Policy on Comments

At the urging on my colleague Steve Horwitz, we are going to turn comments on again.  Did you ever see the movie The Tao of Steve?  I found this quirky movie of interest, but the wisdom communicated in that movie is slightly different than the wisdom of our Steve, but it is "The Tao of Steve" that will be evident at 'The Austrian Economists'. 

Anyway, back to the policy on our blog, and we do want to be a genuine blog and thus encourage a free and open discourse.  Comments will be open, but any comments posted by anonymous or fictous names will be subject to a potential deletion, and comments that are deemed rude will be deleted.  We want to promote a transparent and civil discourse in the field of Austrian economics and classical liberal political economy.

All of us have benefited greatly from the thoughtful comments (whether extensions or criticisms) that have been made by readers.  If we, after this experience, find that pursuing the editing function is too time consuming given our other demands, then we will have to rethink the policy. But if our readers in general simply follow the rules of no posting under anonymous or made up names, and focus their comments on civil engagement with ideas, then there will be no need to exercise the deleting option.

Comments

[Steve Horwitz]

Geez, could you find a picture from THIS century please? :)

Try this one: http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/steve5a.jpg

[matthew mueller]

I really enjoy reading this blog, and am excited by the addition of Professor Horwitz, but I don't know how long I would continue reading it if I would not be allowed to comment on interesting posts.

Why not require people to register if they wish to comment? Requiring members to register by suppling a valid email address and opening an account would be an effective way in combatting unfriendly and counterproductive anonymous posting.

[Ian Dunois]

I agree with Matthew. As an undergraduate interested in Austrian Economics, I have learned a lot through the comments and would be gravely disappointed if they were to be taken away permanently.

Those who leave comments today may follow the guidelines, but what of those who never read the policy in the future? Perhaps whenever they are posting a comment, the policy will come before it such as Econlog has.

[Vilfredo Pareto]

The blog is surely time-consuming and at the origin of opportunity costs for you, Pete and Steve. But I hope you will keep on doing the job. We are a small community and it is really important for us to be able to communicate daily, even if the content of the discussion is sometimes disappointing ex post. But that s freedom: some people use freedom to say interesting things, others to say less interesting one. That s not a sufficient reason to create barriers to entry. Please no regulation...

I just have a question: why is it sometimes impossible to make comments about some of the themes exposed by Pete or Steven?

For example, the "Culture and Development" post is very interesting. Even the starting point of the question is difficult: how to define development in an Austrian perspective?

[Vilfredo Pareto]

Steve,
Indeed, the 21th century pic is really better :)

[Robert S. Porter]

I was very confused why the comments were removed in the first place. I've never seen any abusive comments in all the time I've been reading this blog. Additionally, the comments never appeared to be so numerous that it would create too many issues. Of course perhaps it's the swift moderation that gave me the impression.

In the end blogs are great because of the comments. I throughly enjoy reading the comment section of blogs and engaging with the authors. Without blogs how else would I be able to have a brief dialog with Peter Bottke, Mike Munger, Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, David Friedman or any other of the multitude of econolibertarians from my lonely location in Saskatchewan, Canada?

For example Mankiw's blog, while remaining interesting, has lost much of its charm with the comments removed. Reason magazine's Radley Balko's blog is great but could be much, much better with comments.

Nevertheless, keep up the good work.

[Rafe]

There have not been a lot of a abusive posts but they have turned up in some threads and they can get out of hand if other people over-react. Much the same applies when eccentrics turn up and push their barrows, like the Australian or "Even More Austrian" school of thought:)

[dglesvic]

Just one point of clarification, please. If I am to be deemed rude for saying just what Hayek said, is he to be deemed rude for it as well?

[John V]

Here's a question for Peter and Co.

Would you see the value in not only requiring people to sign in, but also allowing us loyal readers to post our own blog entries?

Our blog entries would appear on a side bar. Of course, if you feel any merit a promotion to the front page, you could do that.

I think it would foster more participation and readership and allow us readers to share our thoughts with other readers as well as the site contributors.

I think it's a great idea.

We libertarians need a "Daily Kos" of our own.

[angus]

Hi Steve: welcome to blogging. I see you have not lost your considerable sway over Pete!! I agree though that comments are the way to go. Oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure that commenter "Vilfredo Pareto" is using a fake name.

Kevin

[Gustav Schmoller]

I think the last commenter is way off the mark. Obviously, Vilfredo Pareto is a real name. But hey, I'm indifferent to whether it is or not.

If only Hayek had never persuaded Hicks to read Pareto. How different modern economics might be?

Supposedly Hayek said his big two regrets were never reviewing JMK's GT (given his experience with the Treatise) and getting Hicks into Paretian economics!

[Vilfredo Pareto]

Dear Gustav,

I must confest that it is not my real name, indeed.

Perhaps things would have been different if Hicks had read Pareto's Treatise of General Sociology rather than the Manuel. Who knows?
Contingencies and path dependencies in intellectual life, like everywhere.

[dglesvic]

Since, apparently, I am not to be considered rude any more, I am going to meet you boys half-way, and promise that from now on you're going to see a kindler, gentler DG Lesvic. And, in the words of Milton Berle: "If I've said anything to insult you, believe me..."

[Gustav Schmoller]

V. Pareto is quite correct: Contingencies and path dependencies do indeed abound.

[dglesvic]

"Contingencies and path dependencies do indeed abound."

Now, that'll shut the Democrats up.

[Gustav Schmoller]

V. Pareto is quite correct: Contingencies and path dependencies do indeed abound.

I cannot recall where Hayek makes the remark about Hicks (is it Hayek on Hayek?) alas.

[Vilfredo Pareto]

Has one of you ever read Pareto's Treatise on Sociology?
Whatever we think about Pareto's economics, this book is really impressive: well written and ironic, deep historical and classic culture references. Perhaps some insights can be compared with Wieser's sociology. An idea for a paper?

[Gustav Schmoller]

I am also very pleased to see Dr Horwitz blogging here (finally!). I have long admired his work on free banking and his blogging elsewhere.

Incidentally, can anyone point me to an eaterie where they do not charge?

[Gustav Schmoller]

Warren Samuels has a fine book on Pareto. It is a shame that his Manual is more well-known (in economics at least) than his other writings.

A comparison with Wieser (much underrated by contemporary Austrian economics) would be interesting.

[Rafe]

Pareto was one of the four people (with Marshall, Durkheim and Weber) who inspired Talcott Parsons to write "The Structure of Social Action" (1937). He re-invented the Austrian wheel of methodological individualism and purposeful action to provide a fremework to integrate the human sciences. He managed to avoid mention of Menger apart from a footnote to the methodenstreit and suprisingly Mises praised the effort as a contribution to the history of ideas.

Some of the story is told here, along with the way that Parsons turned from MI to systems theory. http://oysterium.blogspot.com/2006/07/success-and-failure-of-talcott-parsons.html

[ignorant u-grad]

I'm not familiar with Professor Berle's work. Was he a student of Kirzner or Lachmann? Are his works online?

[not so ignorant u-grad]

Milton Berle was not an Austrian. He wrote that book on separation of ownership and control with Gardiner Means.

[Movie buff]

I think Prof. Horwitz is more of an Obi-Wan Kenobi type character -

wise, genial, at one with the force, bearded, penchant for wearing jedi robes, talks in an alec guiness voice, etc

certainly not a dippy tao of steve type

May the force be with him

[Steve Horwitz]

Thanks to all of you for the kind welcome. I only ask that you visualize me as the Obi-Wan of Episode 4 please, not the younger doofus.

The joking about Milton Berle brings to mind a true story about Lachmann that many may not know. At an NYU colloquium many years ago, the speaker (and it might have been Roger Koppl or Roger Garrison, but I'm not positive) had come into the room earlier and written on the board:

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future" - Y. Berra

The story goes that Lachmann walks in, sees the quote, nods in very serious agreement and turns to those present and says, in his unique voice, "I'm not familiar with the work of Professor Berra."

[For those who don't know the work of "Professor" Berra, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra ]

[Boo-Boo]

Yogi Beara is the one Austrian notorious for stealing picnic baskets right?