I am not sure what that one means. Does it mean there exists in the world scarce resources and human bodies?
yes. Because semantically the term property means scarce resources, ie. human bodies. It is axiomatic cause it takes a scarce resource, ie ones own person/body, to attempt to even question if there is property or not. Did that help?
edit: I am not saying scarcity external to ones person is axiomatic, though it is also defined as property too. Because while trying to question if external manifestations exist or not that is not self-evidently known. But Austrian economics is based on resources being scarce. That’s fundamental as the world is finite.
yes wilderness, it helped indeed.
TY
cool![Y]
And this is what the socialists deny.
This will be my last post today, I look forward to seeing you all again tomorrow.
In order: fakename- I believe the temporal dimension is of critical importance in the consideration of all economic factors. But that said, right here, right now, I am trying to limit the breadth of the discussion to focus on the very fundamental issue of axioms and logic as utilised by the Austrian approach. At this point I will insert some very personal aspects of my own experience: It has been the history of my engagement with the Austrians that the logical apparatus is somewhat abused (though I am sure it is done in good faith, and it is a very easy process to unfold- I myself have been often guilty) and thus find the logical approach of Austrian Economics to be quite problematic. Given your remarks regarding the time dimension, if you will give me the time, I will specifically address your thoughts at a later date (soon).
wilderness- do you mean?
-
Property includes property in ones person and scarce resouces (property is axiomatic)
-
Human action is axiomatic.
-
Consciousness is axiomatic.
You will correct me if I have misconstrued you. I have neglected to point out the importance of definitions as opposed to axioms. An axiom is only meaning ful if it is preceded by adequate definitions. So we may say definitions must be prior to logic. This of itself sets an important limitation on the use of logic in discourse about the real world. Now, this is not necessary when the topic of logic is very everyday language like:
Humankind is mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
No need for definitions here, as everyone immediately understand s the denotation of the words. But when we are discussing a topic like economics, this assumption should never be made in a discussion of the fundamentals. Now with that said, I will address you three axioms on Monday if you will bear with me.
Smiling Dave: Yes you have fixed number 1 in the sense that you have made the statement more clear as to what you meant to say; but the part of the statement you inserted makes it unacceptable as a self-evident axiom- until you can properly inform us that your value judgement of who is deserving and who is not- is a fact in the world and not just a part of you belief system. Many reasonabl e people who practice reason and logic may not share you personal values- that is, they may think people who are disabled either physically or mentally, are the aged, are the unemployed through no fault of their own, are the poor through no fault of their own; and so on in an absolute myriad of categories are each and all deserving even the way children are in the first case all deserving of the same coercion of the law to redistribute wealth from the productive to the unproductive. But this alone is not the chief problem with your number 1. Number 1 was flaw from the beginning and remains so because the second part of you statement is not evident in any way- not as regards the world of living men and women- which is to say redistribution of wealth will not improve economic conditions. The quality of conditions is also a relative notion based on a specific value system- as in the optimum condition for the capitalist, as opposed to the optimum condition for the laborer.
So 1, 2, 3, and 4 remain inadequate and cannot launch Austrian Economics on its way. Not based on self-evident axioms anyway. Now, if you want to say your personal belief system is not relevant to the logic- you must still clear up your definitions as I (belatedly) noted at the beginning of this post.
Respectully to all,
kalinz
P.S. Anyone who may have posted while I was writing this will forgive me until tomorrow.
OK you got me. I have to defer to the classics then.
The only change I would make, as I mentioned to Smiling Dave, is property is axiomatic when it comes to ‘in ones person’. Property in scarcity external to the person is not axiomatic. It is contingent. Yet the earth has not been falsified in being finite. Thus, scarcity is fundamental in the world, with the individual person being scarce to begin with.
yes. Definitions on Monday - til then!
In general "Smiling Dave " appears to have [very aptly ]answered some [most?] of the questions you might have for me.
However , if you wish to further explore my own particular brand of insanity on this issue, you can private message me and we can go from there, as there is a lot more to be said about the issue of economic prescience, in my opinion- I’m just not prepared to explore it further here.
Thx for that, onebornfree. I love getting [positive] feedback.
I’m very curious about something you wrote, that you are a post-Austrian.
What does that mean?
And I’m guessing you dont want to post your opinions here, lest you be snapped at.
I was thinking more about my 3 axioms, and how you swept them away so easily.
It seems to me that axiom 1 is the crux of the whole thing. The others are either self evident, or follow from 1.
Your argument against 1 is that the unproductive person may DESERVE the money, depending on what the assumed moral values are.
I remember now seeing something in Mises that is relevant.
His argument, if I recall correctly, was as follows. Let’s accept for the sake of argument, that a certain group deserves money for nothing. Maybe it’s the poor, maybe the elderly, the helpless, whatever. They all deserve a piece of the pie. Fine.
But the question is, what if you are doing something that SHRINKS THE PIE ITSELF TO ALMOST NOTHING? Then of course everyone, including the poor helpless elderly, all suffer.
My axiom 1 says that if you take money from a productive person to an unproductive person, the future pie will be smaller. There will be LESS in the future for EVERYONE. A simple analogy is if a hungry orphan wants a steak from the milk cow [and there is no refrigeration], and he indeed deserves it and needs it, he will nevertheless suffer if you give it to him. Because there will be no more milk when the cow is dead. Most of the meat will rot. The poor orphan will wind up with less than he had before, when he at least got a bucket of milk every day.
I assume here that every system of morals wants those it considers deserving to get more, not less
Bottom line: Axiom 1 should be revived, the earlier suggested fix to it erased. And it now stands true. Your original attack on it was “but what if the unproductive person deserves the money?” The reply is “Then he is getting really screwed. He will have a little bit more now, and a lot less later.”
One more analogy. The law of gravity says that if you drop something it will fall.
“But what if you drop a little baby who will be killed by the fall?”
“Mother Nature makes no exceptions.”
Here too, axiom 1 says giving to the unproductive shrinks the future pie for everyone. This a law like the law of gravity. It applies even if the unproductive deserve to get what you give them.
Smiling Dave,
Keep in mind that axioms are different than logical deductions. The axioms don’t have a premise and a conclusion. Logical deductions do. They are both in true demonstration sound. Yet the concepts are categorically different and it may become philosophically confusing if these terms are used interchangeably. I would suggest reflecting on that and see if you are using the terms correctly. I don’t have that much time at the moment, but it seems you might be confusing the two terms. I’ll be back later.
yeah you are right. ok then:
1 is an axiom, a self evident truth. [because the productive person by definition knows what to do with the money to make more wealth in the world]
-
is a theorem, follows from the argument attached to it
-
is a tautology. it is just restating the definition of a state
-
is a conclusion from 1,2 and 3.
" I’m very curious about something you wrote, that you are a post-Austrian.
What does that mean?"
Other than the fact that I do not believe in “movements” anymore, political or otherwise, I’m not really sure!
As somebody once cautioned [Mencken?] : "Never join a club that would actually consider having you as a member " - or words to that effect.
True “Miseians” , “Rothbardians”," Hoppeians" etc.
Besides, as I see it, according to my own official and unique interpretation of praxeology , there was only one “Misean” - and that was Von Mises himself, just as there was/is only one “Rothbardian”, one “Hoppeian” , one “Mengerite” etc. etc.
Likewise there is only one me [ not that I’m comparing myself intellectually to any of the three above, in any way, shape or form].
“And I’m guessing you dont want to post your opinions here, lest you be snapped at.”
I’m past all that , and am fully at peace with my own insanity , so : “Water off a ducks back”.
Regards, onebornfree.
Greetings everyone.
Jon Irenicus- Forgive me for not answering your post till now. The discussion of Probability is very inviting indeed. Let’s do it- but not just right now. For the moment, I want very much to explore the view of participants here regarding Mises and the development of Austrian Economics from a rather traditional synthetic deductive approach. As soon as we get a little further along with this- I look forward to a discussion of the contribution of Mises & probability to the foundations and development of the Austrian view.
wilderness- Note: I am here not trying to restate anything Mises has said- rather I am interpreting you- you as the representative of the Austrian approach.
Okay, you are presenting a primitive statement(s) which I will try to re-state and you tell me if I am wrong. We are to build a logical system from the ground up- and the place to begin is with the human individual- the person; the person is the foundation of scarcity and property. The individual person is unique to himself and he will regard or recognize himself as scarce (finite, limited- full of want?) and valuable. As the person bodily owns himself, this may allow the introduction of the term property. When you say this is axiomatic, you mean it is the beginning statement to be accepted on some basis and from which other statements may be posited or premised and valid conclusions drawn- you hold it as true of course- and expect reasonable people should concur- as each person with developed states of consciousness will have these features in common. If someone objects that he does not find the axiom self-evident perhaps you will say it is nevertheless true- and provides the most primitive axiom for Austrian Economics. This you will say is the absolute beginning point and must be accepted- for discussion and elaboration to proceed.
So wilderness, what of this I have just said?
It is my wish that perhaps you will offer this axiom again, stated in your way but further clarified with another set of statements or premises which can follow from this first and reach an irrefutable conclusion through deduction, to lay the Austrian foundation just a little further- so I may better understand you.
wilderness and Smiling Dave- Yes. Smiling Dave I refer you to the post of wilderness regarding the categories of concepts.
Warm regards,
kalinz
That’s not an axiom. That’s a possible logical deduction, meaning, it’s not necessarily so. Because a person, via human action (the axiom), does know what to do with money, but it is only possible that the individual will make wealth. The other possibility is the person will not make wealth.
Ok guys, you got me.
Sounds good, but one point after I say this. All of those axioms (and there may be more I currently don’t have the knowledge of all axioms). But yes, axioms are the ‘first principles’. Now that one point. You say above: “As the person bodily owns himself, this may allow the introduction of the term property.” Property isn’t own. There is an axiom of self-ownership which would be more correctly used with the term own. Property is a substance, in other words a scarce good. It is not saying if the good is owned or not by definition, but due to the self-ownership axiom the property of a ones person is owned. They are they. They own (control/possess) themselves when they act (act being an axiom too).
All else of what you said seems fine.
Property A is Person A. When Person A is able to control their own property/person enough to have private property in the form of tangible goods Person A trades with Person B who also having the prerequisites of private property, etc… that Person A has, these two are able to make an economic exchange following the law of marginal utility. What this means is the economic good that Person A gives away in exchange with Person B such a good is a low marginal unit, ie. not valued as much, as the economic good that Person A receives from Person B. In other words, Person A and B each receive in the exchange what they value the most and they give away what they value the least. The economic goods that were exchanged were an extension of the property that each person is in and of their self. The exchange is made by Person A & B. Without private property and each person considered property unto them self, then the clarity in the exchange will not be present as some external force intervening in the exchange the laws of supply and demand will not be driven by Person A nor B but by the third party thereby distorting any exchanges that potentially happen.
Hope that came out ok. As I may have mentioned earlier my strong suit is not in economics but in the philosophy behind it. Yet I’ve picked up some economics here and there so I think this is true but I don’t know how detailed or how much further I can carry the explanation.
I think you’re a lot better at economics than I am, so, now you might be able to carry the explanation further than I have in my last post when kalinz responds again.
I thank everyone for contributing to the discussion.
This is a good point in the thread to re-group and and to sharpen our focus going forward.
Let me state my personal goal for the thread- I would like to build up in our own language and words the foundation of the Austrian Economics (from the ground up!) and for the participants to reach consensus. That said, it is also my desire to limit the pre-economics discussion in the areas of policy, society, psychology, etc., except to the extent that these subjects- including philosophy- are extremely intersticed in the subject of economics and must be addressed as they arise.
First as a reminder and a precursor let me insert here a quote from Mises:
“It is true that economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should aim at. It is a science of the means to be applied for the attainment of ends chosen, not to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science. Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows a man how he must act if he wants to attain definite ends.” 1.
So I hope we can proceed with the logic of Austrian Economics, but logic with statements which apply to the real world as we all experience it- and not to an ideal world, an imagined world, where all the elements are set to suit our own wants, or make our argument easier. We do not want premised an economic world posited with two people in it; we do not want premised an economic world with only just men acting rationally, and we do not subscribe to an economic eden where war and aggression and crime do not exist.
Please- let’s make the logic deal with the real world as it exists in our own experience- and build the economic science rationally from the ground up. Let us see if we can re-build Austrian Economics using the language of the participants.
I invite everyone to share.
kalinz