I am not an "austrian economist". I am just an economist, a honest and   
humble economist who teach History of Economic Thought and Public Policies   
in a small private Spanish university. The Austrian School of economics in   
Spain (my country) has a small but strong representation, the economist   
professor Jesus Huerta de Soto and his followers, young and numerous people   
with whom I collaborate and who never discriminates me as a non-austrian   
economist. And in my country too, it's necessary to avoid generalization   
when speaking about hostility. Most of Spanish economist who attack Austrian   
economists are based on ideological issues. Classic liberal economists (like   
me) and openly libertarians (as some of Austrian economists defines   
themselves) are not welcomed today. Not in Spain.  
It is true that Austrian economists after II WW faced a difficult situation   
and that some of them developed a feeling of hostility and maybe   
sectarianism towards non-Austrian economists. But I agree with Peter   
Boettke. And I wonder if it's time to stop arguing and excluding each other,   
and simply recognise the best from every school. I know that -as Samuel   
Bostaph wrote- there are insurmountable methodological differences, and that   
every school involves a different antropological basis... but I think that   
every school also has its own "field of validity", and there is no need to   
ban anyone.  
The Austrian school of economics deserves the merit of a solid methodology   
even if it put in question  mainstream economics methodology. And when I say   
Austrian school of economics, I mean "the important ones" from Menger to   
Mises and all of their followers (as Peter Boettke points out). The defence   
of individualism in economics, and of economic freedom is another   
contribution that has to be added to those explained by Peter Boettke. They   
are not alone in this task, of course, but they are an important reference.   
  
Maria Blanco