Merit of Civility

There has been much criticism being flung back and forth between different libertarians and libertarian groups.  Sometimes, this criticism is justified, civil and productive, but it seems that the majority of this criticism is the absolute opposite.  In a time when the world is suffering from one of the most dangerous economic recessions in history (with the seemingly eminent collapse of many debt-ridden States), it perhaps is not the time to fuel a major schism between the libertarian movement.  Academics should take a step back, recollect their image and thoughts and work towards reestablishing a semblance of cooperation.  This holds true even if there is disagreement in regards to theory and intellectual subject.  Let us remember that if there is something that binds us all, it is the drive to promote freedom and liberty.  A free society is a beautiful objective to work for, and a mission that I am proud to take part of, but it seems as if many scholars and followers have lost sight of this goal.  Instead, we seem more preoccupied with inserting not-so-subtle quips at each other in our blog posts and instilling hate between what should be fellow libertarian groups (I say “our” as if my blog was included; for the record, I’m not sure anybody cares about my blog!).  Is your ego really worth it?

Although I do not mean to single Tom Palmer out, a recent blog post of his (titled: “Debating Tyler Cowen…”) serves as the perfect example.  In what begins as what seems like an extension of an olive branch to Tyler Cowen, given that Cowen had so generously complemented Tom Palmer’s (excellent) book Realizing Freedom (I cherish my signed copy and I even gave another copy out as a gift), Palmer took the opportunity to quickly degenerate the post into a quip at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  He makes a note that he received three terrible e-mails as a response to an earlier critique of Tyler Cowen’s writings, and then goes on to say that these things are usual of the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s website.  It is not difficult to see that the Mises Institute has nothing to do with the subject of the post, and so there can be no other logical conclusion other than that Tom Palmer simply took the opportunity to make the (unnecessary) snipe.  Ever since having the pleasure of listening to Tom Palmer’s eloquent speeches at Cato University 2009, I seemed rather shocked at the fact that he would ever take such a lowly opportunity to insult a fellow libertarian academic organization.

It is important that I am not misunderstood, as I am not suggesting that Tom Palmer does not have every right to bring to people’s attention that these comments against him have been made.  But, perhaps it would have been more proper to write directly to the Mises Institute in an effort to have the website’s moderators delete these posts.  Instead, Tom Palmer’s comments seem more of a way to express some bias held against the Mises Institute.  It is not clear whether or not this is the best way to express such discontent.  It just seems as if such attacks seem only to further the chasm between Cato and the Mises Institute, instead of working to mend such divisions and instead establish some degree of harmony in which the libertarian cause could be furthered, instead of hurt.  I would have thought that Tom Palmer knew better, especially given his usual elegance.

Although the rift must have existed long ago, it seems as if what was kept in the jar was finally allowed to spill after Tyler Cowen made a number of comments during a book presentation for Tom Palmer’s Realizing Freedom.  He opened his speech with a comment directed at Lew Rockwell, stating, “In my eye, that is not exactly where libertarianism should be.”  He later developed this point, after being asked to.  Unfortunately, during his expansion of the comment he made the same mistake that Tom Palmer made in his blog post.  He attached the positions of a few to the name of an entire libertarian group, and then made a number of unqualified criticisms of what we can presume to be Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  To be fair, Tyler Cowen’s criticisms are generally applicable to many “libertarians”, but that hardly can be ascribed to “radical libertarians” such as Lew Rockwell.  Cowen’s comments have been argued over in several blog posts throughout the internet, and it is not necessary to delve into them with any further detail.  The point is that his remarks seem to have served as the catalyst to erupt this metaphorical volcano of emotions and opinions that seem to have been generally brushed under the rug prior to this event.

In the face of this eruption, Mario Rizzo made an important comment on the Mises Institute’s website that Austrian economists should work to make peace and work on their agreements, instead of focus on their disagreements.  Mario Rizzo’s comments continue to be important and correct, but that appeal should have been extended beyond the Austrian School of Thought.  It should have been made to all libertarians.

I am not suggesting that libertarians should not disagree or critique each other.  Criticism is an important aspect of intellectual evolution.  Otherwise, how could we develop our theories?  I myself have criticized professional Austrian economists (many times, I have been incorrect, I admit).  However, this criticism should be reserved to intellectual criticism, and not personal criticism.  One of the strengths of libertarians is the objective view of the world which many of them have.  They have the capability to understand all perspectives, then weigh them and judge them fairly and with intellectual justice.  It is probably this clarity of thought which allowed the liberal movement to even exist, or at least develop a web of ideals which make so much sense.  Given this strength it is difficult to understand why libertarians have developed such hostility between themselves.

Once again, I plead that all libertarians should take two steps back, breath in, recompose themselves and attempt to mend injuries before this rift becomes too wide to sow back together.  Given the current political and economic situation, I think that a unified libertarian front is of the utmost importance if we are to take advantage and rise ahead.  I am not sure that all libertarians share my sense of urgency, although I wish they did, but nonetheless my point still stands.  Finally, I apologize to anybody that I singled out (namely Tom Palmer and Tyler Cowen).  In no way did I mean to suggest that these were the only individuals participating in this “libertarian war”.  Furthermore, in no way is it just one institution committing the “crime”.  The blame should be equally spread throughout the libertarian movement, no wonder what corner.  This should be realized, and all parties should put forth an equal effort into establishing a long-lasting peace.