MISES AS ADVOCATE FOR FREE RIDING, THEFT AND HATRED OF MAN (worth repeating) (so

MISES AS ADVOCATE FOR FREE RIDING, THEFT AND HATRED OF MAN

(worth repeating) (so harsh, so true)

Mises, like many of his contemporaries, correctly intuited that something was wrong with the direction if economic inquiry, but he, even less so than his peers in math and science, was unsuccessful in identifying it. And instead resorted, like freud, cantor, marx, to elaborate verbal pseudoscientific argument, unsupported by empirical evidence, to justify his preconceptions of how economics ought to work if it worked for the benefit of investors rather than the benefit of the commons (everyone).

Mises constructs a model whereby we pay absolutely nothing for the maintenance of the commons. He applies the ethic of the ghetto. The commons is taken for granted – unpaid for and uncared for. And if there is a commons, he wants us to free-ride upon it, rather than pay for it. Which makes sense if you’re a culture of migratory pastoralists, but not if you’re a culture of landed agrarians and industrialists who treat the land and the commons as sanctified.

In other words, Human Action is a justification of free riding on the commons. It’s a justification for immorality. A justification for theft. By a man who is either ignorant of, or hateful of, mankind so much that he would devote this amount of work to yet another pseudoscientific act of deception. Not on the scale of Marx or Freud, but only because he had a smaller market for his ideas.

Yes, the state bureaucracy is predatory, but that does not mean we abandon all commons’, it means we abandon the bureaucracy.

This is the correct interpretation of Mises: as an advocate for investors who used pseudoscience to justify his preconceptions.