The Anti-Rothbard Cult

I think you’ll enjoy this brief, informal talk I gave last week at Mises U, on a subject we’ve needed to bring into the open for a long time now.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • gcallah

    “And even though it’s a well-known fact that Rothbard didn’t even read the writings of men he opposed…”

    He trashed Hegel, nd yet he obviously never read Hegel (as he was at least honest enough to leave him out of the bibliography) and the only two sources he cites are Karl Popper — a notoriously bad historian of thought! — and some Sovietologist. He does not even cite any Hegel scholars!

    But trashing Hegel on those grounds is not “nasty,” no: what is “nasty” is pointing out that this is “scholarship” that would get him an ‘F’ on an undergrad paper on Hegel. (Seriously, it would: “You DIDN’T READ A SINGLE WORK BY HEGEL! F!”)

  • gcallah

    I figured this out, Tom, when I remembered this: You gleefully reported on how much pain you planned on inflicting on Krugman. Inflicting maximal pain on another human being: That’s NOT nasty. I noted this was not very Christian. THAT’s what is nasty.

    And, as Zach points out, there just is NO “anti-Rothbard cult.” What there are is a lot of people who recognize that LVMI is a cult. But calling them “cultists” for recognizing this, that’s NOT nasty. What’s nasty is to point out this is just what Scientologists do, calling psychiatrists who describe their indoctrination techniques “the cult of psychiatry.”

    For Tom, nasty = calling him out on his BS.

  • Joseph Fetz

    This is about to get really interesting, isn’t it?

  • Tom Woods

    Gene, you are nasty everywhere. In the past two years, have you left a single charitable post on Bob’s blog, Mr. Nicer-Than-Thou?

    And sure there’s no anti-Rothbard cult. I guess the top people at the big libertarian institutions have been making lots of respectful references to Rothbard, except in invisible ink.

    As for Krugman, you have got to be kidding me. Pain in that context means embarrassment. And if you actually think Krugman — who is loathed even by mainstream economists, including fellow Keynesians — conducts himself with dignity in his exchanges with others, then there is no talking to you. He deserves to be called out for this. That is called justice. “Pain” means only that he is going to get what justice demands he get. Justice, recall, is a good thing.

    St. Thomas says it’s one thing to turn the other cheek when you are attacked, but it’s plain cowardice to turn the other cheek when others are attacked. You should defend them.

    Anyway, Gene, I’m sure I’m the only person who finds you bitter, resentful, or angry. You sure conduct yourself like a chipper dude!