can there be a free market and government?

[John_James]

@David B

So having spent a lot of time for many years in the books of Rothbard and Mises, Spooner and Thoreau and Spencer, Rand, Nozick. Reading Walt Williams, Lew Rockwell, etc., etc. for at least 10+ years now, its a little demeaning to have someone suggest that I go watch some beginner’s videos on politics.

You’re right. You did sound like a newb. Not sure what that means, if all those “credentials” you list off are accurate.

shrug

Sorry?

In the end, in the Ethics of Liberty one thing sits wrong with me. To get there, you have to start however, with Praxeology and Mises. It all begins with the ought/is dichotomy. The source of IS statements (or truth) is Reality. Meaning to make statements of fact, is to say something that’s true. But ought statements, the normative arises from man. It arises from intentionality, from purposeful behavior, from human action. Mises understood this, and got what it really means. Mises provided a value-free science of human action. He called it praxeology. He makes truth statements about the a priori categories that arise from the category of human action. Praxeology doesn’t make Capitalism right. The “rightness” of Capitalism is a value judgment each man makes on his own. All praxeology gives us is value-free analysis of the consequences of private property and voluntary exchange, such a system is called the Free Market, or Capitalism.

But the science of Praxeology is incomplete. Mises recognized that he had a value-free science that was the mother science from which all social science flowed, but something was missing :

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science -

Now, I can’t read Polish, so I’m left to wonder what happened to this work. I’ve looked and I can’t find a continuation. But when I found this line in my most recent reading of Mises work, I was left wondering if I hadn’t hit on something in my previous article on ender’s website.

There is a metaphysical real occurence of men acting with plans that cannot both be implemented in reality and both achieve their end.

Feeling I’d hit on something I wrote “All Human Science starts with Praxeology”, I make this argument :

He made it abundantly clear to me that one needs to be clear about dividing between value-free theory (or science) and purpose driven application of theory (or technology). And what’s missing in modern political science, is science. In particular it’s not a value-free science rooted in praxeology. Liberalism, Natural Property Rights, Voluntarism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are technology. In some cases people are able to get away with the political equivalent of divining rods (socialism, democracy, anarcho-communism), and it’s because we don’t have a value-free scientific theory of politics. We can’t even give the boundaries of the problem domain.

Cool story bro.

So, newbie links… ummm… ok.

Oh I get it. That was supposed to be your knife throwing moment in which you bust out all your skills and wow the crowd into seeing you’re not the novice they all thought you were. Slick snot right there.

@David B

Kokesh can be as eloquent as he’d like to be, and I happen to have been making these same argumetns and having these same discussions for years.

Yes, yes, we get it. You’re an expert voluntaryist with many years of experience in voluntarying. May all due honors bestow upon thee.

That doesn’t solve the problem I’m pointing out.

And what problem would that be exactly? It sounded to me like all you were talking about was a simple misunderstanding due to ill-defined terms:

“The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined.”

But hey, you’re the expert here, so don’t let me tell you how your post reads. I’m just a humble forum hobbiest. Nothing like you esteemed Blogspot bloggers.

@David B

@John James

Give some examples of where this relationship is not (or cannot be made to be) easily seen (or at least easily enough), and these conflicts that “must” arise. I don’t see them being many, or that significant.

Then you fail to understand and recognize the enormous importance of the existence of law. Not that law is the right solution to the social phenomena which gives rise to it, but that it’s existence in and of itself points to a significant and important social phenomena that bears analysis and explanation. Because the source of law is human action, praxeology is the starting point for understanding the entire political sphere, of which law is part.

I’m sorry were there some examples I missed in there somewhere?

@David B

@John James

“acting like states aren’t one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous.”

K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn’t a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous. I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?

Good you get my point.

YAY! I got one!

There’s nothing inherent in the action, or in our current definition of human action (Praxeology in Mises work) that explains or defines what makes any action right or wrong. In fact it can’t, nor should it.

Ah but your definition can! After all, “[Mises] missed something”…something “[you] hit on”…human action actually provides a priori categories from which we can derive ethics!

I guess I can see why you were so offended now. I mean, you picked up the slack left by one of the greatest economists of all time…you saw what he didn’t, and even published it on your Blogspot blog!..and here you are on a lame-o Internet forum and some lowly forum contributor completely missed your shimmering brilliance and mistook you for a newb. Womp womp womp.

I guess I’d be a little uppity too.

Praxeology explains why that’s so. Praxeology doesn’t say it’s a wrong solution. It just has necessary side effects.

Did someone say otherwise? Why is this even relevant?

I hope I don’t need to explain why I feel a little disrespected by the rest of that?

…as of course I’m so confused as to what you’ve been doing so far in this post…

For some more thoughts of mine on these issues look here, that’s probably the best post I’ve participated in. In particular this, this, this, and this A Praxeological category of conflict is the necessary root of a praxeological science of Politics, here and here are some of posts on that topic.

Kickass. I’ll be sure and get these to over to Kirzner and Hoppe right away.

So in interpreting what I have to say, understand I reject the normative content of liberalism as truth statements. I personally affirm as my own goals the goals and techniques of liberalism which is to me a technology for addressing the conflicts that arise in social human action.

And this makes you special, how exactly?

@David B

wth? My response just got held for moderator approval?

Yes, Ace. That happens. I’d link you to the newbie thread that explains all that, but I’m afraid of disgracing you and your family.