@IRyan
the following is taken from here .
The fact that I can form of the idea of volition in my own private world is a matter of fact, to use the vocabulary of David Hume; whether it exists or not is a matter of fact, and it wouldn’t be absurd to say from a third person, god-like point of view that it just isn’t there. But what makes it “a priori” is that, if I am talking to you, you can’t deny that you have volition, because you will be using your volition to deny that you have volition, and would be caught up in the absurdity of trying to deny trying. So, though that just comes into play in arguments and communication, it is pretty useful, because you can show anyone reasonable that it is a permissable starting point.
We start out with the idea of volition and break it into its components. We get causes and effects, beliefs, knowledge, means and ends, desires, wants, preferences, opportunity costs, pyschic losses, psychic profits, value scales, exchange, choice, satisfaction, gratification, and so on. A lot of those things overlap, and some of them are pretty ambiguous, but it is up to us to unpack the idea of volition into its components in a useful, efficient, unambiguous, and correct way, so we can have a good vocabulary to use for talking about market conditions.
We’ve already done that. This fact is implied in our mutual understanding of the logic of the performative contradiction you illustrated above. That is, everybody’s already conceived of a “useful”, “efficient”, “unambiguous”, and “correct” idea of volition. Done and done. I repeat, the tenets of praxeology need no further explication.