sounds good
These are four primitive axioms:
1. The individual human being is finite and unstable.
2. The individual human being acts.
3. The individual human being is the most basic element of economic science.
4. The individual human being owns his body.
Here are some definitions:
1. unstable not firm, fixed, or constant; of compounds, readily decomposing or changing into other compounds; dependent for subsistence on environmental intervention, aided either by his own actions, the actions of other persons, or other agents acting in the environment.
2. element the most basic unit of economic activity.
This is the beginning of Austrian Economics(inspired by Ludwig von Mises, and only restated in my words. For those of you who see this and think, this is available in ten thousand locations already; I ask that you be patient with me. I have an ulterior motive.
If you think I have said something wrong, or that this is not of Austrian Economics, just let me know.
Warmest wishes,
kalinz
I disagree 4. is Austrian economics. And I think it's false.
Smiling Dave you tha man
I think you may have explained AE better and more simply than I have heard previously. what is your proffesion if you do not mind me asking..
Thanks
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
scineram:I disagree 4. is Austrian economics. And I think it's false.
scineram, anything you would have to say on the matter isn't credible given that your posts consist of anti-AE to begin with so you're not a valid source to be heeded. And when I say anti-AE, I mean it's been sophistry in the modern sense of the term in your posts. now if you were actually being traditionally objective I would have considered what you said here, but you're not, so, I don't.
to everybody else in this thread: I'm trying to sustain the thread by pointing this out. It's one thing to disagree with AE, but scineram has a habit of making blank assertions in the forum that will only mislead the thread discussion off-topic without any due reason.
thanks everybody.
Mike, I am not sure if you are addressing this to me, or to Smilng Dave, but just in case it's me:
I studied philosophy in college. I was a high school English teacher for a few years, and now (I hope no one here will hold this against me) I am by no means a 'professional,' rather, I am a government bureaucrat doing a mind-numbing job. However, economics is my passion, and I also trade currencies.
kalinz,
if you didn't know you can click "replied on" on the top of any post to see who the poster is directing their post to.
Also. I think what you wrote in your post above is a good foundation. It would be hard to force all that encompasses AE into one post or even several posts so I think we are cognizant of that. I mean AE is directly influenced by Aristotle too which lifts it to a science. Axioms, logical deductions, and data (the empirical realm) are all involved in AE. The first principle of all principles would probably go to what Aristotle called the law of identity. A is A. This isn't solely a mental construct but is about reality. There is also the assumption that reality is real and reality can be reasoned and known. Therefore what A is, really is A and not ultimately B. If it were B, then we'd be referring to B and not A. This also implies that the individual's knowledge is fallible. I mistaken what A is, but A will still be A even if I don't know that.
AE is knowledge involving instantiations. AE involves universal implications, meaning, what is true in relation to what can be constructed mentality, such that two lines can make a 90 degree angle, such two lines making such an angle might not be empirically found but such a truth doesn't necessarily get dissolved because it hasn't been realized empirically. It could be that the data has yet to be discovered or lived, because the logic is sound. AE is working on both sides of the fence so to speak. It is intellectual and empirical. That's why it's called a rational science (because that includes both).
This was a little side note to help provide a little more definition. But I really don't have a quarrel with what you said above. If there's any sticky points, then we'll meet them as they come along.
wilderness: scineram:I disagree 4. is Austrian economics. And I think it's false. scineram, anything you would have to say on the matter isn't credible given that your posts consist of anti-AE to begin with so you're not a valid source to be heeded. And when I say anti-AE, I mean it's been sophistry in the modern sense of the term in your posts. now if you were actually being traditionally objective I would have considered what you said here, but you're not, so, I don't. to everybody else in this thread: I'm trying to sustain the thread by pointing this out. It's one thing to disagree with AE, but scineram has a habit of making blank assertions in the forum that will only mislead the thread discussion off-topic without any due reason. thanks everybody.
You tell me one single Austrian economics work, that takes self-ownership as an assumption. I'm waiting.
Wilderness, many thanks to you for pointing out that nifty little feature to me. To Smiling Dave and Mike, my humble apologies for imposing myself.
Wilderness, thanks especially for all your posts. I really appreciate your philosophical perspective, even though I might not always address many of you good points and presentations. Yes, the process is the thing- certainly no single post or even several posts can really convey the features of a subject with very substantial depth. Again, I hope this thread can be a process for better understanding economics for all who visit.
sincerely,
Thanks for the info. It is good to know. I am not on your level of knowledge or smarts… so I won’t say much.
My post was to Dave though, I thought he explained the subjective theory of value ( the ice cream) and some other AE theories so a child mind ( like me) could understand. I am going to sit back and learn.
The only thing I would like to say is this; history has proven that every state intervention has unintended consequences - most bad. this we can observe. if this has been the case for thousands of years – then in the future, state intervention will lead to unintended consequences.
Mike: My post was to Dave though, I thought he explained the subjective theory of value ( the ice cream) and some other AE theories so a child mind ( like me) could understand. I am going to sit back and learn.
Thanks Mike. I am an ordinary citizen. There was a time when I had to privately teach people of advanced age very sophisticated abstract concepts. I found out that what usually got the point across was using a simple story from everyday life. Could be I got used to that way of thinking, lol.
I'm following this fascinating thread as a reader, though., It's dealing with stuff beyond my ken, and I'm sitting here at the feet of the masters.
I do love positive feedback. Thanks.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: Mike: My post was to Dave though, I thought he explained the subjective theory of value ( the ice cream) and some other AE theories so a child mind ( like me) could understand. I am going to sit back and learn. Thanks Mike. I am an ordinary citizen. There was a time when I had to privately teach people of advanced age very sophisticated abstract concepts. I found out that what usually got the point across was using a simple story from everyday life. Could be I got used to that way of thinking, lol. I'm following this fascinating thread as a reader, though., It's dealing with stuff beyond my ken, and I'm sitting here at the feet of the masters. I do love positive feedback. Thanks.
EDIT: looking back at what I wrote here,I see that alot of the stuff [the correct part, smile] is taken from other sources. Ive read the ice cream thing somewhere or other.
1. The individual human being is finite and unstable. (axiom)
1.1 If The individual human condition is a state of more or less want. (axiom)
1.2 And the general condition of want induces human action. (premise)
1.3 Then the human being is also properly homo agens. (conclusion)
Please note the second axiom is just a re-statement of the first. The premise, as stated, is an observable fact each person not only sees but feels. The conclusion is an ontological statement which necessarily follows from the premise. [This is straight from Mises, Human Action, Chapter I Acting Man.] Which is to say, the essence of the person is action; human being means human action.
Why is this elaboration so important? Because human action as a response to the general condition of want provides the very defintion of purposeful humanity. And uniquely humans together form the elemental building blocks of economics. To be human is to be ‘economic man.’ This is the beginning of economics. And the beginning of Austrian Economics.
The next post (for fun) will convert the syllogism to symbols.
Good night all,
kalinz: These are four primitive axioms: 1. The individual human being is finite and unstable. 2. The individual human being acts. 3. The individual human being is the most basic element of economic science. 4. The individual human being owns his body. Here are some definitions: 1. unstable not firm, fixed, or constant; of compounds, readily decomposing or changing into other compounds; dependent for subsistence on environmental intervention, aided either by his own actions, the actions of other persons, or other agents acting in the environment. 2. element the most basic unit of economic activity. This is the beginning of Austrian Economics(inspired by Ludwig von Mises, and only restated in my words. For those of you who see this and think, this is available in ten thousand locations already; I ask that you be patient with me. I have an ulterior motive. If you think I have said something wrong, or that this is not of Austrian Economics, just let me know. Warmest wishes, kalinz
From looking over the various posts, it seems to me that there is one very important principle, or axiom, that has not been mentioned so far, and which to my mind actually logically precedes [ in Austrian theory] all of those mentioned , making the others mentioned less important, as they ultimately derive from it.
[Please excuse me if someone else has in fact already mentioned this and I have just missed it - or perhaps this is what you meant by your own 1st principle:" The individual human being is finite and unstable", in which case, all I've done below is further expand and maybe clarify that one. ]
This one principle [or axiom] is _the_ cornerstone of all Austrian theory - every assumption derived in Austrian economic theory starts from this one foundational assumption , which to Austrians is not an assumption at all, but a unquestionable fact of reality .
This is the principle of what Austrians call "methodological individualism".
In laymans terms, this [very briefly] is the idea/axiom/principle that each individual is totally unique, with his/her own unique perception, unique value system, unique logic, etc. etc., and [just as important] , that their value system is constantly subject to change at any time, as new information/ goods, services etc. etc comes to his/her attention.
In short : each of us is completely, and totally unique in every way.
It sounds simple, but rest assured, this one observation has far reaching , even world changing/shattering implications when followed to its [logical?] conclusions.
For example, this one principle flies in the face of nearly all of the "logically derived" assumptions of all other schools of economics, all of which start [as far as I am aware], from the assumption/premise [false axiom] of the "economic man" model, where a group of individuals [the model group] are all presumed to act in the same way, for the same ends/purposes, and with the same values etc. etc., so that using such a model, the future collective behavior of a group [or class] can be reliably predicted by economists, governments, scientists etc. *
Regards, onebornfree.
* This is the reason why Austrian theory can never become "mainstream"; at its very core it undermines and contradicts all of the assumptions made by those who wish to control others behavior via governments.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
kalinz:Which is to say, the essence of the person is action; human being means human action.
And I would like to point out, because it gets misunderstood by some people, that to say the essence of or being that these all stem from the same category called nature. To ask: What is the nature of a human? - is - What is the essence of a human?. To ask such questions and to get the answer: action, as you point out, is to answer such questions as follows: The nature of a human is action. The essence or essential nature of a human is action.
I know this may have been a tedious point for some, but I've come across misunderstandings as to what the term 'nature' means and this was a great opportunity for me to point out it's meaning and usage. This is exactly why the discussion is about natural law. Not in it's political or ethical sense, for natural law is understood in all the sciences. And for this specific demonstration of natural law the subject is: the natural law of human nature of the specie economics.
kalinz:Why is this elaboration so important? Because human action as a response to the general condition of want provides the very defintion of purposeful humanity. And uniquely humans together form the elemental building blocks of economics. To be human is to be ‘economic man.’ This is the beginning of economics. And the beginning of Austrian Economics.
outstanding.
onebornfree and wilderness - thank you for your excellent posts.
In order- onebornfree,
What is the meaning of methodological individualism?
This axiom 2. is the principle of your ‘methodological individualism.’ No single axiom can provide its own full elaboration. That is the very purpose of the syllogism- and of descriptive texts such as found in Mises’ Chapter II of Human Action which has a section devoted to methodological individualism. Axioms may be said to contain concepts and principles but these can certainly be expressed in ways other than by axioms (and syllogisms). In my view, the expression of the axiom is logically prior to its elaboration, so I would contend the axiom 2. above is prior to the concept of ‘methodological individualism.’
Also, please note that my intention is not to present ‘economic man’ as a Platonic universal, but rather as the condition of each single person, in his environment, and as a condition which he actually shares with all other humans as something in common.
What we have here is a fine example of the pre-economics philosophy which may be said to quite appropriate for this discussion. I can say that I do have some problems with some of your characterizations of methodological individualism, and I will pursue those in my next post. Again, I thank you for your post.
And now, for the moment, for the sake of the continuity of my last post.
1. If the individual human condition is a state of more or less want; major premise (axiom)
2. And the general condition of want induces human action; minor premise (premise)
3. Then the human being is properly homo agens. (conclusion)
With a hard look (or perhaps not so hard look) there appears some potential category problems here;
As a reminder, the homo agens is not just an acting body, he is a situational reality embedded in an environment, only separated from it in thought, never in deed.
Which leads to some definitions:
Let human being = individual human condition = state of more or less = general condition of want
Let human being = human action (as humans only exist as acting beings in an environmental context- whether active or passive)
1. 1 = p individual human condition = state of more or less want = general condition of want
2. 2 = q general condition of want moves human action
3. 3 = r human being = human action
p & q r T
be reminded the above statement is a tautology- and it is true.
I am ready now to move to the next phase- Austrian Economics proper- with plenty of philosophy sprinkled throughout.
P.S.
wilderness, we are of like mind it seems- which means things can only go downhill from here-
always, with affection,
Personally I think people with the smarts to understand this stuff are the cause of all our problems...
kidding of course, I think
kalinz: In my view, the expression of the axiom is logically prior to its elaboration, so I would contend the axiom 2. above is prior to the concept of ‘methodological individualism.’
In my view, the expression of the axiom is logically prior to its elaboration, so I would contend the axiom 2. above is prior to the concept of ‘methodological individualism.’
You are free to make such a contention, as is anyone else, of course, however, I would have to say that it seems to me that as far as Von Mises would be concerned, were he still alive, [and definitely as far as I'm concerned- for what little that's worth ], that would be a serious case of "putting the cart before the horse", so to speak.
As far as I am aware, Von Mises greatest achievement is considered by most other Austrians to be his placement of the discipline of economics on top of the foundation of methodological individualism.
The ideas/concepts of Austrian economics are all preceded by, and rest firmly on the underlying foundational principle/ concept of the inherent uniqueness of every individual, and of the subjective valuation/ scale of values that each individual naturally possesses , so that any/all conclusions reached in Austrian economics must start from that same foundational concept/premise [individual human uniqueness] , and always follow from it [ i.e they never precede it].
Or, to put it another way, mostly because of Von Mises, all of the conclusions reached in Austrian economics always originally derive from the foundational principle(s) that comprise what he called "methodological individualism".
This means that for Austrians, all four of your stated axioms should first be preceded by the stated assumption(s) of the principle(s) of methodological individualism, in every case, before any useful, real -world conclusions can be reached from those stated axioms, or any others you might have.
Regards, onebornfree
onebornfree:Or, to put it another way, mostly because of Von Mises, all of the conclusions reached in Austrian economics always originally derive from the foundational principle(s) that comprise what he called "methodological individualism".
I wouldn't be so sure.
scineram: onebornfree:Or, to put it another way, mostly because of Von Mises, all of the conclusions reached in Austrian economics always originally derive from the foundational principle(s) that comprise what he called "methodological individualism". I wouldn't be so sure.
Very interesting. I had not seen this. Thank you for the link.
onebornfree- I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, you are speaking of an intellectual position which is pre-economics. And you are right, this position is prior to and foundational of any economic propositions or conclusions.
When I state the axiom [2. The individual human being acts.] I am offering a proposition which should be considered part of Mises’ science of praxeology. Praxeology is prior to and the foundation of Austrian Economics. Methodological Individualism is part of the conceptual framework of praxeology. This is what this thread is all about: the fundamentals of Austrian Economics - and the thread has posited the question- how does Austrian Economics begin (as a science)? The first economic axiom is lifted from the prior science of praxeology. Now our subject is reality- but we must categorize reality so that our task is practicable. Economics is about reality- but a part of reality; Praxeology is also about reality- but a greater part of reality- that is, human action in general, which may produce or be foundational to include all manner of disciplines. With the advance into the study of economics- we limit the scope of our attention to the science of satisfying wants in a particular kind of way (the material wants we must have to survive and or to be happy).
I say the following with all respect and regard- I do not agree with all of the specifics of your characterization of methodological individualism. But I restrain myself from entering into the detailed discussion of this, as I must try to limit the thread to the economics and the actual foundation of those economics.
But I cannot resist this much: As you have described methodological individualism, you have introduced an ultimate subjective relativism into the discussion of everything; not only have you made Austrian Economics insular and untouchable in debate, but all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception. Now this is a perfectly legitimate philosophical position- it is called subjective idealism. But put simply, I reject subjective idealism, and I do not think Mises intended praxeology to point to or indicate subjective idealism.
Now, for sure, its on to the construction of Austrian Economics specifically as economics.
your servant,
P.S .
scineram- please, ‘flesh out you views.’
onebornfree:As far as I am aware, Von Mises greatest achievement is considered by most other Austrians to be his placement of the discipline of economics on top of the foundation of methodological individualism.
It depends on what you mean. Menger definitely practiced methodological individualism even though he didn't categorize/name it as such. There were other free market scholars before Menger too that understood that some market decisions are based on the individual(s). I say "some" because not all economists, only up until a certain point, thought the market could handle all economic decisions.
I wonder if Callahan actually understands methodological individualism - he doesn't even properly define it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:I wonder if Callahan actually understands methodological individualism - he doesn't even properly define it.
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
kalinz: onebornfree- I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, you are speaking of an intellectual position which is pre-economics. And you are right, this position is prior to and foundational of any economic propositions or conclusions. When I state the axiom [2. The individual human being acts.] I am offering a proposition which should be considered part of Mises’ science of praxeology. Praxeology is prior to and the foundation of Austrian Economics. Methodological Individualism is part of the conceptual framework of praxeology. This is what this thread is all about: the fundamentals of Austrian Economics - and the thread has posited the question- how does Austrian Economics begin (as a science)? The first economic axiom is lifted from the prior science of praxeology. Now our subject is reality- but we must categorize reality so that our task is practicable. Economics is about reality- but a part of reality; Praxeology is also about reality- but a greater part of reality- that is, human action in general, which may produce or be foundational to include all manner of disciplines. With the advance into the study of economics- we limit the scope of our attention to the science of satisfying wants in a particular kind of way (the material wants we must have to survive and or to be happy). I say the following with all respect and regard- I do not agree with all of the specifics of your characterization of methodological individualism. But I restrain myself from entering into the detailed discussion of this, as I must try to limit the thread to the economics and the actual foundation of those economics. But I cannot resist this much: As you have described methodological individualism, you have introduced an ultimate subjective relativism into the discussion of everything; not only have you made Austrian Economics insular and untouchable in debate, but all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception. Now this is a perfectly legitimate philosophical position- it is called subjective idealism. But put simply, I reject subjective idealism, and I do not think Mises intended praxeology to point to or indicate subjective idealism.
"When I state the axiom [2. The individual human being acts.] I am offering a proposition which should be considered part of Mises’ science of praxeology. Praxeology is prior to and the foundation of Austrian Economics." It has been a long time since I studied Von Mises, but I find it hard to believe that this general idea/proposition is not part of his general theory - a "given" in fact.
Did he not state that [to paraphrase]: "humans always act purposefully in order to achieve ends sought that they imagine [rightly or wrongly] will improve their conditions"? This appears to be the same as your own axiom [2], no?"Now our subject is reality- but we must categorize reality so that our task is practicable. Economics is about reality- but a part of reality; Praxeology is also about reality- but a greater part of reality- that is, human action in general, which may produce or be foundational to include all manner of disciplines. With the advance into the study of economics- we limit the scope of our attention to the science of satisfying wants in a particular kind of way (the material wants we must have to survive and or to be happy)."Of course, limitation is in order.
However, when limiting the scope of inquiry to human wants and action, Von Mises insists that it must never be forgotten that the principle(s) of Methodological individualism are a "constant" that must apply at all times, in all instances , from initial investigation, all the way through to final conclusion(s) - yes? "As you have described methodological individualism, you have introduced an ultimate subjective relativism into the discussion of everything; not only have you made Austrian Economics insular and untouchable in debate, ....."
Yes, I fully agree that AE does appear to be insular and untouchable in debate- and in the 20 years since I seriously got into it , I'd have to admit that once I accepted/fully understood the principle/concept(s) of methodological individualism that it is ultimately grounded on, since that time I have found nothing that seriously challenges its [AE's] conclusions/implications. But that's just me.".....all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception. "
But no, I do not agree that "all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception." - at least with regard to the " science" part of your sentence here.In "Human Action" Von Mises goes to great lengths to explain that once the science of economics has been grounded, or rooted, in the factual reality of methodological individualism, it can in no way be compared in method to any of the physical sciences [ i.e. physics, chemistry etc. etc.] , where , in order to reach any conclusions about observed physical phenomena, during experimentation to reach such conclusions, strict laboratory conditions which eliminate all variables can, and are enforced.
Von Mises insists on a new classification for the science of economics [or maybe his was possibly a return to an earlier view of economics-I'm not sure] .
Von Mises insisted that the economics must be thought of as a social science, where laboratory methods are of little use, as is math and formulas,[those to be largely replaced by simple logic], simply because, as he pointed out, the science of economics can never use laboratories and control experiments without unknown/uncontrollable variables, as with laboratory experiments in the physical sciences .
The "spanner in the works" for any such imagined experimentation would always be the principle(s) of methodological individualism, i.e. the reality of a huge, real-world, uncontrollable variable of multiple, constantly changing/updating, individually subjective, human valuation(s) of the supposed scientific "experiments" observed subjects [i.e multiple human beings].
And laboratory experimentation for the field of economics, using multiple human beings, even if we completely ignore/admit the inability to eliminate unknown variables from our proposed experiment? Fergeddaboudid! If is this is not clear to you from a reading of "Human Action", [after all it is a massive work covering a lot of ground] ,you might want to try reading his much shorter work : "The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science", [assuming you haven't already ].
This book should make it clear to you that with his "given" assumption of methodological individualism in all cases under consideration for the field of economic enquiry, Mises' contention [actually an insistence] was/is that economic science must be a social science which has little or no use for laboratory experimentation and mathematical formulas, and therefor can NOT be compared/confused with the physical sciences, and that therefor, for the purpose of legitimate economic enquiry, it is methodologically incorrect for economists to confuse their social science with the physical sciences and attempt to formulate legitimate economic conclusions by mimicing or attempting to substitute any of the recognised physical sciences primary methods of inquiry [ i.e. laboratory experimentation and mathematical formulation ].
At the same time, as far as I am aware, Mises also insisted that his reclassification of economics as a social science via his employment of the principle of methodological individualism in no way detracted from the validity of the findings/conclusions of the physical sciences , where the subjective nature of human valuation can [and should be] largely, if not entirely removed during the process of repeated, highly controlled laboratory experimentation, before any reasonably valid conclusions can be reached, or new ideas/concepts formulated.
I hope this helps.
Regards. onebornfree.
wilderness: onebornfree:As far as I am aware, Von Mises greatest achievement is considered by most other Austrians to be his placement of the discipline of economics on top of the foundation of methodological individualism. It depends on what you mean. Menger definitely practiced methodological individualism even though he didn't categorize/name it as such. There were other free market scholars before Menger too that understood that some market decisions are based on the individual(s). I say "some" because not all economists, only up until a certain point, thought the market could handle all economic decisions.
I am aware of Menger's role as the true founder of AE, and of the subjective valuation principle(s) he used to refute Marx' theories, and of his influence on LVM, and of LVM's debt to Menger. But I readily admit that you probably know a lot more that I do about this matter than I do.
I'm afraid I have read very little of Menger - I jumped right in at the deep end with "Human Action" and related works , then went on to Rothbard, so thanks for the comment.
Onebornfree- Thanks for the link. A very nice essay. I am not contesting anything you said in this last post (-a peace offering on this methodological individualism). And thanks for your detailed responses. I think you have greatly added to the value of the thread as it has developed.
wilderness- Yes, Menger has a role to play in this thread (more a little later).
Now, with the clear understanding that methodological individualism is at the beginning of Austrian Economics and stays with it every step of the way- let us continue
The next phase of the thread should appear quite simplistic as we proceed- at least until it becomes necessary to thicken it up, based on difficulties which may arise.
The individual collects, hunts, & creates agriculture to eat and live. Not as a Robinson Crusoe, but as the member of a family and a community. While it is true that only individuals act, individuals act in cooperation with others and live their lives for the most part as social beings. As part of this cooperation individuals tend to specialize their activities such that persons become interdependent for their survival and well-being. This leads to economics proper.
Next comes trade. I expect everyone reading this thread understands the basic mechanics of trade and commerce; also, everyone here understands barter- and introduction of a medium of exchange in its stead, and everyone here probably understands the increasing complexity of the role of money as commerce developes. So we are moving along nicely.
As we have already worked out, Austrian Economics does not employ historicism, or scientific method, or mathematical models, for working out the necessary description of economics- rather it employs the logico-deductive method from first principles.
We have before us the concept of a voluntary, free market economy. It will be most pleasing to explore how this free market economy develops and maintains itself.
But for next- I want to pose the question, ‘How does the State arise?’
Again, this is a call to the readers to respond each in his own words, according to where he is right now, each in his own education and intellectual framework-
How does the State arise?
with curiosity,
kalinz:How does the State arise?
special pleading being the categorical foundation act specied by other acts such as appeals to emotions and coercion.
I would like to read what others have to say on this question you pose too.
wilderness- You say, the state begins when a person or persons plead for special treament accompanied by other acts which appeal to emotions, and or coercion. This is a good beginning.
Now I ask of you- to whom does this person (or persons) plead? And what is the immediate result of these initial acts?
And for the reticent who have yet to respond:
How are we to approach from an intellectual perspective the birth, or formation of the state?
Shall we review the writings of Menger, Mises, and Rothbard, and from those writings reconstruct from apriori truths the factors which led to the reality with which we must all deal- the coersive power of the state?
Or, is there a history which will lead us to knowledge of how the state became a reality in the lives of all people living today? An historical account which all here can agree is accurate and correct?
Are these questions which even deal with economics? Can one study economics and have an ‘economic point of view’ which is devoid of an encounter with the state?
I invite suggestions as to how to proceed.
Or à la place de specific suggestions, I will proceed with the method I think best, accompanied by an the interaction with wilderness based on his response above.