Lord Keynes points out an alledged contradiction in Mises views:
On the one hand, Mises says:
"Thus the doctrine and the practice of interventionism ultimately tend to abandon what originally distinguished them from outright socialism and to adopt entirely the principles of totalitarian all-round planning"
On the other hand:
"The decision about each restrictive measure is to be made on the ground of a meticulous weighing of the costs to be incurred and the prize to be obtained."
LK obviously treats the first quote as a proof that Mises is anarcho-capitalist, while the second quote as a proof that Mises "contradicts" himself. However, the first quote is clearly about "the doctrine and the practice of interventionism". Does LK actually believe Mises' minarchism is "the doctrine and the practice of interventionism"?
Finally, we read that "Mises has left the back door of his praxeological system open to all types of intervention". That is correct, if "meticulous weighing of the costs to be incurred and the prize to be obtained" ever determined socialism to be the way to go, then sure, Austrians would support socialism. So bring it on! That's what I've been doing for the past few years, looking for legitimate arguments for socialism or social democracy. Still can't find any.
Praxeology never assumes neither laissez-fare nor anarcho-capitalism as the most efficient approach. Praxeology is about logical reasoning from self-evident truths. There shouldn't even be a special name for it, it's just rational thinking. Unfortunatelly, mainstream economists only slowly have been accepting self-evident truths, like asymmetric information, humans as irrational beings, living in a world of change etc, so we are where we are. Laissez-fare just happens to be the conclusion of logical reasoning. Now, Mises got minarchism, while Rotbard got anarcho-capitalism. From my previous posts it is clear that economists have found no legitimate errors in neither Mises' nor Rothbard's reasoning and assumptions. But I'm also worried that Rortbard has gone too far. I am unable to disprove him though, same as LK can't. Rothbard may well be the genius that only future generations can appreciate.
So let's just institute minarchism (common denominator) for the time being and go from there. It will be easier to understand anarcho-capitalism when we are closer to it, our children will continue our work. After all, we have all grown up under 20th century's "doctrine and the practice of interventionism", so no wonder our gut feelings are against its absolute opposite, we are quite likely still too primitive to understand the advanced technology of anarcho-capitalism, especially when most contemporary economists can't even get minarchism.