L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole

[slayerboy]

Yeah I just found the write-up by L. Neil Smith to be utterly confusing as hell, completely NOT liberty-minded, and a holier-than-thou attitude.  Everyone is equal.  No one is better than anyone else.

[BobRobertson]

I had to write Neil, after that.  Following is the text of my email:

Did you copy editor@ncc-1776.org?

[Cognitive Dissident]

I had to write Neil, after that.  Following is the text of my email:

Did you copy editor@ncc-1776.org?

I sent it to lneil@netzero.com; I did not copy to that address. (?)

Looking at the article again, I thought that was supposed to be the address...but it actually says lnel@netzero.com (notice the missing "i") and I'm not sure it'll even get to him.  (Why would he leave out the "i" anyway?  An internet search makes me believe "lnel@" is a typo.  There was another glaring typo in his article; I'll post it when I find it again--not that I'm perfect, I found two wording errors in my email after the fact, even though I proofed it a few times.)

The typo was "victim disbarment" where he surely meant "victim disarmament"--undoubtedly a situation where the typo unfortunately came out to be a similar, actual word--I hate when it happens to me.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here, to which I replied:

"Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response."

[The Muslim Agorist]

In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html

My response

L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration.

[The Muslim Agorist]

I just wrote this to Neil. In his last Email he asked me where "Davi" came from, just so that makes sense

Mr. Smith

My birth name is David. Davi is a nick name, pronounced like the desert Mojave, which I adopted as an homage to Salvador Dali. Perhaps you'll accuse me of stealing 3/4 of his last name.

I have read your post Little Criminals, and I find it personally offensive. I have responded here:

L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration.

Here is the most important portion of my message to you:

So, I challenge you Neil, step out of your fictional worlds and let's get real. Let's you and me find an impartial third party arbiter and see if you can prove to us all that you have suffered damages at my hand. By your collectivist rhetoric you have included me in the charge. You have called me a thief, a socialist, a rapist, a parasite and a "sticky-fingered little rodent." I have offered to try to make you whole, and you continue to insult ME as an individual. So let's come to an agreement. You and Me. That you can present your case in public. And I can present my case in public. And we will submit to the ruling of a private arbiter. And if he decides that I, as an individual, have injured you, as an individual, I will personally offer restitution to you in whole.

All future corespondenses between us will be public.

Best Personal Regards
Davi

[Cognitive Dissident]

In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html

My response

L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration.

Not that it's so terribly pressing or embarrassing, but you wrote "has no been published" and I believe you meant "has now been published."

[The Muslim Agorist]

In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html

My response

L. Neil Smith is an unapologetic collectivist and I want to take him to private arbitration.

thanks. fixt

Not that it's so terribly pressing or embarrassing, but you wrote "has no been published" and I believe you meant "has now been published."

[Cognitive Dissident]

What astounds me about Neil, in addition to the purely vile responses he continues to spew, is his lack of understanding of the difference between objectivist statist IP ideals and libertarian advancement beyond clinging to the state invention of copyright (and other IP.)

As others have expressed, I was confused and dismayed by Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, particularly when [forgot the lead character's name] commits the property crime of arson because he is offended by what the (presumably) tasteless architects did with the ideas he presented.  I could not imagine how Rand saw such property crime as moral.  I hope Neil isn't considering ways to torch the properties of the Shire Society and those involved.

[AntonLee]

if he decides to violate the NAP and torch someone else's physical property he might find himself in a painful situation.  I hope he doesn't stoop to that level.  People protecting their real property can be dangerous.

[BobRobertson]

I had to write Neil, after that.  Following is the text of my email:

Did you copy editor@ncc-1776.org?

I sent it to lneil@netzero.com; I did not copy to that address. (?)

The editor of _The Libertarian Enterprise_ publishes all not-obviously-flame letters, as well as articles.

The typo was "victim disbarment" where he surely meant "victim disarmament"--undoubtedly a situation where the typo unfortunately came out to be a similar, actual word--I hate when it happens to me.

I missed that one during the copy editing, too, but he caught it himself after it was published, and asked the editor to fix it.

Yes, typos happen to us all. Mr. Holder is very nice about going back and fixing such errors.

Seriously, to anyone who would still wish to voice your opinion on the matter where Mr. Smith can see it, a Letter to the Editor of TLE, in response to the article in TLE, is the best way to do it (in my opinion).

I've already had an article on the subject posted to TLE, which led directly to the Amazon Publish-On-Demand availability of one of the best liberty-oriented novels I've read, _Net Assets_ by Carl Bussjaeger.

[BobRobertson]

I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here...

I expect that I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it, the same way that people slow down in order to get a better look at a car wreck.

[Cognitive Dissident]

"Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response" did get his attention.

In reply, he essentially asked how I expected him to reply, and restated his case.

I never expected to be so deeply discouraged, and I replied as follows:

I had hoped for the same level of discourse I extended to you.  

For what it's worth, I have read through more than you think, and I am much more educated than you assume.  Would you reply to Stephan Kinsella the same way?  I believe he and I are in agreement.  I am truly saddened by your continued behavior.  It is true that Ian Freeman responded to your replies with unhelpful rhetoric, but he seems to have listened to good friends who talked him into behaving more civilly than he had, and offering ways to make you whole.  I had hoped you would respond more thoughtfully.  

People who quest for liberty disagree, as do others.  I believe the measure of our character is often in our ability live peacefully and respectfully with others even when we feel we have been wronged or misunderstood.  I know how difficult that is, as I have been the worst kind of hothead, and I work more than ever to improve my character.  You may not know this from the context, but Ian Freeman and some of his co-hosts are partly to credit for this turnaround.  It is never too late, in life, or in an altercation, to try to make amends--even if you do not believe you are the party who wronged the other.

What's more, this seemed to be a good opportunity to leverage peaceful libertarian arbitration methods, as they have been proposed, and even to "make lemonade" with the lemons of disagreement, by creating new endeavors that would not have existed before this.  I suspect you have been presented such opportunities and have rejected them.  How will free people live in a stateless society if, as Zeno would have suggested, we cannot mature, as better men, to meet the challenges it presents.

I am not angry.  I am disappointed, and deeply saddened.  Perhaps humankind needs another thousand, or million years of maturity before it can throw off the saddle of abusive monopoly force and peacefully coexist.

Addendum: respected him to reply --> expected him to reply 

[Cognitive Dissident]

I have just received a nasty, insult- and error-laced diatribe, not worthy of repeating here...

I expect that I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it, the same way that people slow down in order to get a better look at a car wreck.

He's really upset and discouraged me, at this point.  I'll first have to decide if any of that is constructive.  I cannot fully express my disappointment.  It's much greater than this issue--it's the workability of a stateless society that troubles me more and more (and that doesn't mean I'm interested in reverting to acceptance of state aggression--it's a disappointment in humanity.)

[BobRobertson]

I cannot fully express my disappointment.  It's much greater than this issue--it's the workability of a stateless society that troubles me more and more (and that doesn't mean I'm interested in reverting to acceptance of state aggression--it's a disappointment in humanity.)

I realize I'm just repeating myself, so I will repeat myself:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle549-20091220-05.html

This brings to mind that we, as in society in general, are going to have to deal with copyright.

In long, sometimes very hostile, discussions, it has become clear to me that the government "Letters Patent" monopoly grants have infected the thinking of many people, maybe most, as deeply if not more so than the ever popular issue of "roads".

I will not stop advocating the reading of Smith's novels and articles for the good that is in them, on every other subject than copyright.