Ep. 257 Bob Murphy Explains His Favorite Hans Hoppe Work
Bob walks through Hans Hoppe’s argument that Mises’ action axiom extended Kantian epistemology by solving the mind/body problem.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- Hoppe’s booklet, Economic Science and the Austrian Method.
- David Gordon’s lecture on the method of praxeology.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
So what is it you don’t agree with Hopper on? Is it the “gays have higher time preference”?
I just got this book. Do you know if any of the German references on Kant in the citations have been translated? Do you or your wife know of any good introductory material on Kant? Thank you.
I have no idea, sorry.
I’d start out with the Critique of Pure Reason. (Critique here meant like “analysis.”)
The 10 minute mark sticks out to me. (And honestly, the answer here may just be that I should just go listen to your Porcfest debate with Friedman.) But why do we know sunspot theory can be ruled out? You say we have to make a decision at the outset of what factors to pay attention to… so shouldn’t we go check to see if humidity and sunspots matter? Is it simply because those aren’t human factors? It seems like ‘Sunspot-Mises’ could deduce that the Sun matters for farming, and farming matters for an economy. So of course its a factor that we should consider. And who could ever disprove him of the economic importance of the Sun? ‘Sunspot-Mises’ just KNOWS it matters greatly for crops. ←- If your answer is: Sunspot-Mises DOES need to go check …then I’m confused to the point you were making before bringing up humidity and sunspots in the episode. How do we just know what to rule out? And why is that insight uniquely Austrian?
Additionally, I wonder if you’ve seen this George Selgin article https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/09/10/george-selgin/how-austrian-it/ (Yeah, I went down a rabbit hole thanks to this podcast, so thanks! ) And what do you think about his point that Mises and Rothbard (and Hoppe – to connect to this pod) mean ‘economic theory’ when they say ‘economics’ and mostly everyone else means ‘applied economics’. When you use the phrase “the core of economic logic” and “economic law” it makes me think that Selgin has that right.