Talk:Mont Pelerin Society

top

I find it odd that the national socialist Karl Brandt was listed as a visitor, not only because it was a libertarian meeting, but especially as he was being tried for war crimes in Nürnberg at the time. I'd suggest that someone go trough the entire list of people who attended the meeting as the person who added him was the one who added them as well.

Well, there was a Karl Brandt at the meeting, but it wasn't the Nazi war criminal. That has now been fixed. -- Eb.hoop 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

--When reading Henry Hazlitt's desription of the first Mont Pelerin meeting [1], he mentions Ludwig von Mises as the main critic of Hayek's original choice of name. As Frank Knight is the only person mentioned in the article as protesting against it, I felt I should add a reference. Cedric du Zob 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

small note...

Well Henry Simons may have been invited but he died the year before, so either Von Hayek didn't know this, mailed his invites really early, or the page is wrong on that one. In any case, it reads as if he actually attended, which would have been difficult to do considering his death and all.... though this group of old men did believe in invisible hands.

Also, instead of Henry Simons, Friedman himself was there personally. There are pictures of him hanging out there on the Mont Pelerin website from the first meeting.

And last but not least, this page doesn't make this group sound evil enough.... I know, I know... that's just my opinion. But come on! These guys promote and fund think tanks all over the world dedicated to an economic system with no regulation proven to be a disaster for everyone except those on top (like them!)

Ok.... that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.113.29 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hayek was quite aware of Henry Simons' demise, here's a quote from his "Opening Address to a Conference at Mont Pelerin":

[...] I must also mention others on whose support I had particularly counted but who will never again be with us. Indeed the two men with whom I had most fully discussed the plan for this meeting both have not lived to see its realisation. I had first sketched the plan three years ago to a small group in Cambridge presided over by Sir John Clapham who took a great interest in it but who died suddenly a year ago. And it is now less than a year since I discussed the plan in all its detail with another man whose whole life has been devoted to the ideals and problems with which we shall be concerned: Henry Simons of Chicago. A few weeks later he was no more.

I've edited the page to clarify this. Sergei Vavinov (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The MPS is a very evil and conspiratorial organization. There are many conspiracy theories about the MPS, most of which are complete nonsense. The multiple conspiracy theories by an assortment of crazies and oddballs have been quite convenient in providing camouflage for a truly evil and very successful program which has been very successful. They have managed in implementing their policies in a very wide variety of countries by very anti-democratic means. One amusing thing about the organization and their members is that despite their professed belief in the 'open society' the MPS has always been and remains a highly secretive organization. Extreme secrecy surrounds their meetings, which are by invitation only. It is very difficult for outsiders to find out what goes on or to read any of the papers presented. The full membership is also secret. And most members would not divulge that they are members, least people start to put 'two and two' together, and question the appropriateness of their membership. They have always had a policy of trying to infiltrate all sides of politics, academia, the private and public sectors, so that their policies will be implemented regardless of who voters choose, and without anyone being aware of where they came from. If they actually believed in the 'open society' they would simply be a political party and not have tried, and unfortunately succeeded, in implementing their evil agenda in such an underhanded and anti-democratic way. And of course, they are not a Swiss organization. It was simply a coincidence that they had their first meeting in Switzerland. As they couldn't agree on the name for their organization they finally settled on Mont Pèlerin Society, Mont Pèlerin simply happening to be where they had happened to hold that first meeting. Therefore the connection to Switzerland is simply silly. I fully agree with the suggestion below that the outing of the membership would be highly desirable. Of course, given their secrecy and anti-democratic agenda, verifiability will always be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.3.174 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

suggestions...

First, the MPS is not a Swiss organisation. They just happened to have their first meeting in Switzerland. There was no special reason for choosing to meet there. Hence, it should not be identified as a 'Swiss organisation'. The MPS has no permanent headquarters or staff. See: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1065&chapter=115590&layout=html&Itemid=27 for example. Second, the MPS has had an incredible influence on policy in the west - even though few have heard of it. Few have heard of it because they do keep a very low profile and most of the members keep quiet about their membership, and their meetings are closed. This secrecy has helped to increase their influence. This is a secrecy that is very undemocratic for a society that seeks to mold public policy and, some would argue, antithetical to their purported values. Identifying and listing members would be a significant contribution that this or other wikipedia pages could make. Another anti-democratic aspect of their operations is that they do not seek to have their policies adopted by convincing the public but rather by influencing those who have power, bureaucrats, business leaders and those likely to gain the reins of political power. They do this by mentoring those they think will move into positions of influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.146.148 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoppe

Who cares what that dude thinks? This section should be eliminated. He and the things he has done are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.95.16.186 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree; it isn't clear what makes his crit notable. But there should be some crit. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

1962 dispute/resignations

A few biographical articles on the English Wikipedia (but not this article), and the German version of this article, allude to a significant philosophical dispute in 1962, which led to the resignation of the ordoliberal wing of the organization (including then-president Wilhelm Röpke), and a resulting significant shift in direction. I have seen this referenced as the "Hunold affair", after one of the resigning members who wrote a polemic against Hayek. It would be interesting to have some of this covered in the history section, and more generally to have the organization's intellectual history better mapped (e.g. it seems like its views in the 1950s vs. the 1960s/70s shifted considerably). --Delirium (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I dont see much significance. The dispute between the ordoliberals and the neoliberals is older than the Mont Pelerin Society. Hayek wrote polemics against ordoliberal ideas befor the 60s. In case of "social justice" you could even call his writings pamphlets. I always wondered why they where so very interested in eachother, nomatter they belonged to very different "schools" of economics that more or less only had the term liberal in common. I would agree that the intellectual history would need some clarifications but i think Hayek was much to the contrary actually trying to disguise the differences, so liberalism could stand as paramount united political entity against socialism. Unfortunately most of the literature about political ideology, especially the literature about the history of neoliberalism, seems to follow in Hayeks footsteps. Infact the differences between ordo- and neoliberalism only became a topic in literature again after the Soviet Union broke up and all the liberals thought therefor socialism was dead. Infact it seems it took literature from 1930 till 2001 (Varieties of Capitalism) to make official notice that there where to much fundamental differences to sell both, coordinated market economies (Ordoliberalism, "Rhine Capitalism") and liberal market economies (Neoliberalism, "Anglo-Saxon model"), as one (liberal) brand. Worse even, many still try this today. --Kharon (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mont Pelerin Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306125314/http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4030 to http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4030

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section

There should be a criticism section, but currently it only discusses Hoppe (who as far as I am aware was never a member of the MPS), which is WP:UNDUE. Currently, I don't have time to rectify this, so I have moved it to the talk page per WP:PRESERVE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

== Criticism ==
In 2006, libertarian/anarcho-capitalist and Austrian School Hans-Hermann Hoppe founded the Property and Freedom Society as a reaction against what he perceived to be the Mont Pelerin Society's drift towards "socialism." Hoppe stated that individuals, whom he did not identify, had been "skeptical concerning the Mont Pelerin Society from the beginning" in 1947. He said that Ludwig von Mises had doubted as to whether "a society filled with certified state-interventionists" could pursue libertarian ideals.

References

There is no rule demanding critics of an organization to be part of it. Additionally many members of the MPS seem intellectually completely insignificant to the discourse the MPS claims to represent. Mr. Charles G. Koch for example, who is very, very, very rich but far as i know never "donated" anything intellectual to the world. So its very strange to then demand a high significance according WP:UNDUE. Must that atleast be bought or isnt it already significant enough that disputed Mr. Hoppe founded a competing organization to the MPS that has been found worthy of its own wikipedia article? --Kharon (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

K: you seem to be letting your hatred of Koch influence your editing, which is bad. I too think the current (well, now not-current, since I've removed it) criticism section is bad. Containing only the views of Hoppe makes no sense (see my "Hoppe" section, earlier). Also, while H may be notable enough to have his own article, that doesn't make his views of MPS notable William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No, i am for free speech including Billionairs, their Lobbyists and other people that make no scientific or intellectual sense. As long as they are part of the discourse they can be mentioned. It just struck me that Mr. Charles G. Koch was mentioned in the chapter "noted members" despite he "rarely grants media interviews and prefers to keep a low profile" and made no scientific contributions (far as i know).

Contrary to Mr. Koch Mr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe obviously made a lot of scientific and intellectual contributions, yet he was cut out. Who am i to judge if one or the other make sense? To me the whole Mont Pelerin Society is a senseless debate club (8D) yet i would always vote against deleting or cutting down the article. --Kharon (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon: Please read WP:FREESPEECH (edit: WP:NOTFREESPEECH is the policy)—WP:NOTFORUM might be useful too.

Hoppe isn't especially well-known, or someone with a great deal of influence. Dedicating an entire section to his opinions on the MPS is the definition of WP:UNDUE. Mr Hoppe founded his Property and Freedom Society in reaction to the alleged "socialism" of the MPS—an organisation he was never invited to join. If this page is to have a criticism section, this cannot be all it contains.

Mr Koch is mentioned in his capacity as a highly influential member of the MPS. Your opinion of him is irrelevant. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am wikipedian since 2006. I stopped reading rules other wikipedians point me to. I read them all. Im not using this page as a forum. Else i would tell you to try soaring and psychedelic mushrooms befor you get to old for that. I was accused of hating Mr. Charles G. Koch, felt missunderstood and had to clear up my opinion of Mr Koch. Its irrelevant alone but in the case someone accuses me of a bias i think i may set that right.

Both Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the Property and Freedom Society have wikipedia articles. That implies they are known well and "influencial" enough to be cited and/or mentioned. You keep ignoring that obviously and prefer to make your personal view about Mr. Hoppe count. Read some wikipedia rules yourself. --Kharon (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Charles G. Koch is an obviously notable member of the MPS. Hoppe's criticisms of the society are not notable in isolation. However much you WP:LIKE Hoppe, and believe other people mentioned in the article to be "intellectually completely insignificant", this isn't a basis for including the paragraph above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant bickering. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::::You joined English Wikipedia in 2013 (the policies and guidelines of which differ to those on German Wikipedia), have spent most of your time at the Wikipedia:Reference desks, and in that time have made nearly as many edits as I have since last year. It is impossible that you are at all times completely familiar with the 60 or so site policies, and the dozens of associated guidelines, and insisting that you are looks dreadful. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC) This page is meant for issues in the connected article. For personal issues everyone has a personal discussion page, as you know but obviously fail to understand. I propose you cut out your text passages addressing me and put them on my discussionpage. Your ad hominem rambling - just delete it. --Kharon (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC) You could take your own advice there. I'm not going to respond any further here, because you don't understand why the WP:UNDUE emphasis on Hoppe is inappropriate, or that "free speech" is not a basis for including material in an article, or that your opinion of anyone mentioned in this article is not a basis for including or excluding commentary on them. You have also admitted that you won't take any advice given to you, or read any site policies or guidelines. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, i have no religious like preferences for one school of ideology. Please stop insisting otherwise. Besides i would actually count Mr. Koch and Mr. Hoppe as members of the same "school", which seems to be Anarcho-capitalism for both, with Hoppe's Paleolibertarianism just being a slight "color offset" of that. So it doesnt even make sense intellectually to prefere one and despise the other as you insinuate. Nomatter i added something with more reputation and more serious intellectual challenge now, as you have noticed. So the initial dispute is solved in my view. --Kharon (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversies section

It seems my fellow wikipedian who edit this article have some trouble with documented facts, especially if they are critical. I added 2 first class sources. Did you actually read the few pages they refer to? --Kharon (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon: No, William M. Connolley isn't the problem here. Inserting a reference to a book which also refers to the Nobel Prize for Economics in inverted commas does not justify your use of inverted commas to refer to the prize in this article. To preempt what is probably coming next, finding a source which suggests that the Nobel Prize for Economics is not a "real" Nobel Prize isn't acceptable either. Here, we use WP:SECONDARY sources, and summarise them. We don't re-state contentious claims/opinions in WP:PRIMARY sources. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Its even explicitly refereed to as (cite)socalled "Nobel Prize"(end cite) in this biography. Biographies are Non-fiction, usually history, literature which usually implies the highest requirements on validity and relevance of used sources. Also Controversies are frequently opinions, not theories. The rules you try to use against this part of the article actually dont apply. Its one Point of view added so the article gets some balance! Besides the disputed source is actually a secondary source, which raises some doubt about if you actually read it or understand what you argue about! Please check up your argumentation. --Kharon (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon: I'll try one last time. When covering anything on Wikipedia related to people's opinions, you should provide a detached commentary, preferably relying on WP:SECONDARY sources. You should not state anyone's opinions as fact. Regardless of the merits of any particular source, you cannot re-state the opinions it expresses/cites as fact.

In using inverted commas here, you are expressing an opinion on the validity of the Nobel Prize for Economics. By citing Sylvia Nasar's quotation of Erik Dahman in support of your use of inverted commas, you are stating Erik Dahman's opinion of the Nobel Prize for Economics as fact. The only way you could use that source legitimately in this context would be if you wrote something roughly as follows: "Erik Dahman referred to the "so-called Nobel Prize in economics", and claimed that it was "not really a Nobel Prize". This wouldn't be notable commentary, however. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, i dont accept your unreasonable formal corset as intended by the wikipedia rules in this case. Your argument is artificially dogmatism and it seems from your earlier edits that its not actually a rule violation but the content you want to correct. But the disputed text is actually cited unchanged from the source given so the correction you want to apply is actually a manipulation, a falsification of the source. Besides both sources infact argue the same, that the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is an abomination of the Nobel Prize! Its not unusual to combine sources and i dont see why one or the other miss relevance or are cited wrong. Contraty both sources have the highest reputation in science AND economics. If you dont like the message, that may be something you have to live with. --Kharon (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Btw. Mr. Erik Verner Harald Dahmen happens to be a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences which awards the Nobel Prizes. You think his view is not notable? On the topic of Nobel Prizes i prefer to differ and the highly awarded bestseller scientific author Sylvia Nasar finds him notable too. Who are you to judge that!? --Kharon (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Btw.2 I can imagine that its a "tough cookie" to find your "holy grail" is not the original you thought it was. Life is a Beach...--Kharon (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The last two comments are just nonsense. I won’t revert any further per 3RR, but be warned that you could be blocked for 24 hours for making four reverts in 24 hours. I’m contemplating seeking a topic ban for you at ANI on WP:CIR grounds based on what you have been doing here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I can not stop you from calling in administration to enforce your point of view. Since i only cited reputable sources 1:1 i will argue that the deletions of cited content and their source is a form of Wikipedia:Vandalism which i will always try to fix, no matter how often. --Kharon (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Involvement in 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Hello, Why does this article include nothing about the anti-democratic bent of the MPS and the involvement and approval of many of its members in the 1973 coup and the subsequent Pinochet regime? Buchanan specifically criticized fellow Mont Pelerin Society members, most prominently FA Hayek, for letting their concerns about "unlimited democracy" move them to support dictatorship.

References:

1. Farrant, A., Tarko, V. James M. Buchanan’s 1981 visit to Chile: Knightian democrat or defender of the ‘Devil’s fix’?. Rev Austrian Econ 32, 1–20 (2019).

2. Caldwell, Bruce J. and Montes, Leonidas, Friedrich Hayek and His Visits to Chile (August 27, 2014). Center for the History of Political Economy (CHOPE) Working Paper No. 2014-12

Andro124 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither of your sources is anything obviously to do with MPS William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)