[Video] Hayekian Economics and Rothbardian Economics

[AlexMerced]

 

[Conza88]

Mises is in the "Rothbardian" economics, if we are to go ahead and put the horse before the cart.

Hayek moved away from praxeology. His whole ruse on knowledge didn't add ANYTHING to what Mises did in regards to the problem of calculation and what he DID add WAS WRONG.

Dude, you are so ignorant on what libertarianism actually is. Arbitrary? Hardly. Go learn about the 'a priori of argumentation'. You totally conflate political philosophy with economics... even after mentioning that it shouldn't be. What, the, hell.

Massive loss of respect here Alex. If you want me to go ahead and provide sources for the above, someone ask.

I'm sorry, but your whole characterization of Hayek's approach being more "pure" is beyond delusional. The absolute opposite in fact.

I've liked your other videos I've seen, but this is waaaaaaaaay off the mark. A real shame.

 

[AlexMerced]

Mises is in the "Rothbardian" economics, if we are to go ahead and put the horse before the cart.

Hayek moved away from praxeology. His whole ruse on knowledge didn't add ANYTHING to what Mises did in regards to the problem of calculation and what he DID add WAS WRONG.

Dude, you are so ignorant on what libertarianism actually is. Arbitrary? Hardly. Go learn about the 'a priori of argumentation'. You totally conflate political philosophy with economics... even after mentioning that it shouldn't be. What, the, hell.

Massive loss of respect here Alex. If you want me to go ahead and provide sources for the above, someone ask.

I'm sorry, but your whole characterization of Hayek's approach being more "pure" is beyond delusional. The absolute opposite in fact.

I've liked your other videos I've seen, but this is waaaaaaaaay off the mark. A real shame.

I get A Priori Argumentation and Praxeology, I'm not slamming it, i'm a pretty big fan of it. My point is there is ridiculous divide among hayekian austrians and rothbardians and I do feel what they have in common outweighs the differences, and my point was that if they are gonna fight over a title maybe they should just adopt new titles and be friends.

I think the distinction I'm trying to make was better made by John Pappola of the Hayek vs Keynes rap video fame in his recent reddit Q&A


again, my point in this video is to try to resolve quarrel, sorry if you disagree with the exact words I used.

I just find some of these quarrels among libertarian factions to be ridiculous, and everyone always points at the other faction and saids it's their fault

I mean there are a lot of Insights that are useful and important from all the schools of economics, and being fair to all of them would make use more compelling debators.

 

[AlexMerced]

John Pappola answers between 10-25 min mark express sentiments perfectly

 

[hayekian]

Mises is in the "Rothbardian" economics, if we are to go ahead and put the horse before the cart.

Hayek moved away from praxeology. His whole ruse on knowledge didn't add ANYTHING to what Mises did in regards to the problem of calculation and what he DID add WAS WRONG.

Dude, you are so ignorant on what libertarianism actually is. Arbitrary? Hardly. Go learn about the 'a priori of argumentation'. You totally conflate political philosophy with economics... even after mentioning that it shouldn't be. What, the, hell.

Massive loss of respect here Alex. If you want me to go ahead and provide sources for the above, someone ask.

I'm sorry, but your whole characterization of Hayek's approach being more "pure" is beyond delusional. The absolute opposite in fact.

I've liked your other videos I've seen, but this is waaaaaaaaay off the mark. A real shame.

I think Alex's video was a very good one even though it leaves out much that is of great importance, but pretty good for a brief 8 minutes.

Gigantic differences between Hayek and Rothbard are obviously Rothbard's natural law approach(just like Alex mentions) . I forgot the paper or book where I read it, but I remember reading an article that criticized Hayek and whined about Hayek seemingly ignoring the "great" "natural law" tradition of other thinkers in his work... Hayek didn't give a shit about Natural Law because Hayek was working within an evolutionary paradigm within which the concept of right and wrong as defined by large brained apes was, and still is, totally bogus. Many people in the anarcho-capitalist online world have made videos criticizing Natural Law and the very concept of "ethics" in general.. Actually, right this moment I went looking for a video created by Nielsio(vforvoluntary.com) where he criticized Rothbard and found a more recent video "A Critique Of Hoppean Ethics ('argumentation ethics') " by Nielsio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-N...xt=C31a5eceUDOEgsToPDskL_g8fHIXvvVP8AzK-NYT9n

and in the end of this video he mentions other online thinkers like XOmniverse and Fringe Elements among People like Hazlitt, Mises, David Friedman who rightly dismiss Natural Law...

I'll just quote a small section from my recent book "A Hayekian Worldview" here which I think is relevant to this conversation and expands on Alex's video. It comes very late in the book so it is somewhat out of context but anyways:

Ayn Rand, Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek revisited

I would like to finish this small section by highlighting some ideological differences between some of these thinkers. These differences are not only interesting given that they help us gain a better understanding of highly influential thinkers, but they are also a sort of window into ways of looking at the world that are shared by many people and have important ramifications.

This book has been all about ‘Natural Selection’, about a simple process which first evolved biological evolution to create biological order and then evolved the market process to create social order. If we look at the evolution of the social order, at what point did man’s ability to properly think about society and use his ability to reason become the most important factor in his success compared to the evolutionary forces that were inadvertently shaping his culture and evolving the market process? We know that the evolution of money, something which plays such a crucial role in the emergence of modern civilization had little to do with man’s reason, and the same can be said for the knowledge-sharing mechanisms that competition and interest rate-coordination bring about. Again, generally speaking we can be fairly certain in stating that ‘the market process’, regardless of the tiny number of economists and philosophers who have properly defended it or have written about it, has been designed by an evolutionary process which has often times gone against human reason. The social organism is held together and expanded not by its individual cells or people, but by a process, which requires freedom to a large degree. Particular human beings, no matter how smart or driven they might be, are insignificant compared to the workings of the market process. No matter how good a job a particular cell does in the human body, its contribution is insignificant compared to the contribution made by the various ‘systems’ or ‘processes’ that help manage and coordinate the billions of cells we are made up of. Similarly, ‘bright’ individuals or ‘great thinkers’ are likewise insignificant when it comes to the functioning of society. Without the proper understanding of the market process and the key role that evolutionary forces have played in its design, it is very easy for people to give too much credit to human reason and the achievements of particularly successful and productive people when it comes to mankind’s march towards progress. And as a consequence of this, either ignore or downplay the evolutionary forces that in my view have played a bigger role. Ok, with this in mind let’s get to some differences…

For example, while criticizing Hayek’s ideas about the nature of man, Murray N. Rothbard summarizes what he perceives are fundamental differences between Hayek’s and Mises’ ideological foundations: “His major problem, and his major divergence from Mises, is that Hayek, instead of analyzing man as rational, conscious, and purposive being, considered man to be irrational, acting virtually unconsciously and unknowingly.” (Rothbard, 1995, p. 379) Yes. Hayek did not see man as being all that rational or at least downplayed man’s ability to reason compared to other factors that led to his success. Once again we have to remind ourselves that until very recently mankind has been living in a highly superstitious world where the concept of ‘science’ did not even exist. Hayek did not see man’s reason as being as important as the evolutionary processes that would shape his culture. To Hayek, culture is what brainwashed man as he grew up to be more rational, and it was the content of the “cultural books” which men absorbed as they grew up that molded their minds to be more and more reasonable. Since culture was not stored in our genes but in our societies/groups, Hayek understood the vital role that group selection played in the evolution of “cultural books” and their ability to shape a more reasonable and productive man. To Hayek man was simply an animal with a very advanced brain which was unknowingly brainwashed as it grew in society to act more rationally, consciously, and with purpose within the bounds of the culture he absorbs as well as the biological impulses/instincts that are a part of his nature, a nature that was shaped by natural selection to deal with a much simpler and tribal world. Now, I’m not saying that people like Rothbard and Mises did not appreciate the impact and evolution of culture or that Hayek felt like “reason” is/was not important. Let me put it this way, if one could put human reason and individual achievement on one side and cultural evolution and the market process on the other as part of a scale used to measure their importance in human achievement, some people like Mises and Rothbard and novelists like Ayn Rand would probably land closer to the human reason side than Hayek would.
Ayn Rand, whose novels and philosophy put human reason and great individual achievement on a pedestal, was greatly admired by both Mises and Rothbard at some point during their lives, and after reading her most famous novel Atlas Shrugged they wrote letters full of praise to her. For example, Mises wrote to her that:

“You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.”

I disagree with this statement and I think that a more Hayek-minded person would feel likewise. I think that the relative differences in capacity for great achievements between people is insignificant compared to the market process and an environment that allows average people to combine their intelligence in ways which leads to amazing breakthroughs and individual accomplishments. Anyways, I’m probably misrepresenting Mises’ and Rothbard’s views but I think I’m making an important point.

When discussing what he considers are his differences with Mises, Hayek told economist Jack High in 1978:

“…in most instances I found he was simply right; but in some instances, particularly the philosophical background—I think I should put it that way—Mises remained to the end a utilitarian rationalist. I came to the conclusion that both utilitarianism as a philosophy and the idea of it—that we were guided mostly by rational calculations—just would not be true.
That led me to my latest development, on the insight that we largely had learned certain practices which were efficient without really understanding why we did it; so that it was wrong to interpret the economic system on the basis of rational action. It was probably much truer that we had learned certain rules of conduct which were traditional in our society. As for why we did, there was a problem of selective evolution rather than rational construction.”

In another occasion he said that Mises:

“had great influence on me, but I always differed, first not consciously and now quite consciously. Mises was a rationalist utilitarian and I am not. He trusted the intelligent insight of people pursuing their known goals, rather disregarding the traditional element, the element of surrounding rules... He would believe that the legal system—no, he wouldn’t believe that it was invented; he was too much a pupil of Menger for that. Be he still was inclined to see [the legal system] as a sort of rational construction. I don’t think the evolutionary aspect, which is very strongly in Menger, was preserved in the later members of the Austrian school. I must say ‘til I came, really, in between there was very little of it.” (bold emphasis mine)

Although Menger was a pioneer in highlighting the importance of the individual and his freedom as being the crucial ingredients in economic calculation, he was very much working within and evolutionary paradigm . The evolutionary paradigm helped him explain things like the evolution of money and have a better understanding how social institutions emerge without conscious human planning or design. As Hayek writes, it really wasn’t until Hayek came along that the strong evolutionary paradigm was once again used. I think that this helps explain why Mises and Rothbard were(at some point ) big fans of Ayn Rand and her hyper-rationalist ideology.
Let’s say a few things about differences between Rothbard’s and Hayek’s views on government. For example, Rothbard has written that “the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large” . As the quote implies, for Rothbard and some of his closest followers, government is an apparatus of coercion that uses its power to tax and regulate to nourish itself and the people connected to it at the expense of society at large. This sort of ideology would motivate Rothbard to write about the individuals high up in government(or very connected to it) who would use government to enrich themselves at the expense of society. For example, in Rothbard’s awesome “The Mystery of Banking” , besides explaining the economics of central banking and how the Federal Reserve works, he gives a great overview of how the large banking firms like the Morgans and Rockefellers and other politically connected entities played a leading role in the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Rothbard’s focus on the individuals can give some of Rothbard’s writings a sort of ‘conspiracy theory’ feel which some people naively dismiss but provides crucial insights on how individuals and the politically connected play a key role in pushing society in various directions. I disagree with Rothbard’s statement that the State is a ‘bandit gang writ large’. Gangs of bandits are consciously setup for the purpose of theft while the government has inadvertently evolved for a plethora of socially useful purposes. It is true that in order to achieve these purposes the government has inadvertently evolved to be a monopolistic entity that is easily corrupted and must confiscate wealth and regulate, but unlike a gang of bandits whose clear intent is to plunder and is a deliberately planned arrangement, governments, just like language, law, money, and religion, are the results of human action, but not the result of conscious planning or design. As I’ve mentioned before, although government is responsible for most of our problems, it has been naturally selected for, and is in many ways responsible for getting us to where we are. Just like religion has led to many problems yet we owe much of our order to it, the same can be said about government. Treating government as ‘a bandit gang writ large’ led to Rothbard being labeled as an ‘extremist’ which has unfortunately helped his great books and writings remain less well known, but the truth of his economic reasoning and historical work is unshakable and playing a leading role in the intellectual revolution we are in the midst of.

In an article titled “Do You Hate the State” Rothbard writes:

“Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom . Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code*** , in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.”

Here we can once again see the sort of moral indignation which Rothbard uses to hate the State. When one looks at the intellectual currents that are currently fueling the intellectual revolution, especially as it pertains to the great success of the Ron Paul Revolution, one stumbles upon think-tanks like the Mises Institute which was the intellectual home of Rothbard. Many of the scholars at the Mises Institute are also Christians who I think are more likely to be more attracted to the “Natural Law”/moral/rights approach of Rothbard instead of the evolutionary Hayekian approach. Religion also carries with it the concepts of good and evil and a moral indignation towards “evil” which I think can further motivate people to be active and I think this additional motivation has further helped the revolution grow.

The bottom line is that with Hayek and Rothbard you really get the best of both worlds, you get an understanding of how evolutionary forces help shape and evolve the social order(Hayek) and you also get a great understanding of how governing structures are influenced by good’ol corruption and self-interested thinking(Rothbard).

Anyways, I’m sure I have greatly stretched my limited understanding of this topic, but what the heck, I’ve already done a lot of stretching in biology, history, economics, etc. But that’s ok, Hayek can bail me out with this quote:
“Yet, although the problem of an appropriate social order is today studied from the different angles of economics, jurisprudence, political science, sociology, and ethics, the problem is one which can be approached successfully only as a whole. This means that whoever undertakes such a task today cannot claim professional competence in all fields with which he has to deal, or be acquainted with the specialized literature available on all the questions that arise.” (Hayek F. A., 1973, p. 4)


*** “natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code” Rothbard believed that we could use our reason to sort of deduce the ideal or perfect law code. Rothbard believed in the idea of “Natural Rights” , a sort of fixed definition of right and wrong. This would go counter to a Hayekian approach where society’s views of right and wrong are based on the rules and norms that have currently evolved to define such concepts. Hayek never gave the concept of “Natural Rights” any time because from his evolutionary framework it does not make any sense. From a Hayekian perspective there is no “right” or “wrong”, there is natural selection period. Also, it should come as no surprise that Friedman dedicated his book to Hayek among others.

Ok... Done with book quote... Bottom line... We are in the midst of a revolution within a revolution. The more people learn about Ron Paul the more they will learn about the Austrian School. The more they learn about the Austrian School the more they will come in contact with Hayek and the more they come in contact with Hayek the more they will understand how natural selection shapes all order. As Hayek wrote:

“We understand now that all enduring structures above the level of the simplest atoms, and up to the brain and society, are the results of, and can be explained only in terms of, processes of selective evolution…” (Hayek F. , 1981, p. 158)

 

[Conza88]

Gigantic differences between Hayek and Rothbard are obviously Rothbard's natural law approach(just like Alex mentions) .

Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMICS.

I mean.. do you guys even understand the discipline you say you support? That is my core point, something Alex conflates and you don't seem to understand either.

I forgot the paper or book where I read it, but I remember reading an article that criticized Hayek and whined about Hayek seemingly ignoring the "great" "natural law" tradition of other thinkers in his work... Hayek didn't give a shit about Natural Law because Hayek was working within an evolutionary paradigm within which the concept of right and wrong as defined by large brained apes was, and still is, totally bogus. Many people in the anarcho-capitalist online world have made videos criticizing Natural Law and the very concept of "ethics" in general.. Actually, right this moment I went looking for a video created by Nielsio(vforvoluntary.com) where he criticized Rothbard and found a more recent video "A Critique Of Hoppean Ethics ('argumentation ethics') " by Nielsio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-N...xt=C31a5eceUDOEgsToPDskL_g8fHIXvvVP8AzK-NYT9n

and in the end of this video he mentions other online thinkers like XOmniverse and Fringe Elements among People like Hazlitt, Mises, David Friedman who rightly dismiss Natural Law...

Absolutely completely irrelevant. Totally clueless. Hayek rejected praxeology.

Hayek and the Departure from Praxeology

This will come off as harsh, but I considered Nielsio's objection so comical it wasn't even worth addressing. Given you (someone) apparently finds it convincing, I'll bother to endeavor and respond.

I mean... what a friggin' appeal to authority at the end. Dismissal doesn't get much easier than that.

I'll just quote a small section from my recent book "A Hayekian Worldview" here which I think is relevant to this conversation and expands on Alex's video. It comes very late in the book so it is somewhat out of context but anyways:

Ok... Done with book quote... Bottom line... We are in the midst of a revolution within a revolution. The more people learn about Ron Paul the more they will learn about the Austrian School. The more they learn about the Austrian School the more they will come in contact with Hayek and the more they come in contact with Hayek the more they will understand how natural selection shapes all order. As Hayek wrote:

Relevant? Hardly. Continues the red herring discussion / convergence / focus on natural law etc, (POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY) as opposed to epistemology i.e praxeology for Mises and Rothbard, popperian tripe for Hayek.

 

[Conza88]

I get A Priori Argumentation and Praxeology, I'm not slamming it, i'm a pretty big fan of it. My point is there is ridiculous divide among hayekian austrians and rothbardians and I do feel what they have in common outweighs the differences, and my point was that if they are gonna fight over a title maybe they should just adopt new titles and be friends.

I think the distinction I'm trying to make was better made by John Pappola of the Hayek vs Keynes rap video fame in his recent reddit Q&A


again, my point in this video is to try to resolve quarrel, sorry if you disagree with the exact words I used.

I just find some of these quarrels among libertarian factions to be ridiculous, and everyone always points at the other faction and saids it's their fault

I mean there are a lot of Insights that are useful and important from all the schools of economics, and being fair to all of them would make use more compelling debators.

The reason there is a divide is that their agreement is superficial about the status of economic propositions.

In terms of the political realm (which you seem to want to talk about... but use the term "economics") the difference is radicalism. Hayekians are generally gradualist. Where they are radicals, and abolitionists there are no problems. Go read "Do You Hate The State" by MNR.

Praxeology says that all economic propositions which claim to be true must be shown to be deducible by means of formal logic from the incontestably true material knowledge regarding the meaning of action. Specifically, all economic reasoning consists of the following:

(1) an understanding of the categories of action and the meaning of a change occurring in such things as values, preferences, knowledge, means, costs, etc;
(2) a description of a world in which the categories of action assume concrete meaning, where definite people are identified as actors with definite objects specified as their means of action, with some definite goals identified as values and definite things specified as costs. Such description could be one of a Robinson Crusoe world, or a world with more than one actor in which interpersonal relationships are possible; of a world of barter exchange or of money and exchanges that make use of money as a common medium of exchange; of a world of only land, labor, and time as factors of production, or a world with capital products; of a world with perfectly divisible or indivisible, specific or unspecific factors of production; or of a world with diverse social institutions, treating diverse actions as aggression and threatening them with physical punishment, etc; and
(3) a logical deduction of the consequences which result from the performance of some specified action within this world, or of the consequences which result for a specific actor if this situation is changed in a specified way.

Provided there is no flaw in the process of deduction, the conclusions that such reasoning yield must be valid a priori because their validity would ultimately go back to nothing but the indisputable axiom of action. If the situation and the changes introduced into it are fictional or assumptional (a Robinson Crusoe world, or a world with only indivisible or only completely specific factors of production), then the conclusions are, of course, a priori true only of such a "possible world." If, on the other hand, the situation and changes can be identified as real, perceived and conceptualized as such by real actors, then the conclusions are a priori true propositions about the world as it really is. [19]

Such is the idea of economics as praxeology. And such then is the ultimate disagreement that Austrians have with their colleagues: Their pronouncements cannot be deduced from the axiom of action or even stand in clear-cut contradiction to propositions that can be deduced from the axiom of action.

And even if there is agreement on the identification of facts and the assessment of certain events as being related to each other as causes and consequences, this agreement is superficial. For such economists falsely believe their statements to be empirically well-tested propositions when they are, in fact, propositions that are true a priori.

​

~ Hoppe, ESAM.

If you want to discuss the differences, politically.. fine. But again, my point here is to drop the label of 'economics' because it has nothing to do with what you appear to be discussing.

 

[hayekian]

If you want to discuss the differences, politically.. fine. But again, my point here is to drop the label of 'economics' because it has nothing to do with what you appear to be discussing.

You are right Conza88, it is true that Alex used the terms hayekian "economics" and rothbardian "economics". Given the context of what he actually discussed I just assumed that he meant more than pure economics, something like "worldview" . Alex mentioned that "rothbardian econmics is again more of a conflation of austrian economic principles with libertarian philosophy" , again, it is pretty obvious from the context and the previous statement that he meant more than just 'economics'. It is pretty common to use the term economics in this way. When you wrote that "I'm sorry, but your whole characterization of Hayek's approach being more "pure" is beyond delusional." it seems to me like your use of the expression "beyond delusional" is a far greater departure from reality than Alex's which seems to me well within the socially accepted meaning of the term economics(again, at least in the context he was using it).

With respect to ethics and morality and all that jazz , I thought Nielsio's video was ok, actually the first time I saw it I didn't pay 100% attention but just remembered how he referred to others who were not on same page as Hoppe. I would have criticized Hoppe in a different which I wont get into here...


I will quote Hoppe, the same sentence Nielsio mentioned from Hoppe's The Economics and Ethics and Private Property:

"Why then would it not be quite reasonable for a person to argue that while one perfectly agreed with
everything econmics had to say, one was still more concerned about one's welfare in the short run
and there, clearly for no economist to deny, a privilege or a subsidy would be the nicest thing?"


Why is it that people who might not even believe in the very concept of ethics still behave in a manner that respects private property, even if they don't care about the material benefits? Easy, if they don't and are thus plunged into an unproductive chaos their social order will simply be naturally selected against including the morals and "ethics" which led to such lack of productivity compared to those groups of individuals who prevented the chaos and lack of productivity. This does not even have to be a conscious decision on their part, natural selection has been doing it for thousands of years. This is where the importance of hayekian cultural evolution comes into play. Natural selection selects for order, freedom(luckily for us), leads to a more powerful and technologically advanced social order thus the growth and spread of free societies, thus natural selection has been selecting for more freedom, even when HUMAN REASON AND THE GREATEST OF INTENTIONS SCREW THE WHOLE THING UP. The process has not been perfect obviously, there have been huge setbacks(WWI,WWII, what we might be about the experience ) but one can see the trend or direction of a more powerful and integrated social order or as Herbert Spencer would call it, the social organism.


I read that "Hayek and the Departure from Praxeology" paper you linked to. I don't think I understood much of it, maybe I'm just not that "smart"(j/k i dont like that word) or probably lack the "scholarship" needed to fully comprehend it , or maybe right now I just don't have the willpower or motivation to read it with the necessary focus. But I will say this, while referring to my mentioning of Internet personalities like XOmniverse and fringelements among the better known scholars(mises, hazlitt, david friedman) you wrote that:

"I mean... what a friggin' appeal to authority at the end. Dismissal doesn't get much easier than that."

What are you trying to say here? Obviously just because i bring them up it does not prove any argument, I just brought them up because if my memory serves me right they might have created some good videos on the topic... Mr XOmniverse and fringelements or Nielsio not up to the standard for "scholarship" ???? The paper you mention was written by JAKUB WOZINSKI who ( i quote from paper) "is working on Ph.D. in philosophy at Lublin Catholic University of John Paul II" .. could it be that the paper you link to is written by someone who might truly be "beyond delusional"? Looks to me like i really nailed it when I wrote that "Many of the scholars at the Mises Institute are also Christians who I think are more likely to be more attracted to the “Natural Law”/moral/rights approach of Rothbard instead of the evolutionary Hayekian approach." But even though "beyond delusional" would seem to apply much better to Mr. WOZINSKI than to Mr. Mercer I would not make such a statement. I actually am very fond of religion even though I'm a non-believer. As Hayek wrote :

"even an agnostic ought to concede that we owe our morals, and the tradition that has provided not only our civilization but our very lives, to the acceptance of such scientifically unacceptable factual claims.”

Bottom line... I thought Alex's video was good.

 

[AlexMerced]

The reason there is a divide is that their agreement is superficial about the status of economic propositions.

In terms of the political realm (which you seem to want to talk about... but use the term "economics") the difference is radicalism. Hayekians are generally gradualist. Where they are radicals, and abolitionists there are no problems. Go read "Do You Hate The State" by MNR.

​

~ Hoppe, ESAM.

If you want to discuss the differences, politically.. fine. But again, my point here is to drop the label of 'economics' because it has nothing to do with what you appear to be discussing.

there is a very fine line there, It seems your focusing in on the methodology of the two. I get it, Rothbard accepted Prax, Hayek didn't.

I just feel there more to "Economics" than just methodology and it's hard delve deep into economics without political philosophy getting involved, and for both hayek and rothbard this is true, I'm just saying hayeks work the line is clearer than it's rothbard where I feel a historical/philosophical background is sometimes necessary to understand or accept some of his work as praxeological (aka statement A is only deductively deducible is statement B is accepted to be true)

 

[Conza88]

there is a very fine line there, It seems your focusing in on the methodology of the two. I get it, Rothbard accepted Prax, Hayek didn't.

Yes, I am focusing on the methodology of the two... which is where all the differences actually stem from i.e epistemology. I'm striking at the root. Adding to my criticism is the evaporation of Ludwig von Mises in this whole setup.

The tradition of praxeology (the chief methodology of the Austrian School)... something that sets it apart from THE REST OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMICS PROFESSION.. is some how non-existent in this analysis. Mises pioneered the term and gave the methodology conceptualization although Menger etc before him and other economists used it, but not consciously. Rothbard is in this tradition, Hoppe is.. the rest of the LvMI, Lew Rockwell and essentially the majority of the movement who associate with Austrian Economics, bar the Hayekians.

Since.. they reject praxeology, like he did.

I just feel there more to "Economics" than just methodology and it's hard delve deep into economics without political philosophy getting involved, and for both hayek and rothbard this is true, I'm just saying hayeks work the line is clearer than it's rothbard where I feel a historical/philosophical background is sometimes necessary to understand or accept some of his work as praxeological (aka statement A is only deductively deducible is statement B is accepted to be true)

I could not disagree more. Various fields are explored history etc, but that doesn't influence the nature of praxeology at all, or economics qua economics. Economics is value free. How anyone in the movement could suggest otherwise is beyond me.

Furthermore, all you have done is asserted. I'd appreciate some actual arguments, or evidence to back them up in regards to where Rothbard's economics has gone astray thanks to his 'political philosophy'. Remember, we're discussing ECONOMICS qua economics here. The Austrian School. NOT libertarianism. I'd also put forward the argument Hayek's line isn't clearer at all.

Economics proper is applied logic.

The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed. ... Only experience makes it possible for us to know the particular conditions of action in their concrete form. ... However, what we know about our action under given conditions is derived not from experience, but from reason. What we know about the fundamental categories of human action - action, economizing, preferring, the relationship of means and ends, and everything else that, together with these, constitutes the system of human action - is not derived from experience. We conceive all this from within, just as we conceive logical and mathematical truths, a priori, without reference to any experience. Mises, (EPE I. 1. 6.)

Where on earth does political philosophy come into it?

 

[AlexMerced]

Yes, I am focusing on the methodology of the two... which is where all the differences actually stem from i.e epistemology. I'm striking at the root. Adding to my criticism is the evaporation of Ludwig von Mises in this whole setup.

The tradition of praxeology (the chief methodology of the Austrian School)... something that sets it apart from THE REST OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMICS PROFESSION.. is some how non-existent in this analysis. Mises pioneered the term and gave the methodology conceptualization although Menger etc before him and other economists used it, but not consciously. Rothbard is in this tradition, Hoppe is.. the rest of the LvMI, Lew Rockwell and essentially the majority of the movement who associate with Austrian Economics, bar the Hayekians.

Since.. they reject praxeology, like he did.



I could not disagree more. Various fields are explored history etc, but that doesn't influence the nature of praxeology at all, or economics qua economics. Economics is value free. How anyone in the movement could suggest otherwise is beyond me.

Furthermore, all you have done is asserted. I'd appreciate some actual arguments, or evidence to back them up in regards to where Rothbard's economics has gone astray thanks to his 'political philosophy'. Remember, we're discussing ECONOMICS qua economics here. The Austrian School. NOT libertarianism. I'd also put forward the argument Hayek's line isn't clearer at all.

Economics proper is applied logic.



Where on earth does political philosophy come into it?

Ok, I agree that pure economics is value free, and that a pure application praxeological principles does not make value decisions or Interpersonal Value Comparisons (which just doesn't work)

I think our disagreement is just more in my use of the word economics, I guess I should just said being Hayekian or Rothbardian instead of Hayekian Econ or Rothbardian Econ to refer to their body of work.

I agree economics is value free, while most Keynesians are progressive and many austrians are libertarian, there are Libertarian Keynesians (believe it or not) and Progressive Austrians (again believe it or not) so values are distinct than ones epistemological framework.

So I apologize if my use of terms wasn't perfectly clear, but my fundamental points still stands if the hayekians and the rothbardians feel they are so different how about they start using different terms other than austrians so we can stop fighting but isstead work together in what we agree which is just about 99% of things.

My goal latley has to been to reduce the infighting among different groups of libertarians, and focus on sound projects like promtoing ron paul, the seasteading institute, or The Free Cities Institute

 

[BuddyRey]

Two great libertarian thinkers who share at least 90% of their core values and principles, and their respective adherents are arguing as heatedly as if they were engaged in debate with Marxists or Stalinists.

Save all that great intellectual energy for the real fight, gang. Unless you're just scrappin' for fun.

 

[AlexMerced]

Two great libertarian thinkers who share at least 90% of their core values and principles, and their respective adherents are arguing as heatedly as if they were engaged debate with Marxists or Stalinists.

Save all that great intellectual energy for the real fight, gang. Unless you're just scrappin' for fun.

agreed, this is why I get so frustrated even when people begin slamming other great thinkers like Friedman and Buchanan (James, not Pat) because they may have big disagreements with aspects of how they make their arguments, but again there is a lot be said to have these discussions as they are important but not to demonize each other and be able to work together so we can actually achieve something.

 

[AlexMerced]

Two great libertarian thinkers who share at least 90% of their core values and principles, and their respective adherents are arguing as heatedly as if they were engaged debate with Marxists or Stalinists.

Save all that great intellectual energy for the real fight, gang. Unless you're just scrappin' for fun.

We don't want to end up like the Keynesians where post and neo keynesians just squabble and undermine each other constantly, which is amusing for me.

 

[Conza88]

Ok, I agree that pure economics is value free, and that a pure application praxeological principles does not make value decisions or Interpersonal Value Comparisons (which just doesn't work)

I think our disagreement is just more in my use of the word economics, I guess I should just said being Hayekian or Rothbardian instead of Hayekian Econ or Rothbardian Econ to refer to their body of work.

I agree economics is value free, while most Keynesians are progressive and many austrians are libertarian, there are Libertarian Keynesians (believe it or not) and Progressive Austrians (again believe it or not) so values are distinct than ones epistemological framework.

So I apologize if my use of terms wasn't perfectly clear, but my fundamental points still stands if the hayekians and the rothbardians feel they are so different how about they start using different terms other than austrians so we can stop fighting but isstead work together in what we agree which is just about 99% of things.

My goal latley has to been to reduce the infighting among different groups of libertarians, and focus on sound projects like promtoing ron paul, the seasteading institute, or The Free Cities Institute

I doubt the changing of terms would accomplish your goal. The Hayekians have already decided to break off to the "coordination problem" economists, as you mentioned.. so why don't you et. all go ahead and adopt that?

Labels are mostly meaningless, what matters are ideas. The point of contention between these groups (besides praxeology, methodology and thus economics), is also political.. as we've been discussing. I can go on and point out how Hayek is a basically a social democrat. But I don't think that'd get us far.

The point is --- even if your positions are 'superficial', if you're advocating the same conclusion as me - I can go along with that and call you a fellow traveler. The greater point is how you go about advocating it - it's not whether you're an anarchist or not, it's whether you are radical and an abolitionist.

Hayekians generally aren't, they are generally gradualists. Where they are not. Where they are radical, and abolitionists I have no problem.

"Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement."

​

 

[AlexMerced]

I am for a free society, I agree with the rothbardian/radical approach to getting their, but I don't neccessarily see the gradualist approach as something than undermines it (if anything the gradualist act as a primer for the radicals efforts). Even if they both have different expectations, as long as they are putting their efforts in the same direction results will accelerate from both their efforts.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am for a free society, I agree with the rothbardian/radical approach to getting their, but I don't neccessarily see the gradualist approach as something than undermines it (if anything the gradualist act as a primer for the radicals efforts). Even if they both have different expectations, as long as they are putting their efforts in the same direction results will accelerate from both their efforts.

The gradualist approach is a consequentialist one, the abolitionist approach is a moral one [simplified]. They say you can't push the button because X will happen. I say push the button because it is the moral position. I think the abolitionist position is the superior one to be honest, but it is not as if I will say that the gradualists should be purged due to a false belief that they somehow reduce the number of abolitionists. I think many of the gradualists become abolitionists over time and they certainly can be won over given a convincing argument. It isn't like our positions are different, merely our calculations on how to reach that point. Thus, it becomes a practical argument not an ideological one.

It's the same mistake when people say that being able to listen / own music through reproducing it takes money from the companies and individuals who discovered the arrangement. It simply isn't true. Either the price is too high for that individual to patronize your store, or they had no intent of ever buying but were curious as to the content. In many cases being exposed to the material inspires them to purchase it from the discoverers. There are also many more areas in which this happens.

Honestly this intramural fight is unproductive to reaching and bringing in more people. It is not as if we are arguing over methodological and epistemological concerns in which I vociferously disagree with the so-called Austrian Hayekians who wildly abstain from what it means to be an Austrian (methodology). In any event, onward!

 

[AlexMerced]

The gradualist approach is a consequentialist one, the abolitionist approach is a moral one [simplified]. They say you can't push the button because X will happen. I say push the button because it is the moral position. I think the abolitionist position is the superior one to be honest, but it is not as if I will say that the gradualists should be purged due to a false belief that they somehow reduce the number of abolitionists. I think many of the gradualists become abolitionists over time and they certainly can be won over given a convincing argument. It isn't like our positions are different, merely our calculations on how to reach that point. Thus, it becomes a practical argument not an ideological one.

It's the same mistake when people say that being able to listen / own music through reproducing it takes money from the companies and individuals who discovered the arrangement. It simply isn't true. Either the price is too high for that individual to patronize your store, or they had no intent of ever buying but were curious as to the content. In many cases being exposed to the material inspires them to purchase it from the discoverers. There are also many more areas in which this happens.

Honestly this intramural fight is unproductive to reaching and bringing in more people. It is not as if we are arguing over methodological and epistemological concerns in which I vociferously disagree with the so-called Austrian Hayekians who wildly abstain from what it means to be an Austrian (methodology). In any event, onward!

I agree with this assesment