This short book beautifully lays out what went wrong with economics and what the right way is from the most foundational principles.
25% through this one. I need to do a lot of prerequisite reading before I'm able to grasp what Hoppe is saying.
So this is going into my re-read list.
But whatever I've been able to grasp has been brilliant. Highly recommend.
https://mises.org/library/book/economic-science-and-austrian-method
Just finished this. Already started re-reading.
I sense that there's an antidote in this book to the intellectual arrogance inspired by relativism, empiricism and nihilism that plagues my generation.
Praxeology is the best thing I've discovered down the Bitcoin rabbithole
GM
hey nostr:nprofile1qqsrfud256c4pr0qh2elppkyh4dm676slpveg5wxu69vj40usdhre4spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wshsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7uewwdhkx6tpdshsv6utgk, is your #zapper down? getting an error trying to zap you
Hey!
I think it's because I use Zeus' LN address for receiving. It uses Zaplocker addresses which means I have to manually redeem sats by opening my wallet.
I've recieved the zaps now. Thanks so much for them!
And thanks also for the wonderful discussion! Looking forward to many more of them! 🍻
Mises' contributions are way more significant than I thought
Geyser is testing out an optional fiat donation feature which requires KYC for that feature alone.
Someone posted screenshots of it implying that they require KYC for everyone now.
Now they're responding to every disappointed reply to that screenshot clarifying things.
PR is quite difficult.
Haha 'NSA for myself' is a good one
Having privacy hygiene is basically that
Yep, I think that's beyond the scope of what Mises has written. He made a similar admission in the first part of Human Action, if I'm not wrong.
Imo, both rationalism and empiricism have their limits, meaning they are useful and fully valid in explaining the external world. When it comes to the world within ourselves, their limits become clear.
Can you suggest some references please?
Especially regarding the origin of reason being revelation
I think compartmentalising can be useful.
Mises' methodological dualism is about using different methodologies in natural sciences and social sciences.
I'd say that the spritual realm and metaphysics can be approached differently from how we approach politics and economics as well.
Hoppe is often quite critical of woke-ism and the Frankfurt school
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.
And check out this Tweet
His lectures about argumentation ethics would be good references
His introduction to Rothbard's 'Ethics of Liberty' gives a glimpse.
Chapter 2 in 'A theory of socialism and capitalism' offers a first principle view of self-ownership and property rights.
And his 'Economic science and the Austrian method' dives into epistemology and methodology.
Based on my understanding, Mises' ideas in economics are basically Kantian epistemology given concrete grounding in the real world.
I don't yet grok Kant properly so my explanation would be flawed. Hoppe is the guy to go to for it.
Particularly Hoppe's 'Economic science and the Austrian method'.
Of course. But Hoppe and Rothbard, being students of his ideas, extended his excellent consistency rather than dismissing it or refuting it.
Probably because an argument for liberty that is grounded in natural law is stronger.
Which I thought was true, before I explored Hoppe's argument, which took it to another level.
Maybe his attempts at value-free analysis made him avoid embracing natural law at any point explicitly.
Rothbard touched upon this in the first chapter of Ethics of Liberty. It gives a primer on why different groups tend to dismiss natural law.
25% through this one. I need to do a lot of prerequisite reading before I'm able to grasp what Hoppe is saying.
So this is going into my re-read list.
But whatever I've been able to grasp has been brilliant. Highly recommend.
https://mises.org/library/book/economic-science-and-austrian-method
