Praxeology is not not about “economic” matters as opposed to “non-economic” matters.-- grayson
Proofread that,
Again, the mere fact that it has not happened before is not proof that such a society will ever come to pass. And again, what does indicate that it may not come to pass is that there are not positive praxeological arguments for the specific combination of blindness, one-leggedness, albinism, sado-masochism, and vegetarianism being a particularly advantageous arrangement. So there is no particular reason to expect people to choose that social arrangement. But again, there are positive praxeological arguments for the advantages of anarcho-capitalism.— grayson
praxeological arguments cannot be cited to determine the most advantageous goals or ends ?
This is entirely subjective, yet you have clearly cited praxeology as proof that anarcho-capitalism is preferable to lesbian amazon cannibals.
What is the praxeological a priori that denigrates lesbian cannibals as less preferable outcome or goal to anarcho-capitalism ?
FOr example, what praxeological precept or truth confirms this?
Whether or not the immense majority presently prefer health and abundances is a perfectly valid subject for history and observation. Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
praxeological arguments cannot be cited to determine the most advantageous goals or ends ?
I didn’t say that.
This is entirely subjective, yet you have clearly cited praxeology as proof that anarcho-capitalism is preferable to lesbian amazon cannibals.
I didn’t say that. I said there are positive praxeological arguments for the advantageousness of anarcho-capitalism. And that there are no positive praxeological arguments for the advantageousness of lesbian-amazon cannibals. I did not say there were praxeological arguments positively against the latter society.
This is entirely subjective, yet you have clearly cited praxeology as proof that anarcho-capitalism is preferable to lesbian amazon cannibals.
What is the praxeological a priori that denigrates lesbian cannibals as less preferable outcome or goal to anarcho-capitalism ?
Whether or not the immense majority presently prefer health and abundances is a perfectly valid subject for history and observation. Praxeology is not needed to establish that.-- grayson
The “immense majority” throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism.
Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
checkmate.
Note the irony,
you have strayed from praxeological a priori
While I have adopted praxeology to expose you.
For example, you attacked me for citing natural sciences, historical, and other post priori (sic) arguments, yet hypocritically you have used them this morning.
"The “immense majority” throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism.
Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
It is not scientifically proven that man will always prefer health and abundance. But IF they do, then maximal capitalism is the optimal means to that.
While I have adopted praxeology to expose you.
When have you used praxeology?
For example, you attacked me for citing natural sciences, historical, and other post priori (sic) arguments, yet hypocritically you have used them this morning.
I challenged your use of a posteriori arguments in establishing general and predictive laws/principles. I expressed clearly that resorting to observation and experience IS valid in certain realms.
Perhaps, but a further study within the framework of praxeology will provide the answer, by your original argument.
In contrast, the “immense majority” argument is irrelevent, by your latest argument and my former argument.
good night
I challenged your use of a posteriori arguments in establishing general and predictive laws/principles. I expressed clearly that resorting to observation and experience IS valid in certain realms.–grayson
NO grayson, you have hypocritically twisted the “rules” of this debate like a whipsaw. Go back and read the posts.
Moreover, I have only had an opportunity to read a very small fraction of the tenets of praxeological methodology on this site, but I have read enough to know when a formerly faithful adherent strays to score some cheap points .
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.-- Mark 14:30
Mises wrote, “As a political doctrine liberalism is not neutral with regard to values and the ultimate ends sought by action. It assumes that all men or at least the majority of people are intent upon attaining certain goals.” The same can be said of anarcho-capitalism, which can be thought of as a sub-set of liberalism. As Mises said, man’s preference for these goals (health and abundance) is an assumption; it is not a scientific principle. So yes, it is not scientifically proven that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to almost everyone’s ends, because it is not apodictically certain that almost everyone will in the future prefer health and abundance.
It is only scientifically proven that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to achieve health and abundance. So I amend my statement to that.
Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated that anarcho-capitalism is either disproved by history, or a “pipe dream”.
It is only scientifically proven that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to achieve health and abundance. So I amend my statement to that.
Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated that anarcho-capitalism is either disproved by history, or a “pipe dream”.–grayson
History does not judge or demonstrate, it only records.
Anarcho-capitalism is not present in recorded history, hence as far as history is concerned – it has never existed.
End of story.
Off Topic:
Thanks for the references and tutelage regarding praxeology.
I have just started reading Hoppe and Mises, interesting stuff. It is understandable that praxeology is not taught in high schools and universities across the nation. it would immediately collapse the “house of cards” on which many competing post priori systems now stand.
However, it appears that certain students of mises.org have used what little they have learned to grandstand and show-off. For example, more than a few have ventured onto other websites and adopted an adversarial “look at how smart I am” attitude at the expense of cultivating and educating potential converts to an important system of analyzing human actions.
In summary, these self-serving exercises in ego gratification are counter-productive and reminiscent of an adolescent who comes into possession of a new small caliber rifle without the requisite maturity and knowledge on how to use it beneficially and responsibly.
Thanks for the references and tutelage regarding praxeology.
Sure thing. Hope you continue to pursue its study.
It is understandable that praxeology is not taught in high schools and universities across the nation. it would immediately collapse the “house of cards” on which many competing post priori systems now stand.
Yes, it would put a lot of econometricians out of work.
However, it appears that certain students of mises.org have used what little they have learned to grandstand and show-off. For example, more than a few have ventured onto other websites and adopted an adversarial “look at how smart I am” attitude at the expense of cultivating and educating potential converts to an important system of analyzing human actions.
There is some truth in this, although you only encourage such behavior by yourself generally resorting to an adversarial tone. But I have hope that it can change. If we became a cadre of patient, civil, direct, learned, and articulate debaters, wielding Misesian science with balance and precision, we would win the respect, and admiration of-- and convince-- an ever increasing multitude of debate auditors, if not necessarily debate opponents. We’d be unstoppable.
In sum, history cant prove something that never existed.
if you want to prove anarchism based on history then using this logic you can prove anything irrespective of whether it exists or not simply because someone pondered it.
for example, a society of blue eyed, one-legged, flatulating, circus performers.