That’s the online version – I was very shocked when I happened to flip through. They were generally positive but I remember some really disingenuous attacks on him at one point. Anyway, since barely anyone has heard of him in the UK (except especially avid economist readers – I remember back in my days of the economist he was mentioned once in a while, usually in reference to him being a crank), this can only be a good thing as all publicity is good publicity.
The term “libertarian” means “left wing anarchist” in Europe, so it seems odd to describe his views accurately yet appelate him with that description, even if it is accurate in his own country.
Was this published in the print version? On the 2nd? aw… shame.
Maybe people will take him seriously now that the sky’s falling…
Indeed it was – I stuck the picture of him on my common room noticeboard
I don’t think that’s true. Lefties call me an “extreme right-winger” and a libertarian interchangeably (UK)
Why do people keep making the ‘he’s going to take the economy back to the 19th century’ argument? And why hasn’t he, and other folks in the spotlight, done more to disabuse people of this idea?
Well, no.
They said that Hayek was the founder of Austrianism…
‘It’s taken a while, but America is warming to Ron Paul and his radical brand of extreme libertarianism’
If they only knew.
Wow, the writer here is so bent on scaring the reader, he’s resorted to redundancy. Why not go all the way with “his radical, drastic, severe brand of hard-core, immoderate, extreme libertarianism.”?
Because then he wouldn’t be ‘objective’ [;)]
You mean like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann?
Absolutely. Objective hard hitting facts like how F.A. Hayek is the founder of the Austrian school. They pull this shit for a reason. In my IPE class there were three schools of thought in the Liberal school: Keynes [ yes, Keynes ], Friedman, and Hayek. No Mises, no Rothbard, just Hayek. So you were either a Keynesian, a Friedmanite or a Hayekian. This is going to piss off a lot of people but it needs to be said, and its not like others haven’t said it. Hayek is only acknowledge because of his compromises and as Dr. Raico said about him ‘he liked too many people.’ Always chalking up their faulty arguments as being honest mistakes.
Is Ron Paul a Rothbardian?
If you’re going to throw a firebomb like that, at least do so in a new thread, so it doesn’t burn down this one.
I’m responding in a new thread: “Laughing Man’s Take on Hayek”.
I’m pretty sure ‘libertarian’ doesn’t mean anything in Europe. I live in Holland and I don’t think anyone I’ve ever mentioned it to had ever heard it before.
The piece isn’t too bad as far as the facts go. Calling him a crank every other sentence gets old though.
lol at ‘every-man-for-himself-capitalism’. ..because when jackbooted thugs come collecting your hard-earned money it’s really all about the solidarity… [^o)]
Can somebody please tell me why people still believing that advocating the use of state violence/coercion to transfer money from one group to another means that you care and/or that Ron Paul wants to return America to the 19th century and have babies starve on the street? Please, it’s giving me a headache.
Britain is, as far as I understand (I would dearly like to be proven wrong on this) a nation with virtually no classical liberals. At least America has classical liberals among it’s traditionally revered figures, Britain seems to revere either mercantile nationalists or socialist tyrants, and the closest thing to a classical liberal party in the US is the politically confused UKIP, which has a contingent of economic nationalist boneheads among it’s saner members.
What about Gladstone?