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.

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/04/daily-bell-end-of-era.html 

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:

http://heddinout.com/?p=7020#comment-12334 

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:

http://thedailybell.com/3821/Taxes-vs-Fed-Whats-to-Blame 

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:

http://thedailybell.com/3840/Anthony-Wile-If-Attacks-on-Libertarianism-Get-Problem-Wrong-Can-the-Solution-Be-Correct 

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.