“Man acts” - an axiom. Austrian economics and praxeology.

[an anarchist]

I know I got that other anarchism thread going but my reading has brought me here first.

Being right is only worth something if you can show to be right. When you can reduce your assertion to basic axioms and show that your assertion follows from correct logic you can convince every rational person. If you can't - maybe you aren't right.

Man acts​

The phrase “man acts” is an axiom, in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists. This is provable through the act of trying to deny that man indeed does act, for that is an action. This is not a meaningless truth, for the whole foundation of anarcho-capitalist economics i.e. Austrian economics is based on the truth, “man acts”.

Before we go further, I suppose we have to come to agreement whether or not “Man acts” is an axiom. @Heyo ,what say you? Will you make an action, and deny that it is an axiom?

Where would I like to go with this thread? Well, I would like to go back to my other thread, Would anarchism last? , but I do feel like this thread is necessary first.

 

[Heyo]

I know I got that other anarchism thread going but my reading has brought me here first.

Man acts​

The phrase “man acts” is an axiom, in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists. This is provable through the act of trying to deny that man indeed does act, for that is an action. This is not a meaningless truth, for the whole foundation of anarcho-capitalist economics i.e. Austrian economics is based on the truth, “man acts”.

Before we go further, I suppose we have to come to agreement whether or not “Man acts” is an axiom. @Heyo ,what say you? Will you make an action, and deny that it is an axiom?

Where would I like to go with this thread? Well, I would like to go back to my other thread, Would anarchism last? , but I do feel like this thread is necessary first.

I could argue that talking is not acting but I won't. I'll just remember that talking is acting if you want to pull an equivocation fallacy later.
So, yes, "man acts" is undeniably an axiom.

 

[an anarchist]

I could argue that talking is not acting but I won't. I'll just remember that talking is acting if you want to pull an equivocation fallacy later.
So, yes, "man acts" is undeniably an axiom.

What can we deduce from the axiom “man acts”, then? Is it possible to deduce further axioms from a single axiom?

If man acts purposefully, this shows he desires one end over another. For, if he did not desire a particular goal, his scarce resources, such as time, would be used towards a different goal.

Can this logic extend to all forms of action? I wonder... I am in the infancy of my readings of anarcho-capitalist works, but it seems to me that the thinkers of the field wish to limit this logic only to purposeful human action.

Praxeology is the study of purposeful human action.

Praxeology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the link:
In philosophy, praxeology or praxiology (/ˌpræksiˈɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek πρᾶξις (praxis) 'deed, action', and -λογία (-logia) 'study of') is the theory of human action, based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, contrary to reflexive behavior and other unintentional behavior.

The Austrian Economist, Ludwig Von Mises, based the whole of his economic theory off furthering a development of the field of praxeology. He (so other ancaps in turn) believe he field of economics to be a social science, not a natural science. So the economic theory attempts to ground itself in the action axiom, and move forward from there.

Let’s talk about a supposed axiom, derived from the action axiom.

Man has preferences​

A man who engages in purposeful behavior must have preferences. A man spends scarce resources (such as time) acquiring one goal over another. A preferred choice is made with every action.

Do you agree that this is an axiom?

I think this truth is not limited to purposeful behavior, but all behavior.

What I am attempting to do here is lay out an acceptable groundwork for the economic theory I find myself believing in and arguing for. I am posting on a public thread, so I do not wish to explore it alone. I am a open minded fella.

Austrian economics claims to have created a theoretical economic system, not formulated by empiricism, but rather, purely logic. This logical approach allows it to account for the spontaneity of the market... supposedly. We shall see.

 

[Heyo]

What can we deduce from the axiom “man acts”, then? Is it possible to deduce further axioms from a single axiom?

If man acts purposefully, this shows he desires one end over another. For, if he did not desire a particular goal, his scarce resources, such as time, would be used towards a different goal.

Can this logic extend to all forms of action? I wonder... I am in the infancy of my readings of anarcho-capitalist works, but it seems to me that the thinkers of the field wish to limit this logic only to purposeful human action.

Praxeology is the study of purposeful human action.

Praxeology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the link:
In philosophy, praxeology or praxiology (/ˌpræksiˈɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek πρᾶξις (praxis) 'deed, action', and -λογία (-logia) 'study of') is the theory of human action, based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, contrary to reflexive behavior and other unintentional behavior.

The Austrian Economist, Ludwig Von Mises, based the whole of his economic theory off furthering a development of the field of praxeology. He (so other ancaps in turn) believe he field of economics to be a social science, not a natural science. So the economic theory attempts to ground itself in the action axiom, and move forward from there.

Let’s talk about a supposed axiom, derived from the action axiom.

Man has preferences​

A man who engages in purposeful behavior must have preferences. A man spends scarce resources (such as time) acquiring one goal over another. A preferred choice is made with every action.

Do you agree that this is an axiom?

I don't.
Axioms, by definition, are basic to a system of logic. "Man has preferences" is derived from "man acts" and therefore not basic. Call it a theorem or a law.
In logic or mathematics axioms are the necessary, non-contradictory and sufficient non-provable assumptions of a system.

 

[an anarchist]

I don't.
Axioms, by definition, are basic to a system of logic. "Man has preferences" is derived from "man acts" and therefore not basic. Call it a theorem or a law.
In logic or mathematics axioms are the necessary, non-contradictory and sufficient non-provable assumptions of a system.

Is the statement “man has preferences” impossible to separate from “man acts”? Let us isolate it.

”Man has preferences”. Is it possible that this proves itself through an attempt of refutation? You preferred to respond with “I don’t”. You had a preference. I think it is possible to skip over “Man acts.” and let “Man has preferences.” stand on it’s own. Suppose I started this conversation with asking if “Man has preferences“ as opposed to “Man acts.” was an axiom. What would you say?

To be sure, the author I’m reading currently, who is quoting the anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this topic, asserts that further axioms can be derived from a singular axiom. They attempt to build a branching system of axioms, with each being derived from the last, based on this logic.

Perhaps we should turn our debate here for a moment?

Let’s say ”A + B = C” is an axiom. In that case, would not “C - B = A” be also an axiom? Both stand true on their own, but I can see how one axiom can lead to the discovery of another. On the surface, it may not seem like any new truths can be derived from axioms formulated through this method. You could perhaps end up with tautological truths rather easily this way.

”Man acts” and “Man has preferences” both magnify different economic concepts perhaps.

 

[Heyo]

Is the statement “man has preferences” impossible to separate from “man acts”? Let us isolate it.

”Man has preferences”. Is it possible that this proves itself through an attempt of refutation? You preferred to respond with “I don’t”. You had a preference. I think it is possible to skip over “Man acts.” and let “Man has preferences.” stand on it’s own. Suppose I started this conversation with asking if “Man has preferences“ as opposed to “Man acts.” was an axiom. What would you say?

To be sure, the author I’m reading currently, who is quoting the anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this topic, asserts that further axioms can be derived from a singular axiom. They attempt to build a branching system of axioms, with each being derived from the last, based on this logic.

Perhaps we should turn our debate here for a moment?

Let’s say ”A + B = C” is an axiom. In that case, would not “C - B = A” be also an axiom? Both stand true on their own, but I can see how one axiom can lead to the discovery of another. On the surface, it may not seem like any new truths can be derived from axioms formulated through this method. You could perhaps end up with tautological truths rather easily this way.

”Man acts” and “Man has preferences” both magnify different economic concepts perhaps.

You could call either "man acts" or "man has preferences" an axiom. You could call both axioms but then your system wouldn't be parsimonious, i.e. it would be a bad system. You would like to have as few axioms as possible as the axioms are what you request are to be taken as true without proof. Derived theorems are "better" in that they are proven within the system.

 

[an anarchist]

You could call either "man acts" or "man has preferences" an axiom. You could call both axioms but then your system wouldn't be parsimonious, i.e. it would be a bad system. You would like to have as few axioms as possible as the axioms are what you request are to be taken as true without proof. Derived theorems are "better" in that they are proven within the system.

At any rate, let’s see where the logic leads us, and if it is possible to derive economic theory from the action axiom.

I’m going to quote from the book I’m reading (A Spontaneous Order: A Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society).
...action is conceptually distinct from all other phenomena. Unlike any other type of event, one can derive logical insights concerning action prior to any specific experiences, while still revealing new, non-tautologous information. This is the fundamental distinction upon which the entire edifice of praxeology is built...

Can praxeology come up with hypothetical synthetic (as opposed to analytic) a priori (as opposed to a posterior) truths? Is “man acts” a synthetic a priori?

What I am trying to imply is that a system (particularly an economic one) built on such logic will be a good idea, for lack of a better term. In fact, let me say, the best idea there is.

Now allow me to talk about the philosophy of Austrian economics. It claims that the free market is the only mechanism that can possibly account for the fact that “man acts” and the spontaneity that comes with that. The free market ebbs and flows with the spontaneity of supply and demand. The free market takes one thing for granted: that man is a self interested creature. This truth is gleaned from the action axiom.

Also, the ancaps adhere to the private property norm. You are a collectivist, @Heyo ? Since you are an anarcho-syndicalist. But Austrian economics bases it’s theories and formulations off of the assumption that the private property norm is the moral and sound property norm. The only way to justly acquire property is through original appropriation or voluntary exchange, in this formulation.

I’m going to read more, but I did want I respond before too long. I know I am a bit all over the place it’s cuz I’m trying to sound smart.