That's been my take on Mises, too. I read quite a bit of Van Til (who was somewhat critical of Kant) before I read much of Mises, so that epistmological frame always stuck out to me as a problem.
BTW, nostr:npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl, quick anecdote--do I remember correctly that you're a Roman catholic? Ironically enough, the guy who got me interested in Van Til (who is critical of Rome) back in about 2004 is an ardent, devout RC (and was my 'Best Man' at my wedding). We have a good laugh whenever I 'thank him' for that.
Ah I did mention my religious foundations before which would have surprised you. I'll surprise you again: It's the Tamil Shaivite branch of Hinduism.
When it comes to economics, law and politics, the ideas of Hoppe, Mises and Rothbard have presented the farthest advancement. It is quite value-free and applicable irrespective of religion and culture.
Beyond that, I think the limits of their ideas become clear. And I think they are honest about that as well.
My apologies - I must be confusing you with someone else.
Yes, it's almost funny how close Rothbard comes at points. Almost like Jordan Peterson -- I don't accept it fully, but we should all live "as if" it's true. (Kinda sad, actually...why not just dive in to grace! What's so unappealing about the forgiveness of sins, anyway!?)
