I don’t remember what I said originally, but the reason I did not like it was because you did not provide the full context of the Krugman quotes, and you took some of the (now deleted) wisecrack comments from Krugman’s blog and pasted them into your article.
I do not like the original article. I don’t have any particular beef with you as a person. Everyone is a critic 
Well, all those speeches he’s been giving about how the free market was not the cause of the financial crisis but the government was, the work he’s done on free banking and spontaneous order not to the contrary he’s in good company. I mean, the following are all confirmed statists:
You still need to work on your attitude, Giles.
I don’t think so, I think it’s quite understandable that I take issue with “fellow Austrians” and libertarians like Steven Horwitz who has done quite a bit of work on both ABCT and free banking (as well as political economy) being dismissed as a “statist” because of his “attitude”. Whilst disagreement is certainly healthy, I don’t really think that making a caricature out of yourself in an attempt to prove your “libertarian purity” is wise. Nor do I think it’s a particularly good way to go about advancing good science.
Has anyone actually claimed that David Friedman is a statist?
Rothbard might as well have:
I certainly don’t think he’s a statist, he’s brilliant.
The sad truth is, you appeal to Rothbard as an authority as much as everyone else on this forum combined.
Only the very intelligent and sensitive can change before hitting bottom. This is going to persist and fester.
And the alcoholic doesn’t think he has a problem.
What a wonderful strawman. Tell me: think you can have discussions without the use of fallacies? Because I don’t know of anyone outside of those who think that logic is a tool of white male oppression (yes, there really are such people) who would say that fallacious arguments help you to be taken seriously.
One more note of interest on a somewhat related to the topic note: ever think that there’s a bigger focus on Keynes not because there are a lot of Keynesian profs in college econ courses, but because politicians love the idea of government DOING SOMETHING, and political hack “economics” (like Krugman) know that they can get politicians to listen to them if they spew Keynesian big government lines? And it is the politicians who are the dangers.
It’s not a strawman in the slightest. Liberty Student said that he doesn’t like Horwitz because of his attitude and that Horwitz comes across as a “statist”. I can back this up with quotes if you please, so perhaps you’d better start taking my point seriously. I don’t see what you take issue you with, you frequently jump into debates to point out what you perceive to be fallacious arguments. I believe I’m doing the same, when somebody calls a prominent Austrian who teaches from Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State a “statist” it’s more than natural that I should point out the silliness of doing so.
And as Hayek correctly pointed out, economists are the first person the politicians calls to ask for their advice, only to dismiss the advice once it is given. But I don’t see how this is relevant. Go play the public intellectual role and point out the fallacies of Krugman as much as you like, if you’re correct in your economic analysis I’ll agree with you. Just don’t pretend that you’re up to speed with modern day macro.
Rothbard’s right (from what I’ve read of Friedman anyways) but I don’t really see anything calling him a statist per se, just not a moral anarcho-capitalist. I always found their differences to be quite complimentary.
The sad truth is, you didn’t answer my post. And you can’t, being the Randian you are, I suppose I’ll greatly offend you if I point out that you seem to have some sort of emotional objection to Horwitz. I won’t hesitate to appeal to Rothbard, if I’m correct in doing so. Now, I don’t consider quoting Rothbard to prove that you don’t “hate the state” legitimate.
Because you quoted me first, right?
Ah, that is getting closer to what I wrote. I expressed a personal preference to a friend in public. You want to argue it?
Oh stop being so reasonable!
I want to argue that it is, using your own Randian language, “irrational”. Horwitz is no statist.
Yes, it is. Watch.
Not liking IS NOT THE SAME AS dismissing.
See your strawman now? Or must I teach you English, too?
And yet they don’t dismiss the Keynesian advice. Make work projects! Government spending! Pump-priming! Say–isn’t that what all the various “stimulus” packages that different countries are trying NOW are all about? Why yes, yes they are. And isn’t that Keynesian? Why yes, yes it is. Deny that and you’ll just get laughed at.
O RLY?
Nor should you. And please: don’t whine. Your petulant “I know macro” will fall on deaf ears with me. Don’t even try it, kid. I. Don’t. Care. Adjust your attitude.
Because most of your posts are nonsense.
Ah, and now the lies come out. How easily we fall back into familiar behaviours. Yes, I have an emotional objection to Horowitz. Want to argue my emotions? Want to argue an opinion made to a friend?
I’m not a Randian, and I’ve made that very clear. You might want to take KoB’s observation about your poor attitude under advisement. You’ve got very little social capital here these days, and none to squander.
Rabble, rabble, rabble. What does any of this mean? Do you have a point to make?
But I have better things to do with my life, than indulge you on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. At one point, subconciously you had to know that eventually people would tire of playing with you if you didn’t provide them value in return.
Did I say he was?
Giles, how do you get “David Friedman is a statist” from “David Friedman doesn’t hate the state deep in his belly”? I think the lack of nuance your trying to portray in Rothbard comes from the lack of nuance in your interpretation of his writing.
I’ve read a large and wide sample of Rothbard’s work, and I’ve listened to every lecture I can download, and while I disagree with him on a wide range of issues (his ethical theory, FRB, intellectual property, etc), I don’t just don’t see the unsophisticated, biased hack that you seem bent on painting him as.
Instead of these drive-by shots that always devolve into threadjacks and clashes of personality, might it not be better to present your objections to Rothbardian excesses in an individual, focused (and preferably non-snide) new thread?
And instead of vague allusions to the merits of contemporary Austrians who you think aren’t given their due, why don’t you teach us about exactly why we should give them more attention. If anything your approach now is antagonizing people and thereby making it less likely they’ll follow your advice.
You’re very intelligent, and you have a lot to offer. I hope for the sake of your intelligence bearing fruit (and not just bitterness) on these forums, that you would consider my advice.