Krazy Kaju,
The ends of action are necessarily the ends of an individual man. I’m not proposing any ethical theory that transcends the ends of any individual man. I’m saying that it is overwhelmingly evident, based on historical/thymological understanding, that, as Mises claimed, the vast preponderance of individual men (and so, very likely, the individuals who populate this forum too) are principally motivated by a desire for material well-being. Therefore, were they aware of the vast superiority of capitalism over any other social order, in terms of promoting the material well-being of virtually each and all, then they would want whatever legal/rights order that is necessary to produce capitalism.
Insofar as any readers are truly primarily motivated by a rigid devotion to a given moral code based on its perceived intrinsic righteousness, and regardless of what it means with regard to material well-being, I leave you in peace, and only remind you that it is utterly impossible to prove with rational discourse and existential propositions the “objective” superiority of your devotion relative to any contrary devotion of others. I only speak to any readers who, deep down inside, are like most people, and would simply prefer to live amidst (and thus very likely benefit hugely from) general prosperity, health, and longevity, as opposed to living amidst (and thus very likely suffering hugely from) general poverty, sickness, and death.
To the latter group of people, I encourage you to think clearly about what it is you’re trying to accomplish, when you discuss social, legal, economic, and political matters. I point out that to really accomplish what you want, it is necessary to promote whatever legal/moral order that will allow capitalism to flourish; and that to know what that order is, you must understand the market process (thus studying Human Action and MES). Furthermore, I remind you that (1) most are indeed like us, (2) that social orders are ultimately founded on majority opinion regarding what is perceived as efficacy (as la Boetie, Hume, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe all agreed), (3) that majority opinion is ultimately guided by a persuasive minority of bright minds, and (4) that truth tends to give doctrines a certain persuasiveness. In other words, there is hope. And it is far more effective to speak to the common interest of our fellow man, rather than to try to impose on him a noble lie or a quasi-religion.
After reading all his major works, it is clear to me that the above was what Mises was trying to get across to the world while he lived, and it is saddening to see how it is so little understood, even among his most well-informed latter-day students. Who knows what might have been accomplished had his immediate successors adopted this clear-thinking, straight-to-purpose approach.
By the way, this is why I think Rasmussen’s doctrine in particular doesn’t make any sense.