The principle economic difference between Yaron Brook and Ludwig Von Mises is that while Von Mises proved collectivism cannot work he failed to convert a single collectivist because he tried to divorce economics from morality - an omission that always ends in an implicit endorsement of altruism.
In The Letters of Ayn Rand and Ayn Rand's Marginalia, which I highly recommend, she is very critical of Austrians like Hayek and Freidman for accepting the fundamental, underlying and especially the moral premises of capitalism's enemies - Hazlitt and Von Mises make similar errors in their value theory - and elsewhere - but with them it is less pronounced.*
The problem with Von Mises is essentially this - he was a Kantian and therefore opposed to induction from 'perceptual certainty.'
He thought he could deduce the principles of economics from the axiom of "human action" independently of moral theory, epistemology etc..
Unfortunately, for him and his Praxeology [ from Greek praxis meaning deed or action ] human action is inextricably value-laden.
For example, what happens to economics if people value a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the Soviet Union, or, in Saudi Arabia, the afterlife, above all else?
Studying the means of economic advancement is fine but it is meaningless if you neglect the ends, and the why and the how.
Consequently, Von Mises is enormously incoherent in many sections of his books - smuggling in moral and epistemological assumptions as he must, but in a very hostile, malevolent and contradictory manner completely at odds with both the substance of his books and with the essence of capitalism - i.e. love and benevolence.
It is a great tribute to the human spirit that even people lacking economic education do not fall for such specious arguments. In a sense, it demonstrates that contrary to Von Mises, there is no metaphysical conflict between men - class war, race war, gender war, are mere figments arising from the human imagination.
People are moral and they will support moral principles over malevolent practicalities every time if they are taught to know the difference - choices count.
To quote Auberon Herbert "It is not laissez-faire that has failed. That would be an ill day for men. What has failed is the courage to see what is true and speak it to the people, to point to the true remedies."
*Hazlitt, for example, said rich people should forgo the purchase of luxuries in favour of giving money to charities because production would be diverted to the necessities of the poor - which is insane both economically and morally, and total gift to socialist propagandists!
Von Mises, for example, said liberalism failed because most people were too stupid to understand economics while at the same time claiming savages used reason just like everyone else, which is sort of true but categorically not in the sense he meant it!
