Is it true that "Tom Palmer is nothing but the Ambassador of Homosexuality?"

Here's  Tom  whining about Justin Raimondo on  a Liberty and Power thread:

Re: Despite being a hateful bigot, Hoppe didn't deserve this (#52570)
by Tom G Palmer on February 6, 2005 at 3:41 PM

As I wrote earlier, I apologize to other readers for having gotten Raimondo's attention for this posting. I won't post any more on this issue, except to say that I agree with David Beito that to discipline a faculty member for his comments, even a homophobic scumbag such as Hoppe, is unacceptable.

As for the comments that Raimondo plastered all over my website, I leave it to the imagination of the readers as to what the tenor and content of those comments were.

[ Reply ]

 
Re: Despite being a hateful bigot, Hoppe didn't deserve this (#52576)
by Justin Raimondo on February 6, 2005 at 3:59 PM

Look Tom, just because you believe that every nasty comment made on your site was made by me doesn't make it true. I made a few comments in my own name on your site, you promptly banned me from making comments, and that was that. Other than that, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I made a humorous comment -- you remember humor, Tom -- in the hope that it might help lighten the atmosphere. But your pomposity, combined with your rich fantasy life, makes that impossible.

[ Reply ]

Re: Despite being a hateful bigot, Hoppe didn't deserve this (#52573)
by Jonathan Dresner on February 6, 2005 at 3:46 PM

Apparently Mr. Raimondo is unfamiliar with the phenomenon of "comment spam." And with the concept of serious discussion.

Mr. Palmer: your apology is unnecessary. But your experience with Hoppe is very important information for those of us trying to make sense of the situation.

I wonder to what extent this was an incident waiting to happen: if he's been making these kinds of comments publicly for some time now, the administration may have been more than a little eager to use an actual student complaint as a way to adjudicate the broader issues.

[ Reply ]

 
Re: Despite being a hateful bigot, Hoppe didn't deserve this (#52604)
by Dennis P. Spain on February 6, 2005 at 7:18 PM

I have read a number of Hans Hoppe's essays and his book "Democracy: The God That Failed", and have found his writings very thought-provoking. I do not know the professor personally.

He has often espoused in his writings the right of free association, but does that make him a bigot?

I am a white heterosexual male. I don't want to live in an area of Chicago that is predominnantly black, nor in a barrio in LA. I wouldn't mind living in Chinatown, San Francisco as I find that culture very interesting and safer in general. I presently live in Hawaii where there are many ethnic Hawaiians and Filipinos, and I feel comfortable here. I have never lived in a Jewish neighborhood but I probably could and would feel comfortable doing so.

I don't associate much socially with homosexuals as I simply find the lifestyle too strange for my tastes, but several of my colleagues are homosexual and my interaction with them is professional and courteous, and they are outstanding talents in their lives and professions.

In every one of my individual interactions with people I try to offer respect and non-aggression, and I view the purpose of government to be the protection of the individual from physical aggression,theft,fraud, and breach of contract wherever and whenever it can.

I simply can't imagine limiting anyone's honest efforts or their displays of genuine talent in any way, based on ethnicity, sexual orientation,sex,handicapped status, etc.

So my question is this: what makes a bigot?

Surely we cannot zero out our personal preferences, as they are the result of our life's experiences and our innate proclivities. And it is also true that our preferences are subject to change as we move through life. I believe this is Hans Hermann Hoppe's position and that no external agency of force, not even the University (!) should take it upon itself to guarantee homogeneity of expression of personal preference. If Hans Hermann Hoppe believes generally that homosexuals have attitudes demonstrating more time-preference than heterosexual males and females who are fathers and mothers, then he is free to espouse those beliefs and back them up in open discussion and debate in a lecture hall at a University.

Are we not allowed to make any generalizations about different groups of people for fear of offending feelings? Who decides what is offensive or not, a well-meaning Robespierre, Hitler, or Lenin?

Our real concern should be the growing worldwide expansion of State power into the arena of homogenization of politically-correct thought, a dangerous trend showing up prominently at the university level, and one that will carry us far beyond the limits to government advocated by Frederic Bastiat in his famous essay "The Law", not a concern over Professor Hoppe's opinion that homosexuals as a group might have less future orentation than couples taken as a group who are changing diapers every two hours.

[ Reply ]

 
Re: Despite being a hateful bigot, Hoppe didn't deserve this (#52613)
by Tom G Palmer on February 6, 2005 at 9:04 PM

Since I don't wish to induce Justin Raimondo to submit more information about his choice of sexual positions, I will simply answer the question posed above: "what makes a bigot?" What makes Hans-Hermann Hoppe a bigot is stating that one needn't pay attention to the ideas or arguments of someone because of some ascriptive feature, such as race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Dismissing the views of someone who has presented academic lectures by saying, "Tom Palmer is nothing but the Ambassador of Homosexuality" most clearly qualifies Hans-Hermann Hoppe as a bigot, for the same reason that dismissing the views of the present secretary of state on the grounds that "Condoleeza Rice is nothing but the Ambassador of Blackness" would qualify someone who expressed that view as a bigot.

Espousing the right of free association does not make one a bigot. Dismissing arguments and ideas on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the person who made them does make one a bigot. As to who has the right to determine that another person is a big, that's easy: everyone who has a mind can make up his or her own mind, based on the behavior or statements of the person in question. If someone has difficulty understanding that, I don't know what else one could say.

That a bigot should not be punished for classroom comments that merely indicate an inability to distinguish between primary and secondary characteristics (homosexuality seems not to cause a discount of the future, but childlessness does, and childlessness is a common feature of homosexuals) is sustained on other grounds, in this case, his contract with his university. I see nothing from the article in the paper cited that should lead to his dismissal or any other abrogation of the contractual obligations of the university. Even bigots have the right to have their contracts honored.

[ Reply ]

 
Re: Despite being a hateful bigot, Hoppe didn't deserve this (#52624)
by Justin Raimondo on February 6, 2005 at 11:53 PM

Oh quit your womanish whining. No one cares about your sexuality. If you want to know why Hans Hoppe is not the only libertarian to discount anything you have to say, you have only to look at your own website, where you make arguments -- in the name of "libertarianism" -- against withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, for subsidizing "regime change" with government funds, for banning display not only of the swastika but also the hammer-and-sickle and for banning neo-fascist AND communist parties (so much for more than half the Italian political spectrum!). When you aren't advocating anti-libertarian positions in the name of "liberty," you're slandering real libertarians like Hans, Lew Rockwell, and anyone associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute -- not to mention attacking Antiwar.com in the same tone (and for the same reasons) as the David Frums and David Horowitzes of this world, and even using much the same language.

Why, after that, should any libertarian -- or any reasonable person -- take anything you have to say seriously? So stop smearing people, Tom -- and, while you're at it, stop confirming the stereotype of homosexuals as embittered, petty-minded, bitchy obsessives, because that's exactly what you're doing.