I am glad that Geoffrey Lea has expressed his doubts about Richard Ebeling’s discussion of the “Remainder”. Although I read Richard’s essay carefully twice, I did not comment on this part of his essay. But Geoffrey’s comment reminds me that I too have my doubts.
I shouldn’t blame Richard too much. I had doubts in the 1970s, when I first read Albert Jay Nockthe concept of Remnant. As Nock himself admitted in his famous 1936 essay, neither “remnants” nor “masses” can be defined by class or station. Someone could be a bona fide member of the elite while still being a member of the masses; similarly, one could come from a modest background and be part of the Rest. So even if one were to stick to writing only for The Remnant, that wouldn’t mean they have to focus on a particular, well-defined audience.
As for his argument, Nock is essentially saying that we should not water down or compromise our thinking to please the masses. I agree with that. Even if Nock did not intend to, thinking that one is producing ideas for the Remnant could lead one to not reach out to others. It could easily lead one to isolate oneself from all but those who already agree with one, whether they are fellow scholars or what might seem to be members of the “masses.” Fortunately, many members of the Austrian School have engaged in valuable outreach to people who might be mistaken for the “masses,” without compromising or diluting. Murray Rothbard is a prime example, in my opinion.
I do remember, however, the case of a prominent Austrian scholar who refused to contact a scholar who was not a member of the Austrian School. This Austrian scholar was named Israel Kirzner. This may seem surprising, given that I sincerely praised Kirzner in my first essay. But I remember very well a story he told to the audience at the South Royalton conference in 1974 or the Hartford conference in 1975.
Kirzner expressed his excitement at learning that Sir John Hicks, who had already won the Nobel Prize in economics, was writing an explicitly Austrian book. The 1973 book was titled Capital and time: a neo-Austrian theory. Kirzner recounted how he enthusiastically attended a session of the American Economic Association in New York in 1973, at which Hicks was to present his “neo-Austrian” ideas. Kirzner said that after listening to Hicks present for a few minutes, he concluded that Hicks did not understand Austrian economics and that he, Kirzner, got up and left before the session ended. When I heard Kirzner say that, I thought, “What a wasted opportunity!” » It is true that Hicks was not Austrian. But a leading economist, Hicks, of good will, who thinks he’s doing Austrian economics, probably deserves to be talked to. And who better to try to guide him in the right direction than the lucid and usually patient Israel Kirzner.
This comes from my second trial in the Liberty Fund series on the Austrian Economic Conference in South Royalton, held in June 1974. The other contributions are also online.
I’ll have comments on this in a day or two.
