Another "Cologne warrior" moment. Memo to LewRockwellites: if you are trying to combat the accusation that your founder is a racist populist with a penchant for conspiracy theories, you should find a better way than complaining that the gigantic Cato-centered libertarian conspiracy is out to get you. More than two libertarians together can't even agree on where to grab a latte, much less on what positive rights children have. They're certainly not cohesive enough to mount a vast, bright-wing conspiracy. Someone would talk. I mean, presuming that they could stop arguing about road privatisation long enough to even pass the "Lew Rockwell Delenda Est" resolution.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Megan--thank you. If libertarianism ever wants to play with the big boys, it's going to have to either a) grow to such an extent that the cranks, kooks, and nuts are seen as non-representative, or b) kick out the cranks, kooks, and nuts.
MM,
please do edify us, what do you mean by: "Cologne warrior"?
Libertarians believe that children have positive rights? Sounds like there is common ground between these libertarians and liberals.
I resent Megan's implication that we libertarians are prone to in-fighting. That's the sort of rhetorical bomb-throwing that I'd expect from splinter groups like the Property Rights Front of Judea. We in the Judean Property Rights Front are constantly being hit over the head with these unwarranted allegations.
Racist populist? Well I don't know what that means, but I am looking to get my wife a new purse for her birthday. Do you think you could review some? I mean, people don't come here to read about economic analysis from a fiscally conservative viewpoint, right?
This is the salient point - as Grumpy points out, libertarians simply aren't willing criticize anyone in their ranks, no matter how egregiously they behave. I've pointed this out multiple times on this blog but no one seems to get it.
They also need to cut waaaaaay back on the blatant hypicrisy - notice how Krugman is targeted for poor predictions, yet, somehow, no one ever mentions how Cato got the '93 prediction so wrong. Remember how they bleated about the inevitable recession that would follow? Did they ever recant? No . . . but they have scrubbed their site of any of that silliness, the dishonest tossers.
Bottom line, libertarians have to behave more responsibly before they're taken seriously by any significant proportion of the American electorate.
"This is the salient point - as Grumpy points out, libertarians simply aren't willing criticize anyone in their ranks, no matter how egregiously they behave."
"libertarians simply aren't willing criticize anyone in their ranks, no matter how egregiously they behave."
SOV,
you're the stickler for cites..please do give us an example of what you're referring to...
I don't get it. If Paul "denounce(s) such small-minded thoughts" and takes "moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name," why aren't Paulians out trying to clear his name?
If I fiercely supported a candidate who denounced horrible things said in his name (the first-person context "When I was surgeon..." "happy holidays from me and my wife Carol..." leave no doubt that the newsletter was intended to be perceived as his words), lord knows I'd be filing libel suits or doing something to clear his name.
One of the most valuable property rights that a public persona like Paul possesses is the integrity of his words. So quit calling Kirchuk, McArdle and others neocon whores and get out there and defend that property right by bringing the writers and editors to justice for libel.
I guess people just can't help being themselves.
What worries me is that libertarians seem to need a lot of whackos in order to make a candidate viable. Without the nuts, Ron Paul would be nowhere. Well, even more nowhere. What does that say about the popularity of libertarians in this country?
If you have to appeal to the fringe, that's a sign of weakness, not strength.
"How on earth would a kid just out of college know to go to a library in Kansas, of all places, to dig up such stuff?"
I love it.
Here's a link to a libertarian who's been keeping an eye on this stuff for some time now:
http://rightwatch.tblog.com/
Libertarians had better clean house.
This is the salient point - as Grumpy points out, libertarians simply aren't willing criticize anyone in their ranks, no matter how egregiously they behave. I've pointed this out multiple times on this blog but no one seems to get it.
Nice one, but internet comment threads are, lamentably, an inadequate vehicle for the expression of sarcasm. We can only hope for an eventual technological fix. For those who missed it, Megan has spent much of the last two weeks criticizing Ron Paul to within in inch of his provincial, paranoid, and not-quite-provably-racist life.
I find your comment, interesting, MEH, because you think that _not_ being a 'stickler' for verifying facts and figures before using them is somehow laudable. Is that the case?
Or could you dilate on just exactly what you meant when you said that I was a 'stickler for cites'?
Myself, what you are apparently referring to is what I would call being 'reality based', pragmatic, etc. But I'm sure you'll clear this up.
And uh, Dave, there are plenty of wacko's here, posting in the comments of this blog. If you've criticized them, I sure haven't seen it. But maybe you can post an example where you have?
SOV,
No, hardly. I was saying that you were making assertions w/o cites. Seeing how you've thoroughly upbraided others for doing so, I thought I'd point it out and ask for an example/clarification of what you meant..
by: "libertarians simply aren't willing criticize anyone in their ranks, no matter how egregiously they behave.."
Also, this: "(because) you think that _not_ being a 'stickler' for verifying facts and figures before using them is somehow laudable." is a POV, I think, that would be safely ascribed to our hostess-- Many times found with blind assertions as her only arrows..
SOV-
Do you have any basis for the claim that libertarians are unwilling to criticize each other?
Also- in case you didn't notice, Cato was never exactly supportive of the Paul candidacy or the Rockwellians. I'd say that David Boaz's post the other day pretty well sums up what Cato thinks and has long thought about the people down there in Alabama:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/
Let's put it this way- if you read the post Megan linked to, you would see that the LRC idiots are blaming the whole New Republic article on the Cato Institute and so-called "Beltway Libertarians." While this finger-pointing is utterly ridiculous and childish on a number of levels, it also pretty well demonstrates that the "folks" down in Alabama are utterly paranoid about the mainstream of the libertarian movement. They have good reason to - the "Beltway libertarians" have had more than their share of clashes with the Alabamans.
On top of that, I could probably point to a dozen fairly well-known libertarian sites that have been less than supportive of the Paul campaign over the months.
Just to be absolutely sure then, are you saying that people who do not give cites, and refuse to give them when asked, are to be criticized? Or that those who do give cites when asked are to be commended, and held to be upstanding citizens?
Or is this just a way I must be a hypocrite if I don't give them, while at the same time avoiding responsibility for failing to condemn people who refuse to give cites of their own? If so, just come right out and say it.
That's a straight question, but I'm asking it because of the way you phrased your demand. If you go with paragraph one, then fine, I'll give cites. If you go with paragraph two, you're part of the problem that libertarians have with their credibility.
Yes, that's one guy, and failing to criticize him now really would show on the national level just how out of touch libertarians are; iow, libertarians don't have much choice about the matter. Unwilling is not the same as refuse to, after all.
But since you say you're willing to criticize libertarians and, presumably libertarian organizations when they behave somewhat less than honorably, tell me, did you ever criticize Cato, when they staked their reputations on the prediction that if Clinton's tax increases of '93 were enacted, a recession was inevitable? And then refused to admit they were wrong? And in fact, have scrubbed their site from any embarrassing references to that gaffe? Or how about this:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/22300.html
C'mon now, I know you, being the honorable guy that you are must have at some point criticized Cato, right?
And of course, there are the multitude of nuts commenting here that no libertarian seems to get around to criticizing either.
Why is that?
SOV,
It was, if it wasn't clear already, more like this: "I was saying that you were making assertions w/o cites. Seeing how you've thoroughly upbraided others for doing so, I thought I'd point it out and ask for an example/clarification of what you meant."
Also, to this: "...there are the multitude of nuts commenting here that no libertarian seems to get around to criticizing either."
Note: lib·er·ty (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
4.
a. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
b. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
c. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
Idiom:
at liberty
1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.
2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English liberte, from Old French, from Latin lberts, from lber, free; see leudh- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty
esp. 1 b.
Seeing as I had no idea what a libertarian was in 1993, I'll have to take you at your word that Cato was wrong. Oh well. If you can show me a large think tank or interest group of any sort with a perfect record of accuracy, I'll give you a gold medal. Probably Cato shouldn't have been in the market for making such a long term predictions like that with so many variables in the first place.
But yes, there are some things where I personally disagree with Cato, and have so expressed in writing (though not publicly since I've only had cause to mention Cato on my pathetic little blog on a few occasions, and usually just in passing). Hell, there's plenty of things where individual fellows at Cato disagree with the organization, and quite publicly sometimes. Compare, for instance, Brink Lindsey on the Iraq War with Cato's official position.
I can think of several other feuds/arguments involving various elements of the libertarian community just in the last few months. Usually they are respectful- but they are criticisms nonetheless. Though, if the Rockwellians are involved, the respectfulness tends to fall by the wayside. Since they're crazy and think everyone is out to get them.
By the way- I say all this mostly as an outsider to "the movement", although I certainly consider myself a solid libertarian. I'm only talking about quite public and well-documented feuds that I've come across while doing my own independent writing.
I should also add that when we talk of the Rockwellians, we're not talking about "just one guy," we're talking about a fairly sizable number of people who deem themselves libertarians. I should also add that criticism of the Rockwellians has existed for quite some time, and there are quite a few fairly prominent libertarians who long ago made clear that they have no affiliation with what is going on in Alabama.
Again- read the tone of the article that Megan links to above. That tone exists in countless LRC articles by a number of different contributors going back for quite awhile at least. They have been convinced that the "Beltway" libertarians have been out to get them for a very long time, largely because the "Beltway" libertarians have been critical of them for a very long time.
You would also be surprised at the number of libertarians who either backed Paul only with extreme reservations or quite publicly refused to back Paul at all.
Sigh. Mark, please answer the question: is this your way of calling me a hypocrite if I don't provide them? Please stop weaseling. I was quite clear on what I asked for:
From the way you're ducking, it seems like you don't want to go with [1], because that means that you'll have to admit that, yes, there are a lot of libertarians here that don't give cites, and this is a bad thing. But you really can't go with [2] either . . . because it really is weasely; if I do provide cites, you are _conveniently_ free to avoid criticizing others who don't, and if I don't provide cites, well, I won't be any different from the multitude of others who don't, but you think that will lay me open to the unique charge of hypocrisy.
And as I've already indicated, I think it's behavior like that which really turns people off, the sort of behavior which libertarians should be policing their ranks for, but sadly don't. Probably, as someone else as already noted, because they can't afford to.
Now, I've asked you a straight question, I don't do innuendo, I'm a country sort of person.
Will you answer it?
This doesn't make any sense. Really, honestly, there wasn't a recession after the Omnibus budget reconciliation act, in fact, there wasn't a recession at any time in the 90's after Clinton took office. You don't have to believe me, look it up. Further the issue is not that Cato got it wrong, but how they behaved afterwards. If you get something wrong, especially after you've made such a big deal about it, it behooves you to make a public acknowledgment of that error. Not pretend you never said any of those things.
SOV: Huh? At what point did I ever engage you on the question about cites? The only point I've made is that you seem insistent that libertarians "simply aren't willing to criticize anyone in their ranks." I've provided plenty of examples of libertarians criticizing each other, which you seem to know nothing about.
As for the Cato false prediction- again, I have no idea what you are talking about because I've only considered myself a libertarian for a relatively short period of time. Then again, I also don't know of many instances where a think tank has ever apologized for being wrong on a prediction, left or right.
I can't seem to find any articles that suggest Cato behaved in an unusually inappropriate manner on that - would you care to provide a link?
Also- as Megan so beautifully pointed out the other day: Paul Krugman has successfully predicted "8 of the last none" recessions in the Bush years. By your logic, shouldn't he have to make a public acknowledgement of his errors?
SOV,
I reiterated my reason for asking for two simple reasons: 1.) it was why I was asking, and 2.) I choose not have my reasons reframed by your bipedal stalking horse.
This: "because that means that you'll have to admit that, yes, there are a lot of libertarians here that don't give cites, and this is a bad thing.", doesn't fit because, to me, I don't see many 'libertarians', including our beloved hostess, here, to begin with, and, obviously, not all posts require cites...such as http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cite
Past that, there are, certainly, times where cites should be given, especially by our hostess. Though, to her credit, even if she doesn't do her homework, she still puts her name on the 'paper'.
Ultimately, it's up to her and her Editors. Though, somewhat sooner than they might care for, theatlantic, no longer a monthly, may begin to be confused for a Georgia-based Lampoon sheet.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antic
and, again, see: "b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing."
Might I also point out that there's a hell of a difference between getting an economic prediction wrong and cuddling up to race-war enthusiasts?
Libertarians had better clean house....
Really, where did you do that? I certainly didn't see it.
At any rate, it seems like you're simply refusing to answer my question. Noted. So I'm going with option [2]. Sorry, but the choice was yours, and as I said, your response is symptomatic of why people don't like libertarians.
Now, as to some personal examples, how about this:
Now, he was personally set straight, it was pointed out, with facts and figures, sources and cites, why a higher unemployment rate was deemed acceptable in the 90's, and that everyone thought this, not just Krugman. His response?
And no libertarian stepped in to tell him how asinine that was. Look it up. For a great example of innumeracy, check out this fellow:
SOV:
I think you are confused- I'm not the same person as Mark Hoffer. Go back and look at who wrote what.
SOV is confused, Mark @ Publius and I are not the same..
Ah. My apologies. Now, are either of you going to admit that you should have gone after these worthies?
If libertarianism ever wants to play with the big boys, it's going to have to either a) grow to such an extent that the cranks, kooks, and nuts are seen as non-representative, or b) kick out the cranks, kooks, and nuts.
How do you propose to kick people out of a philosophy? People make up their own minds as to what they believe. I don't understand how they can be kicked out of their personal decisions.
"How do you propose to kick people out of a philosophy? People make up their own minds as to what they believe. I don't understand how they can be kicked out of their personal decisions."
Christina, no kidding, Good for you.~
Cristina:
You're of course right that you can't kick people out of a philosophy. The best that can be done is for other adherents of the philosophy to make clear that they have nothing to do with the other self-described adherents and generally dissociate with them. Which is what has largely been happening over the last few days (and with respect to some groups over a much longer period).
SOV:
As for whether I should have gone after Cato in 1996- again, that is way before my time, so I would have had no reason to criticize a group of which I was only vaguely even aware. But yes, the logic in the post you quoted seems to be a bit lacking on their part. On the whole, however, I find myself agreeing with Cato far more frequently than not.
If you are suggesting that I should have gone after the Rockwellians earlier, then I'd point out that I've been critical of them on my site almost since the day I started it a few months back.
Infighting such as between Lew Rockwell and his shop, and Cato, in D.C., is pretty normal, but it doesn't usually get much public notice, and seems counter-intuitive to most folks: aren't they all on the same side?
But in politics it is frequently the internecine battles that are the most emotional and intense. And it often happens to be true that people who are largely on the same side of things in general, have very different ideas about how to succeed, and have reason to believe the other is leading things off the cliff.
Not to mention the dirty little secret of issue-advocacy politics that not everyone with an organization name and cause is really in it for the cause, but rather, for the publicity or the money; and those who know this best, and find it most revolting, are those who work in the same causes.
And it happens to be true that sometimes folks in D.C. get too cozy; it happens with elected officials, and with the media; and it happens likewise with issue-advocates. So on its face, the Rockwell group's charge that Cato has sold out isn't ridiculous.
One other thing, sure to spark shock and outrage, but here goes. In all of this, some have gotten the vapors over Paul, or Rockwell, or others, who criticize Abraham Lincoln, his conduct of the war, his handling of liberty issues and the war itself, or who happen to like the idea of secession. It is quite true that racists also offer such criticisms, but that does not make everyone who does, a racist. Folks in Hawaii and Vermont seem to like the idea of secession; does that make them Kluxers?
My point is, there are very valid issues to discuss with that period of history; and it's relevant insofar as the libertarian movement seeks to explain the roots of big government and how the Constitution became so amazingly elastic. It amazes me how often this reasonable and fascinating topic gets derailed into, "racist," "they fired first!" "so you like slavery, is that it?"
Essence d'Viola wrote: Ah. My apologies. Now, are either of you going to admit that you should have gone after these worthies?
Maybe in the future, when RFID tags acquire sufficient capacity to store all the information in the world along with sutiable array of "On a scale of 1 to 5..." flags, we can all get the implant and therefore include our Current Position on Everything.
Interested parties can then simply carry a reader and instantly determine that data, and thus avoid the awkwardness of having to first engage in a long string of circular red herrings about people's positions on past events before engaging in educated dialogue about the one actually under consideration.
As a pristine member of rodentia muridae mus, I look forward to being an experimental subject for the future enlightenment this will surely bring. When the time comes, I'll let you know how it turns out.
The reason people are so touchy about "discussions over things that have been decided." is this is exactly the same schtick Holocaust deniers use: "hey, I just want to go back and revisit the numbers and the evidence!"
The only way you can get sufficient credentials to actually "go back and revisit" stuff is to a) have a damn good background in the period, b) be ruthlessly impartial and fair vis-a-vis the data, and c) show that if you run across data that invalidates your theory, you are willing to throw out the theory, not the data. Oh, and definitely distancing yourself from those who *do* use the "just revisiting the data" excuse to throw out stuff they don't want to admit.
Moral of the story: don't play around with racial cranks, White Identity groups, or neo-Nazis and expect any of your writings to be taken seriously.
Moral of the story: don't play around with racial cranks, White Identity groups, or neo-Nazis and expect any of your writings to be taken seriously.
Or tax protesters, who are merely revisiting the meaning of "includes," "United States," "united States," etc.
Although I admit I kind of miss them not that they're gone.
SOV: The reaction you got has to do with the amazing wrongness of the comment about libertarians never disagreeing publicly with their own. As Megan pointed out in an earlier column, you pretty much can't get three libertarians in a room together without all kinds of fundamental arguments breaking out. Along with noting Megan and Balko attacking RP, you might look around for the fights involved in the last several LP presidential nominations, and the bad blood surrounding same. Or google for some articles on how well the Objectivists and Rothbard's crowd got/get along, or why David Friedman disagrees with both on a bunch of issues (go look at his website), or any of dozens of other things.
This is roughly like saying "Socialists never criticize one anothers' viewpoints or ideas."
More than two libertarians together can't even agree on where to grab a latte, much less on what positive rights children have
Ain't THAT the truth...
Ok, here's an idiot who apparently can't even comprehend simple sentences. Now, which one of you take-responsibility types are going to say, "No, that's not what was posted. You either didn't understand what was written or you are deliberately distorting it for partisan reasons. Please stop, you're making us look bad."
Come on, this is your chance to prove me wrong.
No, I am saying that you and yours are unwilling to go after the crazies who post right here. Which makes you look as if you think that tribalism trumps reality.
Of course, I'm quite willing to be proven wrong: show me one libertarian who criticized Mixner for his howler about how you couldn't use the ratio of two rates (in the same paper!) unless you knew how the rates were determined in first place.
Go ahead. Take your time.
SOV:
You made a blanket statement that said:
"[L]ibertarians simply aren't willing criticize anyone in their ranks, no matter how egregiously they behave."
You then criticized albatross for saying:
"SOV: The reaction you got has to do with the amazing wrongness of the comment about libertarians never disagreeing publicly with their own."
The basis for your condescension to albatross is that you claim he is distorting what you said. The quote above shows that he is most definitely not- you have claimed that "libertarians simply aren't willing to criticize anyone in their ranks." We have shown that claim to be demonstrably false. Rather than acknowledge this statement was false, you pretend it either meant something else or you didn't make it at all.
Instead, you seem to have shifted your argument to demanding that we criticize specific libertarians for specific incidents or statements with which you disagree. I have no idea who or what you are referring to when you demand criticism of "Mixner" - but did it ever occur to you that libertarians ACTUALLY agree with that paper and that is the reason for their silence on it?
You demanded criticism of Cato for its faulty prediction and response to it over a decade ago; I wonder if you have ever demanded criticism of the myriad Progressive groups and think tanks who predicted disaster from the 1996 welfare reforms and never acknowledged being wrong about it.
What. A. Tosser. NO. As a matter of simple english, 'not willing' does not mean 'absolutely will not do.' You know this. And I know this. If you like, you can substitute the synonym. 'reluctant'. But hey, let's see what on on-line dictionary says:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unwillingly
So you either do not know the definition of common words. Or. You. Are. Lying. I'm going with the latter. In fact:
Is a rather loathsome bit of projection. You can't even get your story straight:
No, I am saying, in plain English, that libertarians are unwilling (reluctant, extremely so, since you can't parse quite simple sentences) to criticize their own. It takes some pretty egregious behaviour to get an acknowledgement of bad behaviour at all, as the flap over Ron Paul demonstrates. As evidence, I've pointed out some extremely stupid, extremely indefensible things libertarians have said right here, and not gotten any criticism from their fellows. (what the criticism of Mixner for not understanding gradeschool math has to do with critiquing a paper's accuracy I'm sure I don't know - they're unrelated except for the fact that talking about the paper exposed his ignorance.)
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? The topic of discussion. You guys simply have a hard time - an extremely hard time criticizing each other on line.
You know that. I know that.
Ah, the "you're just as politically correct as I am defense". Son, whether or not I am a hypocrite has nothing to do with you and yours bad behaviour. But as a matter of fact . . . I'm not particularly liberal. What I am is follow the numbers sort of person. Here's something I said not too long ago regarding Walmart, if you don't believe me, concerning it's supposed deleterious effect on communities. Here's the summary from a paper on the subject:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-wal-mart-ef.html#more
Here's what I said, being the disengenuous liberal that I am:
and:
So you can take that last objection and blow it out your ear too.
Jesus Christ, you guys have got to be one of the most deceitful bunch around! Do you think that possibly, just possibly, that might have something to do with the low repute in which you are held?
Now, I'm not an unreasonable sort. If you want to apologize, fine, we can take this from the top. Bear in mind you still have to find all those criticisms you say exist, though. And that if you can't, I will expect you to acknowledge that I have a point.
How reasonable you are is another story.
Nice ad hominems. You ought to be more careful when you accuse someone of lying.
Using your substitution of "reluctant" does nothing to change the fact that libertarians criticize each other all the time. In fact, libertarians probably criticize each other more than any other ideology of which I'm aware. Again, I point you to the ages-old feud between Cato and the Mises Institute. I can also point you to a surprisingly heated feud a few months back between Cato and the Institute for Justice over school vouchers.
I point you to the many feuds within the libertarian community over the Iraq war. I point you to the many feuds in the libertarian community over abortion rights. There are also plenty of libertarians who have been critical of other libertarians on the issue of global warming. While the gold standard is frequently associated with libertarianism, there are a huge number of libertarians who are open about thinking it is quackery (myself included). Hell, libertarians don't even vote the same way as each other.
I will say this- there is one group of pseudo-libertarians who refuse to criticize each other, and that is the die-hard Ron Paul supporters and Rockwellians who invade any site that is even remotely critical of Ron Paul. Unfortunately, when one of them discovers a site that has been critical of their guy, they suddenly swarm to that site, overwhelming it in the process. I can see how this would create the appearance of uncritical libertarians; however, they represent only a small percentage of libertarians as a whole, and many libertarians like myself don't even consider them libertarians.
The trouble is that you seem to demand that libertarians criticize each other whenever you think they are wrong in every context. Rather than explain to them calmly and cooly and without invective why they are wrong, you simply blast them for daring to have a different opinion. You seem to figure that anyone who still disagrees with you after you make your initial argument is simply being dishonest.
In terms of my willingness to admit when I am wrong - I've done so many times, including on my own site just yesterday. But for me to admit being wrong, I have to be shown why- you have yet to give one shred of evidence as to how libertarians are, in general, unwilling to criticize each other. On the other hand, we have all provided extremely broad examples of libertarians criticizing each other.
I didn't 'substitute' anything - pointed out that this is the definition, and even quoted an on-line dictionary. You're being deliberately dishonest. Again. In fact:
You were wrong, dead wrong, about me when you said this:
And I showed _exactly_ why in the very beginning of my post. So where's that admission of error? An apology for your accusation of dishonest behaviour?
I don't see it. I also don't see you saying, gee, you are right, and albatross was doing something rather nasty.
No, you're simply lying again. Note that I get to rake you over the coals because of your actions, your decisions alone. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
And - I'll say it again - your disgusting behaviour here is precisely why so many people don't like your kind, in fact, despise you.
Now get out of my site and don't come back unless it's with your tail between your legs, you dishonest tosser.
Huh? You have in no way shape or form shown that libertarians are "unwilling" or "reluctant" (or any other such synonym) to criticize each other. We have shown repeatedly that libertarians often do nothing BUT criticize each other.
Yet you, who seemingly know nothing about the debates that have raged within our fairly small community for months, years, and decades, are completely certain in your conclusion that "libertarians simply aren't willing to criticize anyone in they're ranks." Not just unwilling in one or two cases, but generally unwilling in all or most cases to criticize each other.
You are completely certain that the handful of commenters on this blog are representative of libertarianism as a whole, and you are completely certain that no libertarians on this blog are willing to criticize other libertarians on this blog.
Instead, you have made your litmus test whether or not I can prove that people criticized another commenter who I've never heard of until today for a comment he made on some post of which I am unaware. If I was aware of what you were talking about, I would take a look at it and evaluate it on its own merits. But to make that, of all things, your litmus test is just silly, particularly when there are decades of feuds and disagreements within the libertarian community on all but a handful of topics, many of which I have named.
Accusing me of deliberately lying does not make it so. I am frankly sick of your utterly baseless accusations against me. If you are so convinced that the people who comment here or on other blogs are nothing but deceitful liars who are unwilling to listen to your infallible reasoning, then I wonder why you even bother posting here.
"Now get out of my site and don't come back unless it's with your tail between your legs, you dishonest tosser."
Your site? How, exactly, is this "your" site?
Wow, that's probably the best mix of dumb and offensive I've seen in a couple weeks. Responding to SOV on this issue is pretty obviously a waste of time, as anyone with a "find" feature on their web browser can see, just by reading his first few posts on the page.
And that's more of my time and attention than he deserved. *Plonk*
Albatross:
You know what? You're right. Consider me done with this thread. Attempting to engage in respectful discourse with SOV is an exercise in futility, in which you're going to be called all sorts of nasty things, get annoyed, and start throwing invective of your own.
Good riddance. And don't come back and until you are actually willing to take some responsibility instead of just saying that you are.