But there are constants. Unless evolution says other wise human action is purposeful. Refuting praxeology cannot be done while staying logically consistent and not falling subject to a particular logical fallacy. You can choose to not believe this and continue to be in a state of ignorance, and be ‘awed’ but this ignorance but your opinion doesn’t discredit our argument at all.
This seems to show you haven’t done as much reading on Austrian economics as you previously stated. We don’t necessarily make a distinction between macro and micro other than making a distinction between big and large. The principles are the same. Multiplying 2 times 100 is the same as multiplying 2 times 1. You still get double, though the quantities may differ.
We do though. The difference is our ‘all encompassing theories’ are logically consistent, unlike all the other schools of thought that you mentioned where empiricism runs rampant and manipulates their ideological thoughts at whim.
The fact that you can buy a magazine on the way to work and that fresh milk magicallty appears at the grocery store every morning is a legitimate example that anarchy works. More so the fact that the market is fundamentally the economic root of all prosperity on earth. You have to prove to us that removing the market would net greater prosperity. Untill then all the evidence you need is around you. The cloths you wear, the food you eat, your entertainment, your work are all examples of anarchy working.
It’s essentially irrefutable unless you reject the market like some schools of thought do. Markets are anarchy by default.
In the 19th century slavery was globally accepted for a time. Your argument in their context would have essentially equated to this. Since slavery has always been and we see no examples of it not beeing, therefore we should just submit unto it’s existence as somehow being justified. We shouldn’t make a concious effort to raise awareness of it’s contridictions.
You essentially reject the fact that man can improve and would prefer to take the status-quo route since thats all you know. Had we been in the 19th century you may be here arguing against doing away with slavery.
On the contrary. You still show that you lack much reading regarding praxeology.