Talk:Mont Pelerin Society

message: 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)
thread_title: top

message: 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)
replies: text: [...] 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)
thread_title:  small note... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  suggestions... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hoppe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1962 dispute/resignations 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Neither of your sources is anything obviously to do with MPS William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement in 1973 Chilean coup d'état