StephanKinsella.com

and the Institute of Justice, and my reply.

Palmer also posted Phony “Radicalism” from a Reactionary Confederate Revivalist (attacking his bete noire, LRC, natch), to which Daddy also replied.

In my reply to the dreadful, malicious attack on Tom Woods and his new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History on the Is That Legal blog, the comments section cut my reply off, so I am posting it here so I can link to it from there.

***

Horwitz wrote:

I’m a long-time libertarian and I *cringe* when people who claim to be libertarians write stuff like this. The romance by some small quarters of the libertarian movement with the lovers of the Confederacy is an unmitigated disaster, both morally and strategically.

For anyone who frequents this blog who knows little of libertarians, and history done by those with libertarian leanings, do not start with this crap. There’s real scholarship out there.
[…]
my original comment was not about the book per se, but the wide variety of romances that the paleo right has with various racist, anti-Semitic, and otherwise unsavory folks, with lovers of the Confederacy being one such group. Whether this particular book is or isn’t a species of this problem is one question, but Eric’s evidence is pretty convincing. The real question for me is why people feel the need to smear shit all over the word “libertarian” by calling themselves one and then associating with the slimy folks that they do.

Steve, it is outrageous and libelous for you to smear Dr. Woods as you do, to insinuate he is racist and anti-semitic, and not a real scholar. If you’ll read him you’ll see he’s impeccable and very learned. The tacticts of of the cocktail party, rehabilitated PC libertarians–resort to ad hominem, etc.–is becoming, like that of regular PC liberals, increasingly shrill. It’s as if you guys really hate the South and Southerners just like the arrogant, New York liberal intellectuals do. I believe it’s actually this smug city-boy superiority that caused Bush to win–blue collar types who would normally be democratic are sick of being condescended to by the brie cheese set who think you have to live in a rent-conrolled apartment and go see Cats and vacation in P’town or Martha’s Vineyard to really be a person worth associating with.

It is also a bit collectivist to keep lumping people together. On the one hand, you people accuse the Rockwell crowd of being almost a cult; on the other, the diversity of opinions there and the freewheeling nature of discourse and various types of people represetned there drive you batty. I am from the South and while I personally dislike the stupid Rebel Flag displaying, Lee Greenwood Proud to be an American singing, civil war reenactment bullshit, it is loathsome when the cocktail party libertarians continue to lump people together and attribute to them others’ views, and to have a hare-trigger alert for any signs of deviation from the cocktail party model of “acceptable” opinions and to accuse any deviation as being a sign of racism etc. You guys have overussed the racism, antisemitism, etc. cards to the extent where it’s now a joke. It’s almost a badge of honor to be called that now. For a perceptive column on this, see Playing the Holocaust Card. The PC types have cried wolf too many times, they’ve shot their wad. It doesn’t work any more.

You claim Eric’s evidence is convincing. It is nothing but a libelous smear attack on a fine individual and scholar, Tom Woods, whose book, yes, does support the cause of liberty by debunking liberal and government-spread propaganda and lies.

For example, this Eric character writes of Woods,

(He has also spoken at similar meetings of other organizations, like the Southern Historical Conference and Bonnie Blue Ball, where he shared the lectern with speakers on the “Myths and Realities of American Slavery” and “Why Slaves Fought for Their South.”) … And while Christianity is a necessary condition for Dr. Woods’ organization’s concern, it is not sufficient. You also need to be “Anglo-Celtic”

Now, I personally have not joined the League of the South because I don’t like all that stupid rah-rah Confederacy or Southern crap. But that’s just me. I’m from Lousiana but too much of a Randian-type individualist to want to base my worth or identity on membership in a given little group, that I didn’t even choose or earn. But that’s just me; most people are more group-related than that. Blacks do Kwanzaa and name their kids African names; Scots eat haggis; Jews do their holidays and sometimes kvetch about their kids marrying gentiles; whatever. Who gives a crap.

The point is that if some libertarian were to join a group whose goal is preserving a religion or culture or race even–Christianity or Anglo-Celtic–what in the world is wrong with this? Why single out white Christian males as the only goddamned group that is prohibited from this kind of interest in and activism about their race or heritage? It’s getting pathetically silly. Israel is explicitly religious and racist in its immigration and other policies; ACLU and hare-trigger PC libertarian types who go apeshit about a judge having a Ten Commandments statue don’t bat an eye at other nations’ even worse support of official religion or racism. Goddamned hypocrites. These double standards are just pathetic.

All this is just really stemming from sneering, arrogant, yankee superiority and disgust at what they view as “beneath them” Southerners. It’s getting old. It’s why Kerry lost, in my view. People are getting sick of being spat at and tread upon. Your average Joe Sixpack wonders why he’s racist to want his daughter to marry a white guy or even to go to school in a school that’s not in the ghetto… while in the meantime he sees public service announcements about Black History Month etc.

Note also the implicit collectivism in the comment that Woods “shared the lectern” with certain others, as if he is responsible for their views. This is just stupid. Where do you draw the line with your responsibility for others’ actions due to some kind of “association” with them? After all, I admire Woods, yet am blogging here on your site, so I guess you are 4 handshakes away from evil; oh no, you are sanctioning the sanctioner of the sanctioner of the sanctioner. This stupid Randianism is getting old. Attribute to Woods what he writes, not what others do; but to do that he’d need to read it, and would not need to waste time trying to come up with ad hominem critiques.

Further, his alleged crime is “sharing the lectern” with speakers on the “Myths and Realities of American Slavery” and “Why Slaves Fought for Their South.” What is obviously racist about these topics? This is polictal correctnes run amok.

The coctail party libertarians are so eager to hate the South and Southerners, and to pretend to wring their hands over the slavery issue–it’s long dead, people. It was over a hundred goddamned years ago, and it was none of our fault. Quit blaming the South. If you want to blame anyone, blame the idiot white Yankees who founded this country on the backbone of slaves.

The attack on Woods is groundless and I believe it is utterly immoral and wicked. Any responsible, professional libertarian who does this should be ashamed.

Great article in the NY Times by Ami Eden, on how the anti-semitism card has been overused and is now backfiring. Excerpts:

[F]or the Jews, the main targets of Nazi racism, they face a very different sort of problem today, one that is partly of their own making. Jewish organizations have pursued an effective campaign to combat bigotry through a combination of protest and education, hoping to shame wrongdoers and encourage the next generation to shed old prejudices. And yet, as they look around, they see a world increasingly hostile to them and to Israel. It is time Jews recognize that the old strategies no longer work.

Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying. […]

[T]he eagerness of Jewish civil-rights groups to play watchdog, and their tendency to err on the side of zealousness, leads them all too frequently to blur distinctions between real bigotry and the verbal blunders by well-meaning individuals.

[]For more than half a century, Auschwitz has rightly stood at the heart of virtually every moral argument put forth by spokesmen for the Jewish community, a powerful testament to the consequences of otherwise decent people remaining silent in the face of evil. Yet this legacy is in peril, threatened by an increasing reliance on raw political muscle over appeals to conscience.

As the world recalls the horrors and liberation of Auschwitz, Jewish organizations and advocates for Israel should remember that “speaking truth to power” does not work when you are seen as the powerful one.

I guess it was inevitable. Someone sent this link to an allegedly Objectivist nudie magazine to me on Rand’s 100th birthday. How tasteless. I suppose.

Sitemeter and libertarianism and Let the looting begin (my comments to both); also Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy

Sicking The Saddamites #2 – Rockwellians: Enemies Of Liberty

Daddy has a few gmail invites if anyone wants ’em. Email me nskinsella at gmail dott com.

• How Stupid are Europeans? (about their failure to put an explicit right to secede in the draft EU Constitution)
• Intellectual Property and Self-Ownership (about suits re Waiting for Godot play to illustrate that copyright can interfere with rights in your own body)
• Libertarian and Conservative Bibliographies–Jude Blanchett, and Federalist Society
• Teresa Kerry’s Taxes
• Long Life Cigarettes
• Randians for Bush (even though he’s anti-abortion)
• Bureaucrats = Fish Food (about Veerappan, India’s Robin Hood)
• Sex and Patents
• Libertarian Unity (re Roderick Long’s attempts to conciliate between various Cato and Mises Institute disputes) (Horwitz’s comments)
• Compulsory Retirement Savings (about Hong Kong’s system and how they take it away if you emigrate)
• The Periles of Utilitarian Thinking (proposals to have government award prizes to inventors of patents to spur innovation)
• Ready, Aim, Right! and Bay of One Hundred Fires
• Return of the Name (FEE re-adopts The Freeman)
• The Incredible Abundance of the Market (cigars, bourbon, olives, etc.)

Cute story–excerpted from footnote 44 of my punishment article — This brings to mind the reported exchange “many years ago between the Chief Justice of Texas and an Illinois lawyer visiting that state. ‘Why is it,’ the visiting lawyer asked, ‘that you routinely hang horse thieves in Texas but oftentimes let murderers go free?’ ‘Because,’ replied the Chief Justice, ‘there never was a horse that needed stealin!’” Story told in People v. Skiles, 115 Ill.App.3d 816, 827, 450 N.E.2d 1212, 1220 (1983).”

Every time I need superglue, I find a tube of it in some drawer, and it’s invariably unusable because all the glue has turned hard, or the part in the spout has hardened, etc. Apparently superglue is usable only once per tube. So you might as well keep a bunch of unopened tubes around.

• Reply to Horwitz, about how conservatives are really just criminal socialists with some makeweight justification; comparing the motives of criminals to the theories of socialists. Someone sent me this email about this exchange:
  

  Now I know why you are bald—you tore out your hair trying to debate the paleocons. Jesus **** Christ, is it so hard to admit you favor aggression? I guess it is. Try debating liberals and they will swear that taxation is not aggression because there is some “social contract” you have to obey. It’s mystical mumbo-jumbo on both sides. Perhaps this is good—maybe most people know ~deep down~ that aggression is bad and are just trying to play word games to rationalize themselves. Maybe that’s a start of some sort, although you seemed to run into a dead end with everyone. But how many criminals admit they are criminals? I’ve seen former S.S. guards at Nazi death camps say with a straight face that what they were doing was self-defense. Yes, sending children into the gas chambers was “self-defense” because they’d grow up to be nasty adult Jews.

• Reply to Palmer (where he insinuates I’m a Nazi sympathizer because I made fun of the idea of “inadvertent racism”); followup reply by me posted on The Palmer Periscope.