| Rewriting biographies |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 April 2008 January 2007 June 2007 February 2006 September 2006 May 2005 December 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June My Links Cato Institute Foundation for Economic Education International Society for Individual Liberty Independent Institute Heartland Institute Institute for Liberal Values Institute for Economic Affairs Tom Palmer Blog Rational Review Reason Magazine Wendy McElroy Future of Freedom Foundation Freedom Summit Dynamist (Virginia Postrel) Free Speech Coalition tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 06.24.05 (7:48 pm) Professor Caplan's remarks tell us a good deal about the cultism at lewrockwell.com. Formal statements are required of how Rothbard changed your life. And no mention that he could be -- in addition to witty and clever and intelligent and other good things -- remarkably malicious, facile, intellectually sloppy, and destructive. I have nothing against Rothbard per se; he had his good and his bad points. But the worshipful attitude is sickening. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 06.24.05 (8:29 pm) It is much less sickening as your crazo obsession, Tom. (Yes, youir pompous tone shines through your anonymity). posted by: Bill Woolsey (reply) post date: 06.25.05 (5:39 am) It's simple. True libertarians follow the Rothbard line. While it is possible that someone would come to follow the Rothbard line without studying Rothbard, it is unlikely. People whose views would be similar to Milton Friedman or else continue to be neo-objectivists--they aren't really libertarians. It is all part of the Rothbardian line. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 06.27.05 (11:13 am) Rothbard is our Lord and Savior. His real name wasn't Murray, it was Allah. posted by: sam (reply) post date: 06.27.05 (12:11 pm) i'd like to be afforded the honor of calling myself a libertarian (free markets and personal liberties good; statism and overweening government bad, right?) and, to be quite honest, i'd never even HEARD of this "murray rothbard" character until i got to cato and found everybody else, panties enbunched, debating his merits and flaws. honestly, Larry Elder changed my life. -sam posted by: Stephan Kinsella (reply) post date: 06.27.05 (6:31 pm) There is no cultism, you idiot. My bio is there. Do I drone on about Rothbard like an idolator would? There was no explicit or implicit requirement at all. Walter Block asked some people to give their stories; that is all. He published them as is. I have no idea why Walter rejected Caplan's entry. Who cares? Caplan's published it himself. Good for him. Lighten up. Woolsey, what is your problem? This is insulting and gratuitous. posted by: Stephan Kinsella (reply) post date: 06.28.05 (7:36 pm) The last comment is nothing but a cheap shot. Instead of addressing my comments he seeks to demote them by slurring my character. This is called ad hominem. It is beneath comment. Did I say anything in my bio entry about how Rothbard "changed my life"? This is just ridiculous. I have written several scholarly articles--many published by the Mises Institute--that explicitly criticize and disagree with Rothbard. Oh, I don't konw, on the topics of, hmm, let's see: contract theory, inalienability, intellectual property.... Some cult we are, can't even keep me in line. Anyone want to defend their cultish charges against this rebuttal? If not, I submit my position is adopted. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 06.29.05 (5:18 am) "scholarly articles"? Yeah, sure... posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 06.29.05 (10:05 am) Enternal questions: Why is labeling Kinsella as a "devoted follower of Rothbard & Rockwell" considerd an an ad hominem slur? How can Kinsella call someone an idiot and then (one post later) bitch about ad hominem? Is it possible to make any critique of Rockwell & Co. and not get trolled immediately by Kinsella? Why does he take it personally if he is not a cultist? posted by: Illuminatus (reply) post date: 06.30.05 (4:17 am) I also know from private discussion with the Dutch libertarian Hubert "Hub" Jongen that Block refused to publish Hubert's autobiography because it contained negative comments about Christianity (Jongen was raised as a Christian but began to doubt it at about the same time when he discoverd the works of Ayn Rand.) Probably has something to do with Loyola University being a Christian institution... posted by: John T. Kennedy (reply) post date: 07.11.05 (9:58 pm) Kinsella, "I have no idea why Walter rejected Caplan's entry." You really have *no idea* why Block rejected the piece after reading Caplan's account? Is there anything you don't find credible about Caplan's account? posted by: rightwatch (reply) post date: 02.24.07 (2:38 am) I also heard the story of Mr. Jongen's piece being rejected. Since these are autobiographies this is a very odd policy. As Caplan noted about his being rejected, how do you debate an autobiography? If a person says this is what they went through intellectually then you take it on face value. Mr. Kinsella is well known for his role as enforcer and defender for the Rockwell/Hoppe network. |
|