Palmer, Cowen, and Boaz on Palmer’s New Book

I am a RELATIVELY new Libertarian. I knew I didn't like what the Republicans were doing (although, what they said SOMETIMES made sense), and I definetely wasn't a Democrat. So, when I started listening to and reading Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Don Boureaux, Reason, and Cato, I realized I was a Libertarian. I have been reading and studying this diligently for a while now.

Here's my question. Why is there this (at least, perceived) division in these camps. I regularly read stuff from both "camps". I don't see the difference. Can someone explain to me what the differences are and what the history of this debate is? I suspect that it is long, complicated, and technical. So, a place to start looking would be helpful.

Thank you.

In one sense, they are competing for the voice of the libertarian movement, so it's not surprising to me that there might be some animosity.

One important point of difference is that many, though not all, of the "Austrians" are anarchists in the Murray Rothbard tradition.

I have to add that I was very disappointed by Mr. Cowen's statement, which I consider a cheap shot. People can disagree on important intellectual questions: why the vitriol?

Why do Cowen and others seem to believe that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are anti-immigration? If you're going to criticize someone for something, the least you can do is know their stance on it.

Unimpressed by Tom Palmer. Not saying he isn't a good public speaker, but hardly the best I've ever seen and his subject matter is unoriginal IMO and delivered in an uninteresting fashion. Cowen's remarks are unfortunate. I have hoped that I simply mistook the superficialness of his blog, but his comments seem only to confirm this hypothesis. It's unfortunate, and even though Cowen and Palmer do not represent all of GMU or Cato, respectively, I still find myself feeling these organizations are less reputable then I use to think. I use to want to intern with Cato, to attend Cato University, and I find myself no longer wanting to do so after reading about their problem with the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul group (if such a thing exists) and the ludicrous insinuations of Palmer and Boaz.

Awesome. Inspirational, and the cause of two firsts for me: the first time I've ever heard Tom speak, and the first time I've ever found myself actually wishing I lived in Washington so I could hear him more often.

A note to the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul contingent: not that my opinion counts for much, but Tom gave what I consider a huge nod to Thomas DiLorenzo's argumentwhen he said that drinking isn't a good strategy for fighting prohibition. Likewise, creating pornography isn't a suitable way to protect freedom of speech, and drug use is not the proper way to fight the war on drugs. Toleration is the very key to this argument. Exercising one's freedom is an end in itself, and inconsequential to whether or not freedom is protected. Toleration protects freedom; it gives freedom space to grow and flourish.

I think DiLorenzo's right to criticize Reason's celebrating people like Larry Flynt as champions of freedom for that reason. I think DiLorenzo's prickly style might be part of what pushes people like Tyler away. Plus the fact that it sounds like DiLorenzo's intolerant of Tyler's position...:)

Tom G Palmer has a whole section called Fever Swamp, mainly ad hominem attacks on people associated with LvMI. I have seen several derogatory remarks made at the LvMI blog ( but mostly on LRC Blog), against many GMU, Cato, Reason, folks. I don't know the history, and it doesn' matter. Once you start using sewage language, you are about as guilty as the other guy. Palmer, even very recently, had some cutesy derogatory remarks to make about Austrian economics in general, and Tom Woods in particular. It was even widely discussed on the "Austrian Economists" blog.

BTW, Tom G Palmer is a good public speaker. Not even close to being the best. That's just my opinion.

Just like Michael, I was very disappointed by Tyler comments. It sounded like oh-so-typical brilliant ivory tower academician's distrust for real life flawed people that don't have a luxury of "creating their own economy", and that have to deal with endless dilemmas and compromises.
Interestingly enough, Tyler comment came soon after (or was it before?) his musing about support of incremental change vs. perceived maximalism of Tom Palmer.
Otherwise very interesting and engaging discussion. Looking forward to read the book.

Although I have been let down by recent comments by Cato scholars, I have to agree that Tom Palmer was the best public speaker I have had a pleasure of listening to.

It is a shame that your colleague makes an attempt to divide a growing Libertarian movement, and particularly for taking shots at Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. These men have awaken a lot of people through thier intelligent and articulate arguments for limited gov't, non-interventionist foreign policies, free markets, and individual liberties. I certainly am thankful that "Ron Paul Cured my Apathy" (as his informal political campaign slogan says).

I wonder if this says something about the mission of Cato when the "liberty lovers" at Cato are shaken by Paul as much as the establishment is.

Here is Tom Dilarenzo's response to Cowen's statements: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/...

"Cato/Reason" libertarians vs. "Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell" libertarians? I didn't realize there was a divide.

There needn't be.

David Boaz goes onto give highlight of the talk, and see where he starts.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/03/palme...

I don't know the history of the politics between the two camps. But I would say this, Cato has nothing to do with the current resurgence of libertarianism. Cato was behind Fred Thompson for president. Ron Paul's presidential campaign is the main engine that attracted a lot of youth into libertarian movement.

I am so tired of this nonsense that "Cato was behind Fred Thompson." Give me a break. Cato has 100 or so scholars, and ONE of them wrote ONE op-ed praising ONE aspect of Fred Thompson's program. Are there people dumb enough to think that is an institutional endorsement, or are there people who want to libel Cato by making this unfounded claim?

Yes - Thompson got the backing of one of the 100 or so scholars at Cato. But he was not the only recipient of Cato support.

Another Cato scholar donated $500 to Huckabee. One donated $250 to Giuliani. One gave $500 to McCain. Other recipients of money from Cato scholars include Bush in 2004, former MA gov. William Weld, GOP Senators John Warner, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson, and John Thune. The neoconservative Club for Growth PAC has also received several thousand dollars from multiple Cato scholars.

When you consider them together a pattern starts to emerge: Cato people donate to the neoconservative mainstream of the Republican Party far more often than they donate to its libertarian elements. In fact, there was not a single major Cato scholar who donated so much as a penny to Ron Paul, even though they had no trouble dropping 3 and 4 figure checks to politicians like Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, and Bush.

With that in mind it is NOT a libel to state that Cato was behind people like Thompson (or Bush, Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani), while leaving the only real libertarian candidate hanging out to dry.

And you can click on my link to see all those donations documented.

BTW, Tyler Cowen is a sell out. Besides, You will have to go through 100 of his posts before you find one single original thought written by him. He is very good at posting a bunch of links to trivial matters. I go to MR once in a while to read Alex's posts.