StephanKinsella.com

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

[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

]

(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.

[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

]

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.

[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.)

From email to me, also on this site:

More differences between men and women. How to shower:

[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.

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.

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.

KINSELLA BANNED FROM PALMER

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.