POPULARITY
10 episodes with misesian
3 episodes with misesian
3 episodes with misesian
3 episodes with misesian
2 episodes with misesian
2 episodes with misesian
In 1997, Bryan Caplan wrote an essay explaining why he was no longer a self-described Austrian. Recently, a reader asked him to comment on that essay. Bob reacts to Bryan's current views, arguing that the history of economic thought is indeed important, and the Misesian approach to praxeology is crucial.Bryan Caplan's Recent Article: Mises.org/HAP476aBryan Caplan's "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist": Mises.org/HAP476bHoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method: Mises.org/HAP476cBob's Cambridge University Press Article on Böhm-Bawerk's Critiques: Mises.org/HAP476dA Modern Guide to Austrian Economics: Mises.org/HAP476eBob and David Freidman, "The Chicago Vs. Austrian School Debate": Mises.org/HAP476fThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree
In 1997, Bryan Caplan wrote an essay explaining why he was no longer a self-described Austrian. Recently, a reader asked him to comment on that essay. Bob reacts to Bryan's current views, arguing that the history of economic thought is indeed important, and the Misesian approach to praxeology is crucial.Bryan Caplan's Recent Article: Mises.org/HAP476aBryan Caplan's "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist": Mises.org/HAP476bHoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method: Mises.org/HAP476cBob's Cambridge University Press Article on Böhm-Bawerk's Critiques: Mises.org/HAP476dA Modern Guide to Austrian Economics: Mises.org/HAP476eBob and David Freidman, "The Chicago Vs. Austrian School Debate": Mises.org/HAP476fThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree
Dr. Philipp Bagus explains the main ideas from his new book, Full Reserve Banking versus the Real Bills Doctrine, which defends Misesian business cycle theory from a recent critique. Bagus provides an in-depth criticism of the Real Bills Doctrine, emphasizing the importance of real savings in economic stability. He defends full reserve banking and critiques fractional reserve systems for creating money without real economic backing, leading to inflation and business cycles.Full Reserve Banking versus the Real Bills Doctrine: Mises.org/HAP469aBob's Study Guide to The Theory of Money and Credit: Mises.org/HAP469bPhilipp Bagus, "Entrepreneurial Error Does Not Equal Market Failure" Mises.org/HAP469cThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree
Dr. Philipp Bagus explains the main ideas from his new book, Full Reserve Banking versus the Real Bills Doctrine, which defends Misesian business cycle theory from a recent critique. Bagus provides an in-depth criticism of the Real Bills Doctrine, emphasizing the importance of real savings in economic stability. He defends full reserve banking and critiques fractional reserve systems for creating money without real economic backing, leading to inflation and business cycles.Full Reserve Banking versus the Real Bills Doctrine: Mises.org/HAP469aBob's Study Guide to The Theory of Money and Credit: Mises.org/HAP469bPhilipp Bagus, "Entrepreneurial Error Does Not Equal Market Failure" Mises.org/HAP469cThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree
Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture. Sponsored by Shone and Brae Sadler.Recorded at the Austrian Economics Research Conference, 22 March 2024, in Auburn, Alabama. Includes an introduction by Joseph T. Salerno.Lecture Text: Thank you, Joseph, for your kind introduction and thank you, Shone and Brae Sadler, for your generous sponsorship in making this event possible. It is a pleasure and personal honor to be invited to deliver this Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture titled “Ayn Rand and the Austrian Economists” at the Mises Institute's Austrian Economics Research Conference.Henry Hazlitt is one of my favorite writers on economics and ethics. His thoughtful, incisive, and influential writings are marked by his clarity of style and logical analysis. Both Henry Hazlitt and Ayn Rand could really write. Hazlitt's non-fiction books, Economics in One Lesson and Foundations of Morality, along with his novel, Time Will Run Back, complement Ayn Rand's ideas in her books such as The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Atlas Shrugged. In their philosophical, political, and economic views, Hazlitt and Rand largely agree, as they make the same points in different ways with respect to the virtue of the free market as the path to prosperity and happiness. Also, they were friends in their personal lives. In addition, Henry Hazlitt and I had a great friend in common in the late, well-respected and greatly-loved Austrian economist, Bill Peterson.I am excited to be here to give this talk on Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard and how their ideas may be complementary to the essential ideas of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Perhaps I will be able to provide some new insights to you. We'll see!Like my recently deceased friend, Sam Bostaph, I have great admiration for the ideas of Carl Menger. I will begin by discussing some of Menger's key ideas and comparing them with those of Ayn Rand. I will then repeat this process with the fundamental ideas of Mises and Rothbard. I will conclude with an overall assessment with respect to the potential compatibility of Austrian economics and Objectivism.Carl Menger (1840-1921) began the modern period of economic thought and provided the foundation for the Austrian School of Economics in his two books, Principles of Economics (1871) and Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics (1883). In these books Menger destroyed the existing structure of economic science, including its theory and methodology, and put it on totally new foundations.Menger was a realist who said that we could know the world through both common sense and scientific method. Menger was committed to finding exact laws of economics based on the direct analysis of concrete phenomena that can be observed and characterized with precision. He sought to find the necessary characteristics of economic phenomena and their relationships. He also heralded the advantages of verbal language over mathematical language in that the former can express the essences of economic phenomena, which is something that mathematical language cannot do.Menger viewed exchange as the embodiment of the essential desire and search to satisfy individual human needs. It follows that the intersection between human needs and the availability of goods capable of satisfying those needs is at the root of economic activity. Emphasizing human uncertainty, error, and the time-consuming nature of economic processes, Menger was concerned with the information content of economic choices and the process of acquiring information in order to increase the well-being of economic actors.As this talk will demonstrate, Carl Menger's writings are the closest to Randian doctrines that have ever emanated from any economist. It will follow that we should read and reread his great books and share them with our friends and students.Aristotelian philosophy was at the root of Menger's framework. His biologistic language goes well with his Aristotelian foundations in his philosophy of science and economics. Menger illustrated how Aristotelian induction could be used in economics and he based his epistemology on Aristotelian induction. Menger's Aristotelian inclinations can be observed in his desire to uncover the essence of economic phenomena. He viewed the constituent elements of economic phenomena as immanently ordered and emphasized the primacy of exactitude and universality as preferable epistemological characteristics of theory.Menger's desire was to uncover the real nature or essence of economic phenomena. As an immanent realist, he was interested in essences and laws as manifested in the world. His general and abstract economic theory attempted to unify all true fragments of economic knowledge.Holding that causality underpins economic laws, Menger taught that theoretical science provides the tools for studying phenomena that exhibit regularities. He distinguished between exact types and laws that deal with strictly typical phenomena and empirical-realistic types and laws that deal with truth within a particular spatio-temporal domain. Empirical laws are found by observation and exact laws are found by conceptualization. Menger's exact approach involves deductive-universalistic theory that looks for regularities in the coexistence and succession of phenomena that admits no exceptions and that are strictly ordered. His theoretical economics is concerned with exact laws based on the assumptions of self-interest, full-knowledge, and freedom. Menger's exact theoretical approach involves both isolation and abstraction from disturbing factors.Menger developed a number of fundamental Austrian doctrines such as the causal-genetic approach, methodological individualism, and the connection between time and error. He incorporated purposeful action, uncertainty, the occurrence of errors, the information acquisition process, learning, and time into his economic analysis. As an Aristotelian essentialist and immanent realist, he considered a priori essences as existing in reality. His goal was to discover invariant principles or laws governing economic phenomena and to elaborate exact universal laws. To find strictly ordered exact laws he said that we had to omit principles of individuation such as time and space. This entails isolation of the economic aspect of phenomena and abstraction from disturbing factors such as error, ignorance, and external compulsion. Menger thus argued for an exact orientation of theoretical research whose validity is totally independent of any empirical tests.Both Aristotle and Menger viewed essences, universals, or concepts as metaphysical and had no compelling explanations of the method to be employed in order to abstract the essence from the particulars in which it is indivisibly wedded. For Rand, essences are epistemological and contextual, rather than metaphysical. For her, concepts are the products of a cognitive method whose processes are performed by a human being but whose content is determined by reality.Menger's theory of needs and wants is the link between the natural sciences (particularly biology) and the human sciences. He established this link by describing the final cause of human economic enterprise as an aspect of human nature biologically understood. He analyzed economic activity based on a theory of human action. His theory emphasized individual perception, valuation, deliberation, choice, and action.The foundation of Menger's value theory is a theory of human action that involves a theory of knowledge. He believed that men can understand the workings of the economy. Menger's goal was to establish economic theory on a solid foundation by grounding it on a sound value theory. To do this, he consistently incorporated his methodological individualism into his theory of value.Menger understood that values can be subjective (i.e., personally estimated), but that men should rationally seek objective life-affirming values. He explained that real wants correspond with the objective state of affairs. Menger distinguished between real and imaginary wants and goods depending upon whether or not a person correctly understands a good's objective ability to satisfy a want. Individuals can be wrong about their judgment of value. Menger's emphasis on objective values is consistent with philosophical realism and with a correspondence theory of truth.Menger does trace market exchange back to a man's personal valuations of various economic goods and observes that scales of value are variable from person to person and are subject to change over time. There are certainly “subjectivist” features in Menger's economic analysis that are founded on his methodological individualism which implies that people differ and have a variety of goals, purposes, and tastes. Personal evaluation is therefore inherent in a principled and consistent understanding of methodological individualism.As a supreme advocate of individualist methodology, Menger recognized the primacy of active individual agents who generate all of the phenomena of the social sciences. His methodological individualism is a doctrine that reflects the real structure of society and economy and the centrality of the human agent.Menger's theory of value essentially states that life is the ultimate standard of value. According to Menger, human life is a process in which a person, given his needs and the command of the means to satisfy them, is himself the specific point where human economic life both originates and ends. Menger thus introduced life, value, individual preferences that motivate people, and individual choices into economics. He thus essentially agreed on the same standard of life as the much later Ayn Rand. Value is a contextual judgment made by economizing men. Value is related to the existential state of the individual and the ability of the good in question to change that state in a manner desired by the person.Although Menger speaks of economic value while Rand is concerned with moral value, their ideas are much the same. Both view human life as the ultimate value. The difference is that Menger was concerned with economic values that satisfy a man's needs for food, shelter, healthcare, wealth, production, and so forth. From Rand's perspective, every human value (including economic value) is potentially a moral value that may be important to the ethical standard of a man's life qua man. Their shared biocentric concept of value holds that objective values support a man's life and originate in a relationship between a man and his survival requirements.Both Rand and Menger espouse a kind of contextually-relational objectivism in their theories of value. Value is seen as a relational quality dependent on the subject, the object, and the context or situation involved.Not many Objectivists, or others for that matter, know much about Menger's Austrian Aristotelianism and his commonsense and scientific realism. This is unfortunate. His writings have the potential to provide essential building blocks for a realist construction of economics. Ultimately, they may provide the vehicle for the harmonization and integration of Austrian economics with Objectivism.As we know, the preeminent theory within Austrian economics is the Misesian subjectivist school. Mises maintained that it is by means of its subjectivism that praxeological economics develops into objective science. The praxeologist takes individual values as given and assumes that individuals have different motivations and prefer different things. The same economic phenomena mean different things to different people. In fact, buying and selling take place because people value things differently. The importance of goods is derived from the importance of the values they are intended to achieve. When a person values an object, this simply means that he imputes enough importance to it to be willing to start a chain of causation to change or maintain it, thus making it a thing of value. Misesian economics does not study what is in an object, as does the natural scientist, but rather, studies what is in the subject.Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), the Austrian philosophical economist, is one of our most passionate, consistent, and intransigent defenders of capitalism. Mises defends the free society and private ownership on the grounds that they are desirable from the perspective of human happiness, freedom, peace, and productivity. He constructed a monumental, overarching, systematic, and comprehensive conceptual framework that elucidated the timeless, immutable laws that guide human behavior. Mises integrated his profound theories of methodology, economics, political science, history, and the social sciences in his 1949 magnum opus, Human Action.There is an important dissemblance within Austrian value theory between Menger and Mises. However, it is possible for Menger's more objective-value-oriented theory to coexist and complement Mises's pure subjectivism which is based on the inscrutability of individual values and preferences. Although Menger agrees with Mises that an individual's chosen values are personal and, therefore subjective and unknowable to the economist, he also contended that a person ought to be rationally pursuing his objective life-affirming values. Menger thus can be viewed as a key link-pin figure between Misesian praxeology and Objectivist ethics.According to Mises, economics is a value-free science of means, rather than of ends, that describes but does not prescribe. However, although the world of praxeological economics, as a science, may be value-free the human world is not value-free. Economics is the science of human action and human actions are inextricably connected with values and ethics. It follows that praxeological economics needs to be situated within the context of a normative framework. Praxeological economics does not conflict with a normative perspective on human life. Economics needs to be connected with a discipline that is concerned with ends such as the end of human flourishing. Praxeological economics can stay value-free if it is recognized that it is morally proper for people to take part in market and other voluntary transactions. Such a value-free science must be combined with an appropriate end.Economics, for Mises, is a value-free tool for objective and critical appraisal. Economic science differentiates between the objective, interpersonally valid conclusions of economic praxeology and the personal value judgments of the economist. Critical appraisal can be objective, value-free, and untainted by bias. It is important for economic science to be value-free and not to be distorted by the value judgments or personal preferences of the economist. The credibility of economic science depends upon an impartial and dispassionate concern for truth. Value-freedom is a methodological device designed to separate and isolate an economist's scientific work from the personal preferences of the given economic researcher. His goal is to maintain neutrality and objectivity with respect to the subjective values of others.Misesian economics focuses on the descriptive aspects of human action by offering reasoning about means and ends. The province of praxeological economics is the logical analysis of the success or failure of selected means to attain chosen ends. Means only have value because, and to the degree that, their ends are valued.The reasons why an individual values what he values and the determination of whether or not his choices and actions are morally good or bad are certainly significant concerns but they are not in the realm of the praxeological economist. The content of moral or ultimate ends is not the domain of the economist qua economist. There is another level of values that value in terms of right preferences. This more objectivist sphere of value defines value in terms of what an individual ought to value.Mises grounds economics upon the action axiom which is the fundamental and universal truth that individual men exist and act by making purposive choices among alternatives. Upon this axiom, Mises deduces the entire systematic structure of economic theory. Mises's advocacy of free markets and his opposition to statism stem from his analysis of the nature and consequences of freely acting individuals compared to the nature of government and the consequences brought about by government intervention.For Mises, economic behavior is a special case of human action. He contends that it is through the analysis of the idea of action that the principles of economics can be deduced. Economic theorems are seen as connected to the foundation of real human purposes. Economics is based on true and evident axioms, arrived at by introspection into the essence of human action. From these axioms, Mises derives the logical implications or truths of economics.Through the use of abstract economic theorizing, Mises recognizes the nature and operation of human purposefulness and entrepreneurial resourcefulness and identifies the systematic tendencies which influence the market process. Mises's insight was that economic reasoning has its basis in the understanding of the action axiom. He says that sound deductions from a priori axioms are apodictically true and cannot be empirically tested. Mises developed, through deductive reasoning, the chains of economic theory based on introspective understanding of what it means to be a rational, purposeful, and acting human being. The method of economics is deductive and its starting point is the concept of action.According to Mises, all of the categories, theorems, or laws of economics are implied in the action axiom. These include, but are not limited to: subjective value, causality, ends, means, preference, cost, profit and loss, opportunities, scarcity, marginal utility, marginal costs, opportunity cost, time preference, originary interest, association, and so on.As an adherent of Kantian epistemology, Mises states that the concept of action is a priori to all experience. Thinking is a mental action. For Mises, a priori means independent of any particular time or place. Denying the possibility of arriving at laws via induction, Mises argues that evidence for the a priori is based on reflective universal inner experience.However, Misesian praxeology could operate within a Randian philosophical structure. The concept of action could be formally and inductively derived from perceptual data. Actions would be seen as performed by entities who act in accordance with their nature. Man's distinctive mode of action involves rationality and free will. Men are thus rational beings with free wills who have the ability to form their own purposes and aims. Human action also assumes an uncoerced human will and limited knowledge. All of the above can be seen as consistent with Misesian praxeology. Once we arrive at the concept of human action, Mises's deductive logical derivations can come into play.Knowledge gained from praxeological economics is both value-free (i.e., value-neutral) and value relevant. Value-free knowledge supplied by economic science is value-relevant when it supplies information for rational discussions, deliberations, and determinations of the morally good. Economics is reconnected with philosophy, especially the branches of metaphysics and ethics, when the discussion is shifted to another sphere. It is fair to say that economic science exists because men have concluded that the objective knowledge provided by praxeological economics is valuable for the pursuit of both a person's subjective and ultimate ends.Advocating the idea of “man's survival qua man” or of a good or flourishing life involves value judgments. To make value judgments, one must accept the existence of a comprehensive natural order and the existence of fundamental absolute principles in the universe. This acceptance in no way conflicts with the Misesian concept of subjective economic value. Natural laws ae discovered, are not arbitrary relationships, but instead are relationships that are already true. A man's human nature, including his attributes of individuality, reason, and free will, is the ultimate source of moral reasoning. Value is meaningless outside the context of man.Praxeological economics and the philosophy of human flourishing are complementary and compatible disciplines. Economics teaches us that social cooperation through the private property system and division of labor enables most individuals to prosper and to pursue their flourishing and happiness. In turn, the worldview of human flourishing informs men how to act. In making their life-affirming ethical and value-based judgments, men can refer to and employ the data of economic science.Mises and Rand were passionate critics of collectivism. Whereas Mises criticized the economic and political functioning of collectivism, Rand attacked the morality of collectivism. They agree that collectivism in the form of people, races, or nations does not exist independently from the individuals who comprise them. In addition, they both dismissed positivism's rejection of the human mind as real and as the tool of knowledge about the world, man, and his actions. They also believed that free-market capitalism is the best possible arrangement for society. Their promotion of rationality, free choice, and subjective (i.e., personally estimated) and objective values (in their respective contexts) make their worldviews compatible. Mises's arguments for capitalism in terms of its utility can be interpreted to be in harmony with Rand's criterion of man's life as the standard of value. There is a great deal in Mises's science of human action that is consistent with Objectivist principles. As stated by Walter Block, on the majority of issues Rand and Mises “are as alike as two peas in a pod”.Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was a grand system builder. In his monumental Man, Economy, and State (1962), Rothbard continued, embodied, and extended Mises's methodological approach of praxeology to economics. His magnum opus was modeled after Mises's Human Action and, for the most part, was a massive restatement, defense, and development of the Misesian praxeological tradition. Rothbard followed up and complemented Man, Economy, and State with his brilliant The Ethics of Liberty (1982) in which he provided the foundation for his metanormative ethical theory. Exhibiting an architectonic character, these two works form an integrated system of philosophical economics.In a 1971 article in Modern Age Rothbard declares that Mises's work provides us with an economic paradigm grounded in the nature of man and in individual choice. He explains that Mises's paradigm furnishes economics in a systematic, integrated form that can serve as a correct alternative to the crisis situation that modern economics has engendered. According to Rothbard, it is time for us to adopt this paradigm in all of its facets.Rothbard defended Mises's methodology, but went on to construct his own edifice of Austrian economic theory. Although he embraced nearly all of Mises's economics, Rothbard could not accept Mises's Kantian extreme aprioristic position in epistemology. Mises held that the axiom of human action was true a priori to human experience and was, in fact, a synthetic a priori category. Mises considered the action axiom to be a law of thought and thus a categorical truth prior to all human experience.Rothbard agreed that the action axiom is universally true and self-evident, but argued that a person becomes aware of that axiom and its subsidiary axioms through experience in the world. A person begins with concrete human experience and then moves toward reflection. Once a person forms the basic axioms and concepts from his experiences and from his reflections upon those experiences, he does not need to resort to external experience to validate an economic hypothesis. Instead, deductive reasoning from sound basics will validate it.In a 1957 article in the Southern Economic Journal, Rothbard states that it is a waste of time to argue or try to determine how the truth of the action axiom is obtained. He explains that the all-important fact is that the axiom is self-evidently true for all people, at all places, at all times, and that it could not even conceivably be violated. Whether it was a law of thought as Mises maintained, or a law of reality as Rothbard himself contended, the axiom would be no less certain because the axiom need only be stated to become at once self-evident.Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand were concerned with the nature of man and the world, natural law, natural rights, and a rational ethics based on man's nature and discovered through reason. They also agreed that the purpose of political philosophy and ethics is the promotion of productive human life on earth. In addition, both adopted, to a great extent, Lockean natural rights perspectives and arguments that legitimize private property. Additionally, they both disagreed with Mises's epistemological foundations, and on similar grounds.Both Rothbard and Rand endeavored to determine the proper rules for a rational society by using reason to examine the nature of human life and the world by employing logical deductions to ascertain what these natures suggest. They agreed with respect to the volitional nature of rational human consciousness, a man's innate right of self-ownership, and the metanormative necessity of noncoercive mutual consent. Both thus subscribed to the nonaggression principle and to the right of self-defense.Rothbard and Rand did not agree, however, on the nature of (or need for) government. They disagreed with respect to the practical applications of their similar philosophies. Rejecting Rand's idea of a constitutionally-limited representative government, Rothbard believed that their shared doctrines entailed a zero-government or anarcho-capitalist framework based on voluntarism, free exchange, and peace.Rothbard and Rand subscribed to different forms of metanormative libertarian politics—Rothbard to anarcho-capitalism and Rand to a minimal state. Unlike Rand, Rothbard ended his ethics at the metanormative level. Rand, on the other hand, advocated a minimal state form of libertarian politics based on the fuller foundation of Objectivism through which she attempted to supply an objective basis for values and virtues in human existence. Of course, Rothbard did discuss the separate importance of a rational personal morality, stated that he agreed essentially with most of Rand's philosophy, and suggested his inclination toward a Randian ethical framework. The writings of Rothbard, much like those of Menger, have done a great deal toward building a bridge between Austrian economics and Objectivism.Although Misesian economists hold that values are subjective, and Objectivists argue that values are objective, these claims are not incompatible because they are not really claims about the same things. They exist at different levels or spheres of analysis. The methodological value-subjectivity of the Austrians complements the Randian sense of value objectivity. The level of objective values dealing with personal flourishing transcends the level of subjective value preferences. The value-freedom (or value-neutrality) and value-subjectivity of the Austrians have a different function or purpose than does Objectivism's emphasis on objective values. On the one hand, the Austrian emphasis is on the value-neutrality of the economist as a scientific observer of a person acting to obtain his “subjective” (i.e., personally-estimated) values. On the other hand, the philosophy of Objectivism is concerned with values for the acting individual moral agent, himself. There is a distinction between methodological subjectivism and philosophical subjectivism. Whereas Austrians are methodological subjectivists in their economics, this does not imply that they are moral relativists as individuals.Austrian economics is thus an excellent way of looking at “social science methodology” with respect to the appraisal of means but not of ends. Misesian praxeology therefore must be augmented. Its value-free economics is not sufficient to establish a total case for liberty. A systematic, reality-based ethical system must be discovered to firmly establish a total case for liberty. Natural law provides the groundwork for such a theory, and both Objectivism and the Aristotelian idea of human flourishing are based on natural law ideas.Austrian economics and Objectivism agree on the significance of the ideas of human actions and values. The Austrians explain that a person acts when he prefers the way he thinks things will be if he acts compared to the way he thinks things will be if he fails to act. Austrian economics is descriptive and deals with the logical analysis of the ability of selected actions (i.e., means) to achieve certain ends. Whether these ends are truly objectively valuable is not the concern of the praxeological economist when he is acting in his capacity as an economist. There is another realm of values that views value in terms of objective values and correct preferences and actions. Objectivism is concerned with this other sphere and thus studies what human beings ought to value and act to attain.When thinkers from the Austrian school speak of subjective knowledge they simply mean that each person has his own specific and finite context of knowledge that directs his action. In this context, “subjective” merely means “subject-dependent”. Subjectivism for the Austrians does not mean the rejection of reality—it only focuses on the view that consumer tastes are personal.Austrian economists contend that values are subjective and Objectivists maintain that values are objective. These claims can be seen as compatible because they are not claims about the same phenomena. These two senses of value are complementary. The Austrian economist, as a neutral examiner, does not force his own value judgments on the personal values and actions of the human beings that he is studying. Operating from a different perspective, Objectivists maintain that there are objective values that stem from a man's relationship to other existents in the world.At a descriptive level, the economist's idea of demonstrated preferences agrees with Rand's account of value as something that a person acts to gain and/or keep. Of course, Rand moves from an initial descriptive notion of value to a normative perspective on value that includes the idea that a legitimate or objective value serves one's life. The second view of value provides a standard to evaluate the use of one's free will.Praxeological economics and Objectivism are complementary and compatible disciplines. Economics teaches us that social cooperation through the private property system and division of labor enables most individuals to prosper and to pursue their flourishing and happiness. In turn, Objectivism informs men how to act. In making their life-affirming ethical and value-based judgments, men can refer to and employ economic science.Objectivism's Aristotelian perspective on the nature of man and the world and on the need to exercise one's virtues can be viewed as synergic with the economic coordination and praxeology of Austrian economics. Placing the economic realm within the general process of human action, which itself is part of human nature, enables theoretical progress in our search for truth and in the construction of a systematic, logical, and consistent conceptual framework. The Objectivist worldview can provide a context to the economic insights of the Austrian economists.In conclusion, there is much common ground between Rand and the Austrians and much to be gained through the intellectual exchange between Objectivism and Austrian economics. Objectivism can be viewed as an ethical and logical augmentation of Austrian economics and Austrian praxeology can be seen as the ideal means for Objectivists when addressing economic issues. Economics would focus on attempting to discover economic principles but would leave ethical issues to philosophy.
Markets may be the greatest mechanism in history for advancing human prosperity and flourishing, but that doesn't mean its design is conducive for self-promotion! So says the brilliant chair of the Economics Department at George Mason University, Dr. Donald Boudreaux. The Café Hayek economic genius joins the Capital Record this week to talk about Misesian pessimism, market complexity, and new-right market skepticism. David's comment: Maybe his favorite Capital Record discussion ever!
While artificial intelligence has its merits, it still cannot perform the job of the Misesian entrepreneur. That is a good thing. Original Article: "Will AI Learn to Become a Better Entrepreneur than You?" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.
While artificial intelligence has its merits, it still cannot perform the job of the Misesian entrepreneur. That is a good thing. Original Article: "Will AI Learn to Become a Better Entrepreneur than You?" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.
A great benefit of the internet age is the capacity to accumulate, accelerate, and intensify connections between entrepreneurs, knowledge sources, investors, mentors, collaborators, and service providers. Businesses with a valid value proposition who are in the launch and early expansion phases can interconnect a network of powerful and qualified resources to support their growth. A good way to do so is to utilize a platform (another product of the internet age) designed for the purpose. Tom Malengo established a platform called Brandjectory to serve just this purpose for consumer packaged goods (CPG) startups. Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights. Brandjectory's value proposition is to solve the problem of how to build an investor-ready business. The purpose of a B2B business is to help customers achieve their own purpose. Brandjectory helps with the purpose of becoming investor-ready, the condition of qualifying for funding in the eyes of investors. The problem is multi-faceted, from having an investable value proposition, to having the systems and structure in place to qualify for investment, to overcoming the functional obstacles of expansion, to having access to investors, to having the capability to pitch effectively and persuasively. Brandjectory helps with all phases, for all stages of investable business from pre-market seed stage to post-market Series A where a proven business model and revenue stream represents the bar. All knowledge is specialized: select and know your sector. Brandjectory focuses on consumer packaged goods businesses, often identified by the acronym CPG. It's a sector with open-ended innovation opportunities — e.g., how to make foods and beverages and cleaning products and pet products healthier — along with an identifiable set of obstacles to overcome, such as the cost and difficulty of securing and maintaining distribution in supermarkets and other retail channels. An investable business knows the available innovation gaps and has a practical knowledge of barriers and how to overcome them. Define value in your sector with reachable target customers. The Brandjectory system stresses the understanding of subjective value — that it's an experience of the customer, and is defined by what they feel is important to them and how they feel a new brand will satisfy their need in that area of their life. Value demands an emotional connection, sustained over time. Too many founders, says Tom Malengo, CEO of Brandjectory, do not exhibit a full understanding of value. They are more focused on what's new or different about their product, or on their recipe or ingredients. This is a functional perspective, and misses the emotional component. Tom's technique in assessing a founder's understanding of subjective value is a careful but intense questioning, driving towards a true focus on what's important to consumers. Value understanding must be translated into a value proposition. A value proposition is a structured template for the communication of proposed value to the consumer, enabling them to recognize it. The value proposition must capture the emotional element of value — how consumers will feel better. It's not just about good taste, for example, but the joy of consumption, the family sharing, the feeling of contributing to health rather than undermining health. On econ4business.com, you can read about value propositions (Mises.org/E4B_195_Value), and watch the E4B value proposition design video (Mises.org/E4B_195_Video). Potential investors will probe for the founder's true understanding of value propositions — it's a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. A founder must be skilled and effective at communicating this understanding. Investor-readiness also implies an identification of all the challenges to growth and how to overcome them. Investor-readiness will vary by business stage. The state of readiness might encompass the capacity of the sales network, or of production processes, or the scalability, sustainability and security of the supply chain, or the strength of processes and systems, or the innovation pipeline, or the quality of the advisor group. Tom's guidance to founders ensure that they know all the questions investors will ask, and leave nothing to chance in framing their answers. The required knowledge-building is achieved through networking and connecting. A major benefit of the Brandjectory platform is its network of advisors, industry experts, mentors, and investors. Founders can connect to them and meet them, and not just listen but also gather knowledge through questioning and discussion. Plugging in to a powerful knowledge network is less stressful than pitching and more conducive to learning. The members of the network have a wide range of incentives. Investors can pick up information about trends and new ideas even if they don't invest directly. Industry experts can sense the response to their information and knowledge sharing and get market feedback. Many mentors enjoy the sense of giving back to their industry and community after years of working. All entrepreneurs can, and should, assemble a network like this. Brandjectory is a convenient way to do it for CPG entrepreneurs. It's important to understand the role of knowledge in firm performance. Tom Malengo says knowledge is power for entrepreneurs — the power to solve problems, address challenges and overcome obstacles. It can be a competitive advantage to gather more specialized knowledge than competitors and incumbents. Professor Per Bylund sees specialized knowledge as solving the production problem (see Mises.org/E4B_195_Book) — the difficulty of initiating new economic production that no-one else has ever attempted, i.e., innovation. Brandjectory takes the problem-solution approach to knowledge building. Entrepreneurs who confront a problem or issue or knowledge gap can ask the appropriate question of the appropriate expert or tap the experience of a more seasoned businessperson and benefit from the exchange, a kind of accelerated learning. Brandjectory is a celebration of the all-American practice of entrepreneurship. Tom Malengo views entrepreneurship as the fabric of civilized society, a tradition that is especially strong in America. Our first settlers and many of our founders were entrepreneurs, and the encouragement of new ideas from any and all sources, giving everyone the chance to pursue their commercial development and experience economic success is woven into our way of life. An entrepreneur, as Tom sees it, is someone who refuse to tolerate the existing status quo and demands better and is willing to exert their own effort and expend their own resources to bring it about — a very Misesian view. Through Brandjectory, he intends to help and support all those in pursuit of betterment in CPG. His platform concept — where the business model is to invite entrepreneurs to join for a fee, with unlimited free access to the knowledge platform and expert network, no commissions, middleman dealmaker cuts, brokerage charges, retail markups, affiliate costs or any other “bite” — is pure support for aspirational growth companies. Additional Resources Brandjectory website: brandjectorynow.com Tom Malengo on LinkedIn: Mises.org/E4B_195_LinkedIn
A great benefit of the internet age is the capacity to accumulate, accelerate, and intensify connections between entrepreneurs, knowledge sources, investors, mentors, collaborators, and service providers. Businesses with a valid value proposition who are in the launch and early expansion phases can interconnect a network of powerful and qualified resources to support their growth. A good way to do so is to utilize a platform (another product of the internet age) designed for the purpose. Tom Malengo established a platform called Brandjectory to serve just this purpose for consumer packaged goods (CPG) startups. Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights. Brandjectory's value proposition is to solve the problem of how to build an investor-ready business. The purpose of a B2B business is to help customers achieve their own purpose. Brandjectory helps with the purpose of becoming investor-ready, the condition of qualifying for funding in the eyes of investors. The problem is multi-faceted, from having an investable value proposition, to having the systems and structure in place to qualify for investment, to overcoming the functional obstacles of expansion, to having access to investors, to having the capability to pitch effectively and persuasively. Brandjectory helps with all phases, for all stages of investable business from pre-market seed stage to post-market Series A where a proven business model and revenue stream represents the bar. All knowledge is specialized: select and know your sector. Brandjectory focuses on consumer packaged goods businesses, often identified by the acronym CPG. It's a sector with open-ended innovation opportunities — e.g., how to make foods and beverages and cleaning products and pet products healthier — along with an identifiable set of obstacles to overcome, such as the cost and difficulty of securing and maintaining distribution in supermarkets and other retail channels. An investable business knows the available innovation gaps and has a practical knowledge of barriers and how to overcome them. Define value in your sector with reachable target customers. The Brandjectory system stresses the understanding of subjective value — that it's an experience of the customer, and is defined by what they feel is important to them and how they feel a new brand will satisfy their need in that area of their life. Value demands an emotional connection, sustained over time. Too many founders, says Tom Malengo, CEO of Brandjectory, do not exhibit a full understanding of value. They are more focused on what's new or different about their product, or on their recipe or ingredients. This is a functional perspective, and misses the emotional component. Tom's technique in assessing a founder's understanding of subjective value is a careful but intense questioning, driving towards a true focus on what's important to consumers. Value understanding must be translated into a value proposition. A value proposition is a structured template for the communication of proposed value to the consumer, enabling them to recognize it. The value proposition must capture the emotional element of value — how consumers will feel better. It's not just about good taste, for example, but the joy of consumption, the family sharing, the feeling of contributing to health rather than undermining health. On econ4business.com, you can read about value propositions (Mises.org/E4B_195_Value), and watch the E4B value proposition design video (Mises.org/E4B_195_Video). Potential investors will probe for the founder's true understanding of value propositions — it's a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. A founder must be skilled and effective at communicating this understanding. Investor-readiness also implies an identification of all the challenges to growth and how to overcome them. Investor-readiness will vary by business stage. The state of readiness might encompass the capacity of the sales network, or of production processes, or the scalability, sustainability and security of the supply chain, or the strength of processes and systems, or the innovation pipeline, or the quality of the advisor group. Tom's guidance to founders ensure that they know all the questions investors will ask, and leave nothing to chance in framing their answers. The required knowledge-building is achieved through networking and connecting. A major benefit of the Brandjectory platform is its network of advisors, industry experts, mentors, and investors. Founders can connect to them and meet them, and not just listen but also gather knowledge through questioning and discussion. Plugging in to a powerful knowledge network is less stressful than pitching and more conducive to learning. The members of the network have a wide range of incentives. Investors can pick up information about trends and new ideas even if they don't invest directly. Industry experts can sense the response to their information and knowledge sharing and get market feedback. Many mentors enjoy the sense of giving back to their industry and community after years of working. All entrepreneurs can, and should, assemble a network like this. Brandjectory is a convenient way to do it for CPG entrepreneurs. It's important to understand the role of knowledge in firm performance. Tom Malengo says knowledge is power for entrepreneurs — the power to solve problems, address challenges and overcome obstacles. It can be a competitive advantage to gather more specialized knowledge than competitors and incumbents. Professor Per Bylund sees specialized knowledge as solving the production problem (see Mises.org/E4B_195_Book) — the difficulty of initiating new economic production that no-one else has ever attempted, i.e., innovation. Brandjectory takes the problem-solution approach to knowledge building. Entrepreneurs who confront a problem or issue or knowledge gap can ask the appropriate question of the appropriate expert or tap the experience of a more seasoned businessperson and benefit from the exchange, a kind of accelerated learning. Brandjectory is a celebration of the all-American practice of entrepreneurship. Tom Malengo views entrepreneurship as the fabric of civilized society, a tradition that is especially strong in America. Our first settlers and many of our founders were entrepreneurs, and the encouragement of new ideas from any and all sources, giving everyone the chance to pursue their commercial development and experience economic success is woven into our way of life. An entrepreneur, as Tom sees it, is someone who refuse to tolerate the existing status quo and demands better and is willing to exert their own effort and expend their own resources to bring it about — a very Misesian view. Through Brandjectory, he intends to help and support all those in pursuit of betterment in CPG. His platform concept — where the business model is to invite entrepreneurs to join for a fee, with unlimited free access to the knowledge platform and expert network, no commissions, middleman dealmaker cuts, brokerage charges, retail markups, affiliate costs or any other “bite” — is pure support for aspirational growth companies. Additional Resources Brandjectory website: brandjectorynow.com Tom Malengo on LinkedIn: Mises.org/E4B_195_LinkedIn
A great benefit of the internet age is the capacity to accumulate, accelerate, and intensify connections between entrepreneurs, knowledge sources, investors, mentors, collaborators, and service providers. Businesses with a valid value proposition who are in the launch and early expansion phases can interconnect a network of powerful and qualified resources to support their growth. A good way to do so is to utilize a platform (another product of the internet age) designed for the purpose. Tom Malengo established a platform called Brandjectory to serve just this purpose for consumer packaged goods (CPG) startups. Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights. Brandjectory's value proposition is to solve the problem of how to build an investor-ready business. The purpose of a B2B business is to help customers achieve their own purpose. Brandjectory helps with the purpose of becoming investor-ready, the condition of qualifying for funding in the eyes of investors. The problem is multi-faceted, from having an investable value proposition, to having the systems and structure in place to qualify for investment, to overcoming the functional obstacles of expansion, to having access to investors, to having the capability to pitch effectively and persuasively. Brandjectory helps with all phases, for all stages of investable business from pre-market seed stage to post-market Series A where a proven business model and revenue stream represents the bar. All knowledge is specialized: select and know your sector. Brandjectory focuses on consumer packaged goods businesses, often identified by the acronym CPG. It's a sector with open-ended innovation opportunities — e.g., how to make foods and beverages and cleaning products and pet products healthier — along with an identifiable set of obstacles to overcome, such as the cost and difficulty of securing and maintaining distribution in supermarkets and other retail channels. An investable business knows the available innovation gaps and has a practical knowledge of barriers and how to overcome them. Define value in your sector with reachable target customers. The Brandjectory system stresses the understanding of subjective value — that it's an experience of the customer, and is defined by what they feel is important to them and how they feel a new brand will satisfy their need in that area of their life. Value demands an emotional connection, sustained over time. Too many founders, says Tom Malengo, CEO of Brandjectory, do not exhibit a full understanding of value. They are more focused on what's new or different about their product, or on their recipe or ingredients. This is a functional perspective, and misses the emotional component. Tom's technique in assessing a founder's understanding of subjective value is a careful but intense questioning, driving towards a true focus on what's important to consumers. Value understanding must be translated into a value proposition. A value proposition is a structured template for the communication of proposed value to the consumer, enabling them to recognize it. The value proposition must capture the emotional element of value — how consumers will feel better. It's not just about good taste, for example, but the joy of consumption, the family sharing, the feeling of contributing to health rather than undermining health. On econ4business.com, you can read about value propositions (Mises.org/E4B_195_Value), and watch the E4B value proposition design video (Mises.org/E4B_195_Video). Potential investors will probe for the founder's true understanding of value propositions — it's a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. A founder must be skilled and effective at communicating this understanding. Investor-readiness also implies an identification of all the challenges to growth and how to overcome them. Investor-readiness will vary by business stage. The state of readiness might encompass the capacity of the sales network, or of production processes, or the scalability, sustainability and security of the supply chain, or the strength of processes and systems, or the innovation pipeline, or the quality of the advisor group. Tom's guidance to founders ensure that they know all the questions investors will ask, and leave nothing to chance in framing their answers. The required knowledge-building is achieved through networking and connecting. A major benefit of the Brandjectory platform is its network of advisors, industry experts, mentors, and investors. Founders can connect to them and meet them, and not just listen but also gather knowledge through questioning and discussion. Plugging in to a powerful knowledge network is less stressful than pitching and more conducive to learning. The members of the network have a wide range of incentives. Investors can pick up information about trends and new ideas even if they don't invest directly. Industry experts can sense the response to their information and knowledge sharing and get market feedback. Many mentors enjoy the sense of giving back to their industry and community after years of working. All entrepreneurs can, and should, assemble a network like this. Brandjectory is a convenient way to do it for CPG entrepreneurs. It's important to understand the role of knowledge in firm performance. Tom Malengo says knowledge is power for entrepreneurs — the power to solve problems, address challenges and overcome obstacles. It can be a competitive advantage to gather more specialized knowledge than competitors and incumbents. Professor Per Bylund sees specialized knowledge as solving the production problem (see Mises.org/E4B_195_Book) — the difficulty of initiating new economic production that no-one else has ever attempted, i.e., innovation. Brandjectory takes the problem-solution approach to knowledge building. Entrepreneurs who confront a problem or issue or knowledge gap can ask the appropriate question of the appropriate expert or tap the experience of a more seasoned businessperson and benefit from the exchange, a kind of accelerated learning. Brandjectory is a celebration of the all-American practice of entrepreneurship. Tom Malengo views entrepreneurship as the fabric of civilized society, a tradition that is especially strong in America. Our first settlers and many of our founders were entrepreneurs, and the encouragement of new ideas from any and all sources, giving everyone the chance to pursue their commercial development and experience economic success is woven into our way of life. An entrepreneur, as Tom sees it, is someone who refuse to tolerate the existing status quo and demands better and is willing to exert their own effort and expend their own resources to bring it about — a very Misesian view. Through Brandjectory, he intends to help and support all those in pursuit of betterment in CPG. His platform concept — where the business model is to invite entrepreneurs to join for a fee, with unlimited free access to the knowledge platform and expert network, no commissions, middleman dealmaker cuts, brokerage charges, retail markups, affiliate costs or any other “bite” — is pure support for aspirational growth companies. Additional Resources Brandjectory website: brandjectorynow.com Tom Malengo on LinkedIn: Mises.org/E4B_195_LinkedIn
Five important criticisms are made of Ludwig von Mises in the recent Jacobin article titled, Ludwig von Mises Was a Free Market Ideologue, Not a Hardheaded Thinker. Mises was an ideologue Mises supported workers "bowing" to capitalist masters Lack of support for universal voting proves Mises was opposed to empiricism Nordic countries and the UK's NHS prove that statism is preferable to free markets Mises supported imperialism For a full refutation see the video linked below, in short: The Misesian ideology can be summarized as: Decriminalize all economic activity between consenting adults. There is nothing wrong with being ideological. If one claims to be inherently opposed to: Racism, sexism, xenophobia, classism, terrorism, kidnapping, rape, murder, or assault, they are in effect making an ideological statement not a scientific one. They don't say, "Let's try racism and sexism then run tests to see if it worked." They make an unapologetic principled claim. Yes he was ideological, and there is nothing wrong with being so. Of course Mises also used real world examples in his work, both comparing countries which are more and less economically free, as well as whether or not people with the lowest incomes benefit from free market exchanges by having an increase in accessibility to products and services overtime. In Planning for Freedom, Mises explains how real (adjusted for inflation) wages rise as the result or worker productivity and competition between employers. No useful idiot of the "bosses" would tell the working masses how to increase their leverage. Are the "capitalist masters" also hoping they'll have to compete for good workers and return customers? If anything big business loves regulations which keep out competitors and a steady stream of subsidies which allow them to acquire money without having to meet consumer demand. With regard to economics, politics, philosophy, foreign policy, civics, and history- the average voter knows almost nothing. Getting more ignorant people to vote on how planes and computers are made will not improve planes or computers and we'd all be worse off. So it's no surprise that while Mises was an advocate of representative democracy, he did not frequently stress the value of mass voting. "There's plenty to say regarding Sweden: (1) its “socialist” policies were made possible by wealth created under an essentially capitalist economy (as recently as the 1950s, remember, government spent less as a percentage of GDP in Sweden than in the U.S.); (2) Swedes earn about 50 percent more in the U.S., in our supposedly wicked economy; and (3) since Sweden's explosion of social welfare spending there have been zero jobs created on net in the private sector." - Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.d., (Forward to Socialism Sucks). The Jacobin author does not mention that all Nordic countries rank higher than America on the Fraser Freedom Index. Nor does he compare North Korea and South Korea or East Germany and West Germany. Nor does he compare states in America with similar populations to Nordic countries such as Massachusetts. Nor does he control for age, educational degree, gender, levels of innovation, difficulty of low skilled employees getting their foot in the door or starting a competing firm. Nor does he compare more regulated/subsidized industries to less regulated/subsidized industries. Those who believe Washington D.C. has the right to control Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nebraska, and Kansas are true imperialists. All the regulatory agencies that Jacobin's support literally are imperialist, i.e. one group arbitrarily imposing its will on another through coercion. As for Mises: A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants.
From behind the walls of academia (well, academia on lockdown and work-from-home orders, that is), we are joined by Canadian research librarian (and fellow Misesian!), Joanna Szurmak, to discuss the culture of fear and constant pessimism, and where that comes from. We also talk, more importantly, about how to overcome the doom and gloom and shining our lights in the pervasive darkness to which others can be drawn.
Buck Johnson, Host of the Counter Flow Podcast is a firefighter, a drummer, and a podcaster. We discuss how political messaging is often solely based on logical conclusions without appealing to the emotional aspects people need to make decisions. Music is composed of both word and melody that appeals to both senses, however it is the hook that people enjoy first because it touches their soul. In this episode we discuss being a musician in the age of coronavirus, the red/blue/white pilled paradigms, how the Game Stop debacle exposed the System, and how Buck's career as a firefighter helped him learn more about Misesian economics and spreading the message of liberty. The Invictus Mind can be found on Stitcher, Spotify, Apple, and Anchor.fm The Invictus Newsletter: Text “Invictus” to 33777 Email Mike: Michael@theinvictusmind.com Get a 30% discount on CBD, Hemp Flower, and Delta 8 Vape Cartridges. Go to paccrestbotanicals.com Discount code INVICTUS at check out! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-invictus-mind/support
Jeff Deist is President of the Mises Institute. Mises.org exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. These great thinkers developed praxeology, a deductive science of human action based on premises known with certainty to be true, and this is what they teach and advocate. Their scholarly work is founded in Misesian praxeology, and in self-conscious opposition to the mathematical modeling and hypothesis-testing that has created so much confusion in neoclassical economics.Support the show!Get your 14 day free trial of Skillshare Premium by using my affiliate link: skillshare.com/IBFSay hello at inspiredbyfirepodcast@gmail.comGo to inspiredbyfire.org for recommended booksHere is where you can find more of Jeff:Twitter - https://twitter.com/jeffdeistWebsite - Mises.org
Sheldon Richman talks about his most recent book from The Libertarian Institute—which combines a Misesian approach to economics, libertarian class theory, and natural rights—as well as his libertarian journey and his previous book, Coming to Palestine. TakeHumanAction.com Paid for by Mises PAC --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/misescaucus/message
I discuss ten observations I have on our current chaos and what it means, from a Misesian and Randian point of view.
Michael Rectenwald, retired professor at New York University, was a lifelong Marxist until very recently. He's now repudiated that past and embraced a Misesian future. His new book, , explores every aspect of so-called "woke" culture and dismantles it mercilessly as only someone intimately familiar with leftism can.
How do we account for the impressive spread of libertarian and specifically Misesian thought in Brazil? This phenomenon has been ongoing for years now, so I've invited Raphael Lima, whose massive YouTube channel has helped to fuel this trend, to discuss what's happening as well as what, if anything, folks in other countries can learn from their example.
Bitcoin, crime, and the Misesian Regression theorem of the origin of money.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 263. This is my short portion of the panel presentation "The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe," from the 2019 Austrian Economics Research Conference (AERC), at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on the occasion of Professor Hoppe's 70th birth year. The entire panel presentation, plus my notes, and a link to a longer talk on similar themes, are below. Related: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019 “Hoppe on Property Rights” Panel: The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe Auburn, Alabama • Mises Institute March 23 2019 Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Practice, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org NOTES Came across Hoppe's writing in law school, his 1988 Liberty article “The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic.” Eventually met Hans at a conference in 1994, where I also met David Gordon, Rothbard, Walter Block, Lew, and others Hans's contributions in a large number of fields have influenced me and many others: argumentation ethics; various aspects of praxeological economics; method and epistemology; a critique of logical positivism; democracy; immigration; and various cultural analyses. Helped change my mind about a large number of particular matters, such as the US Constitution, natural rights, and so on Eventually led to Guido and I editing a Festschrift in 2009 Presented here 10 years ago Including a large number of contributors including all of the panelists here today I delivered a 6 week Mises Academy course in 2011 on “The Social Theory of Hoppe” I'm going to focus on his views on property rights, which has greatly influenced my own ideas A more in depth talk on this last month at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, “How to Think About Property Rights”, on my podcast feed Laid out very plainly and concisely in Chapters 1 and 2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1989) Only 18 pages—bears re-reading and careful study “Next to the concept of action, property is the most basic category in the social sciences. As a matter of fact, all other concepts to be introduced in this chapter—aggression, contract, capitalism and socialism—are definable in terms of property: aggression being aggression against property, contract being a nonaggressive relationship between property owners, socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property, and capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.” He lays out the “natural” position on property rights, and distinguishes it from property rights, the normative position. Natural position is that each actor owns his body Any scarce resource is owned by the person who first appropriated it, or who acquired it from a previous owner by contract Property “rights” mirroring this natural position are then justified with his argumentation ethics, which has been very influential and also controversial in the libertarian world Echoed in Mises, Socialism: “the sociological and juristic concepts of ownership are different.” Key to this analysis is recognizing the role of scarcity, which is inherent in human action, and which socially gives rise to the possibility of interpersonal conflict and thus the necessity for property norms to make conflict free interaction (cooperation) possible. Hans anchors his analysis in a Misesian praxeological framework, in which actors must employ scarce means or resources to achieve ends. In Mises's praxeological view of human action, there are two distinct but essential components of human action: scarce resources, and knowledge. Actors employ scarce resources, guided by their knowledge The use of resources is essential for all actors, even Crusoe Gives rise to the “natural” position on property (what Mises would call “sociological” ownership) In society,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 263. This is my short portion of the panel presentation "The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe," from the 2019 Austrian Economics Research Conference (AERC), at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on the occasion of Professor Hoppe's 70th birth year. The entire panel presentation, plus my notes, and a link to a longer talk on similar themes, are below. Related: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019 “Hoppe on Property Rights” Panel: The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe Auburn, Alabama • Mises Institute March 23 2019 Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Practice, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org NOTES Came across Hoppe’s writing in law school, his 1988 Liberty article “The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic.” Eventually met Hans at a conference in 1994, where I also met David Gordon, Rothbard, Walter Block, Lew, and others Hans’s contributions in a large number of fields have influenced me and many others: argumentation ethics; various aspects of praxeological economics; method and epistemology; a critique of logical positivism; democracy; immigration; and various cultural analyses. Helped change my mind about a large number of particular matters, such as the US Constitution, natural rights, and so on Eventually led to Guido and I editing a Festschrift in 2009 Presented here 10 years ago Including a large number of contributors including all of the panelists here today I delivered a 6 week Mises Academy course in 2011 on “The Social Theory of Hoppe” I’m going to focus on his views on property rights, which has greatly influenced my own ideas A more in depth talk on this last month at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, “How to Think About Property Rights”, on my podcast feed Laid out very plainly and concisely in Chapters 1 and 2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1989) Only 18 pages—bears re-reading and careful study “Next to the concept of action, property is the most basic category in the social sciences. As a matter of fact, all other concepts to be introduced in this chapter—aggression, contract, capitalism and socialism—are definable in terms of property: aggression being aggression against property, contract being a nonaggressive relationship between property owners, socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property, and capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.” He lays out the “natural” position on property rights, and distinguishes it from property rights, the normative position. Natural position is that each actor owns his body Any scarce resource is owned by the person who first appropriated it, or who acquired it from a previous owner by contract Property “rights” mirroring this natural position are then justified with his argumentation ethics, which has been very influential and also controversial in the libertarian world Echoed in Mises, Socialism: “the sociological and juristic concepts of ownership are different.” Key to this analysis is recognizing the role of scarcity, which is inherent in human action, and which socially gives rise to the possibility of interpersonal conflict and thus the necessity for property norms to make conflict free interaction (cooperation) possible. Hans anchors his analysis in a Misesian praxeological framework, in which actors must employ scarce means or resources to achieve ends. In Mises’s praxeological view of human action, there are two distinct but essential components of human action: scarce resources, and knowledge. Actors employ scarce resources, guided by their knowledge The use of resources is essential for all actors, even Crusoe Gives rise to the “natural” position on property (what Mises would call “sociological” ownership) In society,
Postmodernism: That’s a pretty big umbrella of thought. Please excuse my broad—sloppy—use of the term. Standpoint Epistemology: You know why whites can’t think like blacks, and men like women, or cis like queers? Because a Soviet philosopher told them it’s so. Act = Brahman: Think hard about the verb “act.” It might be a word that Derrida himself couldn’t deconstruct. I’m not sure it’s defined by reference to something else. It might stand on its own, like the Hindu/Buddhist Brahman. I flush it out here. Praxeology: That Brahman stuff is my attempt to slip some von Misesian thought into the postmoderns. Lightning Segments: Mindfulness, drinking cities, essential oils, more. The Stylites: Living on pillars in the late Roman Empire.
Mises.org editor Ryan McMaken joins Jeff Deist live at Mises U to make the radical case for decentralization of political power. They tackle the Misesian view of self-determination, Professor Bryan Caplan's recent critique of decentralization as mechanism for liberty, how subsidiarity could improve the ugly culture wars in the US, and why smaller states—and smaller electorates—make more sense than political universalism.
Mises.org editor Ryan McMaken joins Jeff Deist live at Mises U to make the radical case for decentralization of political power. They tackle the Misesian view of self-determination, Professor Bryan Caplan's recent critique of decentralization as mechanism for liberty, how subsidiarity could improve the ugly culture wars in the US, and why smaller states—and smaller electorates—make more sense than political universalism.]]>
Mises.org editor Ryan McMaken joins Jeff Deist live at Mises U to make the radical case for decentralization of political power. They tackle the Misesian view of self-determination, Professor Bryan Caplan's recent critique of decentralization as mechanism for liberty, how subsidiarity could improve the ugly culture wars in the US, and why smaller states—and smaller electorates—make more sense than political universalism.
On Show 26, Andy Duncan speaks with Doctor Andreas Tiedtke, from Mises Deutschland, about the Misesian praxeology of ten different individual state taxes, and how each type has different negative effects upon human behaviour. They examine how each one of these taxes wreaks its own particular kind havoc upon a free society, starting with the least bad, at number 10,
Our guest Michael Watson joins Jeff Deist after delivering a provocative paper last week at our research conference comparing Mises and Thomas Aquinas. They discuss Misesian praxeology, Catholicism, charity, altruism, and personal relationships in an attempt to decide what acts lie within and without the scope of economics. Are humans really super-rational Homo Economicus beings, per John Stuart Mill? No, according to Mises, who posits that we operate under conditions of bounded rationality using means-ends approaches. How do we reconcile our ethical worldviews with value-free economics? And how can we apply economics and praxeology to things like religious faith, love, and even involuntary conditions like slavery and war?
Our guest Michael Watson joins Jeff Deist after delivering a provocative paper last week at our research conference comparing Mises and Thomas Aquinas. They discuss Misesian praxeology, Catholicism, charity, altruism, and personal relationships in an attempt to decide what acts lie within and without the scope of economics. Are humans really super-rational Homo Economicus beings, per John Stuart Mill? No, according to Mises, who posits that we operate under conditions of bounded rationality using means-ends approaches. How do we reconcile our ethical worldviews with value-free economics? And how can we apply economics and praxeology to things like religious faith, love, and even involuntary conditions like slavery and war?]]>
Our guest Michael Watson joins Jeff Deist after delivering a provocative paper last week at our research conference comparing Mises and Thomas Aquinas. They discuss Misesian praxeology, Catholicism, charity, altruism, and personal relationships in an attempt to decide what acts lie within and without the scope of economics. Are humans really super-rational Homo Economicus beings, per John Stuart Mill? No, according to Mises, who posits that we operate under conditions of bounded rationality using means-ends approaches. How do we reconcile our ethical worldviews with value-free economics? And how can we apply economics and praxeology to things like religious faith, love, and even involuntary conditions like slavery and war?
Speaking at our recent event in Orlando, Jeff Deist discusses how libertarians should confront the current political landscape. Given the stubborn tendency for governments to emerge and endure in human societies, we should focus our efforts on creating smaller political units that more closely allow for a Misesian vision of democratic self-determination.]]>
Speaking at our recent event in Orlando, Jeff Deist discusses how libertarians should confront the current political landscape. Given the stubborn tendency for governments to emerge and endure in human societies, we should focus our efforts on creating smaller political units that more closely allow for a Misesian vision of democratic self-determination.
Speaking at our recent event in Orlando, Jeff Deist discusses how libertarians should confront the current political landscape. Given the stubborn tendency for governments to emerge and endure in human societies, we should focus our efforts on creating smaller political units that more closely allow for a Misesian vision of democratic self-determination.
Glenn Jacobs, best known as the enormously popular WWE wrestler Kane, is also a Misesian and a fixture of the liberty movement. He's currently running for mayor of Knox County, Tennessee, and he joins us to discuss the campaign.
Our guest this weekend is John Tamny, a writer and editor at Real Clear Markets and Forbes. Jeff Deist and John dissect Trump's economics, especially Trump's reflexive trade protectionism and fetish for exports over imports. They also talk about the policies Trump might get right, especially when it comes to the Fed.John has a great Misesian take on everything the new administration might mean — pro and con — so don't miss this interview.
Murray Rothbard died before he could write the third volume of his famous History of Economic Thought, which would cover the birth and development of the Austrian School, through the Keynesian Revolution and Chicago School. With this six-lecture course, however, the History of Economic Thought is complete. 3. The Pre Austrians Richard Cantillon was quite Misesian before Mises. He wrote of utility theory and the entrepreneur’s uncertainty in the 1970s. Cantillon was a great money practitioner. He became a bank and banker to the Jacobite Stuart line and to John Law who launched paper money inflation. Turgot became finance minister in 1774, but laissez-faire ideas failed. Turgot was Rothbard’s favorite character in the history of thought. He wrote well under time pressure. He wrote of wealth and capital theory and even of Austrian time preference theory and the law of diminishing returns. Cantillon and Turgot preceded Adam Smith, but were not mentioned by Smith. Smith made waste and rubbish of 2,000 years of economic thought. The French theorists were lost. Smith deviated from laissez-faire in practically everything. Malthus got his anti-population stuff from Smith. Hume was a great writer while a confused pre-Friedmanite thinker. He thought fractional reserve banking was fraud. John Stuart Mill originated much of the Ricardian system like the law of comparative advantage. Mill was one of the inventors of libertarian class analysis which proclaims that the only class conflict comes from the state. Mill and Marshall reestablish Ricardianism. That really ushers in the 20th century. The third in a series of six lectures on the History of Economic Thought. This lecture on YouTube: https://youtu.be/yvk4hIoebJs Sourced from: https://mises.org/library/history-economic-thought-marx-hayek We are not endorsed or affiliated with the above. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode Presented by: Read Rothbard is comprised of a small group of voluntaryists who are fans of Murray N. Rothbard. We curate content on the www.ReadRothbard.com site including books, lectures, articles, speeches, and we make a weekly podcast based on his free-market approach to economics. Our focus is on education and how advancement in technology improves the living standards of the average person. The Read Rothbard Podcast is all about Maximum Freedom. We look at movies and current events from a Rothbardian Anarchist perspective. If it's voluntary, we're cool with it. If it's not, then it violated the Non-Aggression Principle and Property Rights - the core tenants of Libertarian Theory - and hence - human freedom. Website: http://www.ReadRothbard.com iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-read-rothbard-podcast/id1166745868 Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/m/Ii45fhytlsiwkw6cbgzbxi6ahmi?t=The_Read_Rothbard_Podcast Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/readrothbardclub Twitter: https://twitter.com/read_rothbard Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/145447582@N05/xB4583 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard Murray Rothbard, Murray N Rothbard, Read Rothbard, Anarchy, Anarchism, Free-Market, Anarcho-Capitalism, News and Events, Podcast, Laissez-Faire, Voluntaryist, Voluntaryism, Non-Aggression Principle, NAP, Libertarian, Libertarianism, Economics, Austrian Economics,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 189. This is an interview I did a few weeks ago with English libertarian Richard Storey. We discuss the nature of libertarianism, its roots in Western Rationalism and how to defend and promote it, property rights and scarcity, the significance of Hoppe's argumentation ethics, praxeology, Misesian dualism, logical positivism, legal positivism, and related matters. Related material: What Libertarianism Is Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Logical and Legal Positivism Storey's book The Uniqueness of Western Law: A Reactionary Manifesto Storey, THE ‘REACTIONARY' LIBERTARIANISM OF FRANK VAN DUN
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 189. This is an interview I did a few weeks ago with English libertarian Richard Storey. We discuss the nature of libertarianism, its roots in Western Rationalism and how to defend and promote it, property rights and scarcity, the significance of Hoppe's argumentation ethics, praxeology, Misesian dualism, logical positivism, legal positivism, and related matters. Related material: What Libertarianism Is Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Logical and Legal Positivism
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 156. This is the fourth of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I'll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days. The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153. Transcript below. Lecture 4: EPISTEMOLOGY, METHODOLOGY AND DUALISM; KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINTY, LOGICAL POSITIVISM Video Slides TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 4: Epistemology, Methodology, and Dualism; Knowledge, Certainty, Logical Positivism Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Aug. 1, 2011 00:00:01 STEPHAN KINSELLA: … and methodology and epistemological dualism, the Austrian approach. So if you recall, last time we talked about argumentation ethics and libertarian rights, and as I said, the midterm will be posted shortly. And some of you may be interested in the IP talk I gave at Mises University on Wednesday, which I have a link to here on the slide two. And Hoppe also gave two – he has several lectures, but two of them are particularly relevant for tonight actually. The science of human action and praxeology as a method of economics are both great. They cover a lot of what we're going to talk about tonight, actually. 00:00:42 00:00:47 So we're going to talk epistemology and methodology and dualism, which are the Misesian approach, and related aspects of logical positivism and knowledge and certainty. And I'm just going to outline here the readings I had suggested that you read with certain pages of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Hoppe's pamphlet, “Economic Science and the Austrian Method.” I have my ragged old copy here from years in the past. I don't know what the current version looks like, notes, so this is my favorite copy, and another paper from EEPP and another journal article on rationalism. 00:01:25 And then there are some supplemental readings if you want to go further. But we're going to try to cover as much as we can here. So let's start off talking about what we're talking – the subject of our lecture is the economic science and the methodology appropriate economic science or the discipline of economics. So what do we mean by the word science? I mean when I was in college and growing up, the word science to me meant what most people think of it now as technology, gadgets, gizmos, physics, theories, chemistry, things like this, things that are testable. 00:02:01 This is actually sort of a fairly new twist on the word science as caused by the rise of positivism and empiricism and what we might call scientism. It's a much older term of course. You see the little diagram on the right of some spooky government agency, the Information Awareness Office, but they have the all-knowing eye on top of the pyramid looking at the earth and the motto, Scientia est Potentia, which means knowledge is power. So you see the word science there, meaning just general knowledge. In the Lionel Robbins, famous sort of proto-Austrian economist, at one point, wrote a treatise in 1932, very influential treatise until the ‘50s probably called “The Nature and Significance of Economic Science.” 00:02:57 So you can see the word science is being used for even economics, although nowadays, most people would restrict it to the technical or natural sciences. Back in the US Constitution in 1789, in the clause authorizing patent and copyright, look at how the words are arranged here. This is the power granted to Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. 00:03:30 So I've got in red here the words that pair together: science, authors, and writings. Now, most people would think science has to do with inventions and inventors and discoveries. But no,
A key difference between Austrian economics and the neoclassical-mathematical economics developed in the mid-twentieth century by Paul Samuelson and others is the assumption by the latter that people are essentially omniscient. What neoclassical economists call "rationality" effectively means omniscience. When the agents in neoclassical models face any uncertainty, the uncertainty is always fully understood in advance; for instance, a stock's value tomorrow might be drawn from a normal distribution with a known mean and variance. Without the assumption of omniscience, the Austrian school faces the important question of how people can make economic decisions in a complex, uncertain world. Ludwig von Mises' answer (see his 1920 essay, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth) was that capitalist entrepreneurs calculate in monetary terms. That is, they use the prices of the immediate past as their starting data, and attempt to direct factors of production in such a way as to maximize the spread between costs and revenues. If their predictions of price changes are good, they earn profits. If their predictions are bad, they earn losses. Thus, their direction of scarce resources is subject to immediate and consequential feedback allowing a selective process for only the best entrepreneurial forecasting methods. Without monetary exchange and prices, the problem of directing factors of production to their highest uses becomes intractable. An interesting thing about Mises' calculation argument is that it does not only relate to socialism, but to free, capitalist societies also. Mises states that, "Economic goods only have part in this system [of monetary calculation] in proportion to the extent to which they may be exchanged for money." Thus, when a good cannot be exchanged for money, for any reason, it is subject to a Misesian calculation problem. One type of capital good that I have identified as facing a calculation problem is education. The present value of an education is nowhere represented as a market price. The rental rate of the education is represented in the price spread between educated and uneducated labour, but the present value of the education is not a price because the education itself cannot be exchanged. The present value of the education would correspond to the expected discounted stream of income generated by the education, but this income is not represented in prices until years after the education is complete. Thus, students cannot use monetary calculation to allocate their time, funds, and efforts to being educated. They cannot refer to the present value price of the education in their initial estimation of the education's value, nor can they refer to that price to evaluate their decisions in real time. In my view, the way to introduce economic rationality to education is to have a well-functioning market in student debt. Student debt can be priced in the market, and can thus be efficiently allocated according to monetary calculation. The value of a student loan is related to the value of the student's education. To the extent that the availability of credit can affect people's educational choices, lenders will be able to steer the allocation of resources towards more productive lines of education. The student loan markets are not healthy, however, because of decades of government interventions intended to increase the availability of credit for students. Garrett M. Petersen is an economics PhD student at Simon Fraser University. You can find him online at the economics detective blog.
The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by James Walker. Recorded at the 2014 Austrian Economics Research Conference in Auburn, Alabama, on 22 March 2014.
The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by James Walker. Recorded at the 2014 Austrian Economics Research Conference in Auburn, Alabama, on 22 March 2014.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 038. [Update: see my post Wenzel the Werewolf] Blogger Robert Wenzel and I had a "debate" earlier today about IP, to be jointly put up on my podcast and his Economic Policy Journal "podcast" (it's on his site at Kinsella Crushed!! and Initial Report on Debate, and mentioned ahead of time several times as linked below). Bob is an Austrian libertarian (I think) blogger but has been criticizing me and Jeff Tucker's anti-IP views for a few years now (see links below), so we decided to discuss it. (( Note: I failed to record the audio at my end until 1:07:10, but my audio quality was better. So I spliced in the better second half from my recording. So starting at 1:07:10 you can hear better audio quality at my end, and no worse at Wenzel's. )) The transcript is available here. Youtube: Backup copy: The discussion went on for over 2 hours. It went about as I expected: he tried to dwell on side points, he refused to—was unable to—even attempt to define IP much less provide a coherent justification for it. He repeatedly engaged in question-begging: calling using information you learn from others "stealing," which presupposes that there is some owned thing that is stolen. He started out with several bizarre, off-point attacks: for example challenging my claim in my 2001 piece Against Intellectual Property that Rothbard was one of the original libertarian opponents of IP. The entire criticism by Wenzel is bizarre because whether or not I am right in listing Rothbard as an opponent of patent and copyright has nothing to do with whether IP is justified. Further, later in the paper I have an extensive section dealing with Rothbard's attempt to come up with some kind of contractual scheme that emulated some aspects of IP, which he confusingly calls "copyright." Some libertarians, like Wenzel, apparently think Rothbard did support copyright (though Wenzel repeatedly equivocates on whether he is talking about state copyright or Rothbard's private "copyright" scheme), or patent, or something in between, and others say he didn't. For example David Gordon writing on LewRockwell.com, in Sam Konkin and Libertarian Theory, observes: ... anti-IP views were very much in the air thirty years ago: Wendy McElroy stands out especially in my mind as a forceful and effective critic of IP. Even earlier, Rothbard had in Man, Economy, and State (1962) favored the replacement of the state system of patents and copyrights with contractual arrangements, freely negotiated. (If one moves outside modern libertarianism, Benjamin Tucker rejected IP well over a century ago as Wendy McElroy has documented in an outstanding article. Rothbard did not take this "contractual copyright" idea very far and indeed I believe it contradicts other aspects of his thought such as his contract theory (ch. 19 of Ethics of Liberty), his opposition to reputation rights/defamation law (ch. 16), and his explicit opposition to patents (ch. 16, also Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, pp. liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86). But anyway, what does it matter? It's a bizarre appeal to authority. I am quite sure that Rothbard would have agreed with us anti-IP libertarians if he had had more time to sort it out; as I noted, it's implied in all the structure of his political theory. This is why Hoppe easily saw this by integrating Rothbardian and Misesian political economic ideas (Hoppe on Intellectual Property). But so what if he would not have? Then he would have been wrong. And so what if I had been wrong in listing Rothbard as an early libertarian opponent of IP (though he arguably was; although as the paper explained later on, his position was not fully fleshed out and/or had ambiguities). How does this prove IP is legitimate? It does not, but Wenzel has no good argument for IP which is why he for over two hours refuses my repeated requests that he provide one—after all,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 038. [update: I have just updated the mp3: I forgot to record it at my end until about 1:07, but my audio quality was better. So I spliced in the better second half from my recording. So starting at 1:07 or so you can hear better audio quality at my end, and no worse at Wenzel's.] Blogger Robert Wenzel and I had a "debate" earlier today about IP, to be jointly put up on my podcast and his Economic Policy Journal "podcast" (it's on his site at Kinsella Crushed!! and Initial Report on Debate, and mentioned ahead of time several times as linked below). Bob is an Austrian libertarian (I think) blogger but has been criticizing me and Jeff Tucker's anti-IP views for a few years now (see links below), so we decided to discuss it. The discussion went on for over 2 hours. It went about as I expected: he tried to dwell on side points, he refused to—was unable to—even attempt to define IP much less provide a coherent justification for it. He repeatedly engaged in question-begging: calling using information you learn from others "stealing," which presupposes that there is some owned thing that is stolen. He started out with several bizarre, off-point attacks: for example challenging my claim in my 2001 piece Against Intellectual Property that Rothbard was one of the original libertarian opponents of IP. The entire criticism by Wenzel is bizarre because whether or not I am right in listing Rothbard as an opponent of patent and copyright has nothing to do with whether IP is justified. Further, later in the paper I have an extensive section dealing with Rothbard's attempt to come up with some kind of contractual scheme that emulated some aspects of IP, which he confusingly calls "copyright." Some libertarians, like Wenzel, apparently think Rothbard did support copyright (though Wenzel repeatedly equivocates on whether he is talking about state copyright or Rothbard's private "copyright" scheme), or patent, or something in between, and others say he didn't. For example David Gordon writing on LewRockwell.com, in Sam Konkin and Libertarian Theory, observes: ... anti-IP views were very much in the air thirty years ago: Wendy McElroy stands out especially in my mind as a forceful and effective critic of IP. Even earlier, Rothbard had in Man, Economy, and State (1962) favored the replacement of the state system of patents and copyrights with contractual arrangements, freely negotiated. (If one moves outside modern libertarianism, Benjamin Tucker rejected IP well over a century ago as Wendy McElroy has documented in an outstanding article. Rothbard did not take this "contractual copyright" idea very far and indeed I believe it contradicts other aspects of his thought such as his contract theory (ch. 19 of Ethics of Liberty), his opposition to reputation rights/defamation law (ch. 16), and his explicit opposition to patents (ch. 16, also Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, pp. liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86). But anyway, what does it matter? It's a bizarre appeal to authority. I am quite sure that Rothbard would have agreed with us anti-IP libertarians if he had had more time to sort it out; as I noted, it's implied in all the structure of his political theory. This is why Hoppe easily saw this by integrating Rothbardian and Misesian political economic ideas (Hoppe on Intellectual Property). But so what if he would not have? Then he would have been wrong. And so what if I had been wrong in listing Rothbard as an early libertarian opponent of IP (though he arguably was; although as the paper explained later on, his position was not fully fleshed out and/or had ambiguities). How does this prove IP is legitimate? It does not, but Wenzel has no good argument for IP which is why he for over two hours refuses my repeated requests that he provide one—after all, it's supposed to be a debate about IP. In fact in my opening statement I explained that the burden of proof is on ...
The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, presented at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference. Recorded 10 March 2012 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Includes an introduction by Joseph T. Salerno.
The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, presented at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference. Recorded 10 March 2012 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Includes an introduction by Joseph T. Salerno.
Jacobs was a libertarian whether she knew it or not. The conclusions she drew were Misesian, just in a different way. Jacobs has also been compared to Hayek. Her The Death & Life of Great American Cities told essentially the same story as Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society. A city is a marketplace that cannot be planned.In the works of Jacobs, the order present in a well-functioning urban area emerges as the result of human action but not human design. It arises from a myriad of individuals each pursuing their own interest and carrying out their own plans, within a framework of rules.The basic logic of Jane Jacobs's work must lead an attentive reader inexorably to a libertarian view of human social relations.
Presented by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. at "The Failure of the Keynesian State," the Mises Circle in Houston, sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis. Recorded Saturday, 23 January 2010. Includes introductory and closing remarks by former Mises Institute president Douglas E. French.
Recorded at Jekyll Island, Georgia; May 1992.
Richard Cantillon was quite Misesian before Mises. He wrote of utility theory and the entrepreneur’s uncertainty in the 1970s. Cantillon was a great money practitioner. He became a bank and banker to the Jacobite Stuart line and to John Law who launched paper money inflation.Turgot became finance minister in 1774, but laissez-faire ideas failed. Turgot was Rothbard’s favorite character in the history of thought. He wrote well under time pressure. He wrote of wealth and capital theory and even of Austrian time preference theory and the law of diminishing returns.Cantillon and Turgot preceded Adam Smith, but were not mentioned by Smith. Smith made waste and rubbish of 2,000 years of economic thought. The French theorists were lost. Smith deviated from laissez-faire in practically everything. Malthus got his anti-population stuff from Smith.Hume was a great writer while a confused pre-Friedmanite thinker. He thought fractional reserve banking was fraud.John Stuart Mill originated much of the Ricardian system like the law of comparative advantage. Mill was one of the inventors of libertarian class analysis which proclaims that the only class conflict comes from the state. Mill and Marshall reestablish Ricardianism. That really ushers in the 20th century.The third in a series of six lectures on the History of Economic Thought.
Joseph Sobran of National Review cautions against all foreign aid, calls for an end to entangling alliances, and suggests that America's most important export is Misesian economics and the Founding Fathers' vision of liberty. Includes an introduction by Lew Rockwell. Presented by the Mises Institute at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, on 23 April 1990.
On this episode Joe Hartman returns to do our now third episode doing a deep dive on praxeology and Austrian economics - this time to discuss Jordan Peterson's 12 rules for life and their connection to Misesian libertarianism in the wake of Jordan Peterson's conversation with Bob Murphy. Definitely a fun episode Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/daniel-3-biblical-anarchy/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
