Objectivist Diana Hsieh says:
“Kensella [sic] is an unhinged and dishonest bit of nastiness, and he deserves to be shunned by all reasonable people — not treated as a civilized interlocutor.”
I can’t say I’m very bothered by this: this is the same person who officially announces her change in allegiance from David Kelley to Leonard Peikoff (both the decision, and the Official Public Announcement, is enough to raise eyebrows), and who writes:
On this Memorial Day, I would like to honor the three men of the American Civil War who understood the terrible need for total war: President Abraham Lincoln, General Ulysses S. Grant, and General William T. Sherman. Their vigorous prosecution of the war preserved the Union, the very first nation founded on the principles of individual rights — and, at the time, the only such nation. In so doing, they ended the most loathsome violation of rights ever known to man: chattel slavery. Without them, without the brave Union soldiers who fought under them, America would not exist today.
So thank you, Mssrs. Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman. We are forever in your debt.
Unhinged: without context, what does he even mean? That Kinsella has let idealism form his theoretical explorations? Sure, that’s fine. Or the “social” meaning, that Kinsella takes no heed of the consequences of his outbursts, to the point of harming people? Hardly.
Dishonest: I’ve yet to see any claim by Kinsella put forth here or on mises.org that was proven to be untrue, let alone a knowing lie.
Nastiness: for someone who wears their ethical beliefs on their sleeve, Kinsella is hardly “nasty”.
Hseih’s praise for Total War to preserve the Union reminds me of Cuban nationals who claim they love peace, but swear that w/o Castro they wouldn’t know language. She seems to have a severe case of discordant Stockholm syndrome, praising freedom while praising her captors and responding with severe vitriol whenever anyone suggests the Union isn’t all about “individual freedom” when they insist on a course of action that kills millions of individuals.
Any “reasonable” and “civil” interlocutors can see who is the unhinged and dishonest one – even if such a person refuses to recognize it themselves.
* or “she” – typo, not misunderstanding.