One of the main reasons why most well-meaning people (especially professionals and 'experts') do not understand freedom and economics is because they apply the wrong methodology to these sciences. Specifically, they apply the methodology of the natural sciences.

In physics, for example, empirical data can either confirm or invalidate a theory.

Let's assume that according to a particular theory, a stone launched into the void with a certain force and direction should follow a specific trajectory.

If observation of the stone's movement in these conditions matches the theory's predictions, then the theory is confirmed (until proven otherwise).

Conversely, if empirical data do not match what is predicted by the theory, then the theory is invalidated: the scientist must return to the drawing board, modify the theory, or develop an entirely new one until the observations match the theory's predictions.

Now, let's consider geometry. For example, let's take a right-angled triangle.

According to the Pythagorean theorem, in a right-angled triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.

The way Pythagoras arrived at this truth was not by observing each and every one of the infinite right-angled triangles in existence. In other words, it was not through empirical data. It was through logic. This truth was inherent in the abstract concept of a right-angled triangle even before Pythagoras discovered it; should it ever be forgotten, it would still reside there (in this sense, it is tautological). Being a logically derived truth, it is universal (applicable everywhere) and eternal (applicable at all times).

A logical consequence of this is that data cannot invalidate a theory. If John argues that he has found a right-angled triangle to which the theorem does not apply, Pythagoras doesn't need to see that triangle. As long as the logical process on which the theorem is based is sound (consistent), he can assert with certainty that the triangle in question is not a right-angled triangle and that John is wrong.

Now, the methodology of social sciences (particularly economics and ethics/justice/freedom) is logic. In this sense, it resembles the methodology of geometry, not that of physics.

For example, consider this question: "All other conditions being equal, would you buy a larger quantity of a product if its price was higher?" The correct answer ("No") constitutes what in economic terms is called the "law of demand". Just as it wasn't necessary to measure every right-angled triangle in the world (or a statistically significant sample) to discover the Pythagorean theorem, here it isn't necessary to ask every person in the world (or a statistically significant sample) this question every minute to establish this universal and eternal economic law. This law was logically deduced from the basic axiom that humans act (where 'action' means intentional, purposeful behavior).

As with the triangle, as long as the logical deduction process is sound, if John claims his answer is "Yes," we don't need to investigate his case to conclude that he's mistaken (typically, those who give this answer overlook the condition "all other things being equal").

One of the main reasons why mainstream economics is often incorrect (objectively, verifiably so) is that it applies the methodology of natural sciences to social sciences: its methodology is based on empirical observation rather than a priori logical deduction.

Economics is the science that studies the structure of human action. Ethics/justice/freedom is the science that studies the non-arbitrary limits beyond which such action justifies the use of physical coercion against the actor. The methodology of these sciences is logical deduction, not empirical data. Being logically deduced, their laws are universal and eternal. As long as the chain of reasoning is correct (logically consistent), they remain valid even when empirical data suggest otherwise.

For example, according to economic theory, an increase in the money supply will lead to higher prices. However, if such an increase is followed by lower prices, does this invalidate the theory? No. Why? Because the validity of the theory depends on the soundness of the logical process, not on empirical data. The economic law is still operative, but in the infinite complexity of the real social world, there are confounding factors that 'mask' it (like a feather not falling to the ground due to an upward wind doesn't invalidate gravity).

The increase in the money supply indeed does lead (even in this case) to an increase in prices. However, this upward pressure on prices might be offset by a downward pressure due to other factors, say an exceptional increase in productivity due to a new technology: without the increased money supply, prices would have fallen even more. 

 

The crucial point here, as we will see, is that, given the marginal, subjective value theory and the role of market prices in the economic process, what causes economic crises is the distortion of prices: not the fact that the net result is higher or lower prices. If prices are artificially distorted they cannot play their role (broadcasting information about scarcity: an information that is dispersed and unavailable to any central authority). If prices cannot broadcast information about scarcity, the result is economic trouble.

Given that the validity of economic science and the science of liberty depends solely on a priori logical deduction, every individual can independently verify these laws, without needing to trust any authority or political majority.

​

For what it's worth, this website advises not to trust anyone discussing economics, including this website. Instead, verify what they say by applying logical reasoning. If the argument is logically consistent (and remains so), then it's sound. If at any point, it requires you to trust a complex analysis performed by 'experts' and not understandable by ordinary people, consider it a loud alarm bell. Economics, being the logical study of the structure of human action, should be comprehensible to all humans (provided there's nothing hindering their ability to reason).