I can’t remember off the top of my head but I did a chapter by chapter analysis

I can’t remember off the top of my head but I did a chapter by chapter analysis of HA, and it’s the beginning that’s nonsense. I have written book I decided not to publish (didn’t want to anchor myself as a libertarian critic), that addresses most of these issues. That said maybe I will convince the team to do a chapter by chapter criticism of human action at some point so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff. I rely on misses for quite a bit really, hayek, hoppe, and popper. But I rely on rothbard largely to demonstrate what’s wrong with his libertarian ethics and why it’s just the ethnics of the diasporic jews.

Mises’ problem is Similar to hoppe’s: argumentation ethics is nonsense, but everything he does after that in reduction of social science to property is quite good. He was an anti-hayekian and anti-popperian because for some reason these arguments seem to have “talked passed him”. So Mises, Rothbard(diasporic jews) and hoppe (german free cities), and the anglos (modern rule of law state), had different traditional understandings of society that they (we) modeled. So you’ll notice that each of them either ignores the commons (Mises,Rothbard), claims they are possible to construct privately (Hoppe), and the anglos (commons make possible the private). Yet we defend the common interests as viciously as we do the private – because we are as equally dependent upon them. And property rights themselves are the commons we need most, and unique to the northern europeans is the commons of truth before face.

Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner @FarajRashi93307