OK, I normally don't post much on commenter Blue Aurora's favorite scholar, Michael Emmett Brady. Nor do I give much a platform to lewrockwell.com here. But Blue Aurora just shared this link with me which is too good not to pass on. It's a rant about Brady. This was the funny part:
"Nothing in the academic world reeks more revoltingly than the man who labels anyone who disagrees with him a shoddy scholar. Such a desperate act of intellectual dishonesty is a sure sign that the man who resorts to it possesses not a shred of intellectual integrity and is utterly incapable of honest discourse. The fact that few scholars ever stoop so low is primarily due to the fact that their peers are readily capable of recognizing the tactic for what it is: puerile name-calling masquerading as argumentation....
[two more paragraphs saying essentially the same thing]
...Brady accomplished this ignoble feat in a short article (i.e., "pamphlet") that he penned for Amazon.com. His aim was to demonstrate that Murray Rothbard had – God forbid! – misinterpreted J.M. Keynes’s theory of probability. Rothbard’s interpretation in Keynes, The Man shows that, according to Brady, "Rothbard was either a master of deceit and deception or an ignorant fool.Either case is good grounds for eliminating M Rothbard from serious consideration as an economist or philospher.M Rothbard was a pamphleteer.""
I actually do think Brady can be a little harsh to anyone that disagrees with him. But defending Rothbard against Brady on this particular tactic - of all tactics - is like Ann Coulter comparing Barbara Walters to one of the most notorious propagandists of the 20th century.
Or (dare I say it) like Ron Paul fans accusing Obama supporters of getting wrapped up in the personality cult of a power-seeking politician.
Anarchism Discussed and Debated
2 hours ago