-
Walter E. Block
Rejoinder to Wysocki on Indifference and the Block-Hoppe Debate
Summary:
There has been an ongoing debate in Austrian economic circles on indifference and methodology. It started with Nozick (1977) who criticized this school of thought on that issue. Block (1980) responded to that essay. The main debaters within Austrian circles have been Block (2009A), Block and Barnett (2010), and Hoppe (2005, 2009). Wysocki (2017) is a recent entry into this discussion. The present paper is a response to this latter contribution.
-
Igor Wysocki, Walter E. Block
Caplan on Probability: a Critique
Summary:
This paper addresses economic methodology, focusing particularly on Caplan’s (2003) probabilistic analysis and the problems therewith. The argument launched against Caplan is based on the fact that the said author either violates the rule of self-reference (his methodological statement) rule does not obey the standard it sets itself to judge the lower-level propositions of economics) or if it does not, Caplan is inevitably in the epistemic dark as to the probability of lower-level propositions. In the meantime, we will make an attempt at the exegesis of what Caplan may possibly mean by the notion of probability. Finally, it will be demonstrated that the criticism directed at Caplan does not apply to the methodology employed by Austrian economics.
-
Chad Van Schoelandt, Ivan Jankovic, Walter E. Block
Rejoinder on Free Will, Determinism, Libertarianism and Austrian Economics
Summary:
Block (2015) claimed that the free will position is correct, that of determinism incorrect, and that libertarianism and Austrian economics are compatible with the former but not the latter. Edelstein, Wenzel and Salcido (2016) criticized Block (2015) on the grounds that. The present paper is a rejoinder to EWS. It argues that determinism is incorrect; that free will is correct, and that freedom of will is important for both Austrian economics and libertarianism.
-
William Barnett Ii, Walter E. Block
Scale of Values Violates Singularism
Summary:
There is at the very least a tension between two basic building blocs of Austrian economics. The doctrine of singularism maintains that choice is inevitably and necessarily between two and only two things: that which is chosen, and the next best alternative, which is set aside. However, implicit in the concept the scale of values is the claim that choice can take place over many, many alternatives. If one of these has to be jettisoned, and we argue that one must be, then we vote for the latter.