Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Is This What Kinsella Was Afraid Of?

Was Stephan Kinsella abusive to Jan Helfeld (SEE: "Kinsela Constantly Insulted Me, Interrupted Me and Broke His Agreement.") because he feared Helfeld's skill as a debater?

Here is Helfeld in action.

14 comments:

  1. It's not that Kinsella is afraid of anything, it's that he's just an asshole. And I say this as a person that agrees with Kinsella more often than not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, Kinsella's the community asshole, no pun intended.

      The problem is that when you go to Helfeld's comment section, Helfeld says he'll only debate "prominent" anarchists, somehow Kinsella landed on that list and his behavior is not helping the cause. Kinsella doesn't deserve any leadership role as he doesn't have the character for it.

      I think RW should have Helfeld on...lol...that would be fun.

      Anyway, Helfeld is a stand up guy that most of us would agree with on many points. He has some cognitive dissonance on the NAP and the nature of government, but maybe he'll come around.

      Helfeld still helps the liberty movement by embarrassing pols, which is a good thing. He also demonstrates the Socratic method pretty well.

      Delete
  2. Great! Thanks for the post, RW.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kinsella told Helfeld in the opening that he had to justify the initiated use of force and that simply asking him questions like "what if x happened in an anachist society?" wasn't enough.

    Helfeld never even attempted to justify the use of force and instead just asked him questions.

    I would have been annoyed too.

    Kinsella is too smart to deal with guys like Helfeld.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kinsella *thinks* he's too smart to deal with guys like Helfeld. Unfortunately, this is quite common among libertarians. I say this not out of hate, but out of love.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Kinsella on the question of intellectual monopoly but his debate with Jan Helfeld was not good, he never explained why removing IM (I dont like using the term IP) would lead to more human happiness, he just kept repeating the whole "but it implies the use of violence" thing endlessly, that is not very convincing to someone who believes the violence is being used legitimately to protect property.
      I was disappointed in his lack of ability to justify his opinions on utilitarian/consequentialist (or whatever its called) grounds.

      Delete
  4. I've only listened to Kinsella debate a few times. Once with you, Wenzel, a couple of years ago and yesterday with Helfeld. In just those two instances, I have found him to be aggressive, rude, and thoughtless. He won't let people finish their statements before he rejects them outright or dismisses them as though he already knows your position. It's presumptuous. I get the feeling that he doesn't think about his opponent's view or position, but instead assumes complete grasp of every point. I personally hate talking to people who don't listen. And all they want to do is shoot down every point that you make. His debating attitude builds up a specter of a bully and he uses that throughout. Whereas most honest debaters would find this suspicious and offensive, Kinsella uses it as though his understanding of libertarian theory is broader and more comprehensive. It's not. He's just rude. Hey, as an anarchist, I guess there is no rule that says you gotta play respectfully. Though he tells his opponent to calm down and to listen, he does not apply those same considerations to himself. His tone is categorically arrogant, which in and of itself is not terribly bad, just that he uses that arrogant tone to belittle others. Any good teacher will have poignant examples. And when you run out of them, you start blaming your audience, "Well, don't you know!" I find myself asking, Is Kinsella more style than substance? I can't ever remember walking away from a debate or article of his feeling edified or strengthened in my reasoning. So, I don't bother with him. But I understand the importance, if someone is involved in the libertarian discussion, of taking him and other thinkers seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Helfeld just asks questions. Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to try and find truth to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Larken Rose smoked Helfeld in the Anarchy v Minarchy debate. Helfeld brought up the same points in that debate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. Seriously. Can you imagine hiring Pelosi in a role that required thinking on your feet when you watch this video and see her stumbling all over herself? She literally cannot stand the truth: that what her legislation is really all about is the ability of some people to set wages for other people, regardless of whatever free contracts those people would arrange for themselves. She can't even admit that. She knows that its wrong and that she would be punished at the polls if that truth ever got into the hands of people who vote. It's a scam and Nasty Pelosi is a scammer and a flim-flam artist. She gets what she wants politically but not through honest persuasion.

      Delete
  8. Kinsella reminds me of Bill O'Reilly without the mild mannered competence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JT out of BarrowMay 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM

    Helfeld is a true American hero and a REAL journalist/reporter.
    .
    I'd rather drink a beer with that dude than Kinsella.
    And I'd buy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who drinks during a serious debate when trying to be taken seriously? I say this in full agreement with his position... but what a cocky move. Wouldn't doubt it contributed in the least to his immaturity.

    ReplyDelete