libertarians disagree with others on immigration. But in my own opinion, you are going overboard–e.g., calling Hoppe’s views “heinous”–and acting as if there is only one libertarian position on this. There is not. This is like abortion, vouchers, or minarchy v. anarchy: it’s an issue reasonable libertarians can disagree on. If you cannot see that, then I don’t think discussion of this issue is possible.
But worst of all was your insinuation: “Hoppe’s comments could theoretically be justified under a very narrow understanding of libertarianism; one which also tolerates people like Gary North who wish to stone to death homosexuals, disbelievers, blasphemers, and rowdy children.”
It is one thing to disagree with Hoppe on this issue; it is another to label him or his views heinous etc. and to imply that not only is he wrong, but that no reasonable libertarian could maintain this; it is far worse and in my view outrageous for you to imply that Hoppe’s views are part and parcel with the idea that you can stone homosexuals.
Micha, you also said, “I just find it mildly hypocritical for Kinsella to be (implicitly) defending your banning”
Where did I do this? I don’t believe I did. Anyway, my hypocrisy is not the subject of discussion, is it?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 1:30 pm
The general discussion on this board has been rude and coarse. People here have even made light of the fact that some demented cyber-stalker is harassing Prof. De Koster. This kind of bottom-feeding isn’t tolerated on the Mises Blog and I’m glad for it. A “gloves off” policy seems perfectly fine to me in terms of intellectual discussion, but not as something to allow insults and uncivilized conduct. The “discourse” I’ve seen here is like what I’d see over at Slashdot. That’s what happens when you allow anything to go. This reflects poorly on the blog, and those running it, as does the Blog’s very poor organization (the front page is a mess, and within blogs numerous erroneous characters show up).
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 1:48 pm
A friend once told me, “Isn’t the Blog wonderful?” Not referring to any partiuclar blog, just blogs in general. I mean, he was using “Blog” as one would the “Internet.” Like there’s a big blog in the sky. I didn’t want to correct him. “Yes, the blog is indeed wonderful,” I told him.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:02 pm
The fact you were banned, combined with the hours of time spent by Rockwell’s cult followers on this blog and others, only shows how much they view contrary views as a threat to the Party Line. Classic Leninist behaviour on their part, BTW.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:05 pm
The rapidity and anonymity, or at least non-face-to-face-ness, of the internet do tend to encourage a culture of flaming; people tend to say things to each other online that they would be far less likely to say in person.
Anyway, I certainly think civility is something that all the various factions in the libertarian movement could use more of. There’s a general tendency I’ve noticed — again on all sides (I’m not picking on anyone in particular here, and I’m sure I’ve been guilty of this myself, though I do try to avoid it) — where if person A has said something rude then person B takes that as authorization to be rude not only about person A but about everyone who offers any defense of person A, and then person C feels licensed to say rude things about person B and everyone associated with person B, and it goes on and on until everyone is convinced that everyone else is a total jerk.
I’m not a Christian, but I think if more people tried to apply the principle “love thine enemy” we might all find one another easier to love.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:08 pm
Tiny Tim, what is the Mises Institute “Party Line”? And what exactly does one have to believe to be one of “Rockwell’s cult followers”?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:17 pm
Roderick, you’re right. I am trying to be more civil. Even to morons who don’t deserve it (joke).
But if you say one more thing that might be a possible criticism of me, I’m gonna open up a can of whup ass on you (kidding, again).
Roderick, you might not be a Christian, but I think of you as one.
And on a related note, I am trying to set up a dentist appointment for my gay brother who lives in Czech Republic, while he is visiting me in Houston later this month, so this is the IM I just sent him on the cell phone: “Johnson’s s only opening is Wed. afternoon. So I called my dentist. Booked you for a quick apointment to take a look on Monday (11:00: then for Tuesday 10:00 to do the actual bonding work. Steph”
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:26 pm
“What is the Mises Institute ‘Party Line’?”
See Tucker’s post above.
“And what exactly does one have to believe to be one of ‘Rockwell’s cult followers”?”
Hard to say what one has to actually believe, since a lot of cult behaviour is putting up fronts. Trying to shut someone up because they have diffent opinion is a good clue (not that it isn’t in one’s rights to be a cultist).
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:37 pm
Whether or not one thinks Tucker was justified in kicking JTK off the blog, an organization’s refusing to host an attack on one of the organization’s faculty hardly amounts to enforcing a party line. A party line surely has to have some doctrinal content beyond “don’t go beyond a certain point in attacking us or we’ll stop letting you use our property to do so.” Whether that’s justified or unjustified, it’s rather minimal to qualify as “cultish.”
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:43 pm
Nope, that is pretty much what a Party Line is. Perceiving contrary opinions about an individual’s position as an “attack” on the whole collective, leading to banishment or other attempts to silence the dissenter. (However, their property rights to do this are not in question.)
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:49 pm
You’d think the banning would be more frequent, then, given the variety of clashing opinions that get expressed on the Mises blog. In the present case could it possibly have something to do with the old adage about not kicking a man when he’s down?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:50 pm
What attack?
Was Tucker justified in booting me? Of course he was, it’s his blog to run.
And UNLV is justified in booting people too.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:51 pm
Stephen,
Apology accepted.
I agree that it may be slightly off topic and thus inappropriate for a strictly enforced on-topic policy, but you must realize that Kennedy’s M.O. is to point out what he thinks is inconsistency wherever he finds it, regardless of the current topic. Now you may find this M.O. annoying or in some other ways undesirable, but it is not personal and not hateful.
There are very few issues, if any, that would exclude someone from calling themselves a libertarian. The only one I can think of is support for the drug war. But if a large enough group of libertarians decided that the drug war needs to be fought, and somehow tried to justify that under libertarianism, I would have a hard time excluding them from the label while at the same time accepting pro-global war on terror advocates, anti-immigration advocates, pro-public school advocates, pro government funding for the arts and sciences advocates, and so on.
I’m not trying to exclude Hoppe from the label libertarian. I just find his views highly illiberal. I think he’s severely mistaken, and that restricting immigration is one of the worst possible positions for a libertarian to take.
How does Hoppe’s views on private communities differ from Gary North’s? Both of their positions could be theoretically squared with the non-aggression principle, although both are still pretty heinous. At least North has the excuse of interpreting the Bible literally. Hoppe’s motivation is not (at least explicitly) religious. He seems to truly despise homosexuals and wish them ill. I find that inconsistent with the ethic of liberalism, whether or not it violates the NAP.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:54 pm
“You’d think the banning would be more frequent”
How do you know it isn’t frequent?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 2:55 pm
But Roderick, what about my brother’s dentist appointment?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:05 pm
Roderick,
The Hoppe immigration postion is the house postion at LRC and Mises.org. There are certainly dissenters among contributors, but why do we never see sustained debate with them on these sites? Where is the effort to seek out and engage the arguments of the best critics of Hoppe’s position?
I’m not saying that these sites ought to host more pro-immigration pieces; I’m asking why Hoppe’s defenders on immigration make so little effort to publicly address even your arguments, or Block’s, or Callahan’s?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:11 pm
Kennedy, there is actually no house position on immigration at Mises Institute. There is a spectrum. Block at one end, maybe, and Hoppe at the other. Long himself, I think is closer to Block, and is the new JLS editor. The reason we don’t always “address it” is we already had a symposium on it and aired different views, and there are tons of things to argue about. Do we hvae some obligation to hammer every issue to death until we DO reach a consensus, house opinion on it? No, I don’t think so. So we move on, and respect that we agree to disagree, etc.
But let me ask you this. When I was in college, I came up with this proof that 1 = 0. So far, no one I show it to can figure out where the error is (though I know).
Okay, we know that e^2pi = 1, right? (think of a circle with 0 degrees = 360 degrees = 2pi at North; 90 degrees = pi/2 is “east”; and so on; the real magnitude of the north vector is 1, so e^2pi is 1)
Now, take the natural log, ln, of both sides:
ln(e^2pi) = ln(1)
But we know ln(1) is 0 right? i.e., e to the what equals 1? — the answer is 0, b/c e^0 = 1.
So we have ln(e^2pi) = 0.
Right?
But the problem is ln and e are inverse operations, i.e., ln(e^x) = x, and e^ln(x) = x.
This means that 2pi = 0, and dividing by 2pi, 1 = 0.
Now we know 1 is not equal to zero. So where’s the error?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:18 pm
I forgot to include the imaginary number i in the exponent. It should be e^(i*2*pi)
then it works out. you just get i*2*pi = 0, then divide by i*2*pi
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:28 pm
Kinsella,
you see plenty of advocacy of the Hoppe immigration position on the Rockwell sites, little or none of which seeks to engage and deal with the best arguments against it.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:35 pm
Why your imagination has taken you into the realm of complex analysis baffles me, but whatever. As any beginning complex analysis student could tell you the pair of equations ln (e^x)=x, e^(ln (x))=x do not carry over to complex numbers from real numbers, the reason being that ln is a multivalued complex function. So your proof shows that 2pi - 0 = 2pin for some integer n, which is about as trivial as most of your remarks on this thread thus far.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 3:52 pm
This all comes from Euler’s formula, of course: e^i*theta = cos(theta) + i*sin(theta)
so if theta = 2*pi, then the sin of 2*pi is 0, and cos 2p is 1, therefore, e^i*2*pi = cos(2*pi) + i*sin(2*pi) = 1 + i*0 = 1.
That’s sort of the prequel to the first step of the above “proof”.
Stefan–DAMN YOU! You are right, but I would not have worded it that way. natural log is defined as operating on the magnitude or real portion of the argumet, so it’s really ln(ABS(e^i*2*pi)) but the ABS of e^i*2*pi is just 1. So we really just have ln(1) = ln (1), or 0 = 0.
Luckily very few liberal arts types will understand your proof so will still be baffled.
Kennedy, “you see plenty of advocacy of the Hoppe immigration position on the Rockwell sites, little or none of which seeks to engage and deal with the best arguments against it.”
So? Is there some obligation to “engage” with arguments until we have all reached unanimity? ARe you saying now that there SHOULD BE a “house position” at Mises Institue? What about on IP? Not everyone there agrees wiht my view on this. Jeff TUcker once asked me to up up a blog w/ links to all the relevant IP stuff in Mises-related publications, which I did here. Granted, most of them are anti-IP, but Reisman’s is strongly pro-IP and Mises is arguably pro-IP. And I linked to my own resources from there, which has both sides. http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/001771.asp
We have diverse views at Mises Institute. Some are pro-choice (Block), some are not. Some are open borders; some are not. Some are probably even fractional reserve type freebankers, others are 100% reserve. Some are utilitarian or consequentialist, others are rights based. There may be even some Bushites and pro-war types, but most are not. Etc.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:07 pm
ln(e^x) = x only if x is a real number. 2(pi)i is not a real number because i is not real. Hence, ln(e^(2(pi)i)) != 1. It actually equals zero, since e^(2(pi)i) = 1, and ln(1) = 0.
BTW, what’s with the bizarre topic change?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:08 pm
When you’re publicly advocating using state force to control immigration intellectual honesty requires that you seek out and publicly engage the best arguments against your postion.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:08 pm
Curses, Stefan beat me.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:10 pm
natural log is defined as operating on the magnitude
I had assumed you had made a mistake and meant “log” when you wrote “ln”, but if you literally mean “ln” as in ln(z) := ln(|z|) then anyone, liberal art or no, can see your equations don’t hold, since say e^ln(-1) = e^ln(|-1|)=e^ln(1)=e^0=1 != -1.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:16 pm
The details of my life are quite inconsequential…. very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize; he would drink. He would make outrageous claims… like, he invented the question mark… My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon… luge lessons… When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:27 pm
BTW, what’s with the bizarre topic change?
I think Kinsella doesn’t really feel the need to be nice or coherent when speaking to No-Treasonites ever since Lopez declared he should “shut his stupid cake-hole”.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:28 pm
Stefan:
Why your imagination has taken you into the realm of complex analysis baffles me, but whatever
For a sect of libertarians to persistently advocate forced emigration or forceful removal of immigrants (human trash, as Hoppe refers to them) is a watershed moment - the proverbial elephant in the living room - and it’s difficult to ignore because once you’ve advocated initiation of force against the “human trash,” you really haven’t a pricipled leg to stand on when any other initiation of force issue crops up.
To critics of forced emigration, Kinsella suggests ignoring the elephant - “Agree to disagree and move on. Look over here at my gay Czech brother. Look at my clever math. Look anywhere, but at the core issue in the middle of the room. Stop obsessing about the elephant.”
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:39 pm
I think it would be a great idea if people who think some topic or point of view isn’t receiving sufficient attention in the traditional Mises-Institute-related venues would submit articles to LewRockwell.com, or the Journal of Libertarian Studies, or the Austrian Scholars Conference. You might find those venues are more open than you think.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:44 pm
Holmes (as in, “What up, Holmes?”):
“BTW, what’s with the bizarre topic change?”
Dunno. Just fun to put on the brakes sometimes.
JTK: ” ‘ Is there some obligation to engage with arguments until we have all reached unanimity?’
“When you’re publicly advocating using state force to control immigration intellectual honesty requires that you seek out and publicly engage the best arguments against your postion.”
Who is “you”? the Mises INst has not done this. Hoppe has. And as editor of the JLS he asked for contributions across the spectrum, and then published them. Shirley, you are not suggesting that once one published an opinion on something like this, one is obligated to keep hashing it out forever?
Stefan (so-called): “I had assumed you had made a mistake and meant â��logâ�� when you wrote â��ln”, but if you literally mean â��lnâ�� as in ln(z) := ln(|z|) then anyone, liberal art or no, can see your equations donâ��t hold, since say e^ln(-1) = e^ln(|-1|)=e^ln(1)=e^0=1 != -1.”
NO, I literaly meant ln. And I left out the mag marks | on purpose, that’s part of the trick. (how do you get thos mag marks, bTW? I couldn’t find it). BUt I fear you are dead wrong when you say that “anyone, liberal art or no, can see your equations don’t hold”. You overestimate people’s math literacy.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:47 pm
JTK– “Was Tucker justified in booting me? Of course he was, it’s his blog to run.
And UNLV is justified in booting people too.”
Your first comment is right but you are equivocating on the word justification. And your second statement does not follow at all from the first. Moreover, just as you and others have criticized Tucker for booting you, evne though you grant he was “justified”, likewise, regardless of whether UNLV is “justified” (whatever that means) in taking action against Hoppe, it does not imply we can’t strongly and vociferously criticize it, and as libertarians!
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:50 pm
I don’t even understand the *question*, and I go to a technical oriented university. So much for my 1337 math skillz.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:52 pm
Ghertner: “I’m not trying to exclude Hoppe from the label libertarian. I just find his views highly illiberal. I think he’s severely mistaken, and that restricting immigration is one of the worst possible positions for a libertarian to take.”
I understand that. But in my view you should not simply assert with strong words like “heinous” and imply that it’s clear-cut, decided, and obvious to all libertarians. In fact, and I assume you realize this–probably well over half of libertarians believe in restricting immigration *to some degree*. There are, in my view, very few libertarians who think we should COMPLETELY, INSTANTLY, open the borders, without changning anything else in our polity. Now you may be in that minority but do you really deny that most libertarians believe in SOME immigration restrictions, for whatever reason?
“Hoppe’s motivation is not (at least explicitly) religious. He seems to truly despise homosexuals and wish them ill.”
I suppose I can see how you misconstrue him, but I really don’t think you are reading him correctly. He does not despise gays at all; he is not even that culturally conservative a person. He’s a nice, gentle man, very tolerant of others. You are talking about a caricature that has nothing to do with reality. We can debate what he said or how clear it is or his political views, but it is flat out factually wrong to assert he hates gays, or minds them at all. You need to square your interpreation of his other views with this fact.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:55 pm
Lynette: “For a sect of libertarians to persistently advocate forced emigration or forceful removal of immigrants (human trash, as Hoppe refers to them) is a watershed moment - the proverbial elephant in the living room - and it’s difficult to ignore because once you’ve advocated initiation of force against the “human trash,” you really haven’t a pricipled leg to stand on when any other initiation of force issue crops up.”
You do realize, of course, as I pointed out to Ghertner, that most libertarians (my estimate) do believe in some restrictions on immigration. I really believe that the open borders types are a minority. So I guess most of your fellow libertarians are unprincipled aggression advocates?
“To critics of forced emigration, Kinsella suggests ignoring the elephant - “Agree to disagree and move on. Look over here at my gay Czech brother. Look at my clever math. Look anywhere, but at the core issue in the middle of the room. Stop obsessing about the elephant.”
You have to admit, I’m pretty good at changing the subject. And it’s kind of amusing, too.
[cheech voice on]Come on, man, like, wow, I like, man, view my blog commenting as my art–my ART, you know, man?–and man, like, how can you say my art is wrong man? It’s my art man! Who can say what art is? Art is not wrong, man, it’s just … … art.[/cheech]
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:58 pm
Does a university have precisely the same function as a blog? If not, there might be grounds for protecting dissent in one case and not in the other. (Moreover, I presume JTK’s entire career and livelihood wasn’t built around being a commenter on the Mises blog.)
In addition, there’s the fact that UNLV is contractually obligated by its own by-laws to protect “opinions or views which are controversial, unpopular or contrary to the attitudes of the University.” Academic freedom is, in effect, part of the payment Hoppe receives for his services. There’s no analogous contract in the blog case.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 4:59 pm
I think Kinsella and Hoppe are shagging.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 5:00 pm
“Does a university have precisely the same function as a blog?”
Other than one is mostly private and the other is directly subsidized by the state?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 5:04 pm
“I think Kinsella and Hoppe are shagging.”
Well, I will say, he did blow my mind.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 5:10 pm
When I say that something is heinous, I am declaring my opinion on the matter, not describing the attitudes of other libertarians, nor the obviousness of the issue. Lots of libertarians hold heinous opinions, mostly from ignorance. I judge Hoppe by a higher standard based on his obvious knowledge of the philosophical and economic arguments.
I believe in *some* immigration restrictions too - at least under our current statist regime: background checks for criminal activity, gradual rather than instantaneous increase of the number let in to give the system time to adjust, and so on. The reason why I find Hoppe’s views so heinous isn’t so much the actual policy he proposes (although that’s bad enough), but the justifications he has given, his motivation for giving them, his clear bigotry towards certain minority groups, the fact that there is no end in sight or movement to a more liberty-oriented goal under his proposal, and the fact that he is an otherwise respectable and intelligent voice for liberty. I think its a waste of great talent for someone like Hoppe to throw in with the hateful dregs of society.
I met him in person this past summer at Mises U. and he was nice, gentle and tolerant to me and all of the other students. But even his words during his speeches were vicious, calling libertarians like Milton Friedman and Richard Posner “worse than communists.” (Should I call him “worse than a communist” for espousing views with which I disagree?) Based on his written work and reports from others who have come into contact with him, his demeanor towards certain ethnic minorities and homosexuals leaves much to be desired.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 5:12 pm
Most libertarians are minarchists and are unprincipled (or inconsistent with their principles) aggression advocates. Surely you know this?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 5:24 pm
There are, in my view, very few libertarians who think we should COMPLETELY, INSTANTLY, open the borders, without changning anything else in our polity.
Probably so, because I’d expect the libertarian who wanted utterly no borders beyond those delimiting private property would also advocate the abolition of social welfare burdens along with the borders.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 5:56 pm
Kinsella wrote:
I don’t put much stock in majority opinions.
They apply their principles inconsistently. That doesn’t mean they are completely unprincipled, but it does mean that they undermine their own related arguments elsewhere.
For example, libertarians who, for the good of Americans, advocate forcefully restricting individuals from crossing the US border have little standing to complain when the collectivists in government seek to, for the good of Americans, restrict free trade via protectionism.
They may have utilitarian aguments against protectionism that will fly, but they cannot make a principled case against restricting free trade because they’ve long since discarded those principles when they agreed to wield force against individuals seeking to cross an arbitrary line.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 6:22 pm
So much for my 1337 math skillz.
That word is way too cool–we should resist the temptation to be l337.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 7:58 pm
Kinsella,
Even you know that closed borders are morally indefensible, which is why when presented with this challenge you conceded that you were not willing in principle to personally do what it takes to keep them closed.
If a Mexican was coming to mow my lawn, would it be heinous for you to shoot him if that’s what it took to stop him?
Of course it would be heinous, as you know very well.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 8:18 pm
Heinrich:
That’s fine, you haven’t insulted anyone here. Now, how about addressing this:
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 8:34 pm
Ghertner: “I believe in *some* immigration restrictions too - at least under our current statist regime: background checks for criminal activity, gradual rather than instantaneous increase of the number let in to give the system time to adjust, and so on. The reason why I find Hoppe’s views so heinous isn’t so much the actual policy he proposes (although that’s bad enough), but the justifications he has given,”
Ghertner: I find this amazing. By your own logic, you yourself also support “heinous” policies. Is this not utterly hypocritical? Puh-leaze. Maybe if Hoppe had just stated his conclusions without his rationale, that would have made it all okay?
” his motivation for giving them, his clear bigotry towards certain minority groups,”
He does NOT have bigotry towards minorities. Do you have any clear support for this extremely serious charge?? If not, you should refrain from making it. He does not deserve such seat of the pants accusations.
” the fact that there is no end in sight or movement to a more liberty-oriented goal under his proposal, and the fact that he is an otherwise respectable and intelligent voice for liberty. I think its a waste of great talent for someone like Hoppe to throw in with the hateful dregs of society.”
You know, what really does it matter that you think he’s wasting his talent? Does he need to channel his talents to your approval? And you imlpy that the open border oppoenents (of which you apparnetly are one) are “hateful dregs of socieyt” … despite the fact that probalby 98% of all Americans oppose open borders. I guess that means 98% of us are the dregs of society…?!!
“I met him in person this past summer at Mises U. and he was nice, gentle and tolerant to me and all of the other students. But even his words during his speeches were vicious, calling libertarians like Milton Friedman and Richard Posner ‘worse than communists.’ (Should I call him ‘worse than a communist’ for espousing views with which I disagree?)”
Let me ask you: when did libertarians become such pussies? Why all this hand-wringing over how we express ourselves, is it touchy feely enough, boo hooo hhoooo. GOD. Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket.
” Based on his written work and reports from others who have come into contact with him, his demeanor towards certain ethnic minorities and homosexuals leaves much to be desired.”
This is utter bullshit. This is libel and totally unwarranted.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 8:38 pm
Ghertner: “Most libertarians are minarchists and are unprincipled (or inconsistent with their principles) aggression advocates. Surely you know this?”
Of course. And I don’t deny it. Unlike most libertarians, apparently, I don’t feel a need to lie. I don’t feel afraid to admit the way reality is. I don’t for example delude myself or try to delude others that the Constitution is really libertarian–I recognoize that it isn’t. I admit most people in society are statist to one degree or hte other-and this is unlikely to change. I realize most libertarians (defined reasonably) are minarchist or worse; not anarchist. So of course, by my lights, most libertarians are wrong on the fundamental issue of the state? So what.
My point was that if you paint someone as a horrible example of libertairna merely for not favoring open borders, you are saying most libertarians are not good libertarians. Just want to put your comment into context, so maybe you will see it is a bit over the top. Clear now? What else do I need to spell out explicitly?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 8:41 pm
Lynette: “They apply their principles inconsistently. That doesn’t mean they are completely unprincipled, but it does mean that they undermine their own related arguments elsewhere.”
I see you do not deny my statement that most libertarians are not open borderse. And it then appears to me strange that you people are all piling on Hoppe. After all, the recent news about him didn’t invovle his immigration views. So why are you pounding on him for his immigration views if they are *in principle* no different that that of *most libertarians”?! What is your obsession wiht him, your hatred of him and desire to attack, smear, besmirch him? What is wrong with you people? Here we have a tireless advocate of individual rights and liberty. You should be in his debt and have a bit more respect and humility.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 9:02 pm
Rad Geek:
That’s pretty much the position Kinsella was forced into on the Mises blog, telling me that questioning the idea that Hoppe ought to be defended was off topic.
That’s fine, it’s his post so he can shut me off if he wants. But unless there really is a party line, an idea or ideas that musn’t be questioned, then it certainly is topical to bring up the possibility that Hoppe’s views are unlibertarian enough that libertarians ought not support him.
That’s fine, I personally don’t have a preference for what happens here, it seems obvious that “censorship” (in scare quotes because I’m not sure that this qualifies as such) is an occupational hazard in American higher education.
There might be an argument about who’s dime is paying for this stipulated bigotry, but that situation is so tangled that it’s impossible to sort out. Ya can’t even figure out who-all is paying for Hoppe’s care and feeding, let alone get ‘em all together to decide whether to keep him around. I mean, we can all go on about freedom of expression and yadda yadda yadda, but nobody really wants to pay for a soapbox for views that they find repulsive. The real problem is that there isn’t any way to not pay for what you don’t want: this wouldn’t even be an issue if Hoppe worked for a private employer.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 9:10 pm
J.T. Kennedy:
You said:
That depends, did you invite him or didn’t you? If you did not invite him onto your property, then he is a to-be tresspasser. Thus, you are entitled to use whatever force he requires you to use by his level of resistance, to prevent him from stepping on your property.
This means you are entitled to shoot him if that is what is necessary to prevent him from entering your property (note, shoot doesn’t mean you have to kill him: a tranquilizer dart would do).
Thus, the principle is that — to prevent someone from violating your property rights, to remove someone from your property, or to retalitate or obtain restitution from someone — you are entitled to use an escalating level of force up to the necessary force to remove him — so long as you don’t initiate aggression against any innocents — that level of force being determined by his level of resistance.
Let me provide an example, for clarification…
1. Let’s say that there is someone tresspassing on your property. This person is a criminal, an initiator of aggression.
2. You are entitled to remove this person from your property, threatening to use whatever physical force necessary to remove him if he doesn’t get off of your property. Thus, you can ask him to leave. If he leaves, that’s the end of that.
3. If he refuses to leave, you are entitled to attempt to physically push or lift him off of your property. You would then, of course, also be entitled to make him pay for the costs of such efforts.
4. If he resists your attempts to push him off of your property, and pushing him off is ineffective, you are entitled to physically assault him to remove him. Presuming you deter him thus, or incapacitate him, you can then ask him to leave your property.
5. If such physical assault is insufficient, you are entitled to shoot him, using whatever technology (bullet, tranquilizer dart, etc) you have, to make it possible to remove him from your property.
Obviously, with each increased level of resistance, this person becomes a greater and greater initiator of aggression. Thus, you are entitled to use greater and greater force to protect yourself, and to retaliate seeking restitution and retribution.
If you deny a property owners right to proceed in such a manner, you have effectively denied property-owners to the right to remove anyone from their property, as they wouldn’t be able to use the means to do so (and any means are acceptable, except those that involve initiating aggression against third parties). You cannot consistently draw a distinction between the varying levels, and say that one level is justified and another not. Furthermore, if you do draw a line between some levels, you’re just reducing the magnitude of the problem, for there would still be instances where a person couldn’t remove a tresspasser.
Your attempt to emotionalize the issue by singling out a specific group — Mexicans — is irrelevant. The important issue is not whether the tresspasser is a Mexican or a Caucasion, but simply the fact that he is a tresspasser. The issue, thus, is whether or not property owners — or those who should be property owners — have the right to exclude others from their property. If we accept Hoppe’s argument — which I do — the unwanted immigrant without someone to vouch for him is a tresspasser, as is the bum in the street.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 9:19 pm
You can keep him off your property Heinrich, but America isn’t your property.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 9:27 pm
Heinrich,
So run your own blog as you see fit. My posts on the Mises blog were civil. Here I allow insults and other conduct you might well find uncivilized.
“You can protect your delicate sensibilities by turning the fuck away…” - Cy Tolliver, Deadwood
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 9:28 pm
“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They ‘the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism ‘ will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
This is a heinous opinion. Hoppe should be embarrassed for writing it and you should be embarrassed for defending him. There is no squaring that circle by appealing to the population of libertarians, since most libertarians would be just as appalled after reading that statement as all right-thinking folks are.
The rest of this conversation is getting boring. I don’t have time for bigots and their apologists to plead ignorance and complain about touchy feely political correctness.
The reason why I care so much is that people like Hoppe (and Sobran and others) call themselves advocates of liberty and free market anarchy, and are relatively public figures, so their bigotry reflects poorly on libertarians who do not deserve to have their reputations tarnished by association with bigots. I’m not saying Hoppe is not a libertarian; I am saying that his views on immigration and tolerance of other groups are fundamentally illiberal. He should be heavily criticized for these views, even if his other work deserves praise (which it does).
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 9:37 pm
Mr. Kennedy,
You’re right, America — or rather, the public places in America — aren’t solely my property. Rather, in all rightfulness, I should have normative control over a very small voting share of all of these public monstrosities (given that they exist). Thus, “America” is much more Bill Gates’, Warren Buffet’s, and George Soros’ property than it is mine, given that they pay much much larger sums of tax-money than I do.
I’d propose — that as “public” property should be considered analagous to the property of shareholders — that we take a “shares-weighted” vote on how to deal with the immigration problem, with one’s vote being weighted by how much of a net tax-payer one is.
I highly suspect that the result of such a weighted vote would be limitations on immigration of the type Hoppe proposes.
(Note: I can see the objection already: “that’s Democracy!” No, it’s not. It is imperfectly analagous to shareholder voting. It is vastly unequal and unegalitarian, with the more productive successful people having more say).
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 10:08 pm
Then we could expel all of the human trash, including the homegrown variety, couldn’t we?
Locking Ameicans into a faux-covenant they never consented to as an aproximation of private property is a terrible idea.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 10:13 pm
Mr. Kennedy,
Yes, we could expel all of the human trash — bums, welfare-recipients, criminals, communists, and fascists (e.g., KKK-nutjobs) — and that would be good. The people expelled would be net tax-consumers (in no case would it be appropriate to deport a net tax-payer), and this would increase. Hoppe suggests that the best thing to do is try to approximate how net tax-payers would act if they actually controlled “public property”. I suggest a way to perhaps better do this, by a weighted vote.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 10:13 pm
Kinsella:
You could be wrong, but, as I’ve already said, it doesn’t matter how the poll would turn out. I don’t arrive at my conclusions by plebescite.
When urged by his admirers to contact Carol Harter on his behalf, I’m not inclined to entertain such a plea since it seems that Hoppe is more a Champion of Utility than a Champion of Liberty. It’s also not beyond the pale to imagine that gay students might find Prof. Hoppe’s desire to remove homosexuals from society a matter of some concern. Seems to me that President Harter is in a better position to evaluate the situation than most of the people who wrote letters in his support.
Hoppe’s immigration ideas (his plans to rid the country of “human trash” and immigrant “invaders,” as he calls them) are a bit loopy, but his views on immigration and homosexuals probably don’t keep him from being an adequate educator. Either way, he doesn’t concern me much.
Give it a rest about the hatred and obsession, already. You and Tucker remind me of the buck-toothed, flat-chested spinster who habitually tightens her high-button collar lest some young buck might take a peek down her cleavage when, in fact, she could only be so lucky.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 10:45 pm
Can someone tell me why Heinrich took a question about a guy coming to mow the lawn and turned it into 580 words on trespassing? Granted, I do my own yard work and could be uninformed, but is that how the landscaping business works out West?
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 11:23 pm
Stefan:
Kinsella could have made me look foolish indeed by simply showing how I was wrong. Complication though:
I was right.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 11:27 pm
Heinrich, again:
No, you can’t. Even if someone bought into your argument that roads, parks, etc. are collectively owned by tax-payers, your conclusion does not follow. Whether or not you can rightfully restrict their use of “public” property according to some weighted voting scheme, they don’t live on “public property.” They live on their own land or land that they have contracted to rent. You have no grounds on which to expel them; you can at most return them to their own homes if they step onto your alleged “public” property.
You haven’t said, incidentally, whether or not I can create my private helicopter shuttle service in Hoppe’s United States.
(1) You’re bluffing here. Do you have any empirical evidence whatsoever that bums, welfare-recipients, communists, fascists, and KKK-nutjobs are as classes net tax-consumers in the Rothbardian sense?
(You might think that welfare-recipients are the easy case. Not so: most welfare recipients do receive more money from the government than they pay in formal taxes, but so what? Welfare recipients are disproportionately more likely to face systematic rights-violations at the hands of drug cops, hanging judges, wardens, petty bureaucrats, and the rest of the State apparatus of control. It’s not at all clear that if you consider all the illegitimate harms that the very poor typically suffer at the hands of the state, the pittance they receive from the government overcomes the losses inflicted.)
(2) Let’s say for the moment that you had succeeded in listing off classes of net tax-recipients here. Would that make any moral case for physically expelling them from the community? If so, why
It’s important to remember that receiving tax funds is not a crime under natural law; it’s taking the tax monies from their owners that is. Of course, people who are benefitting from expropriation and have some control over whether the money is taken and transferred have a moral obligation to exercise that control in such a way as to cut against the taking of tax funds. But it’s not clear that all or even most net tax-recipients do have any meaningful control over whether or not the money is taken. So it’s unclear that any particular blame falls on their shoulders.
As for those who are in positions such that blame falls on their shoulders: do you earnestly think that physical expulsion is a proportional response to the crime? Do you normally advocate exile and confiscation of property for thieves?
Too bad for Hoppe, since socialist calculation is impossible.
Socialist calculation is still impossible. Changing the scheme from central planning to One Big Corporate Cartel doesn’t help.
February 9th, 2005 at Feb 09, 05 | 11:51 pm
Lopez: “But unless there really is a party line, an idea or ideas that musn’t be questioned, then it certainly is topical to bring up the possibility that Hoppe’s views are unlibertarian enough that libertarians ought not support him.”
Sure, and those of us to whom it is plain that he is not only a libertarian but one of the most significant of our time are free to recognize what a moron you are.
“I will gladly go to the mat defending Hoppe’s freedom to be a bigot without retribution from University administrators.”
He’s not a bigot, you human scum pipsqueak.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 12:02 am
Lynette: “You could be wrong, but, as I’ve already said, it doesn’t matter how the poll would turn out. I don’t arrive at my conclusions by plebescite.”
Don’t lie by implying that’s what I said. My point was to put in context your condemnation focused on Hoppe, to make it clear you are condemning 99.9% of the human race and probably 80% of libertarians… and strangely, focusing on your bete noir, Hope.
“When urged by his admirers to contact Carol Harter on his behalf, I’m not inclined to entertain such a plea since it seems that Hoppe is more a Champion of Utility than a Champion of Liberty.”
Sure, and of course, it’s natural, that in such a case, you pick apart the immigration policy he shares with, oh, I don’t know, 80% of the libertarian party, to kick him when he’s down. Real low.
“It’s also not beyond the pale to imagine that gay students might find Prof. Hoppe’s desire to remove homosexuals from society a matter of some concern.”
Screw ‘em. Who gives a damn if they are “concerned.” I’m sick of snot-nosed whiny students. When I was a studnet I never had time to join a goddamned protest. Engineers don’t have time for such self-indulgent, whiny, snot-nosed bullshit. Since their tuition is subsidized by mama taxpayer, they have time to go get wasted on dollar beer night and skip class when they have hangovers. Who gives a goddamn flip what a bunch of students think. They should know their place, keep their mouths shut, and learn.
“Seems to me that President Harter is in a better position to evaluate the situation than most of the people who wrote letters in his support.”
Oh, well maybe the people who wrote the letters are in a better position than you to know whether they should write the letters.
What retarded reasoning. By that standard only women have a right to an opinion on abortion, and blah blah blah blah.
I’ll give you credit. Unless memory fails me, you have not resorted yet to the utterly despicable tactic of implying Hoppe is a bigot, as Palmer the malevolent has (or am I getting confused?)
“Give it a rest about the hatred and obsession, already. You and Tucker remind me of the buck-toothed, flat-chested spinster who habitually tightens her high-button collar lest some young buck might take a peek down her cleavage when, in fact, she could only be so lucky.”
That is not bad creative writing and imagery, I’ll give you credit. But you sound like those yankees who think all Southerners are like the mongoloid homo rapists from Deliverance. It’s so 90s to think it’s fashionable to wink-wink nod-nod at how much more sophistocated you are than hillbillies and conservatives.
You will notice that the sullen pricks out there continue to resort to blatant and outrageous personal attacks on Hoppe and others. The constant resort to “racist” and “bigot” has become a fucking JOKE. No one gives a flying fuck if some PC fucking morons make these charges any more. You have shot your wads, you have cried wolf one too many times. Sorry.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 12:14 am
Ghertner:
“This is a heinous opinion. Hoppe should be embarrassed for writing it and you should be embarrassed for defending him. There is no squaring that circle by appealing to the population of libertarians, since most libertarians would be just as appalled after reading that statement as all right-thinking folks are.
“I don’t have time for bigots and their apologists to plead ignorance and complain about touchy feely political correctness.”
Look here you cocky son of a bitch. Disagreeing with Hoppe is one thing. But you are accusing him of being a bigot. This is a horrible, evil, thing. Hoppe is not a bigot, you stupid, brainwashed, punk of a student.
“I’m not saying Hoppe is not a libertarian; I am saying that his views on immigration and tolerance of other groups are fundamentally illiberal. He should be heavily criticized for these views, even if his other work deserves praise (which it does).”
No, you don’t say he’s not a libertarian–you only say he’s a bigot! How generous of you. I am done with you. Pathetic, disappointing, and disgusting.
Kennedy may have no rules here, and I can tolerate a lot… inappropriate criticism of Hoppe when he is down is one thing; asserting he is not a good libertarian is a matter of disagrement; but repeated lies about his character are just beyond the pale. For me, anyway, and I don’t need anyone’s “permission” or “justification” to make this judgment call. You, sir, have seriously disappointed me.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 12:21 am
as ‘public’ property should be considered analagous to the property of shareholders that we take a ’shares-weighted’ vote on how to deal with the immigration problem
Do you even understand what “property” is Heinrich? Are you seriously suggesting that people living as far from the Mexican border as, oh, I don’t know, Las Vegas, each have a small “claim” to the Texas-Mexico border, one that even justifies forced relocation and the occassional shooting?
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 9:00 am
Given that Hoppe is a welfare-recipient (he gets paid by a state institution) and KKK-nutjob (or close to one) and a non-American to boot, it would seem he is advocating tossing himself (as human trash) to the curb.
Bubba-bye Herr Hoppe. Have fun trying to swim back across the Rio Grande.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 10:04 am
Tiny Tim,
You despicable swine. Hoppe is neither a “KKK-nutjob (or close to one)” nor a “non-American to boot”. May you rot in the hell of your loserdom.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 11:29 am
So you admit he is a welfare-case?
Well, that alone makes him human trash. Clean up, aisle 2. We have a piece of tax-sucking Euro-trash that needs the boot back to Krautland.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 2:25 pm
Kinsella:
For the record, the following quote is mine:
John Lopez quoted it in passing to comment upon it. I don’t know whether you know that or not, but since you attribute his quote and don’t attribute mine, someone reading your comment might not realize you’re actually responding to two different people.
That said, I turn to your reply:
As well as your reply to Ghertner’s similar sentiments above:
Here’s a common definition of “bigot”:
I don’t think that’s quite right, actually; “bigot” is a vice term, but not all groupings are such that partiality towards one’s own group or intolerance towards those who differ is a bad thing. (It’s not “bigotry” for someone who doesn’t molest children to be intolerant of those who do.) So let’s add the qualifier: a bigot is one whose partiality towards members of one’s own group and intolerance of those who differ is irrational.
Here’s Hoppe (with emphasis added):
Hoppe is, I take it, a heterosexual and not a homosexual. He is, therefore, demanding that–in order to maintain “a libertarian order” there be no tolerance towards those who have a different sexuality than his own, that they must be shunned, and–if they live in Hoppeville–they should be exiled and their property confiscated.
That Hoppe is vocally intolerant of homosexuals is an open-and-shut case. The only question that remains is whether his avowed intolerance amounts to bigotry. Whether or not it does depends on whether or not it’s reasonable to be intolerant towards someone solely because she or he desires to sleep with people of the same sex.
If you have some other meaning for the word in mind when you deny that Hoppe is a “bigot,” now’s the time to mention it. If so, then you ought to let us know what it is, because I take it that those of us calling Hoppe a bigot mean by it something like what I just spelled out.
If, on the other hand, you take “bigot” to mean roughly what I just said it means, the only question that remains is:
Stephan, do you think that it’s reasonable to be intolerant towards someone solely because of she or he desires to sleep with people of the same sex?
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 2:59 pm
I guess I am a bigot, then. You see, I am strongly partial to my political group (libertarians/classical liberals, and more specifically anarcho-capitalists), and consider communists and socialists of all stripes to be criminals in so-far as they’ve acted on the wealth-redistributionary aspects of those political philosophies.
As for your irrational qualifier, that’s meaningless. Firstly, all action is necessarily rational (at least in the praxeological sense). People strive towards ends utilizing various means. People may be erroneous in their means, in that they don’t accomplish their desired ends.
You are taking Hoppe out of the context of the chapter that such was in, which was a chapter addressed to conervatives and to the socially conservative lifestyle. If a conservative culture is to be maintained, then, no, one cannot be tolerant of homosexuals. I also believe that it is the actual actions that Hoppe is saying cannot be tolerated, not the desires. Actually, Hoppe goes even further than that, noting that (even in a conservative social order) people would probably be free to do as they please in their own houses, but would only not be able to publicly herald their deviant lifestyles.
Now, how contrary public displays of homosexuality are to the goal of a family-oriented community is something that is up for debate. However, I think it is absurd to simply dismiss the idea that public displays of homosexual behaviour are contrary to family-values.
I would propose an alternate definition for bigot: One who hates other groups of people, who are not initiators of aggression, and actually initiates aggression against them.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 4:27 pm
Now time for Kinsella to not-so-deftly change the subject in order to avoid answering Rad Geek’s question…
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 10:02 pm
Me:
One thing to add: The first time I take Kinsella to task for something and it turns out I’m wrong, watch for him to jump on it with both feet and claim that that proves that I’m insane/delusional and thus am also totally wrong about every prior mention of him.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 10:28 pm
These nasty characters on the blog are starting to bug me, but they compliment the sloppy typos and schizophrenic ranting in Kinsella’s latest posts very well.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 10:35 pm
What characters Stefan? I thought I fixed 90% of the problem last night. I’m not seeing garbled characters anymore except for apostrophes in a few cases.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 10:53 pm
Another problem with the “net tax consumers” nonsense is that the the armed employees of FedGov whom Hoppe would have rounding up Mexicans are themsleves total net tax consumers, being government employees and all.
If Hoppe was really concerned about who’s a tax sink and who’s not, he’d be advocating hiring illegal immigrants to chase out bureaubots, not vice versa.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 10:54 pm
Rad Geek wasn’t using the term irrational in its praxeological sense. He was using in its common language sense, i.e. devoid or lacking reason. This is clear from Rad Geek’s post.
Except that Hoppe wasn’t just talking about conservative societies. He explicitely wrote that homosexuality cannot be tolerated in a libertarian society.
“They â�� the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism â�� will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
That’s a terrible definition and contradicts the common usage of the term. We already have a word for people who initiate force against others: moral criminals. Bigots are those who have unreasonable hatred towards other groups, generally for collectivist reasons. Those who hate Jews are anti-Semites; those who hate blacks are racists; those who hate women are misogynists; those who hate homosexuals are homophobes. All are bigots. Hoppe hates homosexuals. Hoppe is a bigot. You can apologize for his bigotry, by claiming that there is nothing wrong with irrationally hating members of certain groups. But you cannot deny that Hoppe is a bigot.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 11:07 pm
Ghertner’s right, a peaceful white seperatist is still a bigot even though he doesn’t attack other people. The situation is usually confusing though because most bigots do advocate attacking people they don’t like. There are few bigots who don’t want to use the State as a club against the people they despise.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 11:26 pm
Of course, Hoppe does want to use the state as a club against the people he despises, namely non-European immigrants, as a “second-best” option.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 11:28 pm
Just at a glance, post numbers 84 and 46 on this page have weird characters in them. I’m sure I remember seeing some more elsewhere.
February 10th, 2005 at Feb 10, 05 | 11:57 pm
Okay, Stefan thanks. We have (mostly) stopped producing the garbled characters in comments, but we haven’t gotten rid of all the ones that were produced.
February 11th, 2005 at Feb 11, 05 | 4:41 pm
Lopez: “One thing to add: The first time I take Kinsella to task for something and it turns out I’m wrong, watch for him to jump on it with both feet and claim that that proves that I’m insane/delusional and thus am also totally wrong about every prior mention of him.”
I have no idea what you are jabbering about. If I proved your wrong, I would definitely not do what you predict. When people stick with substance and are fair, that’s all I ask.
As to the other scum on this thread who are demanding I respond to them regarding their outrageous and false accusations of bigotry, let me make it clear: as I have noted on my blog, I refuse to treat people who viciously and recklessly malign the character of other people who clearly do not deserve it, who state their little opinions as matters of fact, in a way that can be very damaging. These people are not going to be treated like me as if they deserve to be included in the civilized community of discourse. I boycott it. These people do not deserve this respect.
February 11th, 2005 at Feb 11, 05 | 9:02 pm
Of course, I already pointed out above that the definition has something importantly in common with ordinary usage but that it fails to grasp one important aspect: that “bigot” is a vice term, and only applies to those whose intolerance and partiality is irrational. To which Kinsella objects:
I’m well aware of that; but I wasn’t using the word “irrational” to contrast with rationality in the praxeological sense. You might have gleaned it from context; you also might have gleaned it from the fact that I wasn’t, using the word to describe actions at all but rather preferences (which are neither rational nor irrational in the praxeological sense, but can be either rational or irrational in the ordinary language sense of “reasonable” or “defensible”).
So, again: do you have a problem with the definition of a bigot as someone who is irrationally (unreasonably, unjustifiably) partial to their own group and intolerant towards those who differ? If so, what?
As for your own definition:
This is a stupid definition of “bigot”. The world is full of bigots who have never attacked a soul; I take it that most people who attend Klan rallies, say, have never actually assaulted a Black person or a Catholic. (The days carnival-atmosphere village lynchings are mercifully over; actual violence is now almost exclusively committed by a small hard core.) But if your definition of a “bigot” excludes enthusiastic supporters of the Klan you are not actually defining “bigot” as the word is used by English speakers, but rather something else. And when I called Hoppe a bigot, I was speaking English.
This is disingenuous. Hoppe explicitly states in the passage:
A first reading clearly seems to indicate that Hoppe thinks intolerance towards homosexuals–up to and including exile and confiscation of property, if this can be done under the terms of the covenant–is necessary to maintain a libertarian order. Hoppe wants to maintain a libertarian order. Therefore, it seems to follow that Hoppe advocates intolerance towards homosexuals.
Maybe Hoppe only means that they must not be tolerated and must be physically removed if one is to maintain a libertarian order in a “traditionalist” kin-based covenant community, but not necessarily in other communities. If that’s what he means, it’s more than he says. It’s not a bizarro reading, but it’s also not one that will help you out much anyway. Hoppe’s made it very clear here and elsewhere that “traditionalist” kin-based communities are the kind of community he strongly identifies with, and that (in particular) he considers necessary to maintain a libertarian order in the society broadly.
I can see no contextual reason to read Hoppe’s condemnation of tolerance towards homosexual as anything other than (1) in propia voce and (2) applicable to all would-be libertarian communities. If you have any evidence for a different reading, please offer it–in which case we will just move on to some other examples. (Ol’ Hans has supplied us with many.)
Otherwise, let’s just agree that Hoppe advocates intolerance toward homosexuals and move on to the next question.
That’s fine; I mischaracterized Hoppe on this point. “Homosexuality” is usually something that people use to refer to facts about a person’s characteristic sexual desires, but Hoppe is talking about “lifestyles” above. So that’s what he thinks we should be intolerant towards: the “lifestyle” of sleeping with members of the same sex. Fine.
So the question is: is Hoppe’s avowed intolerance towards people who actively sleep with people of the same sex reasonable or unreasonable?
Stephan, do you think that it’s reasonable to be intolerant towards someone solely because she or he sleeps with people of the same sex?
February 12th, 2005 at Feb 12, 05 | 7:25 pm
Roderick wrote:
I think it would be a great idea if people who think some topic or point of view isn’t receiving sufficient attention in the traditional Mises-Institute-related venues would submit articles to LewRockwell.com, or the Journal of Libertarian Studies, or the Austrian Scholars Conference. You might find those venues are more open than you think.
Really? I suggest you ask Bruce Caldwell, simply the nicest guy in the world and one who has managed to stay out of the Austrian inter-necine battles whether he’ll ever go back to the ASC after what he saw there. I suggest you ask Pete Boettke about Hoppe giving him the bronx cheer in the middle of a talk at the ASC. And I don’t see the ASC crowd doing much to invite folks who have criticized them, despite the fact that other Austrians have welcomed ASC/LMI types into their organizations.
There are people I respect who seem to find the atmosphere of LMI breathable (you and Roger Garrison foremost among them), but for the life of me I can’t understand why or how.
I know why they don’t like me - I called them a “fascist fist in a libertarian glove” in the early-mid 90s and little did I know how prescient that was with respect to most of the folks who hang out there now.
February 12th, 2005 at Feb 12, 05 | 11:26 pm
For what it’s worth, Prof. Horwitz, I’ve been invited to speak at the next Austrian Scholars’ Conference, even though I’ve been a vocal (but friendly) critic of some of the positions taken by members of the Institute. And though I lean much closer to Roderick Long’s position on most issues, I’ve found Hoppe and others to be most agreeble in person.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure how comfortable I’d feel wearing a Yarmulka and Tzitzit given some of Hoppe’s statements about other minority groups.
February 14th, 2005 at Feb 14, 05 | 12:53 pm
Steve and Micha,
I’ve been going regularly to the ASC for the past six years or so; I’m not in a position to comment on events before then, but every ASC I’ve attended for the past six years has been a model of civility and professionalism, with plenty of dissenting views in evidence. I hear plenty of views I disagree with, but no more so than at any other professional conference.
“Most of the people who hang out there now”? Steve, as I say I don’t know what things were like in the “early-mid 90s” but “most of the people who hang out there now” (if you mean the people who come to conferences) are people you would have very few disagreements with. There is a weird disconnect between perception and reality here.
Micha — as for “Yarmulka and Tzitzit,” I’ve often seen people at the ASC with yarmulkes, and there used to be a guy regularly attending in a Sikh turban. When Sudha Shenoy lectures there she wears an Indian robe. Nobody seemed to care.
When I first moved to Auburn in ‘98 I approached the Mises Institute with some suspicion and caution, since I too had heard all the stories. But the Mises Institute as I’ve actually experienced it bears little resemblance to the Mises Institute I knew through its reputation. When I read the things people write about the Mises Institute I’m just baffled. (Of course when I read the things people associated with the Mises Institute write about, e.g., the Cato Institute I’m likewise baffled.)
February 15th, 2005 at Feb 15, 05 | 8:54 am
I was censored (not banned) at the Mises blog also. The message in question was:
February 15th, 2005 at Feb 15, 05 | 9:22 am
Zach, it’s more likely that Hoppe wants to send homosexuals to a restful vacation camp with nice showers and big ovens (for bread). They could take the train there, and they’d be given cool camp-out suits and everything.
February 15th, 2005 at Feb 15, 05 | 10:08 am
And neat numerical tattoos! Yay tattoos!
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 3:34 am
I’ve been behind in blog reading lately, but after reading some of this I commented on the Mises Blog where JTK got banned. I think JTK was taking the sentence somewhat out of context, but I think that in context, a weaker / more subtle version of his argument (that Hoppe is a bigot) certainly does hold. ie Hoppe assumes that homosexuality is contrary to a family-oriented society, which I really disagree with. Are you going to kick out infertile people too? You can hope to straighten a queer, but a guy who fires blanks ain’t never gonna be a family man.
Anyway, here’s what I said on Mises:
——-
I agree that JTK took Hoppes comment out of context, and that the full paragraph looks much less damning. And I agree that your blog has the right to censor its private property as it wishes. I still think that exercising that right for such trivial offenses is pusillanimous. As someone wrote in defending Hoppe:
It seems to me that factual statements and arguments attempt to demonstrate some truth. They succeed, in which case they are true, or they fail, in which case they are false.
Well, it only takes a brief comment to point out the full context from which JTK was quoting, and thus keep the discussion grounded in facts, so that JTK’s claim can succeed or fail based on their merits w.r.t. reality.
The argument that libertarians should never censor because they don’t believe in state censorship is false, as pointed out, but its not the right argument. The right argument is that libertarians should understand the benefits of free and unfettered debate, where bad ideas are debunked rather than deleted. Or put another way, one should defeat one’s opponents on the field of battle - not simply disqualify them from the lists.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 4:20 am
This thread leads me to but one clear, indubitable, inescape, absolute and unavoidable conclusion:
I would love to play poker with Stephen Kinsella. The higher the stakes, the better.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 5:03 am
He is on tilt.
I don’t think the context much improves Hoppe’s situation, but then I was never trying to prove he was a bigot. I was satisfied to point out that some of his key proposals aren’t very libertarian.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 8:20 pm
Seemed like you were calling him a bigot to me.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 8:38 pm
Brian,
When?
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 8:32 pm
Not only did it seem like it to me, you actually had convinced me that he just might be a bigot. To me that is a serious charge so I am suspending my personal judgment till I read the context actual passages you quoted here when you got banned. You made addional arguments here at no-treason.
I find it very strange that you could make a post titled “Hoppe: Taking Out the Human Trash”, an then feign like you haven’t accused him of being a bigot. Especially when you have argued that he considers homosexuals part of that human trash.
I tend to try to read things in the best possible light. For instance, when Hoppe says that homosexuals don’t have children, I don’t assume he is making the claim that homosexuals do not attempt to adopt children. Nor when he says they do not have families do I assume he means they don’t have parents.
I still thought his economic thinking was a little shaky in that lecture. I don’t think rape is about being too impatient to wait till the end of the date, and little to do with time preference for instance.
I like Austrian economics and that is why I visit and sometimes post there. However, I have a problem with the a-prior aspect of it. I know where they are coming from but I disagree. I think making deductions from your assumptions is just one aspect of scientific theory. I see no reason why Austrian economics could not stand up to empirical testing. People are fallible and there is certainly the possiblity that some reasoning, deduction or assumption is incorrect. Also, every scientific model is incomplete and there may be some important aspects that are missed. In short, I don’t think it ends with Mises.
As an analogy, if you understand the theory of natural selection you can deduce that if you have replication, mutation, etc. it is an unavoidable outcome that you get evolution. Not merely change either but adaptation. It is something you can simulate on a computer and is as true as 2+2=4.
I think that the same sorts of computer simulations could be done for Austrian economic theories to show that their reasoning is indeed correct. I also think that other methods beyond arm chair reasoning could be utilized.
I do think mainstream economics has even worse problems however. I have mainstream college courses under my belt and did extremely well, scoring 100 on every test I ever took. So it’s not like I’m a crank.
So I am not by any means an representative from mises.org. Even less so LRC. I have had disputes with serveral over there on evolution and other issues like whether our soldiers are equivalent to paid Islamic suicide bombers. Frankly, I think quite a few of the LRC contributors are just a little nuts.
They did however convince me that the Civil War was unneccesary and really should be called Lincoln’s war, instead of the Civil War. I now believe that slavery could have been disposed of without the war. Several other countries had done just that. Furthermore, I do not believe the war was started over slavery in the first place. It was about Tarriffs and only later became about slavery.
I find the behavior of this Stephan Kinsella character to be quite reprehensible. I don’t know whether I disagree with him on any issues but I certainly disagree with his methods. “Bigger”? I know what he was trying to do but it was just silly. Hell, nobody is stupid enought to fall for those traps even if they were a racist.
I also still think you may owe Hoppe an apology. Did you ever think to ask him directly whether he thinks homosexuals are the equivalent of criminals, instead of inferring and impuning such things to him?
Thinking homosexuals save less because they don’t have children is no big deal as far as I am concerned. It is a reasonable guess, and is nothing to be ashamed of if it were true. In fact, it seems quite rational on the part of anyone who is childless. You seem to think he meant more than this. Is having a low time preference a crime?
Others have claimed that Hoppe was discussing a conservative enclave in his book (which I haven’t read), where he talks about ejecting homosexuals (loosely stated). Seems like you should ask him what he means by that. I don’t have time to read it now but the comments about the broader context seem to hold water, and I find Professor Long to be quite reasonable most of the time.
It might just be that you are reading too much into it. Just like Micha’s baiting me like I’m a racist. I’ll bet I’ve dated and mind you fucked more black women than he ever see. I grew up in an area that was not exactly lily white you see. My father is married to …, as he so gently puts it, “a spic”, although I don’t know if a Mexican counts, I’m not really up on the jargon. He lives in Mexico. I haven’t the slightest problem with my children marrying into any race on the planet, and if I was Islamic I think I’d take a black, asian, and swede, as my other three wives. I really can’t however convert to a religion that requires me to kill kafirs, and hold others as subhuman to myself.
In my internet virgin years Micha might have raised my hackles but I really can’t be bothered with it now. I understand now that one must really tone down ones sense of indignation or you will just get into pointless flame wars. People are so quick to call others racists, facists, nazis, mysogynists, and other things that it just doesn’t mean that much anymore anyway. I generally just stop having discussions with people when they seem irrational.
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 8:43 pm
If it’s any consolation, I generally bait anyone who makes silly anti-immigration arguments. So you’re nothing special in that regard.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 1:57 am
Brian,
The words “human trash” are Hoppe’s. He wrote on the desirablity of having human trash removed from society. And he wrote on the desirablity of having homosexuals removed from society. Hoppe wasn’t accusing himself of bigotry when he wrote those things, was he?
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 10:34 am
Zach: “Does Hoppe want to send homosexuals to a reeducation camp?”
Why no.
Lopez: “Zach, it’s more likely that Hoppe wants to send homosexuals to a restful vacation camp with nice showers and big ovens (for bread). They could take the train there, and they’d be given cool camp-out suits and everything.”
What a slimy shithead you are. Fucking liar.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 10:54 am
JTK “And he [HHH] wrote on the desirablity of having homosexuals removed from society.”
Oh? Did he? Was he talking about homosexuals per se, or certain *advocates*? Are all homosexuals “advocates” of practices or institutions incompatible with certain orders?
And did he say it was desirable to remove people? Or was it a prediction or some other descriptive claim?
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 10:59 am
My my my:
It couldn’t be that Stephan Kinsella, the epitome of non-”Serioso-Dimwit libertarians”, the man without the “Randian” “stick up his ass”, is incapable of recognizing hyperbole, could it? I mean, to think otherwise would mean that Kinsella is just some sort of cheap hypocrite, wouldn’t it?
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 11:09 am
Lopez, of course it’s hyperbole, but it’s cheap, insulting hyperbole that insinuates that even if it’s an exaggeration, the underlying charge of biotry and racism is still true. So it’s still libel. You punks have nothing but a libelog or smearblog.
Moreover, with your insane PC shrill views and cockamamie comments, who knows if you are serious.
To repeast what HHH said, “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society.”
You don’t have to agree with this, but it’s not racist. It’s making the point that those who openly oppose and subvert civilized norms will tend to be ostracized. So what?
“Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They â�� the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism â�� will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
Now, as best I can tell (I have not reread the entire chapter in context lately), he is specifically talking about a private family/kin-centered arrangement; and he is saying that there would be no tolerance (this may be an exaggeration–he probably means to speak of tendencies)–not that HE has no tolerance–of certain people who “habitually promote” lifestyles incompatible with the traditional kith/kin order; he is referring to ADVOCATES of non-familyi and kin-centred lifestyles. How does this imply that HHH himself is bigoted? It does not! To knee-jerk, dimwit-Serioso bleaters, it does, but not to careful, fair-minded people.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 11:36 am
Here comes the Randian o-so-serious shit again.
…Because that’s the most common meaning of “society“.
Say, don’t “private family/kin-centered arrangement[s]” exist now? And they aren’t commonly described as “society”, are they?
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 2:30 pm
Lopez … do you equate “a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin” with “society”?
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 2:45 pm
No.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 3:15 pm
Nor is such a covenant “civilization”.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 4:41 pm
Soooooo…. so what, JTK? What’s your point? HHH was talking about this covenant it seems to me. Anyway, why do you all keep ignoring my point that HHH clearly is talking about certain advocates of certain views or lifestyles, NOT necessarily practitioners of the lifestyle? Don’t you think if you are going to accuse someone of bigotry it should not be based on a hasty reading of a few lines taken out of context?
February 27th, 2005 at Feb 27, 05 | 8:34 am
So I was answering your question.
Are you now saying that the practice individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, and communism will all be perfectly acceptable in Hoppe’s libertarian order?
And where have I accused Hoppe of bigotry? Any such conclusion would have to be drawn from Hoppe’s own words, because I have not said it.
February 27th, 2005 at Feb 27, 05 | 5:33 pm
That’s better than I did over at the dismal scientists cheerleaders central - they deleted my post mocking the effemininate christian dismal pseudoscientist and banned my ass.
February 27th, 2005 at Feb 27, 05 | 11:55 pm
JTK: “Are you now saying that the practice individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, and communism will all be perfectly acceptable in Hoppe’s libertarian order?”
What do you mean by “perfectly acceptable”? I really do not understand the question.
Hoppe was specifically referring to certain ADVOCATES OF positions. I am quite confident that HHH’s view is that in any society there would be gay people, and they would be tolerated and respected. Homosexuals are not necessarily “advocates,” especially not necessarily hostile to the traditional order. Any more than priests are not, etc.
“And where have I accused Hoppe of bigotry? Any such conclusion would have to be drawn from Hoppe’s own words, because I have not said it. “”
Where did I accuse you of accusing HHH of bigotry? Any such conclusion would have to be drawn from your s own words, because I have not said it. My comment “if you are going to accuse someone of bigotry it should not be based on a hasty reading of a few lines taken out of context” was just a general one, with “you” meaning “one”. If the shoe does not fit… then fine. Feel free to deny it, which I notice you have not done. Instead of saying “I don’t think Hopppe is a bigot” or even, “I have not said Hoppe is a bigot” or “I have no reason to believe Hoppe is a bigot,” you play the coy game and ask me where you have accused him of it, thereby avoiding saving time by just specifying what your belief IS. You slippery dudes are indeed frustrating to converse with.
February 28th, 2005 at Feb 28, 05 | 12:07 am
Lawyer Kinsella is still hanging around with us “losers”?
Please go away now, dirtbag.
PLUR,
John Sabotta
February 28th, 2005 at Feb 28, 05 | 9:01 am
Kinsella,
Are you saying the practices of individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, and communism would be tolerated in Hoppe’s libertarian order and only the advocacy of such practices would require one’s removal from society?
Because Hoppe also writes:
That addresses the practice of alternative lifestyles - it says nothing about advocacy. I don’t find your reading credible.
In a comment to me you write “your”, “you” and “you” all clearly addressing me personally, but the fourth time you use the word “you” - and the second time in a sentence - the reader is supposed to know you’ve shifted gears and are now addressing a general “one”? How? That’s either terrible writing or terrible lying.
I have not said Hoppe is a bigot. I thought you didn’t want people saying they judged Hoppe to be a bigot without meeting a high standard of evidence. Have you changed your mind?
February 28th, 2005 at Feb 28, 05 | 9:08 am
Kinsella,
Only Lynette or I can ban you from NT. Sabotta’s request that you leave is a personal appeal.
February 28th, 2005 at Feb 28, 05 | 9:29 pm
Surely a man as educated as Kinsella proclaims himself to be wouldn’t be that bad of a writer, would he?
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 10:28 am
K-dog: “That addresses the practice of alternative lifestyles - it says nothing about advocacy. I don’t find your reading credible.”
He says HABITUAL. What does that mean? Do you konw? I am not sure. I am not interested enough to read further to find out, b/c I am not on a witchhunt. But clearly it modifies “alternative lifestylists.” Further, “alternative lifestylists” may refer to those advocating it, rather than those who happen to have it. I am not sure. But the point is that if one is going to make a charge one needs to sort it out. If it’s ambiguous or you are not sure, you cannot justify a bigotry charge.
“In a comment to me you write “your”, “you” and “you” all clearly addressing me personally, but the fourth time you use the word “you” - and the second time in a sentence - the reader is supposed to know you’ve shifted gears and are now addressing a general “one”? How? That’s either terrible writing or terrible lying.”
The latter. This reminds me of the joke: A guy’s wife is in a car accident, and rushed to emergency surgery. After a few hours the doctor comes out, sits by the anxious husband, and tells him, “I’ve got some bad news.”
“Oh God!” the husband starts to sob.
“Your wife is paralyzed from the neck down.”
“Noooo!!” gasps the sobbing husband.
“Also, she’s in a coma.” More sobs. “You will need to care for her 24 hours a day, for the rest of her life, which is likely to be long and painful.” The husband is tearing his hair out, wailing and sobbing like a baby.
“Oh God, Doctor, why did this have to happen? Whyy????”
Then the doctor grins, slaps him on the shoulder, “Naahhh, I’m just fuckin’ with ya’–she daid.”
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 1:18 pm
Just when I thought Kinsella’s personal integrity couldn’t get any lower, he goes and writes something like thisâ�¦ and totally doesn’t redeem himself!
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 3:00 pm
Kinsella,
My reading of the passages is natural. You have no reading.
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 2:42 pm
But do you like my joke?
Ghertner, what do you mean? You no likes me joke?
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 3:04 pm
Kennedy– “My reading of the passages is natural. You have no reading.”
I don’t need to. I am not making a personal attack on the author based on it. The burthen is on the dung-flingers, my bigot.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 2:01 pm
Kinsella,
You need a plausible alternative reading to credibly dispute a natural reading of Hoppe’s text.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 3:32 pm
“You need a plausible alternative reading to credibly dispute a natural reading of Hoppe’s text.”
Yeah, well people in hell need ice water, too.
September 21st, 2005 at Sep 21, 05 | 6:55 pm
I have been censored from the Mises Austrian forum.
Is a 10 step program in order?
The moderators on their forum initially allowed me to post at liberty (Minimal time delay between hitting the send button and refreshing the web page with my new post) soon my posts were subjected to moderation (a warning page refreshed after hitting the send button).
I toned down the specific questions and moved to a more general economic approach.
The moderation warning screen, then, stopped interrupting my submissions.
Another forum participant started to question specific stuff so I tried to jump in on that topic.
Since then my submissions went back into limbo. Some submissions returned days later (post dated).
I sent a message to the moderators and have received no response.
My last few posts were accepted. One was a link to a web page.
I think it is appropriate to post this here since the Austrian cartel appears not to be my personal thought police.
What moderators reject says a whole lot more about the moderators than their silence.