So again, given that Mises was not an anarchist, can we say that Mises loses credibility as a free market and Austrian economist?
So what ? The world is not your opinions.
I am. Political economy was a tool created by libertarians to advance freedom - nothing value-free about that. What is ‘value free’ about economics is that economics, like any valid reasoning, must stick to logic. And logic is ‘value free’…sort of.
But then people who are not honest don’t pay much regard to logic anyway so their ‘economics’ is not even value-free in the sense of being consistent. Most of what passes for economics is just absurd propaganda. You know, like the things the mainstream economist you admire say.
Yes. It seems he didn’t fully grasp economics and failed to apply it to the area of defense and protection of individual rights.
I don’t really think you know what you’re talking about. It’s a very dubious claim that political economy was created by libertarians to advance freedom and it’s one I doubt you can substantiate. I’m almost less than convinced that political economy represents the entirety of economics, since as far as I’m aware political economy is a branch of economic science.
I suggest you go read Mises, Weber and the rest of the Austrians who have written on this issue, since you’re essentially denying that there is a realm of economics at all.
I already answered this sort of question, but Lam moved it to a new thread for some reason. My answer to your previous similar question will serve as an adequate answer for this one.
So, you don’t even know what political economy means.
Oh by the way, Weber was not an austrian economist he was a german social democrat.
So let’s be clear then, a proposal for the new home page based on some of the preferred language of this forum:
Tu Ne Cede Malis
– Ludwig von Mises: statist, socialist, crank, parasite, lost credibility as a free market and Austrian economist
Correct?
Oh, did I attribute a position you do not hold? What position do you hold? Do you support the state or not?
First, opinions on this forum are not universal. Second, no one is proposing the Institute adopt any ideas generated in this community.
Third, you are arguing past my original response to you? Did you read it, or are you strawmanning me?
Weber was a great sociologist, that is all that matters.
I didn’t say they were, I know no one was proposing that. I thought you might have picked up on the humorous aspect.
Well, if you use those terms to refer to non-anarchists, then it’s not a strawman, is it? I believe you did disavow the use of “crank,” but wouldn’t it be crank economics to come to socialist conclusions? Something must have gone very wrong.
Given that he must have been familiar with anarchist arguments, it seems either a) there is some deductive logic that he failed to grasp, or b) an anarchist position is not necessitated by logic. Which is it?
I believe I do, it’s the branch of economic science that studies the impact that government has upon the economy. Of course, if you disagree that polical economy is a branch of economic science and wish to provide another definition, go ahead. But be warned, if you do so your original “criticism” that economics is not value true loses its weight.
As for Weber, I could care less about his political views. Mises drew heavily on him, especially so in regards to value freedom in the social sciences. Perhaps you should know that Weber was often the subject of discussion in the original Mises Circle in Vienna.
I’ve answered this, what’s more, you’ve acknowledged my answer. If you wish to go ahead and respond to my post, I’d be much obliged. I put time and thought into posting it. On the other hand, if you don’t want to respond to my posts and wish to act in a manner that you berate Brainpolice for, that’s also welcome. But I believe you should stop lecturing me on credibility if you wish to do so.
You’ve gone out of your way to ignore my posts recently, as well as inconveninet posts by others. So, please take your move, or knock that king of yours over and capitulate.
Facts cannot be allowed to stand in our way, no, no.
Political economy always dealt with all economic phenomena including government intervention. But never mind - I won’t bother engaging in a pseudo intellectual discussion with an academic wannabe.
Just like I couldn’t care less for his flawed philosophy (if it even deserves such a name).
But they are not facts. They are lies that stem from some arbitrary theoretical interpretation, while at the same time denying the validity of theory. You see, a position based only on empiricism is logically bankrupt.
What is sociology ?
And by the way, why not discuss Weber’s cranky politics and statism ?
What, you didn’t hear? The Great Lord Rothbard wrote America’s Great Depression without any reference to empirical evidence, it was all deduced a priori from the action axiom! Lesser Austrians such as Boettke, Horwitz, White, Selgin, Garrison, Thornton, Klein, Leeson, Coyne and others may have to resort to evidence. But that’s only because they’re insufficiently Austrians and quite simply not very good economists.
That’s not a definition, which is what I was asking for. But, go ahead, dismiss me as a pseudo intellectual. It does things so much easier when you can resort to throwing ad homines around. Perhaps I shouldn’t have written the OP of this topic, people are outdebating me with such ease nowadays!
OK, well, Mises adopted a great deal of it. So now we can be done with Mises. The Austrians school officially began with Murray Rothbard, this clears up quite a few tricky issues.
Tu Ne Cede Malis -
Ludwig von Mises, crank, statist, socialist, propagandist and flawed philosopher.
I know that you’re not an expert at english, but if you’re going to discuss about Weber in english, do know, in english, what you’re talking about, in english. Sociology tends to be about the analysis of social institutions outside of the economy - dealing with issues like classes, racial relations, social stratification, culture, and social interaction.
Because it has no relevance to Weber’s support of value-free science, which is the context he was brought into the conversation.