Over at Bob Wenzel’s entertaining blog, the libertarians are having it out with each other again – the thick libertarians and the thin.
(http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/which-political-party-is-best-for-america/question-2611731/?page=3&link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s)
First, Sheldon Richman took on Walter Block and Lew Rockwell.
He accused them of not supporting their arguments with evidence.
The verdict from the gallery was a resounding win for the home-team.
Then it was Jeffrey Tucker’s turn to come out swinging against Thomas Aquinas,
who, being dead, was ably defended by the learned David Gordon.
Next, N. Stephan Kinsella arm-wrestled with a minarchist and called him names like “loser,”
which is par for the course, when it comes to N. Stephan Kinsella.
I woman-fully restrained myself from throwing any sticks or stones, as part of my endless violated not-so-New Year’s resolution to “play nicer.”
[See, Mr. Tucker? I took your humanitarian advice to heart in spirit, even though I criticized it in letter.]
But I admit I missed drawing blood.
And I admit I enjoyed watching others draw blood:
http://johnkreng.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/review-of-bloodsport-1988/
But, honestly, I didn’t get much satisfaction from any of it.
A wee bit of Schadenfreude, maybe.
But, for a brutalist outcaste – a “hater” and a “bigot” –
….not bad at all.
Recommended reading: Jonathan Haidt: “Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics”
My opinion based on the experience of debating both Tucker and Kinsella is that both of them are assholes but Tucker is at least a funny one, so it’s fun to debate him. Kinsella on the other hand is so arrogant and repulsive that he invites the urge to plant a fist in his face. He is not an anarchist but rather the prophet of anarchism. Ahura Mazda has tasked him with defining to lesser beings than himself what rights we have and what property is.