Mises Science of Ought

[wilderness]

@I. Ryan

@wilderness

That’s what anybody ever does. What’s your point?

What exactly are you trying to prove?

I am not necessarily trying to prove anything. I think I am addressing something else. I mentioned this at the top of my OP requoted here:

@OP

This is for those that visit the forum that have consistently conflated personal ethics with political-ethics. And have therefore also conflated economics with political-ethics, as well as, law in the legal sense of the term. It is not that human action does not partake with politics. Yet it is another thing to suggest that there is no politics and that human action has nothing to do with content whatsoever. Praxeology doesn’t study the content of means to ends, but this doesn’t mean that there are not contextualized means and ends to study with the axiom of human action always active in such a pursuit.

Also I think this is important:

Also:

Francois Facchini:
Thomism [ie. natural law] consequently it links methodological subjectivism and ontological objectivism (Maki 1990, p. 295) and gives us the means to rectify our beliefs. It is ontological objectivism that enables us to affirm that we can have knowledge of economic phenomena that transcends our prejudices, opinions, and preconceptions about the world.

Transcending ones own prejudices, opinions, and preconceptions.