StephanKinsella.com

Me and Khawaja

by Stephan Kinsella on February 16, 2005

[Update:

see:

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

See e.g.

https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/33/rp_33_0.pdf

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.”

https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_7.pdf

As he wrote in this Facebook thread:

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

]

(see correction/comments above)

***
I’m all over this Liberty & Power thread (for now–Irfan Khawaja–tha’ts K, h, a, w, a, j, a–has demanded I be removed; meanwhile, I’ve called the editor’s attention to the use of defamation on the list. Here is a post I like. Frickin’ funny, eh? This dude, who is exec director of an Islamic group, and who published in a libertarian jounral (Reason Papers) and on Liberty and Power list, accuses me of some unfounded assumption when guessing he’s Muslim and assuming he’s libertarian. Little Irfan assure me he is married to a Jew, and not a libertarian. Wow, impressive.

***

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.

{ 0 comments }

Khawaja on Socialist Welfare Rights

by Stephan Kinsella on February 15, 2005

[Update:

see:

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

See e.g.

https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/33/rp_33_0.pdf

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.”

https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_7.pdf

As he wrote in this Facebook thread:

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

]

Interesting that Khawaja and his ilk question whether Hoppe is a libertarian. I see now, it’s because they are not libertarians at all, yet apparently want to pretend to be. Therefore, they have to try to purge the real ones.

Khawaja is apparently Executive Director of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS). The mission statement of which says:

We endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights without qualification.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [sic] (2) is a veritable socialistic manifesto:

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The International Covenants on Human Rights include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provides for similar welfare rights.

These treaties are socialistic abominations. They recite a whole host of positive welfare rights; but they also recite some negative rights (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). I will note that Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration does provide: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This provision–which Khawaja endorses “without qualification”–seems to be aimed at the type of “mental torture” Palmer was flirting with and that Khawaja defended him from. Eeenn-tah-resting, Meester Khawaja.

{ 4 comments }

Palmer on Rockwell and Rodney King

by Stephan Kinsella on February 14, 2005

[Cross-posted at Palmer Periscope]

More of Palmer’s outright lies. He has no compunction about outright dishonesty in smearing those he hates. In this thread about torture of terrorists, Palmer manages to dredge up Lew Rockwell’s 1991 comments about Rodney King. Now before I turn to that let me note that Palmer says in his post:

If you have a captured terrorist (and it seems that some of those who have been released were not terrorists, although there is evidence that others have indeed turned out to be), 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.

I.e., he at least entertains the possibility that torture of prisoners is okay.

Now, in Rockwell’s letter he writes:

Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that’s not the issue: It’s safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other.

“street criminals … have the time preference of depraved infants. The prospect of a jail sentence 12 months from now has virtually no effect.

As recently as the 1950s — when street crime was not rampant in America — the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing — proportionate to the offense and the offender — in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe.

Today’s criminals know that they probably won’t be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence — someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit.

What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery.

Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can’t agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.

Palmer calls this “Rockwell’s sickening thesis,” and says:

Quite a nice picture, isn’t it? And a bit awkward for someone who now complains about brutality against captured prisoners. (And, no, I am not saying that the fact that Lew Rockwell favors torture of American citizens makes it ok or makes brutality against captured foreigners ok; it’s bad in both cases. But Lew Rockwell favors it when the person nabbed on the street and not charged with a crime is beaten senseless in the back of a paddy wagon, especially if he’s one of those people prone to having high time preferences, the ones who are like big children, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, the ones who used to be called “boy” in the successor states to Rockwell’s beloved Confederate States of America, if you know what he means. It does undermine his credibility at least a bit, as a critic of mistreatment and as a “libertarian.” And that’s not even mentioning his remarkable suggestion that video cameras — one of which captured the beating of Rodney King on film for all the world to see — be banned.)

Note how dishonest this is. First, with the “boy” comment, he is clearly implying Rockwell is here calling for cops to beat blacks. This is a sickening libel. What Rockwell was talking about–explicitly–was street criminals. Here we have the constant resort of the “serioso and dimwit libertarians” (as Rothbard put it) to the tired old cries of racism to smear those with whom they have substantive disagreements. Palmer is still at it, of course; he seems not to have noticed that the ’80s and early ’90s are over–he and his ilk have cried wolf too many times, and no one pays any attention to their cries of “bigotry”.

Second, he writes–Oh so serioso–Rockwell’s “remarkable suggestion that video cameras — one of which captured the beating of Rodney King on film for all the world to see — be banned”. Thereby demonstrating another failing of the left and left-libertarians–their utter lack of humor. Of course Rockwell was joking. You could not expect the dour, grim, thought police libertarians to realize this, however. It’s only acceptable to make fun of paleos, Southrons and “breeders,” you see.

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! The chutzpah is just amazing! (If use of that word won’t get me accused of anti-semitism by the schoolmarm and cocktail party libertarians.)

{ 0 comments }

How to Shower

by Stephan Kinsella on February 14, 2005

From email to me, also on this site:

More differences between men and women. How to shower:

HOW TO SHOWER LIKE A WOMAN:

1. Take off clothing and place it in sectioned laundry hamper according tolights and darks.

2. Walk to bathroom wearing long dressing gown. If you see your husband along the way, cover up any exposed areas.

3. Look at your womanly physique in the mirror–make mental note—must do more sit-ups.

4. Get in the shower. Use face cloth, arm cloth,leg cloth, long loofah,wide loofah and pumice stone.

5. Wash your hair once with Cucumber and Sage shampoo with 43 added vitamins.

6. Wash your hair again to make sure it’s clean.

7. Condition your hair with Grapefruit Mint conditioner enhanced with natural avocado oil. Leave on hair for fifteen minutes.

8. Wash your face with crushed apricot facial scrub for ten minutes until red.

9. Wash entire rest of body with Ginger Nut and Jaffa Cake body wash.

10. Rinse conditioner off hair (you must make sure that it has all come off).

11. Shave armpits and legs. Consider shaving bikini area but decide to get it waxed instead.

12. Scream loudly when your husband flushes the toilet and you lose the water pressure.

13. Turn off shower.

14. Squeegee off all wet surfaces in shower. Spray mold spots with Tilex.

15. Get out of shower. Dry with towel the size of a small country. Wrap hair in super absorbent second towel.

16. Check entire body for the remotest sign of a zit, tweeze hairs.

17. Return to bedroom wearing long dressing gown and towel on head.

18. If you see your husband along the way, cover up any exposed areas and then sashay to bedroom to spend an hour and a half getting dressed.

HOW TO SHOWER LIKE A MAN:

1. Take off clothes while sitting on the edge of the bed and leave them in a pile.

2. Walk naked to the bathroom. If you see your wife along the way, shake wiener at her making the “woo-woo” sound.

3. Look at your manly physique in the mirror and suck in your gut to see if you have pecs (no). Admire the size of your wiener in the mirror and scratch your ass.

4. Get in the shower.

5. Don’t bother to look for a washcloth (you don’t use one).

6. Wash your face.

7. Wash your armpits.

8. Blow your nose in your hands, then let the water just rinse it off.

9. Crack up at how loud your fart sounds in the shower.

10. Majority of time is spent washing your privates and surrounding area.

11. Wash your butt, leaving those coarse butt hairs on the soap bar.

12. Shampoo your hair (do not use conditioner).

13. Make a shampoo Mohawk.

14. Peek out of shower curtain to look at yourself in the mirror again.

15. Pee (in the shower).

16. Rinse off and get out of the shower. Fail to notice water on the floor because you left the curtain hanging out of the tub the whole time.

17. Partially dry off.

18. Look at yourself in the mirror, flex muscles. Admire wiener size again.

19. Leave shower curtain open and wet bath mat on the floor.

20. Leave bathroom fan and light on.

21. Return to the bedroom with towel around your waist. If you pass your wife, pull off the towel, shake wiener at her, and make the “woo-woo” sound again.

22. Throw wet towel on the bed. Take 2 minutes to get dressed again.

{ 0 comments }

Palmer on Coase and Hoppe

by Stephan Kinsella on February 14, 2005

[cross-posted at Palmer Periscope]

I’ve already debunked several Palmer distortions about Hoppe. In Outcome of the Hoppe Case, Palmer repeats the one about “involuntary unemployment” (which I had already explained); and also repeats his uniformed Coase comments, to the effect that Hoppe, Block and Rothbard don’t understand Coase.

I have already posted (in Cato, Lessig and Intellectual Property, and Hoppe on Coase) links to several articles by Hoppe, Block, and others that clearly backup their interpretation of Coase. Palmer does not even attempt to address their arguments, but just asserts they are wrong. They are not; the wealth-maximization school does indeed favor judicially allocating property rights based on wealth-maximization considerations, and this has the implications Hoppe et al. ascribe to it.

{ 1 comment }

Libertarian Girl a Fake

by Stephan Kinsella on February 14, 2005

I admit it, he got me! I was wondering how any self-proclaimed libertarian could be so stupid as to advocate a tax on breast implants. Good one.

{ 0 comments }

A Good Woman

by Stephan Kinsella on February 14, 2005

I’d been hearing vague references over the past weeks about Valentine’s Day so I assumed it was coming up, but had no idea when. It turns out it’s today. This morning my wife, leaving for work, wakes me out of bleery slumber and gives me a kiss, saying, “Happy Valentine’s Day. I didn’t get you anything, so I only have a kiss.” I said, “Great, that’s all I want. I didn’t get you anything either. Have a good day.”

All these artificial “mandated celebrations” are stupid.

{ 0 comments }

PALMER BANS ME

by Stephan Kinsella on February 12, 2005

KINSELLA BANNED FROM PALMER

{ 0 comments }

The Palmer Courtroom Skit

by Stephan Kinsella on February 12, 2005

I’ll reprint below my comment (#6) from this Palmer Periscope thread:

imagine this courtroom scene:

Atty: And so, in closing, Your Honor, it is clear Mr. H. is a bigot!

Judge: Excuse me, … why is that, again?

Atty: Well, Your Honor, … my client claims he heard from someone that…

Judge: You HEARD from someone? That’s hearsay. But alright, what did he say?

Atty: Well, he said he took Mr. H. into this restaurant in Guatemala,

Judge: So? Why’s that bigoted?

Atty: If you will, Your Honor, I’m getting to that. So according to my client’s friend, Mr. H. asked if Guatemalans ate in this restaurant too, and, well,

Judge: What’s wrong with that question?

Atty: Well,… nothing, really, Your Honor, but in context — anyway, what he did was–according to my client’s friend, Mr. H. kind of got this disgusted look on his face.

Judge: What?

Atty: Ummm, he got all disgusted at the Guatemalans there. I mean, he had this disgusted look on his face. Or so my client says. I mean his friend, his friend.

Judge: Hold on one goddamn minute. You mean, you are marching into MY courtroom, and telling me Mr. H is a bigot because someone said he got a disgusted look on his face?

Atty: Well… I bet it was a REAL disgusted look, Your Honor, if I had to… ummm… guess.

Judge: How in the world do you know what he was disgusted about? Maybe your client’s friend had just farted?!

Atty: Ummm, well. You see…. my client says Mr. H. is despicable and a big meany, your honor. And, umm, he’s German. Also, he called my client an Ambassador of Homosexuality.

Judge: What the…. Your client is gay?

Atty: Yes, Your Honor. As far as I know.

Judge: How would you know? Has he testifid to this under oath?

Atty: Well… no, but he mentions it all the time on his …. libertarian site.

Judge: What does his political philosophy have to do with his sexual orientation…?

Atty: …. I’ll have to get back with you on that one, Judge.

Judge: Anyway, what in the name of tarnation is an Ambassador of Homosexuality? What does it even mean?

Atty: Ummmm. We don’t really know your honor. But… I think it probably means, um, that my client’s gay.

Judge: I thought you said your client is gay?

Atty: Oh, he is, he is…. Let me rephrase that, Your Honor. It shows clear evidence of Mr. H’s bigotry.

Judge: [steamed] …. against Guatemalans? Gay ones?!

Atty: Sure, sure, but… regular ones too. And non-Guateman gays. And there were Indians in the restaurant too.

Judge: What the…? Indians? The woo-woo-woo kind or the dot-head kind?

Atty: Your Honor, I don’t think that’s a very sensitive–

Judge: Alright, but which kind?

Atty: Umm, the woo-woo kind, Sir.

Judge: …

Atty: Your Honor?

Judge: Jesus Christ. Why do I get stuck with these cases?

Atty: Your Honor?

Judge: Go AHEAD Counselor, I’m waiting.

Atty: Well… one time he had a sarcastic comment about a friend of my client’s doing LSD…. [trails off]

Judge: A gay Guatemalan friend?

Atty: Ha ha, um, that’s pretty good Your Honor but … No.

Judge: Well, was your client’s friend doing illegal drugs?

Atty: Your Honor, I hardly see how that’s relev–

Judge: YOU brought it up, Counselor. I’m just asking if what Mr. H. said was true or not.

Atty: Umm, Your Honor, I’d rather not say.

Judge: Fine. Strike it from the record.

Judge: So let me get this straight. Because Mr. H. allegedly “looked disgusted” … and referred to your client as gay, in some weird expression none of us know what it means… and does not like LSD addicts (I have to say, I don’t much either) … you claim this proves that Mr. H. hates (a) gay and non-gay Guatemalans; (b) gay and non-gay Indians (the woo-woo-woo type); and (c) gay non-Guatemalan non-Indians. Do I have this straight?

Atty: …. Well. I mean, I would not … You don’t have to put it that way, Your Honor, ….

Judge: What way?!

Atty: Well, like … like you’re making fun of it. As if it’s … not really a serious charge.

Judge: Shut up. Let me ask you, counsellor. What is the label for Mr. H’s particular brand of bigotry. Would you call it anti-Guatemalan-Indian/homophobic…?

Atty: Umm, well… that sort of makes it sound —

Judge: Silly?!

Atty: Well, it is too narrow, and at the same time, too broad.

Judge: How so?

Atty: Because it doesn’t say he hates Jews or blacks.

Judge: Are you saying he’s racist and anti-semitic too? What evidence do you have for that?

Atty: Well…. none… exactly, but we just assume–

Judge: You ASSUME!? Counsellor, didn’t you see the Bad News Bears??

Atty: Excuse me, Your Honor?

Judge: Your remember it, Counselor. Jodi Foster. Don’t bullshit a bullshitter. Now what did that movie teach you about assuming things?

Atty: Ummmm. [cough] That… you make an ASS out of U and ME?

Judge: EXACTLY. Now do you want to make an ass out of me, Counsellor?

Atty: No, no, no sir, Your Honor.

Judge: Good. Anything else?

Atty: Pardon?

Judge: Anything else to prove this strange bigotry claim?

Atty: Well… he once said that you can’t have involuntary unemmployment on the free market. And also, he was not nice to my client one time.

Judge: Counselor. You do realize you are about to piss me off, don’t you?

Atty: Yes, Your Honor. I apologize.

Judge: You better hope Mr. H. didn’t spend a lot of money on legal bills, because you’re about to pay them.

{ 0 comments }

How to deal with lunatic loser nutjobs

by Stephan Kinsella on February 12, 2005

The only reason I can think of that I received this email is I once wrote an article for LewRockwell.com entitled: “New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal.” These people are apparently utterly clueless about intellectual property law.

—–Original Message—–
From: Stephan Kinsella [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:25 PM
To: ‘New Israel’
Subject: RE: Legal action will follow.

Go screw yourself, you irritating nutjob.

I’m posting this entire thread on my blog. Enjoy!

—–Original Message—–
From: New Israel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:18 PM
To: Stephan Kinsella
Subject: Legal action will follow.

Legal action will follow.
Thank you for giving us the incentive and corroborating obscene language that we need. New Israel (sm)

—– Original Message —–
From: “Stephan Kinsella”
To: “‘New Israel'”
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Important:

> Do you expect to be told “go fuck yourself, you mindless moron?”
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: New Israel [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:50 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Important:
>
> The name ‘New Israel’R is a Nationally Registered Service Mark,
> protected by the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. All
> Rights (of that
> name) are Reserved.
> We expect you to cease using our name, immediately.

{ 0 comments }

More Palmer Hoppe Distortions

by Stephan Kinsella on February 10, 2005

My discussion at the Palmer Periscope: More Palmer Hoppe Distortions — exploding the Palmer cornucopia of scurrilous, groundless attacks on Hoppe.

***

« As usual, Palmer misses the point | Main | Palmer Typography »

More Palmer Hoppe Distortions

Mises: Ethics, Geometry and Optics

In this post, Palmer makes the following claim:

I have read some of Mr. Hoppe’s work and found it remarkably unscholarly and poorly argued, but we’ve never met. My only interaction with him was many years ago when I attended a lecture he was giving and asked a quite reasonable question about a very strange claim that he had made but not substantiated, viz. that Ludwig von Mises had laid the foundation not only for economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics. That seemed very strange to me and I asked Hoppe how he could defend that claim, since (setting aside ethics) geometry and optics had been rigorous sciences for thousands of years. His response was to demand to know whether I had been listening, to which I responded that I had. He then insisted that I hadn’t and that he wasn’t going to waste his time with people who were too stupid to understand and who didn’t listen.

I have never heard Hoppe say this. He does attempt to use praxeological type reasoning similar to Mises, to establish ethics; this is Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. It draws on Hoppe’s (socialistic) teacher Habermas, and Karl-Otto Apel; and is not entirely dissimilar to the approach by Roger Pilon (Palmer’s quite sharp Cato colleague), which draws on the argument by his (socialistic) teacher Gewirth (as I summarize in New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory). So far, so good. This is Hoppe’s own theory; so what. Palmer may disagree with it, but it is not “ridiculous” for Hoppe to use insights from his understanding of Austrian economics and philosophy, to come up with his own unique way of deriving libertarian rights.

As for geometry and optics, it seems Palmer did not hear Hoppe clearly. I do not believe he stated “that Ludwig von Mises had laid the foundation not only for economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics”. Rather, as shown in On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology (text at notes 60-62, and note 62; from Economic Science and the Austrian Method)), which references Lorenzen, Dingler, Karnbartel, et al., regarding an entire body of “protophysics” —

Further, the old rationalist claims that geometry, that is, Euclidean geometry is a priori and yet incorporates empirical knowledge about space becomes supported, too, in view of our insight into the praxeological constraints on knowledge. Since the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and in particular since Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravitation, the prevailing position regarding geometry is once again empiricist and formalist. It conceives of geometry as either being part of empirical, aposteriori physics, or as being empirically meaningless formalisms. Yet that geometry is either mere play, or forever subject to empirical testing seems to be irreconcilable with the fact that Euclidean geometry is the foundation of engineering and construction, and that nobody there ever thinks of such propositions as only hypothetically true. [61] Recognizing knowledge as praxeologically constrained explains why the empiricist-formalist view is incorrect and why the empirical success of Euclidean geometry is no mere accident. Spatial knowledge is also included in the meaning of action. Action is the employment of a physical body in space. Without acting there could be no knowledge of spatial relations, and no measurement. Measuring is relating something to a standard. Without standards, there is no measurement; and there is no measurement, then, which could ever falsify the standard. Evidently, the ultimate standard must be provided by the norms underlying the construction of bodily movements in space and the construction of measurement instruments by means of one’s body and in accordance with the principles of spatial constructions embodied in it. Euclidean geometry, as again Paul Lorenzen in particular has explained, is no more and no less than the reconstruction of the ideal norms underlying our construction of such homogeneous basic forms as points, lines, planes and distances, which are in a more or less perfect but always perfectible way incorporated or realized in even our most primitive instruments of spatial measurements such as a measuring rod. Naturally, these norms and normative implications cannot be falsified by the result of any empirical measurement. On the contrary, their cognitive validity is substantiated by the fact that it is they which make physical measurements in space possible. Any actual measurement must already presuppose the validity of the norms leading to the construction of one’s measurement standards. It is in this sense that geometry is an a priori science; and that it must simultaneously be regarded as an empirically meaningful discipline, because it is not only the very precondition for any empirical spatial description, it is also the precondition for any active orientation in space. [62]

62. On the aprioristic character of Euclidean geometry see Lorenzen, Methodisches Denhen, chapters 8 and 9; idem, Normative Logic and Ethics, chapter 5; H. Dingler, Die Grundlagen der Geometrie (Stuttgart: Enke, 1933); on Euclidean geometry as a necessary presupposition of objective, i.e., intersubjectively communicable, measurements and in particular of any empirical verification of non-Euclidean geometries (after all, the lenses of the telescopes which one uses to confirm Einstein’s theory regarding the non-Euclidean structure of physical space must themselves be constructed according to Euclidean principles) see Karnbartel, Erfahrung und Struktur, pp. 132-33; P. Janich, Die Protophysik der Zeit (Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut, 1969), pp. 45-50; idem, “Eindeutigkeit, Konsistenz und methodische Ordnung,” in F. Karnbartel and J. Mittelstrass, eds., Zum normativen Fundament der Wissenschaft.

Following the lead of Hugo Dingler, Paul Lorenzen and other members of the so-called Erlangen school have worked out a system of protophysics , which contains all aprioristic presuppositions of empiriical physics, including, apart from geometry, also chronometry and hytometry (i.e., classical mechanics without gravitation, or “rational” mechanics). “Geometry, chronometry and hytometry are a-priori theories which make empirical measurements of space, time and materia ‘possible’.They have to be established before physics in the modern sense of fields of forces, can begin. Therefore, I should like to call these disciplines by a common name: protophysics.” Lorenzen, Normative Logic and Ethics, p. 60.

So Palmer is wrong. Hoppe did not claim Mises “laid the foundation not only for economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics”; and does Palmer want to relegate to the dustheep in a wave of the hand thinkers like Lorenzen et al.?! This is a standard branch of apriori reasoning. Palmer may not agree with it, but so what?

Scholarship

Palmer also impugns Hoppe’s scholarship. “I have read some of Mr. Hoppe’s work and found it remarkably unscholarly and poorly argued, but we’ve never met.”

I would suggest Mr. Palmer read, say, Hoppe’s magisterial A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism; or the Economic Science and the Austrian Method noted above. I fail to see how you can call this unscholarly. I assume Palmer thinks Mises is scholarly, though I get the impression Palmer disagrees with a lot in Mises; but the latter work cited above is a worthy extension of Misesian praxeology and epistemology. I would venture to say just about anyone who really appreciates the latter would profit from reading Hoppe here.

In another case (discussed here), Palmer ridiculously attacked Hoppe for arguing an allegedly “absurd and non-Austrian” view that free market unemployment is “always voluntary.” Palmer called Hoppe an embarrassment to Austrian economics. When I pointed out that Mises said exactly this–not to argue from authority, bu to demosntrate that Hoppe’s view on unemployment is an Austrian one and therefore not an embarrassment to Austrian economics–he retreated to the charge that my citing Mises was cultish. In other words, he was clearly, dead wrong on this question of Austrian economics; his criticism made no sense; and his only response was a feeble sputter “…. well it’s a cult!”

Hoppe’s scholarship is just amazing. Look at his publications; including dozens of translations of his work into at least sixteen languages. This is astounding. The breadth of his knowledge covers history, sociology, economics, philosophy… It would be rude and pointless of me to try to compare his scholarship to Palmer’s for the comparison is not relevant (but if I were following Palmer’s snide, callous, and hate-filled m.o. I would do that), but if one does compare, one wonders how Palmer has the chutzpah to denigrate Hoppe’s level of scholarship.

Slander, Libel, and Personal Charges (racism, homophobia, etc.)

He also keeps repeating the strange claim that Hoppe called him an “Ambassador of Homosexuality.” I don’t think anyone knows what that alleged comment is supposed to mean. It’s clearly absurd to think this demonstrates bigotry, anyway. He also repeats a bizarre story that a friend saw Hoppe show disgust when told Guatemalans were in a restaurant. This is all just so ridiculous I had to lampoon it in the skit in the comments section on the Palmer Periscope (sixth comment).

Let’s just say: given Palmer’s obvious, pigheaded, and hate-filled dishonest distortions of Hoppe’s comments in his “involuntary unemployment”and “Mises on ethics and optics” screeds, is there any reason at all to trust Palmer’s rendition of the alleged “Ambassador of Homosexuality” or Guatemalan incidents? Of course not. This is a man with a hate-filled obsession, who does not give a damn about the truth or the honor of the man he loves to take pot-shots at. He calls Hoppe a bigot based on the flimsiest of grounds; and even admits, “we’ve never met.” This is a man in the grips of a monomania; a hypersensitive wolf-crier whose rantings everyone by now dismisses as just that, the hate-filled, dishonest rantings of a man obsessed.

Hypersensitive egalitarian totalitarian-minded types like Palmer and lefties might have such ridiculous and hair-trigger standards for homophobia and bigotry that they could somehow construe these comments this way, but no one with common sense and decency would.

Posted by Stephan Kinsella on February 10, 2005 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1824190

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Palmer Hoppe Distortions:

Comments

Palmer is an agent for the state, and therefore a liar, a warmonger, a torture-justifier, a Fed lover, a Pentagon shill, and a state-expander (occupation, bombing, voucher welfare and SS “privatization”). He hates and smears all enemies of the state. He was a paid character assassin of Rothbard; how it is Hoppe. Sorry, Mr. Ambassador, but we aren’t buying it.

Posted by: Hoppean | February 11, 2005 at 10:37 AM

Stephan, you are by far the best when it comes to refuting Palmer.

Posted by: Jesse | February 11, 2005 at 04:09 PM

Jesse…. thanks. That’s all I’ve ever wanted to be.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 11, 2005 at 04:22 PM

Damn! Double da-aym!

You are major excellent. Seriously major. Seriously excellent.

You are a major execellent Palmer refuter. But I need to ask the question. Do you not have higher ambitions than to be a Palmer refuter?

I mean… seriously.

Posted by: Abegweit | February 11, 2005 at 09:57 PM

Abegweite: “You are a major execellent Palmer refuter. But I need to ask the question. Do you not have higher ambitions than to be a Palmer refuter?

“I mean… seriously.”

Why, no, what else could one want?

But if you want a serious answer, why don’t you look e.g., at my bio, http://www.kinsellalaw.com/bio , and you tell me. Compare it to Palmer’s if you want! Remember: Rand’s Galt, with the face without pain or fear or guilt!

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 12, 2005 at 11:07 AM

I fail to see how Kinsella can claim to have “refuted” Palmer when 1)he has no idea what was actually said at the lecture or what occured at the restaurant, 2)he attempts to counter a charge that Hoppe argues badly and is unscholarly in his methods by pointing out how widely distributed Hoppe is–as if that’s relevant, and 3)he is simply obtuse with respect to the “Ambassador of Homosexuality” remark. That’s obviously bigoted in two respects: It treats Palmer as if he is reducible to his homoexuality, and it treats homosexuals as if they are aliens.

Posted by: Matt T. | February 12, 2005 at 06:01 PM

“I fail to see how Kinsella can claim to have “refuted” Palmer when 1)he has no idea what was actually said at the lecture or what occured at the restaurant,”

Ah. And Palmer does? Anyway he’s basing it on a “look of disgust” on H’s face. This is stupid. You’d get, well, laughed out of court. Of course Palmer is not in court. So he can say whatever he wants, but it does not mean anyone will take it seriously.

“2)he attempts to counter a charge that Hoppe argues badly and is unscholarly in his methods by pointing out how widely distributed Hoppe is–as if that’s relevant,”

Why, no, that was just incidental; I said for readers to simply read or listen to HHH for themselves. I am utterly confident any intelligent, fair minded libertarian will be impressed, very impressed. I think Palmer knows this too, which is why he does his utmost to dissuade poeple from reading HHH, instead trusting his distorted summaries.

“and 3)he is simply obtuse with respect to the “Ambassador of Homosexuality” remark. That’s obviously bigoted in two respects: It treats Palmer as if he is reducible to his homoexuality, and it treats homosexuals as if they are aliens.”

You’re an Ambassador of Dumbfuckness.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 12, 2005 at 06:16 PM

WTF does it mean to “reduce” someone to their homosexuality”? You liberal weirdos really are tiresome. It’s just an insult; like Palmer has repeatedly personally insulted HHH.

“it treats homosexuals as if they are aliens.”

Is that bad? Maybe aliens would receive the red carpet. You must be a liberal arts major, with all these ambiguous, muddy similes.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 12, 2005 at 06:19 PM

I don’t understand your point. Palmers contention was about Hoppe’s lecture, not his book. Your statement “I have never heard Hoppe say this” does not prove that he never said it. Presumably, you were not present at the lecture Palmer is referring to. How do you consider this a refutation?

Posted by: Henri Hein | February 13, 2005 at 12:39 AM

Henri, Because the printed version shows what Hoppe’s views are, which is excellent evidence of what he would have said when talking about it. Further, I have discussed this very issue many times in detail with him and he has never said anything like what Palmer quoted him as saying. It is quite clear to me HHH does not at all believe what Palmer attributes to him; therefore I do not believe he would say it. Finally, I asked him.

Okay, Froggy?

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 13, 2005 at 12:46 AM

{ 0 comments }

Next Posts Previous Posts