And the consequentialistic justification is very complicated.
Not really.
So, Mises wrote “Human Action” merely because it was an enjoyable intellectual exercise?
Mises didn’t think he was establishing something new, merely that he was explaining what was already present in the economics community. I believe David Gordon said that in several of his lectures. Also Joseph Salerno.
As an example, what about the calculation problem? Was that merely “explaining what was already present in the economics community”? And I could always alter my question to this: So, Menger wrote “Principles of Economics” merely because it was an enjoyable intellectual exercise?
He branded them all together and expanded them but there were previous economists who believed they followed the scientific method and stated as such, i.e empiricism, but they actually used praxeology, they just didn’t identify with the term or method. He used their insights, when correct.
As for the OP - start some discussions, make some arguments, there is plenty to debate about.
This is not Disney World. If you find it boring, try an additional hobby.
Yes basically. Mises implicated that without a price system then economic calculation is an impossibility. It was only groundbreaking to those who don’t know economics [ the socialists ] I think it rather a common place deduction to those who have some understanding of how economics works.
Under the influence of earlier scholastics.
Listen, paradigms are not something that are just radically invented every generation. Now maybe you think what Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek and Rothbard and anyone else you wish to choose invented some revolutionary paradigm that has never existed before. I mean if you want to believe that fine, I’m not really much more inclined to dissuade you and I think we both realize I’m not going to. I see it more as merely explaining what already exists in the world. Much like saying ‘The sky is blue.’ Not very jaw dropping yet none the less true. Perhaps you have the Orwellian mindset of speaking truth during times of deceit is a revolutionary act. I just see it as something I should of known yet was unaware of and wouldn’t label it revolutionary. I don’t know maybe I’m just not swayed to fits of emotional highs. Anyways I think I am pretty much done here. I think Jonathon is sitting around saying “Come on! Someone [ besides me ] advance liberty”
to the OP - so have you read enough on a subject to know if you are merely repeating what has already been argued and advanced. maybe you’re thinking is back in the 13th century and meanwhile writings and ideas of various people have advanced to the 21st century. do you know that or not? in other words, I have no clue what you trying to say.[:P]
Basically he is complaining that people like Jeffrey Tucker and other Mises faculty don’t REALLY advance liberty because they are not constantly creating whole new outlooks. He need only listen to one of Mr. Tucker’s podcasts about the traffic that this site receives and I think he will be astounded to the point of silence.
Dissident Publishing: Then and Now
I guess you’re trendy.[:P]
You have a really bizarre view of science.
Wait am I inventing a new paradigm? I don’t want to engage in perfomative contradiction!![:P]
All your attacks are mere strawmans. I never said that those examples represented a new “paradigms”.
I wasn’t ‘attacking’ you. I was merely rationalizing why you think the way you do. If I am incorrect that you think what Mises/Menger did was groundbreakingly new [ revolutionary ] then please do say something on the matter.
How can one have a new idea without a new paradigm? Its not really a new idea, its applying an old paradigm to a new premise [which I wouldn’t label as a ‘new idea’ ].
And if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, no discoveries are possible because all science is mere description of an already existent reality. And that is absurd because the terms “discovery” and “science advancement” reflect that truth (i.e., that all science is mere description of an already existent reality) and therefore they imply that a more appropriate discription of an already existent reality is formulate and not some invented reality is formulated. In other words, you are changing the meaning of these terms.
Stop changing the meaning of words. It is completely obvious that I meant that you were attacking my points.
Stop changing the meaning of words. The law of marginal utility was a new idea. That is how the phrase “new idea” is used.
Well I don’t think there is just ‘scientific advancement’, things do get lost down the memory hole so to speak. So is ‘re-discovery’ really ‘discovery’? It’s Whiggish to assume that everything we know now is all but the best and which each generation it gets better. Perhaps we find the writings of Socrates, are we finding new ideas? Not necessarily because the ideas were known during the time of Socrates.
Phrase that in a way that makes sense.
Ok…but I wasn’t even attacking that.
During the time of Menger? No it wasn’t. Marginalism was being discussed probably before he was born with Turgot and Condililac, in fact you can probably go all the way back to Aristotle in his work Politics
So, Aristotle solved the paradox of value?