In this very important chapter of Human Action, Mises explains the subject matter of catallactics; this is what most people have in mind when they talk of economics. Mises also discusses the specific method that the theoretical economist must use, namely imaginary constructions. Finally Mises describes some of the more important imaginary constructions, especially the evenly rotating economy.
"Essentially, economic analysis consists of: (1) an understanding of the categories of action and an
understanding of the meaning of a change in values, costs, technological knowledge, etc.; (2) a description of a
situation in which these categories assume concrete meaning, where definite people are identified as
actors with definite objects specified as their means of action, with definite goals identified as values and definite things specified as costs;
and (3) a deduction of the consequences that result from the performance of some specified action in this situation,
or of the consequences that result for an actor if this situation is changed in a specified way. And this deduction
must yield a priori-valid conclusions, provided there is no flaw in the very process of deduction and the situation
and the change introduced into it being given, and a priori—valid conclusions about reality if the situation
and situation—change, as described, can themselves be identified as real, because then their validity would ultimately
go back to the indisputable validity of the categories of action."
--Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, p. 118-19
"For it would be an absurd undertaking to banish from the language of
economic theory every manner of speaking that is not literally correct; it
would be sheer pedantry to proscribe every figure of speech, particularly
since we could not say the hundredth part of what we have to say, if we
refused ever to take recourse to a metaphor. One requirement is essential,
that economic theory avoid the error of confusing a practical habit,
indulged in for the sake of expediency, with scientific truth."
--Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, (1881). Whether legal rights and relationships are economic goods.
In H. Sennholz (Ed.), Shorter classics of Böhm-Bawerk, Volume I. Spring Mills, PA: Libertarian Press, 1962, p. 135
"How can the great suck of self ever hope to be a fat cat dozing in the sun?"
--Walker Percy
"A Volvo is a beautifully engineered, well-built statement that the owner has the soul of a dung beetle."
--Fred Reed
"The total complex of the rules according to which those at the helm employ compulsion and coercion is called law. Yet the characteristic feature of the state is not these rules, as such, but the application or threat of violence."
--Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
"No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power—whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government—could act in a way of which he himself disapproves."
--Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
"I never knew anyone who collected anything who was good for anything else."
--anon.
"The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then."
--Baron Bramwell, in Andrews v. Styrap (Ex. 1872) 26 L.T.R. (N.S.) 704, 706
"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.
--Puddleglum, in C.S. Lewis's Narnia book The Silver Chair (excerpt)
"She felt as soft in my hands as a nestling dove."
--Mary Renault, The King Must Die
"Society, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another.
The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place,
all the bands of it are broke asunder, and the different members of which it consisted are, as it were,
dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections.
If there is any society among robbers and murderers, they must at least, according to the trite observation, abstain from robbing and murdering one another.
Beneficence, therefore, is less essential to the existence of society than justice. Society may subsist, though not in the most comfortable state, without beneficence; but the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it."
--Adam Smith
" Reunions are for losers.."
--Tom DiLorenzo.
... and my favorite: "A working wife is worth three rent houses."
--J. Lanier Yeates
I repeat my reply on the hnn list here, in case it is deleted:
Luker is being disingenuous. First stirring up attention by including Rand along with Hitler; then feigning innocence by asking "why in the world would you think that equates them? lists are silly anyway." On the other hand, it's clear that Luker's attempts at expression are just his way of grunting, "me think free markets bad. me think they just as bad as hitler. urrgghh."
So, so what? We are used to living with anti-liberals. This is nothing new. The essence of leftists is that they equate peaceful, productive people with criminals; thus they are willing to use the power of the state to wield force against both. Again, this is nothing new.
I think it's really silly to talk about harmful books. No one can really trace out the causal connections. What we can do is judge individual, concrete human actions--whoever they were "influenced" by. And we can judge the relative substantive merit of competing ideas. So this is really just a complicated, fancy way of expressing our disagreement. Luker, whether he admits it or not, adheres to one brand of socialism, or criminality. But he tries to dress it up to make it seem all fancy and stuff.
It does not offend me that he compares Rand to Hitler. This is only natural for the leftist mentality. What is offensive is that he believes that peaceful human interaction may be punished by the force of the state's army. All the rest--comparison of Rand to Hitler--is just a stark illustration or consequence of this fundamentally illiberal mindset.
And my follow up reply to Luker's asinine response:
Luker, "This kind of johnny-come-lately response to a conversation he hasn't bothered to read seems characteristic of Stephan (not Stephen) Kinsella."
Sigh. Why you people always want to make it "about me" is mystifying. I am really not that special, not worth making into some kind of big target. Better to just focus on substance.
"It is, finally, nauseating to be told yet one more time that in putting Rand on the List I "compared" or "equated" Rand with Hitler. If I made a list of things to do tomorrow and it included "get dressed", "deposit a $1,000,000 check from Objectivists at L & P for my brilliant List", "take a shower" and "kill myself for pandering to the Objectivists at L & P" -- I do not think that I would have compared or equated the four things."
You are pettifogging. You clearly are classifying Rand's books along with Hitler's as both being "bad". Sure, you probalby think Hitler is way worse than Rand. So what? As I said above, your "comparison" does not bother me at all; it is just an outcome of the fact that you are illiberal (I take it you are, which is why you have Rand on your list). (BTW, I am not an Objectivist nor, I believe, are most people on this list.)
The truth is that anyone who believes that a principled advocacy of individual liberty, property rights, economic liberties, etc. (like Rand or other libertarians) is "bad" is simply an opponent of human freedom. But we live among these type of people; most people are illiberal to some extent. This is no surprise. Most people are therefore criminality-advocates to some extent. Again, no surprise.
Anyone that believes untrammeled human liberty is "bad" is necessarily going to be making the mistake of categorizing Hitler along with libertarians--since he views them as bad. This is not especially offensive; it's just an outcome or symptom of the underlying error of opposing libertarianism--human rights and liberty.
What is wrong is the opposition to Rand's and other libertarians' advocacy of individual rights. It is substantively wrong; it is an error on Luker's part. But he shares this error with most of the human race. Quibbling over whether he is really "comparing" Rand to Hitler is just a waste of time. He clearly believes (a) Hitler's evil actions were bad; and (b) putting in place a system of principled individual rights and liberty is bad. To this extent he has necessarily to classify them as similar. The problem is that while he is right about (a), his position (b) is simply mistaken.
And
Luker: "You are correct in guessing that I am not a libertarian. You are incorrect in thinking that libertarians are the only people committed to human freedom. I'll put my record of deeds up against yours any day."
Libertarians are those who oppose all forms of aggression--the initiation of violent force against innocent victims. If you are also opposed to aggression, you are a libertarian. If you are not opposed, then you are in support of some forms of aggression. Those who are in favor of aggression are what some people might call "criminals," but in any event, it's hard to see how advocates of violence and aggression can be good advocates of "human freedom." You see, human freedom requires the absence of violent aggression.
It always amazes me that advocates of varying degrees of institutionalized aggression try to squirm and deny what they are really in favor of. Look, I'm in favor of free markets even if some people would be unemployed or whatever; I admit it. Why don't you people just admit: you are in favor of aggression--sometimes. You are willing to break an egg to make an omelet. At least it's honest.
For more discussion of this issue, see my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist; The Trouble wiht Feser (On Libertarianism); On Jonah Goldberg's Youthful Phase; see also these threads, which show some conservative types trying to wriggle out of being labeled advocates of aggression despite clearly endorsing it: e.g., my debate with Ed Feser et al. about the nature of criminality and aggression in this thread; the Chronicles thread I participated in with Scott Richert about the non-aggression principle; see also recent post on LewRockwell blog lately about this and Thomas Woods versus Thomas Fleming, Storck, et al.; and a Chronicles blog thread I participated in with Fleming et al.
