Abstract
Authors including Robert Nozick (1977) and Bryan Caplan (1999) have levied criticism against the treatment of indifference within the Austrian tradition of economic theory. Their attempts to dismiss the Austrian position on this matter as unrealistic and contradictory are unsatisfactory as they fail to properly portray the core differences between the Austrian and neoclassical concepts of goods, utility, and preference, thus rendering their analysis inaccurate. The only preference that is relevant to the understanding of purposeful human action is the preference of ends, and indifference of ends cannot exist.
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference17 articles.
1. Block, Walter E. 1980. “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology.’” Inquiry 23, no. 4 (December): 397–444.
2. Block, Walter E. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing: Recalling the Foundations.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2, no. 4 (December): 21–39.
3. Block, Walter E. 2009a. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 12, no. 1 (March): 52–59.
4. Block, Walter E. 2009b. “Rejoinder to Machaj on Indifference.” New Perspectives on Political Economy 5, no. 1 (June): 65–71.
5. Caplan, Bryan. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations.” Southern Economic Journal 65, no. 4 (April): 823–38.