I’m just pointing out what we are dealing with. You have to be humble to admit defeat, so we probably shouldn’t waste our time with these people. Then again, I’m sure someone at LeftRev may get something out of it. Several anarcho-capitalists came from the left, and more may come from it.
Only one action is required to prove that man acts: not if you’re trying to prove that man acts purposefully all the time (except for reflexes & such).
You could say the same about any proof of anything. The existence of the universe at this instant or any previous instant does not prove that it will exist after this instant.
We act through time to achieve goals because we believe those goals may be reached through action. If this wasn’t true, there would be no point in acting, as acting would not help us achieve our goals. Then our goals would be realized without action. Since it is the case that acting can change a situation and help us realize a goal, we consider it to be purposeful. That is how action is purposeful. Since people act, and their actions are purposeful, we can say that man acts purposefully.
The axioms are not tautologies, but rather truisms. For example, the axiom that humans act, i.e., that they choose amongst incompatible means in order to achieve said goals/ends means that individuals are maximizing agents. From this, we can deduce that economic activity exists both on Crusoe’s island and in complex industrial capitalist economies (the socialist would deny the former).
Next axiom: individuals always employ economic goods towards their most urgent desires. This is subjective value theory (marginal utility), and if one accepts the validity of this proposition, then one ipso facto denies the validity of objective/cost-of-production theories of value.
Next, the axiom “more is better,” is essentially the basis for Say’s law (the law of markets). Essentially, economic goods are goods that are valued. Air is not an economic good because its value, at the margin, is zero; water is valued less at the margin relative to diamonds, so on and so forth. Individuals will continue consuming until marginal utility is zero, and their subjective desires are never entirely satiated, that is, scarcity is omnipresent. From this, we can deduce that “general gluts” or overproduction/underconsumption doctrines are nonsensical (there can only be relative overproductions). Again, if demand is insatiable, then you can never have “too little” consumption, or “too much” production in the general sense. Accepting this axiom means denying both Keynesian and Marxian frameworks.
The axiom that people prefer goods now relative to later is the central premise for Austrian capital theory and their explanation for profit (interest). This refutes Marx’ exploitation theory of interest.
If you don’t find such axioms problematic, then you are, by definition, an Austrian (whether you know this or not).
thanks for the thorough reply. i’m not trying to argue against anything you wrote above. my question had to do with user "krazy kaju"s so-called “proof” of the action axiom, which didn’t seem strong enough, since it showed that there exists AN (purposeful) action, but didn’t say anything about ALL action.
an axiom requires no proof in any case, so i was also confused why it was even offered in the first place.
another question for you: is there a complete listing of the axioms of human action, as developed by Mises et al, somewhere?
no offence but you guys are doing a shitty job of explaining it to thevisiblehand.
I recommend downloading Man Economy and State and read the first part about action (chapter 1 only)
Yeah… Kaju is referring to the fact that it is impossible to invalidate such an axiom. Any attempt to do so means that you (a) have an end, and (b) choose a specific course of action which is incompatible with other courses of action, in order to achieve (a).
Not sure.
No. Action is purposeful behavior. That’s the definition. ‘Non-purposeful action’ is a notion like ‘square circle’ or ‘married batchelor’, i.e. an oxymoron by definition of what the words mean.
Which is kind of what I went through in the post…but if doesn’t seem like that to you, then ok.
Giant_Joe - maybe I’m being pedantic. I do not doubt that you understand it. But I was just pointing out your terminology is not consistent with Mises, that’s all. Your last sentence is a tautology. Action is defined as purposeful behavior. So saying “man acts purposefully” is saying nothing except “man behaves purposefully purposefully”.
The axiom does not say that all behavior is purposive. This is clearly not true. But SOME behaviour is purposive. To deny the action axiom, would itself be an action. So in the act of someone asserting that “man does not act”, they would be refuting their own statement. That is what a self-evident truth means.
I asked a similar question myself a few months ago: here.
Yes, I was trying to be very obvious and explain the absurdity of the idea of non-purposeful action. I like to use tautologies to explain things because sometimes people just don’t see things all that clearly. ..and sometimes it fails. 