Just came across an interesting blogpost by one Bary Stocker, a “British philosopher based in Istanbul”: Hoppe: Habermas’ Anarcho-Conservative Student. See also Revisiting Argumentation Ethics; Discourse Ethics entry in Wikipedia (which yours truly started); Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics; my New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10686/hoppe-habermass-anarcho-conservative-student/
Hoppe: Habermas’s Anarcho-Conservative Student
Previous post: UN: Global Currency Should Replace Dollar
Next post: Blago Rides Again
{ 13 comments }
Stocker’s post is interesting except that he mentions Hoppe’s preference for monarchy over democracy without completing the context by pointing out that Hoppe is not a monarchist by any stretch.
He also claims that Milton Friedman was a fellow of the Mises Institute. Is this true?
It needs to be pointed out that Gene Callahan is the intellectual equivalent of a dirty sanchez.
…..wait what now?
What exactly is wrong with Gene Callahan?
“He also claims that Milton Friedman was a fellow of the Mises Institute. Is this true?”
No. Friedman opposed the methods (both underlying and actual) of Austrian economics. He advocated a form of positivist, empiricst, instrumentalist, model building and testing. Hence the mainstream models rather than market process theory. His monetarism opposed the ABCT (big differences in matters of theory and historical interpretation). He summed up his view with the assertion: “There’s no such thing as Austrian economics; only good economics and bad economics.”
Friedman did agree with Mises and Hayek broadly – they all favoured a much freer economy. They were involved with the Mont Pelerin Society. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes from.
Slim934,
Maybe Turd Ferguson LIKES the Stinky Hitler. (sorry, he’s brought out the 12-year-old in me).
If you are looking for anything you might not like about Callahan: during the height of the Ron Paul mania (which even carried me along quite a bit, as I look back in bemusement at some of the things I did) he took to attacking Paul (or Paul supporters) for some inexplicable reason. I got into a very irritating internet scrum with him where I found him to be, well, intellectually dishonest. In this instance his contention was that Paul was being given a fair shake by the MSM and this was in direct opposition to articles he had co-written. He barely tried to defend his contention (it IS well-nigh indefensible, after all), was supremely dismissive and claimed his partner wrote the passage I quoted.
I only bring this up because Turd here reminded me of Callahan’s stinky behavior, you were curious and I was always curious why he started attacking the Paul movement and I hope someone gives me some dirt (not THAT kind of dirt. sorry, again)
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Sorry for following these guys off topic; anyone with any dirt can leave it on my link, if they care to.
Callahan IS intellectually dishonest, not just in regard to Ron Paul, but also Hoppe.
Gene is an intellectual douche-bag: a preening idiot whose primary concern is attracting attention to himself.
Samantha,
Thanks. It is always good to flush out the differences between the Austrian and Chicago schools! Really, my question was aimed at finding out if there was a relationship with Friedman previously unknown. There was a time when LvMI listed Larry Kudlow, a supply-sider, as a friend.
“There was a time when LvMI listed Larry Kudlow, a supply-sider, as a friend.”
Really? Kind of friend you’d call up when you need a bag of blow, I guess.
Ah. Thank you. That answered my question very well.
My only experience with Callahan was through his book “Economics for Real People”, which was actually my first foray into Austrianism and convinced me to continue on that path.
I was not aware that he had slandered to Ron Paul movement or made the silly contention that the MSM actually represented him accurately.
I had really enjoyed EfRP and was just really surprised to hear such negative comments about him.
Regarding Milton Friedman, after seeing the following clip, I would regard him as more friend than foe. What he has to say particularly at 1:22 to the end of the clip, maybe shocking for some Austrians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3FT0O4kYg
Jordan,
I thought Friedman wanted to replace the Fed with a computer, not market money. Certainly monetarism is meaningless without a central monetary authority.
to jordan:
friedman, right on some things, but profoundly wrong on methodological approach, is a mixture of blessings and curses. see rothbard:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_4/16_4_3.pdf
Murphy and Callahan are either too obtuse to notice that their critique of universalism could be applied to any variant of libertarianism, or just dishonest about applying it to argumentation ethics as such.
As punishment, they should both be reverse-cowgirled by Barney Frank and Michael Moore.
Comments on this entry are closed.