In his book the Anti-capitalistic Mentality he said “To establish these facts does not amount to a justification of the individual’s freedom from the point of view of any absolute standards or metaphysical notions.”
To read this sentence in context follow this link. It’s in the last paragraph in the first section. Can anyone explain to me what is the meaning of this mentioned sentence?
Thanks.
I didn’t read the context, nor have I read this book, but, as much to test my understanding of LvM’s basic premises as anything else, let me try taking a stab at it.
He comes from things empirically. He looks at what he can observe in human behavior and looks for the principles inpicit in that. He’s not denying a formulation of freedom from first principles, he’s just saying they’re out of the scope of what he is doing. He takes as a starting point the fact that people want to be free, and perhaps even that they should be free, but does not address where that assumption comes from. He’s writing about the implications of it, and of observable human behavior.
I’d appreciate any feedback on if I’m getting the gist of Mises general approach, and any correction if I unintentionally misled Lapidus.
Mises has been considering, as a matter of pure economics, how the resources of society could be distributed in the most efficient manner. And his answer was - free exchange, the sovereignty of consumers. What is wonderful is that this ALSO maximizes personal freedom.
In other words, he is justifying freedom purely from an economic point of view. He is not appealing to some abstract philosopher’s definition of freedom (“metaphysical notions”). Nor is he appealing to “absolute standards” such as “natural rights”, still less to some pompous modern declaration of the rights of man - which includes monstrosities such as the right to a 35-hour week or the right to a holiday.