These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Libertarian Civility Self-Certification

Paulie, "anarchism = incivility" is not in the Hospers article. He explicitly clarifies: "I am concerned here only with psychological aspects of anarchism or, I should say, anarchists."  His thesis is that there is "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists".  His use of "anarchist psychology" and "anarchist temperament" is obviously shorthand for this "recurring personality pattern".  You've successfully argued against a caricature of his views; can you now argue against what he actually writes?

I don't know which LNC member(s) supported placing the Hospers essay in the binder.  The hysterical over-reaction it has provoked is fascinating, though.  Where is the corresponding essay by an LP figure of such eminence and gravitas about a recurring personality pattern among minarchists?  Oh wait, there isn't one.

Yes, I was in San Diego.  The binder was two inches thick.  There were over 20 people in the gallery.  I saw no stack of extra binders, and I've never seen them passed out at any LNC meeting.  It's just bizarre to suggest that the Hospers essay was "disseminated" to the LP membership.  The one who did that "disseminating" was whoever posted the link here.  "LNC or HQ" did nothing here: LNC took no vote on the binder, and it was obviously one or more LNC members who placed the essay in the binder.

Yes, the silly charge about BTP was a charge of selling out.  Your analogy still fails, because Angela was charged with a lot of different things.  That the Hospers essay was not relevant to some of them does not mean it was not relevant to any of them.

Langa, the Hospers essay obviously wasn't being used as evidence that Angela actually was the author of uncivil words in question.  She proudly proclaimed that she was, and she didn't disown a single word of them.  No, the relevance of the Hospers essay was in helping establish that the LP's culture has been plagued by this sort of incivility for decades.

Jim, I challenge you to identify me committing a fallacy of the excluded middle.

Susan, it's hilarious how you can disagree with the Hospers essay for 10 paragraphs without ever once bothering to quote it.  Here's a wild idea: how about quoting some assertion from the Hospers essay, and then actually arguing for its grammatical negation?  My experiences tend to confirm the Hospers assertion that there is "a recurring personality pattern among those who label themselves anarchists" that manifests as "a childish insistence on the obviousness of all points of anarchist doctrine, and of the evil and malevolence of anyone who makes an honest point against it."

[Civility Self-Certification: In the above remarks to or about my fellow libertarian(s) I try to 1) ascribe the best possible motives consistent with all the available evidence, 2) say nothing I wouldn't say in front of our mothers, 3) avoid straw men and fallacies of the excluded middle, and 4) quote what I disagree with. You should discount what I say if I fall short of these goals.]