the failure of applying praxeology on actual transactions. example - high temperature in employment areas during extreme weather, which might seem unjust for the worker but isnt addressed explicitly in actual exchanges. actual exchanges are very implicit(dont have such possibilities mentioned in them ) so the theoretical praxeological idea of exchange isnt applicable to it
say what?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
He's saying that if someone agrees to something and then gets something else, praxeology doesn't apply for some reason. Human beings act. Purposefully. The worker agrees to work for some purpose. That purpose is somewhat thwarted. Okay. He still acted purposefully.
Yes it is not an argument against action itself, but about the problem of applicability of the praxeological concept of exchange in the real world, where actual exchange takes place not through an action in it self but a series of corrective(assuming mutual will) actions and what the eventual actual state of owhership of the goods exchanged happens to be is often only loosely related to the initially planned conditions that the praxeological exchange idea would requrie strict adherence to.
I'm willing to hear you out if you have anything to say.
nandor:the eventual actual state of owhership of the goods exchanged happens to be is often only loosely related to the initially planned conditions that the praxeological exchange idea would requrie strict adherence to.
Nandnor,
You want your readers to decipher one long sentence, correct?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
the praxeological idea of exchange is exactly about before and after, regarding the ownership of property. And that is where reality sets its difference - in reality the property ownership that generally ends up after exchange is different from that envisioned(implicitily or excplicitly) during the "deal" or shaking of hands after signing a contract.
can you prove that its 'generally different'? are you being scientific?
you must admit when two parties engage in exchange of property and it is concluded, then they do actually own the exchanged properties. the question of whether they receive the subjective benefits that they anticipated from the new ownership arrangement is quite a different concern than your allusion to some weird world where people exchange objects, and these objects generally 'morph' into objects quite different from what they where
an example could be buying any generic chinese made gadget that suffers from malfunctions of some sort and then working out some deal with the salesman to compensate for it. the property that ends up for the exchanging participants is different from that which they initially agreed upon, thus it is not strictly praxeological exchange
Nandnor:in reality the property ownership that generally ends up after exchange is different from that envisioned(implicitly or explicitly) during the "deal" or shaking of hands after signing a contract.
Are you saying "buyer's remorse" undermines praxeology, the scientific study of human action? I exchange my horse for 100 barrels of fish. After the exchange, I feel like I should have asked for and received 110 barrels of fish. Buyer's remorse. How does this undermine praxeology or anything else?
The exchange was made based on subjective value scales that existed at the time of the exchange. The value scales of one, or both, parties changed immediately afterwards. So what?
if you give me a sack of rocks instead of potatoes for my dollar. the fact that you end up with my dollar is explained by my ex-ante beliefs about the exchange. praxeology is fine here. If you really own the dollar now, then i really own the potatoes, even as i am holding rocks.
now if you will deny this and choose to act as a criminal and deny me the fruit of the exchange and insist i keep the rocks and will not get my potatoes, you merely reveal that there had not been a praxeological act of exchange, but rather a praxeological act of theft.
when a person takes a good that is not theirs and keeps it from the praxeological owner, that is theft not exchange
"now if you will deny this and choose to act as a criminal and deny me the fruit of the exchange and insist i keep the rocks and will not get my potatoes, you merely reveal that there had not been a praxeological act of exchange, but rather a praxeological act of theft."
That actually cleared a lot of things up about praxeology for me. I always wondered how the shady businessman fit into the equation.
But I would take this a step further and ask, what if it was a different outcome from what either of them expected? I guess it doesn't matter praxeologically, because they both acted with a desired outcome initially. But for a society-building aspect; does the man get his money back if the potatoes were rotten and the nature of the storage made it so the merchant wasn't able to open it?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I don't know if i understand your premise correctly, is it that they are exchanging ones dollar for the others sack containing 'potatoes' which are possibly rotten or possibly not, sight-unseen?
If they are engaging in this act of exchange which is explicitly a 'gamble', then it is what it is .......
I guess so, and the merchant is likely to give the money back or another sack of potatoes to the customer if he desires repeat business.