Geomtery has many. Why do Austrians use (or pretend to use) only one?

It points out the primacy of force; the atomic fact. It sets up the stage for the world we live in - the world of fact, process, perspective, consequence, manipulation, and material.

I’m a little confused by your point. There’s a few axioms in Austrian Economic/Libertarian theory…the action axiom, the non-aggression axiom, etc. Supply and demand, marginal utility, etc. are also basically axiomatic in nature. (Not all axioms are stated directly as axioms, if you get my meaning). …

Your bringing up of geometry got me thinking. Perhaps action should be better understood as a primitive notion rather than as an axiom. There would then be multiple axioms in Austrian-school economics, and at least one primitive notion - action.

Time preference, etc are consequences of action hence we can speak about them with their inevitable / law-like nature. As for the NAP, it’s simply not an economic theory. It is a moral, or some other theory - but it has nothing to do with economics as such.

Your bringing up of geometry got me thinking. Perhaps action should be better understood as a primitive notion rather than as an axiom. There would then be multiple axioms in Austrian-school economics, and at least one primitive notion - action. something like this could work too - I was kind of th…

Oh, I agree 100% vive. My only point is that, although extensions from the action axiom, something like marginal utility can itself be considered an axiom, or at least axiomatic in nature. As to the NAA…Wheylous didn’t specify that we were only talking about economic axioms (he said “Why do Austria…

Austrians =/= AnCaps. It so happens that many AnCaps are “Austrians” (though it’s likely that not many completely wield the economic understanding of some of the better users on here like Neodoxy and Smiling Dave).

Rothbard has about 5: [image] Mises Daily | Mises Institute non aggresion is not economics, but libertarian philosophy. supply and demand and marginal utility are deducible from Rothbard’s axioms, as shown in HA and AGD. The rule is, one uses as few axioms as…

Where did I say that Austrians were Anarcho-Capitalists? I was merely saying that an Austrian economist could agree with the Non-Aggression Axiom. (Yeah, I know, we’re Wert-frei as economists, blah blah, but that’s aside the point. Rothbard was an Austrian economist who believed in the NAA).

Exactly. We actually understand each other for once. I think at least one other primitive notion might be needed - satisfaction, or utility. Also, action might not be a primitive notion after all. Mises defines it as “purposeful behavior”, which could presuppose two more primitive notions, namel…

Why only one Axiom?

Economics Economics Questions

vive_la_insurrection March 6, 2012, 3:05pm 21

@ Wheylous:

Thanks, that’s the 1st time I’ve been called “mature”, lol

@ Autolykos:

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/human-action-econ-treaties-or-austrian-sociology-treaties/21947

Topic		Replies	Views
Austrian Axioms Economics Questions	16	4742	June 23, 2008
Action Axiom....so what? Economics Questions	6	1667	October 24, 2008
my take on austrian economics Economics Questions	3	1321	July 2, 2009
What are the premises of Austrian Economics Economics Questions	13	2359	October 21, 2010
Revleft thread on Mises' Axioms -- I'm a little confused General	31	5048	May 9, 2010

Why only one Axiom?

Related topics