I’ve slowly drifted away from the Mises Institue’s apriorism and toward the consequentialist arguments of David Friedman.
This is a great lecture, though I think he errs (or perhaps a little loose with metaphors) in his appeal to nature early on. It’s so riddled with exceptions and qualifications, that they exceptions can easily be the rule.
In what respect do I err at the beginning of the talk?
Thank you for visiting! The nature example is so loaded with qualification it could easily be a counter-example.