Lets start working on the Funding Stephan!

I’ll give you a call.

Block and the rest (as well as Austrian School scholars elsewhere) should have nothing whatsoever to do with today’s non-private (or semi-private or “land grant”) universities.

How do you know this? Seems like an assertion to me.

Yes, the same goes as well for the MI and that university in Auburn…

Mises Institute is on private land. It is independent. It has nothing to do with Auburn University.

Yes, the same goes as well for the MI and that university in Auburn…

From 1 Samuel 8 http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/1-samuel/8.html

7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day–with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods–so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.” 10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

Basically, Fred Kammer is a heretic.

Yes, that is exactly right. Austrian economics is a wertfrei science, and hence any critique of it being a “libertarian version” of economics or aiming for abolishing government is not valid. On this we agree, right?

I suppose. I have never thought of Austrian economics as a “libertarian version” of economics, though I suppose there is something to this, in that in my view it is the most correct and coherent school of economics, and gives most support to libertarians. I agree economics does not aim to abolish government. BUt I don’t know anyone arguing this anyway.

But such critique still cannot easily be brushed off. Not because people like Kammer don’t get the difference between wertfrei science and ideology (Kammer is undoubtedly an ignoramus, and a socialist one at that), but because it is not always clear that statements made by Austrian economists and from an Austrian economics point of view are not normatively libertarian and vice versa. It may be clear to you from within the libertarian movement, but it is not very clear to non-libertarians.

Well, yes, it is clear to me, and lots of things are not clear to non-libertarians. If they thought clearly they would not be non-libertarians in the first place. I think most AUstrians I am aware of sufficiently distinguish their politics from positive economic analysis, especially if you take context into account. In fact I think Austrians do a far better job of this than most other economic schools which routinely mix mainstream political norms into their analysis.

It is both a matter of word usage and a matter of issues studied; one can often express Austrian conclusions in more neutral language.

So you contend, but this assumes too many AUstrians are not doing this now. I am not persuaded this is the case. Could you give a single simple, clear, unambiguous example?

And I believe one should take care to express Austrian insights in a type of language that does not, to non-libertarians, suggest libertarian convictions.

Sure, in a purely economic analysis, but even here, the economist may be *motivated* to engage in a particular analysis out of liberal values. For example as a liberal he sees *and opposes* cases of destruction or impoverishment and as an economist formulates a theory that seeks to explain the cause of this impoverishment–various state action. So the analysis can be positive, but it would not be undertaken by a misanthrope or statist, perhaps, who does not want to expose the cause of destruction.

I tend to think of the purpose of economics as understanding, sure, but also to inform one’s policy recommendations. The question often arises: what policies should the state engage in, what laws should we have. These are normative questions that presuppose certain values–usually the normal, civilized ones of peace and prosperity and productivity. Economics informs us of the way human interaction works, of how prosperity is achieved, and of the harmful effects of state intervention in the market. IT thus informs the libertarian, or the human citizen in his capacity as a valuing being, what state policies or laws he ought to favor, and ought to oppose.

Again, all this works together naturally for multifaceted human beings who live in the real world. I see no problem with this.

Also, I think Austrians can and should continue to develop [Austrian] economic theory (a point made by Peter Klein in his “mundane economics” piece in the QJAE) to explain the world and the economy.

Sure. There is room for diversity and for the division and specialization of intellectual and academic knowledge.

Sometimes Austrian economic analyses seem instead bent on jumping every issue where one can blame government (for whatever).

This is vague. Any clear examples of this? Any reason to think that this is a systematic problem?

Finding inspiration in one’s libertarian convictions is fine, but one needs to rid oneself of libertarian normative reasoning and language when doing economic analysis.

As noted above, people choose what to analyze because they are real humans with values, not just economists. This is what Mises was getting at, in a sense, with his emphasis on introducing certain contingent assumptions into economic analysis to make it of relevance, or interesting (see my post Mises: Keep It Interesting). The selection of what problems to analyze, and of what contingent assumptions to make in the analysis, will invariably be guided by one’s values and preferences.

Well, I don’t see much I disagree with in your comment. You’re obviously reading a lot into my comments that I neither wrote nor suggested or implied.

Okay.

I was not talking about Kammer’s view of economics (which definitely does not seem to be scientific/value-free in any way), but about his interpretation of Austrian economics.

Which is wrong. Another error he makes. I just see no reason to blame austrians for this. In fact I think austrians, when they mix in politics,are usually explicit about it, unlikes most mainstream economists who routinely mix in main stream political normative assumptions without even realizing they are doing it–or, if htey do, disingenuously acting as if these assumptions are uncontroversial.

And I never said “all Austrians” conflate Austrian economics and libertarianism; whether you are among the Austrians who do, I do not know – but judging from the words you use (specifically, “we”), you seem to place yourself in that group.

I really don’t know who does this at all. Could you give a single clear example?

All I am saying is that it does not serve our purposes (and I’m talking about Austrians here) to let some of us conflate sound economics with libertarian ideology.

I agree they ought to be kept conceptually distinct. But I am not sure I see
a serious problem here at all

So the critique is not valid… it’s just that it’s our fault that we can’t easily brush it off….?

Yes, that is exactly right. Austrian economics is a wertfrei science, and hence any critique of it being a “libertarian version” of economics or aiming for abolishing government is not valid. On this we agree, right?

But such critique still cannot easily be brushed off. Not because people like Kammer don’t get the difference between wertfrei science and ideology (Kammer is undoubtedly an ignoramus, and a socialist one at that), but because it is not always clear that statements made by Austrian economists and from an Austrian economics point of view are not normatively libertarian and vice versa. It may be clear to you from within the libertarian movement, but it is not very clear to non-libertarians. It is both a matter of word usage and a matter of issues studied; one can often express Austrian conclusions in more neutral language. And I believe one should take care to express Austrian insights in a type of language that does not, to non-libertarians, suggest libertarian convictions.

Also, I think Austrians can and should continue to develop [Austrian] economic theory (a point made by Peter Klein in his “mundane economics” piece in the QJAE) to explain the world and the economy. Sometimes Austrian economic analyses seem instead bent on jumping every issue where one can blame government (for whatever). Finding inspiration in one’s libertarian convictions is fine, but one needs to rid oneself of libertarian normative reasoning and language when doing economic analysis.

I was not talking about Kammer’s view of economics (which definitely does not seem to be scientific/value-free in any way), but about his interpretation of Austrian economics. And I never said “all Austrians” conflate Austrian economics and libertarianism; whether you are among the Austrians who do, I do not know – but judging from the words you use (specifically, “we”), you seem to place yourself in that group. I have but stated that there are (too many) who do conflate the two, and that is why it is hard to brush off critique as Kammer’s (even though he, as compared to others, may be an ignorant critic).

All I am saying is that it does not serve our purposes (and I’m talking about Austrians here) to let some of us conflate sound economics with libertarian ideology.

I do not claim it is our fault that non-Austrians tend to conflate Austrianism and libertarianism – I claim it is our fault that we cannot easily brush off such critique (there is a difference, and it is important in this context).

This seems to be a strange subtlety. So the critique is not valid… it’s just that it’s our fault that we can’t easily brush it off….?

And we cannot brush it off because there are quite a few using terms such as Austrian economics and libertarianism interchangeably, while they are not.

I think the difference almost always clear, given the context of usage. Those who are uncharitable, ill-willed, or sloppy or dishonest thinkers, like typical advocates of “social justice,” will of course dissemble and use dishonest argument tactics against views they perceive as threats to their socialist policies.

It is interesting that the one thing there is “nothing wrong with” that you do not mention in your comment is what I was writing about: Austrian economists using libertarian rhetoric or value-laden terms in presenting economic truths. Is it because you agree with me on this being an abomination?

Maybe I’m blanking out on this, but I am not aware of this phenomenon. Can you give a single, clear example?

I see nothing wrong with using Austrian insights to bolster one’s libertarian views in a political discussion. Making scientific economic statements based on praxeological reasoning and presenting those results as economics but using specifically libertarian ideological language is very different, however. (And, I might add, not at all uncommon.) If Austrian economics is truly wertfrei, as we claim it is, it is important to avoid value laden terms describing economic findings.

Well, economics is wertfrei, but it is not always the only thing being used in an analysis; quite often the analysis is a mixed one. In this case, why avoid evaluations? I see nothing wrong with this.

I think he is basing his assessment of Austrian economics what he has heard from Austrians conflating economic analysis with libertarianism.

This is not true. We do not “conflate” it at all. We are well aware of the difference.

From the article:

There are also specific conflicts, [Kammer] said, between Catholic social teaching and the Austrian view of government, unions, taxations, human life and the place of Christianity in the public sector.

This statement that Austrian economics has a “view” of these things has nothing to do with science, but it is certainly correct for an ideology (which is a collection of views). Austrian economics has no “views” of unions, taxation, or government – but analyzes the consequences of these things on the functioning of the market.

Right, the mistake is his. He is a socialist and thus thinks of everything in terms of politics; for him economics is not a science, but a tool to be used to advance “social justice.” The mistake is 100% his. It is libertarians (and Austrian-libertarians) who have views on these policy matters. sure. And there is nothing wrong with this. Especially given that our views are concordant with human nature and freedom, while his are socialist and confused and dishonest.

I definitely agree that he probably couldn’t care less about “the non-normative aspect” (which is more than an aspect, by the way) of Austrian economics. But he is basing his statement on what he has heard from Austrians: and he seems to recall mostly their (individual) libertarian conviction.

So what? So he opposes the politics of most Austrians. And for that reason he couldn’t care less about our economics, since he is focused on social justice.

Remember that neither Menger nor Böhm-Bawerk were libertarians, and Mises was no anarchist. It is possible to combine an Austrian approach to studying the market with many political worldviews.

Well Mises was virtually an anarchist, arguably (see this post http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/was-mises-an-anarchist/ and Hoppe’s speech in Vienna at the recent Mises Supporters Summit, soon to be an article, where he observes “Moreover (and this is for those who have not read much of Mises but invariably pipe up ‘but even Mises is not an anarchist’): Certainly the younger Mises allows for unlimited secession, down to the level of the individual, if one comes to the conclusion that government is not doing what it is supposed to do: to protect life and property. And the older Mises never repudiated this position. Mises, then, as my own intellectual master Murray Rothbard noted, is a laissez-faire radical: an extremist.”

I am very proud to be a libertarian (and anarcho-libertarian at that), and a student of Austrian economics; and to have strengthened my libertarian views because of my study of Austrian economics. As a modern, radical liberal, I also would think there is something wrong with a modern adherent of Austrian economics who was nevertheless a statist: you would have to be a misanthrope to be a statist Austrian. Yes, this world is full of economic illiterates, and of socialists, and of people who think unclearly and argue dishonestly, and who cannot conceptually separate positive economics from rational political theorizing. Like this Kammer character. The blame lies exclusively in them, not in those most admirable among us who both follow sound economics and respect individual liberty.

It is interesting that the one thing there is “nothing wrong with” that you do not mention in your comment is what I was writing about: Austrian economists using libertarian rhetoric or value-laden terms in presenting economic truths. Is it because you agree with me on this being an abomination?

I see nothing wrong with using Austrian insights to bolster one’s libertarian views in a political discussion. Making scientific economic statements based on praxeological reasoning and presenting those results as economics but using specifically libertarian ideological language is very different, however. (And, I might add, not at all uncommon.) If Austrian economics is truly wertfrei, as we claim it is, it is important to avoid value laden terms describing economic findings.

However, Christianity was codified some three and a half centuries later by the Roman Emperor, utilizing picked and chosen passages that best supported the position of centralized leadership, power, and obedience, most of which were written centuries later, to form the basis of Christianity in the Holy Bible. The Church and the Bible were both political creations of the State. Because of this, it’s not a surprise that the Roman Catholic church and it’s various offshoots heavily support the State. The Roman Catholic church is effectively the continuation of the Roman Empire and the offshoots are utilizing the same document formed via government committee.

Today, Christianity is exactly in the same position that Judaeism was during the final days of the pre-common era. Like then, the adherents of Christianity have forgotten about the personal nature of faith and have gotten caught up in the trappings of concerts, tithes, and mega-churches and all too readily utilize their own espoused faith to attempt to force others via government force into their own belief system.

Like everything government gets its hands on, Christianity has been turned into something completely unrecognizable from what the original reformers intended.