I’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:
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:00:42 -0600
Subject: private property
You have had your say. Now stay off the Mises blog.
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.