Posted by: irishhawk | August 15, 2008

Thomas L. Knapp Launches Ad Hominem Attack Against The Libertarian Defense Caucus.

As The Libertarian Defense Caucus has grown rapidly over the last several years, it has become increasingly clear to the libertarian movement that are message is resonating with many libertarians seeking a strong and dynamic Armed Forces to protect and preserve their cherished liberty.

Some radical anarchists within the “Libertarian” community don’t like having their ideas challenged, and notions dispelled. The LDC has always known since its inception during the height of the Cold War, that the Caucus would meet with fierce resistance by those individuals who are “Libertarian” in name only. The radicals, who desperately sought to cling to their faux power, would not acquiesce to our contributions to libertarianism. The Libertarian Defense Caucus never believed it would be easy. Everything in life worth fighting for, such as liberty, is never easy.

The latest particularly vicious attack comes from notorious radical anarchist Thomas L. Knapp. The  illustrious founder of the anarchist “Boston Tea Party”. Never heard of this “political party”? Neither has anyone else. Perhaps because it only exists in the basement of Mr. Knapp’s parent’s home.

On his blog, Kn@ppster, Mr. Knapp has falsely (and rather despicably ) accused The Libertarian Defense Caucus of being racist, bigoted, and anti-Muslim. Mr. Knapp does not proffer any evidence whatsoever, to prove his dillusional rantings    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/08/faux-libertarians-throw-rocks-at-gravel.html This minor dilemma does not appear to matter to someone of Mr. Knapp’s unsavory character.

The Libertarian Defense Caucus is fully prepared to engage in debate with Mr. Knapp anytime he is prepared to debate substantive issues, rather than engaging in juvenile and baseless character assassinations. The Caucus is not holding its breath.

What say you, Mr. Knapp?

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Monday, August 11, 2008
    Faux libertarians throw rocks at Gravel

    Suppose you knew that a man was a thug, responsible for the abduction of at least one, perhaps many, innocents. And suppose you publicly advocated calling attention to this man’s evil deeds — following him around, denouncing him, mocking him, urging civil society to shun him, and agitating for his removal from a position of authority which he has abused.

    Most libertarians would not only defend your right to engage in such public advocacy, but laud you for seeking redress versus the thug in that manner rather than invoking the same kind of force with which the thug has previously achieved his goals.

    But if your name is Mike Gravel, and if the thug in question is Assistant US Attorney Gordon Kromberg, and if his best-known victim is an Arab, the “Libertarian” “Defense” Caucus will describe your advocacy as “beyond the pale, certainly unlibertarian and possibly illegal.”

    It’s difficult not to think of that “beyond the pale” as a bit of a Freudian slip, pales being political districts beyond or into which disapproved groups were forbidden to travel. The “Libertarian” “Defense” Caucus has created its own pale — a conceptual rather than geographical one, true, but its obvious purpose is the same as that of Imperial Russia’s Pale of Settlement: To isolate members of a particular Semitic ethnic group for purposes of persecution and pogrom.

    The “Libertarian” “Defense” Caucus is neither libertarian nor supportive of defense. They’re an authoritarian pro-aggression cabal (fortunately a relatively insignificant one) dedicated to false advertising in support of the managerial warfare state. Whatever his faults (and yes, he has some big ones) Senator Gravel is more libertarian on his worst day than this organization is on its best.
    Did you ever think about debating on substance of the issues, rather than name calling, Thomas?

    Of course not, that would require intellectual integrity. You believe it’s okay to threaten the well being of an individual, and his or her family? That doesn’t sound like a violation of someone’s natural rights, to you?

    “The “Libertarian” “Defense” Caucus has created its own pale — a conceptual rather than geographical one, true, but its obvious purpose is the same as that of Imperial Russia’s Pale of Settlement: To isolate members of a particular Semitic ethnic group for purposes of persecution and pogrom.”

    I’m sure the one reader of this blog (probably your own mother) thought that was indeed very clever and powerful. It’s slander, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your rant.
    Ryan | 08.14.08 – 7:57 pm | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    Mike Gravel spoke at a rally for convicted and confessed terrorist,
    Sami al-Arian. He called for people to look up the personal address of the
    prosecutor of Sami, for the purpose of stalking and harassing the man’s family:
    http://www.investigativeproject….org/article/ 741

    Have you no shame? Defending a
    terrorist, at the expense of innocent civilians? Where do you draw the line?
    Physical punishment of his kids? Perhaps rape of his wife? You know very well that once a mob has been revved up, those kinds of things can happen.

    It’s not as if Gravel were speaking at a rally for a victim of a drug law
    prosecution, and calling for
    harassment of those responsible in their official job capacity.
    Kevin Bjornson | 08.14.08 – 8:22 pm | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    Ironically, the libertarian movement that Rand helped create, seems to be turning it’s back on her. You may remember, Rand particularly admired Les Miserables. The hero, Jean Valjean, would not allow a revolutionary mob to lynch his obsessive prosecutor.

    Tom did not really communicate the English meaning of “beyond the pale”.
    Here is a good summary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale
    “The word pale derives ultimately from the Latin word palus, meaning stake. (Palisade and impale are derived from the same root.) In this case it literally refers to a stake (or pole) that forms part of a protective fence around a settlement. From this came the figurative meaning of ‘boundary’, and the concept of a pale as an area within which local laws were valid.

    The phrase ‘beyond the pale’, meaning to go beyond the limits of law or decency, was in use by the mid-17th century. The phrase is possibly a reference to the general sense of boundary, not to any of the particular pales that bore that name, although in the British Isles it is popularly understood to be a reference to the Pale in Ireland. To ‘Go Beyond the Pale’ in that context is to leave the English world behind and enter the Irish world.”
    Kevin Bjornson | 08.15.08 – 3:32 am | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    Ryan,

    When I debate an issue, I’m always happy to debate the substance of said issue. However, you’re confused. The piece you’re responding to isn’t intended to be part of a debate, it’s intended to stand alone as a brief condemnation of your organization’s support for aggression, murder and terrorism.
    Thomas L. Knapp | Homepage | 08.15.08 – 11:35 am | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    Tom’s comments are meant to “stand alone”–apart from reality, facts, and logic. Name-calling of pro-defense libertarians is not in the best intellectual tradition. Apparently Tom has gone from a moderately dovish foreign policy, to parroting far left non-interventionist dogma.

    In any event, Tom had a chance to debate once the criticisms were posted. He declined, assuming his bumper-sticker slogans to be self-evident.
    Kevin Bjornson | 08.15.08 – 12:51 pm | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    Ryan,

    When fully half the articles at your organization’s own web site are devoted to whining about this article on mine, I find snark about the size of my readership unconvincing. My mother doesn’t read my blog, because she eschews this here newfangled Intarweb stuff.

    Kevin,

    I have responded with enthusiasm to irishhawk’s challenge to debate, leaving open the questions of what propositions, forums/formats and participants are to be involved.

    The only “ready for prime time” debater whose name pops out at me from your site’s sidebar roster is Tim Starr. That could be interesting!

  2. What say I?

    I say that if you want a debate, let’s get it on.

    What proposition do you propose to debate?

    In what forum and in what format do you propose to debate it? [N.B. Even if my parents, who live a couple of hundred miles from me, had a basement, I doubt they’d make it available for such an event]

    Whom do you propose as the participants?

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: