Friday, December 4, 2009


Mario Rizzo Calls for Ceasefire

And he leaves the safety of his own blog to do so. As goofy as it might sound for me to say that, I am serious. It makes a difference that he posted it at Mises as opposed to just at ThinkMarkets or TheAustrianEconomists.

Here it is:
I am not talking about peace in the world of foreign affairs, Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever else people are senselessly killing each other. That goes without saying.

I am talking about the war of words among people who subscribe to various strains of Austrian economics. I am not going to be very specific here because I do not want to stoke the fires. If you don't know what I am talking about, that is great. Please do something more productive than reading this.

If you do know what I am talking about, then you know that much energy has been expended recently and over the past few years by Austrians who attack each other for various flaws in their Austrianism.

I am writing here a plea for peace. There is an opportunity cost to every decision. The main opportunity foregone in this case is improving our theories, our evidence and criticizing more effectively Keynesians and other interventionists.

The various participants in the intra-Austrian squabbles are not likely to convince each other. These arguments have gone on too long without measurable progress.

I assume most of the argument is being engaged in for the "benefit" of the young and impressionable. But this is a delusion.

The best way to convince the uncommitted is by the positive strength of one's argument using both theory and evidence. Here the spillover effect is to make intellectual progress. If, on the other hand, we seek to convince people by "stealing" from other camps of Austrians, the spillovers are negative for all of us. It becomes a race to the bottom or a kind of "mutually assured destruction."

We do not have to agree on everything. For example, Joe Salerno and I do not agree on all aspects of Austrian economics. Yet Joe and I have seen each other weekly for nearly twenty years at the NYU Colloquium. We never engage in ad hominem attacks. We treat each other with decency and respect.

I do not expect to be buddies with all with whom I disagree strongly on issues. I don't expect to be spending time with anyone who labels him or herself an "Austrian." But I want much more to convince the rest of the world to appreciate the insights of F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises than I want to make sure my fellow Austrians agree with The Economics of Time and Ignorance.

In the meanwhile the statists and Keynesians laugh. They make fools of us because we first make fools of ourselves.

"In the meanwhile the statists and Keynesians laugh. They make fools of us because we first make fools of ourselves."

Rizzo's infected! (throwing around the "statist" and all.)
I really appreciate Mario stepping in here. He is a class act all around.
It would be nice to see this post show up on,,, and as well.
I picture Mario getting off of a plane, holding aloft a piece of paper with Kinsella's signature on it, saying, "I believe this is peace for our time."
Right, Stephan Kinsella--another Hitler!
Whoa! I have enjoyed some of Rizzo's thinking and writing but what a wimpy plea! Intellectual peace be damned. Rather than a "race to the bottom" robust argument is the only way you can climb to the top. If your opponent is full of ad hominem attacks he's lost the argument. Ignore him and move on.

I do not understand all of the nuances of this "Austrian" debate, but as an outside observer it seems to me that if the Austrians cannot maintain an internal debate (no matter how rancorous) and still have the strength to criticize the interventionists than maybe its not up to the task.

We need a group who can argue with liars, thieves and cheats and not lose sight of the rational.
I'm glad to see I wasn't attacking a strawman when I said Rizzo was courageous for writing what some would construe as "wimpy."

Damn I'm smooth.
Sure, Ralph, absoluely any meaphor must exacly agree in all deails with the original to be valid, so that if Stephan doesn't want to gas 6 million Jews, than my metaphor of a peace agreement that won't be kept by one side falls apart.
Sorry, Sandy's 't' key is very sticky, so a lot of the 't's aren't coming through.

And the thing is, Ralph knew perfectly well what I meant -- but any attack in a storm!
Gene Callahan sounds very bitter.
It's no coincidence that Callahan rhymes with The Man.

Do you see Gene Callahan as part of the ceasefire proposal, or is that something we can workout in a future round?
I am going to put Michael Collins on my Netflix queue. Only then will I have a solution for the "Callahan Problem" as we refer to it at our Mises University plotting sessions.
Did I miss the secret decoder ring meeting? Isn't Callahan an adjunct at LvMi? Have I walked into a bizarre Hegelian world where he is the anti-thesis to the thesis of LvMi for the sake of a synthesis?
Isn't Laughing Man the guy who doesn't know the difference between Lachmann and Hoppe?
I've come to the conclusion that peace between the two groups is a public good (assuming it's a good at all).

Which means that the great Rizzo the Resolute, whilst honourable is somewhat misguided in his call.
I am a jelly donut.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]