OK, Bob...

By -
so now is the truce over?

I mean, really, the reason you wouldn't agree to my proposal was that you knew it would only be a matter of days before the rabid dogs of LRC were attacking other libertarians, wasn't it?

ADDENDA:
1) Boaz's comic intention was so obvious here that it's pretty hard to believe Block and DiLorenzo could have missed it. No, I think they just thought, "Hey, I haven't attacked a 'Beltway libertarian' in a week or two -- let me find something to go after."
2) And yes, neither of them agreed to the "truce." But Rockwell published Mario's peace offering, implying he supported it. He certainly could say, "Guys, not on my blog." After all, he squahed one of my articles for LRC, after he had accepted it, when he noticed it contained a very mild criticism of Rothbard. So, he certainly does exercise editorial discretion. But no, what he meant by peace was "Let's get them to stop attacking us!"

Comments

  1. Michael Barnett11:09 AM

    Gene, what article of yours did Lew squash and when did he squash it? Did you publish it somewhere else?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Josh Hanson1:07 PM

    I've been reading up on coalition parties abroad lately, and wondering about the prospects for something similar in the U.S. If libertarian infighting is any indication, it's not promising. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah2:26 PM

    Here.

    Notice how meek my criticism of Rothbard is, too!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy9:14 PM

    Right Gene, I'm sure if Mario Rizzo posted a plea for piece on the Mises.org blog, and then Rockwell told the webmaster to delete it, that you would say, "Bravo! I respect your honesty sir!"

    Of course Rockwell doesn't have a problem with what people post on his blog. That was never the issue. The issue was people who signed on to the truce (like Stephan) whom others thought had been contributors to the wars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. scineram9:30 PM

    Apparently Horwitz also breached peace.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah9:54 PM

    Steve wrote an article with praise and criticism of Rothbard (who is dead, btw!) mixed together. So Block has to trash Horwitz, of course. E.g., Steve writes "arguably the most important libertarian theorist of the twentieth century." Actually a compliment, isn't it?

    But Block takes it as a "backhanded" compliment! The only permitted view is:

    "In my view, he was the most important libertarian theorist EVER to have written in the entire history of the world"

    Rothbard "broke" with people all the time. No one stuck around in his inner circle for long. But Block writes:

    "It was not Murray Rothbard who broke with Don Lavoie. Rather, it was the other way around."

    Bullshit. Rothbard would go around telling everyone "Lavoie has sold out to the state" -- even though Lavoie was still an anarchist!

    "What happened to Rizzo’s call for peace? When reading essays such as Horwitz’s, I sometimes wonder if it applies only to the Misesian side."

    Aaaaaaaaargh! Horwitz writes a piece mostly praising Rothbard, and this is a "ceasefire violation," allowing Block to smear Horwitz!

    There is no better example of how intolerant the Rothbardians are of any criticism of St. Murray than this very piece by Block.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah10:07 PM

    "Murray did not at all agree with Don Lavoie’s and other ex-Misesians’ attempts to convert Austrian economics into "hermeneutics," or to conflate these two very different perspectives."

    Oh, and Austrian economics IS a hermeneutics approach to social science, but apparently neither Block nor Rothbard bothered to look into the literature of the philosophy of the social sciences to discover this. I once counted how many times "meaning" appears in Human Action, often in key contexts -- it's something like 50.

    That's hermeneutics, my friends!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more