According to my rudimentary understanding of the works of von Mises, et al., Austrian economics claims that human actions always reveal human preferences, and that human preference can only be revealed through action. That is, if I purchase a green shirt for $5 instead of a red shirt for $5, my action reveals my preference for green shirts over red shirts (ceteris paribus). But this assertion seems to depend on people having perfect information about their decisions. For instance, say that, all else equal, I prefer apples to oranges. I go to the grocery store and, distracted by a phone call, inadvertantly put 3 oranges in my (opaque) bag instead of 3 apples. I go to the checkout, weigh my fruit, pay the cashier, and walk out of the store. An observer might think that this shows my preference for oranges over apples. In fact, it merely shows that I was mistaken as to the contents of my bag.
In other words, AE claims that all humans are instrumentally rational, i.e., that humans always act in order to achieve their ends. I think this claim is too strong. If a human being has imperfect information, it is certainly possible for him to act in ways that prevent him from achieving his ends, although I would agree that no one intentionally acts to prevent himself from achieving his ends. That is, I claim people always think they are being instrumentally rational, but they may be mistaken. How does AE respond?
But that's not a counterexample; he still acted to satisfy ends, he just accidentally picked the wrong means!
Right: the fact that he accidentally used the wrong means demonstrates that means (actions) do not always accurately show preferences (ends).
bovicide:If a human being has imperfect information, it is certainly possible for him to act in ways that prevent him from achieving his ends,
There is no such thing as perfect information.