Seems to me he’s directly responding to one of your claims. To wit, you claim Rothbard totally misunderstood Mises.
Kaz, I wasn’t responding to your claim that Rothbard departed from Mises’s “value freedom” doctrine. Everyone knows Rothbard believed in natural rights while Mises didn’t. Neither did I say, “Mises liked Rothbard, so Rothbard must be right.” Instead, I was responding to your claim that Rothbard didn’t understand Austrian monetary theory and “ignored all other Austrian thought.” If you are right, then Mises himself didn’t understand “Austrian thought,” since he says that Rothbard “develops the correct theory.” E.g., Mises might be wrong about whether or not praxeology is correct, but he can’t be wrong about what praxeology is since he invented praxeology.
Consider the following two arguments:
-
“The pope says the bible is inerrant. Therefore, the bible is inerrant.”
-
“The pope says the inerrancy of the bible is part of Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it is part of Catholic doctrine.”
1 is a bad and “cultish” argument, but 2 is perfectly reasonable.
As to your claim that Rothbard didn’t use praxeology, I don’t know what makes you think so. Rothbard’s economics obviously relies on the same kind of a priori reasoning that Mises used and is value-free.
How is this the same as Mises stating that Rothbard understood what Mises himself was saying and was correct in his teachings and writings?