I like Mises, he used to remind me of old fashioned concise and methodical physics textbooks, though with much more finesse. It’s ironic, I don’t think I’d ever notice it if he ever lectured me, given how he sounds in the audioclips!
Ah! You’ve got to be kidding me. I just finished reading “Can Capitalism Survive” this past weekend and I find his writing to be roundabout and atrocious. Sure, he can make big sentences that are grammatically correct, but isn’t the point of writing to communicate ideas? I had no problem understanding his arguments or what he was saying as soon as I figured out how the words were related to one another in the sentences.
He also doesn’t know how to use paragraphs. Every one starts with a sentence requiring you to have read the previous sentence. The paragraphs would start with “It is not so.” or “We will see why this is false” and other statements like that. Ugh. I found it very hard to concentrate while reading his writing.
As for the others, I’ve only read Mises, Rothbard, Murphy and Woods, and I have to say that Rothbard is my favorite of those to read. I still find them all very good communicators in writing, and I find it very easy to understand what they’re saying. In Mises works, I find myself contemplating the ideas instead of deciphering what he was trying to say. Schrumpeter just confused me by using too many words in a strange way to say too little. Honestly, if people are going to author books they should write to communicate and not to show off their command of grammar.
Ha ha. So true.
seriously, block has a extremely sloppy talking style. a noob can get many, many wrong impressions by his points. i like david gordon, because he meticulously words his statements instead of talking before thinking. blocks style is enjoyable though he also contributed a lot to libertarian theory.