StephanKinsella.com

link. Respek to JoJo Ridenfeldt.

On No Treason, a reply to Ghertner, who thinks it’s inconsistent with argumentation ethics “to use the state’s own unjust laws to defend one’s own rights”:

“Both Stephan Kinsella and Stefan are confusing libertarianism with Argumentation Ethics.”

I don’t think so. I am quite aware of the diff. The latter is just one proposed way of justifying the rights that underlie or are assumed by the former.

“Of course, no one disputes that it is perfectly libertarian to use the state’s own unjust laws to defend one’s own rights. What is in dispute is whether one can do this in accordance with AE, that is, make an argument in favor of a proposition that one simultaneously rejects on other grounds, without committing a performative contradiction”

See, this is your mistake. What does it mean to do something “in accordance” w/ AE? AE is NOT libertarianism, or even a code of conduct, as you seem to imply here. YOu are the one conflating them. AE does not “prevent” you from engaging in performative contradictions! It does not even say that this is *necessarily immoral*. It only says that a performative contradiction *shows that* the propositions being asserted cannot both be true, since one of them contradicts the others. This happens to be relevant *when one is trying to establish what rights there are*. Because if one asserts A is true, and it is a contradiction, then it cannot be true. Etc. And to the extent we care about what is true–about RIGHTS–then AE is relevant.

But let’s take another example. Suppose A kidnaps my wife. He tells me he will release her but only if I mouth the words, “I do not exist.” Now, if I utter these words, I am engaging in a performative contradiction, true. But so what? All that this means is that my assertion is not, and cannot be, true–it contradicts the fact that i have to exist just to utter it. BUt who gives a flying crap? My goal is NOT TO UTTER SOMETHING TRUE BUT TO GET MY WIFE BACK.

So could you say I am not acting “in accordance with AE” here? Of course not. THat would make no sense. AE is just a justifying technique. Sometimes you use it, sometimes not. It’s not somethign you act in accordance with–that owuld be NORMS, which is what rightgs/libertarianism embodies, a set of rules or norms, that you ought to act in accordance with. AE just shows *why* libertarianism is true.

[Update:

see:

• Yet another reply to Khawaja
• Correction re Khawaja
• Me and Khawaja
• Khawaja on Socialist Welfare Rights

Khwawaja now explicitly admits he’s not libertarian (or Objectivist). Something to do with “Palestine” or some other bullshit.

See e.g.

It’s easy to overlook the significance of one last part of the subtitle. Reason Papers is a journal of normative interdisciplinary studies. Both “journal” and “studies” connote objective academic scholarship, a connotation we wholeheartedly endorse without excluding journalists or independent scholars. It’s worth stressing, then, that while Reason Papers has often published work from an Objectivist or libertarian perspective, Reason Papers is not an Objectivist or libertarian journal, or for that matter, a journal edited for conformity with any particular philosophical or ideological perspective.3 We think of the journal as a forum for inquiry and debate across a wide spectrum of views rather than as the instrument of any one ideology, party, or camp.

3 We thus disagree with the characterization of the journal offered by Walter E. Block in his “Austro-Libertarian Publishing: A Survey and Critique,” Reason Papers 32 (Fall 2010), pp. 107-35. See, e.g., p. 130, where the journal is described as “dedicated to libertarianism,” and p. 133, where it is described as “mostly libertarian.”

I haven’t been associated with Kelley’s group or organized Objectivism since 1997. I did a seminar with them in 2013 which was a fiasco. I don’t regard myself as an Objectivist or libertarian, and was never really sold on libertarian politics even when I was an Objectivist. Much less so now. The cartoons can be seen on the link below. They’re an innovation of Jennifer Grossman, who took over after Kelley. I find them mortifying, but it’s been ages since I had a motivation to care. https://www.atlassociety.org

]

[with a few links added]

“Sorry, but there simply is no moral equivalence between Kinsella’s invective and my responses to them.”

As everyone knows, a response to invective is never equivalent to the invective. This is self-evident!

“There is first the simple fact that in every single case without exception, he has been the one to resort to invective and done so first, and in every case, I have merely responded in what I take to be an appropriately forceful way.”

Well, this is just a question of “who started it”. As I see it, personal attacks were hurled by you guys at Hoppe. I have defended him; and for doing so, haven been accused of being a bigot myself. Interesting tactic: try to make the target of bigotry accusations look bad for denying it; and make others afraid to defend him for fear of being hauled before the Thought Police Tribunal. Luckily, some of us have no fear of the last gasps of a dying political correctness.

“And while I’m not going to re-argue every post (actually, I’m not going to re-argue anyone of them: once was more than enough), I would also say that the quality of my rhetoric and my arguments exceeds his by a fair measure–again, in every single case without exception.”

I’d say only by about 28%. Whether that’s a “fair measure,” I don’t know. But don’t my degrees outweigh that anyway?

“There was not one case in which I responded to him hastily or in uncontrolled anger.”

Me neither–I’m not angry. These are just pixels, after all.

“And there’s not one post that I regret having written. Compare that with the endless proliferation of weirdly giddy responses from him (rarely on anything of relevance to the original claim I made in a thread, which in the present case, if anyone cares to remember, was the rather terse message “Bravo. Very well said,” intended for Jason Kuznicki). Question: WHICH of us is out of control?”

I guess I just don’t see reacting to the High Seriousness of the Grand Inquisitors with ridicule and humor is out of control.

“In one case, he’s accused Tom Palmer of endorsing “torture.””

No, not endorsing it; of toying with the idea. As torture includes physical and mental abuse, and as mental abuse was what he was talking about…

“The claim was/is a brazen lie; I called it one there, I repeat the claim here, and I’m pretty sure Tom would agree with my assessment.”

Oh, I’ll grant you that one.

“But I wonder: have I done anything comparable to the website “Palmer Periscope,” which is a WHOLE WEBSITE devoted exclusively to attacks on and the defamation of one person?”

PP is not defamatory. It’s not defamation to criticize or even poke fun at someone. Anyway, I had nothing to do with it. I just learned about its existence, and posted first on it after Palmer cut off responses to a given thread.

“You’ll note the sly use of pastel colors, e.g., lavender and the like. Is it accidental that the site is in pastel colors, while the issue of Tom’s sexual orientation has been so prominently at issue? Oh well; maybe it is.”

First, I had nothing to do w/ that. Second, I think it’s homophobic to realize that pastel colors are associated wiht homosexuality. How dare you notice that? (just kidding)

“This is the site at which Kinsella described Tom as endorsing torture, but there were a series of similarly mendacious claims on Tom’s website before Tom eventually banned Kinsella (Tom: what took you so long?).”

I am not responsible for others’ claims. This is a simple matter. On Palmer’s site, he recounted this:

“The inquiry uncovered numerous instances in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to spread menstrual blood on Muslim men, the official said. Separately, in court papers and public statements, three detainees say that women smeared them with blood.” And he said: “is it out of bounds to threaten such a humiliation if the information you get might break up a terrorist cell? It’s shocking. It’s degrading. It’s disgusting. Is it immoral? It’s not obvious to me what the answer to the last question is.”

Now, I don’t think this is endorsing torture; but it’s wondering about whether mental humiliation and things like the menstrual blood tectics can be justified. This is not physical torture but it is a type of mental or psycological abuse. And I believe it arguably falls under the definition of torture endorsed by relevant treaties. [e.g., as I pointed out previously, the Geneva Conventions prohibit “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental” (Art. 75(2) of Protocol I)]

What I said about this was: “What is also remarkable about Palmer’s criticism of Rockwell’s views about proportionate beatings of actual street criminals — is that it appears in a post in which Palmer himself muses about whether torture of possibly innocent foreign prisoners of a unjust and illegal war is possibly moral! I.e., in a column where he dabbles with justifying torture he dares to criticize Rockwell’s defense of non-lethal, non-torture force used to apprehend an actual street criminal resisting arrest”

Now, I did not say Palmer endorses torture; I said he “muses about whether torture of possibly innocent foreign prisoners of a unjust and illegal war is possibly moral”. I did not say physical torture; perhaps I should have said “mental/pschological abuse defined as a type of torture under relevant treaties,” to make the term “torture” clear, but it was not a lie. You may disagree with me but I did not lie. I was pointing out how odd it is to feign outrage over someone advocating proportional punishment against an ACTUAL criminal, when one is not sure if (mental) torture of (possibly innocent) foreign POWs of an illegal war is immoral.

You can disagree with my view that this is hypocritical or odd; but it is not a lie. I described what was said, and then opined about it.

“So let me ask you bluntly: what is your moral evaluation of a site like Palmer Periscope, and of the person(s) behind it?”

I suspect it was set up by people annoyed by Palmer’s sanctimony and faux-righteousness and political correctness, but I have no idea. In any event I am not responsible for nor to blame for it. If you blame me merely for posting on it–well, you, Khawaja, ALSO posted on it. So is your claim coherent?

“Have I said anything comparable to Kinsella’s description of me (itself based on a comical set of mis-inferences) to the effect that I have “clannish” tendencies? This old anti-Semitic chestnut isn’t much better when it’s directed at a (supposed) Muslim than when directed at Jews.”

Oh, for God’s sake, here we go with the anti-semitic stuff again. I can’t reply to this nonsense.

“And what was the evidence for Kinsella’s assumption that I would object to my (hypothetical) son’s marrying a Jew?”

You have to have evidence for questions now? Teh PC types just make up the rules as they go along, don’t they?

“His claim on that count explicitly takes the form: IK sounds like he’s a Muslim; all Muslims, being clannish, hate Jews; so if IK had children, he would follow his clannish propensities in not permitting his children to marry a Jew. Hmm. Well, considering that my partner IS a Jew, and that I’ve probably done more to fight Muslim anti-Semitism than StephAn Kinsella will in his sorry lifespan, this strikes me as not the sort of claim I’m obliged to receive with equanimity.”

I think self-righteousness like this doesn’t really work any more. Just an observation.

“So I am not merely “chiding” someone
‘s overheated rhetoric. I am objecting forcefully to systematic, sustained defamation of a friend of mine (and, well, of me: but I’m a friend of mine, too). The claims that have been aimed at Tom throughout this discussion–their substance and style–are simply an obscenity.”

Right–How DARE someone challenge the character of a your good frien’ds challenging my own good friend’s character? Why, the audacity…! the impertinence! AFter alll, you are on the PC side, not us! We are supposed to just lie down and take our medicine.

“That is why, incidentally, I told Rick Shenkman that he ought to look into banning Kinsella from HNN–a claim I hereby renew.”

So noted. I second that motion. All in favor?

“L&P; has essentially become a forum for a smear merchant (dragging HNN into the bargain). Meanwhile, we’re obliged to pretend that Kinsella’s ravings are all part of the “conversation,” and we should all just put up with the sporadic “excesses” of an oddball guy with a few eccentricities.”

I’m “just” an “oddball”. The PC crowd continually comes up with more and more desperate tactics as the wall of PC continues to crumble. Just dismiss someone as an oddball… there’s a good one.

***

[Followup reply:]

Irfan, re Roderick’s calls for civility (I hope that does not make him a bigot in your eyes, but one never knows), engage in a thought experiment with me.

Let’s say you and I find ourselves seated next to each other, by random coincidence, on a plane. Do you think we’d talk? make up? Become friends? Okay, suppose we ignored each other with dirty looks and wrinkled nose. Now the plane crashes and you and I are the sole survivors on a desert island. I daresay that in short order we’d be fast friends. Who knows maybe even–some day–lovers.

So Khawaja and Kinsella live together in peace and survive against the odds for a year. Then we is rescued. Would you go back to these kind of comments and attitudes about me on L&P; list?

Interesting gedankenexperiment, no?

p.s. just kidding about the “lovers” part.

A new word I coined in discoursing (sic) with Tom Palmer: malorific, meaning sort of like a bad version of terrific; malevolent, horrible, bad.

Hilarious site promoting “abstinence-only coolness for boys.” (respek to Fulwiler)

The Sex-is-for-Fags Abstinence-Only pledge is hilarious, almost The Onion-ish in its brilliance:

I, [MY NAME], hereby pledge:

1. To stay massively cool by not having sex. Because only major losers have sex – which everyone knows is only for fags.

2. To never let any slutty girls peer pressure me into touching their vaginas – because vaginas are totally gay.

3. To ignore my raging hormones and burning drive to fondle, suckle, and thrust furiously into a hot gooey pit of creamy-soft fleshy ecstasy.

4. To keep my groinal giblets inside my GAP khakis, and to punch those sweaty bits into submission whenever they percolate with desire.

5. To never spill my sacred “dude milk” – unless it is inside of some hot babe who already married me and took my last name.

I’ve been listening to the heck out of Neil Diamond lately. That I Am, I Said, is one baaaad song! wow. I can’t stop singing it, and Sweet Caroline.

Soon, I’ll go back to my Pink Floyd, Yngwie Malmsteen, Rush, and Zebra staples.

Tim Swanson’s blog posts this conversation between Homer and Lisa Simpson:

Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

What is beautiful about this is the way Homer is talking is the way I sometimes argue with people I find annoying or not worth taking seriously. I just eff with them big time, play dumb, confuse them, ask bizarre questions, change the subject, etc. It’s fun. I am Homer Simpson!

[Update:

see:

• Yet another reply to Khawaja
• Correction re Khawaja
• Me and Khawaja
• Khawaja on Socialist Welfare Rights

Khwawaja now explicitly admits he’s not libertarian (or Objectivist). Something to do with “Palestine” or some other bullshit.

See e.g.

It’s easy to overlook the significance of one last part of the subtitle. Reason Papers is a journal of normative interdisciplinary studies. Both “journal” and “studies” connote objective academic scholarship, a connotation we wholeheartedly endorse without excluding journalists or independent scholars. It’s worth stressing, then, that while Reason Papers has often published work from an Objectivist or libertarian perspective, Reason Papers is not an Objectivist or libertarian journal, or for that matter, a journal edited for conformity with any particular philosophical or ideological perspective.3 We think of the journal as a forum for inquiry and debate across a wide spectrum of views rather than as the instrument of any one ideology, party, or camp.

3 We thus disagree with the characterization of the journal offered by Walter E. Block in his “Austro-Libertarian Publishing: A Survey and Critique,” Reason Papers 32 (Fall 2010), pp. 107-35. See, e.g., p. 130, where the journal is described as “dedicated to libertarianism,” and p. 133, where it is described as “mostly libertarian.”

I haven’t been associated with Kelley’s group or organized Objectivism since 1997. I did a seminar with them in 2013 which was a fiasco. I don’t regard myself as an Objectivist or libertarian, and was never really sold on libertarian politics even when I was an Objectivist. Much less so now. The cartoons can be seen on the link below. They’re an innovation of Jennifer Grossman, who took over after Kelley. I find them mortifying, but it’s been ages since I had a motivation to care. https://www.atlassociety.org

]

Followup/correction/clarification re post below: Khawaja has since clarified (somewhat): although he is not a libertarian (someone else said he is a classical liberal, and he has not denied it), he does not in fact endorse the entire Universal Declaration. He said “As re the “unqualified endorsement”, I just took over the Ex Directorship of ISIS a few weeks ago. I don’t agree with the part of the Mission Statement you’ve quoted and didn’t write it, but haven’t had the chance to do anything about it. It was written in 1998 by the previous director. It would be an understandable inference to draw about my views that I endorsed the UN Dec, but it doesn’t happen to be true.”

Setting the record straight!

My reply to him:

Khawaja:

“Where did I accuse Hoppe of not being a libertarian? I didn’t.”

… So, you will admit he IS a libertarian? You will gainsay Palmer? Great. Next issue–

“You fudge this issue on another website by saying that “Khawaja and his ilk” make this accusation. A brilliant claim, except that Khawaja and “his ilk” are not metaphysically identical entities, so that what Khawaja says and what “his ilk” say are two different things. Guess they never taught you the relevant logical law while you were getting any of your vaunted degrees. It’s called the law of identity.”

Let’s remain civil, and not get personal, Mr. Khawaja. It’s really okay that you aren’t an engineer or lawyer.

“Actually, I’ve never said that *I* was a libertarian. I’m not.”

Ahh.. thanks. This clears up a lot. Thanks for admitting it; I’d have had a hell of a time squaring the Universal Declration of Socialist Rights with libertarianism.

And please, everyone, forgive me for thinking Liberty and Power was an ostensible libertarian list; but I’m just a newbie, only a lowlife commentator. 🙂

” Indeed, where did I take issue with that term? In an essay in Reason Papers (vol. 25, year 2000)–the place where you claim first to have noticed my name. Good job.”

Khawaja, sorry I didn’t have time to re-read your essay in preparation for my post. Unfortunately, the half-assed Reason Papers is not online.

“But then, I never said that I was a Muslim and you claimed that I was. Alas, you imagined that, too.”

Sorry for assuming that you were a muslim, simply because you are Executive Directory of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society and have that possibly-muslim-sounding exotic name. I realize that under the new PC rules, no inferences whatsoever are to be permitted.

Incidentally, though I was born a white Catholic Southerner, please tell me how to join the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, or at least your white Catholic Southerner focus group.

“Imagination is something you seem to be really good at. Too bad we aren’t engaged in creative writing just now.”

Oh, some of us are. But I’ll mention no names.

“Even if I were a socialist, how would that be relevant to anything under discussion? It wouldn’t.”

Oh, it would mean you should be shot. Ha ha.

“The discussion isn’t about socialism, and I never judged Hoppe by libertarian standards. A real forensic tour de force, so far….”

I am glad to know that in your eyes, Hoppe fails to live up to non-libertarian standards. I can only hope to fail as successfully.

“As re the “unqualified endorsement”, I just took over the Ex Directorship of ISIS a few weeks ago. I don’t agree with the part of the Mission Statement you’ve quoted and didn’t write it, but haven’t had the chance to do anything about it.”

I can help if you like. But as you now admit you are not a libertarian, … I’m not sure why you disagree with it. Can you enlighten me?

“It was written in 1998 by the previous director.”

you forgot to add, “who was a goddamn socialist”. Just kidding. 🙂

“It would be an understandable inference to draw about my views that I endorsed the UN Dec, but it doesn’t happen to be true. Relevance to the topic at hand? Zero.”

Well, silly me, I like to konw if I’m debating about libertarian minutaie with a socialist or a fellow libertarian. Call me crazy.

“How many strikes are we up to at this point? How much more of an idiot and an asshole are you willing to make yourself in public? It comes at no cost to me; it’s at least mildly amusing to watch an unself-conscious buffoon unself-consciously make a fool of himself over and over and over with the persistence of the Energizer Bunny. I just wonder what’s in it for you. But then, what difference does it make?”

Now you’re getting it. It makes no difference. I am not an activist or strategerist libertarian. I’m a realist, and therefore a depressed one.

And a followup reply to another post of his… I crack myself up:

“Kinsella, do you specialize in non-sequiturs?”

Well, it is in my top 3. Others include the ability to flatten a beer can with my hands and that trick where you put quarters on your elbow and catch them with your hand.

“They begin with the first line of your post, and make it pointless to read on: From “I did not accuse Hoppe of not being a libertarian,” how *exactly* did you get to “So you will admit that he IS a libertarian”? Apparently, NOT making a claim has become the equivalent of making one in this demented universe.”

Khawaja, I confess you’ve confused me. You are not a libertarian, but you are not a socialist… and someone else assures me you are a classical liberal, which you have not confirmed.

You spank me for assuming you are Muslim because you are Exec Director of a group about Islamic Society… but you don’t deny it or confirm it. But you do make it clear your wife is Jewish.

You say you didn’t say Hoppe is not a libertarian and yet won’t say he is, either.

Man, you are almost as slippery as me! But whatever is a girl to think?

“Maybe we can go further with this line of “reasoning,” as in:

“I haven’t seen the weather report, so I don’t know if it’s raining.” Aha! So you ADMIT that it’s sunny!”

I’m sorry, but who is talking about the weather?

“An error, to put it mildly. We’re dealing here with stupidity than which nothing greater can be conceived,”

Well, come on, you have to admit, that’s a pretty significant achievement.

” and I think at this point I’d rather let Kinsella self-destruct than do any more to ease him along the path to that terminus.”

password to stop the self-destruct sequence, captain!

“Not only have you been refuted every time you’ve opened your mouth,”

Like someone said, every word he ever said was a lie, including “a” and “the”. Cute!

“you’ve managed to alienate your friends, defend bigotry, engage in bigotry, tell outright lies, and look like an idiot in the process. Fine work.”

Well, you have to admit it would be worse to be a *smart* bigot than a *stupid* one.

Last weekend I took my baby swimming. Some guy who had gotten out of the pool had a large “American Flag” beach towel over his shoulders. I had to restrain myself from shouting at him, in a voice dripping with malice and sarcasm, “I just HATE people who drape themselves in the flag!!”

You have to see it to believe it. Respek to the Gilster.