Praxeology and its axioms - A theory of hostile action

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

I have a couple of questions regarding the development of a logical theory of hostile action. To elaborate…

To prove the action axiom you must act.

To prove the argumentation axiom you must argue.

It follows, if one sets out to develop a logical theory of hostile action, then one must engage in hostile action to prove this axiom, what ever it may be. If true, this could pose a problem in its development.

Also, isn’t a logical theory of hostile action just a logical theory of socialism?

I don’t know if I’m getting ahead of myself here, or if this makes any sense, but I’m not too well read in epistemology, and I figure that one of you smarty pants could point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.

2

A theory only says if A then B. Developing a theory of socialism does not require its establishment.

3

Unfortunately I don’t know any Polish, but on the theory of hostile action, I believe Roderick long once referred to this guy, or at least someone from the same school of thought.

4

To prove the action axiom you must act.

Yes.

To prove the argumentation axiom you must argue.

Maybe.

It follows,if one sets out to develop a logical theory of hostile action, then one must engage in hostile action to prove this axiom, what ever it may be.

Oh no it doesn’t. It doesn’t follow at all. If you used this kind of argument in high school geometry, you would get an F.

One need not be a smarty pants to see how flawed this argument is. It is exactly like saying:

In basketball, you throw a ball into a basket.

It follows that in football you throw a ball into a foot.