Friday, November 7, 2008

Well, I guess I don't count as a libertarian anymore

Yesterday I was kicked off the private LibertarianForum Google Group and mailing list. The reason was that I had the audacity to remind other libertarians of the responsibility side of liberty (with respect to global warming), and for pointing out flaws in really stupid arguments against intellectual property (and, conversely, explaining how an IP-free system is vulnerable to Mises's economic calculation critique). The proverbial last straw was a discussion sparked by someone linking this TokyoTom post about Bob Murphy finally admitting, after being dragged kicking and screaming, to admit he misled readers in his op-ed, though of course he's not going to actually say it where any victims of his deception are going to see it.

The head of the list claimed that he was deluged with requests from people who were asking me to be removed, and who apparently lacked the guts and the brains to actually explain where my points were in error. I'm not going to name any names.[1]

Naturally, people are going to claim that, oh, it wasn't what I said, but my rudeness. This is ridiculous -- it's standard practice on the LibertarianForum list to use the exact same tone I did, as even my detractors readily admitted. A more plausible claim would be that the people there didn't like being uncomfortably reminded of the implications of their stated (though certainly not actual!) beliefs.

So why the title of this post then? I believe, after all, everything I did before. But look at it this way: time and time again, I see people nominally also "libertarian" reveal themselves to have been coming from completely different premises. I never imagined that I would see, for example, Bob Murphy take the attitude of, "Oh, did I destroy your land with my CO2 emissions? I got it! Here's the solution! Fix it your own damn self!" (Yeah, way to preach responsibility and universal adherence to basic morality there...)

There's only so many times I can see cases like that before the self-appellation "libertarian" obscures more than it clarifies.

So what to call myself now? One good option is Birchian, after Paul Birch (a former Anti-State Forum contributor), since I've been seeing my views more and more resemble his, especially in terms of focusing on whether the victims of one's actions have been adequately compensated.

Alternatively, I could -- gasp! -- call myself a mutualist as per the philosophy of Kevin Carson, my former nemesis. (As recently as July of this year he quipped that I couldn't grasp an argument even with velcro-covered mittens!) The reason for that term would again be because of my focus on the extent to which nominally "libertarian"-favored activities are in fact predicated on the state stepping in an exempting certain groups from having to actually bear its true cost.

Before inferring too much from this post, I ask that you heed this caution: There is a big difference between "Problem X is often overstated in an attempt to give politicians more power" and "Problem X doesn't exist." I certainly sympathize with those who have seen so many phony environmentalist rationalizations for statist measures that are thinly-veiled attempts to shut down markets, that they hear about Problem X and immediately view it as the former. But ask yourselves: has the tide turned to the point where it's more common to see anti-environmentalist arguments as thinly veiled attempts to shove onto other people, costs that the arguer should be bearing?

[1] Since a lot of you might be sketchy on terminology, a so-called "name" is a label used to refer to a specific instance of a proper noun. An example of a name might be Brad Edmonds or Max Chiz.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

You weren't removed from the list because of your theoretical objections. You were removed for being an unhinged, stalkerish, rude, annoying Person who disrupted the list.

Bob Murphy said...

Well, you're still allowed to post at the best blog in the world.

Silas Barta said...

*yawn* Yeah, heard those rationalizations already, anon. For those of you who weren't following, let me fill you in on the truly bizarre attempt to label me a stalker.

Here are the actions that got me that title:

-Publicly refuting Stephan Kinsella's arguments in venues specifically set up for that.
-Warning Stephan that I would continue to refute him in venues where he tried to hoodwink the ignorant.
-Responding to his emails.
-Concealing my identity after he revealed a tendency to misuse any "dirt" (even non-dirty dirt) he had on anyone.

Now, here is what Stephan -- the person accusing me of being a stalker! -- has done, and the list *does not* think he's a stalker:

-Used his privileges as admin to disclose my personal information without my consent.
-IMed me while drunk.
-Repeatedly sent me emails in which he called me "hard cock".
-Sent me pornographic "shock" images.
-Started discussions focussed specifically on me in which he posted the results of googling me and encouraged others to do the same.
-Demanded that I give lots of personal information any time I tried to refute one of his points.

Yes, one of those people is acting like a stalker, but it isn't me.

Anonymous said...

Person,

I have always thought you could make your arguments in a somewhat more civil manner (and I think the same about Kinsella- the two of you bring out the worst in each other), but your brusqueness is hardly unique, and removing you from the forum says nothing good about them. Your arguments are always important ones to consider, even if I don't always agree with you, which in the IP case is often, in climate change less so, and in other areas rarely.

Yancey Ward

Anonymous said...

I see the irony in a libertarian forum banning someone from exercising his liberty in expressing his ideas. Merriam Webster about the 3rd definition down says liberty is "an action going beyond normal limits such as those of etiquette or propriety". So libertarians should have no rules of etiquette. Can someone give me the mailing address for the libertarian forum so I can send them a dictionary?

TokyoTom said...

Silas, sorry to hear about your travails.

I think you are a valuable and dogged contributor to libertarian discussions. It's clear that even libertarians share "groupthink" and tribal reactions, and do tend to be reflexively aggravated by people who argue unpopular positions; I have faced this also.

I recommend (and hope) that you continue to soldier on, and do your best at trying to be persistent and principled, if not charming and winning. Just be aware that if all you successfully elicit is hostility, then you make it even more difficult to change any minds.

Silas Barta said...

TokyoTom, Yancey:

Thank you both for your kind words. It's good to know there are people like you among libertarians.

Bob Murphy said...

TokyoTom, Yancey:

Thank you both for your kind words. It's good to know there are people like you among libertarians.


Don't speak so soon. The other libertarians are holding a meeting tomorrow night to see whether TokyoTom is in or out. His siding with you, as well as his position on climate change, do not bode well. Intrade doesn't like his odds.

TokyoTom said...

Bob, I'm not sure I want to belong to any group that will have me, and even Jesus was rejected in Nazareth.

There, so fortified with standoffishness and hubris, I am ready for sticks, stones and unkind words from others (though I certainly appreciate your realtive patience, willingness to engage and good self-effacing humor).

TokyoTom said...

So libertarians should have no rules of etiquette.

Anonymous, this is clearly mistaken. Libertarians understand the need for rules; they just think that they should not be imposed by government but arise from personal property, common agreement or from voluntary association with a community. The intertubes are full of rules of such kind.