The Long March Through FAIR: How Big Can the Tent Become?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Look, Scratch, just to be clear, I'll spell it out for the tiny part of your brain still susceptible to the processing of information taken in from your surrounding environment. I am not a "Christian Reconstructionist." Even you are intelligent enough to know, as you've been debating me here for some six years, that I would have no toleration for that kind of philosophy.

That's not my impression at all, though, Droopy. Maybe you don't realize it, but you project precisely the kind of ideological mindset that would fit right in with Christian Reconstructionism. All of your talk about re-designing the government and economy in terms of "Gospel principles" is merely a Mormon re-envisioning of this ideology.

But, hey: I'll take your word for it. Maybe you can type up a pointed and philosophically serious critique that demonstrates how your LDS version of economic and governmental "Reconstructionism" is different from the version espoused by Gary North et al.

Austrian economics began in Europe, has adherents throughout the Western world, and has nothing to do with Christian Reconstructionism. There are a few such people in the Austrian libertarian movement (as there are some monarchists within traditionalist conservatism) but the libertarian movement, and in particular, the Austrian libertarian movement, is, for the most part, deeply secular in nature and approach, as are many of its scholars. There is room indeed, for a number of peripheral views in such a philosophy precisely because of its emphasis of liberty and the free play of ideas.

Meaning what, exactly? I'm interested in hearing you explain how and "emphasis of liberty and the free play of ideas" in the Austrian School is compatible--philosophically and intellectually--with Christian Reconstructionism. Let's hear it, Droops.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy:

Why do you think that the Austrian School has embraced a figure like Gary North with open arms?

He's there, Scratch, and that's all you can say about the matter (as if you knew a bloody thing about Austrian economics or philosophy at all).

I didn't ask you whether or not he's "there." I asked you why he's been "embraced."

I'd suspect, however, his PhD in history from the University of California, Riverside, and his specialty in economic history from an Austrian perspective.

They snapped him up simply due to his credentials? Okay. If you say so.

This is all kind of like asking how the Republican party can embrace the likes of Arlen Specter with open arms, or John McCain. Isn't it supposed to be a "conservative" party?

No... I think it would be more like asking how the Republican Party could embrace...Oh, I don't know--David Duke, say, or Timothy McVeigh. The answer to this question would no doubt be: "They don't embrace him/them." At least, the people in charge don't. The membership of folks like this would be seen as a kind of fluke--a consequence of allowing "open enrollment," as it were. With North, though, it seems that he's firmly entrenched in the mainstream of the Austrian School. I can't find any indication that he's considered a "fringe" member of the Austrian School. Can you?

[_moksha]

Which branch of this Austrian School do most FAIR members embrace?

[_Droopy]

I didn't ask you whether or not he's "there." I asked you why he's been "embraced."

He's a part of a small wing of the movement due to his economic philosophy. I see no evidence of any "embracing" for any other reason. Do you?

They snapped him up simply due to his credentials? Okay. If you say so.

What other reason would there be. Doesn't Brookings snap people up because of their credentials?

No... I think it would be more like asking how the Republican Party could embrace...Oh, I don't know--David Duke, say, or Timothy McVeigh.

And again, the mask comes off and we see the real Scratch, in all his Plutonic glory. The Republican party never "embraced" David Duke or McVeigh. Both self identified as Republicans, and that's as far as you can go with it (and when on earth was Timothy McVeigh a political figure with the Republican party - or anywhere else?)

This is all unlike however, the Democratic party's long embrace of Robert Byrd. And, for the road, shall we go into the long list of traitors, subversives, and intellectual zoological specimens the Democratic party has actually, one could say, "embraced" and still embraces to this day? Not even a nice try at your usual demagoguery, Scratch.

With North, though, it seems that he's firmly entrenched in the mainstream of the Austrian School. I can't find any indication that he's considered a "fringe" member of the Austrian School. Can you?

Yes, the first being the overwhelmingly secularist/rationalistic orientation of the mainstream of the movement, and the fact that both E and I, together, have come up to date with exactly three clear members of that particular sub-movement within Austrian libertarianism.

Roll the dice again.

[_Gadianton]

Gary North won the 2004 Rothbard Medal from the Von Mises Institute.

The 249 other VMI scholars did not.

[_EAllusion]

Virtually all Christian Reconstructionists have an affinity for Austrian economics. Beyond that, Austrian economics has spread to other wings of the hardline theocratic right. Michelle Bachmann isn't a reconstructionist, but their influence runs deep with John Eidsmoe, her mentor. So in her now quasi-famous reading list, she recommending Austrian econ alongside theocratic "clash of civilization" type stuff. (And a work of a neo-confederate. Golly Gee.) My point is simply that this is an identifiable subgroup within the Austrian school. And it is. Droopy wants to turn this into a general damnation of Austrians because that's how his black and white thinking works. It isn't intended to be and I've been explicit about that. Gad wondered if American fascism will come from Austrians to tweek Droopy. I pointed out that there is a quite fascist subgroup inside of them. That's all.

by the way, Gary North isn't a kook like Pat Buchanan is. In Gary North's ideal world, the entire world would be a theocracy ruled by hardcore fundametnalist Calvinism where Old Testament law would rule the world. And he openly advocates infiltrating and subverting US government institutions to achieve this aim. People would be executed for, among other things, homosexuality, blasphemy, heresy, being a very insubordinate child, losing your virginity before marriage (if you're a woman), witchcraft, adultery, and so on. That's what Christian Reconstructionists want.

Probably every single person who posts on this board would be murdered if Gary North's ideal world. Say what you will about David Duke, but he's an Eagle Scout compared to Lew Rockwell's friend.

[_Gadianton]

EA,

I read North's acceptance Speech on Lew and he urges the young austrians not to necessarily study harder, but to go out and spam the internet with whatever and create link farms in order to promote the cause. He tells them "don't even try" to outdo Rothbard because they will fail. The thinking has been done, and what's left is for the "body of Christ" to distribute the message.

Huh, what comes to mind here? The Bible has already been written, go out and tell the world. And this is what they are doing. There is no parallel to Chicago or MIT here. Keynesian theory has been drastically reformed and Monetarism has lost steam due to the fact that Friedman, no matter how loudly the right has screamed his name, has been outdone by his own students. I will discuss this more when I debunk ABCT. ABCT is at the heart of the Austrian Bible, AGD, and the theory stands as it was preached going on a century ago.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north288.html

[_Tarski]

Droopy. Maybe you don't realize it, but you project precisely the kind of ideological mindset that would fit right in with Christian Reconstructionism. All of your talk about re-designing the government and economy in terms of "Gospel principles" is merely a Mormon re-envisioning of this ideology.

qft

[_Droopy]

Gary North won the 2004 Rothbard Medal from the Von Mises Institute.

The 249 other VMI scholars did not.

The likely reason for this is that large numbers of scholars of the Austrian persuasion are not Rothbardians, and they are not Rothbardians because they are not libertarian anarchists. I do not subscribe to, and strongly disagree with, the Rothbardian wing of libertarianism. It is, in point of fact, one reason I am a conservative, and not a straight libertarian.

Shake the intellectual pinball machine in your head again, Gad, and see if you can hit a few more bumpers on the way down.

[_Droopy]

Virtually all Christian Reconstructionists have an affinity for Austrian economics.

Virtually all left leaning Mormons have an affinity for the general doctrines of the LDS church, and yet the LDS church has little affinity for much of what they may believe philosophically and ideologically in the political, economic, or social sphere. The head pounding logical fallacy inherent in your argument here should be obvious to you, E.

Beyond that, Austrian economics has spread to other wings of the hardline theocratic right. Michelle Bachmann isn't a reconstructionist, but their influence runs deep with John Eidsmoe, her mentor.

All of which is utterly moot and of little interest, of course, as:

1. Bachmann is in the low single digits and has no change whatever of being nominated.

2. Bachmann, as far as I am aware, is not an Austrian.

3. A search at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute supplies no hits for the search terms "John Eidsmoe."

4. Many Austrian intellectuals would disagree strongly with this "Christian Reconstructionist" ideology, as would have Von Mises himself.

So in her now quasi-famous reading list, she recommending Austrian econ alongside theocratic "clash of civilization" type stuff.

Such as?

My point is simply that this is an identifiable subgroup within the Austrian school.

This is old news. We now have 3-4 figures within the Von Mises Institute promoting such views.

And it is. Droopy wants to turn this into a general damnation of Austrians because that's how his black and white thinking works.

No, its precisely what you and Gad have intended all along, as your rather self conscious attempt to save face in the wake of this long term ad hominem circumstantial well poisoning of the philosophy.

It isn't intended to be and I've been explicit about that.

Have you now. Why then are you still pursuing precisely that?

Gad wondered if American fascism will come from Austrians to tweek Droopy. I pointed out that there is a quite fascist subgroup inside of them. That's all.

You guys are so very, very clever. You really had me going there for a while.

by the way, Gary North isn't a kook like Pat Buchanan is. In Gary North's ideal world, the entire world would be a theocracy ruled by hardcore fundametnalist Calvinism where Old Testament law would rule the world. And he openly advocates infiltrating and subverting US government institutions to achieve this aim. People would be executed for, among other things, homosexuality, blasphemy, heresy, being a very insubordinate child, losing your virginity before marriage (if you're a woman), witchcraft, adultery, and so on. That's what Christian Reconstructionists want.

Good for them. As a conservative/libertarian, I visceraly oppose all of this.

Whatever on the rest of this nonsense.

Move along...I guess.