Preface LUDWIG von Mises published many books and articles in his long and productive life, each of them making important contributions to the theory and ...

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION: FROM VALUE THEORY TO PRAXEOLOGY Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) is arguably the most important economist of the twentieth ...

This memorandum was written at the request of Henry Hazlitt to provide Mises’s comments on and concerns about F.A. Hayek’s initial proposals for what became the Mont Pèlerin Society. Mises stresses that those who favor liberty and freedom and oppose totalitarianism must also oppose interventionism. The memo argues that those who fought and lost against the rising tide of totalitarianism at the turn of the 20th Century lost their battles because they settled for middle-of-the-road policies that conceded considerable (...) ground to the socialists. The weak point in Professor Hayek’s plan is that it relies upon the cooperation of many men who are today’s middle-of-the-roaders. As interventionists, they may not be the hoped-for intellectual pioneers to inspire people to build a freer world. (shrink)

This book presents a concise introduction to the epistemology and methodology of the Austrian School of economics as defended by Ludwig von Mises. The author provides an innovative interpretation of Mises’ arguments in favour of the a priori truth of praxeology, the received view of which contributed to the academic marginalisation of the Austrian School. The study puts forward a unique argument that Mises – perhaps unintentionally – defends a form of conventionalism. Chapters in the book (...) include detailed discussions of individualism, historicism, epistemological positions, and essentialism. The author goes on to discuss Mises’ justification of the fundamental axiom and proposes a conventionalist interpretation. By presenting praxeology as a conventionalist research programme, the author aims to reinvigorate the interaction between the Austrian School, mainstream economics, and the philosophy of science. This comprehensive reconstruction is suitable for economists interested in the history and philosophy of their discipline, as well as for philosophers of science. (shrink)

Logical empiricism and the Austrian School of economics are two of the internationally most influential intellectual movements with Viennese roots. By and large independently of each other, both have been subject to detailed historical and philosophical investigations for the last two dec-ades. However, in spite of numerous connections and interactions be-tween the two groups, their relationship has captured surprisingly sparse attention. My dissertation focuses on the many-faceted juxtaposition of two supposedly antagonistic championsof Viennese Late Enlightenment: logical empiricist Otto Neurath and (...) Austrian economist Ludwig Mises. I rationally reconstruct and critically compare their epistemological, meth-odological, and economic positions and demonstrate that a closer look reveals more compatibilities and similarities than acknowledged by the received view and by the protagonists themselves. Over and above the historiographic task of challenging and amending this received view, the analytic components of my thesis inform contemporary debates in phi-losophy, politics, economics, and other sciences. (shrink)

What can an economist and agnostic tell a theologian about man? In contrast to mainstream economics, which today dominate all universities in the world, Ludwig von Mises (+1973) is interested in real man in action, not a fictitious homo oeconomicus. At one time Gregory M. A. Gronbacher (1998), an American philosopher, proposed a synthesis of Christian personalism with the free market economy developed by the Austrian School of Economics. His idea prompted me to use Mises’s praxeology to (...) understand and describe human action in the socio-economic sphere from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching. At that time I understood how important were economic laws for the proper moral evaluation of human action. Mises in his treaty on economics Human Action developed his own anthropological concept of man. The Austrian economist never used the expression “person” to describe and analyze human action, but analyzing his economic system I was able to discover that he did not understand the free market economy as an abstract being composed of mechanical elements. According to him, the prerequisite for human activity is the desire to replace a less satisfactory state of affairs with a more satisfying one. Mises’s man is guided by his own scale of values and builds it up on the basis of a goal he freely chooses. Mises also takes into account that the market is only a part of reality and human activity. (shrink)

as Problem mit der normativen Konzeption von Ludwig von Mises ist, dass sie sich zu den Hauptkategorien der Politischen Philosophie querstellt. Sie passt in keine der üblichen Schubladen, ist weder deontologisch noch klar konsequentialistisch, weder kommunitarisch noch Vertragstheorie. In diesem Essay soll es deswegen zuerst darum gehen, die Schwierigkeiten auszuloten, die eine Einordnung der Mises‘schen Sozialphilosophie in das Kategorisierungssystem der Politischen Philosophie mit sich bringt. Im zweiten Abschnitt soll in kurzen Strichen eine Systematik dargelegt werden, innerhalb derer (...) die Sozialphilosophie von Mises in Verbindung zur restlichen Politischen Philosophie gebracht werden kann. Im dritten Abschnitt soll die Liberalismus-Konzeption von Mises anhand der entwickelten Systematik dann in ein Verhältnis zu den großen Liberalismus-Konzeptionen von Bentham, Mill und Locke gesetzt werden. Konkret soll dafür argumentiert werden, dass klassische Liberalismus-Theorien zuerst die normative Frage klären, um dann politische und ökonomische Struktur ableiten zu können. Mises¬ – und viele politisch-ökonomische Konzeptionen nach ihm – gehen, so möchte ich argumentieren, den umgekehrten Weg. Wie das funktionieren kann, soll anhand der Mises’schen Liberalismus-Theorie in Abschnitt vier gezeigt werden. In Punkt fünf möchte ich abschließend meine Einordnung der Mises’schen Theorie in die Politischen Philosophie gegen die von Murray Rothbard, Mises‘ Meisterschüler, verteidigen. (shrink)

Ludwig von Mises’s methodological apriorism is frequently attributed to the broader Austrian School of economics, of which, of course, Mises was a prominent member. However, there is considerable controversy concerning the meaning of Mises’s various attempts to justify his apriorism. There are prima facie inconsistencies within and across Mises’s methodological writings that engender massive confusion in the secondary literature. This confusion is aggravated by the fact that Mises’s apriorism cannot be straightforwardly interpreted as an (...) artifact of his historical milieu. Indeed, the two prevailing families of interpretation both treat Mises’s apriorism as radically anachronistic, albeit in different senses. According to “extreme” interpretations, Mises’s apriorism reflects an epistemology several decades, if not centuries, beyond its expiration date. According to “moderate” interpretations, however, Mises’s apriorism anticipates ideas that would not appear in the epistemological literature for several decades to come. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that Mises’s actual methodological beliefs are not reflected in his writings, that Mises either obfuscated or exaggerated his methodological position, for whatever reasons, making it seem more radical than it was in fact. I conclude that we have no idea what justification Mises actually intended when he asserted the a priori nature of the fundamental propositions of economics. If this is right, then, whatever method(s) they follow, Austrian economists cannot (deliberately) follow Mises’s apriorism. (shrink)

Ce texte répond aux critiques formulées par J.G. Hülsmann à propos de mon article “Ludwig von Mises, Théoricien de la Banque Libre”. J.G. Hülsmann me reproche une méthode scientifique douteuse sans voir que ses reproches ne s’adressent qu’à luimême. Pour lui répondre, il me suffit de le paraphraser. Le commentaire de Hülsmann a néanmoins un léger mérite, celui de mettre en exergue deux courts passages de l’oeuvre de Mises que j’omets involontairement dans mon article. Aussi il me (...) revient de combler cette lacune, d’interpréter ces deux passages, d’affiner et finalement d’appuyer le propos et la conclusion de mon article.This article is a reply to J.G. Hülsmann’s critics concerning my article “Ludwig von Mises, Théoricien de la Banque Libre”. J.G. Hülsmann blames me for an uncertain scientific method when these reproaches are aimed at himself. To respond, we just have to paraphrase. Nevertheless, for the credit of Hülsmann’s commentary, we have to say that it makes appear two short citations of Mises’ work that we unintentionally ignore in our article. So, to fill the gap, I have to interpret these citations, improve and finally rest the purpose and the conclusion of my article. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper I review the two most recent biographies on Otto Neurath and Ludwig von Mises as well as the scarce literature on the relations between their lives and ideas. Recent publications by Nemeth, O’Neill, and Uebel reflect growing interest in the connections between these two main proponents of Logical Empiricism and the Austrian School of Economics respectively, but are mainly focused on the so-called socialist calculation debates. In the second part I propose (...) that additional research on Neurath’s and Mises’ idiosyncratic positions is likely to uncover general relations between epistemological assumptions, economic theories, and political views. -/- . (shrink)

There are three intentions (aims) of this paper. First, to focus the attention of readers to three not so well known and least frequently quoted by economists of Mises’s books, namely his 1957 Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, and two closely related The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method (1962), and Epistemological Problems of Economics (1933/1960). The second aim is to outline Mises’s legacy, presented in the form of eleven dimensions (...) of Mises’s Intellectual Universe. The eleven dimensions of Mises’s system are: Economics as science, praxeology, and human action; Methodological dualism; Judgments of value and subjectivism; Individualism; Rationalism and human action; Consumer; Cooperation and competition; Thymology; Mathematics in economics; Predictions; and Historical analysis. Third, to present the main issues related to Mises’s concept of rationalism. There is no mention of Ludwig von Mises’s concept of rationality in a great number of books and papers dealing with the understanding of the rationality of human beings. The concept of rationality proposed by Ludwig von Mises is neglected by modern researchers and economists of different schools, but especially by mainstream economists. A good example of neglecting Mises’s ideas on rationality is the latest book by Nassim Taleb, Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life. Although Taleb’s proposition of understanding rationality and irrationality is very close to the concept of Mises, he does not refer to Mises’s work at all. No single word on Mises in that book! (shrink)

Ludwig von Mises jest głównym przedstawicielem tzw. Ekonomicznej Szkoły Austriackiej, autorem monumentalnego dzieła Ludzkie działanie. Mises opowiadał się za stanowiskiem leseferyzmem w dziedzinie ekonomii, a zatem za wolnym rynkiem, indywidualną wolnością oraz ograniczonym państwem. Niniejszy tekst jest próbą syntetycznego ujęcia rozumienia wolności w myśli Misesa.Austriacki ekonomista podkreśla znaczenie wolnych działań społecznych oraz naturalnych więzi, które inspirują ludzi do działania. Działania te są dużo bardziej skuteczne aniżeli inicjatywy inspirowane i kontrolowane przez państwo. Mises podkreśla znaczenie wolności negatywnej, (...) a zatem wolności politycznej dla rozwoju społecznego. Państwo jest potrzebne, ale w ograniczonych obszarach - obronności oraz wymierzania sprawiedliwości. Poza tymi dziedzinami samorządne społeczeństwo organizuje się dużo bardziej efektywnie. (shrink)

The most interesting and completely overlooked aspect of Ludwig von Mises’s theory of probability is the total absence of any explicit definition for probability in his theory. This paper examines Mises’s theory of probability in light of the fact that his theory possesses no definition for probability. It is argued, first, that Mises’s theory differs in important respects from his brother’s famous theory of probability. A defense of the subjective definition for probability is then provided, which (...) is subsequently used to critique Ludwig von Mises’s theory. It is argued that only the subjective definition for probability comports with Mises’s other philosophical positions. Since Mises did not provide an explicit definition for probability, it is suggested that he ought to have adopted a subjective definition. (shrink)

A partir da segunda metade do século XX, as políticas econômicas disseminaram um conjunto de dispositivos sutis, no sentido de seu exercício, ao mesmo tempo em que mais plurais, em relação à sua extensão. Um dos principais deslocamentos epistemológicos produzidos pelo discurso neoliberal diz respeito à inserção da subjetividade humana como elemento central da racionalidade econômica. A inclusão da subjetividade na lógica dos cálculos econômicos possibilitou construir a figura do homo oeconomicus como referente antropológico do novo discurso neoliberal. Um dos (...) principais autores nessa jornada é Ludwig von Mises. A teoria misiana é profundamente filosófica: dela é possível coletar toda a estrutura da teoria neoliberal e de seu contraste bifocal entre a ação econômica do mercado e a teoria política do Estado, e nela o homo oeconomicus ocupa um lugar central. A genealogia de Michel Foucault sobre o escopo da governamentalidade neoliberal trouxe um olhar crítico diferente sobre os princípios constitutivos deste discurso. A par da teoria de Mises, a leitura de Foucault nos é precisa, na medida em que nos permite contrastar a razão de governo, constituída ao longo dos modelos de pensamento, com aquela ótica empresarial do homo oeconomicus como um suposto sujeito soberano. O intuito deste ensaio é provocar um cruzamento crítico entre o pensamento de Mises e de Foucault, concentrado principalmente no estudo das contradições que surgem no seio do discurso neoliberal da figura do homo oeconomicus como sujeito soberano, com as práticas de governamentalização desse mesmo homo oeconomicus. O ensaio é constituído de três momentos: primeiramente, nosso objetivo é compreender a teoria do mercado de von Mises, com o intuito de alinhavar alguns conceitos importantes, em especial o conceito de soberania do homo oeconomicus; em seguida, temos como pretensão analisar a teoria de Foucault sobre a governamentalidade neoliberal, acenando em direção ao modo pelo qual a teoria de Mises projeta-se como uma razão econômica de governo; em um terceiro ponto, desenvolvemos algumas implicações derivadas dos cruzamentos das teses sobre a soberania do homo oeconomicus, de Mises, com as análises sobre a governamentalidade desse homo oeconomicus desenvolvidas pelos estudos de Foucault. (shrink)

This comparison between Boudon and Mises focuses on the main tenets of their respective conceptions of social science. It covers action theory, the theory of belief, the epistemology of social science, and also addresses the topic of liberalism.

Austrian economist Ludwig Mises’s central role in the socialist calculation debates has been consensually acknowledged since the early 1920s. Yet, only recently Nemeth, O’Neill, Uebel, and others have drawn particular attention to Mises’s encounter with logical empiricist Otto Neurath. Despite several surprising agreements, Neurath and Mises certainly provide different answers to the questions “what is meant by rational economic theory” (Neurath) and whether “socialism is the abolition of rational economy” (Mises). Previous accounts and evaluations of (...) the exchange between Neurath and Mises suffer from attaching little regard to their idiosyncratic uses of the term “rational.” The paper at hand reconstructs and critically compares the different conceptions of rationality defended by Neurath and Mises. The author presents two different resolutions to a detected tension in Mises’s deliberations on rationality: the first is implicit in Neurath’s, O’Neill’s, and Salerno’s reading of Mises and faces several interpretational problems; the author proposes a divergent interpretation. Based on the reconstructions of Neurath’s and Mises’s conceptions of rationality, the author suggests some implications with respect to Viennese Late Enlightenment and the socialist calculation debates. (shrink)