It is often the “noobs” who are at the forefront of the flamewars, getting their feelings hurt and lashing out, creating a spiral to the bottom. Experienced users distinguish substantive discussions from personality clashes. FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey Tucker
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11279/avoiding-austro-flamewars/
Avoiding Austro-Flamewars
Previous post: Oh, the Irony
Next post: The Case for Ebeneezer
{ 30 comments }
A very intelligent and civil article!
Jeffrey, this is excellent. Thanks for writing it.
Great article. I don’t discuss here at Mises but I do find myself in flame wars at denverpost.com. Columns by Mike Rosen and David Harsanyi attract all of the liberal seminar posters.
Fantastic article, Mr. Tucker.
Apart from making an interesting point, you also paint a beautiful picture of these three giants of libertarianism. It really makes me wish I could’ve met or seen them in real life.
You should write more biographical material! You’ve done a magnificent job at making them come alive
As McLuhan said, the sender of a message primarily sends himself, not the not the supposed “content” of the message.
When a flame-warrior posts some screed, he’s not talking about the actual topic (e.g., Rothbard’s hypothetical opinion on something). He’s communicating the state of his own mind.
Arguing about the opinions of dead men is an especially easy way to engage in this kind of projection — you can pretend the decedent agrees with you on just about anything.
Nice article, Jeffrey. Thanks.
Marvellous piece.
“Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for”…- Socrates -
Please repost this article on a regular basis
The mini-biographies were very nice. But what I get out of the article as a whole is “Please, why can’t we all just get along, so I don’t have to actually do the job of moderating this site!”
Wonderful post, Jeff.
You and readers may find of interest some of the remarks of Emily Bazelon on Slate’s Political Gabfest, in a segment discussing texting and such (Dec. 11 show, about 25:00 to 29:00 or so)–where Bazelon talks about how there is an impulsivity to Internet connections, and a feeling of distancing–you push a button, you are not seeing the other person’s face, etc.; there is a distance, so that you do things online you would not do in person. So there is more incivility, more rash statements, etc. Bazelon in exasperation declares this to be “like a mass delusion; our brains are going to have to change if we are to understand all this better” (she touches on this also in her article on teenage “sexting”). [N.B.: the podcast uses cuss words]
Great reminder to all of us that the Austrian-libertarian tent is quite broad. We need vigorous discussion to help us understand better not only the moral case for liberty but the economic case as well. I have been involved in this for over 40 years and have thanks to Mises Daily and LewRockwell.com evolved from a limited government Austro-libertarian to a Rothbard no-government Austro-libertarian. The real battle is with the statists,the interventionists,the socialists and the other apologists for the ruling elites who spend every waking hour of every day making us less free, making our markets less efficient and leading us down the road to serfdom.
An excellent article.
I want to post something I emailed Jeff earlier today. I often read mises.org, but don’t usually post:
“I wanted to thank you for your “flamewars” post this morning on mises.org. I come at all this from a very different perspective (with very different “flamewars” in mind). I guess you could call me a New Keynesian. I appreciate many of the insights of Austrian capital theory, and I consider myself a classical liberal so I occassionally find solace in reading what gets posted on mises.org. However, generally speaking I don’t put much stock in the Austrian school of economics, and I don’t agree with the libertarian spin on classical liberalism.
So for me, mises.org is a place that I visit often to be challenged, to see things from a different perspective, and to better familiarize myself with von Mises and Rothbard’s work. That goal isn’t achieved when I get called a totalitarian by fellow classical liberals, when my Keynesianism is dismissed as socialism or inaccurately caricatured as “spend your way to prosperity”, or when others I admire, like Paul Krugman, get treated with disrespect or have their positions distorted.
I’d be lying if I said I’ve never seen this happen on mises.org – but I will say that it doesn’t happen as much as it does on some other Austrian or libertarian sites. To a large extent I see mises.org as a clearinghouse for Austrian scholarship – old and new – and so I’ve found it to be a great resource. I don’t care for some of your authors, but nevertheless the intent of the site is very clear, and it is very helpful, and for the most part you’ve been very true to your vision of reasoned, calm scholarship.
And reminders from an editor like you that these flamewars don’t advance anything is very, very welcome to me. Thanks for writing that.”
After reading this, i clicked on Rothbard vs. the philosophers. http://mises.org/books/rothbard_vs_philosophers.pdf
Although I was a student of Hayek and heard von Mises speak in person once, shortly before his death (and read Human Action and several other works carefully), I never met Murray, but I knew several people who did, and told stories about him. (One was Sam Peltzman, who was more or less my “undergraduate thesis advisor” at UCLA).
Rothbard’s letters to the Volker Fund about Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty would seem to be archetypes of the “flaming” you discuss (start on p. 61, op. cit.) I think I understand Rothbard’s complaints as well as Hayek’s positions (and agree with the latter in nearly every case). Rothbard’s positions are largely the same as Ayn Rand’s, and these letters would have dated from the time before the Rand-Rothbard schism and mutual denunciations.
I’ve always given Hayek credit for “weaning” me away from Ayn Rand, and for decisively refuting her hysterical “philosophy.”
I guess it speaks volumes about the depth and diversity of the von Mises Institute that Hayek and Rothbard can co-exist on your website and in your pantheon or “communion of saints.”
But note that this book contains two memos on Hayek. The first one was written about the draft of the book we haven’t seen.
I should add that reading these memos combined with the Burns book also gave me a new appreciation for the influence that Rand had on Rothbard.
Thank you Jeffery!
This was an absolutely fantastic read, full of character and wisdom. Thank you for the inspiration.
I remember seeing stars in the minnows that I looked at in the storm drain at three. Before all the stuff I learned, I knew especially that I loved life… not in anyway that I could have repeated to anyone… and to this day I am not that intellectual or able to disrobe to all you rushed people what you want. But, if you really want to get back to nature and reality libertarianism is the right road.
So, when are we going to have one of those silly “Which Austrian economist are you?” quizzes?
Daniel, it’s you! I love how you can, with a straight face, claim that you are in accord with Austrians without resorting to doublethink and also claim that you are a “classical liberal” and that other Austrians are your “fellow” classical liberals, as if identifying yourself with them means that you actually share the beliefs requisite to be called such and anyone who asserts otherwise is clearly in the wrong. You’ve truly demonstrated that labels are everything and that their underlying meanings and definitions are irrelevant–who needs substance, superficiaility reigns supreme in the fantasy world of daniel kuehn! By the way, where is your “fellow classical liberal” muirgeo? Did he have to pull a double shift at the Ministry of Truth? I have to say, Orwell would be quite proud of you, Daniel! Party on, Dude!
Daniel,
Some very gracious comments. I can understand where you are coming from, given that I often like to peruse the works of many of the so-called post-Keynesians (despite some ostensibly worthy insights on their part, however, I still adhere to libertarian and Austrian principles). It is a good way of testing the robustness of one’s position.
As for Krugman, well, perhaps we shouldn’t pick on him, but sometimes it’s just so easy. And now that he’s a celebrity economist, and wields a great deal of influence, I would say that it’s only natural that he be exposed to a great deal of scrutiny.
Barbarossa -
Re: “You’ve truly demonstrated that labels are everything and that their underlying meanings and definitions are irrelevant–who needs substance, superficiaility reigns supreme in the fantasy world of daniel kuehn!”
I’m not the one redefining liberalism to shut out any non-libertarians.
Look – this was a nice, conciliatory piece about focusing on productive dialogue rather than flame wars. Try not to miss that point, barbarossa.
jeffrey
“I should add that reading these memos combined with the Burns book also gave me a new appreciation for the influence that Rand had on Rothbard. ”
Actually, I think it may have been the other way around. Rand (and Branden) more or less cannibalized this earlier work by Rothbard, who was a real anarchist in the Molinari (Rationalist) tradition. That’s why most people who read Atlas Shrugged just assume that she is a Utopian anarchist of some sort, not a Republican “advocate of capitalism.”
Even though her heroes are either capitalists or pro-”free enterprise” and “self-made wealth”, the greatest of them don’t care anything about money (Roark and Galt). They identify thoroughly with “the working class”, not the wealthy elites.
And Rand, even in her non-fiction writing, didn’t seem to defend inherited wealth (unlike most “libertarians” today).
Everything that Rothbard attacks Hayek for are departures from the no-state (anarchist) position, and for his “conservatism.” After Rothbard was purged (or left in disgust), Rand always condemned anarchism, and didn’t maintain Murray’s strident opposition to unions. Social Security, and the like. But of course Rand wasn’t an economist at all, and her philosophy WAS rationalist, unlike Hayek’s.
I’ve often wondered what Rand (or Rothbard, for that matter) thought of Popper, who was actually the one who convinced Hayek that “constructivist rationalism” (“the Spell of Plato”) was the problem – in Marxism, Historicism, etc. Marxism actually draws as much or more on Aristotle than Plato, and I suspect that Rand’s Marxist education had a lot to do with her later “dialectical” methods and conclusions. One could even call her “Trotskyist” in the same sense that Neo-cons are called “Trotskyists” – more by descent than by conviction.
I’m not completely clear about chronology, here, but that would be a good project for someone – maybe a dissertation topic. Who believed what, and when, and who influenced whom?
“Who believed what, and when, and who influenced whom?”
Life doesn’t usually work this way. Most of the time new ideas come about due to exchange of old ideas in the course of discussion and debate. Rothbard and Rand talked about many things in those days they spent together with the others. Surely lots of mutual influence here.
Great sentiment we’d all do well to keep in mind. I think my basic nature is Hayek-like (I’ve argued against myself from time to time), but can get wound up pretty aggressively too.
Daniel, I’m fully aware of the apparent “irony” in what I just said, but the point is that you claim to be something you’re not, and you pervert the meaning of words to suit your purposes. This is disingenuous and deceitful, and it is to me wrong and false that you can claim to be a “victim” of the “flame wars.” To me it is simply another instance of manipulating words and sympathies. The mises.org people don’t know you like the Cafe Hayek people do, that’s for sure. Anyway, talk to the hand (Mises):
“A man is free as far as he shapes his life according to his own plans. A man whose fate is determined by the plans of a superior authority, in which the exclusive power to plan is vested, is not free in the sense in which the term free was used and understood by all people until the semantic revolution of our day brought about a confusion of tongues. It is the subordination of every individuals whole life, work, and leisure, to the orders of those in power and office. It is the reduction of man to a cog in an all-embracing machine of compulsion and coercion. It forces the individual to renounce any activity of which the government does not approve. It tolerates no expression of dissent. It is the transformation of society into a strictly disciplined labor-army.”
One more relevant quote for Daniel, sorry:
Ludwig von Mises:”The champions of the abolition of liberty realized that it was hopeless to fight openly for servitude. To attack liberalism openly anti-liberalism’s only chance was to camouflage itself as true liberalism. Socialists were not plagued by any scruples when they stole the good old name of liberalism, nowadays more often than not a synonym for communism.â€
Anyone who believes that the Mises Institute is a monolithic enterprise needs to think again. We are not only embracing different styles or expressions but also the different approaches that arise from those different styles. However the ultimate goal is still the same – Liberty. A great article Mr. tucker and I thank you.
It is refreshing to see rationality applied to the tone with which we debate. “You all think that” or “You must be a…” has belittled many potentially valuable arguments, thanks for the reminder!
I am a relative newbie, and I am frustrated by some web debates seeming “seniority takes all” mentality. I enjoy well-reasoned arguments, whether the speaker is old or young and while I respect Mr. Lew Rockwell, Mr. Jeffery Tucker, Mr. Shane Scheid and other contemporary intellectual leaders, I have learned that sometimes our newer friends also have some good ideas. I have learned that arguments should be judged based on their merits and on the material intent of the author.
Thanks for this article!
The Mises Institute may not be a “monolithic enterprise” but truth, logic, and for that matter, praexology definitely are. Logic is a coherent system, and if we deny that then we deny the admission of logic into our formulations. Freedom of thought is a sine qua non of our tradition and of rational discussion, but sometimes what is presumed to be tolerated isn’t merely a difference of opinion in need of rational debate or speculation awaiting a thorough fleshing-out but opinions that are fundamentally antithetical to the Austrian School and, really, logic itself. I am all in favor of the spirit of this article and people’s reactions to it, but by coincidence my “colleague” from the Cafe Hayek comments section happened to wander in and plead his case of perceived persecution, when in reality–and this would be familiar to any of the Austrians, and not impostors such as Daniel, who frequent the Cafe–he is a covert statist masquerading as a classical liberal or a “soft Austrian,” and I don’t care how many qualifying Greek roots one may decide to prefix to the adjectival form of Keynes in an attempt to assert one’s ideology while simultaneously denying it, call a spade a spade: Daniel, along with, I’m sure, many others, is a devout statist of the socialist, Keynesian persuasion. Previous appeals to reason have never swayed him from his preposterous arguments nor have they induced him directly to address any Austrian rebuttals, so that to even a rational, fair person remain only mockery and derision as tools in dealing with him or those of his ilk.
Well said, Mr. Tucker.
Thank you, sir.
The rules of civilty are important to adhere to if we want to have an intelligent debate on this wonderful site…
Comments on this entry are closed.