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