I'll put the first point in my own words: My skepticism of you increases exponentially with the number occasions on which you choose to buck consensus. Stickman is commenting at first on the popularity of weird diets among libertarians, but he goes on to note Lew Rockwell's promotion of a variety of kooky ideas. This looks really bad, and I feel this way about climate skeptics a lot. OK, skepticism is a good impulse - I'm not going to dismiss you as crazy just because you reject this scientific consensus... but if you reject the climatologists' consensus, and then you also reject the monetary macro consensus (let's generously allow that reasonable people can disagree on fiscal policy), and then you also reject empirical research in favor of a priorism, and it looks very bad. Add creationism to the mix and I wonder why we're even talking. But it doesn't stop with scientific consensus. Often these are the people who hem and haw about the Civil Rights Act, who think FDR was a fascist, and who think that the Progressive movement was the worst thing that ever happened to America. These sorts of people aren't interested in getting to the bottom of things so much as bucking consensus whenever and wherever they come across it.
It should come across as very odd to people that climate change skepticism is almost exclusively a preoccupation of the right. This is not to say everyone on the right rejects climate change - it's to say that if you reject climate change you are almost certainly on the right. What is happening in the Earth's atmosphere should not be correlated at all with political views, and yet it's highly correlated. That alone - leaving all the climate science itself to one side - should lead people to steeply discount climate change skepticism. In other words, if climate change skepticism were evenly distributed across the political spectrum, I would probably take it a lot more seriously than I do.
The second point that stickman makes is one I've made on here many times before: Selgin, Lastrapes, and White (2010) is very good history, but very bad policy evaluation. Stickman points out that they acknowledge at the outset of the paper that they lack a counter-factual and they're simply doing history. That's true - but then one wonders why they conclude with this:
"(Available research does not support the view that the Federal Reserve System has lived up to its original promise. Early in its career, it presided over both the most severe inflation and the most severe (demand-induced) deflations in post-Civil War U.S. history. Since then, it has tended to err on the side of inflation, allowing the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar to deteriorate considerably. That deterioration has not been compensated for, to any substantial degree, by enhanced stability of real output... Finally,the Fed cannot be credited with having reduced the frequency of banking panics orwith having wielded its last-resort lending powers responsibly."
The bolded lines are not the sort of statements that are made about historical research - they are statements made about evaluation research. And that's certainly the way this paper is promoted. And while Selgin, Lastrapes, and White may have reeled in their fans at some point, I'm not aware of any case where they have said "oh no - you misunderstand - you can't take this to be an evaluation of the Federal Resere - it can't accomplish that".
A good rough-and-ready test is to just think about all the ups and downs that they cite and ask "did similar things happen in economies that did not change their central banking system in 1914?" The answer is "yes!". If you look up banking panics on Wikipedia and look at their list for the 19th century, you see it flip flopping between panics originating in England and the United States. 1819 - U.S., 1825 - Britain, 1837 - U.S., 1847 - Britain. Britain had a central bank long before the 19th century so it offers a good opportunity to hold institutions constant here. It seems like banking panics in the 19th century were just something that happened in credit-based industrializing economies. Flash forward into the early 20th century and you see the same thing - the elephant in the room in the post-Fed record, the Great Depression, happened in Britain and the U.S.. If we treat this like a difference-in-differences test, a cursory look at the evidence suggests that the pre-post work done in Selgin, Lastrapes, and White is probably going to be a very misleading way to infer anything at all about Fed policy. Stickman's right - the introduction seems to say that. I just wish the title, the conclusion, and the promotion said it as well!