Woods writes in the only newsletter I read almost daily:
I kicked off the Mises Institute's Mises University program this year with a talk called "What I Learned From Murray Rothbard."
I talked about all the history and economics I've learned from him, what his specific contributions were, and his willingness to look all over for the truth -- even to people with whom he otherwise disagreed.
Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, didn't bother to listen to the speech before retweeting it with a little lecture:
Of course, I uttered not a single word about political strategy in the speech. Those of you who have listened to it know that.
I gave a speech celebrating everything about Rothbard that no libertarian worth the name could deny.
After all, why would somebody, given the chance to discuss the brilliant Murray Rothbard, want to waste time on anything other than his areas of specialty: economics, history, philosophy?
You think Sarwark, who tweets out safe, boring, chic-libertarian crap all day long, has read any of that?
And why should we take advice on political strategy from -- of all people! -- the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee?
Now Woods, why the infighting? you say.
Well, when someone misrepresents me to the point of saying up is down, I respond.
Plus, it's fun.
Sarwark takes no position on anything that isn't at least tacitly approved by the New York Times.
Any libertarian who falls outside the libertarianism-is-all-about-pot axis he attacks and ridicules.
"Please, Mr. Good Newspaper Editor, sir, understand that I'm a good and safe libertarian who keeps safely on the 3x5 card of allowable opinion that you have so wisely laid out for us!"
RW note: For the record, I did listen to Tom's speech on youtube when it first came out and there is not a word about any Rothbardian strategy.