"your praexology has no utility for either debunking anything I posted, or predicting any future events. Like anyother social science methodology it is a patchwork of hunches."
It is not "my" praxeology. It is the approach to the social sciences of the Austrian school, which, again, you said you agreed with, and whose methodology you said you accepted...
Rettoper: "I was incorrect to label anything related to the austrian school as based on examination of the past. from what little I have learned about von mises in the short time I have been peruse this site is that he was not focused on past history --- quite the opposite, I believe he formed his ideas for logic. at least that explains why you are adopting that framework to defend your position. I accept that, and I stand corrected on this point."
Rettoper: "I was incorrect to label anything related to the austrian school as based on examination of the past.
from what little I have learned about von mises in the short time I have been peruse this site is that he was not focused on past history --- quite the opposite, I believe he formed his ideas for logic.
at least that explains why you are adopting that framework to defend your position.
I accept that, and I stand corrected on this point."
for example, if logic was good enough for the austrians, then it is good enough for me since I agree with virtually all of the tenets I have read so far within this site."
So again, do you accept the Austrian approach or not? Because praxeology IS the Austrian approach, and you just called it a patchwork of hunches. Far from it...
Human Action: "Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences."
why are you afraid to answer a simple question, namely in your opinion which system do you subscribe to: anarchism or minarchism -
You didn't ask that question; you asked which system I thought will be more sustainable. Obviously I subscribe to anarcho-capitalism.
"I challenged you to explain how you can reject natural science in an argument on a social science issue when mankind is beholden by its laws?"
The quotes I posted explaining methodological dualism fully answer that. Did you read them?
"I challenged you to explain why mises.org has myriad historical commentaries, yet you reject it."
I also answered that. I told you that Misesians apply principles derived a priori TO history, they do not derive such principles FROM history.
Moreover, if mises rejected history, why did he cite it so often?
As illustrative examples of laws that are derived a priori playing out in particular episodes.
"I challenge you to prove that praexology is nothing more than a theoretical "hunchism", for example, if it is equivilent to math, then it is exact. I challenge you to provide some substantive practical example of its efficacy."
Man acts. Action is purposeful behavior. Purposeful behavior is seeking ends via means. Every action is a renunciation of some ends for the sake of others, which demonstrates preference. Every exchange is an action. It implies each participant in the exchange prefers (values) that which he received more than that which he gave up. The first practical principle we can know apodictically at this point is that it not conducive to either party's ends for a third party to interfere with any exchange. Praxeology proceeds in this manner to deduce such eminently practical truths as the law of diminishing marginal utility, the law of returns, the laws of supply and demand, the regression theorem of money, the impossibility of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth, etc. To derive all these truths from the action axiom would entail writing a treatise, which I don't have time to do presently. If you'd like to read such a treatise, read Man, Economy and State by Murray N. Rothbard.
electricity does indeed act
Austrians define action as purposeful behavior: a "conscious adjustment to the state of the universe". Obviously electricity does not consciously adjust to anything.
predict something that will happen in economics or geopolitics that bests the predictions of those that employ historical, technical, or empirical analysis
Praxeology is necessary, but not sufficient, for apt speculation about the future course of human events.
it has been fun, good night.
Good night, Rettoper.
unlike classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism is rejected by the overwhelmingly majority of elites and mainstream citizens.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchism is built on a theoretical house of cards or hunches without any practical or substantive framework to (1) gain power and (2) maintain power.
unlike classical liberals, anarchists are theoreticians, not practioners. They are want to "why is their air?" pondering as opposed to revolution that is a characteristic of classical liberals,
unlike classical liberals, ancaps rejects the use of force, and force is required to obtain and preserve power
unlike classical liberals, anarchist society is decentralized and slow to react and concentrate to defend centers of gravity.
unlike classical liberal nations, anarchism has no borders that are easily exploited by hostile elements
unlike classical liberal nations, sapper sleeper cells could infiltrate anarchic society by the millions laying in wait to commit survival level attacks
Unlike classical liberalism, anarchisms has no provisions or protections against WMD attacks from isolated private property owners who can plan and execute survival level attacks from impunity within their private property.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchists are incapable or unlikely to prempt internal and external survival level attacks
unlike classical liberal nations, isolated private property owners in anarchist enclaves holding strategically vital terrian could be bought off by statist military forces at miniscule costs
unlike classical liberals, anarchic society rejects free speech
unlike classical liberal society, every inch of anarchic society would be guarded by a land owning despots
unlike classical liberal society, anarchic society would be composed of millions of itiny serfdoms of private property owners each with their own distinct bureaucratic requirements, thereby creating incredible inefficiencies and uncertainties.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchism rejects copyright protections that would lead to an exodus of innovation and technological advancement
unlike classical liberalism, anarchists dont have the wherewithal to change society, indeed they explicitly acknowledge statism's superiority by adhering to its rules.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchism is immoral, for example it defends the "right" of an irrational parent to starve their children.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchists consider unwanted children to be parasites.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchists consider mentally handicapped citizens to be parasites.
unlike classical liberalism, anarchists do not reject slavery
unlike classical liberalism, anarchic societies allow the introduction of dangerous controlled substances into society
unlike classical liberal societies, anarchic societies make no provision to defend against the introduction of slow acting fatal drugs that would be introduced by statist enemies.
and lastly, anarchists make no provisions to defend against these eventualities other than "hope and change". for example, they adopt the "head in sand" defense and claim that these threats and shortcomings are simply "hunches" that can be discounted out of hand.
the list goes on and on..... and all of these shortcomings are substantive survival level threats to anarchism.
and since you are intent on fillibustering by asking the same irrelevent question, I have one for you to illustrate the folly of your most recent version:
"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on a society of cannibal lesbian amazons being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"
how is that grayson, note that I have shifted to a societal framework as opposed to a natural science framework, so praexologically speaking my argument above is as valid and reliable (and absurd) as yours regarding anarchism.
good luck using praexology to disprove a society cannibal lesbian amazons never happening.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
I have reviewed the myriad of contradictory and evasive responses you have given throughout this thread and I will debunk each in detail in no particular order.
for starters, you are an anarchist --- von mises is not.
you have not sufficiently reconciled this contradiction.
"for starters, you are an anarchist --- von mises is not. you have not sufficiently reconciled this contradiction."
"for starters, you are an anarchist --- von mises is not.
you have not sufficiently reconciled this contradiction."
There is no contradiction in that statement. I think you are taking my avatar too literally. I do not claim to be von Mises.
There is no contradiction in that statement. I think you are taking my avatar too literally. I do not claim to be von Mises.--grayson
It is good that I am debunking your diversions and fallacies in detail since "there you go again"
I said nothing about your avatar and last I checked mises was dead.
Please stop diverting and answer the question.
Mises is not an anarchist, and you are ?
what gives?
i will be clear.
It appears that your methodology is flawed.
or more likely your interpretation or use of it is flawed, since its original architect rejected anarchism, in contrast to your view.
for example, garbage in, garbage out.
as opposed to von mises correct interpretation.
What elevates man above all other animals is the cognition that peaceful cooperation under the principle of the division of labor is a better method to preserve life and to remove felt uneasiness than indulging in pitiless biological competition for a share in the scarce means of subsistence provided by nature. Guided by this insight, man alone among all living beings consciously aims at substituting social cooperation for what philosophers have called the state of nature or bellum omnium contra omnes or the law of the jungle. However, in order to preserve peace, it is, as human beings are, indispensable to be ready to repel by violence any aggression, be it on the part of domestic gangsters or on the part of external foes. Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government.--Von Mises, On Some Popular Errors, Concerning the Scope and Method of Economics
Source: http://mises.org/books/ufofes/ch5~10.aspx
In summary, I agree with Mises unequivocal and praxeological rejection of your assertion that anarchism can provide for "peaceful human cooperation"
Moreover, I have provided an example of a typical practical case study to illustrate the causal mechanisms that would result in the relatively easy subversion of a anarchic state that was unchallenged by any substantive, methodologicallly sound, or objective rebut, save the unsupported mantra that my detailed case study was "hunchism".
I eagerly await the expected inane ad hominens, diversions, and exercises in semantic misrepresentations from the peanut gallery.
You need a review your understanding of praxeology grayson, it appears to be on shaky ground.
For example, the father of praxeology does not share your views regarding anarchism efficacy:
Perhaps, these are hunches ?
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- mises, Omnipotent Government Anarchists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception. -- mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, 98 Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. Liberalism, 36 There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil ... Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- mises, Omnipotent Government
Anarchists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception. -- mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, 98
Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. Liberalism, 36
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil ... Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
the dreaded "hunchism" defense.
That has no logical or methodological challengers. For example, it is subjective and therefore not subject to rational and logical challenges. indeed, it is the foundational argument of the anarchist misrepresentation of the austrian school's true precepts.
People have come together to form associations on stranger bases than that. However, there are obvious biological reasons why such a society could not persist past a single generation; praxeology is not needed to discover those reasons.
"or more likely your interpretation or use of it is flawed, since its original architect rejected anarchism, in contrast to your view."
Mises most fully developed the notion of praxeology. That does not mean he was perfect in its use. Sir Francis Bacon was the first to fully develop something close to the modern method of the natural sciences, yet he made mistakes too (in fact he did not himself put it to much good use at all, as opposed to Mises.
However, in order to preserve peace, it is, as human beings are, indispensable to be ready to repel by violence any aggression, be it on the part of domestic gangsters or on the part of external foes. Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government
I agree that the use of force to protect property is necessary for capitalism to flourish. I disagree that such force must necessarily be provided by a territorial monopoly.
This is what Mises is referring to when he rejects "anarchism":
There is a school of thought which teaches that social coöperation of men could be achieved without compulsion or coercion. Anarchism believes that a social order could be established in which all men would recognize the advantages to be derived from coöperation and be prepared to do voluntarily everything which the maintenance of society requires and to renounce voluntarily all actions detrimental to society. -Mises, Omnipotent Government
There is a school of thought which teaches that social coöperation of men could be achieved without compulsion or coercion. Anarchism believes that a social order could be established in which all men would recognize the advantages to be derived from coöperation and be prepared to do voluntarily everything which the maintenance of society requires and to renounce voluntarily all actions detrimental to society.
-Mises, Omnipotent Government
This does not refer to or apply to anarcho-capitalism, because anarcho-capitalism requires compulsion and coercion against those who aggress against property.
good luck using praexology to disprove a society cannibal lesbian amazons never happening.-Rettoper People have come together to form associations on stranger bases than that. However, there are obvious biological reasons why such a society could not persist past a single generation; praxeology is not needed to discover those reasons.--grayson
good luck using praexology to disprove a society cannibal lesbian amazons never happening.-Rettoper
People have come together to form associations on stranger bases than that. However, there are obvious biological reasons why such a society could not persist past a single generation; praxeology is not needed to discover those reasons.--grayson
Hunchism,
For example, your citation of biology is irrelevant since human action could satisfy the want to reproduce through invitro-fertilization.
For the 2nd time you have still not answered my question of:
"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely ona society of cannibal lesbian amazons being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"
Well then, given invitro-fertilization, Praxeology cannot prove that such a society will never emerge, and neither can history, nor the natural sciences.
However, there are no positive praxeological arguments for why forming such a society would necessarily be the best means to the society members' ends. On the other hand there are positive praxeological arguments for why forming an anarcho-capitalist society would be.
Well then, given invitro-fertilization, Praxeology cannot prove that such a society will never emerge, and neither can history, nor the natural sciences. However, there are no positive praxeological arguments for why forming such a society would necessarily be the best means to the society members' ends. On the other hand there are positive praxeological arguments for why forming an anarcho-capitalist society would be.--grayson
However, there are no positive praxeological arguments for why forming such a society would necessarily be the best means to the society members' ends. On the other hand there are positive praxeological arguments for why forming an anarcho-capitalist society would be.--grayson
Hunchism!
History can't prove if a system will emerge, it is merely a recording of past events. However, it can provide for the determination on whether a system was unprecedented (a previous example, or if it existed in the past).
More hunchism run amok!
While praxeological arguments can identify the economic means to a person's economic ends --- It has no place in identifying the non-economic ends desired by humans is subjective.
For example, you presume too much when you claim that an anarcho-capitalist framework is the best means to a person's desired end when you don't have a clue what that end is or if the end is not economic in nature.
Well then, given invitro-fertilization, Praxeology cannot prove that such a society will never emerge, and neither can history, nor the natural sciences.--grayson
I concur.
I have another one for you.
"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on a society of blind one-legged albino sado-mashochist vegetarians being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"
What part of what I wrote is hunchism? Why?
Yes, that is correct.
Praxeology is not not about "economic" matters as opposed to "non-economic" matters.
As Mises wrote, "the immense majority prefer a life of health and abundance to misery, starvation, and death." It is of this immense majority that I speak. Anarch-capitalism offers nothing to sadists, ascetics, or suicides.
As Mises wrote, "the immense majority prefer a life of health and abundance to misery, starvation, and death." It is of this immense majority that I speak.-- grayson
it is hunchism irrespective of who wrote it. FOr example, what praxeological precept or truth confirms this?
shouldnt your/mises statement "that the majority prefer a life of health and abundance..... " be a priori ?
otherwise, by your definition, it is hunchism and no more valid then my earlier assertion unsupported a priori.
btw grayson, the peanut gallery is a little confused. They contradict your claim that mises was not an anarchist.
btw, you are quoting von mises, he definitely knows what he is talking about -- is he an anarcho-capitalist? -- rettoper No, he was not. -- grayson I was under that impression that he advocated some measure of government. -- rettoper He did. Pretty much only a "night watchman state".--- grayson
btw, you are quoting von mises, he definitely knows what he is talking about -- is he an anarcho-capitalist? -- rettoper
No, he was not. -- grayson
I was under that impression that he advocated some measure of government. -- rettoper
He did. Pretty much only a "night watchman state".--- grayson
Again, the mere fact that it has not happened before is not proof that such a society will ever come to pass. But again, what does indicate that it may not come to pass is that there are no positive praxeological arguments for the specific combination of blindness, one-leggedness, albinism, sado-masochism, and vegetarianism being a particularly advantageous arrangement. So there is no particular reason to expect people to choose that social arrangement. But again, there are positive praxeological arguments for the advantages of anarcho-capitalism.
Praxeology is not not about "economic" matters as opposed to "non-economic" matters.-- grayson
Proofread that,
Again, the mere fact that it has not happened before is not proof that such a society will ever come to pass. And again, what does indicate that it may not come to pass is that there are not positive praxeological arguments for the specific combination of blindness, one-leggedness, albinism, sado-masochism, and vegetarianism being a particularly advantageous arrangement. So there is no particular reason to expect people to choose that social arrangement. But again, there are positive praxeological arguments for the advantages of anarcho-capitalism.--- grayson
praxeological arguments cannot be cited to determine the most advantageous goals or ends ?
This is entirely subjective, yet you have clearly cited praxeology as proof that anarcho-capitalism is preferable to lesbian amazon cannibals.
What is the praxeological a priori that denigrates lesbian cannibals as less preferable outcome or goal to anarcho-capitalism ?
FOr example, what praxeological precept or truth confirms this?
Whether or not the immense majority presently prefer health and abundances is a perfectly valid subject for history and observation. Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that. I said there are positive praxeological arguments for the advantageousness of anarcho-capitalism. And that there are no positive praxeological arguments for the advantageousness of lesbian-amazon cannibals. I did not say there were praxeological arguments positively against the latter society.
Whether or not the immense majority presently prefer health and abundances is a perfectly valid subject for history and observation. Praxeology is not needed to establish that.-- grayson
The "immense majority" throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism.
Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
checkmate.
Note the irony,
you have strayed from praxeological a priori
While I have adopted praxeology to expose you.
For example, you attacked me for citing natural sciences, historical, and other post priori (sic) arguments, yet hypocritically you have used them this morning.
"The "immense majority" throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism. Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
"The "immense majority" throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism.
It is not scientifically proven that man will always prefer health and abundance. But IF they do, then maximal capitalism is the optimal means to that.
When have you used praxeology?
I challenged your use of a posteriori arguments in establishing general and predictive laws/principles. I expressed clearly that resorting to observation and experience IS valid in certain realms.
Perhaps, but a further study within the framework of praxeology will provide the answer, by your original argument.
In contrast, the "immense majority" argument is irrelevent, by your latest argument and my former argument.
good night
I challenged your use of a posteriori arguments in establishing general and predictive laws/principles. I expressed clearly that resorting to observation and experience IS valid in certain realms.--grayson
NO grayson, you have hypocritically twisted the "rules" of this debate like a whipsaw. Go back and read the posts.
Moreover, I have only had an opportunity to read a very small fraction of the tenets of praxeological methodology on this site, but I have read enough to know when a formerly faithful adherent strays to score some cheap points .
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.-- Mark 14:30
Mises wrote, "As a political doctrine liberalism is not neutral with regard to values and the ultimate ends sought by action. It assumes that all men or at least the majority of people are intent upon attaining certain goals." The same can be said of anarcho-capitalism, which can be thought of as a sub-set of liberalism. As Mises said, man's preference for these goals (health and abundance) is an assumption; it is not a scientific principle. So yes, it is not scientifically proven that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to almost everyone's ends, because it is not apodictically certain that almost everyone will in the future prefer health and abundance.
It is only scientifically proven that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to achieve health and abundance. So I amend my statement to that.
Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated that anarcho-capitalism is either disproved by history, or a "pipe dream".
It is only scientifically proven that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to achieve health and abundance. So I amend my statement to that. Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated that anarcho-capitalism is either disproved by history, or a "pipe dream".--grayson
Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated that anarcho-capitalism is either disproved by history, or a "pipe dream".--grayson
History does not judge or demonstrate, it only records.
Anarcho-capitalism is not present in recorded history, hence as far as history is concerned – it has never existed.
End of story.
Off Topic:
Thanks for the references and tutelage regarding praxeology.
I have just started reading Hoppe and Mises, interesting stuff. It is understandable that praxeology is not taught in high schools and universities across the nation. it would immediately collapse the “house of cards” on which many competing post priori systems now stand.
However, it appears that certain students of mises.org have used what little they have learned to grandstand and show-off. For example, more than a few have ventured onto other websites and adopted an adversarial “look at how smart I am” attitude at the expense of cultivating and educating potential converts to an important system of analyzing human actions.
In summary, these self-serving exercises in ego gratification are counter-productive and reminiscent of an adolescent who comes into possession of a new small caliber rifle without the requisite maturity and knowledge on how to use it beneficially and responsibly.
Sure thing. Hope you continue to pursue its study.
It is understandable that praxeology is not taught in high schools and universities across the nation. it would immediately collapse the “house of cards” on which many competing post priori systems now stand.
Yes, it would put a lot of econometricians out of work.
There is some truth in this, although you only encourage such behavior by yourself generally resorting to an adversarial tone. But I have hope that it can change. If we became a cadre of patient, civil, direct, learned, and articulate debaters, wielding Misesian science with balance and precision, we would win the respect, and admiration of-- and convince-- an ever increasing multitude of debate auditors, if not necessarily debate opponents. We'd be unstoppable.
In sum, history cant prove something that never existed.
if you want to prove anarchism based on history then using this logic you can prove anything irrespective of whether it exists or not simply because someone pondered it.
for example, a society of blue eyed, one-legged, flatulating, circus performers.