About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Drats, I've caused problems due to my deception. Are you willing to settle out of court?

Post 21

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree Tommy that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt about how they raise their children. This discussion began on the subject of adults unrelated to the child imposing themselves on the child. If that imposition is exploitative in nature then harm is often caused and it is wrong and actionable in Law.

As for children having the right to take action against their parents, having considered the matter some more, I would say that that option should be available, but only in extreme cases. I do not believe there will be many instances where a child would be justified in taking action against his parents.

However, not unexpectedly, the collectivist Left have a different oppinion. An article that appeared in last weeks Sunday paper (in New Zealand) stated that it is proposed that children aged between 12 and 16 be given the right to challenge their parents decisions in the Family Court. What is also proposed is that children aged over 12 be allowed to give or refuse consent to major medical procedures if a health professional is satisfied the child understands the implications. All this is being considered by a Parliamentary Select Committee.

Parents do bring their children up in various different philosophies. And all the various philosophies and cultures add to lifes rich tapestry. In my work I frequently encounter Exclusive Brethren, Muslims, Hindus, and people of various cultures and ethnic backgrounds. They are honest decent people, they make good neighbours, their children are well behaved, and realy that is all you can ask of people.

I sometimes think that a society consisting only of Objectivists would be rather boring.

The bottom line is Governments interfering in our lives do far more damage than the occaisional missguided parent.

Post 22

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heya guys. I came across this over at TOC's FAQ. It addresses some of what we're talking about, esp. familial obligations between parents and children, and a little bit about the consequences and choices involved when parents fail their kids in various ways. (This is just a helpful add-on, so don't take it as a conclusive position on this particular discussion. :) )

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/mkochhar_faq-objectivism-family.asp

Post 23

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for that Jeremy. It brought up some good points, such as love needing to be earned. I think one of the biggest lies out there is that you automatically have to love your parents, and they you.

On a slightly different note, where does the moral obligation for caring for children come from? All moral principles are based on the principle of pursuing one's rational self-interest. Suppose your rational self-interest doesn't include raising children? Would putting a child up for adoption in this case be moral? Is it ever moral to put a child up for adoption?

Post 24

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 12:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's another link from TOC that might help:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/q-and-a-answer.asp?QuestionID=22

As to your specific questions...
If one's rational self-interest isn't served by having a child, they shouldn't have a child. That's a matter of choice, and within the scope of morality. So, you could say it's immoral for one to have a child if it goes against their interests.

As for adoption, there's certainly nothing wrong with it. Especially in the case of accidental pregnancy or rape. In such cases, the parent should feel obligated to do what's in their own best interest--providing their "interests" do not trample upon those of the child, post-birth. If they feel others would be better able to care for the child, and relieve them of the "burden" of child-rearing, then adoption seems the best route. They should not feel obligated by the notion of "blood". But given that a parent has decided to "adopt out", they SHOULD feel obligated to provide for the best possible recipient parents of the child.

Note: If the idea of adoption puts a potential parent off, then terminating the pregnancy is always an option.

Personally, I couldn't imagine "adopting out" a child. The joy of raising kids would be one of my highest values, so I'd endure a lot just to be able to do that. (Long hours at work, stress, even diapers! ack!)

Post 25

Saturday, February 7, 2004 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was recently alerted to some comments by Jim Peron which he posted to this list on December 3rd of last year in which he denied endorsing NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association). Peron wrote, "Fifteen years ago I bought a bookstore that sold one NAMBLA publication. I never was a member, never endorsed them, etc."

I had to laugh when I read this. Peron’s reputation precedes him by a mile. Here, for example, is a comment that was posted on the Yahoo Groups Oklahoma Libertarian Party e-list back in September of 2000:

From Lynn Atherton & Roger Bloxham: "A sad note, to me personally has always been, that James Peron, one of the best libertarian writers around on many subjects, and one whom no one would guess by his writings is a member of the NAMBLA (or do I have the words backwards). He has written some excellent pamphlets and has helped the libertarian cause in S. Africa considerably. He is a pleasant person to meet him."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oklpdiscuss/messages/1834

I was also informed by some people who attended the Libertarian State Convention in Northern California in the mid 1980's that Peron approached their table for a donation to NAMBLA and had NAMBLA literature that he wanted to give them. Similarly, I was told by someone that her South African friends had made a comment at an ISIL Conference about Peron’s support of NAMBLA, as though it were common knowledge.

I myself frequented Peron’s libertarian bookstore in San Francisco, California, during the late 1980’s, and can vouch for the fact that he not only sold NAMBLA literature but also made his store available for NAMBLA meetings.

The previous owner of the bookstore had this to say about him: "Jim was a participant in the NAMBLA organization, not an innocent bystander. There was no visible closet. We all saw him as an active participant. His advocacy of NAMBLA and its ideas were not a secret. Anyone hanging around the bookstore during that time would know it."

I was in the store for a Libertarian Party meeting in the late '80's and asked George O'Brien, who was then an LP candidate, why the NAMBLA stuff couldn't be moved to the back room, since it was an embarrassment and a liability for the Libertarian Party to be associated with it. George replied that there was nothing he could do, because Jim Peron wanted it out front where everyone could see it.

Peron tries to distance himself from the obvious when he writes:
"As a bookstore owner I sell all sorts of books. I even sold the biography of Perigo. We sell Rand, Marx, Kant, Machan, Hayek, Mises and so on. Sale of a book does not make one a promoter of the ideas in the book except in the most lose definition of the word. Bookstore owners are usually not considered to be endorsing every book they stock except in this case."

This is disingenuous, to say the least. For one thing, Peron's bookstore was explicitly libertarian. It wasn't a run-of-the-mill, non-partisan bookstore, like Barnes & Noble. What he sold, by and large, were books that he specifically endorsed, viz., those that related to libertarianism and Objectivism. In fact, all of the books he mentions as examples of what he now carries are libertarian or Objectivist with the exception of Marx, who is often referred to by libertarians and Objectivists in their writings.

For another thing, NAMBLA literature is not something that you would normally find in your average bookstore. Nor had I seen it in any of the other bookstores that I visited. So why was Peron carrying it in his? Because he personally endorsed the organization, as indicated by all of the above, including the fact that he allowed NAMBLA to hold its meetings there.

So when Peron says that he was "never a member [of NAMBLA], never endorsed them, etc.," you can judge for yourself his level of honesty and credibility.

-- Bill Dwyer

Post 26

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 4:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to respond to the remarks by Bill Dwyer. Dwyer is the person who started spreading the NAMBLA story on the internet a few months ago. His claims, which I have archieve changed with the wind. They were inconsistent and fundamentally false. He’s been pushed by someone associated with this site who is engaged in a smear campaign. It’s a vile thing to do. But to be expected. I will note that Dwyer has posted remarks without bothering to contact me for a response first. Just as the person in NZ who spread them has never bothered to get a response. In fact he claimed that he also sent my response to these remarks to the people who he sent Dwyer’s first (and different) set of accusations to. Yet some of the recipients of those smear emails say they never received a response from me to them. To try to keep my remarks clear from Dwyer’s I will put mine in paranthesis. In addition I will put “” marks around Dwyer’s remarks. Not every comment of Dwyer is something worth responding to but I will cover his main claims. I will aslo have to post this in parts to fit.

“I had to laugh when I read this. Peron’s reputation precedes him by a mile. Here, for example, is a comment that was posted on the Yahoo Groups Oklahoma Libertarian Party e-list back in September of 2000:
From Lynn Atherton & Roger Bloxham: "A sad note, to me personally has always been, that James Peron, one of the best libertarian writers around on many subjects, and one whom no one would guess by his writings is a member of the NAMBLA (or do I have the words backwards). He has written some excellent pamphlets and has helped the libertarian cause in S. Africa considerably. He is a pleasant person to meet him."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oklpdiscuss/messages/1834

(Did Lynn post that remark? Yes, and I contacted Lynn and Roger. Lynn says someone made this claim on the internet and that she had no personal knowledge at all. She was merely passing on a rumour she heard. A rumour which someone named Justin Raimondo started years ago. A rumour which the head of SOLO was informed, by people who were there, is a lie. Lynn apologized for posting the remark. I have two emails from her saying she’d try to correct people’s false perceptions on this subject. Dwyer spreads a rumour (and presumeably has long before I knew he was doing it). Lynn Atherton hears a rumour and posts it with no other evidence. And then Dwyer posts that as evidence. )


Dwyer “I was also informed by some people who attended the Libertarian State Convention in Northern California in the mid 1980's that Peron approached their table for a donation to NAMBLA and had NAMBLA literature that he wanted to give them. Similarly, I was told by someone that her South African friends had made a comment at an ISIL Conference about Peron’s support of NAMBLA, as though it were common knowledge. “

Me: (People? Who? Are your unnamed sources Justin Raimondo who made up the lie and Eric Garris who helped him spread it? I never sought donations for NAMBLA and wouldn’t do so. It was from what I know run by socialists. Get real. Then we have someone who claims that someone else made a comment that they interpreted as saying I supported NAMBLA. How many people removed from the original source is that? Who is the person who said it and did anyone bother to ask that person if they said it or what they actually said? No! Why? Because the purpose is not to find out the facts. If it were someone, Dwyer or Perigo, the two most vociferous people spreading this story, would have bothered to ask me about it. Neither has. Not once. That’s dishonest.

By the way I specifically listed Raimondo and Garris in my origial reply as the sources for the lie. So Dwyer went to people to substantiate his story who I specifically named as the originators of the lie. He seems to think a lie becomes truth if he can find someone to agree with him even if in the end he's only agreeing with the people who started the lie.)

Post 27

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 4:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Part 2


Dwyer “I myself frequented Peron’s libertarian bookstore in San Francisco, California, during the late 1980’s, and can vouch for the fact that he not only sold NAMBLA literature but also made his store available for NAMBLA meetings. “

Me: (Dwyer said he frequented the store frequently. Yet in his original posts he got the name wrong. I said then, and repeat now, that I have no memory of meeting this man but I'm not expected to know the names of all customers in the store. He was not someone I met frequently nor did I know him socially--for which I'm thankful. His memory is faulty. His accusations changed. He first claimed that I was a convicted pedophile. What happened to that charge? Then he later said he was not sure if I had ever been convicted of anything. Then he said he had no idea how old my “victims” supposedly were. He said I told him all this in a bookstore that he claimed had been closed down by the police. If it were closed how could I recount the story to him while standing in the bookstore. He claimed the pedophilia claims were in my autobiography but can’t remember the title of the book or the publisher. In fact he can’t recount the author either since I never wrote an autobiography. He was caught in a lie on the other forum and his story kept changing as he tried to defend it. Now he’s trying to back up his lie with nothing but rumour and not one fact of any concrete nature.)

“The previous owner of the bookstore had this to say about him: "Jim was a participant in the NAMBLA organization, not an innocent bystander. There was no visible closet. We all saw him as an active participant. His advocacy of NAMBLA and its ideas were not a secret. Anyone hanging around the bookstore during that time would know it."


Me: (The previous owner Mr. Dwyer? Who is that? There were two people who owned the bookstore and one person who later claimed to be an owner but was a liar. The two people I dealt with were Ron Dorsey and Eric Garris. Garris and his friend Raimondo later started spreading the story I was arrested when clearly I wasn’t. I have documents from the time period that support this. Garris was the one who made me the offer of having me take over the bookstore. By the way later Raimondo started claiming he had been an owner. I never dealt with him and Dorsey was adamant that Raimondo never owned a share of the store.

I had never heard of NAMBLA before this time and my first knowledge that such a group existed when I saw that the bookstore carried the Nambla Bulletin for sale. Dorsey insisted that as a condition of sale I continue carrying the Bulletin. Nothing in it was illegal or obscene and I agreed. Sometime prior to my move NAMBLA had been holding meetings at the Gay Community Center in San Franciso which went bankrupt (the center not SF) and they moved to the bookstore. Their having meetings at the bookstore was not a condition of sale and sometime after I took over I asked them to change meeting location which they did -- to a public library.

When Garris and Dorsey owned the store they were selling the Bulletin and little else except their own publication from the so-called Radical Caucus (which the ARI has attacked vociferously and with some merit). Thus the Bulletin stuck out like a sore thumb. To rectify that but keep with the agreement I brought in about 60 other publications. Now the Bulletin sat on a shelf with 60 publications instead of with a handful.

Dwyer also says we sold NAMBLA literature. To be precise that literature was one thing: the Bulletin.

By the way the originator of the story that Dwyer now spreads so viciously was the same person who started the story that Ayn Rand was a plagarist—Justin Raimondo. Raimondo posted the claims that Dwyer repeated almost verbatim on the Internet a few years back (perhaps where Lynn read it) but the site removed them. Perigo was informed by people, who were actually in SF when Raimondo started this story, that it was a malicious lie. So he should know better.

Dwyer: “I was in the store for a Libertarian Party meeting in the late '80's and asked George O'Brien, who was then an LP candidate, why the NAMBLA stuff couldn't be moved to the back room, since it was an embarrassment and a liability for the Libertarian Party to be associated with it. George replied that there was nothing he could do, because Jim Peron wanted it out front where everyone could see it. “

I can’t comment on what George said. George was a good guy and I spoke at his meetings which were an informal discussion group that met once a month. George came to me and asked about the publication and I told him that it couldn’t be removed and mentioned the agreement I had with Ron. George then came in and meet with Ron while I was there. Ron was absolute in his insistence that the agreement be kept and the publication be on the shelf.

George then said that he thought libertarians should debate the issues revolving around NAMBLA. I didn’t disagree. He then said I should host said debate at the bookstore. I said absolutley not. I told him specifically that if I did that then I’d end up having to defend myself against claims that I had meetings to promote NAMBLA and that I didn’t want that to happen. I told George that if he felt that the subject should be debated that he should hold such a discussion at his house under his sponsorship but that I wouldn’t do it. He did hold the meeting at his house under his sponsorship.

I will also note that Chris Sciabarra’s SLS group at New York University also invited NAMBLA to speak at the University to open up debate. I don’t see anything wrong with debate and still don’t and I’m not implying that Chris S is a Namblaphile or any of the other phrases of insult that are thrown about. (Scwhartz mentioned the SLS NAMBLA meeting in his attack on libertarianism).

Dwyer: “Peron's bookstore was explicitly libertarian. It wasn't a run-of-the-mill, non-partisan bookstore, like Barnes & Noble. What he sold, by and large, were books that he specifically endorsed, viz., those that related to libertarianism and Objectivism. In fact, all of the books he mentions as examples of what he now carries are libertarian or Objectivist with the exception of Marx, who is often referred to by libertarians and Objectivists in their writings. “

Me: Get a life Bill. The bookstore also sold other books. My booktore still sells other books, a policy I always followed. I carried non political novels, I carried books on ranges of subjects. About half to 60 percent of inventory was libertarian. The rest was not. We sold magazines that covered every subject you could imagine. We had The Nation (left wing), Economist, Time, Playboy, Penthouse, and around 50 others that were delivered by the local mag distributer. In fact at the time in our magazine section we had one libertarian magazine and only one (Reason) as it was all we could get at the time. Even now I have books for sale that I think are awful books. Dwyer makes it sound like the one exception was Marx. It wasn’t and it still isn’t in the new store. I have plenty of stuff that I don’t endorse in any way. And for the one section where the Bulletin was actually sold, the magazine, section, it was almost entirely made up of material that was neither libertarian nor Objectivist. At no point in time have I ever run a bookstore that was exclusively libertarian. When I did mailorder only I did only stock libertarian books but when I had an actually shop I always carried a range beyond that. I couldn't survive otherwise (why do you think that Laissez Faire does mail order only?) You can't make it selling only libertarian books.

Post 28

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 4:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Part 3


Dwyer: “For another thing, NAMBLA literature is not something that you would normally find in your average bookstore. Nor had I seen it in any of the other bookstores that I visited. So why was Peron carrying it in his? Because he personally endorsed the organization, as indicated by all of the above, including the fact that he allowed NAMBLA to hold its meetings there.”

Me: Asked and answered. It was in stock because Ron Dorsey made it a condition of transfer and I agreed. It stayed on the shelves after I sold the bookstore as well. And yet no one says the new owners were NAMBLA supporters (though Dwyer’s story has changed so often to protect his lie he’s capable of anything.) In addition Dwyer says he didn’t see it in any other stores. Well, he already has read that it was condition of sale (and he read it before this posting) so he knew this fact. He ignores what he needs to so he can support his lie. (Dwyer, I originally said that you, unlike the NZ promoter of this lie, was not malicious in intent. I take that back. You are malicious and you are a liar relying on rumours, second hand, and in some cases third hand, sources.) Now whether or not other bookstores carried it is not material since it was a condition of sale that Ron Dorsey insisted upon.

That said Dwyer is still wrong. In our area of San Francisco there were five bookstores. On Haight Street there was Bound Together Books which stocked the Bulletin (and did until recently and may still do so if the publication is still printed. I don’t know if it’s still printed Mr. Dwyer is the apparent expert on the subject so you’ll have to ask him). Down Market Street toward Castro, on the south side of the street, was a bookstore (name forgotten) that didn’t stock it. On Castro, where I lived there were two bookstores. One was Different Light Books which at the time did stock the Bulletin. It removed it some years later when radical feminists threatened the shop. On the opposite side of Castro was a small bookstore that was open for about a year (the name is forgotten) which did carry the Bulletin as well. But they were only in business for a short period of time. The person who delivered the Bulletin to us did say they were sold in about 10 bookstores in San Francisco but I never asked for a list of those stores.

I also know that there was recently some controversy on Right-wing religious sites because Amazon.com was selling the Bulletin. I don’t remember how long ago that was but my impression is that we are talking about a year ago. A google search with turn that up easily. I don’t know how it was resolved (and as I said I don’t even know if the Bulletin is still printed). Isn’t Amazon the largest bookseller in the world? By the way I never saw the Bulletin before I bought the SF store and haven’t seen a copy since I sold the bookstore. And just in case the libel brigade wants to know I don’t stock it now and have no intention of ever stocking it.

I should also note that when I first replied to Dwyer I listed the above bookstores as stockists for the same publication in our area. So he was aware of this. Yet he pretends he didn't know that and now posts that no other bookstore in the area carried it. It's as if he went through my reply and used remarks I made as the basis for his newest set of evolving accusations.

I will also note that he posted remarks on two Objectivist discussion groups making these accusations. Numerous people, including people who knew me (unlike Dwyer) hammered him for doing so. His story changed constantly. He backtracked, invented new stories, dropped claims, revived claims he said he never made, etc. The moderators of those groups participated in that debate and read all that Dwyer presented to support his case. I do not know either of those moderators. Both decided, upon reading my reply to Dwyer, to delete his accusations. Both of them felt he was using innuendo and that he clearly was confused as evidenced by his own claims shifting around when he was challenged by others and then later by myself.

Dwyer: “So when Peron says that he was "never a member [of NAMBLA], never endorsed them, etc.," you can judge for yourself his level of honesty and credibility. “

Me: (Yes Bill I was never a member and never endorsed them. You couldn’t get the bookstores name right. You claimed I was arrested and the bookstore was closed by the police. But you said I told you this (hence I wasn’t in jail) and I told you in the bookstore (hence it wasn’t closed). You said I was a convicted pedophile but that story evolved and then disappeared and is now missing entirely from your latest version of the story. You read about my alleged pedophilia in the autobiography you say I wrote but you can’t remember the title of the book or who published it and no one (outside of yourself) has even claimed to see a copy of this illusive book. (If you do see it grab it. It’s a collectors item. It’s the only autobiography written without the knowledge of the author.)

The fact is that from the time you first posted your claims to Objectivist discussion groups your story went through several versions changing, sometimes in contradictory ways. Now the original claims are all missing from this post. Instead you replaced them with new claims.

Oddly the two claims you made are things I said in my previous response to you. I said we did sell the Bulletin and that it was in the store when I bought it and a condition of sale was t hat I continue to stock it. Your claim that I’m a NAMBLA supporter is that I sold the Bulletin. You were previously told that this was a condition of sale but in this group (where you are taking your accusations for the first time) you act as you never knew this and pontificate on how mere sale alone is proof of support.

Then I said that NAMBLA had been meeting in the store and that I asked them to leave for other premises. I don’t remember how long it was between my asking them to leave and them actually doing so having first to find a new meeting place but it was a few months. Said meetings were open to the public and no doubt attended by the police regularly so I’m not sure what you think went on at those meetings. But they ended at my request.

I first learned of the lies you were spreading in July of last year. So you’ve had 7 months to gather anything to substantiate them. All you present here are anonymous quotes, unsubstantiated (and unsourced) claims. In one case you quote someone who says that someone they knew heard someone else say what my position was. No chance of confusion there, not with such a documented chain of evidence.

Post 29

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 4:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Last part


Let’s take NZ to show the evil, vile nature of gossip like this. Someone spread the story to around 30 people. Some of those 30 people tell other people. Now someone comes along and hears the story from the orignator of the lie. They dismiss it as unsubstantiated. Next they hear it again from someone else who got the story from the original source but doesn’t mention that. Now our sceptic thinks to himself, “Gee, that was two people saying the same thing.” Then he meets someone who heard it from someone who got the story from the oringator here. That person repeats the gossip. Now the sceptic thinks: “Gee, that’s three different people I heard it from. And I know that #3 doesn’t know #2 at all. Maybe there is something to it.” So they wonder and ask about spreading it even more. That’s why people who want to hurt others (what kind of human being would do that?) rely on rumour mongering. They want to inflict pain from a distance. That some of those people call themselves Objectivists or libertarians is shameful.

In this case Raimondo started the story. I'm sure Lynn read it in a post Raimondo did since that, until your little hissy fit, was the only time this was mentioned on the Web. She read it. You heard the story somewhere (though you get points for origniality by pretending you heard it from me or read it some book). I suspect you heard it from Raimondo or Garris or from someone who heard it from them. Then to substantiate your claims you quote Lynn who admits she only read it on the Web (Raimondo in other words). Then you quote a "previous" owner of the shop (which is either Garris or Raimondo lying about being a previous owner). So you now go to the orignal libeller and use them as further proof but don't mention them by name. All the rest you have is merely people who said they heard the rumour which you, and the host of this site, have been spreading around. And you crow triumphantly as if you've presented evidence. You are malicious (and so is anyone who spreads the story). You have lied numerous time. You are no doubt partly confused. You have a low standard of proof (in fact you accept mere rumour as proof). Gee, it's a good thing you believe in reason otherwise think what you'd be saying instead.

Post 30

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I mentioned that I "was informed by some people who attended the Libertarian State Convention in Northern California in the mid 1980's that Peron approached their table for a donation to NAMBLA and had NAMBLA literature that he wanted to give them."

Jim Peron replied, "(People? Who? Are your unnamed sources Justin Raimondo who made up the lie and Eric Garris who helped him spread it?"

No, it was someone else who sent this information in a private email, and does not want to be publicly named, for obvious reasons. But even if I did name him, Peron would almost certainly call him a liar, just as he's called everyone else a liar who contests his version of events.

Peron has called me a liar for mentioning a book of his that I saw in his bookstore, in which he states his approval of sex with children. Now this is firsthand information. I read it with my own eyes. Does this help? No, because Peron dismisses it like he dismisses everyone else, by calling me a liar. Why would I lie about something like this? Peron has also threatened to sue me for liable, even though he is on record as opposing liable law.

Contrary to Peron, I never said that he was a "convicted child molester." Nor did I say that he was arrested for sex with "very young children." I did say that he was arrested for "underage sex," (under the legal age of consent) which is what I had heard from others who were connected with the bookstore, but have since apologized for this, since I had no confirmation of it.

After the bookstore had been closed for a day or so and then reopened, I asked Jim why it was closed. He said that he was involved with an "under-age sex" incident (his words). I mistakenly concluded that he was referring to himself and not to an employee of his, who was the person actually arrested. I have since apologized for drawing that conclusion. But it was somewhat understandable, given what I had read in his book, in which he endorsed sex with children.

Peron denies ever having written such a book, but Eric Garris, the former owner of the bookstore and his partner, Justin Raimondo also recalled seeing it. Of course, Peron has referred to them as spreading false rumors about him, so he will undoubtedly say that they are lying about this as well, just as he says that I am lying about it.

He accuses me of changing my story on the Atlantis list, but I never did. I simply agreed that I didn't have sufficient evidence to support what I had heard about Jim's being arrested, so I apologized for it. I did correct Peron's misquoting me, which is probably where he got the idea that I changed my story.

Peron has a tendency to mis-state what I say, as he has in his most recent replies. Then if I correct him, he accuses me of changing my story. It would be more accurate to say that ~he~ has changed my story. ;-)

There is more that I could say on this, but I can see the prospect of becoming embroiled in a long, wrangling dispute with Peron involving charges, counter-charges, mis-statements and corrections, etc. Since he has more to gain by denying what I've said than I do by defending it, this will have to do.

-- Bill

Post 31

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just one correction for the record. Jim Peron writes: "I will also note that Chris Sciabarra’s SLS group at New York University also invited NAMBLA to speak at the University to open up debate. I don’t see anything wrong with debate and still don’t and I’m not implying that Chris S is a Namblaphile or any of the other phrases of insult that are thrown about. (Scwhartz mentioned the SLS NAMBLA meeting in his attack on libertarianism)."

Yes, Peter Schwartz mentioned this SLS meeting in his attack on libertarianism (though this was not mentioned in his formal monograph, Schwartz includes this information in the original serial publication of his essay in The Intellectual Activist, 10 May 1985, Vol. III, Nos. 19 & 20, p. 14).

I was a co-founder of the NYU chapter of Students for a Libertarian Society, and eventually went on to chair the National Student Board. I departed as the NYU-SLS President in June of 1981, when I graduated with my BA. My pal, Marc Joffe, took over the group, and later renamed it the Libertarian Student Association at NYU.

The "members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association"---as Schwartz puts it---who were invited to speak before the NYU group on March 17, 1983, included Wallace Hamilton (author of the book Kevin) and David Thorstad, a founding NAMBLA member.

I attended the event and witnessed some of the most heated exchanges I've ever seen in my entire life. While I certainly think the issue of "age of consent" is worth discussion, I did not think, and do not think, that inviting NAMBLA to NYU was the wisest choice the local group could have made.

Post 32

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

This entire thing could be proved by the existence of the book you recall seeing. So far, you've not posted the title, & I've searched Amazon etc. for such a book by Jim, & found absolutely nothing.

Given the apparent non-existence of that book, your argument is looking a bit sketchy for a public accusation.

Can you remember the book title?

Post 33

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will post two more things here since Dwyer wants to continue this. First he quoted Lynn Atherton to prove his case. Lynn Atherton doesn't think she wrote anything that supports her case and in fact says that the email he's quoting is not exactly what she wrote at all. Here are her full comments to me.

One reason I detest the current "protocol" of clipping prior e mails, is
that posts become distorted. In fact I think this partially is the
problem in this instance. It has been a while, but what happened is that
someone sent me an article about you (I do not remember who wrote it)
and asked me if the accusations against you were true. I replied I had
no personal knowledge. Then someone else asked further questions,
clipping a large part of the first post. This has taken on a life of its
own and is very sad for you. The whole situation is quite un-libertarian
as character theft is probably the worst theft of all! You and I have
never met, to my recollection, but I have long admired and quoted from
and recommended your writings. I would hope that this person or persons
would realize that this is ultimately harmful to us all and apologize to
you and make an attempt to rectify the damage. Lynn Atherton

Post 34

Monday, February 9, 2004 - 12:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dwyer is already being caught changing his story. He said he was informed by “some people” that I raised funds for this group. When I asked who he says he won’t tell us. So how do we know anyone told him anything? We don’t. Also the “some people” (plural) he now says was someone(singular) who won’t reveal who they are. Of course claiming that several people said it is more impressive than admitting only one person, who refuses to be identified, said it.

Second, he says that he can’t be liar because why would he lie about something so absurd as claiming he read all this in my autobiography. Why indeed? Yet he won’t tell anyone the name of the book and in spite of numerous people searching vast databases of books no else can find any memtion of the book either. Why would I challenge people to produce the book if I actually knew that copies of such a book were out there? It’s easy to claim a book exists that doesn’t (after all some books are just hard to find) but it’s another thing to claim a book doesn’t exist which does. Dwyer’s lie about this book is an easy one for him to make.

But if he is going to claim that this book supports his accusation then isn’t it incumbent on him to put up or shut up. Produce the book.

Third, Dwyer plays semantics. He says he didn’t say I was child molester just that I was arrested for underage sex. That’s like someone spreading Dwyer’s story around and then denying it while saying all he did was “report” it to people. Word games Dwyer.

Dwyer is demented. He never spoke to me and I never told him any of this. I don’t use the term “under-age sex” and I never had this conversation. He originally claimed I told him outrightly that I was arrested (I wasn’t). He then claimed I may have told him something else and he thought I meant that I was arrested. He again says he thought I meant me because of what he imagines he read in the book he says I wrote. I do book searches for customers all the time. Even the most obscure book, in the age of the Internet, can be located. But Dwyer can’t find this book. Why? He invented it.

Dwyer did start out saying that I was arrested. He now says he has no evidence that ever happened and apologized for saying it. I think that’s a major revision in his story. But he says his story never changed.

Post 35

Monday, February 9, 2004 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "I was also informed by some people who attended the Libertarian State Convention in Northern California in the mid 1980's that Peron approached their table for a donation to NAMBLA and had NAMBLA literature that he wanted to give them."

Jim Peron replied, "Dwyer is already being caught changing his story. He said he was informed by “some people” that I raised funds for this group. When I asked who he says he won’t tell us. So how do we know anyone told him anything? We don’t. Also the “some people” (plural) he now says was someone (singular) who won’t reveal who they are. Of course claiming that several people said it is more impressive than admitting only one person, who refuses to be identified, said it."

I wasn't going to list the names, because the information was not posted to a public list, but after going back and checking, I see that the source, Lynn Atherton, didn't say it was confidential, so I've decided to include it. When I said "some people," I was referring both to Lynn Atherton and Roger Bloxham, who was the original source. When I said "someone," I was referring to Lynn, the person who sent the email. Here is what she wrote,

"Roger [Bloxham] was at a Libertarian State Convention in Northern California in the mid 1980's with at that time Objectivist, not yet libertarian lady friend, Ann Kanzler, his brother Ted Bloxham and his wife. Peron approached their table for a donation to the[NAMBLA] organization and had literature he wanted to give them. Roger, who usually is very open about Gay, Drug etc., hard core libertarian issues, did not want the other people engaged in conversation with him as he thinks that is a very different issue from being Gay. ...Also, my South African friends at an ISIL conference made a comment regarding him as though it is common knowledge.... Some (most) libertarians have some oddity according to current standards, but we all just laugh and realize we also have our own peculiarities. But where do we go with Peron? This has been of great sorrow to me, as I see child pedophilia as predatory and not a consenting act between adults."

As for the book which I myself have tried to locate, I can only assume it was self-published and not widely circulated. I don't remember the title, as this was 15 years ago, but I do remember Peron's comments, because I was surprised -- indeed, shocked -- that he would say something so personal in a book that he was offering for sale to the public.

Peron accuses me of changing my story, when I had previously denied doing so. He says that I had initially said he was arrested for under-age sex and then retracted it. Yes, that part of it I did change, because of his denials and because I had no source to back up what I had heard. But I had already acknowledged this in my initial reply, so I thought he was referring to the rest of my story, which remains the same.

He says that I didn't talk to him about the bookstore's being closed, which is false. I did indeed discuss it with him. He didn't know me personally at the time, which is probably why he doesn't remember the conversation. He said that the reason the store was closed was because of his involvement with an "under-age" sex incident. I took him to be referring to himself (thinking that he'd been arrested and then released), when he was referring indirectly to an employee of his, who was arrested.

This was a simple misunderstanding, and I apologized for drawing the wrong conclusion. Also, I never said that Jim had been "convicted" of child molestation or that he'd molested anyone.

But it is no surprise that the employee of a store selling NAMBLA literature and hosting NAMBLA meetings would be arrested for sex with a minor. As a libertarian bookstore, Jim's business probably did more to harm the cause of libertarianism than to help it.

-- Bill Dwyer

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.