yes, well they certainly stop one short of what I belive, but I suspect were the point posed to them, they mightn't disagree.
I have little doubt that time preference to the long term is a moral good. And to that degree, ethics and economics can be overlapping and non-contradictory.
Well, Hoppe introduces the argumentation axiom and deduces a praxeological ethic, from which you could make such claims.
But even Hoppe would differentiate this from economics proper.
https://mises.org/library/book/economic-science-and-austrian-method
interesting. I think they just felt at some point to go as far as i am trying would be to depart from their core discipline.
...otherwise, and if you are to abdicate morality from economic decisions, even if you're able to prove that decisions along different time preferences have consistent outcomes - the question becomes why is a long life better than a short one.
Our laws (old law) seems to preserve the same thing as the correct allocation of capital.
And as euclid taught us in his first axiom, things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. And so if economics and ethics are both equal to long time preference - then they are equal to and complimentary each other.
