I’ve been on the receiving end of a friend-group cancellation for an intolerable opinion before, and a desire not to shut up. In the choice between pretending my beliefs were repulsive, or leave and venture into new groups, I opted to stick with intellectual honesty. I wouldn’t belabor anyone for deciding to do things differently, but I’ve always felt that groups that resort to narrowing the realm of acceptable opinions of long-time colleagues or members are not worth staying a part of.
Certain types of libertarianism, even ones that I’m intellectually sympathetic to, have this problem. Whether it’s Ayn Rand cultivating a bunch of chattering acolytes, or Hans Herman Hoppe trying to maintain a strong public ‘editorial position’, I tend to think that loud public ‘thou-shalt-not-be-part-of-my-club-hensforth’ is a bad look on organizations, and should be looked at poorly. After all, while there can be irreconcilable differences between people and organizations, airing your dirty laundry in public comes off as malicious and likely to prevent further dialogue.
Kudos to people like Dave Smith, Tom Woods, and Michael Malice for continuing to talk to Walter. Regardless of whether his views are right, the tyranny of small-differences may shake otherwise happy neighbors. Let us break bread, and continue to talk, for consensus and cohesion take time.
Isadore Johnson's Website 