Right, Hayek delved into epistemology and sociology as much as he did Economics. To say that Hayek was ‘merely an economist’ betrays a complete lack of familiarity with his work.
Lets not forget the framework for Human Action, Praxeology, as well. That in it’s absence most all economic theorems would be arbitrary, Austrian theories included.
I have mostly read Hayek and Mises, and I am salivating at the chance to indulge myself in Rothbard. I have read many essay’s by him and I absolutely adore his sarcastic, yet entirely justified, tone directed toward the state. But before I dive into MES I am going to tackle a few small things first, like some Bastiat work and a few essays from modern economists like Robert Murphy, Market Anarchy, ect…
That seems like a sensible approach.
HA! I subscribe to this HC system!
I approve that message. [:D]
My superior brainpower! I don’t even have to work out. I just use my amazing brain power to make my muscles get stronger and weaker at will!
..Why would you want to make your muscles weaker? [;)]
So that I could then make them stronger of coarse!
Whatever. Hayek compared to Mises is a regression. Which is precisely why he could be taken seriously by the mainstream.
I could not care less about his contribution to neuroscience, that is about off field as it gets. He was merely an economist, a scientist. He did not pick out a political orientation and then get behind it with all his being. To call yourself a Hayekian betrays ones chief influence in the field of economics. It says just about nothing about ones politics or approach to politics.
I thought that you already accepted my rebuttal of that statement.
I did not see you rebuke anything. I asked you if that work is a part of what Hayekianism is. You were unable to answer. If you show that Hayek’s contribution to neuroscience is subsumed under Hayekianism then you will have rebuked me.
What I wrote stands in the context I wrote it. Of course he was more than merely an economist. Aside from that he was also a war veteran, an immigrant, a husband, a father… Do you see how easily it is to ‘rebuke’ what I said if we ignore the context?
Hayek is merely an economist in the sense that Hayekianism merely denotes his contribution in economics. Just like Keynesianism merely denotes Keynes’ take on economy. Rothbardianism on the other hand is a term more similar to Marxism, Marxism being much more than just economic theory of Marx.
It would be absurd for a non-economist to deem himself a Hayekian, but it is not absurd for a non-economist to deem himself a Rothbardian.
Well, if every person reading your statement misinterprets it, that is probably your fault.
I am not looking to blame anyone.
I am.
I can accept the blame if it will make you feel better.
Adam Knott, I thought that write up was awesome! I’d really like to read more about praxeology, what should I read first? I’ve ordered Human Action from Amazon, just waiting for it to arrive. Any other suggestions?
The issue of natural rights has always been the sticking point for me, as it seems utterly unnecessary in creating a rational, all-encompassing framework of interpreting society. I find Stirnerite egoism a much better fit, at least until praxeology can be applied to ethical choices (if it can at all, don’t know enough about it to judge either way).
Of course, economics seems much more specific and easier to apply praxeology to, since the end seems fairly straight-forward and objective; to “avoid discomfort”, which in economical terms would imply maximizing acquisition of limited resources (even this end relies on quite a few assumed answers which spring from ethical questions an individual must pose to themselves). In this regard, the means could be mapped out with much more certainty.
In ethics, the appropriate end allowing the individual to “avoid discomfort” are subjective to the individual, as far as I’ve experienced. This means there is no way that a universal “road map to the end of suffering” could be proven. The only answer is each individual discovering their personal means through an act of individual will, either by applying praxeology, going to church, meditating, submitting to Allah, dropping acid, etc.
This situation seems ideal to me; tolerant, free, competitive, etc.
Thoughts?
All of which are within the framework of praxeology.
Also, a good place to start with praxeology is Michael Oakeshott’s On Human Action which covers it remarkably well in my opinion.
but can praxeology determine which is the optimal means or ends?
No. Praxeology doesn’t determine that which is optimal. It is the general science of human action. The ends sought and the means used to reach them are still subjective.
Oh, well that settles it I guess. No objective morality! Woo Hoo! OK, let’s go tell the pope, and then go home!
Indeed, now lets get back to why there are so few Misesians.
OK, because people are insecure and need the comfort and reassurance of knowing their actions are “true” and “good”, and they will be rewarded for being faithful to those guidelines.