Hey I am currently taking a course on Machiavelli which establishes him as the the first “modern” of politics. On kind of a related note, I was wondering if anyone in the Austrian school has devised a theory of politics, kind of separate (but obviously linked) from the economic theories?
The Austrian school emphasizes the importance of private property and free markets. It teaches that government action beyond the protection of rights infringes on ownership and serves special interests. In that sense, it is closely related to Libertarianism, and indeed most Austrian thinkers are Libertarian.
I think the closest that anyone has come to a praxeological theory of social interaction (if that’s what you’re looking for) is Adam Knott’s work. Check out his website, most specifically his books (free as PDFs) A Praxeology of Coercion and Striving and Attainment: A Theory of Social Interaction.
Just keep in mind that Knott is trying to tear down libertarianism 
in favor of collectivism and collective coercion.
What makes you say that?
Since Economics is an extension of politics and Austrian favors free markets…i guess they would like free competitive elections with a high turnover ratio.
What an intellectually consistent Austrian would favor is that the people who want to be ruled by Obama can be ruled by Obama and the people who want to be ruled by McCain can be ruled by McCain. Whatever your choice, you should not be able to offload its cost on people who do not want to bear it.
I read a bit into his praxeology of coercion and praxeology and ethics. He tries the old road to determine what the goals of a human being ought to be and neglects the concept of property, which is the base of Rothbardian economics and ethics. I am not through with reading, but what I read so far is another attempt to install an ethics of society which a human being is oblieged to obey to.
“In Rothbard’s view, only one kind of bank
and only one approach to banking should be “allowed.” All
other approaches to banking are to be considered immoral.”
This is a quote from Praxeology and ethics" pg. 13
There is no such view of Rothbard ever. Rothbard stated serveral times in various publications, that redeemability is the issue that makes fractional reserve banking theft. It is not a technical aspect, it is the promise to redeem when you can not fulfill that promise because you do not have the funds. Knowing that upfront, as in the case of fractional reserve banking and redeemable accounts on sight, is fraud, e.g. theft, e.g. the initiation of aggression against ones property.
Rothbard doesn’t say it should be allowed or not allowed, the whole point in Rothbards ethics is, that “allowed” is the misnomer. Allowed by whom? Enforced by whom? Once you trot down the path of “allowed” than you end up with the question, who is the entity to enforce. The right to property entails the right to protect property against initial aggression. This is the fundament of all rights the individual has in acting with others. Under a libertarian view this is also the only legal basis for any rules, that cope with such issues. Coercion is never a legal means of society or any group out of it being a group, but rather it is a means of an individual to receive his property back from some other individual that took it in violation of the property rights of the other individual.
nhaag, if someone proposes coin-clipping or wage-fixing as a means of bringing prosperity to an area, an economist can explain how these will actually have negative results. The proposer is not then obliged to drop the proposal, but now he acts with the consequences in mind. Earlier in Praxeology and Ethics, Adam Knott discusses this in the context of Weimar inflation. And then he laments that ethicists do not benefit from praxeology:
So I think he is not trying to ‘install’ an ethics as you say. Actually it’s an interesting thing to look for; I mainly disagreed with what he wrote about argumentation ethics, where he criticized it as if it were an attempt to do this.
I am confused. I read many members claiming that Austrian school supports no government, ergo, would that also mean no politics?
Well, as Callahan said politics is part of any society.
I am well aware of that. I also conclude that “no government”, “no taxes” and “no politics” is oversimplistic. But I am curious to see reasoned arguments on the status of politics in a hypothetical minimal or no government society.
Politics is simply how decisions come to be made. Libertarians hold that all decision-making should be through individual initiative. Any other political theory permits coercion in some form.
“Government” means, “a monopoly on the use of initiating force in a given geographic area”.
“Politics” means “public discourse on policy”.
Very different concepts. The highest political goal of politics is liberty!
I’m surprised no one has suggested Power and Market yet.
What about Rothbard’s “The Anatomy of the State?” Doesn’t this work give the Austrian theory of politics?