It is understandable that Stephan Kinsella is embarrassed and upset after his ignorance regarding the Constitutional status of Washington, D.C. (something any beginner in Constitutional law understands) was recently revealed on this blog. But his latest attack on me is truly record-setting in its childishness.
1) First, he condemns me for praising a book which, of course, he has not read. He quotes Christopher Hitchens’ discussion of the book as though what Hitchens says is somehow too silly to need refutation, when in fact what Hitchens says is a reasonable response to the book, and if Mr. Kinsella disagrees with it, he should answer Hitchens reasonably, not laugh at him in a manner befitting a child too inarticulate to formulate an argument. But, again, Kinsella has not bothered to read the book, and is therefore not competent to refute either it or Hitchens’ review.
2) He then says that since I had “the terrible judgment to support the Iraq War” I should “refrain from commenting in public on libertarian matters for a while.” Of course, even if it were true that the Iraq War were inconsistent with libertarian principles—which I do not think is the case, although I have always acknowledged that reasonable minds could differ on its prudence—it would not follow that I would be barred from commenting “on libertarian matters.” In fact, I am careful to note when I part company with libertarians, as well as when I differ from paleo-conservatives who masquerade as libertarians, including Mr. Kinsella. I have explained at length (e.g., 1, 2, 3) why the word “libertarian” just doesn’t apply to a political philosophy like his, which holds that government should be free to oppress citizens at will.
3) Mr. Kinsella boldfaces various parts of my articles and blogposts—all of which, by the way, I certainly stand by—which ought to make a “true libertarian’s jaw drop.” Those phrases are to the effect that war, though a terrible thing, is not the worst thing, and that slavery is worse than war. Evidently he not only thinks that states should be able to deprive us of our rights whenever they want to, but also that freedom is not worth fighting for. This he is pleased to call “true libertarianism”! I would have thought that the word “libertarian” is best applied to people who believe that freedom is worth fighting for.
4) He claims to have “totally demolished” the “ridiculous” argument that secession is illegal, but he has not, since he has never responded substantively to my points. He has never answered my critique of the article for which he makes these extreme claims. He has never undertaken to reply to my Reason Papers article. He has never acknowledged my point that Jefferson wrote that the union could coerce the states—yet has continued to claim otherwise in spite of the evidence. He has never responded, so far as I know, to my article specifically directed to him—an article which purposely avoided ad hominem and name-calling, to which Kinsella so often resorts, in an effort to reasonably discuss the subject.
5) Most telling is Kinsella’s complaint about this PL post in which I—in Kinsella’s words, “express[ed] tut-tutting skepticism at accusations of bad behavior by the central state’s goons.” In other words, hHe ridicules me for my willingness to wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions: “my, my, how ‘respectable’ Sandefur is.”
This “respectable” thing is a running theme with him—it really seems to bother him that a person might want to have facts before having an opinion; that one might want to be responsible rather than throwing around emotionalism and accusations. I’ve observed before that Mr. Kinsella is unable to muster actual arguments to support the claims he makes, but instead resorts to childish tantrums and horse-laugh fallacies. His refusal to answer logical arguments with logical arguments of his own—or with anything more substantive than shrieks and sneers—along with his delusional claims to have “utterly demolished” arguments which he hardly even addresses, his infantile tantrums, and his embarrassing ignorance of basic facts about the Constitution, all prove to dispassionate readers that he is not a serious scholar or writer. Any person who derides responsible argument as “respectable” (using that word as an insult!), who does not have the skill or maturity to formulate and articulate a logical position, or to critically appraise what an opponent is actually saying, or to acknowledge evidence or arguments that might count against his position, or to admit when he makes an error, or to let facts stand in the way of an indignant blog post, really should not be taken seriously on libertarian matters or anything else.
“When no substantive arguments are left any more, someone cornered either admits defeat, or resorts to ad hominem or personal attacks.”--Stephan Kinsella
