What is the best way to argue against this line? I have used the Misesian critique of this before. That is, that the Marxists realized they lost the debate and thus had to deny the status of science to economics, but in effect had to deny the possibility of science at all. What is another response to this?
Can you please clarify what argument you’re trying to refute? Could you state it?
That claim itself. According to my friend, economics is a social construct and is only an ideology or supportive of an ideology. It is not a science according to them and economic “laws” (as they would say) are not applicable universally. I know this to be false and Mises, I think, has the best refutation of this in Human Action, chapter 3. I was just looking for other arguments. It’s really important that we attack this argument in full force because it dominates universities pretty much entirely outside of the economics department. You might even find that view held within some economics departments.
economic “laws” (as they would say) are not applicable universally
Not Keynesian laws 
It’s based on emotional rejection, misunderstanding/ignorance of economics, and the denial of scarcity (or the argument that scarcity is created by capitalism). Essentially what they are saying is that there are humans who do not act towards ends using scarce means. They are thus arguing for some kind of behaviourism (or other kind of determinism through holistic forces), or the existence of individuals in a non-scarce world (in which time is not even scarce). I doubt that many of them realise that this is the conclusion of their argument - a lot of them would just see everything as a ‘social construct’, so economics must be one also.
Well, there’s a problem if you want to contradict this argument in terms of free action.
If economics, or a certain theory of economics, is not a social construct and is instead a universal law by which all individuals are bound lest they be insane, then any sense of freedom, choice, or agency that is supposed to follow from that theory is pretty bankrupt.
And for clarity’s sake, because this person might be using social construct quite liberally, something being socially constrcuted is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist or has no bearing on reality.
Economics is a social construct in the same sense that science is a social construct or music is a social construct - all are the result of human action. In fact, the Austrian school is unique in identifying the self-interestedness (however indirect) of participants in the sciences (particularly the social sciences) as an important component to take into account. Read Hal Lewis’s resignation letter from the American Physical Society if you need a reminder of just how much of a social construct even the queen of sciences (physics) is.
Clayton -
Well, there’s a problem if you want to contradict this argument in terms of free action.
If economics, or a certain theory of economics, is not a social construct and is instead a universal law by which all individuals are bound lest they be insane, then any sense of freedom, choice, or agency that is supposed to follow from that theory is pretty bankrupt.
Good call and this addresses the chief problem of economics as the “king of all sociological thought”. So instead of calling it “free action” just address it as “human action”.
And when we talk about “freedom” think of it more as “subjectivism” . And when the word “subjectivism” is brought up think of it more in the German Subjctivist tradition of Max Weber, von Mises, Heiddeger, Nietzsche, Lachmann, and most importantly Stirner… we ae not cosmological nihilists,sophists, skeptics, or Cartesians.
“It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds. It seems that the hundred-times-refuted theory of the “free will” owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it.”
- Friedrich Nietszche Beyond Good and Evil
You’re one of a kind, vive.
Wow, that’s coolio from someone from whom I have respect for and have big time disagreamets with, I take that as a major compliment, and I can honestly say to you ditto. Of couse that takes a mix of ouzo, whisky, and beer to say that…but still.
It’s interesting seeing a viewpoint that comes from somewhere other than natural rights, and mostly anglo-american philosophy. Continental philosophy, and names you’ve dropped like Foucault, Nietzche, and Stirner are more where I’m coming from. So even though we’ve come to different conclusions, I enjoy seeing how you get there.
Easy. Demand that the person who tossed out that slogan defines his terms. Demand intelligent definitions of all three: economics, social and construct.
“You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” - Ayn Rand
In other words, even if you don’t believe in reality, reality still believes in you.
I’m interested in where this will lead. So just for fun, let’s define these words we all know and understand (at least, I’d hope so. Otherwise the posters here are not quite as intelligent as I assumed). Of course, we both know that we can define until the end of time as a way of neutralizing any discussion. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
Economics: The study of economy, how parties trade with each other, resulting in different theories.
Social: something done by interaction of individuals with each other or society.
Construct: something built, made, or designed.
So economics is a social construct means that the study of economics (or most likely a certain theory of economics) is something that is developed by interaction and reinforcement of individuals acting on that theory.
To illustrate what I think is the significant point of this claim, let me quote Roderick Long quoting Wittgenstein:
"‘This is how our children learn sums; for one makes them put down three beans and then another three beans and then count what is there. If the result at one time were 5, at another 7 (say because, as we should now say, one sometimes got added, and one sometimes vanished of itself), then the first thing we said would be that beans were no good for teaching sums. (Wittgenstein 1983:51–52.)’
Wittgenstein is quite right; for there are items that behave like his mythical beans—droplets of water, for example—and we certainly don’t use those to teach children how to add. (“Put these two droplets of water down next to those other two, and . . . wait, not so close! And don’t jostle the table—woops! Oh well . . . today we learned that 2 + 2 = 1 . ”) Instead we say that it would have been a misapplication (not a falsification) of the principle if we had used water droplets to illustrate it."
Similarly, when something contrary to an economic theory happens, people decide that’s not a good way of illustrating their theory (or we play with definitions until nothing is a misapplication of theory). I think that’s a slippery way of claiming the ‘universiality’ of a theory. Sure, it could work, but it does not have to. Any other social construct could just as easily work.
-
I don’t think you are but just in case - make sure you are not cofusing math with a psychologism approach. This is what J S Mill did, and what Frege and Husserl worked so hard to refute…and Wittgenstein agreed with (being a disciple of Frege).
-
Being of an Aristotelian background, I may interpret all this a bit differently but it is best to look at Wittgenstein as an anti-skeptic using elecntic proofs to show where certain types of imperatives or logical neccesites in universal languages must lie. see on certainty for his best use of this - though Wittgenstein claims to never have read Aristotle, Roderick Long (and myself) have an Aristotleian background and seem to synthesize the two in thought in some way (tough to tell how - but I am pretty sure I do it right or wrong.)
-
.If all economic theory is doing is talking about a descriptive reality - all we have to do is figure out the boundries and limits of the language. Franly, I think they are the corner stone of all sociological, and maybe even psychological thought, but still- it is important to figure out what the exact boundries are (and I think Mises and Menger are pretty good at spelling them out).
What I’m saying, and I don’t think Long would necessarily agree, is that theories based on logical deduction are constructed in such a way that they are always internally consistent, and although all these languages we make can be helpful tools in analyzing things, none of them are constructed such that they are universally applicable to anything outside of themselves.
Present the law of marginal utility as developed, say, in Man, Economy, and State to your friend, and ask him to find circumstances, in which this law does not hold.
“Present the law of marginal utility as developed, say, in Man, Economy, and State to your friend, and ask him to find circumstances, in which this law does not hold.”
You’re standing in the kitchen of a small cabin in the Canadian rockies, looking out the window over the mountains that will be your home for the next ten years while you wait out the heat when you notice a small black spec on the road in the distance. Your face turns pale as you recognize the speck as an SUV. Their SUV. Suddenly, you hear footsteps and a pounding on the door. Your heart is racing. You look to the your left. Just in reach is your 12 guage pistol grip shotgun. You never thought the they would find you, but now you need to decide. When they kick down the door, how will you go? Shooting in a final incandescent blaze of rebellion or with your hands on your head, looking down?
Just fer the lawlz.
A fun scenario. So much for exchanging horses for fish. 
Is the idea that the law of diminishing marginal utility concerns pursuit of happiness, and when you choose to die “in a final incandescent blaze of rebellion”, there are afterward no pleasures to be had at all?
“They’ll never take me alive” because “I don’t want to rot in jail” is not unreasonable. But does that really overturn our law?
It’s just supposed to be a scenario that goes outside the purview of economics. Either choice could be reasonable, and the way I phrased it certainly glorified one option over the other.
It only overturns your theory if you think your theory is the ultimate authority over every imaginable scenario involving choice that ever can or ever will occur.