The Credibilty of Hoppe's Defenders

A follow up to More Palmer Hope Distortions.  Also in this post, Palmer claims that I have "no credibility", nor does my denial that Hoppe is a bigot. Others on Palmer's blogs and other anti-Hoppe blogs (like No Treason) have claimed I'm also probably a bigot, or at least an apologist for it.

Since Palmer has challenged my credibility, I will say a few words about myself, which I am generally loathe to do, since I despite when arguments become personal and about the people arguing instead of about the merits; and since I am secure enough not to need to be a braggart. On the other hand, I'm also secure enough not to fein false modesty and to readily state things about myself when relevant.

So I apologize for any self-promotion or momentarily making this personal; it is only for the purpose of showing how ridiculous is Palmer's lame attempt to show that one of Hoppe's biggest supporters (namely, me) has no "credibility". Palmer and/or others on his list have also referred to me as an "alleged attorney" (or similar terms) and an "imbecile" (or similar terms), or impugned my legal skills, as if these idiot laymen are in a position to judge.

My credibility, since Palmer things it matters, is not difficult to defend. I obtained four difficult degrees in nine years--a BS and MS in electrical engineering, probably one of the most difficult majors there is (wonder if Palmer knows calculus); a law degree from the law school requiring more hours (97) to pass than any other in the nation due to its bijural civilian/common law curriculum; and a master's in international business law from King's College London and the London School of Economics.

I have taken, and passed on the first try, four bar exams: Louisiana, Texas,  Pennsylvania, and the Patent bar, within a 2 year period at the beginning of my practice.  I made partner at one of the nation's top 100 law firms.

I've been an adjunct professor at South Texas School of Law, and have written or edited 8 or 9 books (I forget exactly; and the number is growing) by a respected legal publisher on topics ranging from international investment law, commercial and contract law, e-commerce/Internet law, and intellectual property law; not to mention dozens of articles in respected legal journals and law reviews on these and related topics, and likewise dozens of scholarly articles from a libertarian perspective on individual rights, contract theory, constitutional law, economics and law, etc.

None of my success was handed to me; I'm self-made. I worked after school all four years of high school (i.e., starting when I was 14) and through most of my nine years of higher education; and graduated with student loans for expenses not covered by some generous academic scholarships.

Although I have significant libertarian credentials through my writing, I am independent and beholden to no think tank or benefactor (though even Cato approached me about a significant senior scholar position a few years ago; I suppose I was less of an imbecile then; boy, wouldn't it be fun to be working with Tom now!).

By almost everyone who knows me personally or at all well, I am almost universally regarded as: a nice, friendly, witty, funny, fun, likeable, interesting, fair, just, helpful person; as extremely intelligent, well-educated and well-read; and a very successful and a superb attorney.  God, this self-promotion is boring; I hate to brag  or make it about me (like lefty opponents all too often, for some reason, do); but there you have it; tons of "backup" can be found at my legal and libertarian sites.

Clearly, I have nothing to fear from woefully uninformed attacks on my character or "credibility" by the likes of Palmer.  I am sure Palmer et al. wish Hoppe would be defended only by a bunch of losers, but this is not so. Hoppe is loved and admired by sincere, intelligent, successful freedom lovers all over the world, and a large and growing number of young, passionate, independent-minded libertarians (read: non-egalitarian; not in thrall the the American propagandized myths that those in DC just can't seem to resist). In my own case, I am happy to "spend" my hard-earned credibility on Hoppe's cause, since I admire and believe in him so much. And my "credibility" in this regard is as to nothing compared with his. I am happy to be a humble student sitting at the feet of this great master.

Hoppe's detractors will have to find flaws in my defense of Hoppe other than frankly absurd dismissals of my stature, credibility, intelligence, etc.

As for insinuations that I'm some Louisiana bigot, my diverse close friends--Persians, Jews, Muslims, Indians, gays, Asians--would snort their milk out of their nose if they heard that one. What the dour, humorless, compromiser, sellout, PC cocktail party libertarians have given up is their sense of proportion, sense of humor, and common sense.

Palmer also thinks my "childishness and his remarkably immature sense of 'humor' to be embarrassing--for him". Well, I'll let others judge whether I'm genuinely funny, and whether not my refusal to take seriously Palmer et al.'s hypersensitive, hyperserious, ridiculous rants and character assassinations is the right thing to do. It's frankly hard for me to conjure up--and I have a pretty fertile imagination--anything I could say or do in front of that crowd of wooping hyenas that would make me embarrassed.

I don't find making fun of dour, malorific malcontents to be embarrassing. I find it appropriate to treat them like the babies they are. And that's what really bugs them. That they are not taken seriously. Like the non-libertarian left, their cries are becoming ever more shrill as people's eyes glaze over and ignore them; in their desperation and bankruptcy of substantive arguments, they resort more and more to ad hominem and outright character assassination and personal attacks, including probably actionable libel and defamation. Their antics would be troublesome if their motives, and malicious bankruptcy of spirit, character, and veracity, were not so transparent.

Comments

[John T. Kennedy]

You mean Sabotta?

[Stephan Kinsella]

I mean those hair-trigger politically-correct totalitarian-minded, essentialist leftist, egalitarian, conservative-, tradition-, authority-hating types who wear the badge of toleration on their sleeves while really being intolerant, and who routinely resort to ad hominem and personal attacks, including cries of racism and bigotry without sufficient evidence for those charges--charges made without concern whether they are true, charges made in reckless or malicious disregard for the damage that will be caused; like a good totalitarian, to make an omelet, you have to scramble a few eggs, eh? The modernists to whom reality is an enemy; and thus they participate with blindfolds on in pretending with other ivory tower types that those who actually open their eyes to see reality and name it so are liars or demons. The kind of people who would not have lasted a day with the Pilgrims. The kind of people who go to "therapy" and believe in sensitivity training; the kind of people who yell bigotry! anti-semitism! racism! at the slightest excuse, and instead of a coherent argument; the kind of lowlifes that cry wolf.

[Stephan Kinsella]

On the idea of people in glass houses should not throw stones... given that Palmer and his ilk accuse HHH of bigotry... I wonder how many times Palmer has used the N-word since, say, he's been 25.

I wonder if he'd answer that question. It's only fair. If he refuses to answer, using his own standards we are entitled to assume he has... which would mean he's a racist. That might explain his obsession with it, and desire to falsely accuse others, to remove any suspicion, or to expiate any guilt? Caamora, anyone?

[John T. Kennedy]

Are you referring to commenters on NT? I'm just trying to get clear on what the reference to NT is about.

[Stephan Kinsella]

JTK: have you ever known me to be shy about naming names? What exactly is your question? Sometimes you are coy; sometimes you are clear. If you are asking me if I am insinuating that any of your NT guys are the hair-trigger, PC... etc. types, well, dude, whomever the shoe fits, the shoe fits. If it doens't, it doesn't. I vaguely recall some people on there calling HHH a bigot. I'd say anyone who would repeatedly refer to HHH as a bigot in a public forum fits this description to one degree or the other.

By the way, do you know if Palmer has ever used the N-word?

Have you?