It gets more difficult to follow the absurdities at the Lew Rockwell Cult (LRC) and their spinoffs.
Thomas DiLorenzo, one of America’s finest, um, scholars, remembered something (a meeting of Cato scholars and speakers at a Moscow conference with Vladimir Putin), but was not able to get the link “to work.” So here’s what he wrote:
August 16, 2008
Cato “Hearts” Putin?
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at August 16, 2008 11:24 AM
It would seem so, from a photograph on the May/June 2004 Policy Report featuring Ed Crane and other Kochtopusians sitting around with Putin in Moscow. You can find it online by Googling “Putin and Cato in Moscow.” I couldn’t get the link to work, unfortunately. Crane must have had it airbrushed, kind of like the Soviets used to do to their “official photos.” I wonder where the Kochtopus stands on the hostilities in Georgia?
(Google cache, at least temporarily here; screenshot: here.) Then, after his equally brilliant colleague Stephen Kinsella located it, DiLorenzo….airbrushed his own oddly paranoid post and deleted the reference to not being able to locate it, a bit of incompetence on which his mind fastened as evidence that the photo had been “airbrushed.” It’s all so oddly amusing, not the least for mixing so much pure strangeness into one tiny paragraph (“Kochtopus,” a phrase from the last of the prophets, Murray Rothbard, from the 1980s, but a puzzling reference today; classical liberal thinkers referred to as “Kochtopusians sitting around with Putin in Moscow,” evidently referring to Grigory Marchenko of Khazakstan, Cato president Ed Crane, energy analyst Daniel Yergin, Andrei Illarionov of Russia, Kakha Bendukidze [then a businessman in Russia, now in Georgia], Jose Pinera of Chile, Mart Laar of Estonia; the reference to “airbrushing,” in a post that was then “airbrushed,” etc., etc.).
Since the Rockwell Cult has been openly jubilant about Russian imperialism and the invasion of neighboring countries by the Russian hegemon, it seems likely that some have suggested that that it blows their cover (claiming to be libertarians, rather than crackpot, racist, neo-Confederate cultists). To try to scrabble back some libertarian cover, the chief priest of the Cult, Lew Rockwell himself, had to post a denunciation of Russian policy in Chechnya, which does not sit well with their earlier endorsements of brutal policies to suppress the Chechens; as loony linkmaster Justin Raimondo so eagerly did. (Quick: get a screenshot before it, too, disappears down the memory hole.) As Raimondo, who seems to melt at the mention of the names of Eastern European strongmen, pointed out of an attack on a train, “That this augurs the beginning of a new round of attacks on Vladimir Putin’s Russia â?? and not only by Chechen separatists and other al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups â?? is a prediction hardly fraught with risk. A lot of people have it in for Holy Mother Russia, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out the other day in a rare television interview, and the Chechens are the least of it.” There you have it, Chechen separatists are all terrorists and are to be counted among “other al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups.” (Something made true by Russian policy, not by the initial leaders of Chechen independence, who were moderates, such as General Dudayev.) And they all have it in for “Holy Mother Russia.”
The final irony: the meeting with Putin included former Estonian prime minister Mart Laar explaining to him (a very unwelcome thing to do to a Tsar) that his policy in Chechnya was disastrous and immoral. And, in addition to Mart, the other most visible person at the table is Kakha Bendukidze, the current head of the State Chancellery of Georgia. To his left is Andrei Illarionov, whose views on Chechen independence were well known and publicly articulated even when he was working in the Kremlin (and whose views on Putin’s policies in Georgia are also clear enough).
But actually making a case for freedom is soooo much less satisfying than writing blog posts from obscure little towns (which they proudly call the “new Vienna,” minus, of course, the intellectual life, the cultural life, the interesting people, etc.)
Update: Another Rockwell post down the memory hole because it was so unhinged even Lew Rockwell wanted it taken down. And that’s saying a lot!
Can You Spell “Bigot”?
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 11:35 AM
An emailer sent me a hilarious snippet from the personal blog of Cato’s vice president for international junketeering, hissy fitting, and slandering in which the psychotic one attacks this Web site once again by declaring that “there are no interesting people” in Auburn Alabama. Waaaaaaaa! In addition, says the sick one, there’s no “culture” there, either. (He’s never been to Auburn, of course).
Auburn is one of my favorite spots and yes, there is a culture there, but, admittedly, not one that would be agreeable to the “urbane, cosmopolitan” [T]Reason , magazine crowd, which celebrates the likes of Dennis Rodman, Madonna, Larry Flynt, and a book author who writes about having sex with animals as its cultural icons. D.C. and Hollywood are much more in tune with such cultural depravity.
Cached version here (for a while at least) and screen shot here.
“Sex with animals”…. oooohh-kay. Whatever. But regardless of Mr. D’s other interests, the post is a good example of Mr. DiLorenzo deploying his skills as a “historian.” For example, my statement that Auburn does not have the culture of Vienna (circa 1910) is the same as saying it has “no culture.” And “there are no interesting people” (using real quotation marks, too) is how he “quotes” my mockery of the comparison of Auburn, Alabama to Vienna “which they proudly call the ‘new Vienna,’ minus, of course, the intellectual life, the cultural life, the interesting people, etc.” That man has a reputation for historical reliability, alright. (And, of course, it’s hard to imagine any city in the world today with the intellectual magnificence of Vienna at its peak, and even for many years after. If New York is not close, what of Auburn?)
{ 61 comments }
Oh, dear, Tom. Brace yourself for the LRCultists…….
So let me see if I’m following the latest craziness over at the Cult. Rockwell’s denunciation begins, “Russia has been waging a vicious war of occupation against a people yearning to breathe free,” and readers think he’s writing about Georgia, but then — aha! — he pivots and says he’s talking about Chechnya, and making the point that Bush and the neocons are hypocrites to yell about the invasion of Georgia and ignore the devastation of Chechnya. But the Rockwell site has been defending Russia’s invasion of Georgia. So are they also hypocrites with a double standard for Chechnya and Georgia?
It’s interesting how DiLorenzon called the Russian invasion of Georgia a “civil war.”
It get’s crazier. Here’s another Rockwell guy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....22370.html
August 16, 2008
Testing the theory of democratic peace
Posted by James Ostrowski at August 16, 2008 12:34 PM
Russia and Georgia, two countries with recent legislative and executive branch elections, are at war.
Was there an election in Russia? After arresting and disqualifying the opposition candidates, impounding their literature, refusing them all television coverage, and shutting down their organizations, the Russian government held an “election.” Right…… More like a coronation.
“But actually making a case for freedom is soooo much less satisfying than writing blog posts from obscure little towns (which they proudly call the â??new Vienna,â? minus, of course, the intellectual life, the cultural life, the interesting people, etc.)”
Oh, you Beltway cosmopolitan! Y’all must be a statist callin’ them fine maverick Southern gentlemen names like “crackpot, racist, neo-Confederate cultists.”
I hope you’ll archive the airbrush bit in the Fever Swamp.
The crackpots supporting McCain (Hagee) and Ron Paul (the Cult) make Obama’s erstwhile pastor, Reverend Wright, look positively placid and wholesome.
Tom,
Is your disagreement with LR and his crowd only, or with the entire Austrian School? Out of all approaches to understanding economics and liberty I tend to favor the Austrian School Tradition, especially Mises. I don’t harbor any hard feelings toward LR and his colleagues, but I do not consider myself a LRC follower. I say this because I applaud the hard work you do in advancing the knowledge of liberty across the globe.
When it comes to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, I believe that it is in the best interest of the US not to intervene. I feel for the people of Georgia, but US involvement would probably make things worst.
I must agree, connecting CATO scholars as collaborators with Putin is absurd. I very much respect and applaud CATO’s and your efforts to advance liberty and policy studies in the libertarian tradition to all audiences.
Zeke,
I have learned a great deal from the Austrian school and have the greatest respect for the scholars in that tradition. I feel that their good names and their tradition of scholarship are sullied by being associated with such strange views as those advanced by the Rockwellites. (Mises, to my knowledge, was not obsessed with the Confederate States of America, nor with restoring American race relations to those of earlier times, nor with endorsing savage police beatings of black men, as Rockwell did, using Mises’s name: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/pape.....y_king.pdf .) It pains so many people who have learned from sober Austrian-school economists to see that tradition associated with such crackpots, whose agenda is quite at odds with the tradition of Menger, Boehm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek,.
Were Mises around to see the antics of these fellows, he would not, I am very sure, be pleased. And the same goes for Hayek, Lachmann, and others. It is truly sad to see how their reputations have been misappropriated by cultists and then used to support positions that would have appalled them. (Take a look at the items in “The Fever Swamp”: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/arch....._swamp.php ) Racism, gay-bashing, support for foreign dictatorships, nostalgia for the Confederacy, and on and on and on. It’s as if Lyndon LaRouche had set up the Adam Smith Institute and associated Adam Smith with his own weird cult. (In fact, it’s really very, very much like that.)
They sometimes portray themselves as “more radical” than others. Poppycock. Their positions are not “radical,” but shrill, which is something that various people confuse with radicalism or being principled. Whatever position they take, it is quite likely that it will be stated in an unscholarly and shrill manner. (And it’s not always easy to predict what position they will take, either, whether endorsing anarchism, or Central European monarchism, or president Putin.)
If one appreciates Mises, Hayek, and others in that tradition, the last thing one would want is for such great scholars to be associated with such embarrassing and clownish figures.
i strongly agree with you that the US should not intervene with military force in wars around the globe, unless it is necessary to the defense of the United States. The current case of Russian invasion of a neighboring state does not meet that standard. But I do not let the conclusion dictate my understanding of the facts. Some think that, if US intervention is a bad idea, then the Russian invasion must have been a good one. Such is the thinking of a cultist, not a rational person. I do not share it.
I just noticed Dennis “Justin” Raimondo’s telling phrase: “attacks on Vladimir Putinâ??s Russia.” So Russia belongs to Vladimir Putin, not to the Russian people. It’s his country, not theirs. At least, according to “Justin.” What was that about monarchism, again? The even stranger Hans Hoppe, the now fading guru of the Lew Rockwell Cult, chosen by Lew as the replacement for the now deceased Murray Rothbard (no doubt destined to reappear, like the Hidden Imam) is a big fan of monarchism. And now they have selected their monarch: Vladimir Putin! Auburn, Alabama must be ringing with the joyous chant, “Long Live Putin!”
Thank you, Tom, for the no doubt unpleasant work you have done to reveal the cultishness behind the LvMI, Lew Rockwell, et al. I was at one time attracted to them, because of my respect for the very scholars you respect, but several people suggested to me a visit to your site. I have, over the last months (nearly a year), read your criticisms and their responses and I have become convinced that you are right. They have their own, very anti-libertarian agenda, and they disgrace the name they have chosen for their institute. In addition, I would like to express my thanks to you for your efforts on behalf of the values and principles of liberty.
Tom D. doesn’t know when he’s embarrassed himself enough. Case in point:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....22389.html
« On Mailing a Brick to McBama | LRC Blog | LRC Home | God Save the Iraqis »
August 18, 2008
re: Cato “Hearts” Putin
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at August 18, 2008 08:09 AM
Several emailers have suggested captions for that picture of Ed Crane and his fellow Kochtopusians sitting around with Putin at the dictator’s private residence in Moscow. Here’s one I think would be most appropriate:
“Having failed to persuade American politicians to raise taxes as much as they ever have, and accumulate trillions more in debt in order to fund the “privatization” of social security (whereby goverment would direct old age retirement funds to Cato donors on Wall Street)the Kochtopus restorts to trying to sell the scheme in Russia.”
Reddit â?¢ Digg this â?¢ Stumble It â?¢ Shout It â?¢ Add to Mixx â?¢ Discuss on Newsvine
Now THAT is childish. In many countries around the world people have more freedom than we do in America to manage their own retirement. I’d like to have the option to invest my “social security payments” in private stocks and bonds, rather than in stacks of government IOUs. But Dilorenzo sees my modest private investments, which I invest in the market, not as my property, but as gifts to Wall Street. That’s just how socialists see it.
Zeke, I am an economist & and Austrian; I think Mises was arguably the greatest economist of all time. In my view, the LVMI group largely has a poor understanding of Austrian economics, and economics in general, and most Austrian economists I know share this view. I’ve started criticizing them publicly, because I see frequently encounter the damage that their crazier ravings do to peoples’ understanding of Austriani econ and libertarianism.
I would be happy to provide details if you want to discuss, you can contact me on my blog.
Meanwhile, here’s an old blog post of mine on the subject:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13850084&postID=4337895617695517379
Charles,
I’ve posted a message on your blog in the post, “Siloviki shills at the “Mises” Institute”.
I am aware that there is a lot of disagreements between some libertarians and Mises Institute. Naively, I thought the disagreements were mostly over the use of mathematics in economics. Obviously, there is a lot more to it. I thank you and Tom for giving me a little more insight.
I must say that I am alarmed at their association with CSA. The Mises Economic Forum has a lot of international members. Many are people of color and different ethnicities. Just as Tom stated, I can’t imagine why an institution named after a man that fled Nazi persecution because of his Jewish race, want to have fellowship with rednecks. You and Tom are right, they are crazy.
Zeke, “rednecks” is an offensive slur. And Mises has no “association with CSA.” They sell books criticizing CSA socialism, have articles condemning the CSA’s slavery that was one of the causes of the war, and so forth.
Anon,
I’ve meant no offense. If I am incorrect please accept my apology. I am a person of humility and I don’t mind being chastised or corrected for good reason.
Could you please list the title of the books so that I can investigate.
I’ve never stepped foot in Alabama, but I’m sure the intellect and culture of the people of Alabama far exceeds that of the people who live in DC. Also, I’m sure that Alabama is a safer place to live in than DC!
LRC has repeatedly denounced Russia’s aggression against civilians. Unlike, the neo-con regime and its allied media, LRC/Antiwar.com have the audacity to denounce the US allied Georgian regime for its savage attacks on civilians in South Ossetia. Apparently, Georgia has neo-con permission to kill civilians, yet, Russia is forbidden to do the same thing. LRC/Antiwar.com merely note that it is hypocritical of our regime to denounce Russia’s crimes, when in fact, the US regime and military have murdered millions of civilians via war and aid to vicious proxy states around the world. Paul Craig Roberts, in spite of being a protectionist, is correct when he asserts that the US regime is the world’s greatest threat to peace.
In regards to Dilorenzo, I don’t think that denouncing Lincoln for being a mercantilist and mass murderer makes him a “neo-confederate”. Marxists and neo-cons (ex-Communists) revere Lincoln. Libertarians should not! We should note that Mises met with socialist politicians, in order to plead with them to stop pursuing the economic policies that brought about a depression in Austria. Meeting with collectivists in order to advance a libertarian message is a good thing. (assuming the CATO meeting with Putin was to promote freedom).
LRC/Antiwar.com have consistently denounced our regime’s fixation with killing various ethnic groups such as arabs and persians and people who follow the muslim religion. It is politically correct in this country to hate the inhabitants of the Middle East and to call for their annihilation (except for the socialist, apartheid state that rules Palestine)! I don’t see racism when reading LRC/antiwar.com, in contrast to the various neo-con hatesites out there!
In conclusion, the libertarian movement needs to stay on focus by promoting individual freedom and attacking collectivism in all of its forms. Petty feuding won’t do us any good as America’s statists pursue their fascist economic plans and war of terror on the world.
Of course, Alabama is a civilized place and no one should denigrate it or the inhabitants of said state. (But is Auburn a “new Vienna.” Well, I suppose that’s a subjective evaluation.)
The fact is that the LRC/”Antiwar” crowd have not, in fact, simply bemoaned injustice, regardless of the perpetrators. They have endorsed Lukashenka’s dictatorship in Belarus, endorsed Putin’s closing of civil society organizations and clamp down on the opposition, been jubilant over the Russian invasion of Georgia, gloated over the poisoning of Ukrainian president Yuschenko, etc., etc. And before you say, “Where’s the proof?,” you should visit The Fever Swamp: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/arch....._swamp.php
Dear Tom:
Speaking of puzzlement, your constant harping on Dixie- or Habsburg-tainted deviations from hard core libertarian principles and Misesian scholarship by the Rothbardians/Rockwellites has left me a bit confused about where you stand.
The actual origin of your decades-old feud with them has nothing to do with these particular ideological tendencies. Rather, the original argument was over whether Cato and allied organizations (including the LP) should openly espouse hard core libertarian principles and Austrian economics with a view towards mobilizing anti-state grass roots constituencies, or whether Cato should stay within the bounds of respectable Establishment discourse with a view towards influencing academics, journalists, etc. by keeping Mises and plumb-line libertarianism in the closet.
And yes, this strategic argument was accompanied by much shrillness and nastiness too. No doubt the lack of civility has had a lot to do with keeping the pot boiling over all this time.
Still, there does seem to be a serious inconsistency in your reacting so strongly to the Rockwellite association with Mises. After all, your own strategic choice wasn’t to build up the Austrian school and gain high profile exposure for Mises’s ideas, at least not in the United States. Thus, while you may have grounds for thinking that Rockwell isn’t living up to Mises’s standards (or even up to the letter of Rothbard’s plumb-line principles), it isn’t clear why you still care so much about whether he does or not.
I suspect that you maybe you’ve changed your mind in some respects–perhaps you now believe that Mises deserves a thriving Austrian school with better public champions than Lew et al. If that’s the case, why aren’t you doing something to bring it about? And if that’s where your heart is, why do you continue to work for an outfit that conspicuously turned its back on overtly promoting the Austrian school nearly thirty years ago?
Dear Vincent,
Well, actually, that’s not an accurate statement of why I consider them destructive. The very first thing I ever wrote about them was when I ran into some “former Austrians” who had been completely turned off by the truly bizarre views and “arguments” of Hans Hermann Hoppe, who had given a strange performance at Washington State University, where I lectured shortly after he did. The association with a range of truly strange views (monarchism, Mises-invented-geometry-and-ethics, and all the rest) harmed seriously the reputation of scholars whose ideas should be taken seriously. I am not a camp follower (and would never use the name of a person to describe my views — not Marxian, Misesian, Rothbardian, or anything else), but I do believe that Mises and others had things to say that are worthy of consideration. I am interested in social science, not religion. If there were a religion created around Darwin or Einstein, I would refuse to worship there, as well.
Moreover, as is common with such cults, the views keep morphing into stranger and stranger forms, and the reverence for the ante-bellum south, the bizarre friendship to foreign dictators, and still more weirdness do ever more damage to the reputation — and thus the ability to shape the world in positive ways — of Mises. Mises himself would be, I am confident, the first to reject the cult that has named itself after him. That is not a strong reason to consider their views wrong, but it is a reason to consider them destructive, in this case, of the reputation of a serious thinker.
My goal is not to promote a cult or a school, but to promote understanding of liberty, peace, and their benefits.
By the way, I hope you’re well!
One other thing: Rockwell persists in calling himself a “libertarian,” despite his promotion of really ugly racist-collectivist ideas that are incompatible with libertarianism. That is a good reason to find him and his followers troubling. (The racist newsletters he wrote under Ron Paul’s name are just the tip of the iceberg.) Such trash was swept out of the conservative movement, and Rockwell has tried very hard to give them a new home among “libertarians.” Ugh.
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/pape.....y_king.pdf
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793
“The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King, a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night of March 3, 1991.”
Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104, Houston, TX 77058
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/pape.....y_king.pdf
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793
The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King, a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night of March 3, 1991.
Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058
Zeke:
It is absurd to equate Rockwell and his crowd with the Austrian school of economics. They may promote their own brand of Austrian economics but the rest of what they promote has nothing to do with Austrian economics. Mises would be horrified at their attempt to merge his economic theories with their pet bigotries.
Nor is anyone arguing for the US to get involved. One can comdemn the Soviet invasion without arguing for US involvement. Though I do find it difficult to think how someone can claim to be anti-war while playing bottom boy to Putin by justinfying his invasion.
Joshuaâ??s logic is very childish. Whether DC has a higher crime rate than Alabama is unimportant. Cato is not responsible for the crime rate there and Rockwell canâ??t take credit if Alabamaâ??s crime rate is lower. It is just nonsense to to bring it up. That the Rockwellians have gotten cozy with Conferderate types and white sumpremacists has been well documented and any evils of Lincoln do not justitfy this.
Mr. Cookâ??s claims that he knows the true origins of this â??feudâ? are just silly. A lot of libertarians have avoided the Rockwellians for exactly the same reasons that Tom outlines. It has nothing to do with Mr. Cookâ??s imaginary origins. The Rockwellians are not even remotely â??plumblineâ? libertarians. They are not â??puristsâ? either. They are sell outs who sold out to bigots and racists. That they convince some people that is â??pureâ? libertarianism only exposes the intelligence of those so convinced.
The Austrian school is the best there is and Rockwell and his crowd have infested it and ruined its reputation. Rockwell does not represent Austrian economics. And as best as I can tell the Rockwellians aren’t very good economists.
Since we’re sort of piling on, I thought that this act of pure state worship was interesting:
Justin Raimondo,”Russophobia: A Political Pathology”
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13317
“The end of his career, too, was punctuated by Yeltsin rising to the occasion, and, in a moment of clear-eyed sobriety, actually serving the interests of his country, by designating Putin as his heir.”
Wow. Designating a KGB officer as your “heir.” What a service to your country.
The historical analysis of the piece are not the only things that are completely f**cked up. The political economy is similarly defective. His analysis of the “oil curse” is absurd. The “oil curse” is an important issue, because of the effects on countries that don’t yet have well developed institutions of private property and contract. If the state has those institutions, discoveries of natural resources may be a boon (USA, Canada, Britain, Norway). If the state does not have those institutions, discovery of such easily monopolized natural resources presents the state with a ready source of income not from their own taxpayers, meaning that they do not have to negotiate with their subjects or become more law-governed in order to generate revenues for the state. Thus, the “oil curse” tends to stop, delay, or undermine the development of democratic acountability and the rule of law (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Russia). It is not inevitable, but state-monopolization of natural resources tends to undermine development of well functioning institutions, which is certainly what has happened in Russia. Raimondo dismisses that by pointing to the USA, which already had such institutions before oil was discovered to be valuable. That is weak as comparative institutional analysis. It sounds more like shilling for a dictatorship.
Sorry. Editing alert: “The historical analysis of the piece are not the only things that are….” “The historical analysis of the piece is not the only thing that is….”
Study the group dynamics of Scientology, or Lyndon LaRouche, and the behavior of LRC will make perfect sense.
The comparison with the Lyndon LaRouche Cult is very illustrative. It’s worth a google to see the parallels.
Joshua: I do not know whether Thomas Dilorenzo is a bigot or not. But he is listed as an “Affiliated Scholar” with the League of the South Institute.
http://lsinstitute.org/
League of the South offers pilgrimages to the boyhood home of the KKK’s first imperial wizard, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
http://dixienet.org/New%20Site.....pril07.pdf
(See page 3.)
Birds of a feather…
Indeed. As is the writings of Lenin, a key influence of Rothbard.
AJN wrote:
“Mr. Cookâ??s claims that he knows the true origins of this â??feudâ? are just silly. A lot of libertarians have avoided the Rockwellians for exactly the same reasons that Tom outlines. It has nothing to do with Mr. Cookâ??s imaginary origins.”
Perhaps I was remiss in not spelling out the personal context well enough for anyone besides Tom to understand my take on this situation.
I worked for Tom and the infamous “Kochtopus” on a Libertarian gubernatorial campaign back in the summer of 1982, around the time when the Radical Caucus (the predecessors of the Rockwell faction) managed to take over the national L.P. The R.C. was also backing a Libertarian senatorial campaign at the same time and had their office a few blocks away from us, so I got to observe some of the factional nastiness first hand.
Also, I have more than just my memory of the events to rely on. I kept copies of a flurry of factional memos that were circulated at the time, and I even have a paper I wrote for a poli. sci. class about my observations of the two campaigns.
Of course, things changed later, when Rothbard moved to Auburn and began formulating his paleo views. Nonetheless, the split between the people associated with Cato and LvMI took place long before the paleo ideas were formulated, and even before the LvMI was founded.
“the split between the people associated with Cato and LvMI”
It’s like watching a Star Trek fan group implode into factions of warring trekkies vs. trekkers…
Meanwhile the real world continues on.
Dear Tom:
I hope you’re well too!
The difficulty I see here is that while you say you don’t want to identify yourself as a Misesian or go out of your promote the Austrian school, you nevertheless get upset about the public image of Mises being associated with Lew and Hans.
It’s important to remember that identifying the essentials of your belief system as following a particular thinker doesn’t mean that you are being closed-minded about it. Surely an economist can be of the Austrian school without joining a Mises cult.
Moreover, Mises himself argued against monarchy, for open borders, etc., so I wouldn’t think it too difficult to contrast the beliefs of Mises and someone like Hoppe. All it requires is that someone care enough about Mises’s ideas to correctly represent his economic theories, his political values, and his standards of scholarship.
There are of course many reasons why some might not care enough to do so, but I find it a bit difficult to reconcile sentiments along the lines of “I’m promoting an understanding of liberty, not a particular school of thought” with something along the lines of “I’m really upset at the way that school of thought is being misrepresented.” There seems to be an inconsistent evaluation of the importance of correctly representing the school of thought.
I’m curious, Tom. Would not the property rights exercised by Rockwell and his colleagues permit and sanction their ability to edit previous posts when better information becomes available as a plain extension of the free use that purchasing one’s own domain, web host, blogging software etc. entails?
In a similar token, does not your purchase and/or rental of the very same justify your own exercise of property rights when, oh, say, a gadfly comes along and begins illustrating your hypocrisy, thus prompting you to close off thread comments, declare “victory,” and block his/her IP address from future comments?
Or if you choose to do the same while you continue to take pot shots at said gadfly despite neglecting to inform your audience that you have exercised your property right to block any response he/she might offer?
These comments are no intended intrusion upon your right to exercise property ownership in such a way, but rather a simple remark on yet another instance of Palmer hypocrisy.
Caught up in your silly little feud, you habitually rail against the Mises folks from exercising property rights controls over their website that you deem at odds with free and open dialogue. Yet when it comes to your own little corner of the web, you are just as prone to exercising property rights in a way that not only constrains the content of the discussions you claim to invite, but also deceptively excludes participants who happen to get the better of you in the comments section.
BTW, aren’t IP proxies an amazing little invention?
Tom – Another observation should be made about your purported quest to be saving the legacy of Ludwig von Mises from a “cult” that you claim has perverted it.
1. The Mises Institute was chartered with the direct consent of Ludwig’s widow Margit, who also chaired its board of directors for over a decade until her death and bequeathed many of her husband’s papers to the organization. As much as it may pain you that she did not choose to do this at, oh, perhaps the Cato Institute, the Mises Institute’s progeny is a reality that you must acknowledge. It also illustrates the plain absurdity of your analogy between an “Adam Smith Institute” and Lyndon LaRouche.
2. The Mises Institute’s academic lineage is similarly documented to Murray Rothbard, who, despite his own eccentricities, is indisputably among Mises’ better known students. You are certainly free to argue as to whether the Rothbard school represents the “correct” continuation of Mises’ economics, juxtaposed with some of his other well-known students (such as, say, Israel Kirzner…who, btw, does not seem to have the same aversion you do to the Mises Institute and has in fact written articles for them many times). But you cannot deny a real, historical connection to mises existed through Rothbard.
3. Your suggestion that Mises himself would have reacted in horror to the Mises Institute’s discussions of monarchy and other various
“non-democratic” systems of government is counter-historical when juxtaposed with the life and actions of the real Ludwig von Mises himself. Lest you forget, Ludwig von Mises himself approvingly served as a trusted cabinet minister in economics and commerce under the Austrian chancellery of Fr. Ignaz Seipel in the 1920’s, and again that of Englebert Dollfuss until the latter’s assassination by the Nazis in 1934. Unless you are prepared to argue that a quasi-fascist Catholic corporatocracies built around the principles of Rerum Novarum are ideal models of the proper libertarian state by way of the endorsement von Mises’ service to them provides, you should exercise greater caution when you purport to speak on his behalf as to what types of government in the world today he might or might not condone.
A believer in big government will be elected this fall, the American public will believe they have spoken and that it really matters which candidate is elected. I have learned from Cato and I have learned from Mises and I am convinced the electorate could learn as well if those with the talent to do so would direct their energies towards that goal. To this redneck all the sniping just looks like a pissing contest.
Tom, your comment on military intervention was interesting. What is the basis– philosophical, constitutional, empirical– for your position? And what would be the methodology behind the decision to take such action?
I think that Tom is on the right track here. We (Americans) should not send troops to Georgia, but we also should condemn (both as citizens and through diplomacy) military aggression by Russia against Georgia, regardless of the internal issues that were invoked to justify Russian aggression. The antics of Raimondo and Rockwell to justify what is clear aggression are offensive to lovers of freedom. They stood in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, a non-democracy (as did Tom), but they stand in favor of the invasion of Georgia, a functioning democracy. I think that speaks volumes about their views.
Another thing, for Francisco.
Taking advantage of a very, very old widow by setting up an institute named after her husband is poor evidence that this is a continuation of his own legacy. Racism was not on Mises’s agenda. IT is on Lew’s. I’ve seen it, heard it, experienced it.
we’ll never know who wrote the newsletters, Tom, but my money’s on Rothbard himself. the “cult” could not admit that, because Rothbard’s writings are their Bible, near as i can tell. his misanthropic worldview seems to be behind a lot of dysfunctional thinking we still see to this day among the paleo set.
may he rest in peace.
“I’m curious, Tom. Would not the property rights exercised by Rockwell and his colleagues permit and sanction their ability to edit previous posts”
Nobody here is questioning the Rockwell Cult’s right to be dishonest.
“But you cannot deny a real, historical connection to mises existed through Rothbard.”
It’s like watching weird, obscure Mormon splinter groups argue that they are the “True Church” by tracing some tiny connection back to Joseph Smith. Or, for that matter, Objectivist factions claiming to hold the true teachings of their savior, Rand. Were not communists famous for these kind of religious disputes?
Cult. Cult. Cult. Francisco’s own “reasoning” is proof in the pudding.
Perhaps it’s time for “Reformation” for Von Mises. Perhaps Tom play the part Martin Luther and proclaim that Mises’ views are found in Human Action alone (sola scriptura) and not in the traditions of the LVI papacy. LOL.
Dove – Margit von Mises was not simply an “old widow” taken advantage of in the last years of her life. She was on the board of the Mises Institute for over a decade, and by all accounts she was in good health for all but the last 2-3 years of her life. She apparently joined the project at the direct invitation of Rothbard.
It is also degrading to her memory that you would flippantly dismiss the work of the last decade of her life as an exploitation of senility, when plainly it was not.
Infidel – Your analogy to a mormon splinter group is rendered absurd by the fact that Rothbard himself was one of the Mises Institute’s most active promoters. I don’t believe they claim to have any more “truth” about Mises than any other successor to his work, but the intellectual lineage is indisputably there through Rothbard.
Also, as I mentioned previously, Mises’ other famous student, who offers a different but extremely important brand of Austrian Economics, is Israel Kirzner. Kirzner is also the most prominent member of the Austrian School’s “fifth generation” who is still alive and teaching.
Despite what all the Palmer sycophants claim about the Mises Institute supposedly corrupting Mises’ message, the one living scholar who could actually say something about that with some credibility – Kirzner – seems to have no problem associating with them and has published with them many times.
I suppose it all comes down to this: who has a better claim to von Mises’ legacy: Rothbard and Kirzner, two of his most famous students, or Tom Palmer, a venom-spewing blogger who has no real intellectual genealogy of his own to von Mises and a petty twenty year grudge against others who do.
Tom is performing a valuable public service by pointing out the nature of so-called libertarian thought and economics scholarship that spews forth from the Cult. Yesterday DiLorenzo was denigrating DC and Hollywood and trying to disparage city dwellers in relation to citizens of his fair Southern town. He even mentioned a book about bestiality. Today I couldn’t find that blog entry, although it may be there somewhere. What kind of people write such tripe?
I suppose Francisco and the other LvMI apologists commenting here will dismiss me because I’m studying at GMU, but I can tell you that even if Rothbard is a famous Mises student, he was not a good economist. Richard Timberlake at U-Georgia demolished Rothbard’s supposed factual claims about American monetary policy in the 1920s; the late Paul Heyne was less than impressed with Rothbard’s history of economic thought; and Rothbard’s article on the law and Ronald Coase’s work (published, drumroll! in the Cato Journal) is full of so many mistakes to embarrass any genuine scholar.
I recently tried to read Man, Economy and State and put it down after a few pages realizing that it would teach me nothing much worthwhile. Better to spend that time reading Marginal Revolution or Tom Palmer’s blog.
Francisco says that Israel Kirzner seems happy with the LvMI. I don’t know because I never met him, but I remember hearing something about how some time ago Kirzner got angry at something Hans Herman Hoppe wrote in The Freeman. I don’t know any details and can’t even promise that the story I heard is true, but it seems consistent with what I know about Professor Kirzner and Hoppe.
Does anybody here remember if anything like this happened between Professor Kirzner and Hoppe?
Ya know, it’s not about who’s the direct holder of authority through some apostolic succesion. If it is, then it is just a cult. And saying that a person’s aging widow is the last rightful interpreter….well, what can one say? It’s too much like the struggles over Muhammad’s legacy to be considered science and scholarship, rather than religion.
If this issue is about anything, it’s about about intellectual honesty and seriousness. Why call something the “Ludwig von Mises Institute” and trade off of his good name, when they are much more focused on reviving the Confederate States of America and justifying a secession that had as its explicit purpose keeping people as property, like cows and horses. (And I doubt that Mises was very supportive of promoting foreign dicatorships, either.) Whoever was “closer” to a scholar is irrelevant when that scholar would have been really, really upset about being associated with that program. And the quality of the “scholarship” coming from that cult is, overall, pathetically poor, which is what you’d expect from a cult.
I’m studying to become a good economist, not to become a priest. And if I ever do join a religion, it wouldn’t be a church of the absurd, like Lew Rockwell has created around the saints of Mises, Rothbard, and Jefferson Davis.
Rockwell does not defend the CSA, the Southern decision to go to war over secession, or any of that. This is all a bunch of nonsense. And he didn’t support the Russian invasion of Georgia. He specifically wrote,
“Russia should not have intevened, and should immediately withdraw.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....08_11.html
You might think this is insufficient, but it’s much better than Palmer’s refusal to support immediate withdrawal from Iraq for several years, instead saying “we” needed to kill all the terrorists there and make sure democracy broke out. He was so soft on this war, attacking the antiwar movement more than the Bush administration in the run-up to war, and then being soft on withdrawal for years.
I agree with Chicago student that there is nothing in the Mises books and articles that I read to suggest that Ol’ Lu would have been comfortable having his name emblazoned on an organization so obsessed with hatred for Abraham Lincoln and the US union. Mises didn’t like concentrated and central power, that’s true. It is also nothing that distinguishes Mises from almost everybody who supports free markets. The LvMI’s white hot hostility to Lincoln and its cozy happy feelings for southern slaveholders and their way of life goes way past a respectable nod toward the value of separated and decentralized powers. Who knows what moves Rockwell and his followers. It’s sure not a scholarly spirit or a liberal spirit that motivated Mises.
I meant to say in my last post that whatever spirit it is that moves Rockwell and his group, that spirit is not the same liberal one that moved Mises.
That didn’t work, so I will post in two parts -
I have read strong (STRONG) support for Southern Secession on the Rockwell site and heard it in person from Mises Institute zombies. That was combined with bogus pseudohistory about how it was secession about the tariff and other nonsense. It was about slavery and preserving it. And cherry picking a quote from Rockwell is not evidence of anything. He has been enthusiastic about the invasion. Maybe someone will say it’s really off topic, by the way, but supporting statism in other countrie isn’t made “libertarian” because the other state is hostile to “our” state. That’s not my classical liberalism/libertarianism.
It took me a while, but I found what GMU student (greetings!) was referring to.
Here is the Hoppe review that caused such a stink at FEE (where I also attended a seminar and learned about public choice and Austrian thinking) for whitewashing Hitler and rewriting history:
“While the facts and the conclusions reached are largely correct and reasonable, the book is not without shortcomings. Even a professed revisionist such as Ebeling cannot free himself entirely from orthodox-leftist historical myths when he appears to liken and classify as on a par the evils of Stalin and Hitler and the socio-economic character of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. From 1929 to 1939, in peace time, Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed about 20 million Soviet citizens, for no predictable reason. Hitler and the National Socialists ruined the businesses and careers of hundreds of thousands of German citizens, but the number of people killed by them before the outbreak of the war was only a few hundred, most of them fellow Nazis and all of them for a predictable reason.”
http://www.fee.org/publication.....p?aid=4668
I guess that the Jews were not Germans, so they didn’t count!
Part 2
Tom wrote about it on his blog at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php
The link to the Hoppe review was not working (that took more time to track down) and something weird happened to a lot of the formatting. But if you can tolerate that, it’s worth seeing what Rockwell and Hoppe were up to in the name of Mises; hanging with German neo-Nazis, who would have hanged Mises.
Hawk says ‘all the sniping just looks like a pissing contest.’
You know, people keep talking about infighting between Cato and Mises/LRC, but it seems to me it’s mostly oneway. The LRC is obsessed with attacking Cato, but I’ve been searching the Cato site and blog, and I can’t find ANY references to Mises Institute (lots to Mises, just not to the Institute) or Rockwell. Seems like the Cato site is full of critical analyses of Clinton and Bush, McCain and Obama, the war in Iraq and the Federal Reserve, but they just ignore the Auburn crowd. (Although David Boaz did obliquely mention the attacks once here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....-you-read/ .) Yes, one Cato scholar criticizes Auburn on his little ol’ personal blog, but that’s hardly equivalent to the incessant attacks on Cato found “over there.”
So anybody who objects to “infighting” should be directing their criticisms to Auburn, not to Cato.
Comments on this entry are closed.