A Priori Logic in Politial Theory, looking for a book

Economics Political Theory
1

I had a few emails back and forth with Tom Woods about epistemology in economics and he pointed me to the wonderful “Economic Science and the Austrian Method” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (available free here at Mises. Link posted at end of question).

It’s a study of how empiricism as an over-riding epistemology has failed due to it’s self refuting nature, and how Keynsianism is built off of this flawed epistemology. It details how Keynsianism is not concerned with unseen consequences of actions because it cannot observe and measure them mathematically and so it simply disgards them.

Here is a good example from the book:

"Now let us turn to some typical economic propositions. Consider the validation process of a proposition such as the following: Whenever two people A and B engage in a voluntary exchange, they must both expect to profit from it. And they must have reverse preference orders for the goods and services exchanged so that A values what he receives from B more highly than what he gives to him, and B must evaluate the same things the other way around…

…Considering such propositions, is the validation process involved in establishing them as true or false of the same type as that involved in establishing a proposition in the natural sciences? Are these propositions hypothetical in the same sense as a proposition regarding the effects of mixing two types of natural materials? Do we have to test these economic propositions continuously against observations? And does it require a never-ending trial and error process in order to find out the range of application for these propositions and to gradually improve our knowledge, such as we have seen to be the case in the natural sciences?

It seems quite evident except to most economists for the last forty years that the answer to these questions is a clear and unambiguous NO. That A and B must expect to profit and have reverse preference orders follows from our understanding of what an exchange is"

It seems modern economics fail because they exclude a priori logic from their systems as invalid. This is all leading to a question I promise!!!

While watching Freedom Watch, Daniel Hannon made the remark that the further away from the impact of a decision the decision makers are, the worse the decision will be. This seems to be the kind of a priori logic rejected by Keynesians that justify large scale centralized planning based on mathematical models. Is there a similar exposition of logic/empiricism related to political theory? Tom didn’t know on this one and I would love to hear a good example.

Here’s Hoppe’s Book here at the institute:

~Wesley Mitchell

2

This was prepared earlier but it’s related, so I’ll post it… in the hopes someone finds it useful. [:)]

An Introduction to Economic Reasoning by David Gordon

“As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level.”

Epistemological Problems of Economics by Ludwig Von Mises

“The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed.”

Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Praxeology and Economic Science:

Sec I : “It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought…”
Sec II : “Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws…”

On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

Sec I : “As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions…”
Sec II : “Let me turn to Mises’s solution…”
Sec III : “I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology…”
Sec IV : “In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom…”

Counter Revolution of Science by F.A. Hayek

The problem that Hayek deals with reaches to the core of how economists think about their discipline. There was once such a thing as the human sciences of which economics was part. The goal was to discover and elucidate the exact laws that govern the interaction of people with the material world. It had its own methods and own recommendations.

Then something changed. Science became entirely positivistic in its orientation. Economics was changed from a human science into a poor cousin of the natural sciences that applied positivist methods, and to no great end, for human beings do not move about like molecules but rather engage in choices and unpredictable actions.

What Hayek does in this treatise is link the change in methodology to a change in politics. The economy and people began to be regarded as a collective entity to be examined as if whole societies should be studied as we study planets or other non-volitional beings. It then began to make mistakes, treating facts as theories and theories as contingent. And thus is the state invited in to treat society as a laboratory.

This re-definition of what constitutes science thus had a terrible and even deadly result for human well being and liberty. Science had turned from being a friend of freedom into being employed as its enemy.

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science by Ludwig Von Mises

There are two senses in which this book is indeed ultimate: it deals with the very core of economics as a science, and it is the last book that he wrote.

As his career was coming to a close, Mises saw that that fiercest battles over economic questions come down to issues of epistemology: how do we determine what is and what is not true in economics? How do we even know that economics is a valid science? What are the methods we should use in studying economics? What constitutes a true proposition and how do we know?

These questions matter because, as Mises says, the very future of freedom and civilization itself depend on economic science, the development and application of which was “the most spectacular event of modern history.”

3

I just want to say that this remark is not made from a praxeological basis, or is capable of being deduced apriori. It is expressed as though ‘common sense’ and as such is a ‘rule of thumb’ type argument, or general principle that is ‘accepted wisdom’ that would have empirical roots.

4

Bertrand de Jouvenel The Pure Theory of Politics