Edit: Looks like the one who suffers from “preferential confusion” is me!

Ryan H. Murphy is confused by a Mises excerpt quoted in a recent paper by Meir Kohn (I assume, since he links to it — I cannot actually find it). The gist of Mises’ argument is that in order to understand complexities in economics you have to construct ideal types (also, see Ludwig Lachmann, The Market as an Economic Process). Murphy somehow gets the idea that Mises here is pushing his values in his economic analysis. I cannot figure out how exactly Murphy comes to this conclusion, since I see no indication of values at all in what he quotes, but a lot of people just do not get what value-free economics is.

Here is an example of imposing value in economics: Wealth redistribution ought to be implemented because it leads to a preferred consequence.

Here is an example of value-free economics: Wealth redistribution [objectively] leads to consequences A, B, and C.

I really do not understand why so many people have so much trouble with the concept of value-free economics. By the way, value-free economics does not imply that the theory is accurate; it means that the analysis was made without influence from what the theorist believes ought to be.