Rush Limbaugh Says I'm Great
...indirectly. If you go to this transcript and check the 9th moderate-to-big-sized paragraph from the bottom, you'll see he praises the Institute for Energy Research. I have to agree; those folks at IER have snatched themselves a veritable printing press on the cheap.
Now if I could only get Sean Hannity to say that the folks at IER are great Americans...
Now if I could only get Sean Hannity to say that the folks at IER are great Americans...
My claim to fame is that I corrected Richard_Dawkins on a statement he made about the philosophy of science, and he revised an answer he gave on an edge.org question because of my correction (made indirectly through a confidant); and then he further deleted evidence that he gave the previous answer.
ReplyDeleteSee my story here.
I will be able to substantiate this claim more directly when webarchive.org publishes the archive of edge.org's appearance as of 10.13.07 or shortly thereafter.
Hmm. Well my claim to fame is that I inadvertently pissed off Randy Barnett for publicizing his radical political position and also got myself excommunicated from the Mises Institute (well, technically, uninvited to participate in a panel discussion at some conference) for calling Hoppe a bigot on some random blog comment thread.
ReplyDeleteIf Rush Limbaugh says Bob is great, can we infer from this that Bob is in fact not great, since Rush Limbaugh is always wrong?
Micha,
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly happened to you? I.e. can you elaborate on the chronology of events? That's a moderately strong charge so I just to make sure we understand what you are claiming happened.
Oh Gene must be loving this. We're getting into the Belly of the Beast, the Mises Institute.
ReplyDeletePaging Jeffrey Tucker.
Excommunicated! good grief. I'm rather fed up of these maudlin paranoid conspiracies theories. As for Micha's claim, we talked and talked about this. It had to do with the need for keeping peace on one panel in a conference where peace is at a premium. If I call someone a racist bigot in such a venue, it can prove to be a great distraction from the need for civil discourse. No professional organization wants that. Micha's comments to that effect--which he was free to make--did in fact provoke some forecast of tension that would be wholly unnecessary. Micha might have still attended the conference or sat or any other panel or given a paper etc., and he remains so now.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you have never organized a damn thing in your life or never been responsible for a damn thing, and think only of your right to be a jerk anytime and anywhere, you might not understand the need for such prudential decisions for the overall good.
Geez, I didn't know you could actually page people through this blog.
ReplyDeleteMy claim to fame is that I know Murphy.
ReplyDeleteSidney, I put in the paging feature recently.
ReplyDeleteFame: Oh, yes, and Kirzner once linked his arm through mine. (Every one of the many people I know who know Kirzner was stunned upon hearing this and could think of no similar incident in the past.)
Linkng arms is a long rabinical tradtion, probably going back to Moses.
ReplyDeleteWith your beard, Kirzner must have thought you were a rabbi.
Micha, As I vaguely recall, of course you were not excommunicated. Instead, again, IIRC, on several threads on various sites, you joined in the chorus criticizing Hoppe in the UNLV-gay-time-preference brou-haha. One one of them, at least, I got angry with you, not for disagreeing with Hoppe, or discussing or critiquing his views--but for calling him a bigot, which I viewed, and view, as an immoral, outrageous, false, irresponsible, snot-nosed-punkish libel. When I realized you and I were to be on the same panel at the Mises Institute, I notified Jeff that I was not going to appear on the same panel with you. That was my right, and it was Jeff's right to uninvite you from that panel since I refused to participate with you. But he was very gracious and apologetic to you and made it crystal clear to you that you were generally welcome and welcome in the future etc. You were in no way excommunicated. What happened was you acted unethically and it had the consequence that I refused to share the podium with you.
ReplyDeleteNow, in retrospect, I regret this in some part because re-reading the thread I see that you were mostly sincere, if a touch PC and punkish--but that goes with the territory of young brash student types. I even apologized in there when I thought there was a chance I had gone off on you previously based on mistaken identity; but then you stubbornly repeated the bigotry charges. So I do not regret my condemnation of you, or my refusal (in those charged times) to want to appear on a panel with you right when Hoppe was under siege. But I was very angry at the time with anyone I viewed as using this episode as an excuse to attack a noble, honorable, and decent man that I love and admire deeply. Again, if you had merely expressed substantive disagreement, it would not have bothered me. It was the personal defamatory accusation of this great, gentle, kind, benevolent and yes, very tolerant, libertarian of very damaging and false personal charges that I objected to, and still do.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWhere is the conspiracy theory? I qualified my own statement ("technically, uninvited to participate in a panel discussion at some conference"). You guys freely admit as much. It certainly didn't make me feel welcome at any future Mises Institute events if this is how accurate criticism is treated.
And I agree with you: I don't think only of my right to be a jerk anytime and anywhere. Rather, I think of my right to be a jerk (if calling a bigot a bigot entails being a jerk) in the comment thread to a relatively unimportant weblog. Why you think that would have lead to uncivil discourse at the panel discussion says more about Stephan Kinsella irrational fears of interaction with anyone outside his close-knit, personality cult of Hoppe worship than it does about me.
Stephan,
It's been a while since this all happened so It's possible I've gotten the details wrong, but as I recall, my criticism of Hoppe was not directly related to the the UNLV-gay-time-preference brou-hah. I joined in the chorus only when discussing his past writings and behavior. If I remember correctly, I didn't think at the time that Hoppe's unwise choice of teaching example was grounds for termination. But it certainly fit within a pattern of behavior for Hoppe, and wasn't all that surprising considering.
I got angry with you, not for disagreeing with Hoppe, or discussing or critiquing his views--but for calling him a bigot, which I viewed, and view, as an immoral, outrageous, false, irresponsible, snot-nosed-punkish libel.
If somebody writes something in a book that you find immoral, outrageous, false, irresponsible, snot-nosed-punkish libel targeted against gays, left-libertarians, and other minority undesirables, how am I expected to critique this without calling bigotry for what it is: bigotry?
I accept your non-apology apology for whatever it's worth.
The irony in all this though, is that while the big story was when Hoppe was threatened with losing his professor gig and a great many libertarians rallying behind him in his defense, those of us who had the chutzpah to point out Hoppe's other, unrelated indiscretions were either banned (As JTK was banned from posting on the Mises Blog), uninvited from Mises Institute conferences, and all the onlookers given warning that if you dare to challenge or criticize the received gospel of the Hoppe personality cult, you will be excommunicated. In short, Hoppe makes critical statements regarding the time preferences of gay people, and many libertarians come to support his academic freedom even if they don't agree with the content of what Hooppe said, while those of us who make critical statements about Hoppe were asked to leave. Speech codes for me but not for thee.
I have a dream that someday, libertarians will aspire to be responsible adults instead of whining, petty babies who demand that their subjective wishes must prevail in all of life's circumstances. Such a childish outlook can only be realized sitting alone in an apartment, gaming and blogging, but not actually doing anything with or for others.
ReplyDeleteI guess if what I say true, all one is left to respond with as ad hominem. *shrug*
ReplyDeleteStephan, are you really trying to claim that Hoppe is not a bigot, or just that it was rude of Micha to point out that he is one?
ReplyDeleteUmm, fellas, this was supposed to be a narcissistic thread about how cool I am. Let's stay on topic please.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Bob, your ego does indeed need constant stroking. Didn't mean to take away from the strokefest. Stroke away!
ReplyDeleteGene, of course Hoppe is not a bigot, and of course I'm claiming that. Hoppe is an individualist and libertarian, first off, which basically makes him less bigoted than 99% of humanity--anyone who is not a libertarian favors policies that harm minorities and thus despite their intentions they are more bigoted than any liberarian. Second, Hoppe himself is a sweet, gentle, sincere, humble, kind and, yes, cosmopolitan person, who associates with people of all types, races, sexual preferences, etc. on the basis of their individuality. Of course he's not a bigot.
ReplyDeleteI can understand how someone being unfair and using today's princess-and-the-pea politically correct standards could accuse him of bigotry, but so what? We are all bigots by their standards since we oppose welfare and affirmative action, and are individualists.
Micha,
"It certainly didn't make me feel welcome at any future Mises Institute events if this is how accurate criticism is treated."
Even though Jeff explicitly told you you were welcome.
"...I think of my right to be a jerk (if calling a bigot a bigot entails being a jerk)...."
Calling a bigot a bigot is perfectly appropriate.
"Why you think that would have lead to uncivil discourse at the panel discussion says more about Stephan Kinsella irrational fears of interaction with anyone outside his close-knit, personality cult of Hoppe worship than it does about me."
Anyone who knows me knows I am not a cultist nor do I fear interaction with others. In this particular case, I was angry with you and refused to be on a panel with you. Further, the fact that you were just a young student displaying the poor judgment to punkishly malign Hoppe made me think that, although you were smart, your judgment was not ready yet. And Jeff clearly did not fear any sparks between you and me on the panel because he knew already that you and I were not going to be on a panel, since I told him in no uncertain terms I was out if you were in. I of course had a perfect right to do this. Jeff could have said, "sorry you feel that way; see you next year," and that would have been his right.
"It's been a while since this all happened so It's possible I've gotten the details wrong, but as I recall, my criticism of Hoppe was not directly related to the the UNLV-gay-time-preference brou-hah. I joined in the chorus only when discussing his past writings and behavior. If I remember correctly, I didn't think at the time that Hoppe's unwise choice of teaching example was grounds for termination. But it certainly fit within a pattern of behavior for Hoppe, and wasn't all that surprising considering."
Okay.
"'I got angry with you, not for disagreeing with Hoppe, or discussing or critiquing his views--but for calling him a bigot, which I viewed, and view, as an immoral, outrageous, false, irresponsible, snot-nosed-punkish libel.'
"If somebody writes something in a book that you find immoral, outrageous, false, irresponsible, snot-nosed-punkish libel targeted against gays, left-libertarians, and other minority undesirables, how am I expected to critique this without calling bigotry for what it is: bigotry?"
Micha, in my view, anyone who thinks Hoppe is a bigot is clearly mistaken. Why they are mistaken, I do not know--it could be they are taking the word or judgment of liars like Tom Palmer; it could be that they have absorbed PC standards too readily; I don't know. I happen to believe that most people who accuse Hoppe of bigotry do not even believe it; they are purely malevolent, unprincipled, hating liars, like that piece of human filth, Tom Palmer. But others, like you, do not seem to be lying, just mistaken.
"I accept your non-apology apology for whatever it's worth."
I don't mean to apologize to you personally--I said I regret having over-reacted and gotten in such a frenzy. Even at the time, and to this day, I still regard you as highly intelligent and a fellow libertarian. I even think you were probably for the most part sincere. I just think you did show then, and continue to show now, some kind of terrible judgment when you make such clearly false, irresponsible, and damaging accusations.
"The irony in all this though, is that while the big story was when Hoppe was threatened with losing his professor gig and a great many libertarians rallying behind him in his defense, those of us who had the chutzpah to point out Hoppe's other, unrelated indiscretions were either banned (As JTK was banned from posting on the Mises Blog), uninvited from Mises Institute conferences,"
I am only aware of JTK being banned; and of you being uninvited.
" and all the onlookers given warning that if you dare to challenge or criticize the received gospel of the Hoppe personality cult, you will be excommunicated."
You are exaggerating. I simply personally oppose as immoral the unjustified defamation of a good person and fellow libertarian. that is all. No one ever opposes civilized disagreement and discourse--Block and others have critizied Hoppe's substantive views on immigration and argumentation ethics etc.
"In short, Hoppe makes critical statements regarding the time preferences of gay people, and many libertarians come to support his academic freedom even if they don't agree with the content of what Hooppe said, while those of us who make critical statements about Hoppe were asked to leave. Speech codes for me but not for thee."
Is this serious? I see no inconsistency at all between (a) opposing politically-correct actions of a public agency that does significant and measurable harm to a fellow libertarian; and (b) opposing smears, lies, and libel that can also harm the same libertarian.
"Gene, of course Hoppe is not a bigot, and of course I'm claiming that. Hoppe is an individualist and libertarian, first off, which basically makes him less bigoted than 99% of humanity--anyone who is not a libertarian favors policies that harm minorities and thus despite their intentions they are more bigoted than any liberarian."
ReplyDeleteStephan, first of all, that is the most ridiculous defense imaginable -- no one who says "Hoppe is a bigot" means he wants Jim Crowe to come back.
Second of all, are you forgetting that I've sat with Hoppe at the Auburn Hotel bar and heard the "sweeetness" that comes out of his mouth directly? The issue is not that he's against affirmative action -- amn, there's the second stupidest defense of him I've heard -- it's that he says things like... man, you really don't want me to start bringing these up, do you?
OK fellas, I think we should break it up. I am not a "moderator" in any official capacity, so I'm just saying this as a strong recommendation, that I don't think it's a good idea to continue with this thread.
ReplyDeleteBob, I'm a guest here, so I will respect your request. But may I ask why, apart from the conversation following an off-topic tangent, you don't want this conversation to continue? I am personally very interested in hearing Stephan's answer to Gene's last post, since my reputation (as well as Hoppe's) does sort of hinge on the answer to that question.
ReplyDeleteMicha,
ReplyDeleteI don't think your reputation is at issue. I think most people who care one way or another on this issue have enough information to make a decision.
Continuing this thread will only get people angrier. I think it is ridiculous that libertarians splinter into 15 little groups that spend their time fighting each other.
I'm not saying we need a "big tent" and shouldn't criticize each other, but we're choosing personalities at this point and drawing lines in the sand. I don't want to contribute to that here. I discuss that kind of stuff to try to defuse the tensions, but I think on this thread the point of net harm has been passed.
Bob & Micha, you are cool.
ReplyDeleteJeff & Steve, you are lame. So is Hoppe, and so is the MI.
(this is an unsubstantiated, off-the-cuff statement based on tribal affiliations, and should in no way be construed as pretending to be a substantive argument)