Comments on: Post text removed

By: nskinsella

nskinsella — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:27:30 +0000

I didn’t think it was malicious, and don’t need a public apology (I’m not one of *those* type of libertarians).

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:48:38 +0000

My apologies for the oversight, Stephan. I assumed to much. You are quite right that I have done you an undeserved discourtesy. Would you have me do anything else besides removing the text of the post and this public apology?

By: MikeD

MikeD — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:11:46 +0000

Well aware, Stephan. It were a joke, nothing more.

In any case, I agree Brad should have asked first, but I’m also pretty sure it was an honest mistake. He probably simply assumed your consent. Inconsiderate, maybe, but not intentionally malicious, and an understandable omission.

By: nskinsella

nskinsella — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:44:34 +0000

It’s not about IP. It’s about manners, protocol, etc. People have reputations even if there is no property right in them. Etc.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:39:28 +0000

“Brad, my memory must be failing, since I don’t recall your asking my permission to post our private email conversation. Tsk tsk.”

You should demand Brad compensate you for utilizing your intellectual property against your will.

Oh wait…

By: nskinsella

nskinsella — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:27:19 +0000

Brad, my memory must be failing, since I don’t recall your asking my permission to post our private email conversation. Tsk tsk.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:12:35 +0000

Kinsella: Where does the Mises Institute make blanket defenses of of property rights?

Well, for example, when somebody questions how much of a role the state plays in the free market, Mises folks - including you - tend to downplay this influence on the overall structure and nature of the economy. In practice, this entails erring on the side of defending existing property titles instead of erring on the side of attacking them. Now, you may feel that there are indeed lots of bad titles stemming from state intervention, but that this is not a PRIORITY. But at that point it’s not a principled stand, but a strategic or cultural one - which is fine, I just wish you wouldn’t pretend that we’re the ones introducing foreign, irrational preferences into the mix.

The same has happened in the “Conflation Conflict” conversation: all other things being equal, you believe the corporate form represents valid property arrangements that would persist in the absence of a state. Now, I don’t necessarily fault you for this - I can neither prove nor disprove what would happen in some hypothetical future stateless society (nor can you). But it does reflect a tendency that separates your approach to libertarianism from ours.

Stephan, you keep arguing for a sort of centrist or ideal libertarianism that is neither right nor left, yet you attribute to that libertarianism very specific cultural positions on organization, labor relations, property, etc. This is part of what is so frustrating about the argument - and I’m sure you find it frustrating too. The key is for us to agree to disagree on the vision of a free society we’re working towards, and come together on what principles we share, and stop trying to excommunicate the other side from libertarianism.