http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-axioms-t132680/index.html
Thats a link to the thread, and they (especially IcarusAngel) seems to be raising points that I don’t know how to respond to. The only Mises’ book I’ve read is “Socialism” so I don’t really know what the axioms are in order to defend them. If someone can peruse this thread and point out the fallacies I’d be much appreciative.
That thread was a complete mess. None of the socialists understood Mises’ axioms at all, and half of them apparently don’t know what an axiom is. If you are not already familiar with Mises’ axioms, then that thread will only confuse you. For the other members, here are some funny quotes from some socialists on that thread…
“Nothing Mises said was relevant and the small sect of white racist working class wannabe capitalists who worship at the feet of their masters are also irrelevant.”
“Why couldn’t you come up with a set of axioms for a robot? Robotics often have sensors that are even more sharp then sensors of humans. You can be specialized instruments that are much better than human eyes, for example.”
Why wouldn’t the Robot have axioms? Like “Robot, turn around.” Or “Robot, spin 360 degrees.”
It’s true, therefore it is an axiom. The axiom is that logically it is possible to create robotic instruments that are better than the human eye. That robots can move around is the “Robot action axiom.”
I highly suggest you learn what an axiom is. For one, an axiom is one of the major players in what differentiates Austrian economics as a science compared to other economics. Axioms are the foundation stone to the whole theory of Austrian and Libertarian theoretics. If you don’t know what an axiom does, then you’re going to have difficulty understand the theories in general. The big upside to learning what axioms do are once you intellectually grasp them, then you will be able to literally apply the axioms and make logical deductions on your own no matter what kind of examples or circumstances come your way. Without using axioms it makes one wonder if such a person is sharing possible falsities with other people.
Here’s a post outside of looking up in wikipedia or private message me I’d be happy to help you. I could give you a possible short explanation. But this post I linked to here provides links that obviously go much further. You don’t necessarily have to read all of those articles and books in the link to know what an axiom is but I’m sure reading some of those short articles would provide you with a decent, solid understanding with ever the more insight.
An axiom is a self-evident truth. The central axiom of Misesian economics is “humans act.” In other words, humans engage in purposeful action - e.g. sleeping, walking, eating, talking, writing, running, etc. If you try to disprove this axiom, you prove it, since in order to disprove “humans act” you must act yourself. This is called a performative contradiction. This axiom leads us towards other insights, e.g. individuals must have value scales (from which we derive time preferences).
RevLeft == FAIL
Is the axiom that EVERY human action is purposeful, or just some actions are? The proof only shows that SOME actions are purposeful.
Voluntary actions are, by the medical definition.
Okay, so the axiom is that every human action is purposeful? (The proof mentioned doesn’t show that.)
“Okay, so the axiom is that every human action is purposeful? (The proof mentioned doesn’t show that.)”
No, every VOLUNTARY ACTION, for instance flinching or other automatic reflexes are not voluntary, all voluntary action is purposeful in one way or another although I think that Mises could have expanded his vocabulary to better display this.
Autonomic nervous actions and environmental interference are not purposeful.
Lesson #1: never take anybody on revleft seriously.
Okay, understood. Do you agree that the proof given by krazy kaju (“performative contradiction”) doesn’t prove this? That’s what I’m trying to clarify.
The axiom is “humans act”. Action IS purposeful behaviour. A reflex is not an action, because a reflex is not done with a purpose in mind. “Humans reflex” is self-evidently true, but we are not interested in that in economics. Economics is only concerned with the acting part of human behaviour.
I agree with Kaju.
I don’t understand why they resort to name calling.
What else could they resort to?
Rational people wouldn’t need to, they would stand their ground or move on.
But his proof only shows that one particular kind of action is purposeful (namely, the action of trying to disprove the axiom).
Only one action is required to prove that man acts.
“Rational people wouldn’t need to, they would stand their ground or move on.”
What in gods name makes you think that the terms “LeftRev” and “Rational People” have anything to do with each other?