Since initiating my Scholarship in Austrian Economics, I have received a great deal of hate mail. The one point all the hate mail writers seem to miss is that my book was published in 1999, but I did not decide to criticize Austrian Economics until 2004. While the hate mail writer may not have heard of me before, the Mises Institute has. I offered my hand in friendship to the Austrians not just once but three times. Rothbard, Hoppe and then Tucker slapped it away every time.
In 1993, while a graduate student in the UNR math department, I wrote a letter to Murray Rothbard and did not get any answer. I called him at his office during office hours and he was extremely insulting. I don't remember his exact words but it was something about mathematicians being good only for running errands (e.g. compiling statistics) for real economists who developed their theories independent of the data found to illustrate them.
In 1999 I traveled to Las Vegas and met Dr. Hoppe in his office. He thumbed through my book, found some math equations and immediately handed it back to me. He then rebuked me for being a mathematician. Again I was offended, but I held my tongue and sat through a rather tedious half hour of him showing off the Mises Institute's website. Apparently he thought I would forsake my own theory and join the Austrians on the basis of their having such a snazzy site. I finally extracted myself from the website demonstration, took my book and left.
In 2003 I called the Mises Institute, got connected to Jeffrey Tucker, told him (politely) about Rothbard and Hoppe not wanting to talk to me because I was a mathematician and asked him if there were any mathematicians associated with the Mises Institute who would be interested in reviewing my book. He said they had many fine mathematicians and, if I sent him a copy of my book, he would pass it on to their review department. I sent a letter to Tucker with a copy of my book and my Simplified Exposition. I felt that Rothbard and Hoppe were old men who had grown dogmatic. I was encouraged that Tucker was younger and, I thought, more open minded.
When the Mises Institute refused to review my book, I decided to write a Critique of Austrian Economics, which I submitted in March of 2004. I thought they would have to take that seriously for fear of my submitting it to rival journals. Specifically, because Salerno is at Pace University, I thought he would be afraid of Szenberg (chairman at Pace and editor of The American Economist) learning of his cowardice. When he refused to assign my paper to a referee, I sent a letter to Salerno in October, which resulted in them sending me the referee comments (back-dated to April) which are in the appendix of my Critique.
It was then that I had an epiphany: The reason that the Mises Institute is not afraid of being humiliated before their peers is because they want to be ostracized. If mainstream journals never mention Austrian Economics, then they never criticize it either. The Mises Institute is making millions of dollars every year in donations, which is all based on their "Boo hoo, those mean old mainstream economists are ignoring us." line which gets them so much sympathy.
But teenagers are a lot smarter than their parents give them credit for and can probably see right through the Mises Institute. All of those millions of dollars are revolving around what is really only a couple dozen kids showing up for what is basically a photo-op every summer in Auburn. Pictures of clean-cut kids learning about "freedom" in the Mises Institute library are widely circulated among potential donors. Also, kids are broke. A thousand dollars is more than they can make in a month of hard work. By offering students a $1000 scholarship and then slapping them in the face if they decline it, I can hit the Mises Institute right where it hurts: In their pocketbook. Without kids for their photo-op, they won't get any donations.
My open letter to Hoppe and my campaign of distributing anti-cult leaflets at the UNLV campus was particularly effective. Hundreds of students have responded to my Scholarship in Austrian Economics, but none from southern Nevada. Clearly, they are embarrassed to be associated with Hoppe the Coward. As far as I know, he does not have a single follower left among the UNLV student body. (If there is one, he should contact me and explain how he is able to tolerate the stigma of cowardice.)
Of course, calling Hoppe a cultist is about as profound as calling Hitler a racist. Hoppe's adulation of Mises has resulted in some rather bizarre claims that have raised more than a few eyebrows. For instance, consider what Tom G. Palmer observed:
I was introduced by the [Washington State University] chairman of the department of economics to some graduate students whom he termed "our former Austrians." One might ask why the graduate students there called themselves "former Austrians." One name suffices to answer the question: Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Dr. Hoppe, leading light of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, had presented such a loopy, absurd and utterly unhinged picture of Austrian economics at a public lecture there, under the sponsorship of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, that those graduate students felt obliged to distinguish themselves publicly from such a strange and incomprehensible set of views. And I can certainly understand why they would feel compelled to do that. If Hoppe is the leading light of Austrian economics as the Mises Institute presents him, then Austrian economics should prepare for a long dark age. At George Mason University I saw Hoppe present a lecture in which he claimed that Ludwig von Mises had set the intellectual foundation for not only economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics, as well. This bizarre claim turned a serious scholar and profound thinker into a comical cult figure, a sort of Euro Kim Il Sung....One could go on with examples of how Hoppe and the Mises Institute have proven embarrassing to the Austrian economists by whom they claim to be inspired but what would be the point? Those who have had contact with him know that Hoppe is an intellectual bully and an academic disgrace. I was cautioned by a friend not to criticize Hoppe, on the grounds that one should never wrestle with a pig. I have not followed that advice. That may turn out to be unwise especially considering Hoppe's record for heaping abuse on those with whom he disagrees....I can only guess at the vituperation and slander that Hoppe and Rockwell must be preparing for me, as well as for anyone else who might voice doubts about their bizarre cult.
Palmer need not guess at the vituperation and slander that Hoppe and Rockwell are preparing for anyone who might voice doubts about their bizarre cult. A Google search on "Victor Aguilar" will locate a number of cultist websites cursing my name. And, in addition to vituperation and slander, Palmer can now include calling the police and demanding that they arrest someone for writing a scholarly paper.
It was the Salerno letter that Jeffrey Tucker showed the police, insisting that the phrase "I will see the Mises Institute ruined" implied violence. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed, and the police understood that I meant to ruin Salerno's reputation, not his health. After detaining me for about ten minutes, they let me go without even bothering to search me or my vehicle (I was stopped while driving on a public street) for weapons.
A word to the wise: Calling the police really only works if they actually arrest the person you're sicking them on. Otherwise you just look like a woman. Alabama has a reputation for being a bunch of hillbillies ruled by sheriffs with despotic powers within their county and absolutely no power beyond the county line. (Recall the movie Porky's in which the villainous sheriff, in hot pursuit of the rebellious teenagers, must come skidding to a stop at the county line.) A large part of the civil rights movement went towards professionalizing Southern police departments. The police I met in Auburn were professionals and were familiar with federal laws such as the First Amendment. They told me that they did not want to get involved in a free speech issue and that they certainly did not appreciate Tucker's womanish attempt to hide behind their badges.
For someone like Tucker to sit in his gated compound like Porky in his brothel, casting no shadow beyond the Auburn county line while thinking he can wield the local police like his own personal army, is ridiculous. That might have worked in the 1950s, but this is the year 2005. Grow up.
Incidentally, I am not the only person who has noticed the cult-like behavior of the Mises Institute. David Nystrom sent me an e-mail about some other people's experiences. If you have had difficulty starting a dialog with the Mises Institute, please contact me and I will give you a page on my website. For instance, if the Georgist mentioned in Nystrom's e-mail would like to post a pdf file here, he is welcome to do so. I am not a follower of Henry George myself but, unlike the Mises Institute, I am not afraid to open a dialog with any serious thinker.
Epilogue
On 17 March 2004, at about 1400 hours, I visited the Mises Institute at 518 W. Magnolia Ave in Auburn, Alabama with the intention of finding a prominent Austrian economist who would write a rebuttal to my Critique of Austrian Economics. While any legitimate economist would be anxious to defend his theory out of a sense of honor, I knew well of the Austrian’s money-grubbing nature and had brought a thousand dollars to pay for a rebuttal.
When Jeffrey Tucker called the police, told them that I was a suicide bomber and then tried to stall me until they arrived, he intended to get them to shoot me or at least to send me to Guatanamo, where I would be unable to write any more about economic theory. When the police sergeant said, “That sounds like a First Amendment issue to me,” Tucker became so desperate that he forgot his masculinity and thought to act like a woman in the hopes that they would accept him as a damsel-in-distress to be rescued.
Now, three years later, I have achieved my objective (click here for evidence) while Tucker has failed to achieve his objective (click here for evidence). So, clearly, I won and Tucker lost. Case closed.
What is the moral of this story? There are two:
1) Don’t sick the police on a man unless you are sure that you have something that will stick. Otherwise, he will mock you relentlessly.
2) Critiques and rebuttals are how science advances. Don’t respond to criticism by hurling invectives (Rambling and incoherent!) because, eventually, public opinion will force you to calm down and write a rebuttal.
Hopefully, the Mises Institute has learned something from this experience.
