Before you debate an Austrian or an Austrian apologist, there are a number of questions you can profitably ask to properly understand that person’s brand of Austrian economics.
These are as follows:
(1) Are you (a) a small state Classical liberal Misesian or (b) an anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of Rothbard and Hoppe?Though there is a major split in the Austrian school between radical subjectivists and moderate subjectivists, it seems to me that either group can adhere to anarcho-capitalism. I am actually interested to know how many of the neo-Austrian moderate subjectivists support a minimal state.
(2) If (a) what functions do you think the state should have?
(3) What is your view of ethics? Do you support natural rights/natural law theory or some form of utilitarianism/consequentialism? If neither, then what theory?
(4) Are you (a) a moderate subjectivist in the tradition of Kirzner/ O’Driscoll and Rizzo or (b) a radical subjectivist in the tradition of Lachmann?
(5) Do you think expectations are subjective, as Lachmann contends?
(6) Do you think (a) Mises’s praxeology is the proper methodology for Austrian economics or (b) follow Hayek or O’Driscoll and Rizzo in rejecting pure praxeology and apriorism and wanting a greater role for empirical evidence?
Here is a list of older and modern neo-Austrians. If anyone knows their positions on the questions above, I would like to hear them.
Hans F. Sennholz (1922–2007)
Israel M. Kirzner (1930– )
Laurence S. Moss
Walter E. Block (1941– )
Roger Garrison (1944– )
Karen I. Vaughn (1944– )
Mark Skousen (1947– )
Gerald P. O’Driscoll (1947– )
Don C. Lavoie (1951–2001)
Joseph T. Salerno
Richard M. Ebeling (1950– )
William L. Anderson
Peter J. Boettke (1960– )
David L. Prychitko (1962– )
Steven Horwitz (1964– ; Hayekian anarchist, consequentialist, subjective expectations)
Robert P. Murphy (1976– )
Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan