Yes, I did and while Rothbard discusses Natural Law and Natural Rights this is generally ignored by modern Austrians. On top of this Rothbard attempts to square a rational ethics with value subjectivism in economics and fails.

In fact the paper I am quoting from is Rothbard's. It shows that Rothbard rejects science and is a philosophical rationalist.

Rothbard is inconsistent intellectually and his point of view on Natural Law is not held by modern Austrians.

A second group, following Mises and Rothbard, rejects the neoclassical theories of consumer and welfare economics, dismisses empirical methods and mathematical and statistical models as inapplicable to economic science, and asserts that economic theory went entirely astray in the twentieth century; they offer the Misesian view as a radical alternative paradigm to mainstream theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria...


Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics By Murray N. Rothbard file:///C:/Users/Dale/Downloads/Praxeology%20The%20Methodology%20of%20Austrian%20Economics_6.pdf


Rothbard, on the other hand, accepted explanatory value-subjectivism. He thought that in explaining people's actions, or in trying to understand and describe economic behavior, you appeal to their beliefs and desires, not yours — but he thought normative value-subjectivism was false.
https://mises.org/library/economics-a...

"You are either are missing or ignoring that the subjectivism of Austrian Economics means that AE does not support Natural Rights"

Damn Dood, did you even check this before you wrote it?
Murray Rothbard Jan 2007 "Introduction to Natural Law"

ISank

You are either are missing or ignoring that the subjectivism of Austrian Economics means that AE does not support Natural Rights In fact they are very clear that they do not believe a rational or scientific ethics is possible. These two positions are logically linked and lead to disaster.

Praxeology is not science and because of this anti-science and anti-natural rights position they make numerous mistakes

Ever talk to someone where you express support for State's rights and they immediately reply that you must want the return of slavery?

In the U.S. We have an economic system and outside of that a government was created to protect individual rights. When someone's incentives or reason leads them to choices that violate the rights of another, we have a legal system established for just that occasion.

Now back to Economics. Could economics ever be a "game with no meaning"? Your the one wanting to add validity to choices that lead to inefficient use of resources. I just realize they were made for reasons. To me it's no game yet there clearly are winners and losers.

Mahalo for sharing your thoughts, enjoy the train wreck, and realize it's yours.
Can we agree to support individual liberty?

Cheers,
iSank

Why do you work? What is the fundamental reason for working?

The things necessary to sustain our life are not given to us for free. Thus we can judge goals.

You are right you are missing something in objectivism. You should read the first essay in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, about page 13 Rand discusses Intrinsic, Subjective, and Objective theory of values. The classical economists pushed an economic theory of value that was intrinsic. This was the labor theory of value, which said the value of an object was the amount of labor that went into it. The Austrians responded with a subjective theory of value. There are a two major problems with this.
1) It turns economics into a game with no meaning. If every goal is equally valid, then there is no point to economics.
2) Subjectivism in values results in the Austrians arguing that economics is value free. All the major Austrian Economists believe that there is no such thing as a rational or scientific ethics and this is the only way for them to maintain their subjectivity in economic values and prices.

If we cannot judge people's goals, then a car thief, or putting all the jews in ovens is as valid and creating a new imaging system to detect defects in large structures such as airplanes or creating a system that will save a $1 Billion in repair costs from storm damage in our electrical distribution system. That is F---ed Up.

So you'll stick with "the human action axiom is meaningless when it's impossible to judge the goal", judge yourself and your goals if your searching for something meaningful, otherwise your judgements of other people's goals are likely to be received as quite meaningless.
In economics everyone is an optimizing individual and they make choices for thier own reasons, which are many and diverse so judging those would be the train wreck.
Boo-yah it's a beautiful day,

iSank

Rationality is not a matter of opinion. If all decisions are rational then the qualifier is meaningless. Christianity is not rational and making decisions based on christian faith are not rational.

Your inability to accept that libertarians aka in this case Austrian Econ guys are ok NOT judging how incentives and bad decisions influence people, makes me really doubt your initial point. They make decisions that they think are rationale. Even when clearly irrational they are doing that action for a reason.
"The human action axiom is meaningless when it is impossible to judge the goal." Judging goals is the real train wreck.
Ever hear "all decisions are rational"
I'll re read what you said but when you make such a simple point difficult b/c of a lack of judgement? Maybe I don't understand objectivist ism?

Beautiful day, have fun,
ISank

Edited 2 mins later to correct mechanical errors and a question about 1 phrase.