A couple of points:

1) Keiser is wrong in saying that since Mengerian political economics is different of Mises or Mises-like (Rothbardian) political economics that they aren’t ‘true’ Austrians

2) There is evidence showing that Menger did think differently on these issues. You imply that Menger would have agreed with your statement, “Private individuals do better at handling property better than government”, which I admit i think he would have thought this as generally true, but there was some huge exceptions to this, according to Menger. in 1909 “Geld” he supported a government to be the sole supplier of coinage. In “Transcript of Finanz-Wissenschaft von Prof. Carl Menger”, he supported progressive taxation on income. In “Carl Menger’s Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria”, he supported multiple regulations, including regulation to prevent deforestation, regulations to improve workers’ conditions, etc. Look here for more: https://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/848/

This is a real stretch. For one thing, Menger’s actual argument for progressive taxation violates his own principle of subjective value. So in that case it is Menger himself who is at war with the Austrian School. Secondly, if his argument for government money is simply that private mints aren’t reliable enough, that is very, very far from modern arguments for why governments have to monopolize money. If I could show him that private mints are more reliable than the government, he’d be an instant Hayekian. Again, I don’t see any fundamental difference here. He is not saying government has to monopolize money in order to stabilize prices, etc. THAT is where the fundamental difference between the Austrians and everyone else comes in.

His ad hoc support for this or that program is, again, not based on Austrian principles and not advanced as if they were integral to the Austrian paradigm. They are ad hoc.

His presentation of Austrian economics, as opposed to his obscure, ad hoc series of recommendations, appears in his Principles of Economics, which in turn strongly militates against ad hockery.

‘ad hockery’ – someone’s been listening to Gary North…..

These lectures were unknown until the 1980s, and thus did not form any part of the Austrian corpus from which anyone could have deviated. In these exceptional cases in which Menger, like Adam Smith before him, allowed for state activity, the rationales offered are ad hoc, and not integrated into the 1871 Principles text which formed the basis of the Austrian School 38 years earlier. His defense of the progressive income tax even violates his own principle of subjective value, whereas Jaitly and Keiser claim it is Mises who deviated from subjective value.

The question of Menger and Mises as value-free scientists was the issue raised by Jaitly, who confined himself entirely to theory. On a theoretical level, Menger and Mises are borderline indistinguishable. When Menger advocates ad hoc policies 38 years later without reference to his own theoretical framework, and giving no reason to believe his theoretical views somehow demand these outcomes, he is speaking in his private capacity as private citizen and not qua economist. On deforestation, Menger is simply restating common-law principle current at the time.

Hey Tom,

You actually CAN’T have the kind of discussion you would like with Max.
While Max knows quite a bit about quite a bit, he is primarily an entertainer who knows a thing or two about economics. Not the other way around. He’s NOT up to date on much any more, except in a few narrow fields. Economics isn’t REALLY his game. It’s TV.
You think you’re asked to play Bridge – but he’s playing Go Fish (and like the joker he is, he never told ya).
His public (and private) image as a know-it-ALL depends ENTIRELY on his sweeping generalizations. A dilettante viewer buys into this and laughs along with him. You’re supposed to think: “This dude is smart AND funny”. And you grow to love histrionics. Because THAT is what he is a real expert at.
This said, it’s not infrequent that his guests disagree with him and even “set him straight”. And, to his credit, as long as they do it in a way which doesn’t undermine his Joker-in-the-pack image, Max actually tends to be quite gracious about being set straight.
It’s about IMAGE – and entertainment – for him. So, there is no point appealing to SUBSTANCE.
On substance – you already won, and he knows it.
The only battle left, if you decide you want to have a laugh, is to “out-jovial” and “out-laugh” him. He’s a like capricious king of his castle who can’t stand dissent, no matter what. But he loves pranks and respects pranksters more than geniuses.
He is INCAPABLE of winning such a specialist argument in ANY other way, except by staying in character. And by now, it’s also become a matter of face for him and it’s not about either Mises or Menger.

You’re serious – he’s not. Bridge vs Go Fish.

My advice, stay as far away from Max as possible. He seems to be clearly on a self destruct and I don’t think he cares who he takes with him. Its not worth the effort it takes to be embroiled with this.