Political Theory

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

simik — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:36:26 GMT

Human behavior does change according to socio-economic conditions, but it's not general rules that change but subjective valuations.

Praxeology just says that some relations in human behavior stay constant whatever those conditions are. Regardless of conditions humans value present goods more than future goods, they prefer one option to another in acting (and the value of that forfeited option is the cost of the prefered one), they act to achieve the most desirable need, they rank different options subjectively rather than giving them some measurable objective value, etc.

So, praxeology does suggest that there is logic of human action, but it's really general and it's in no way based on some definite culture or behavior of some society. Just suggest your opponent to refute some basic praxeology rules, or the human action axiom itself.

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

liberty student — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:36:13 GMT

Sphairon:
Basically, this reflects the view that man is nearly 100% shaped by nurture and can be driven to excellence if the material sustenance only be sufficient. It's a pretext for extensive state control.

Indeed. There are plenty of "libertarians" who think that without the state, the nature of man will also change, reverting to something more harmonious with nature, less sexually repressed, more inclined to get a mani and a pedi etc...

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

Sphairon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:19:08 GMT

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I faced the same argument when discussing gender quotas with one of my buddies. He said:

In our current social constitution, female voices tend to be less associated with authority and competence than male voices. If we introduced gender quotas for CEOs and other positions of authority, this would change due to a forcibly increased presence of females in these positions. Then we wouldn't need the quota anymore.

Basically, this reflects the view that man is nearly 100% shaped by nurture and can be driven to excellence if the material sustenance only be sufficient. It's a pretext for extensive state control.

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:14:27 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Sounds like he thinks that if someone gets either richer or poorer, the behavior (according to praxeology) won't change.

ThorsMitersaw:
I think hes saying the opposite. that how people act changes depending upon their wealth status and etc. so there is no universal logic to action

You misunderstand; he has a strawman view of praxeology. He believes it to be about nitty-gritty specifics and that humans will never change.

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

nibbler491 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:10:09 GMT

ThorsMitersaw:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Sounds like he thinks that if someone gets either richer or poorer, the behavior (according to praxeology) won't change.

I think hes saying the opposite. that how people act changes depending upon their wealth status and etc. so there is no universal logic to action

There is a universal logic to action: humans do that which they believe to be most beneficial to themselves(i.e. out of self-interest). It is true that that which is perceived to be most beneficial will change based on one's circumstances, but this in no way invalidates libertarians belief that human action is an axiom, on the contrary, it falls perfectly in line with it. If I'm rich old man, my actions are going to be that which I perceive to be the most beneficial(buying fancy cars, drinking scotch,investing money in real estate, etc.). If I'm a young, poor man then my actions still going to be that which I perceive to be the most beneficial(going to school, smoking weed, working at McDonalds, etc.). Obviously the actions of the 2 men are vastly different, but a universal principle is true for both(as it is for ALL human action).

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

ThorsMitersaw — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:53:38 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Sounds like he thinks that if someone gets either richer or poorer, the behavior (according to praxeology) won't change.

I think hes saying the opposite. that how people act changes depending upon their wealth status and etc. so there is no universal logic to action

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:46:39 GMT

Sounds like he thinks that if someone gets either richer or poorer, the behavior (according to praxeology) won't change.

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

ThorsMitersaw — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:45:00 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

He's thinking that behavior must remain constant no matter the situation. This is rediculous.

explain. I honestly do not know the answer to his question which makes me feel ignorant in general, lacking of knowledge in my own principles, and a piss poor deconversionist.

Re: Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:38:07 GMT

He's thinking that behavior must remain constant no matter the situation. This is rediculous.

Not sure how to answer this (praxeology)

ThorsMitersaw — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:33:32 GMT

"praxeology? the logic of human action? But don't human behaviors/action change according to changes in their socio-economic conditions?"

Is he suggesting polylogism? Is he suggesting that people behave differnetly in differnet societies so therefore a economic school based some logic of human action is not universally applicable?