The South Royalton discussion is all online

I am glad that Geoffrey Lea expressed his doubts about Richard Ebeling’s discussion of ‘the Remnant’. Although I had read Richard’s essay carefully twice, I did not comment on that part of his essay. But Geoffrey’s comment reminds me that I do have my own doubts.

I shouldn’t blame Richard too much. I already had my doubts when I first read about it in the 1970s Albert Jay Nock‘s concept of the Remnant. As Nock himself admits in his famous 1936 essay, neither the “remnant” nor the “mass” can be defined by class or status. A person can be a bona fide member of the elite and yet a member of the masses; similarly, a person can come from a humble background and be part of the Remnant. So even if a person were to write only for the Remnant, that would not mean that he or she would have to focus on a particular, well-defined audience.

When he gets to his actual argument, Nock is essentially saying that we shouldn’t dilute or compromise our thinking to appeal to the masses. I agree with that. But even if Nock didn’t mean it, the thought of producing ideas for the Remnant could keep you from reaching others. It could easily lead a person to isolate himself from everyone except those who already agree with him, whether they are fellow scholars or members of the “masses.” Fortunately, many members of the Austrian school have engaged in valuable outreach to those who might be mistaken for the “masses” without compromising or diminishing. I think Murray Rothbard is a good example.

However, I do recall the case of a prominent Austrian scholar who refused to contact a scholar who was not a member of the Austrian school. That Austrian scholar was Israel Kirzner. This may sound surprising, given my heartfelt praise for Kirzner in my first essay. But I distinctly remember a story he told to the audience at the 1974 South Royalton Conference or the 1975 Hartford Conference.

Kirzner spoke of his excitement when he heard that Sir John Hicks, who had previously won the Nobel Prize in economics, was writing an explicitly Austrian book. The 1973 book was given the title Capital and time: a neo-Austrian theory. Kirzner said that in 1973 he excitedly attended a meeting of the American Economic Association in New York, where Hicks was to present his “neo-Austrian” ideas. Kirzner said that after listening to Hicks’ presence for a few minutes, he concluded that Hicks did not understand Austrian economics and that he, Kirzner, got up and walked out before the session was over. When I heard Kirzner say that, I thought, “What a missed opportunity!” It is true that Hicks was not Austrian. But a well-intentioned prominent economist, Hicks, who thinks he is dealing with Austrian economics is probably worth talking to. And who better to try to steer him in the right direction than the clear-thinking and normally patient Israel Kirzner.

This is mine second essay in the Liberty Fund series on the South Royalton Austrian Economics Conference, held in June 1974. The other contributions are also online.

I’ll have a comment on that in a day or two.