Member of EU parliament Godfrey Bloom quotes Murray Rothbard, spits hot fire*:
"Oh, well, Mr. President, I’m minded actually to quote the great American philosopher Murray Rothbard here that the state — the state is an institution of theft writ large. Tax is just about a system where politicians and bureaucrats steal money from their citizens to squander in the most disgraceful manner. This place is no exception. Fascinatingly, and I really don’t know how you manage to keep a straight face when you’re talking about tax evasion, the whole Commission and the Commission bureaucracy avoid their taxes. You don’t pay taxes like citizens pay taxes; you have all sorts of special deals. Composite tax rates, high tax thresholds, non-contribute pension schemes. You are the biggest tax avoiders in Europe, and here you sit pontificating. Well, the message is getting home to the people of the European Union. You’re going to find that euroskeptics are coming back in June in ever greater numbers — in ever greater numbers. And I can tell you worse, as the people get your number, it won’t be long before they storm this chamber and they hang you, and they’ll be right.”
Regarding the last passage Bloom should have consulted Rothbard further:
- "…Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.”
Of course the politicians are apart of an aggressive institution, and yet that doesn’t throw out the concept of proportionality, causality and due process. As Rothbard elucidates in his Ending Tyranny Without Violence—an introduction to Étienne de La Boétie’s brilliant The Politics of Obedience: Discourse of Voluntary Servitude;
- "…La Boétie concludes his exhortation by assuring the masses that to overthrow the tyrant they need not act, nor shed their blood. They can do so “merely by willing to be free.” In short,
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.
I can’t help but think the majority of the public will only remember the parting words of violence, as opposed to the preceding comments regarding the state as an institution of injustice. Tactically to the uninitiated it paints us as the aggressors. As Benjamin Tucker points out in Men Against the State;
- “Violence is the power of darkness. If the revolution comes by violence … the old struggle will have to be begun anew.”
Well I’m impressed one comrade has at least attempted to make an argument; or at least refer to not one.. but two references? That’s unheard of. I’m encouraged. If only you took Rothbard’s advice stated earlier and began to alleviate your economic ignorance because anyone who agrees with the above, or the three “economic” points raised in the first article is clearly a neophyte.
Instead of taking issue with your dismissal of Rothbard and those egregious points; Ludwig von Mises can be referred to instead. Here he essentially lays waste to the entire cooperative movement, and those “economic” points raised are annihilated within. However to showcase how on point he is, I’ll highlight an excerpt from his conclusion, then post an excerpt from your second article which completely and utterly validates Mises and Rothbard’s point that cooperatives can’t compete;
- "…Experience of a hundred years of cooperative association has clearly proved that cooperatives are not able to take their chances on a free market. They cannot maintain themselves by their own efforts. At least it cannot be denied that there is no record of cooperatives which did stand the competition of private business without government favoritism. In all countries of the world, the cooperative movement owes its development and its present expansion, whatever they may be, to tax exemptions, cheap government credit and other privileges. In passionately asserting that the abolition of these privileges would amount to a suppression of the cooperatives, the spokesmen of the cooperatives confess that they themselves consider these privileges as indispensable for the survival of cooperativism…”
— Ludwig von Mises, Observations on the Cooperative Movement
From your second article;
- "Alperovitz showcases the history and great potential of co-ops, worker-owned companies, and urban land trusts. He notes the constructive role that is played by municipal utilities, state-owned banks and state-chartered trusts such as the Alaska Permanent Fund. There are also dozens of cases in which states use their investment dollars to help communities, use government procurement to help worker-owned businesses, and provide venture capital to startups.”
Alperovitz writes: “Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development….
Alperovitz writes: “In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
Nothing more really needs to be said. As usual the Austro-Liberarians are right. So much for anarcho-syndicalism!
Yeah unless you’re homeless or poor lol
"It is also far easier to sentimentalize the issues and get the public’s juices worked up by sobbing about the homeless, the foodless, etc. and calling for specific provision of these wants far easier than talking about the "moneyless" and calling upon the public merely to supply do-re-mi to the poor. Money does not have nearly the sentimental value of home and hearth and Christmas dinner.
Not only that: but focusing on money is likely to lead the public to begin asking embarrassing questions. Such as: WHY are these people without money? And isn’t there a danger that taxing A to supply B with money will greatly reduce the incentive for both A and B to continue working hard in order to acquire it? Doesn’t parasitism gravely weaken the incentives to work among both the producer and the parasite class?
Further, if the poor are without money because they don’t feel like working, won’t automatic taxpayer provision of a permanent supply of funds weaken their willingness to work all the more, and create an ever greater supply of the idle looking for handouts? Or, if the poor are without money because they are disabled, won’t a permanent dole reduce their incentive to invest in their own vocational rehabilitation and training, so that they will once again be productive members of society? And, in general, isn’t it far better for all concerned (except, of course, the social workers) to have limited private funds for charity instead of imposing an unlimited burden on the hapless taxpayer?”
— Murray N. Rothbard
“State poor relief is clearly a subsidization of poverty. Men are now automatically entitled to money from the State because of their poverty. Hence, the marginal disutility of income forgone from leisure diminishes, and idleness and poverty tend to increase. Thus, State subsidization of poverty tends to increase poverty, which in turn increases the amount of subsidy paid and extracted from those who are not impoverished. When, as is generally the case, the amount of subsidy depends directly on the number of children possessed by the pauper, there is a further incentive for the pauper to have more children than otherwise, since he is assured of a proportionate subsidy by the State. Consequently, the number of paupers tends to multiply still further. …
Private charity to the poor, on the other hand, does not have the same effect, for the poor would not have a compulsory and unlimited claim on the rich. Instead, charity is a voluntary and flexible act of grace on the part of the giver.”
— Murray N. Rothbard
Aprioristic reasoning is purely conceptual and deductive. It cannot produce anything else but tautologies and analytic judgments. All its implications are logically derived from the premises and were already contained in them. Hence, according to a popular objection, it cannot add anything to our knowledge.
All geometrical theorems are already implied in the axioms. The concept of a rectangular triangle already implies the theorem of Pythagoras. This theorem is a tautology, its deduction results in an analytic judgment. Nonetheless, nobody would contend that geometry in general and the theorem of Pythagoras in particular do not enlarge our knowledge.
Cognition from pureIy deductive reasoning is also creative and opens for our mind access to previously barred spheres. The significant task of aprioristic reasoning is on the one hand to bring into relief all that is implied in the categories, concepts, and premises and, on the other hand, to show what they do not imply. It is its vocation to render manifest and obvious what was hidden and unknown before.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action pg 37
In regards to Conza and all those who reblogged that HHH quote nodding in ignorant agreement - proof Mises admits and acknowledges the epistemological status of his theory as analytic a priori. Therefore that little piece I wrote on Godel’s incompleteness theorem applying holds true. Hans Herman-Hoppe has no idea what he’s talking about.
Human Action first written in 1940. Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science written in 1962. As per Roderik Long:
- "What is the source of praxeological necessity? Is it something discovered in the world, or is it imposed upon the world by our own linguistic conventions? Mises himself changed his mind over time as to whether the conceptual truths of praxeology are analytic or synthetic (contrast, e.g., Mises 1940:8 with Mises 1962:4–5), and present-day Austrians are likewise divided (Hayekians favoring analytic, Rothbardians [and Hoppeans] favoring synthetic).”
Given it seems your only in-depth exposure to the ideas of Mises is Human Action… I’d suggest you’ve still got a lot of learning/catching up to do. Hoppe works with the most updated, latest and advanced position of Mises… therefore that little piece you wrote on Godel’s incompleteness theorem applying does not hold true. Mises lays waste to the proposition here, as well as continuing on to make highly disparaging remarks on Popper. To put it succinctly:
- "There is nothing wrong with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
- There is nothing wrong with Mises’ Action Theorem.
- There is nothing wrong with Praxeology (The Action Theorem applied)
There is a reason the Action Theorem is not analytical a priori, but synthetic a priori.
Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe would all agree that the validity of the Action Theorem does not rest on pure formal logic. Once validated, however, it becomes possible to deduce praxeological laws logically.”
1. A “beautiful post” consisting of absolutely no arguments. Wow, you clearly have ‘high’ standards! So ‘high’ in fact it leads to directly defending the Federal Reserve! Did Helicopter Ben give you a ‘free’ joy ride to the wonderful land of ‘legalized counterfeiting’ and promise you he’d shower all your favorite government programs with funding? Dr. Ron Paul prescribes a dose of Economics In One Lesson, and some Case Against the Fed to help rectify that blatant economic ignorance of yours.
- "The financial elites of this country, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation’s banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion." — Murray Rothbard
Aren’t you meant to be against the financial elites? Aren’t you meant to be against the poor getting poorer, as they get screwed over via inflation? You don’t care that they lose their jobs thanks to the depression: a product of the central bank artificially lowering interest rates leading to the creation of an artificial boom through easy credit, thus resulting in malinvestment and an inevitable bust?
There is in fact legitimate and valid reasoning behind every single vote Ron Paul has made.. it’s just that you, and your fellow cohort of intellectual sloths are satisfied with taking everything you are spoon fed at face value. How about asking "why?" every once in a while? How about doing your job… which as a wannabe future journalist actually involves doing some investigating!
If you possessed a modicum of competency you would have discovered that the reason Ron Paul was the sole vote against the “Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act” is because he’s not a warmongering economic illiterate who understands that:
- H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will.
- Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.
- No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.
- H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur.
- The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
So here we discover that you and your contemporaries are nothing but rabidly confused intellectual pygmies. As for the claims of racism this sets the record straight.
2. An excellent example of cherry picking fallacy (content displayed of the bill) with no attempt at all to ascertain why Ron Paul voted the way he did. The error of such an approach is exactly the same as above, except here parts of the bill are displayed. It also attempts to shift the burden of proof. The one supporting the initiation or threat of aggression must attempt to justify the actions, even if done through arbitrary ad hoc legislation created by a self-interested ruling political elite. It’s erroneous to assume that such a framework is an implicit given.
All it does is begs the question of its validity, because I and others clearly didn’t sign any social contract. Furthermore, the point is that it is impossible - not that the said “signing” occurred generations ago. This short video I’ve posted previously lays waste to the concept. You cannot have a contract with a concept. A social contract violates methodological individualism, it contains circular reasoning. The state does not defend us. The state operates in a legal vacuum. A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms.
3. Here Adam Kokesh from Adam vs. The Man responds directly to: Ten Reasons Not to Vote For Ron Paul. After shattering the arguments, he also provides some of his own ten reasons not to vote for Ron Paul:
- 10. I hate freedom
- 9. I love paying taxes for stupid crap the government shouldn’t be doing
- 8. I don’t want to lose my sweet job groping children at TSA checkpoints
- 7. I love seeing Bradley Manning tortured for speaking out against all these awesome wars
- 6. Obama still gives me that tingling sensation up my leg
- 5. The drug war is awesome!
- 4. I love paying the inflation tax to the Federal Reserve… even though I don’t know what that means
- 3. Don’t we need government to protect us from ourselves?
- 2. But Obama promised to keep me from ever having to take any real responsibility for myself
- 1. If Ron Paul wins then I won’t get to call anyone who disagrees with me a racist for not supporting our dear great imperial leader Barack Hussein Obama
I recently responded to a similar question about how to simply define libertarianism (liberty) here. As you know, freedom and liberty are often used interchangeably and synonymously. Unfortunately the term is generally abused by every movement out there trying to justify their cause. As a result the waters have been muddied and hardly anyone knows what it means anymore. Similarly as Karen DeCoster mentions,
- "A popular rallying cry is that we Americans "enjoy more freedom than any other citizens in the world." However, I argue that freedom is not a test of measurements. Freedom is not merely a political end that is to be measured quantitatively against that which has been achieved historically in the U.S., or by others worldwide. Freedom is not a measurement to determine the amount of success that we gain, in increments, against our aggressors. Rather, freedom is an end gained via an objective moral order, rooted in the ability to entirely eliminate all coercion from the State, our main aggressor." — Why We Are Not Free.
Striking at the root as to why there is a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of freedom is Murray Rothbard,
- "Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power. It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of "freedom" the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature." — The Mantle of Science.
This clears up the erroneous definitions and uses outlined in your question; freedom from pain, pleasure, death, life, boredom, happiness, and oppression. How then, does one properly define freedom? Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes it very clear here:
- A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.
If you are attempting to apply the principle of non-aggression, sure - it should be a big tent, no matter the philosophical foundation. Issues of contention within the movement (abortion, immigration, fractional-reserve banking etc) need not exclude one from the movement. War however is a disqualifier… as there is no real attempt to apply the non-aggression principle, and to put it simply "war is the health of the state".
There is no legitimate form of “left” or “right” wing libertarianism. These concepts are the remnants of the false left / right paradigm and fallaciously try to apply an adjective (eg. left or thick) to a noun (libertarianism), in an effort to influence what it means… except the attempt is bogus & violates what libertarianism actually is. When a person speaks of things (outside the realm of political philosophy) they do not do so as a libertarian.
Hence, libertarian qua libertarian has nothing to say on those matters. It is left over baggage people still possess. Their earlier positions failed under scruitiny, so the individual undertook an investigation into libertarianism but has not yet succeeded in ridding themselves of a tainted ideology. Libertarianism is unique, it is neither left nor right.
Remaining a ‘statist’ isn’t the key issue either. Hating the state (loving liberty) & being a radical (abolitionist) is.
"…Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays,you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he nevercrossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.
And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.
Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.
To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the “model” of competing courts.
Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes “conservatism”), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the “intellectual cowardice” of failing to set forth “feasible” methods of getting “from here to there.” Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a “button pusher” who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.
Ron Paul is a voluntarist*, however to many he is considered a supporter of limited government (and yet would fulfill Rothbard’s criteria of a radical regardless). This indicates precisely why he gets so much support from some areas and so little, even negative from others.
The structure remains the same. Shouldn’t the victim, or next of kin be the ones determining the level of punishment? (If ‘aggressor’ found guilty by the judge, jury etc.) Not the state, or yourself? youtube.com/watch?v… :)
What about victims who don’t have a next of kin? Or a murderer with multiple victims whose next of kins don’t agree?
A very good question Molly. I actually had to stop and think about this (for those who might want to catch up on the exchange , , ). To address your first question..
If the victim had a will, which in a free society built on contracts would be more likely, they’d specify how to deal with such a situation if it were to arise - i.e issues relating to their death, organ donation etc. Dealing with their aggressor -if there is one- would be apart of that, and simply mean following through with their stated wishes. Either in relation to damages and the next of kin affected (children, dependents, spouse), or enacting the ultimate punishment: death. As pointed out in the Bob Murphy video linked above (which you didn’t watch ;p) I think more people would side with putting the ‘murderer’ to work, as opposed to removing their existence, though that is certainly an option.
If there isn’t a will to follow, is someone else able to step in and prosecute as an agent on behalf of the victim? First this needs to be broken down, it’s like there is a property conflict, but one side is missing and would be unable to bring the matter personally to court. ‘Agents’ can certainly do it for you, but if you hadn’t organized such a thing prior to, then how has the issue come to attention?
Someone must suspect foul play, investigate, find the ‘murderer’ and bring them to trial to see if they are guilty. Who could that be? Who has an incentive to investigate? The insurance company for starters, or some other interested party. Also where did the person die, on whose property? If a renter, then that’s the landlord. If a home owner with a mortgage, then the bank. These institutions, including others in the local community have a direct interest in seeing the criminal be reprimanded so it doesn’t happen again, because it drives down local values and prices, whilst it would raise their insurance premiums given an increase in crime in the area.
The only reason the state is interested, is because it lost a tax payer, and you can’t have people going around killing more taxpayers. That’s the government’s job.
In a free society anyone would be able to take precautionary action against a dangerous person that they suspect for whatever reason. If a person feels there is a dangerous person out there that isn’t being dealt with, then the logical place to address would be any of the local security agencies, because they stand to lose by it (they offer safety as a good).
So the security agencies (or the insurance agencies), would investigate that person’s background, their standing in the community, people who support them, etc. But the point is that the whole community has an interest in dealing with dangerous people. It is today that we have no way of filtering out good from bad people; it’s made illegal through legislation.
For example, it’s illegal to disallow people from your business (egalitarian, anti-discrimination legislation). Illegal to store trade and crime information ('privacy' legislation). We want to do those things, it’s in our interest, but we can’t because we live under a monopoly.
People have a reputation, which can be tarnished through contract arbitration and ostracism, but can also be tarnished through publication of evidence. Which anyone is free to do (unless singing a NDA I suppose), and anyone would be free to act on. However, you are currently not free to protect yourself and your community. Dealing privately with criminals would be perceived very differently probably, in the public eye. Because we would know exactly who is dangerous, yet out there. Best we know now is sex offenders; which a lot of the time was consensual.
The importance of next of kins are only relevant in terms of damages, not so much in terms of reputation/danger.
Or a murderer with multiple victims whose next of kins don’t agree?
I think this would be settled in arbitration among the families after conviction. Prior to, we can only speculate what a private law society would look like. Would there be multiple individual cases brought by the separate dispute resolution agencies against the one individual, or would it essentially take the form of a ‘class action’ suit where the plaintiffs all line up as one against the defendant. Who knows?
Naturally though, the more folks involved the less chance of agreement. The point being though, in a free society, the tendency would be exceedingly towards murder sprees not happening - given proper competitive protection and insurance agencies, not the inefficient monopoly we have now.
i34.tinypic.com/675b88…. .. prove what? ;p
Everything you can possibly prove about it. It’s synthetic a priori which implies you can symbolize it. If you symbolize it, and create appropriate rules of deduction, you can plug it into a computer program like Isabelle and it will prove every result that is possible to prove deductively
What’s to prove about it? That humans act? It’s already been done.
- "Mises’s great insight was that economic reasoning has its foundation in just this understanding of action; and that the status of economics as a sort of applied logic derives from the status of the action-axiom as an a priori-true synthetic proposition. The laws of exchange, the law of diminishing marginal utility, the Ricardian law of association, the law of price controls, and the quantity theory of money all the examples of economic propositions which I have mentioned can be logically derived from this axiom. And this is why it strikes one as ridiculous to think of such propositions as being of the same epistemological type as those of the natural sciences. To think that they are, and accordingly to require testing for their validation, is like supposing that we had to engage in some fact-finding process without knowing the possible outcome in order to establish the fact that one is indeed an actor. In a word: It is absurd." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ESAM.
In regards to symbolizing it, I think you have already checked out Mises excerpt from Human Action, but definitely take a look at Rothbard’s journal article on Praxeology. It explicitly goes into this topic around page 5, i.e verbal logic and mathematical logic.
Mathematics versus Economic Logic by Ludwig von Mises
- …The deliberations which result in the formulation of an equation are necessarily of a nonmathematical character. The formulation of the equation is the consummation of our knowledge; it does not directly enlarge our knowledge. […] No such constant relations exist, however, between economic elements. The equations formulated by mathematical economics remain a useless piece of mental gymnastics and would remain so even it they were to express much more than they really do.
- …The mathematical method is at a loss to show how, from a state of nonequilibrium, those actions spring up which tend toward the establishment of equilibrium. It is, of course, possible to indicate the mathematical operations required for the transformation of the mathematical description of a definite state of nonequilibrium into the mathematical description of the state of equilibrium. But these mathematical operations by no means describe the market process actuated by the discrepancies in the price structure. The differential equations of mechanics are supposed to describe precisely the motions concerned at any instant of the time traveled through. The economic equations have no reference whatever to conditions as they really are in each instant of the time interval between the state of nonequilibrium and that of equilibrium. Only those entirely blinded by the prepossession that economics must be a pale replica of mechanics will underrate the weight of this objection. A very imperfect and superficial metaphor is not a substitute for the services rendered by logical economics…
Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics by Murray N. Rothbard
- …Moreover, even if verbal economics could be successfully translated into mathematical symbols and then translated into English so as to explain the conclusions, the process makes no sense and violates the great scientific principle of Occam’s Razor: avoiding unnecessary multiplication of entities…
- …Although himself a mathematical economist, the mathematician son of Carl Menger wrote a trenchant critique of the idea that mathematical presentation in economics is necessarily more precise than ordinary language:
Consider, for example, the statements (2) To a higher price of a…
A Note on Mathematical Economics by Murray N. Rothbard
- …The best readers’ guide to the jungle of mathematical economics is to ignore the fancy welter of equations and look for the assumptions underneath. Invariably they are few in number, simple, and wrong. They are wrong precisely because mathematical economists are positivists, who do not know that economics rests on true axioms.
The mathematical economists are therefore framing assumptions which are admittedly false or partly false, but which they hope can serve as useful approximations, as they would in physics. The important thing is not to be intimidated by the mathematical trappings.
I’m not sure of the value of such an undertaking. Or maybe I’ve misinterpreted the intended goal. Whatever the case, I’d definitely be interested in reading your thoughts when you eventually have time to flesh them out :).