The efforts of the LvMI to misrepresent good economists such as Coase and Hayek are contemptible. The incompetent attacks by the LvMI on neoclassical economics are an embarassment to the Austrian school. The version of libertarianism endorsed by the LvMI that supports C.S.A. and the like is bizarre and cranky. The willingness of the LvMI to make common cause with anti-libertarian racists and such is disgusting.

The sum of all that is that they discredit Austrian economics, and make it more difficult for those of us who try to promote the ideas of Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, etc. They discredit libertarianism, and make it more difficult for those of us who work to promote a freer world.

I certainly agree that you, and everyone else, should judge for themselves, on the basis of evidence. There’s ample evidence that LvMI does great harm to two important (and quite distinct) sets of ideas: Austrian Economics, and libertarianism.

Finally, what’s your point about owning a copy of the Declaration of Independence? You are making no sense that I can see.

@Charles N. Steele: Why does it matter what else they may or may not do? You said yourself that they provide a valuable resource; what more needs to be said? Shouldn’t I, as a thinking person, read the full content of a given text and judge its value based solely on the content therein (allowing for verification of sources, naturally)? Or should I scratch my chin and question the validity of everything an organization says or does for all eternity, because of an illogical extrapolation that the stink of a few rotten eggs has fouled the whole batch?

Put another way, should Robert Byrd be allowed to show his face on the Senate floor without being booed and hissed at? (Pretend he isn’t one of the greatest enemies of the taxpayer in history before you answer that.) I confess to smiling when he waves his copy of the Cato pocket Constitution during his rants. (I own one, too! And I refer to it often! Call the FBI!) That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s ever said or done, but perhaps I agree with what he’s saying at that very moment — especially if he happens to be speaking truth.

It’s LvMI’s *systematic* misrepresentation of people and ideas they don’t like, their own incompetent economic and political analyses, and their *systematic* support for things anti-libertarian that arouses so much ire.

L. Ron Rothbard and Lyndon LaRockwell have done a textbook job of cult-building.

I’m relatively new to libertarianism and to political thinking in general. I value lewrockwell.com and mises.org as valuable resources that have expanded my understanding of individual rights, and the fact that true freedom includes economic freedom. I have none of the formal education or social status that many of you seem to enjoy, but I love to learn, and the Internet is my method of self-education. But now I see people vowing to disassociate themselves from these resources, and even suggesting that the rest of us follow suit or else forfeit our claim to decency? I’m sorry, but I must reject that as unsound logic.

Would Socrates reject an entire library because of a few unsound books by a few nonobjective writers? No, logic would tell him to analyze each book in that library based on its own merits. If a piece of writing is based solely on illogical, arbitrary hate, then it may be safely rejected. But what of the next piece? What if it is logically sound? Should I shoot the messenger before receiving his message? I think not. Perhaps I am in the minority there. If so, I find that terribly tragic.

Those of you who are calling for the rejection or these resources, either directly or allusively, are behaving illogically. You are engaging in collectivist, mob-like behavior. You differ from racists only in the severity of your goals and rhetoric. Feel free to paint yourselves into a corner, but don’t expect thinking people to join you, and don’t expect us to accept whatever labels you extend onto us by whatever indirect associations we may have with objectionable individuals.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

If it was some kind of a conspiratorial hit, it would have been done earlier, to get the smart people to back away earlier. I wish I’d known.

But we found out anyway. I’m kinda busted up about this, because I was really into Ron’s campaign and couldn’t figure out why some of the people I admire weren’t. For now, I think I’ll vote for Ron in California, but I’ve been really embarrassed with my friends and family.

But Palmer was also blasting folks like Taki (co-founder of American Conservative) and Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried (both contributors to AC). I’m guessing he thinks libertarians should not associate with them too as they are ‘racist’. Yet, as anybody who reads AC knows, CATO writers (not Palmer mind) are frequently in that magazine.

I noticed you defended Palmer for writing in National Review. Yet surely Palmer, who is a lot older than I am, knows that it is common knowledge that NR used to fling abuse at Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement very liberally.

Other people should disassociate themselves from racists, i.e., Lew Rockwell.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

So I guess the company that Palmer and such folks keep shows their association with advocates of mass murder, anti-Muslim bigots, and torturers. So when, out of PC purity, is Tom Palmer going to condemn anathema, any and all publication with National Review? Oh, that’s right, my Harrison Bergeron handicap is telling me that mass murder and torture are politically correct. Carry on.

I love good hypocrisy.

JR

And Tom is quite right about how people got listed there: pretty much if you ever did anything with the Institute, you were listed as an adjunct scholar. I remain proud to say I’ve never appeared on that list.

The evidence of racism etc on the part of MI-associated folks, both in writing and in person, is quite clear. I’ve seen it myself. The fact that people associated with the Institute deny it, either:

a. is a lie

b. indicates they have a different definition of racism than most people

c. or they are willfully blind to the sentiments of people they presumably respect along other dimensions

or some combination thereof.

My own belief is b. People I consider to be racists might honestly say they aren’t because they have a different definition of racism than I do. My experience in online “discussions” with a couple of prominent MI folks suggest that’s precisely what is going on. It’s clever because they aren’t lying when they say either they or others aren’t racists. It takes some work to get at what they think constitutes “racism” to realize what’s going on.

In any case, I strongly second Tom’s call for libertarians who are rightly troubled by the newsletters and the MI more generally to disassociate themselves with the paleo crowd.

After all, they are the ones constantly defending the idea of “freedom of association.” I suggest we take them up on the principle and decide that we’d rather not associate with them.