R.I.P. Philip Benesch

Sent to members of the late Mark Nottorno's The Future of Science and Open Society online discussion group:

I find this news [of Philip Benesch's death] particularly distressing, as Philip was one of the least dogmatic "critical rationalists." As one of the few in this group who was respectful of me and my views, I periodically communicated with him about ideas he might find interesting.

Philip believed he had detected a change in Popper's view of the social sciences around 1964—a view Mark disputed—for which I suggested Hayek's "The Theory of Complex Phenomena," a paper that was included in The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy: In Honor of Karl R. Popper, as the source. I even suggested we might co-author a paper on that, but Philip suggested he was a poor co-author, and it never came to anything.

More recently, based on my rereading of Popper's Medawar Lecture and examining Barry Smith's criticism of the action axiom, I had suggested that Philip read my article on mises.org [Mises and Popper on Action] about the apparent agreement between Popper and Mises on the action axiom—Popper's expression of it being more generalized—and received a positive response. Finally, I suggested on my blog that Popper, in the Medawar Lecture, had in fact expressed views that could only be seen as aprioristic [Karl Popper, Self-Evident Truth, and Certain Knowledge], and Philip responded, "I think you are right."

I was thinking of asking Philip to work with me on a response to Reinhard Neck's session on Jeremy's last online conference, a session that Professor Neck had already given in Vienna at the "Adverse Allies" workshop; but that is clearly not going to happen.

R.I.P. Philip—I'll miss you!

Mises and Mont Pèlerin 1947

Although Mises was not an anarchist, he was clearly unwavering in principle concerning laissez-faire—he was better than "the rest." From Bruce Caldwell's Mont Pèlerin 1947:

General discussion waited until the evening session [of "Free Enterprise or Competitive Order"—session 1]. That event might have been retitled “free enterprise versus the competitive order,” or more simply “Mises versus the rest,” though both Hazlitt and Miller made brief comments in support of Mises’s positions, and “the rest” did not always agree with one another. Mises had some justification to feel a little prickly. After all, in a session posing a choice between free enterprise and a competitive order, it might have been fitting to have had among the opening speakers at least one person who was willing to defend the former. In any event, Mises’s defense of laissez - faire was predictably direct and pithy: most of the problems that had been identified had government actions as their root cause, so their solution was to get it out of the way. For most of those attending the conference, this simple advice was unsatisfactory. People wanted to discuss alternative policies, to find out which ones might best cohere with a liberal vision, not the reasons why policies were unnecessary. Both Hayek and Robbins tried to intervene in various ways, mostly to clarify the various positions under discussion, but at times things got testy. This was probably the session at which Mises “stood up, announced to the assembly ‘You’re all a bunch of socialists,’ and stomped out of the room," though that is not recorded in the minutes. (p. 47)

Was Ludwig von Mises Aware of Bernhard Rensch? A Dialog with Copilot

Before attending the workshop "Adverse Allies: Logical Empiricism and Austrian Economics" in Vienna where I presented a paper entitled "Toward a Conceptual Framework for Biology and Economics: Biophilosophy and Praxeology," I asked Copilot, Microsoft's AI system, if there was a connection between two of the important people in the paper: Ludwig von Mises and Bernhard Rensch. The following is a transcript of the result:

Me:

was ludwig von mises aware of bernhard rensch?

Copilot:

There doesn't seem to be any direct evidence or documentation suggesting that Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist and philosopher, was aware of Bernhard Rensch, the German biologist known for his work on evolutionary biology and genetics. Their fields of study were quite different, and they didn't appear to have any known interactions or direct connections.

Is there a specific reason you're curious about this? Perhaps I can help with more information on either of them!

Me:

Ludwig von Mises argued the a priori character of the logical structure of the mind. Bernhard Rensch also mentioned the universal character of laws of logic.

Copilot:

That's an interesting observation! Ludwig von Mises did indeed emphasize the a priori nature of economic laws, arguing that they are derived from the logical structure of the human mind. He believed that certain fundamental economic principles could be known independently of empirical evidence1.

Similarly, Bernhard Rensch discussed the universal character of laws of logic within the context of evolutionary biology. He was influenced by philosophical ideas such as monism and nomotheism, which suggest that biological regularities can be elevated to universal laws.

While their fields were different, it's fascinating to see how both thinkers recognized the importance of universal principles in their respective domains. Do you think there might be a deeper connection between their ideas?

Me:

I think there is a very deep connection between their ideas and that economics is the study of human solutions to biological problems.

Copilot:

That's a profound insight! Indeed, economics can be seen as a way in which humans address fundamental biological needs, such as food, shelter, and social cooperation. By applying principles of logic and rationality, economists like Ludwig von Mises seek to understand and optimize these solutions.

Bernhard Rensch’s perspective on the universal laws of logic suggests that such principles are not confined to human cognition but might extend to biological processes as well. This intersection between economics and biology highlights the interdisciplinary nature of understanding complex systems.

Your view opens up a fascinating discussion about the interconnectedness of human behavior, biology, and economics. It’s a testament to the idea that no single discipline can fully explain the intricacies of life without considering insights from others. What other connections do you see between economics and biology?

Me:

The law of diminishing marginal utility exists in biology as satiation and is not evolutionarily contingent.

Copilot:

That's an insightful observation! The law of diminishing marginal utility, a fundamental concept in economics, states that as a person consumes more of a good, the additional satisfaction (utility) from each additional unit decreases. In biology, a similar principle applies to satiation: as an organism consumes more of a resource, the satisfaction or benefit from each additional unit diminishes.

This concept is not evolutionarily contingent because it is a natural outcome of biological and physiological processes. For example, when an animal eats, the first few bites provide significant nourishment and pleasure, but as it continues to eat, each additional bite contributes less to its overall satisfaction and eventually leads to a feeling of fullness or satiation.

This parallel between economics and biology underscores the universality of certain principles across different domains. It also highlights the interconnectedness of human behavior and natural processes, as both are governed by underlying logical and physiological laws.

Your observation beautifully bridges the gap between two seemingly distinct fields, revealing the common threads that weave through our understanding of the world. Are there any other economic principles you think might have counterparts in biology?

What are more examples of this principle in biology?Are there other economic principles reflected in biological systems?How does this principle affect decision-making in everyday life?

Karl Popper, Self-Evident Truth, and Certain Knowledge

 I think that by the time Popper gave his Medawar Lecture he was very much in the realm of self-evident truth and certain knowledge, whether he realized it explicitly or not:

The strange thing is that teleology enters the world with adaptation. Organisms are problem-solvers. Organisms seek better conditions. All of these are thoroughly teleological terms. “Better conditions” introduce evaluation. And no doubt organisms value, organisms prefer, organisms like this or that better than something else. We cannot avoid all teleological terms, and we cannot avoid all anthropomorphic terms. (2014, 124)

I take "no doubt" to be a synonym for "certainly," and the matter-of-fact tone of the statement seems to indicate the self-evidence of the assertions.

And then his agreement with Mises expressed in his address to the American Economic Association (AEA) in 1992: "Like myself, [Ludwig von Mises] appreciated that there was some common ground, and he knew that I had accepted his most fundamental theorems and that I greatly admired him for these” (2008, 404).

Professor Reinhard Neck of Klagenfurt presented at the workshop I attended in Vienna from 12.02.24-14.02.24 (Professor Neck's abstract below) and was completely unaware of this quote from the AEA address when I asked him about it and attempted to somehow attribute it to Popper's state of mind in light of Hayek's recent death, but the address was actually given a couple of months previously.

Popper had also argued the irreducibility of biology to chemistry and/or physics due to the issue of purpose in biology.

I conclude that Popper's views as they applied to the physical sciences became increasingly difficult to hold as they applied to the biological and social sciences, and as a good critical rationalist (or evolutionary epistemologist), his views were at least in flux, if not decidedly changed, by the time he gave the Medawar Lecture.

Popper, Karl. 2008. “The Communist Road to Self-Enslavement (1992).” In After the Open Society: Selected Social and Political Writings, edited by Jeremy Shearmur, 402–10. London: Routledge.

Popper, Karl. 2014. “A New Interpretation of Darwinism.” In Karl Popper and the Two New Secrets of Life: Including Karl Popper’s Medawar Lecture 1986 and Three Related Texts, by Hans-Joachim Niemann. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Professor Neck's abstract:

Karl Popper — Interlocutor or Killer of the Vienna Circle and the Austrian School of Economics

In this paper, I investigate the position of Karl Popper’s philosophy vis à vis both the Vienna Circle and the Austrian School of Economics. While Popper has claimed to have killed logical empiricism of the Vienna Circle but communicated with its proponent s, especially Carnap, in a polite and even submissive manner, his relation to Hayek, the most prominent representative of the Vienna School of Economics, was characterized by gratitude and friendship, and he appreciated the methodology of (neoclassical and Austrian) economics as blueprint of his own methodology of the social sciences, especially his situational analysis. We argue that Popper’s relation to both approaches was more ambiguous. His own philosophy of science and epistemology was rather different from and highly incompatible with that of Mises, the early Hayek, and most subsequent Austrian economists, and he even contributed to Hayek’s later renunciation of Austrian praxeology and essentialism and adoption of (at least some) philosophical position s of Critical Rationalism. On the other hand, Popper’s positions in philosophy did not only develop out of his disputes with the Vienna Circle but contained some key elements of its way of doing philosophy, especially the use of formal and clearly formulated arguments and their logical foundations. Hence Popper can be seen as both a critical but friendly discussant of the Vienna Circle’s ideas but only a fellow traveler of the Austrian economists. It can even be argued that those elements of Austrian Economics that seem to be outdated today are quite contrary to Popper’s approach and introducing ideas of Critical Rationalism into Austrian Economics can help the latter gaining more scientific respectability among economists of different persuasion.

Bernhard Rensch and Laws in Biology and the "absolutely certain" Existence of Psychic Phenomena

Anyone familiar with Mises's praxeology (a formalization of what Mises viewed as the accepted method and epistemology of economics) will be in sympathy with the following, although it ventures further afield and contradicts Mises's unfortunate rejection of the applicability of biology to his project:

"In the realm of living beings most processes are extraordinarily complex, and many special laws act together or interfere with one another. Thus “exceptions” to the laws result, and therefore we often speak of “rules” only and not of “laws.” However, we must not forget that, finally, most “rules” are effected by laws, the complicated interactions of which we often cannot analyze and the results of which we cannot predict in each case... "With absolute certainty we can suppose the existence of psychic phenomena, that is to say, sensations, ideas, feelings, etc., only in man (more exactly: only each Ego for its own self). However, it is an obvious consequence of uttermost probability that psychic processes also exist in animals, at least in higher ones. We are convinced that a dog or a parrot is not only a physiological machine but a being capable of seeing, hearing, remembering, feeling pleasure, etc. Hence psychic phenomena (awareness in its broader sense) surely did not arise suddenly in the course of phylogeny (for instance, in Pithecanthropus) as something which was absolutely new and peculiar." Rensch, Bernhard. 1960. “The Laws of Evolution.” In The Evolution of Life, 1st ed., I:95–116. Evolution After Darwin: The University of Chicago Centennial. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mises, the Human Being

 

I just received a copy of Lionel Robbins's book, Autobiography of an Economist, and out of curiosity I looked in the index to find references to Ludwig von Mises. Here is the first thing I read:

The story begins in Vienna in the spring of 1933. My wife and I, who were on a visit to that city, had arranged one day to spend the evening with von Mises, when we ran into Beveridge, who was there on the last day of negotiations about the projected History of Prices in Central Europe with which he had an editorial connection. It was too late to change our commitment for the evening. It was agreed therefore that we should meet at the Hotel Bristol before going out to dinner and get von Mises to join us there. It thus came about that, as the three of us were sitting together exchanging impressions of travel, von Mises arrived with an evening paper carrying the shocking news of the first academic dismissals by the Nazis — Bonn, Mannheim, Kantorowicz and others. Was it not possible, he asked, to make some provision in Britain for the relief of such victims, of which the names mentioned were only the beginning of what, he assured us, was obviously to be an extensive persecution. This was one of Beveridge's great moments — his finest hour I would say. All his best instincts, his sympathy with the unfortunate, his sense of civilized values, his administrative vision and inventiveness, were quickened by the question. Slumped in a chair, with his great head characteristically cupped in his fists, thinking aloud, he then and there outlined the basic plan of what became the famous Academic Assistance Council — later the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning — to which hundreds of émigrés even now living in the English-speaking world owe the preservation of their careers and, in some cases, probably there lives. (p 143-144)

 Hayek saved Popper, and Mises, through the concern prompting his question that evening, may have initiated the saving of many more. I have recently seen the question, "Where is our Milton Friedman?"; but more importantly, where is our Ludwig von Mises?

Comments on "Evolution and Human Behavior" by Gordon Tullock

 I just finished reading Gordon Tullock's essay "Evolution and Human Behavior," which is included in The Selected Works of Gordon Tullock, volume 10, Economics without Frontiers, and was surprised by his omission of the idea of valuing in discussing human behavior.

As Mises and Popper pointed out (see Mises and Popper on Action), action implies a valuing—a preference for a new state that may be achieved and is hypothetically better than the current one. Tullock, ignoring this fact, asserts that his landing on the beaches of "Normandy on D plus 7" was predicted by his genes rather than his values—he was, like his fellow soldiers, "genetically programmed to fight for their tribe" (p 168).

This assertion might be plausible for tribes, as they were tightly-knit communities in which all members were organically connected to each other, if not genetically through the common struggle for survival. If one person felt pain, everyone felt pain including the chief. In this position, a threat against one was a threat against all, and the willingness to fight would have been an asset.

Fast forward thousands of years and we have the environment of the nation state. Here, outside our family, we are alone. Our tribe is dispersed, and we rely for our existence on people we do not know that live far from us. Our State hardly knows we exist, although a failure to pay our taxes my bring us to its attention. The State is not organic—when we feel pain there is no pain felt in our legislature or the departments that execute the legislation that is intended to limit our actions. In this environment, how can we be convinced to risk our lives to perpetuate our State?

The answer may be quite simple. Perhaps it is to make us dependent—to produce a situation in which we believe that all we are and all we could become is dependent on the perpetuation of the status quo in our particular state. When we combine the social services State with the welfare State we have the ingredients of a potent cocktail to mold the values of citizens to make acting against the State a mortal sin and acting in its favor is a moral duty.

Returning to Gordon Tullock, we can imagine that he was taught, as was I, that our country, the United States of America, was prosperous because of our governmental system, and that we lived in a free country. Tullock was only 7 when the Great Depression began and would have been subjected at an impressionable age to all of the New Deal propaganda and may have even benefited from some of the programs. Even though he claims in the essay that he "wasn't even enthusiastic about the war," we can imagine that when he was drafted (Levy & Pert, p. 4) to refuse would have meant prison and/or dishonor. It wasn't his genes that made him ready to kill or be killed by people he had never met who were across an ocean and thousands of miles from his home of Rockford, Illinois—it was his values.

Now, I confess, genes may have an influence on values; but Tullock, although he had read Ludwig von Mises's Human Action (three times!) (Levy & Peart, p. 4), did not first establish that action depends on values and preferences and then speculate about how those values and preferences might have been affected by our physical evolutionary history as opposed to our psychological development.

2015 Levy, D. and Peart, S., Gordon Tullock and Karl Popper: Their Correspondence

Mises and Popper on Action

 Today the Ludwig von Mises Institute published my short article, "Mises and Popper on Action," a result of my joint project with Rafe Champion to explore the synergy between Popper and the Austrians (The Austrian School of Economics as a Popperian Metaphysical Research Programme).

If two schools of thought seem to be not only right, but incompatible, there are only two choices: 1) one or both of them are wrong; or 2) their differences may be resolved through semantic reconciliation and the discarding of mistakes that are of minor consequence. Rafe and I have been on the latter path for some time and hope our work encourages others to take the same path.

Reflections on Presenting at the Southern Economic Association/Society for the Development of Austrian Economics Conference of 2023

 I believe this year's conference was the last one I will attend. It's not so much that it was a waste of time and money, but that I very much doubt that I have another paper in me. In fact, there was only a mass of paragraphs underlying my presentation, not a paper.

The title of my presentation was "Biophilosophy and Praxeology" in which I made many assertions that I expected would be challenged or at least would produce a request for elaboration in the Q&A period. As there was only 15 minutes for the presentation, you can imagine that many things were glossed over, including the apriorism that is surfacing in biophilosophy and the idea that Ludwig von Mises should have looked to biology rather than philosophy for the source of his apriorism. In fact, when I would wake up in the middle of the night, I spent a lot of time thinking about how I would address the vast array of possible questions that would require deeper explanations of my thinly supported assertions.

At the very end of the paper there is a short example of how an a priori concept in biology, metabolism and the requirement of binding and releasing energy (Mayr), could lead to the creation of goods and the process of evolution that Menger described in development of money. For some reason, this example became the exclusive focus of questioning by the session organizer and then, in open discussion, by other participants. I was corrected from the floor that the definition of money is the generally accepted means of exchange rather than the most liquid commodity.

In addition, there was very little follow-up after the end of the session in which people like to engage in private discussion. Apparently, nobody liked it, and nobody hated it—a non-event. At the SDAE dinner one student said he liked the presentation and found it interesting.

Note that no one told me that I was rehashing old material that was more clearly or rigorously presented in the past or had misinterpreted the material I was citing. Perhaps it was the emphasis that this year seemed much more empirical than in previous years. Maybe there simply is no interest in rescuing the apriorism of the Misesian program of praxeology from the evolutionary empirical emphasis that dominates the Hayekian mind set.

It only remains for me to seek an alternative path, possibly through the biophilosophers. Do I have confidence of a different result in that direction? Who knows—pigs may fly!

The Trouble With "Popperians"

Introduction

In recent months I have come into increasing intellectual conflict with a number of Popperians—people who embrace Karl Popper's philosophy of science and, worse, his politics—and now seek to identify some of the issues from my point of view. This is a difficult task for me, as I have actually written a couple of posts here (not as many as I had originally intended) while self-identifying as a Popperian. At this point I must reject that label in favor of considering myself a critical rationalist who largely accepts Austrian economics, especially as espoused by Ludwig von Mises. This acceptance rests on the idea that some truths really are self-evident, including truths that Sir Karl himself uttered, like "All things living are in search of a better world," a statement that may be considered a broadening generalization to all organisms of Mises's definition/axiom of human action.

Note that the following observations do not apply to all Popperians and that not every Popperian exhibits all of the negative characteristics that I identify. Popperians are individuals and must be treated as such, usually being a mix of error and truth as are the rest of us.

A Different Flavor of Positivist

Popper rejected the idea that he was just a different flavor of positivist—a falsificationist rather than a verificationist. However, Popperians generally fall into this category, ignoring Popper's writings on metaphysical research programs, which, while subject to criticism, could not be falsified.

Although Popper wrote almost exclusively about metaphysics and its application to real world problems, Popperians tend to see everything as empirical. The one self-evident truth that Popperians seem to accept is that there are no self-evident truths—in spite of the requirement that theories be internally consistent.

Critics Rather than Problem Solvers

Popperians seem to be heavy on criticism and light on problem solving. They tend to attack, criticize, dismiss, and mock tentative theories while rarely attempting to generate new helpful conjectures themselves. This behavior is evident in their constant efforts to discredit Austrian school economics while failing to offer an alternative. They declare it to be unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific, ignoring the fact that many positivist economists have tried and failed to produce any universal statements that may be tested.

This problem is actually addressed by Popper when he writes in the preface to The Poverty of Historicism (p x-xi): 

I think that it is convincing in itself: if there is such a thing as growing human knowledge, then we cannot anticipate to-day what we shall know only tomorrow... 

This argument, being purely logical, applies to scientific predictors of any complexity, including 'societies' of interacting predictors. But this means that no society can predict, scientifically, its own future states of knowledge. [emphasis in original]

Therefore, from economic theory we can expect explanation, but not prediction. And without prediction we have criticism, but not empirical falsification. 

Popper as a God

Many Popperians see Popper as Revealer of Truth who should guide us in all respects, and that the world may be saved through recognition of these truths. I think this is fallacious, as he is a revealer of a number of truths that actually do guide us. In other words, he explains the process by which knowledge—in his terms, objective knowledge—is produced through the process of problem solving by conjecture and refutation. It is true that the knowledge of this process may improve our capabilities in applying it, but if Popper is right, it is the process we—and all living things—have been using all along. I hasten to point out that these truths are metaphysical—they are not subject to empirical refutation and are, therefore, not science. They are, of course, subject to criticism and are still the subject of controversy to this day.

Treating Popper as a god makes those who criticize Popper or advocate approaches that seem to contradict his, heretics or worse; and by implication, wrong. For example, Mises's epistemology has been the subject of many papers and criticisms, primarily on the basis of empiricism. His claim that economic theory is a priori and cannot be falsified by empirical data is attacked by mainstream economists and Popperians alike, although economists like Hutchison simply bewail the lack of empirical tests of universal statements in economic theory while offering no alternative.

Failure to Apply Principals Popper Himself Advocated

Popperians tend to ignore Popper's rationality principle and situational analysis in engaging in argument. For example, they are quick to take Mises's suggestion that to rule his works as non-science, as a Popperian generally would, is a "verbal quibble," as evidence that Mises is simply ignorant of Popper's work or stupid. They do not recognize Mises's lifelong battle against the positivists in which an identification of his economic work as non-science would have meant its declaration by the positivists as non-sense.

In addition, although Popper suggested we should not argue over words, Popperians do not seem to be willing to grant Mises's use of the word "science," most likely meant as "organized knowledge." They fail to recognize the fact that Mises was already well-established, having published his groundbreaking Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, when Popper was 10—almost 25 years before Logik der Forschung. That his understanding of a word would be different from one Popper had himself created is hardly surprising.

Conclusion

Popperians are largely a politically confused bunch, as was Popper. Jeremy Shearmur wrote, in The Political Thought of Karl Popper (122), "I do not know what real-world institutions could even approximate to by playing the kind of role that [Popper] would be asking of them.” In fact, Popper's political thinking does not seem to rise much above what I learned in high school civics class, consisting mostly of platitudes about open discussion and criticism, after which the piecemeal social engineers impose their will and somehow, assess their success.

Without attitudes that are more akin to that of Popper himself, Popperians are likely to be impediments to, rather than facilitators of, progress.

Ludwig von Mises on Society and Cooperation

 Mises argues for liberalism in ways reminiscent of arguments for socialism:

"Society is the union of human beings for the better exploitation of the natural conditions of existence; in its very conception it abolishes the struggle between human beings and substitutes the mutual aid which provides the essential motive of all members united in an organism. Within the limits of society there is no struggle, only peace. Every struggle suspends in effect the social community. Society as a whole, as organism, does fight a struggle for existence against forces inimical to it. But inside, as far as society has absorbed individuals completely, there is only collaboration. For society is nothing but collaboration" (Socialism, p 316 of Yale University Press edition/281 of Liberty Classics edition).

This is a beautiful passage and part of Mises's evolutionary arguments. Your world view determines whether you think the ideas of Marx or Mises will generate this happy situation.

All of us in society, even if we are "competing," are engaged in the cooperative effort to discover those products and processes that are best, a view Friedrich Hayek later elaborated on in his essay "Competition as a Discovery Procedure".

Karl Popper's "Virus"

 In The Poverty of Historicism, while talking about the uncertainty of progress, Karl Popper wrote "For we cannot exclude the logical possibility, say, of a bacterium or virus that spreads a wish for Nirvana" (1957, p 157). What is interesting is that Popper was infected with this virus—initially, Marxism, gradually decreasing in virility to socialism and then interventionism.

In 1914, at the age of 12, Popper read Edward Bellamy's utopian novel, Looking Backward:2000-1887 (Hacohen, 2000, p 67-68); and, without guidance, it is hard to believe that he would have been able to engage with it critically. In fact, in his intellectual autobiography, he criticizes himself for his uncritical acceptance of Marxism (1982, 33-34). In that same book he demonstrates that while into his seventies he has still not rid himself of the disease, writing "... if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with personal liberty, I would be a socialist still" (36).

As far as I know, Popper, while sometimes mentioning free markets positively, never condemned socialism for its negative economic consequences that have resulted each time it has been tried. Even the voluntary socialist experiments of the 19th century (e.g. by adherents of Owenism in the U.S.) and of Zionists in Israel have been, if not outright failures, difficult to sustain. Perhaps his rejection of economism—the idea that economic welfare is a guide for social policy and a characteristic he identified in Marx's writing— led him to believe that such a criticism was unnecessary and would reduce him to Marx's level.

The failure of Popper to embrace the economics of Mises and Hayek has led to the perpetuation of error, most visibly in the person of George Soros, and put humanity at risk of another dark age. Edward Bellamy would be astonished.

Hacohen, M. H. (2000). Karl Popper — The Formative Years, 1902-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. Boston: Beacon Press.

Popper, K. R. ([1976] 1982). Unended Quest. La Salle: Open Court.

Are Societal Structures Really "… the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design?"

This phrase from Adam Ferguson (quote in context here) is bandied about quite a bit by supporters of markets and, specifically, in the context of Friedrich Hayek's views of markets and society. The phrase brings to mind the inductivist view that science proceeds first by observations–"just observe." However, in the case of creating social structures, "just act." This formulation can lead one to think that in science any random observation can lead to knowledge, or in society, any action will contribute to the spontaneous order. Such thinking denigrates the individual and minimizes such achievements as Newton's laws of motion and Mises's work on socialism's calculation problem.

If we accept Mises's definition of human action, "purposeful behavior" (Human Action, p 11), we take it that each action is rational and aimed at a certain end (this is not to say that impulsive or instinctual actions involve thought processes, but that the ones that concern us in economics and social interaction do). Therefore we can say that each action is designed by the individual for a specific purpose. When individuals act with a purpose in mind they are supported by the entire background of biological and societal evolution that preceded them. For that reason, actions are not random but are stochasticly targeted in the sense Denis Noble describes in Dance to the Tune of Life (194-197), varying only part of the theoretical structure.

In acting, each person impinges upon the plans of others. As each person adjusts their plans to mesh with others' their actions produce effects that feed back into the system, producing new effects unanticipated by the original actors. These new effects produce plan revisions, and so on. The pattern is the same as Karl Popper's tetradic schema:

P₁ → TT → EE → P₂

 Where P₁ is the initial problem state, TT is a tentative solution or theory, EE is the error-elimination process applied to the theory, and P₂ represents the new problem state that has been generated by the process.

This concise representation is simply that of a Darwinian or evolutionary approach to knowledge, reflecting the iterative process of markets that is so foreign to the state and political governance.

New knowledge is created at the frontier by trial-and-error based upon what we currently believe to be true. Individuals produce the mutations to our theories–scientific and social–that make progress possible. These mutations are tested against reality and retained or discarded based on the results. Sometimes, when problems with an accepted theory become too great science takes a step back, and we discover we "know what ain't so."

At this moment in history, it appears that what we are in such a position with economics and society. In economics we are in the grips of the neoclassical synthesis, which provides an intellectual argument for the state, an institution that already resists falsification through power and violence. In society the failed arguments of natural rights have opened the floodgates to identity politics and the intellectually sterile ad hoc strategy of resistance to it. It would seem that we are heading for a giant reset in which one hopes for a rethinking of the whole project of governance resulting in institutions developed through the trial-and-error of what I have called evolutionary liberalism. Only then might we have Peace on Earth.

Evolutionary Liberalism

Although this blog is named "The Radical Liberal," my thinking has taken a decidedly evolutionary turn. In a sense that turn is even more radical, but I think that it is time for me to attach a more descriptive term than "radical" to this liberalism—"evolutionary."

The characteristics of evolutionary liberalism are that it embraces universal Darwinism and takes trial-and-error, evolutionary learning as the only way forward for humanity. It argues that the pursuit of such learning is inhibited by what people call "government" or "the state"—that the state is itself a failed experiment.

The social embodiment of this learning process is what is generally called "the market," discussed previously in my paper "Let Go and Let the Market," referenced in another post on this blog. The ideas in that paper have been developed further, and money profit identified as the selection mechanism for societal evolution.

The philosophy of evolutionary liberalism is heavily influenced by the scientific philosophy of Karl R. Popper (not his generally-flawed political and economic thinking) and the economics of the Austrian school, as elucidated by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. These thinkers are influences and there is no argument that they would agree with or support evolutionary liberalism. This is not a project to argue about what they thought, but to use their work as inspiration for ever bolder conjectures.

I am quite sure that many people are circling around these ideas, including Matt Ridley and Daniel Dennett. Although they are far more well known and knowledgeable than I, they seem to have missed the basic problem of the state and its "solution." When it comes to them, or other widely-read thinkers, we might have a renaissance of true liberalism.

David Sloan Wilson on Evonomics: An Agenda Cloaked in Science

After David Sloan Wilson wrote the article, The Road to Ideology: How Friedrich Hayek Became a Monster, Peter Boettke invited him to give a seminar at the F.A. Hayek Center for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. On February 11, 2016, Wilson presented the seminar, which is summarized here with a link to a video that incorporates a recording of the seminar and the slide presentation. I suggest that those interested in Austrian economics or coming from a non-leftist position watch the presentation as it will give you a clear idea of what we are up against. Make no mistake, Wilson and his comrades at Evonomics are heavy hitters and have an agenda that you won't like. Having listened to the presentation once, I have a few thoughts.

First, Wilson alleges that laissez-faire has its roots in the Christian worldview of universal harmony. Doing so is an attempt to discredit it as mystical and unscientific, and rob it of its roots in the Enlightenment. The reality is that Christianity was the home of top-down, unrelenting authoritarianism until it was tamed by the realization that markets tended to reduce or eliminate the antagonisms between religious groups. The resulting intellectual movement, in which those such as Voltaire argued that religion and aristocracy should be de-emphasized and commerce elevated, was probably more of an influence on Christianity than the other way around (see Jerry Z. Muller, The Mind and the Market, p 23).

Wilson goes on to state that progress came from the societal suppression of "disruptive, self-serving behaviors," rather than the realization on the part of individuals that cooperation was to their advantage in achieving goals that would have been difficult or impossible for them on their own (see Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, p 143). This view results in a bias toward top-down (coercive) rather than bottom-up (evolutionary) thinking. Wilson is definitely pushing methodological collectivism. He believes societies were successful because they dragooned their members into following the rules, not because they had rules that helped individuals flourish, thereby attracting and keeping members. Group selection is a reality, but only in the context of the feedback of individual selection that makes one group prosper over another.

While wanting to speed up group selection, Wilson fails to realize that the state suppresses selection by bypassing the feedback mechanism of profit and loss, and even imprisons its victims within its boarders, preventing the possibility of "voting with your feet." Failing the latter, there may be an effort for governments to form cartels or impose rules through a world-wide body, eliminating the possibility of selection still further. After all, if there is only one body, we are done with selection. The feedback of money profit and loss in an environment of open competition is superior, and the only objective method I can see that can facilitate group selection.

When watching Wilson's slides you will see that he believes the Earth is being destroyed by human activity. The Evonomics agenda is to reverse that perceived destruction by imposing an "intelligent design," cloaked in science, that has no possibility of effective criticism or reversal--of negative selection. Only by critically developing our own arguments and pointing out that their approach is actually anti-evolution can we succeed in defeating their effort.

The Economic Calculation Debate: Misunderstanding Mises and the Austrians

Andy Denis, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at City University London (see his home page), has written a paper, Economic calculation: private property or several control,
 that disputes Mises's requirement of private property to permit economic calculation.
First of all, he suggests that several property, or multiple ownership, is to be preferred to private property and that control is to be preferred to ownership. These preferences, in Denis's opinion, take a socialist or planned economy out of the realm of impossibility, at least in terms of Mises's argument.

As I see it, Denis completely misses the point that the owners of private property, singly or severally, value it and are at risk when purchasing or investing. Without the risk of loss -- what Nassim Taleb calls an 'absence of "skin in the game"' -- prices are simply wild guesses and do not reflect the values or opportunity costs of market participants.

Denis does mention the principal-agent problem, in which owners are subject to the will of managers, talking as if this process amounts to expropriation.  Certainly, this situation is a problem in a publicly held, bureaucratically run, stock corporation; but he fails to recognize that owners may withdraw their property from the managers if they are dissatisfied with the results. If there are no owners, there is no one to value the results, and hence no one to withdraw the property. If the benefits and costs of control are added to his system, he arrives at a point where it is hardly different from that of private property.

Perhaps Mises fails to adequately stress the connection between the ownership and valuation of property, leading Denis to misunderstand the thrust of the argument. But it is also possible that Denis, in his eagerness to upend the Austrian/Misesian argument, has a great incentive to ignore or misinterpret it.

In Support of Methodological Monism

The appeal of methodological monism – as Popper put it, "the view that all theoretical or generalizing sciences make use of the same method, whether they are natural or social sciences" (1957, 130) – seems undeniable (think Occam's Razor), and it has a number of supporters.¹ On the other hand, some in the social sciences – notably members of the Austrian school of economics – suggest methodological dualism or, in the case of Bruce Caldwell (Caldwell, 1982), even methodological pluralism. It appears that these different camps are difficult to reconcile, and to this point no resolution has been found.

English: Karl Popper in 1990. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When difficulties of this sort arise – where there exist multiple views, all seemingly reasonable, yet
irreconcilable – it is possible that a solution may be found in appealing to a higher level of abstraction. In this case we look to Karl R. Popper's formalization of the scientific method in the following schema (Popper, 1972, 119):

P₁ → TT → EE → P₂

Where P₁ is the initial problem state, TT is a tentative solution or theory, EE is the error-elimination process applied to the theory, and P₂ represents the new problem state that has been generated by the process. This concise representation is simply that of a Darwinian or evolutionary approach to knowledge.

In this discussion our focus is on the error-elimination step. If one thinks of Popper's formulation as "the method", the error-elimination step may be modified as circumstances warrant without altering that method. Popper also referred to this step as "attempted elimination through critical discussion" (1999, 13-4). To acquire new knowledge, we always use this method, substituting the appropriate critical component.² With this understanding we may actually suggest that Bruce Caldwell is a methodological monist, as he specifically states that his reason for supporting methodological pluralism is that theories require different forms of criticism (Caldwell, 1982, 1-2).

English: Ludwig von Mises in his library (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ludwig von Mises, a strong advocate of methodological dualism (1969, 1-2),³ presents a slightly more difficult case. His dualism differentiated the method in the social sciences from that of the physical sciences by asserting that its axioms were a priori true,⁴ and that criticisms of the logic used to deduce its theorems were the best method of refuting them. A clarification of Mises's approach (Smith, 1996),
 explicity identifying and defending its axioms as synthetic rather than analytic, has tied it more closely to the real world. This clarification has increased the credibility of the approach even though tentative theories, in Popper's view, need no justification. To illustrate Mises's emphasis on criticism we offer the following quote:

Man is not infallible. He searches for truth – that is, for the most adequate comprehension of reality as far as the structure of his mind and reason makes it accessible to him. Man can never become omniscient. He can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination. This means for the economist to trace back all theorems to their unquestionable and certain ultimate basis, the category of human action, and to test by the most careful scrutiny all assumptions and inferences leading from this bases to the theorem under examination. It cannot be contended that this procedure is a guarantee against error. But it is undoubtedly the most effective method of avoiding error. (Mises, 1966, 68)

The critical component in the method is composed of the examination of premises and validation of logic.

When viewed in this more abstract light, Mises's method fits Popper's formulation and does not contradict methodological monism. This fact is comforting as we suspect that the idea that there is only one fundamental method of obtaining knowledge is itself an a priori truth.

In a previous post we suggested that Mises was incorrect in claiming that economics was a subject unconnected with any other science, linking the action axiom with Popper's suggestion that "all life is problem solving" and to the science of biology. Here we have claimed that Mises's method fully complies with the scientific method as formulated by Popper, and that it is only the use of an appropriately different approach to error elimination or criticism that differentiates it from the physical sciences. If we have succeeded in our project it seems clear that economic methodology, as described and practiced by Ludwig von Mises, is scientific, and that the resulting discipline of economics is science.

Footnotes

¹ See (Blaug, 1992, 42-47), (Wilson, 1998), and (Cziko, 1995).
² I am grateful to Rafe Champion for bringing this point home.
³ For Mises's discussion of his method see (2003), (1966, 1-142), (1969) and (2006). For discussions by others, see (Boettke, 1998), (Boettke, 2012), (Kirzner, 2001, 69-92), and (Selgin, 1990, 11-18),
⁴ Mises recognized the observational, i.e. synthetic, component of his axiom (Kirzner, 2001, 88-9).

Bibliography

Blaug, M. (1992). The Methodology of Economics: Or how economists explain (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boettke, P. J. (1998). Ludwig von Mises. In J. Davis, D. W. Hands, & U. Mäki (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Methodology (pp. 534-40). Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1531088

Boettke, P. J. (2012). Was Mises Right? In P. J. Boettke, Living Economics: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow (pp. 192-212). Oakland, California: The Independent Institute.

Caldwell, B. (1982). Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Cziko, G. (1995). Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kirzner, I. M. (2001). Ludwig von Mises. Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books.

Mises, L. v. (1966). Human Action: A treatise on economics (3rd ed.). Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Mises, L. v. (1969). Theory and History: An interpretation of social and economic evolution. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.

Mises, L. v. (2003). Epistemological Problems of Economics (3rd ed.). Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Mises, L. v. (2006). The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An essay on method (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund.

Popper, K. R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. Boston: The Beacon Press.

Popper, K. R. (1972). Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject. In K. R. Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (pp. 106-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1999). The logic and evolution of scientific theory. In K. R. Popper, All Life is Problem Solving (pp. 3-22). London: Routledge.

Selgin, G. A. (1990). Praxeology and Understanding: An analysis of the controversy in Austrian economics. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Smith, B. (1996, Spring). In Defense of Extreme (Fallibilistic) Apriorism. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 12(1), 179-192.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Ludwig von Mises, the Action Axiom, and Biology

Introduction

In the pursuit of science little can be said to be of greater importance than the epistemology employed.  In this regard the epistemology of the Austrian School of economic thought has been roundly criticized and rejected by mainstream economists.¹  This reaction was primarily due to Ludwig von Mises's firm stand on apriorism and the claim that praxeology, of which economics was the most developed discipline, was a new science, unconnected to previously acquired knowledge (Mises, 1966, 1-10).

English: Ludwig von Mises in his library (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Much of the Austrian literature on epistemology since Mises's exposition² has been to explain and defend, ever more loudly and vociferously, apriorism and the apodictic certainty of conclusions derived from Mises's action axiom.  A notable exception to that literature is Barry Smith's tract on fallible apriorism (1996), which elaborated and extended Rothbard's thesis (1957) by showing that a priori knowledge, although independent of observation, is derived from observation and, hence, is synthetic a priori knowledge.

With Smith's introduction of fallibilism into Mises's system, some of the distance between it and Karl Popper's concept of conjectural knowledge was reduced.  This reconciliation has been visible in a number of efforts that attempt to bring Mises's approach into the methodological housing of Popper and other philosophers of science, notably Imre Lakatos.³  More on that in another post; but, at this moment we have another issue to address — Mises's claim that economics, and its encompassing science, praxeology, are new sciences unconnected with previous knowledge.  This claim did not sit well with those who believe all knowledge to be connected and do not have an anthropocentric view of the universe.

The Origins of Action

Mises went to great lengths to deny that human action is in any way related to action in our evolutionary ancestors, even stating that "The newborn child is not an acting being," and that "Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action... are practically not human" (1966, 14).  To do so seems to strike at the very notion that we have evolved from species that have less flexibility than we, and from whom we do not stand apart in the universe.  In this context Mises formulated what has become known as the action axiom — man acts, aiming at the improvement of his situation relative to his values (1966, 13-14).

English: Karl Popper in 1990. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In an address given in 1967, Karl Popper made a more general statement — that "Animals, and even plants, are problem-solvers" (1972, 145).  The idea was later stated more simply as "All life is problem solving" (1999, 100).  By this statement he meant that each life form represented, either anatomically or behaviorally, a hypothetical solution to the problem of its environment. Darwinian evolution supplied the criticism or falsification of that hypothesis.

At this point we must ask, "what problem is being solved?"  The answer lies in the action axiom — the problem of improving the situation, or survivability, of the organism.  Each organism acts, in the way it understands, to improve its situation.⁴  It appears that Popper's statement stands as a powerful axiom — possibly the basic axiom of biology — in support of Mises's more specific one and reveals biology as the epistemological basis of economics.  In fact economics is not separated from all of the other sciences, but is an outgrowth of biology.

This conclusion would most likely suit Edward O. Wilson who said "It is in biology and psychology that economists and other social scientists will find the premises needed to fashion more predictive models, just as it was in physics and chemistry that researchers found premises that upgraded biology" (1998, 206); however, Wilson did not expect the basic premise to come from a philosopher or support the Austrian methodological approach.

We do not argue here that economics has that much to learn from biology, although Wilson certainly believes it does.  Economics is clearly a human science — the most fundamental theorems depend on activities that are observable only in humans.  What we do argue is that biology supplies an axiom that is fundamental to all life that strengthens Mises's action axiom, supporting it with what Rothbard would have called a "law of reality rather than a law of thought" (1957).

At this point we must question why Hayek did not see this connection.  He knew, and was friends with, both Mises and Popper, as well as having a deep understanding of their work.  He also came from a family of biologists.  His father was a serious botanist as well as being a doctor, and Hayek helped him with botanical work and attended society meetings (Ebenstein, 2001).  At this point we can only speculate, but he may have seen Mises's and Popper's works as irreconcilable and never even contemplated a reconciliation of their views.  Perhaps he was reluctant to start down a path that could have resulted in the loss of one or both of his closest intellectual associates.  In any case, it is unfortunate that a person of his stature did not complete Mises's work by linking economics with the rest of knowledge.

Conclusion

With the modification of Mises's viewpoint on action yet another objection to the epistemology of the Austrian School can be overcome.  This modification is hardly a blow to Mises's overall system as it supports, rather than rejects, his action axiom.  At the same time it ties economics more closely to the sciences, a goal that we can only believe Mises would have supported.

¹ See (Blaug, 1980, 81-2) and (Samuelson, 1964, 736).
² Mises wrote extensively on methodology and epistemology, producing a volume of essays in 1933 that was later translated into English (Mises, 1960) and his final published book (Mises, 1962).
³ See (Champion, 2013), (Di Iorio, 2008) and (Rizzo, 1983).
⁴ This is not to say that there is some super-human intelligence in operation, but that natural processes have been evolutionarily selected that make the organism's choices the most likely to succeed.

Bibliography

Blaug, M. (1992). The Methodology of Economics: Or how economists explain (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Champion, R. (2013, March 11). The Common Ground of Parsons, Mises and Popper in the 1930s: The Action Frame of Reference, Praxeology and Situational Analysis. Retrieved from the Rathouse: the philosophy site of rafe champion: http://www.the-rathouse.com/EvenMoreAustrianProgram/Convergence.html

Di Iorio, F. (2008). Apriorism and Fallibilism: Mises and Popper on the Explanation of Action and Social Phenomena. Nuova Civiltà delle Macchine(2). Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://www.imtlucca.it/whats_new/_seminars_docs/000195-Di_Iorio_MISES_and_POPPER.pdf

Ebenstein, A. (2001). Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. New York: Palgrave for St. Martin's Press.

Mises, L. v. (1960). Epistemological Problems of Economics. (G. Reisman, Trans.) Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.

Mises, L. v. (1962). The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.

Mises, L. v. (1966). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (3rd revised ed.). Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Popper, K.R. (1972). Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject. In K.R. Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (pp. 106-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rothbard, M.N. (1957). In Defense of 'Extreme Apriorism'.Southern Economic Journal(23), 315-20.

Rizzo, M. J. (1983). Mises and Lakatos: A Reformulation of Austrian Methodology. In I. M. Kirzner (Ed.), Method, Process, and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises. New York: Lexington Books. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://mises.org/books/methodprocess.pdf

Samuelson, P.A. (1964, September). Theory and Realism: A Reply. The American Economic Review, 54(5), 736-9. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1818572

Smith, B. (1996, Spring). In Defense of Extreme (Fallibilistic) Apriorism. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 12(1), 179-192.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Related articles

• Mises' Sectarianism

The Myth of a (Classical) Liberal or Libertarian Utopia

Cover via Amazon

In reading online articles and blogs it is common to find references to a "libertarian utopia."  These references are both supportive and derisive, distorting what I will claim is the idea of true liberalism.  Hayek is even referenced in this Freeman article bemoaning the fact that "we lack a liberal Utopia."  The problem with this phrase first became clear to me when I read the following words:

Contemporary socialists – "light" totalitarians in mindset and vocabulary – go wrong when they imagine that liberals are busily planning the perfect society, the best that is possible in the world, but of opposite sign to their own. [emphasis in original]¹

The reality is that there is no liberal Utopia.  Liberalism and its modern-day progeny, libertarianism, are processes rather than destinations.  In the same sense that the scientific process leads to the discovery of laws of nature, liberalism leads to the discovery of that society that best conforms to human values.  Such a society defies planning, as planning implements the values of a small elite.  It also stifles the wide-ranging experimentation – through trial and error – that is necessary to discover the institutions and businesses that are necessary in building a society that supports human values.

Of course, one may wonder, "What are human values?"  I tend to think, as did Ludwig von Mises, that most people prefer prosperity over poverty, freedom over slavery, and life over death.  There are, and always will be, predators who prey on those who live peacefully and productively.  The latter will use freedom to create the cost-effective defenses that maximize the cost of predatory behavior, eventually discarding the unwieldy blunt instrument of the state.

What is needed then is a total commitment to the free market and its concomitant competition as discovery procedure by which society progresses.  There can be no fear of unacceptable outcomes, as outcomes will reflect human values.  Yes, in some areas of the world those outcomes might be repulsive to modern westerners, but eventual progress in those regions is not going to be accelerated by murdering, threatening, or lecturing the population.

What is most important is to embrace the idea that liberalism – the free (or freed) market – is the platform upon which progress depends.  The end state defies prior description, but we can have confidence that it will conform to human values.

^*In the body of the post an unmodified reference to "liberal" is a reference to "classical liberal."
¹Revel, Jean-François, Last Exit to Utopia, (2009 New York, Encounter Books), 54.

Personal Value Judgments

Image via Wikipedia
In the, so far, excellent foreword to Ludwig von Mises's Epistemological Problems of Economics, Jörg Guido Hülsmann makes the following curious statement:

The discipline of economics dealt with human action to the extent that the acting person could base his decisions on personal value judgments and economic calculations, whereas praxeology dealt with human choices guided by personal value judgments alone.

But economic calculation simply augments personal value judgments.  Any analogy might be the use of a scale when confronted by two sacks of potatoes.  Which one should I buy?  The scale is a tool that can aid me in that decision, assuming that I want to buy a greater weight of potatoes for my money.  However, the color of the potatoes, their apparent age and quality may override my desire for the greater weight.  The scale simply supplies a quantitative input to my value judgment, the basis for every choice I make.

If the statement were instead, "personal value judgments in the context of economic calculations," I would be in complete agreement.  I suspect that Dr. Hülsmann would change the phrasing himself if asked about this seeming separation of value judgments and economic calculation.

Update: Further on,  Dr. Hülsmann does, indeed, seem to come more into alignment with my understanding of the Austrian view.