Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Why the Daily Bell Stopped Taking Comments

I cannot help but return to this subject.  This should indicate my feelings about the relationship I had with the Daily Bell (DB).  Despite the fact that I stopped posting more than two months ago, the reality that comments are no longer accepted hits me with full force; I describe why I feel this way in my earlier post on this subject.

This post will only have interest to those who found community at the Daily Bell.  To the rest of you, read along if you like.  But like a soap opera, the story line will be confusing and meaningless to the uninitiated.  There is a background that is necessary if anything I am writing here is going to make sense.  I do not intend on going into the background – it was over two years in the making for me.  Truly this post is intended only for those who were part of the DB family – perhaps my attempt to help bring closure.

I have poked around to see if I could find some further information on this subject.  I checked the website of a long-time DB feed-backer, Agent Weebley.  There, I found this thread:

I saw the tiniest nuance from Anthony Wile a short while ago, as I was chastising the Ingo man, I corrected myself on a poorly chosen word or spelling mistake, and that “correction” comment was where the man we all know and love said [paraphrased] you go girl!

That was the point where I realised that The Daily Bell was under tension. We were applying heavy amounts of compression to Ingo . . . and we all know the characteristics of concrete . . .

Now, it would be very easy for me to accept this idea – blame it on Ingo!  Even a brief perusal of my blog will reveal my views regarding this regular DB feed-backer.  Reading further on Weebley’s site, I found the following, from memehunter, another DB regular:

I think what pushed the DB to ban comments was this thread:

I think memehunter is correct.  The evidence is in Anthony Wile’s latest editorial posted Saturday April 28 – his first editorial written post the ban on comments, and his first editorial after the article memehunter identified.  Anthony’s editorial is a direct rebuttal of Ingo’s comments in the thread identified by memehunter.  I believe it was Anthony’s subtle way of bringing closure for the members of the community, without taking on Ingo directly – something he rarely if ever did publicly at the site.

Anthony’s editorial, entitled “If Attacks on Libertarianism Get Problem Wrong, Can the Solution Be Correct?” can be found here:

In the editorial, Anthony comments on the ignorant misunderstandings regarding libertarianism in the mainstream media and in popular dialogue.  It is directly on point to Ingo’s comments against an anarcho-capitalist society from the earlier thread; a screed he has repeated countless times on countless threads.

Ingo is almost fanatical in his comments against anarcho-capitalism in this thread – not the first time on this or many other subjects.   Anthony comments directly on those who portray libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in a negative, uneducated, and stereotypical manner.  In other words, Anthony offers a direct commentary and rebuttal to Ingo’s repetitive statements.

It should be readily apparent to anyone even vaguely familiar with the strain of libertarianism focused on the non-aggression principle and anarcho-capitalism that Ingo has not the first clue or understanding of the concept.   I only offer a couple of tidbits here, as Ingo goes on endlessly in the thread, and I do not want to clog my site with his comments.

Posted by Bischoff on 04/24/12 09:20 AM

Do you have a right to personal property... ???
If, I merely take it from you, is that ok with you... ???
If not, and you protest, can I just beat you to a pulp... ???
If, you will not submit to let me take your property, even after I beat you to pulp, can I then just kill you and put you out of your misery and take take your property... ???
If, you band together with others to help you to defend yourself and your property against my attack, can your mob just kill me in turn... ???
There should be no rules, just do anything you "feel" just, right... ???
Isn't that the idea of anarcho-capitalism that you peddle... ???
IOW, your anarcho-capitalism depends on "stone age" justice... . I get it now. I knew there was something neaderthalish about you.

Posted by Bischoff on 04/24/12 12:37 PM

Spare me your sanctimony. Your anarcho-capitalism idea doesn't require a written piece of paper, or any rules. That is clear. Your anarcho-capitalist consists of a "stone age man" and his spear (capital) existing by hunting and killing, and living from hand-to-mouth. People must be stupid not to realize that it is the idea of anarcho-capitalism which you peddle.

So when I come for your property or for your life, you have no right to coerce me to stop. Whether I have the right to take it from you is immaterial. Nobody has the "right" to coerce. However, if I don't give two-bits about the right you claim not be be coerced, you are just up a creek, aren't you... ???

Ingo repeats similar statements several times on this thread.  In addition to his lack of understanding about anarcho-capitalism and free markets (and the non-aggression principle that stands behind these), Ingo also is insistent that a return to the Constitution is the best method to government – ignoring the complete failure (even within the founding generation) the first time this was tried.

Anthony’s editorial is a general reply to the ignorance regarding libertarianism. It is also a specific reply to Ingo.  I will only offer a few quotes from the editorial here.  To get the full flavor, one must read Anthony’s statements in total – it is well written as his work always is.

In the 21st century, the libertarian resurgence (a variant of classical liberalism) has been spearheaded by a form of free-market Austrian economics that has given rise to so-called anarcho-libertarians. There are variants of this anarcho-libertarian strain, of course. Some libertarians are purer in their anti-government sentiments and some less so.

The attacks being launched against libertarianism inevitably focus on "some" government as a corrective antidote to the horrors of Randian individualism…. But Ayn Rand does NOT represent a substantial portion of top-level free-market thinking.

The argument of these free-market thinkers is not that people need to be organized by government – which is pure force – but that people thrive in environments where the organizational glue is conditional rather coercive.

Governments do not necessarily negotiate; they demand. But free-market communities such as those that developed in America prior to the revolution were organized around spirituality and religion.

These sorts of points are never mentioned in the attacks on libertarianism, which is a rich soil cultivating various free-market beliefs.

It seems to me Ingo finally pushed DB over the edge.  Why no warning? Why did DB not manage Ingo in a manner that other abusive (and not-so-abusive) feed-backers were managed? I don’t know.  Perhaps my speculation is wrong.  Maybe the change was purely driven by a budget constraint or some other event in the lives of the elves – all 1,000 of them.

Or maybe not.  I have occasionally referred to Ingo as a troll at the DB site.  The troll’s objective is to change the dialogue to something irrelevant, to clog up the thread with repetitive arguments, to ignore and otherwise not address counter-points, and ultimately to end the conversation.  It seems this troll finally succeeded.


  1. Hi Bionic

    Although I seldom commented myself, I enjoyed the comments on the Daily Bell - often more than the articles themselves. I am sorry to see the comments go and fear that the site will lose much of its readership because of this. I know that I have much less interest in the site now.

  2. I never read comments.

  3. I'd "hammer ban" anyone who hijacks threads and trolls as a matter of course. I don't believe in democracy, even on the internet, and seeing as it's a private site they have no obligation to offer themselves up to abusive trolls. The notion that you have to offer your throat to the opposing sides dagger is absurd!

  4. Well, they are allowing comments again.

    BTW, bionicmosquito, I just read your WWII piece on LRC. Nice work. Your blog has a new follower. :)

    1. Thank you for the kind words. Yes, they are taking comments again at DB - and I have concluded I was wrong about why they stopped:


  5. It would dismay me if the Daily Bell was seriously so faggorific that it banhammered folks like Bischoff.

    I agree **absolutely** that DB's site is the property of the owners of DB, and as such they can moderate it as they see fit.

    But they need to keep in mind that for every virgin-spinster type who bleats about intemperate expression and wants everybody to be forced to play nice, there are ten thousand who say nothing but simply stop going to 'walled gardens'... and you end up with a nice little choir of virgin spinsters, and no dissemination of your ideas.

    Let lunacy bloom like kudzu, I say - as Penn Jillette said: "I want to live in a marketplace of ideas where people get busted on their bullshit all the time".

    1. Mr. Transom: You pretty much nailed why I stopped posting and well before the DB banned feedback. The virgin-spinster type is exactly what I encountered in one of my 3 (4?) posts over the years I spent reading their site. Why? Because in a comment on an article posted about Ben Bernacke who I despise along with the Federal Reserve and all that it stands for, I wrote: "everytime I listen to him, everytime I see him, I feel like meeting him for a little conversation in a dark alley with a meat cleaver". The rebuke was swift and curt: We don't support violence. Somehow whoever was responding that day, and I think there are many responsible for overseeing this, apparently thought by posting my feelings WAS advocating violence. My last reply to them on site was exactly where am I advocating violence? No response or apology was ever given. I left upon that posting. When I saw they had banned feedback I personally was not surprised. In fact, in my time there, what happened to me had already happened to others. A rebuke that I saw no reason for to some, while others left feedback, had the DB wanted to be more democratic in their virgin-spinster posturing, that really should have been reprimanded. And it wasn't just Ingo doing it either. Victor Barney who was always ranting his God stuff, is back today only he's ranting his hate against Blacks and women this time. Even more recent is one of their latests rebukes to a feedbacker who because he dared to disagree with one point in one of their articles, was thoroughly cut down to size. Only this time, when the feedbacker tried to explain again his point, they actually stepped up to the plate and apologized. I left saying to myself, why put up with this S... when I can get this at the New York Times and countless other outlets. Walled garden? Yeah, and like most, creates discrimination in which an innocent remark is perceived as a threat or violence. For me, political correctness is nothing more and nothing less than intellectual fascism, something that raised the hair on the back of my neck right after slick willy took office and I first saw these same exact words in print. I think that the ten thousand who said nothing and left is exactly why I saw a feedback yesterday that responded with: why is there no more good feedback left here anymore? They had some of the best of the best in terms of intelligence and education for me IMHO. It's gone and more like reading a boring novel today. I would only add that playing nice doesn't allow the genuine libertarian to guage how well his attempts at educating a following are actually developing nor to know his enemies quite so well. Thank you for your reply to this post. It certainly resonated strongly with me for many reasons.

    2. While I certainly had some disagreements about how DB moderated their forum, I can understand well how difficult a task it must be. In the end, I tried to keep in mind that it was their site, and theirs to adjudicate. One of the most difficult things to communicate via the written word is tone / emotion / feeling.

      Perhaps it was an impossible task to keep the dialogue at such a high level as the site became more popular.

      I will suggest, your comment re Bernanke can easily be interpreted as one suggesting a meeting that would be painful to the chairman - although I am sure you, as I, would never take such an action.

  6. "I will suggest, your comment re Bernanke can easily be interpreted as one suggesting a meeting that would be painful to the "chairman"

    and we wouldn't want to do that would we? Your chairman is also concerned with the propriety of his remarks lest their victims suspect that he is anything but nice and not deserving of a painful confrontational meeting. God forbid anyone not feel warm and fuzzy, nor be respectful of, one of the "chairmen". Never mind this "chairman" and others of his persuasion, are meeting their self-serving goals in anything but a warm and fuzzy meeting. Tell that to the Palastinians and countless millions smouldering in graves. I seriously doubt those who live and die with bombs raining down on them everyday, would feel any different than I do. While most people in this country even today don't even think about the wars being waged and the money being counterfeited by this bastard that enables the "chairman" and his club to do it. Most people in this country haven't a clue as to what poverty many of it's victims live and die under. I can assure you they are not all walking around with cellphones nor watching Honey Boo Boo on their 48 inch plasma tvs in the evening while waiting on their next handout from the welfare/warfare club. This country doesn't even know what poverty is by comparison. While you, like the Daily Bell before you, may be more concerned with the inpropriety of my expressing my feelings in regards to causing the "Chairman" any pain, I can assure you my concern lies, and remains with, the victims, first and foremost. Sorry but I have no respect for theifs and murderers nor speaking respectful of one. They feel like stealing and killing from their victims, I feel like killing them because of it. In fact, I think you would have to be a complete sociopath to FEEL otherwise. But then to speak what one actually feels might not be nice and politically correct because we certainly wouldn't want to hurt the asshole's feelings nor would we want others to think we weren't nice if we did so. Perhaps it's the latter that some people are more concerned with. Not that they might not share those feelings but anyone expressing them becomes even more suspect than the asshole committing the crimes.

    1. "...I feel like killing them because of it."

      Yes, your feelings are clear.

      As to your language, this will be the last comment of yours posted if the level of your communication skills remains in the gutter.

  7. http://www.sabin.org/updates/blog/buzz-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-0

  8. I received the following via email from Bill Ross, a long time Daily Bell feedbacker. As he was having some difficulty posting the comment, he asked that I do so for him:


    Hi Bionic;

    I think the truth regarding DB's suspension is twofold:

    In Anthony's own words, from the second DB link above:

    "Besides, it is probably too late. The Internet is a process not an episode."

    Anthony/DB is sincere and, has made a compelling (IMHO, truthfully objective) case for the methodology of control (machinations) of our slavers.

    Second, we have been led to water, the free will either choose to drink (truth), or not. Anthony / DB has accomplished all that is possible. Time to move on, leaving the plodders in the dust. Thus, "Hasta la vista, baby"

    I can understand this totally and, see no selling out, nor conspiracy on Anthony's, nor, DB's part. A job well done, the crop of liberty is planted. The arguments are correctly framed, explored. The matter must and, therefore will take its course.

    This is also why the articles I write are few and far between. Only when I discover some missing aspect of "the truth", "a need to be met", a "void to be filled" or, feel a personal obligation to voluntarily lead the misguided do I take the time to write articles such as this:


    I really do miss the DB and intellectually associating with the great minds (and fools) whom accepted DB's hospitality and broad umbrella where we could all peacefully discuss our perceptual slice of the "elephant in the room" and, how to nudge it to its inevitable self-extinction, as its survival choice to take on all of natural law and reality, to be a predator on mankind, thus spawning collective self-defence.

    We don't have to destroy states. They destroy themselves. The final killing blow will not be administered by the freedom community, but by the "entitled" when the inevitable "great reneg" occurs.

    THEY have "bit the hand that fed them", now withdrawn in self-defence. The process is near complete:


    Anyone with suggestions where the intelligent can comment with like minds, please email me. Unlike Anthony, I still occasionally feel the need to "nudge", impatience borne of finite life.

  9. DB has a new format and they have actually wiped out all their old comments and even some of their articles. Some articles on their site are now rewritten from before.

    It is quite amazing. Go and check their sites. NO COMMENTS on their articles before this year.

    Many articles have just disappeared.

    It's their site, but I've never heard of any site deleting ALL its comments over 3 years or more.

    1. My quick perusal confirms your observation: some articles gone completely; for those I found, no comments.

      Perhaps the richest part of the site used to be the dialogue (no more, from what I have observed recently).

      Oh well.... At least I have posted here at this blog some of my lengthier comments (that doesn't narrow down the list much, I know!).

    2. Newsmax did early on..

    3. FEE did the same thing awhile ago, and now that place is a joke to visit.

  10. I kept some of the old files. Tell me what you want and I will post it at your blog.

    1. For me, no need. The main ones of mine I have also posted here.

      It just seems like such a waste - such good posts by various feedbackers...poof.

    2. I have heard that contracting with Disqus deletes your old comments. I've copied some of my stuff from DB, with the idea of rewriting it. I wonder if all of that feedback is still available to those at the site. I hope so, because to my mind, it is a huge resource full of profound and very valuable insights. It is their site, and Wile may have been compelled by circumstance to do what he did. It is still difficult for me not to feel betrayed. IMHO, reading all those years of comments, would be a better education than can be had in most schools. As insightful and well written as the articles are, the comments were often more informative. taxes

  11. This comes as a relief to me. I commented once on one Daily Bell article, and the very next article was the one where they announced that commenting on articles would no longer be permitted. At the time I thought "What have I done?"