Second, Hayek and others believed that classical liberalism had failed because of crippling conceptual flaws and that the only way to diagnose and rectify them was to withdraw into an intensive discussion group of similarly minded intellectuals. … Effective endeavors to elaborate the general principles of a liberal order are practicable only among a group of people who are in agreement on fundamentals, and among whom basic conceptions are not questioned at every step. . . . What we need are people who have faced the arguments from the other side, who have struggled with them and fought themselves through to a position from which they can both critically meet the objections against it and justify their own views . . . this should be regarded as a private meeting and all that is said here in discussion as "off the record." . . . it must remain a closed society, not open to all and sundry. (1967, 149, 151, 153, 158) One can readily appreciate the trickiness of attempting to square the circle of remaining closed and relatively secretive while striving to be cosmopolitan and open to opposing currents, all the while scrutinizing a political doctrine (liberalism) that was at least nominally pitched in favor of diversity, broadmindedness, and open participation.

Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, loc. 120