“The first truth to be discovered about human action is that it can be undertaken only by individual “actors.” Only individuals have ends and can act to attain them. There are no such things as ends of or actions by “groups,” “collectives,” or “States,” which do not take place as actions by various specific individuals. “Societies” or “groups” have no independent existence aside from the actions of their individual members. Thus, to say that “governments” act is merely a metaphor; actually, certain individuals are in a certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and the other individuals recognize as “governmental.” The metaphor must not be taken to mean that the collective institution itself has any reality apart from the acts of various individuals. Similarly, an individual may contract to act as an agent in representing another individual or on behalf of his family. Still, only individuals can desire and act. The existence of an institution such as government becomes meaningful only through influencing the actions of those individuals who are and those who are not considered as members.”
"The first truth to be discovered about human action is that it can be undertaken only by individual “actors.”
it is true that human action can only taken by the individual.
There are no such things as ends of or actions by “groups,” “collectives,” or “States,” which do not take place as actions by various specific individuals.
Thus, to say that “governments” act is merely a metaphor
it is true that government is an abstract concept and only exists in your mind and cannot be physically observed with any sense
however…
will, economy, Austrian, mathematics are all abstract concepts
suppose there was an evil being with power greater than my own who committed his power to deceive me. i am real. mathematics is real. this i know with absolute certainty
math can be only expressed in metaphors. the symbol “1” expresses something real but not palpable.
thus,
a concept may be expressed with a metaphor yet still be real
only individuals can desire and act
a room contains 3 individuals. 2 has favorite color red 1 has favorite color blue.
let us say that “F” is the aggregate favorite color
r is number of red favorites
b is number of blue favorites
F=r+b
Fr+b=P or number of people in the room
P-F=0
r’ is the rate at which peer pressure increases the value of r towards the maximum value P
thus a mathimatical equation of human action in a group
a scenario of some complexity.
10 people each with their own will are gathered in one house
each wants to eat something for dinner how ever there is only enough firewood to cook one type of food
5 people want steak, 3 want pasta, one is a vegan but otherwise ambivalent, one is a sociopath and wants to eat one of the other members
they might vote and 8 agree to eat steak while 1 goes hungry and they lock the sociopath in the basement and give him the scraps because he might take someone out when they go to bed
they might all agree to write a compromise so that every member can eat even though the steak eaters have majority
it could happen that the sociopath is a body builder and also a brilliant speaker. he inspires all the steak eaters and manipulates their desire of steak into hating the vegans. he shows off his muscles and the pasta eaters are scared stiff. the eat the vegan.
it could happen that every one hates each other except the 3 pasta eats who are good friends with lots of shiny possessions all the steak eaters want to be friends with the pasta eaters because they might get something shiny, pasta wins.
one of the pasta eaters is a world class chef, they all let him cook
the end result/decision is can be summarized as collective will or decision of government public and it unfortunately is sometimes a self destructive dictatorship.
this is a model of a complex system involving millions of people
in order to understand the overall of a group so large statistical sampling is used through polling.
yes, its a part of natural language, one of the integers. It exists as a thought in human minds, symbolized by “1”
Which has no existence in reality except as a thought in human minds. This symbol is simply an illustration of how confused you are on the subject. Do you see? Your equation, like the number 1, has no representation in reality, except as a thought in people’s minds.
To add to what Malachi said, aggregation restricts any meaningful dynamic in the situation. In your example for the three individuals with favorite color red: your equation doesn’t account and give meaning to the fact that anyone can change their mind to prefer turquoise at any moment in time. If one does, your equation is no longer representative.
The only answer to this dilemma is to provide all of the possible equations for all of the possible choices that a person can possibly have, aggregate those and you’ve got a wildebeast on your hands. Praxeology, on the other hand, does take time into account. We see it manifested in free market economics - Adam Smith talked about the invisible hand and the spontaneous order that results from economic anarchy.
In conclusion: I believe aggregate equations are good descriptors of a single moment in time, and yes they are accurate - but only for that instant. They should not be used as justification to do X or Y - this assumes that everyone has an equal value scale. For more on the topic, check out Subjective Value Theory - this is the basis of our fundamental disagreement.
“here i define a countries “will” by the actions and motives of its govenment.”
So then the will of a country has nothing to do with what most people in the country actually want? Because government is a terrible system of recognizin the individual wants of the people. At very best it will always yield what 50.001 want.
“it seems that like you say, good in theory bad in practice”
Yes but in that it’s practically impossible to get it right. It’s more like “okay in theory, very hard to do in practice, and very dangerous”
I understand what you’re saying, but it is still disingenuous to call something the will of the “nation” or in the dinner example the will of those at dinner. It was the preference of select people at dinner, not of everyone there. You might as well say that, for that is true, rather than hiding behind labels.
i apologize. i have barged onto a forum and entered into a debate without reading the basis of the opponents arguments and their school of thought.
it is wrong for me to argue with Austrians without reading a “human understanding” and at least understanding its view (which are close enough to truth to gather an academic following)
if you want i can respond (i am not backing out with my tail in between my legs)
or
out of respect for your views i could withdraw from this argument
Its very kind of you to offer, and its certainly a good idea, but you shouldnt think that Mises’ texts are a mandatory prerequisite for discussion. However it would definitely alleviate some confusion if you read it. But feel free to respond, the community here at mises.org will set you straight.