StephanKinsella.com

See the post on Palmer Periscope; comments should go there.

See post on Palmer Periscope.

See this post, and comment on it there, if you feel like it. Defend the Mises Insitute from scurrilous charges!

see Palmer Periscope post here.

• Who Wants To Live Forever?
• The “Problem” of Initial Acquisition
• Objectivism and Determinism
• Machan’s Musings – Kelo v. New London Versus the Free Society

No sirree, the hnn Liberty & Power blog sure won’t.

I got this email today from HNN:

—–Original Message—–
From: Jonathan Dresner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:24 PM
To: Stephan Kinsella; Stephan Kinsella
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: HNN Comments Policy

Mr. Kinsella,

Your repeated violations of HNN standards of civility (http://hnn.us/articles/1885.html), compounded with the disrespect again displayed by your display name choices, has finally resulted in your exclusion from these discussions. Your accounts are blocked.

Jonathan Dresner
HNN Assistant Editor

Not only did they block me from posting, they also erased all my previous HNN comments from all threads. Wow. How …. Orwellian. I wonder if it’s run by Randians? Hmm. Now, as these are the same techno-illiterates who recently wiped out two entire comment threads when trying merely to block further commenting, it is possible they in blocking my account they did not mean to erase all my previous comments, but that is what they have done.

I was not surprised to be banned. I’m a little disappointed they deleted my previous posts, as there was some good stuff in there. Oh well. And it was predictable they would ban me, not the instigagor, Tom Palmer. Libertarians have been strangely silent on the maniacal Mr. Palmer’s repeated character smears of certain other libertarians–reminiscent of the time those people in New York walked by as that woman was beaten to death–so I am not surprised they take Palmer’s calumny and smear campaign in stride, while banning me for not lying down and taking it. I think they are too cowardly to attack a prominent Cato-ite. Hmm, could it be that a desire for internships (for the younger) or invitations to conferences and Cato publications of their writing, etc. (for the older) makes them a mite shy at criticizing Palmer, whom they must think silently to themselves, is off his rocker? Anyway, thank God I’m not part of movement libertarianism, and am free to say what I think.

But HNN does not need a justification. It is their private property. They may do with it as they wish.

Post on Palmer Periscope.

Coda to the below: Palmer posts a followup:

A remarkable dodge and an attempt to appear squeaky clean and “respect the rules of the forum.” I have now noticed that a number of the more revolting postings have been removed from Mr. Kinsella’s site. Some still persist as Google caches. I am willing to share some examples of Mr. Kinsella’s idea of enlightened discourse with anyone who has a strong stomach and who wishes to email me. (Mr. Kinsella’s accomplice in setting up the blog where they have devoted so much attention to what their imaginations picture as my private life is Mr. Raimondo’s colleague at antiwar.com, who goes by the handle of “tex.” A nice circle of malice.) Were I a believer in legal responses to such malicious claims, I would have contacted a lawyer. As it is, I hope that pure embarrassment will have some effect on Mr. Kinsella, although I suspect not. Mr. Raimondo’s anonymous colleague “tex” is unlikely to be dissuaded.

Palmer refers to Palmer Periscope as Kinsella’s site–but it is not my site.

And sure, there are revolting posts–in the comment section, by third parties. Sure, some are deleted–I just said I from time to time ask the moderator (Tex) to delete them. Wooo, conspiracy. Wow, I want to have sexually disgusting, offensive, inappropriate comment spam removed from the site where I post. Wow, you got me dead to rights, P-dog.

Palmer also refers to Tex as “my accomplice”. I had nothing to do with the setting up of Palmer Periscope. Someone told me about it after it was already done. Palmer probably does not realize that not only do I not know Tex, I hardly know Raimondo. I met Raimondo one time about 10 years ago, and he probably has forgotten, and I have exchanged perhaps 3 emails with him in my life. If I had set up Palmer Periscope, I would have no compunction in admitting it. Can anyone believe I am shy?

If anyone has a claim for libel, it is the victims of Palmer’s relentless, reckless smearblog.

I also posted:

Tom, in the spirit of civility of this forum, I want to say I love you as a fellow human, despite your many sins. Come home, my son.

On the hnn Liberty & Power thread about civility, Palmer posted a “last word” kind of comment directed, in part, at me (reprinted below).

Quite interesting! But Palmer’s story is as usual laced with untruths.

First: I did not create nor do I run the Palmer Periscope. Nor do I know who did, other than that it is some guy nicknamed “Tex.” It was begun without my knowledge. After Palmer banned me from his site, I contacted PP and asked them to let me post, as it was a natural place to reply to Palmer given that he had (as is his right) banned me from his site. Since then, it has been a useful place to keep the record straight on Palmer’s unceasing flood of dishonest personal attacks. I am not responsible for the site or for what commenters put there.

I did create The Daily Apology website, in part to ridicule the PC-ness of Palmer and his ilk. I don’t know why people keep assuming I run Palmer Periscope, except that I am the only active poster in a while. But I do not.

The sexual comments on that site are in posts by others. Not by me. I honeslty don’t know what the bizarre lunatic who emailed me (and apparently Palmer) is talking about, or who he is. My eyes glaze over at the ravings of lunatics (no offense, Palmer).

He [Kinsella] also submits letters on various web sites under the names of other, living persons … professing very disturbing sexual fantasies about me.

This is simply untrue. In fact I have occasionally asked the moderator to delete comment spam such as Palmer alludes to.

And also: you can scour my writings about Palmer, but I have never resorted to sexual innuendo or comments about Palmer. Despite what he may say or think, I wouldn’t do that for a couple of reasons: (a) it would not be fair; and (b) I am not bigoted against gays in the slightest, as anyone who knows me knows. Notice below Palmer accuses me of sexual innuendo, then gives an example allegedly from my writing that he admits does not have this sexual innuendo. Telling. And in fact, this is not even my writing–it is from a comment by someone else.

Both Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Raimondo have, in response resorted to what normal people would find disgusting sexual innuendo, anatomically explicit remarks, and worse. Here is a printable example from Mr. Kinsella, which contains none of the disgusting sexual references…

Interesting that the example he gives contains no such sexual innuendo. It is because I have not done this, and he obviously cannot find proof of it. He can’t even give an example of something I wrote. Why not? I’m not shy, or lacking for words. Come on, pick from something I wrote, Tom.

Palmer says I put the N-word on his site. This is a lie. I have never posted the actual “N-word” on his site. I did use the euphemism “N-word”. On this thread, I wrote:

Mr. Palmer, speaking of bigotry–I’m just curious. Have you ever used the N-word? Oh hell, I’ll be generous. Since you turned 25. Have you ever use the N-word?

I’ll bet you’ve at least used the word “bigger”. Many times. And that’s very very close to the N-word. Right up to the line of hard-core racism. Sure, almost everyone says “bigger” sometimes. But just because everone does it does not mean it’s justified.

Shame on you. Whether the N-word, or its close-cousin, “bigger”–shame, shame, shame.

Now, the obvious point of this was to illustrate how ridiculous his own hair-trigger PC standards for racism and bigotry are. I was mocking him by showing that if one used similarly ridiculous loose reasoning and associations, one could even argue that the use of the word “bigger” is “almost racism” since the word “bigger” is only one letter away from the N-word. Palmer, in dimwit-Serioso fashion, who has no sense of humor and is so arrogant he simply cannot imagine someone mocking him, ominously intones: “I can’t quite figure out what he’s getting at and the only likely possibilities strike me as quite ugly.”

Oh, relax, T-boy. And by the way, thanks for banning me, and kicking me over to the Palmer Periscope.

The post Palmer alludes to about his character (his not liking or respecting women) was not by me. Someone anonymous posted it. I don’t know who the poster is or who was being quoted.

Palmer accuses me of malice. It is untrue. I have become increasingly outraged at Palmer’s steady stream of malicious, malevolent lies about the character of people I know to be decent and good libertarians, namely people such as Lew Ro
ckwell, Hans Hopppe, Tom DiLorenzo, Tom Woods… He has gone on the attack and plays the victim when someone stands up to him. My actions are defensive. He attacks people; I defend them from his unfair attacks. It is malicious to attack people unfairly, not to defend against these attacks.

A final note. Palmer writes: “I am willing to have a discussion (elsewhere, to be sure) of their [Raimondo’s and Kinsella’s] commitment to the principles of liberty, which I do seriously doubt…” Gee, Thanks, Mr. Palmer, but I am not exactly looking for your seal of approval.

Here is Palmer’s post:

NOTE: I posted this above, but it ended up in the midst of a long thread. It seemed appropriate that it be a stand-alone entry. I apologize for it appearing twice.

—————————————————-
Well, I hate to do so, especially since Mr. Kuznicki closed his comments for a reason. But as I have been accused of “unfair attacks” by Mr. Kinsella (see #64673 above), let me mention that Mr. Kinsella has devoted a great deal of time to creating an entire website, a great deal of which is dedicated to very strange sexual fantasies regarding myself, including a great deal of free use of such terms as “man meat,” “throbbing pole,” and worse. He also submits letters on various web sites under the names of other, living persons (one of whom wrote to me today and I suggested that he contact a lawyer to ask about issues of malicious misrepresentation) professing very disturbing sexual fantasies about me. The behavior is not only distasteful, but evidence of deeper problems. (I might also mention Mr. Kinsella’s posting of the “N” word all over my web site before I banned his IP.) Similarly, Mr. Raimondo, who has also professed such sweet innocence, regularly relies on references to anal sex in referring to me in print on a variety of web sites, a practice he has also used with regard to Andrew Sullivan.

I have, it is certainly true, questioned the commitment of the above-mentioned persons to the principles of libertarianism for reasons that I have detailed elsewhere. I find affiliations with spokesmen for anti-Semitic and racist causes far more than distasteful, but a serious black mark on the good name of libertarianism. Both Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Raimondo have, in response resorted to what normal people would find disgusting sexual innuendo, anatomically explicit remarks, and worse. Here is a printable example from Mr. Kinsella, which contains none of the disgusting sexual references but gives one a sense of what Mr. Kinsella considers appropriate:

*****

A friend who knows about this Palmer person told me the following, which makes sense. Palmer makes personal attacks on others, while his own character is what is at issue:

Tom is the type of gay man who deeply and actively hates women. He has so little respect for women that he does not even wait for women to turn their backs before sinking in the rusted knife. He thinks women are so stupid that they will not notice or, perhaps, their noticing is beneath his notice. There is nothing decent within that shell of a human being.

This person wanted to remain anonymous, but is a trustworthy source.

*****

People who know Mr. Raimondo and Mr. Kinsella, both of whom have have painted themselves as maligned and badly treated persons, are aware of the depths of their malice. I am willing to have a discussion (elsewhere, to be sure) of their commitment to the principles of liberty, which I do seriously doubt, and of the damage I believe they do by allying themselves with undeniably anti-libertarian persons and causes. I am not, however, willing to descend to the depths that they have plumbed.

Following up on this post: the comments on hnn were not deleted. The links to them were. I had some links saved from my previous duplicate posts, so was able to get some of them. They provide some context for some of my comments:

• From the Miserable Libertarians post: some comments; and some more comments
• From the I’ll Let You Know In A Couple Years post: some comments

Anyone reading these comments and my other comments elsewhere in this blog can judge for themselves whether or not Palmer is relentlessly on the attack (as are, to varying degrees, others including Steve Horwitz and Charles Johnson–have I left anyone out?).

I can’t say I’m surprised–but some of the hnn threads I have posted on recently, primarily arguing with Tom Palmer and combatting his repeated libels of fellow libertarians, have been deleted. The editors means only to cut off comments but inadvertently deleted the comments. Nonetheless, I’m not surprised, as can be seen from the last several posts where I re-posted some of my comments there, on this blog, just in case they ended up disappearing.

Here are the posts that mention the deletion of the comments sections:

• Civility (Jason Kuznicki)
• More Civility (Steven Horwitz)
• Hear, Hear, Libertarian Gaggism! (my comment, Do Not Equate the Initiator with the Victim, is reproduced below–guess why)

***

There is of course nothing unlibertarian with “private” censorship; the fact that we feel compelled to explain this to each other is a bit depressing.

Personally I do not buy into the “both sides need to simmer down” type of view. My opinion is this: Tom Palmer (and some others, to varying degrees) repeatedly resort to personal attacks on the character and motives of fellow libertarians, as part of a response to substantive discussions. The motivations behind our views are questioned and snidely impugned, etc. It’s to the point where if you have a differing view on federalism, it’s because you come from the “fever swamp” of neo-confederate slavery apology. These type of personal attacks and libel seem to me to be prohibited by this blog.

It is not surprising that others, such as me, respond to these completely outrageous, uncivilized attacks on the character and motives of people I know to be decent people and sincere advocates of liberty. If anyone wants to equate my or others’ response to the outrageous personal attacks of Tom Palmer or others, they are free to make this mistake. But just as there is a difference between initiating force and responding to it, there is a difference between launching an assault on someone and the response to it.

I and others that are regularly attacked by Palmer et al. are perfectly happy to go about our merry way, trying to understand and advocate liberty as we see it. There is no need to respond in a non-civil way to people who are not already breaching rules of civility, etiquette, courtesy, charity, decency, and honesty.

In my view personal attacks like those hurled by Palmer and implicitly or snidely suggested by others on this forum, ought to be prevented or a warning issued. But until this is done, I can tell you right now, whenever I see anyone maligning decent, fellow libertarians and impugning their motives, suggesting outrageous things like racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, I am going to call a spade a spade and denounce it. Ban me for doing this if you will. It’s your property.

The problem is that Tom Palmer has demonstrated he will not treat me or others affiliated with the Mises Institute with civility, other than calling me “Mr. Kinsella.” So blinded by malevolence and irrational emotions is he, he hardly sees us as humans, much less libertarian. Just like liberals, who act morally superior despite being willing to inflict terrible harm on individuals, Palmer here has the gall to adopt a superior stance all the while acting like an utter cad.

And I also posted this reply:

And a good place to intercede might be at the first sign of a personal attack on a fellow poster or fellow libertarian. This would include allegations that the other libertarian has a given, say, political or constitutional view because he does not care about liberty, or is racist, or anti-semitic, or yearns for slavery, or is not a “real” libertarian. It would include snide comments that imply the advocate of a given argument has evil, hidden, unlibertarian motives.

In fact, since accusing someone of anti-semitism, bigotry, racism, etc., are arguably libelous, not to mention outrageous and not conducive to honest discourse, it would be a very good idea for a given forum not to tolerate it.

No offense, Tom Palmer.

A few more posted here, in case hnn deletes them.

First, this reply:

P-dog writes:

A very weak retort. Thomas Jefferson did not lead a revolution for the purpose of furthering slavery. The signers of the South Carolina secession resolution did. There’s a difference. Evidently you don’t get it. A libertarian, on the other hand, would.

Ah. I see. Can’t reply direclty to my own post–don’t want to sully your hands. It’s all electrons, Tom, you know. And no one cares about you finnicky rules. You insinuate here I am not a libertarian. I think you are not one. So there. Where are we now? Fisticuffs? On Segways?

Look, you obviously have a carefully-mapped out list of what is permitted, and what is not. It’s okay to worship Jefferson, even though he owned slaves and raped one of them… but not to admire Jeff Davis, who freed his slaves…. because of “the” “purpose” of the “secession.” Jefferson was in favor of secession… so was Jeff Davis… both secessions resulted in independent nations where slavery was legal… hmm, but “the” “purpose” –heck, I didn’t konw there was “a” “the” purpose. You sure are smart, Tom.

Jusy give us the list of officially approved rules (run it by your benefactor first, would you) so we will know how to conform to the new world order.

And another one:

P-dog sayeth:

When someone says that I’m a contrarian at root, I’m tempted to deny it.

Interesting. Do they say that to you often? I don’t think anyone’s ever told me that. But then, I mostly hang out with normal people, most of whom have never used the term “contrarian” in their life.

But in this case, it would be true. To be a “contrarian” per se is just to be contrary: against what others believe. I believe in liberty. It is a positive value. I want it and I work for it. That’s the difference between libertarians and people who are merely “anti-state.” The latter are merely against something, but not for a positive alternative.

And here goes the shiv. P-dog first subtly implies that we–you know, the ones he constantly libels on his smearblog–are “merely” anti-state. This is ridiculous. As Roderick Long pointed out on this thread, “Pessimism?? Is this pessimism?” Of course, P-dog does not reply to Roderick (and strangely, he will not bash his friends or others with some weird immunity, even though they share the same views he schizophrenically attacks in others associted with this bete noir, the Mises Institute–you know, the big, hairy, evil group–ghoulish, he calls them elsewhere, who have “opened the gates of hell” (his words)–who ummm, promotes free-market, Austrian economics and, er, umm, libertarianism. Yeah, they are SCARY, SCARY. …. BOO!).

We are not “merely anti-state”. We are of course in favor of rights and liberty. Has Palmer ever heard of, oh, I don’t know, the fricking JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES? Or Reason Papers, which Mises Institute hosts? Can P-dog with a straight face deny that the Mises Institute promotes the thought of Mises and Rothbard? Would either be called “mere” anti-statist? with no positive views about liberty, or rights? This is ridiculous.

As for being “for a positive alternative,” now we get to the nub of the matter. I suggest Lew Rockwell’s article Regime Libertarians. Just because not all libertarians are compromising, sell-out policy wonks who want temporary, incremental increases in liberty at the cost of liberty in other areas, or don’t toe the line of a given beltway thinktank, does not mean we are not also “for” a “positive alternative.” The insufferable arrogance emanating from Palmer’s perch is truly a sight to behold.

Lots of people are in opposition to the state: they include a great many people with whom I would not want to be categorized, such as criminals, terrorists, advocates of other forms of coercion and tyranny, such as a Caliphate or feudalism.

Yeah, deep, man, deep. Wot a great insight.

You know, lots of hippies and scumbums are also in favor of legalized drugs and prostitution too. Let me guess–you are not “merely” in favor of drug legalization. You are “more” than that, right? And you would not want to be “reduced” to a mere defender of porn or drug rights. Hey, I have an idea–why don’t you realize the universalizability principle actually applies here? Hmmm?

I’m not just “against the state,” because I favor liberty, which is why I favor restrictions on the state. When people enjoy more liberty, I am pleased by that, at the same time that I am mindful that injustices still exist.

Being a “contrarian” is being a second-hander, letting others dictate to you what you will stand against, rather than choosing that *for* which you will stand.

Whatever. Cue violins. When the Randroid lingo comes out, my eyes glaze over.

Of course, those fellow libertarians whom you malign and hate at the Mises Institute are in favor of liberty and individual rights.

And another:

Mr. Gregory, if a state were torturing people to death in truly cruel and unsual ways, would you join hands with Mr. Kinsella and march against the federal courts taking steps to stop such behavior? I would hope that you would leave Mr. Kinsella to march on his own, as would all of the rest of the libertarians on the planet.

Mr. Palmer, can you not read? I have admitted many times over the purely instrumental value of the US Constitution. I would not hesitate to oppose it where I thought it unlibertarian. As a matter of fact, I think it is unlibertarian and I think the federal state it set up ought to be disbanded. You would not I suspect, because we need a benevolent nanny to ride herd over the nasty, naughty states, and the feds are your daddy, aren’t they? WHO’S YOUR DADDY?

If the state were torturing people, this would not change the fact that the US Constitution does not authorize the feds to stop it. Would I in some cases “want” the feds to march on the states to stop this anyway? I don’t know. What has that to do with whether the Constitution authorizes this action? To my mind, integrity calls for an honest interpretation of the Constitution. Where it is illiberal, we can acknowledge this, and then consciously choose to abandon the Constitution, or try to change it.