Not actually the case. You are massively overestimating the impact of praxeology on Austrian economics. Austrian economics predates praxeology for 80 years. Th

Not actually the case. You are massively overestimating the impact of praxeology on Austrian economics. Austrian economics predates praxeology for 80 years. The problem is that you are not actual arguing against austrian economics but a political movement that has hijacked the ideas and presents itself as 'the solution' that proves their political view. This is mostly driven by some conservative finance and the 'The Mises institute', that should actually be called 'The Rothbart Institute'. As they don't really represent Austrian economics as a whole, but rather a narrow minded interpretation of Mises. If you look at the Austrians generally and those still in academia, they do not actually work that way, and they don't reject empiricism as a whole. The reject pure empiricism and pure positivism, in favor of a individual and institutional approach that is validated by data. In practice and historically Austrian economics was much closer to what we today would consider institutional economics, Law&Economics and Political Economics. I have years ago stopped fighting since the term has been so discredited by the mob of morons on the internet. Some economists that solidly work within Austrian tradition have stopped using that term because of those bad associations. But I'm just telling you, your argument really is just like arguing against some Burnie fam who proclaims Keynsian economics implies socialism.