The Wisdom of Ludwig von Mises
When George Koether passed (2, 3), I noted "He once sent me a copy of his abridgment of Human Action". Several people asked me about that, but I could not find it. This weekend I stumbled across it when rearranging my (paper) library. Turns out it was a special issue (Sept. 1981) of The Freeman, published on the centenery of Mises' birth in Sept. 1881. The issue contained primarily excerpts from Human Action, "selected and arranged topically by one of his former students, George Koether."
There is a version of this online but has each short quote as a separate linked page so it's not that easy to browse or flip through; they are alphabetically arranged by title so that the introduction by Koether, and the critique by John Chamberlain, are sort of buried in the middle. Here is a scan of the full printed issue, including Koether's short cover note to me, in which hs says, if it were reprinted, he would have omitted Chamberlain's critique; "I knew John well-a fine journalist but no economist."
(Incidentally, in my library I also found a printout of one Ken Gaillot's notes on Human Action, sort of his distillation or summary of it.)
In any event, Koether's "The Wisdom of Ludwig von Mises" read as follows:
Columns: The Wisdom of Ludwig von Mises By George KoetherHuman Action, generally considered to be the greatest work of the greatest economist of our times, is a towering monument to the mind of a genius. Its 885 pages of text contain insights that have revolutionized economic thought and are moving the world toward a true and complete understanding of human freedom.
Because of the “warp and woof’ nature of all human action—with one strand of action by one individual affecting and being affected by the action of all other individuals, and because of the necessity for recognizing and explaining this connexity of all economic phenomena—Human Action is not a book one reads; it is a book one studies.
As every human action bears on every other human action, so every principle of economic analysis relates to every other principle. Thus, in dealing topically with one subject, Professor Mises never overlooked its relation to all others. Hence his convictions on any one topic were spread throughout his book.
In these extracts I have sought to capture the essence of his thought on a number of topics, but for purposes of brevity and ease of comprehension, sentences have been shortened and juxtaposed, words eliminated, paragraphing changed and punctuation sometimes altered. Yet, with the exception of a very few words in brackets, every word in these extracts is pure Mises, every word is taken from Human Action.
May those who have never savored the fine flavor of this wine of wisdom be tempted, by this small sip, to enjoy deep draughts from the full bottle.
Comments (6)
Dennis Sperduto
Stephan: thank you for making this information available on the Mises Blog.
Published: July 10, 2006 7:42 PM
Person
Unfortunately, Mises was a socialist (and therefore criminal) because he didn't specifically denounce intellectual property rights. Rothbard was even worse.
I mean, Stephan_Kinsella, that's basically what you believe, right? Anyone supportive of, or not sufficiently against IP is a kind of crypto-socialist criminal?
Wait, let me guess what your response will be:
"Lotta ifs there, podnuh."
"Rights are about conflict."
No, you'll probably reveal more pieces of my email address and then act oblivious to how that might be considered threatening or intimidating.
Published: July 11, 2006 11:57 AM
Norman
This could be an excellent way to introduce people to Mises, although I'm sure Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson would also suffice for knowledge of basic economics...
Published: July 11, 2006 12:02 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Person:
Please keep your comments civil or they'll be deleted.
It is not my view that you are a socialist if you "fail to denounce" socialism. But, rather, only if you hold or expound socialist views.
Mises was a bit ambiguous on IP; Rothbard was good on patent but thought a form of copyright could be supported by appeal to a type of contract theory. I believe he was incorrect, as was Mises if and to the extent he supported the legitimacy of IP. Mises was also incorrect if and to the extent he favored the state's legitimacy, even the minimal state. This means that he was, what, a 98% libertarian, and Rothbard 99.999%? So what? For a libertarian to disagree with another libertarian on any substantive issue necessarliy means he believes the other is to that extent advocating something he regards as criminal. So what? This is not an earthshattering revelation.
Dunno what crypto means or adds. I never said someone "not against" IP is incorrect. I do believe that those who advocate IP are advocating a type of theft. Whether advocating theft makes you a thief, I guess is up for debate.
Now, get some manners.
Published: July 11, 2006 12:14 PM
zuzu
Dunno what crypto means or adds. I never said someone "not against" IP is incorrect. I do believe that those who advocate IP are advocating a type of theft. Whether advocating theft makes you a thief, I guess is up for debate.
Point of clarification:
With the exception of crypto-anarchism, which proposes to enforce deep anarchy (i.e. undermining the State) through popular use of encryption between associates (see also: digital bearer settlement), the crypto- prefix when affixed to a political philosophy is typically used to "out" someone suspected of using obfuscation to disguise their actual political beliefs.
For example, when Noam Chomsky and William Buckley debated, Chomsky referred to Buckley supporting the US war-machine in the name of anti-Communism as "crypto-fascist".
Published: July 11, 2006 9:07 PM
Abhi
As this has turned into a kind of discussion of intellectual property rights, after a recent reading of Human Action, I do recall the following passage fro pg 128:
"A thing rendering unlimited such unlimited services, is, for instance, the knowledge of the causal relation implied. The formula, the recipe that teaches us how to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good."
Would Mises be contradicting himself upholding IP?
Published: April 25, 2009 8:22 PM