Purposeful economizing world

[cwaidele]

Again, if you can than go ahead.

I’ll respond as if you’re serious and not trying to make reductio ad aburdum argument. Cells eat, breath, procreate, live and die and respond to stimuli. They also have an extremely rich set of internal organs (called organelles) that perform many of the same functions as our organs. They cooperate and in many ways you can say that we humans are the ultimate result of cellular cooperation since that’s all (on a non-spiritual level) that we’re made of. They also adapt.

Do you feel that I am taking something away from the action axioms or Austrian economics by extrapolating them to something that could be useful to biologists and other scientists? I certainly don’t. Nor do I wish to.

[cwaidele]

@z1235, @Clayton: You may find this interesting: http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html

[ClaytonB]

To argue that because I have not taken it far enough and not included a law or axiom that you consider important

My point was that you cannot explain the welfare principle when it is a very basic delimiter between conditions under voluntary exchange and conditions outside of that.

negates anything thus far explored seems to miss the point.

Quite the opposite. I said I have made similar arguments regarding consciousness and even the “inanimate” physical world all the way down to the smallest scale below fundamental particles.

And I believe that unless someone can punch holes in the few pieces I’ve so far focused on, that these conclusions are quite significant.

The praxeological method is, indeed, significant and the results which can be derived through its careful use. I think you’re abusing the praxeological method and I’ve pointed out how. Do with it what you will.

Clayton -