neodoxy : To me, it seems that there are two major categories of human social behavior, socially cooperative and socially adversarial behavior.
We need to establish these categories first as necessary categories and that there is some distinction to be established by reflection or by observation. If we don’t do so using the same rigor which Mises applied, how can we know we stand firmly in our conclusions, and how can we be certain that the understanding that we achieve from it has real value.
So, here’s my attempt at breaking this down into logical and necessarily distinct categories. Action can be differentiated into social action and asocial action. Social action can then be differentiated into cooperative action and adversarial action. But we need to create some concrete attribute that distinguishes each, and then make sure we dig out he implications.
So social action necessarily requires a second person. But action is necessarily an individual behavior. Men don’t act, man acts. So, a social action is an action committed by one man, BUT is an action that intends to use his fellow man as means to an end. That differentiates social action from asocial action. However, let’s be clearer, if the other man is unconscious, the action cannot be social, since there was no “Man” on the other end, there was simply an object in reality without it’s own action(meaning goals) with which I had to account for in my own action. That’s a second interesting key, that social action must necessarily interact with other as an intentional reasonable being. Forcing another person either by threat or by violence necessitates imputing intentional action to the other party. I don’t knock out a rock, or point a gun at it, in order to use it, nor do I speak with it, etc.
So not only does social action require using one’s fellow as means to an end, it requires imputing the categories of action to the other man also. That’s important.
So, now we already have the praxeological categories in the second party of a social action. So how do we arrive at a distinction between cooperative and adversarial. I don’t think we can without a concept of property or legitimate use of matter. Here’s why, if I use a gun to get you to give me something, or to get you to walk to a location, etc., I have achieved my end, and if you did the behavior I wanted, you necessarily did so voluntarily meaning that your own action was initiated and performed by direct control of your body. Of course you’re not happy with the situation, because you’ve been compelled, but the only difference between that, and running away from a bear attack or a fleeing or hiding in a cave to avoid a tornado, is that there’s a human mind and action on the other side of the phenomena to which you adjusted your behavior. This btw, is I believe the position of what’s called “realpolitik”
So, I’ve basically laid out a case that says without a theory of legitimate use, you can’t distinguish between cooperative and adversarial. Otherwise all you have is empirical events, that one might subjectively find are not preferable. Meaning that without a sense of proper use or legitimate use, I can’t think of dealing with your pointing the gun at me in anyway other than how I’d treat a bear, run or fight. To use communication of any type to alter your behavior, would necessitate some type of action on my part designed to change your choice of action. Enter negotiation (I think this requires an abstract form that involves the exchange of information).
If I point a gun at you, one can infer that the behavior you are eliciting from me meets some end of yours. Mustn’t every social action necessarily be an action designed to alter the ends of the other? Meaning, I can change your physical arrangement in reality by obeying the natural laws of physics, but I can’t get you to do things that require your capacity to act, without changing the ends at which you aim.
I’ll stop here, I have more to say, but I think this micro analysis is a necessary component that provides a means for analyzing all of the other behaviors described in this thread as we build up to higher levels of social behavior.