Who would like to get the discussion started? I am on chapter 2 presently, and feel that this shall be a good review of human action.
man, i can contribute to this tommorrow
Hello Jacob, I am glad you are interested in discussing this tomorrow. Anyway, I suppose I will start off with relatively succinct summaries of the chapter’s first two sections.
- The Concept of Action
Beginning the treatise, Rothbard puts forth the action axiom: that is, the fundamental concept that man always acts purposively. Action is distinguished from, as Rothbard describes, “involuntary responses to certain stimuli” (1); for action requires a purpose, which is an end (or goal) that the actor desires to achieve. The aforementioned “desire” to attain an end is known also as the actor’s motive.
Rothbard explains that “all human beings act by virtue of their existence and their nature as human beings” (2). That which does not act purposively is not, by definition, human. Rothbard further elaborates on this concept in section 10 (pg. 71), explaining that even “doing nothing” is an action with a purpose. Having revealed this basic fact, the author explains that praxeology is analysis based upon the “necessary logical implications of this concept” (2).
- First Implications of the Concept
Only individuals can act; hence, “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” (2). It is, however, true that individuals influence other individuals, who subsequently influence others. Thus, concerning the institution of government, Rothbard explicates that its existence “becomes meaningful only through influencing the actions of those individuals who are and those who are not considered as members” (3).
An individual must have ideas to achieve his ends, which includes both an “image of a desired end” and a plan. Next, it is explained that men find themselves within an evironment, or situtation. There are two parts of any environment: general conditions, and the means used. From the actor’s perspective, general conditions are those which cannot be altered to achieve an end, while means are those which can be altered to achieve an end. (Thus, all means are scarce, as the objects of action). Rothbard then explains the concept of time, along with the implications and restrictions it imposes on the actor:
All human life must take place in time. Human reason cannot even conceive of an existence or of action that does not take place through time. At a time when a human being decides to act in order to attain an end, his goal, or end, can be finally and completely attained only at some point in the future. If the desired ends could all be attained instantaneously in the present, then man’s ends would all be attained and there would be no reason for him to act; and we have seen that action is necessary to the nature of man. Therefore, an actor chooses means from his environment, in accordance with his ideas, to arrive at an expected end, completely attainable only at some point in the future. For any given action, we can distinguish among three periods of time involved: the period before the action, the time absorbed by the action, and the period after the action has been completed. All action aims at rendering conditions at some time in the future more satisfactory for the actor than they would have been without the intervention of the action (4)
Furthermore, time is a scarce resorce, and thus an “omnipresent” means for man to achieve his ends. The individual, due to limitations of time (and other scarce means), must therefore choose which ends to satisfy first, leaving others unsatisfied. Rothbard describes this as a “choice among ends” (5). In order to choose, acting man ranks the ends he would like to achieve. For example, consider a man who can take course A, B, or C. If he chooses course A, then he has ranked its provided satisfaction above B or C. Such a choice economizes scarce means to achieve the actor’s most desired ends. When a man economizes, he undergoes the process of valuation. Thus, in choosing what to do with my next hour, I might place my desired ends in the following scale of values:
-
Continuing to post on mises.org.
-
Eating a meal.
-
Playing Crysis on my gaming computer.
If I have one hour, then only the first end shall be satisfied. But if I have two hours, then I will continue to post at mises.org for the first, and eat for the second, allowing my third end to go unsatisfied, which would indicate that this is indeed my scale of values.
Quick Extra Points From this Section
- The individual making decisions to act doesn’t necessarily spend much time making them.
- The future is always uncertain, therefore implying that humans are liable to make errors in judgement, i.e., where “means have been inappropriate for the attainment of [an] end” (7).
- Action is not necessarily “active” in contrast to “passive.”
I hope this has been at least slightly useful (it was for me). Feel free to continue summarizing/discussing/analysing any of the sections in this chapter.
Hello everyone, I have an unrelated question regarding chapter 2 to ask quickly, but I do not really want to make a new topic simply for this.
On page 120, what do the x’s and o’s represent in figure 13? I understand the concept of supply and demand, but I am confused by Rothbard’s particular notation in this case.
those are the points plotted from the table on page 115. I dont know why he uses X’s and O’s to do this but he uses O’s to represent the points from the supply and X’s to represent demand. he does this so you can see how the the information in a s+d table can plotted in a s+d graph
Hey, thanks for explaining that! I suppose it just hadn’t “clicked” yet. And now I can see the usefulness behind the X’s and O’s as well.
I’d recommend having the book in hand if you can get it. I found it much easier to read then viewing it on here.
Been reading the study guide by Murphy. I got up to Chapter 7, then I realized I’m not understanding it , so I simply decided to start reading from the beggining. It’s really good though, he summarizes and reviews the material well.
@Dean- I have to second your recommendation. This book would be a pain to read all in pdf format.
@LibertyandLife- Do you recommend answering all the questions in the study guide, if I want to ensure my understanding is top notch? Maybe we can include some of these questions in our chapter discussions.
The study guide is very helpful and I dont think the questions and necessary is you under the material but you should be able to answer all the questions as they’re pretty straight forward.
Did Rothbard get anything wrong in Man, Economy, and State?
From what point of view? for example a non-praxeologist would say that Rothbard’s section on praxeology and how praxeology and econ connect are all completely wrong concepts in Econ.
I am about 250 pages in presently; initially, I only disagreed with the concept that a voluntary slave contract could not be enforced, for I viewed the voluntary contract as inviolable. But now I see the good sense in such argument, seeing that man’s will is inalienable, and that enforcing such contract would initiate violence. Rothbard’s example of a movie actor on page 177 proved this to be the case, at least for me.
Aside from that minor (initial) disagreement, everything as of yet has been common sense logic. I am, however, coming from a heavily anarcho-capitalist and Libertarian background (though previously unstudied in economics), so of course I was open-minded to the greatest man of our time.
From an Austrian point of view. I havent heard anyone take issue with Rothbard’s analysis but I’m sure there must be some.
yes there are… AE has more to it than Mises and Rothbard. for example: it is quite possible to not hold praxeology and be an austrian… for example hayek… it is quite possible to be for frational reserve banking(and against 100%reserve) and an austrian, Selgin, White, Hayek. it is possible to have keynesian influence, yet an austrian, lachmann, etc etc
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
it is quite possible to be for frational reserve banking(and against 100%reserve) and an austrian, Selgin, White, Hayek. it is possible to have keynesian influence, yet an austrian, lachmann, etc etc
[/quote]
It’s also possible to be an Austrian by simply being born in Austria. And it is possible to be an Austrian by simply declaring oneself to be an Austrian apparently according to you. So why isn’t Krugman an Austrian also other then the fact that he has not declared it yet?
“It’s also possible to be an Austrian by simply being born in Austria.”
one big fat logical fallacy
“And it is possible to be an Austrian by simply declaring oneself to be an Austrian apparently according to you.”
no, i never said that, nor is it implied.
“So why isn’t Krugman an Austrian also other then the fact that he has not declared it yet?”
I really do not know, it is an interesting question though. I asked myself a similar question after reading some of Wieser’s works, who was an Austrian and a very socialistic leaning individual (there was another important austrian economist that was socialistic but i can not remember his name)… A common thing between all Austrians that I have read keep expressing the methodological individualism card. Also, so far, these guys recognize the social- vs-hard science topic. Nevertheless, Wieser, Hayek, Lachmann, and Selgin are all Austrians, which I find it very odd to debate about. Are you implying that these guys arent Austrians because they are either socialists, praxeology rejectors, FRB advocates?
edit: Lachmann does give his view on what makes an Austrian an Austrian . Good lecture