Thanks for taking the time to post an excerpt which I trust summarizes an article that I don’t have time to read now but want to which analyzes a book that I want to read later and probably won’t have time to for at least another 15 years (our fifth is due in 8 days and my wife is still in her early 30s). [I probably could have skimmed the article rather than writing this post—but oh well and the writing is educational for me as well].
In practice, many libertarieans may be hedonists. That said, I am sure that both Mises and the author of the article are well enough read to know that in western philosophical circles the observation that all men desire happiness runs strong in the tradition from Socrates to Aquinas (and after in those who do not want to break with the tradition, which probably include Mieses and the author of the article). From Socrates on those in the tradition are careful to distinguish themselves from and deal with the arguments of the hedonists—who after all were Socrates’ contemporaries.
It seems to me that the flaw in Mises is that he neglects a theological fact called by Catholics “disordered appetites—one of the effects of original sin.” Everything we desire, at least in some very remote sense, is of itself appropriate to us, but the degree to which we desire it and the way in which we desire it in comparison to other things is usually not appropriate (having a family is part of natural happiness—therefor I desire women, which is good, but maybe more than is actually appropriate—if my desire for women becomes unclear enough so that it is a general desire for people the desire has been perverted). Chesterton called Original Sin the only revealed supernatural truth that is demonstrable in such a way that it should be universally admitted (I am paraphrasing).
I think you will enjoy other comments from the author [by necessity left on the posting length editing floor]; they are worthy and essential in rounding out his argument.
Value-free
Mises argues that economics must be value free; or, as objective or scientific as possible. By this is meant, to predict behavior of persons independent of the values of those persons. I would presume that, with sufficient knowledge, the behavior of a good person would be predicted to be different than the behavior of a bad person.
While economics must be value free, there are limits to what individual economists may do. An economist should not, for example, offer economic advice to an evil government.
Is man ruled by pain and pleasure, as postulated by Jeremy Bentham? Well, I suppose if we define “pain” and “pleasure” broadly enough, the answer would be yes. But, in the plain English meaning of these words, no. Man is capable of seeing the long-term or indirect consequences of behavior. Therefore, man can accept pain and avoid pleasure.
Indeed, because there are times when what is, in the short-term, painful or pleasurable, is also, in the long-term, the opposite, that we have norms of ethics and morality (pertaining to individual behavior), and, more so, economics (pertaining to social behavior or the government).
So, rather than undermine ethics and morality, economics (NOT Keynesian or Marxian economics) provides a scientific justification for ethics and morality.