OVERRATING MISES UNDERRATES AUSTRIAN THEORY
The tendency of the Austrians in general, and Misesians, Rothbardians, and Hoppeians in particular is to hyper-silo their understanding in order to justify what they believe to be novel concepts as if they were religious sects avoiding impure thoughts of the competitors. If instead we recognize Mises was just a participant in two macro movements:
1) The Intuitionistic, Constructivist, Operational, Operationalism, Algorithimic Information Theory, Scientific Realism and Testifiability programs were active in all fields including mathematics (Brouwer, 1907), physics (Bridgman, 1927 and Dirac 1930), computation (Turing, 1936 and Kolmogorov 1966), and grammar (Chomsky, 1957) and even psychology (Watson, 1924 and Miller 1956), philosophy (Popper 1959). The Misesian attempt (1949) was late in that progression, and sought to somehow distinguish his insights in economics from all other intellectual movements that, because of his personality (obsession with his own frame), and because he was less correct than theorists in other fields, is ignored in the literature. (I have written about his mistakes elsewhere).
2) In the Mises vs Hayek frameworks, Hayek finally understood it is the law, and cultural differences in the law, and the metaphysical presumptions of different cultures that limit law, that give rise to economic outcomes – not understanding of economics itself. In this context, Mises did not grasp that he was advocating for the legal and moral codes of the Ukrainian Jews (Separatism, Polylogical Ethics, Irresponsibility for Commons, within The Pale of Settlement), the rest of the Christian Austrian school was advocating for the legal and moral codes of Christian Germanic Europe, where individual sovereignty was a means of producing high trust commons that discount costs for all, more so than individual liberty in and of itself. And that the peoples of Germanic Europe, continued the ancestral aristocratic tradition of trifunctionalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, liability, duty, and testimonial truth. Which is why there is so little divergence between the Christian Austrians theorists, Natural Law, Common and Traditional law, and ancestral empiricism tested by adversarialism.
Personal Context:
Now I ‘came up through’ the Austrian school, even though my first disciplines were computation, scientific epistemology, common law, and computational linguistics. So I wasn’t limited by siloing, and my work continues the Austrian tradition of economic analysis as the effort to produce a science of cooperation. And without reform of what remains of that school, and the understanding of what I have stated here, the jewish wing of libertarianism (as opposed to the classical liberal wing of libertarianism of the english, broader germanic, and broader yet European peoples) will die with the last people who remember Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe. Instead, it would be better for the memory of all, and for the future of liberty, if we canonized the Austrian Christian to classical liberal through Hayek, the Austrian jewish through Rothbard, and the anglo american classical liberal through my work, as solving social science in three generations across three European subcultures. You might think this is self interest, but I consider it a moral obligation to those whose shoulders I and we stand upon – that despite their self obsession with creating a separatist identity in economics just as in religions when this very intuition is what limited their solution to the problem of human coordination.
#Libertarianism #Mises #Rothbard #Hoppe
Cheers