onebornfree- I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, you are speaking of an intellectual position which is pre-economics. And you are right, this position is prior to and foundational of any economic propositions or conclusions.
When I state the axiom [2. The individual human being acts.] I am offering a proposition which should be considered part of Mises’ science of praxeology. Praxeology is prior to and the foundation of Austrian Economics. Methodological Individualism is part of the conceptual framework of praxeology. This is what this thread is all about: the fundamentals of Austrian Economics - and the thread has posited the question- how does Austrian Economics begin (as a science)? The first economic axiom is lifted from the prior science of praxeology. Now our subject is reality- but we must categorize reality so that our task is practicable. Economics is about reality- but a part of reality; Praxeology is also about reality- but a greater part of reality- that is, human action in general, which may produce or be foundational to include all manner of disciplines. With the advance into the study of economics- we limit the scope of our attention to the science of satisfying wants in a particular kind of way (the material wants we must have to survive and or to be happy).
I say the following with all respect and regard- I do not agree with all of the specifics of your characterization of methodological individualism. But I restrain myself from entering into the detailed discussion of this, as I must try to limit the thread to the economics and the actual foundation of those economics.
But I cannot resist this much: As you have described methodological individualism, you have introduced an ultimate subjective relativism into the discussion of everything; not only have you made Austrian Economics insular and untouchable in debate, but all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception. Now this is a perfectly legitimate philosophical position- it is called subjective idealism. But put simply, I reject subjective idealism, and I do not think Mises intended praxeology to point to or indicate subjective idealism.
Now, for sure, its on to the construction of Austrian Economics specifically as economics.
It depends on what you mean. Menger definitely practiced methodological individualism even though he didn’t categorize/name it as such. There were other free market scholars before Menger too that understood that some market decisions are based on the individual(s). I say “some” because not all economists, only up until a certain point, thought the market could handle all economic decisions.
“When I state the axiom [2. The individual human being acts.] I am offering a proposition which should be considered part of Mises’ science of praxeology. Praxeology is prior to and the foundation of Austrian Economics.”
It has been a long time since I studied Von Mises, but I find it hard to believe that this general idea/proposition is not part of his general theory - a “given” in fact.
Did he not state that [to paraphrase]: “humans always act purposefully in order to achieve ends sought that they imagine [rightly or wrongly] will improve their conditions”? This appears to be the same as your own axiom [2], no?
“Now our subject is reality- but we must categorize reality so that our task is practicable. Economics is about reality- but a part of reality; Praxeology is also about reality- but a greater part of reality- that is, human action in general, which may produce or be foundational to include all manner of disciplines. With the advance into the study of economics- we limit the scope of our attention to the science of satisfying wants in a particular kind of way (the material wants we must have to survive and or to be happy).”
Of course, limitation is in order.
However, when limiting the scope of inquiry to human wants and action, Von Mises insists that it must never be forgotten that the principle(s) of Methodological individualism are a “constant” that must apply at all times, in all instances , from initial investigation, all the way through to final conclusion(s) - yes?
“As you have described methodological individualism, you have introduced an ultimate subjective relativism into the discussion of everything; not only have you made Austrian Economics insular and untouchable in debate, …”
Yes, I fully agree that AE does appear to be insular and untouchable in debate- and in the 20 years since I seriously got into it , I’d have to admit that once I accepted/fully understood the principle/concept(s) of methodological individualism that it is ultimately grounded on, since that time I have found nothing that seriously challenges its [AE’s] conclusions/implications.
But that’s just me.[:)]
"…all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception. "
But no, I do not agree that “all human knowledge and science is reduced to an individual perception.” - at least with regard to the " science" part of your sentence here.
In “Human Action” Von Mises goes to great lengths to explain that once the science of economics has been grounded, or rooted, in the factual reality of methodological individualism, it can in no way be compared in method to any of the physical sciences [ i.e. physics, chemistry etc. etc.] , where , in order to reach any conclusions about observed physical phenomena, during experimentation to reach such conclusions, strict laboratory conditions which eliminate all variables can, and are enforced.
Von Mises insists on a new classification for the science of economics [or maybe his was possibly a return to an earlier view of economics-I’m not sure] .
Von Mises insisted that the economics must be thought of as a social science, where laboratory methods are of little use, as is math and formulas,[those to be largely replaced by simple logic], simply because, as he pointed out, the science of economics can never use laboratories and control experiments without unknown/uncontrollable variables, as with laboratory experiments in the physical sciences .
The “spanner in the works” for any such imagined experimentation would always be the principle(s) of methodological individualism, i.e. the reality of a huge, real-world, uncontrollable variable of multiple, constantly changing/updating, individually subjective, human valuation(s) of the supposed scientific “experiments” observed subjects [i.e multiple human beings].
And laboratory experimentation for the field of economics, using multiple human beings, even if we completely ignore/admit the inability to eliminate unknown variables from our proposed experiment? Fergeddaboudid![:O]
If is this is not clear to you from a reading of “Human Action”, [after all it is a massive work covering a lot of ground] ,you might want to try reading his much shorter work : “The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science”, [assuming you haven’t already[:D] ].
This book should make it clear to you that with his “given” assumption of methodological individualism in all cases under consideration for the field of economic enquiry, Mises’ contention [actually an insistence] was/is that economic science must be a social science which has little or no use for laboratory experimentation and mathematical formulas, and therefor can NOT be compared/confused with the physical sciences, and that therefor, for the purpose of legitimate economic enquiry, it is methodologically incorrect for economists to confuse their social science with the physical sciences and attempt to formulate legitimate economic conclusions by mimicing or attempting to substitute any of the recognised physical sciences primary methods of inquiry [ i.e. laboratory experimentation and mathematical formulation ].
At the same time, as far as I am aware, Mises also insisted that his reclassification of economics as a social science via his employment of the principle of methodological individualism in no way detracted from the validity of the findings/conclusions of the physical sciences , where the subjective nature of human valuation can [and should be] largely, if not entirely removed during the process of repeated, highly controlled laboratory experimentation, before any reasonably valid conclusions can be reached, or new ideas/concepts formulated.
I am aware of Menger’s role as the true founder of AE, and of the subjective valuation principle(s) he used to refute Marx’ theories, and of his influence on LVM, and of LVM’s debt to Menger. But I readily admit that you probably know a lot more that I do about this matter than I do.
I’m afraid I have read very little of Menger - I jumped right in at the deep end with “Human Action” and related works , then went on to Rothbard, so thanks for the comment.
Onebornfree- Thanks for the link. A very nice essay. I am not contesting anything you said in this last post (-a peace offering on this methodological individualism). And thanks for your detailed responses. I think you have greatly added to the value of the thread as it has developed.
wilderness- Yes, Menger has a role to play in this thread (more a little later).
Now, with the clear understanding that methodological individualism is at the beginning of Austrian Economics and stays with it every step of the way- let us continue
The next phase of the thread should appear quite simplistic as we proceed- at least until it becomes necessary to thicken it up, based on difficulties which may arise.
The individual collects, hunts, & creates agriculture to eat and live. Not as a Robinson Crusoe, but as the member of a family and a community. While it is true that only individuals act, individuals act in cooperation with others and live their lives for the most part as social beings. As part of this cooperation individuals tend to specialize their activities such that persons become interdependent for their survival and well-being. This leads to economics proper.
Next comes trade. I expect everyone reading this thread understands the basic mechanics of trade and commerce; also, everyone here understands barter- and introduction of a medium of exchange in its stead, and everyone here probably understands the increasing complexity of the role of money as commerce developes. So we are moving along nicely.
As we have already worked out, Austrian Economics does not employ historicism, or scientific method, or mathematical models, for working out the necessary description of economics- rather it employs the logico-deductive method from first principles.
We have before us the concept of a voluntary, free market economy. It will be most pleasing to explore how this free market economy develops and maintains itself.
But for next- I want to pose the question, ‘How does the State arise?’
Again, this is a call to the readers to respond each in his own words, according to where he is right now, each in his own education and intellectual framework-
wilderness- You say, the state begins when a person or persons plead for special treament accompanied by other acts which appeal to emotions, and or coercion. This is a good beginning.
Now I ask of you- to whom does this person (or persons) plead? And what is the immediate result of these initial acts?
And for the reticent who have yet to respond:
How are we to approach from an intellectual perspective the birth, or formation of the state?
Shall we review the writings of Menger, Mises, and Rothbard, and from those writings reconstruct from apriori truths the factors which led to the reality with which we must all deal- the coersive power of the state?
Or, is there a history which will lead us to knowledge of how the state became a reality in the lives of all people living today? An historical account which all here can agree is accurate and correct?
Are these questions which even deal with economics? Can one study economics and have an ‘economic point of view’ which is devoid of an encounter with the state?
I invite suggestions as to how to proceed.
Or à la place de specific suggestions, I will proceed with the method I think best, accompanied by an the interaction with wilderness based on his response above.