[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / caos / chicas / general / late / radcorp / stasis / sw / thestorm ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: c7c70c386e888ba⋯.jpeg (44.83 KB, 402x402, 1:1, smug anime girl.jpeg)

 No.72840

>Human beings act

Disprove this.

I'll be as courteous as I usually am as soon as our visitors start having discussions in good faith.

 No.72843

File: ea87d5cc21909d8⋯.jpg (114.82 KB, 550x615, 110:123, animals_showing_08.jpg)

And how do you deduce your methodology out of that? "Humans act" - so what? Why is it not possible to deduce something else, say, socialism or whatnot?

It's like shouting "human nature" every time you're cornered. But you go one step ahead of that, you actually have the audacity to compare this to mathematics or other abstract disciplines. "Oh, you think praxeology isn't real because it's abstract? Then I guess you don't believe in mathematics too!" What a pathetic "gotcha", as if what you say is so self evident. Imagine someone telling you the same thing about psychoanalysis or historical materialism or whatnot, you'd just laugh them off. In all of our conversations on this board whenever I inquired into this you never gave a compelling answer.


 No.72847

File: e1b2819d7978bd3⋯.png (644.02 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, ab7a8f11f5c6ec89ad4aca839a….png)

> I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.


 No.72870

>>72843

>And how do you deduce your methodology out of that?

Strictly speaking, the methodology is not deduced from the action axiom; the methodology is to utilize deductive logic, applied to the action axiom.

Below is the beginning of my attempt at a sort of condensed bullet list of the Austrian Economic conceptual framework. I didn't get very far, but I'd like to think I got a decent start. I hammered this out a few years ago and haven't really revisited it since. It may need some polishing, but it was more or less my personal attempt at a brief and direct answer to your question. I hope it will be of interest to you.

Note that it isn't exactly cleaned up for presentation to others, so my use of terminology may be tailored to an Austrian context. I also do not consider myself to be sufficiently educated in the Austrian method to be an authoritative representation of the school. Please keep that in mind while examining the following:

Man acts (action being defined as deliberate behavior). (self-attesting)

>Action is purposeful.

>>Purpose is the actor's intent or interest.

>>>Action is self-interested.

>>>>Man is self-interested.

>>>Profit is a gain or benefit.

>>>>Man acts to profit.

>>>>>Man agrees to exchange for what he values more.

>>>>>>What one agrees to receive in exchange, one values more than what is given.

>>>>>>>Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial.

>That man acts implies that he has preferences and beliefs.

>>Preferences are normative claims.

>>>An action implies the normative claim that the action ought to be performed.

>>>Acting to prevent an event implies that the event ought to not occur.

An incentive is defined as that which motivates an actor to an action.

>The greater the incentive for an action, the more the action tends to be incited.

>>The greater the incentive for an action, the more the action will tend to occur.

A disincentive is defined as that which tends to deter an action.

>The greater the disincentive for an action, the more the action is deterred.

>>The greater the disincentive for an action, the less the action will occur.

Price is what the producer gains in exchange for a given good.

>Price is the incentive to produce a given good.

>>Greater prices are a greater incentive.

>>>The higher the price of a good, the more incentive there is to provide it.

>>>>The higher the price for a good, the more it will be produced.

Price is what the consumer loses in an exchange for a given good.

>Price is the disincentive to consume a given good.

>>Greater prices are a greater disincentive.

>>>The higher the price of a good, the more disincentive there is to consume it.

>>>>The higher the price for a good, the less it will be consumed.

Exchange occurs when producers and consumers agree upon prices.


 No.72876

>>72843

>And how do you deduce your methodology out of that? "Humans act" - so what? Why is it not possible to deduce something else, say, socialism or whatnot?

A bunch of things follow from the action-axiom. For example, time-preference, because people wouldn't act if they had no time-preference, but we know they act. Or marginal utility, because if people act, they must act in the way that they predict is optimal for achieving their preferences, because the alternarive is - again - inconceivable.

Now, Mises wrote a thlusand pages to go from the action-axiom to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory or the calculation-problem, so I hope you understand that I will not do that here.

>But you go one step ahead of that, you actually have the audacity to compare this to mathematics or other abstract disciplines. "Oh, you think praxeology isn't real because it's abstract? Then I guess you don't believe in mathematics too!" What a pathetic "gotcha", as if what you say is so self evident.

Well, I say that when it's a fitting response, and most of the time, it is. Or have you never seen someone attacking praxeology for not being empirical? I see that far more often than variations of your above question.

>In all of our conversations on this board whenever I inquired into this you never gave a compelling answer.

I don't remember anyone asking the questions you asked, in fact, except for one (former?) lefty who remained civil and respectful throughout. For him, I even opened my copy of Human Action to answer some crazy detail questions. If you ask nicely, people will be happy to help you.


 No.72900

File: 4d7dcbe34a56f8a⋯.jpg (59.06 KB, 457x640, 457:640, 313e9201c1d65497c1fe54ac55….jpg)

>>72870

Thank you. That was very informative and the answer I was looking for. I would ask about how come this doesn't lead to any particular self-interest like socialism and so on, but my guess is that Mises already probably answered that as the anon below mentioned.

I have another question, not just directed at you tho. Why did Mises insist that praxeology is universal, insofar that it is uniform in its expression? Clearly people of different cognitive capabilities cannot maintain the same society due to evolutionary differences (not in the ethnic sense, but in the broadest sense) and the subsequent exploitation of less intelligent groups, in fact, wouldn't this be the cause for the downturn of society, whether towards statism or simply, as they say, "degeneracy"?

>>72876

>I don't remember anyone asking the questions you asked, in fact, except for one (former?) lefty who remained civil and respectful throughout. For him, I even opened my copy of Human Action to answer some crazy detail questions. If you ask nicely, people will be happy to help you.

That "lefty" was me. And I guess I owe you an apology because you were pretty helpful on this board, although I was just looking for the simple and clear answer like the anon above provided, which you constantly kept intellectualizing.


 No.72902

>>72847

>Implying purposeful action requires free will

>Implying Schopenhauer doesn't allow for a comparabilistic approach to explain human action


 No.72905

>>72902

*compatibilistic


 No.72906

>>72900

>Why did Mises insist that praxeology is universal, insofar that it is uniform in its expression?

I'm not sure what you're asking, here. Praxeology doesn't predict a particular way of doing things. A praxeologist acknowledges at a matter of course that the structure of social organization is an emergent process which cannot be predicted. The axioms of praxeology are ceteris paribus statements which are identified as true by definition, but they do not include any prescription for what in particular should or will be done in society.

What works for a given population in a given circumstance is likely to differ dramatically from a different population in a different circumstance, or even the same population over time. Praxeology identifies the principles at work, not the outcomes.

>Clearly people of different cognitive capabilities cannot maintain the same society due to evolutionary differences

It's not clear what you mean by "the same society", because the term "society" is itself nebulous and vague. I prefer to avoid using it where possible, because what distinguishes one "society" from another is never clear.

If you are suggesting that a population featuring individuals with a diverse range of cognitive ability cannot be sustainable on account of the possibility for those with greater cognitive ability to take abusive advantage of those with lesser cognitive ability, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.

For one thing, human intelligence is more complex than that. I'm not invoking the "everyone is intelligent in their own way" doctrine they throw around in progressive circles these days, but there's much more to cognitive function than a one-dimensional metric. It's entirely possible to be clever or wise without being especially intelligent.

Further, I would say that social cohesion has more to do with incentives than intellect. Things like the Discipline of Constant Dealings and reporting systems have more to do with what strategies are effective in the long run than the differential intelligence of those involved in a given interaction.


 No.72907

File: bf1e1cd46f28209⋯.jpg (68.65 KB, 634x875, 634:875, bf1e1cd46f282095e213c00e70….jpg)

>>72906

>If you are suggesting that a population featuring individuals with a diverse range of cognitive ability cannot be sustainable on account of the possibility for those with greater cognitive ability to take abusive advantage of those with lesser cognitive ability

Sorry, I should have said an *anarcho-capitalist society. Wouldn't it be the case, taking praxeology into account, that in the absence of a state and the conditions of the free market, we could expect a state to emerge?

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself and maybe Rothbard already vindicated anarcho-capitalism somewhere using praxeology, but the point still stands.


 No.72911

>>72907

>Wouldn't it be the case, taking praxeology into account, that in the absence of a state and the conditions of the free market, we could expect a state to emerge?

Why would we? It had to have happened at some point in the past, but what reason do we have to think that it is inevitable, or even especially likely, given how circumstances have changed? The modern nation-state is no more impervious to collapse than its predecessors, and the increasing level of productivity and capacity of the average person as a result of market activity undermines the desperation and ignorance that enabled its rise in the first place.


 No.72912

>>72900

>how this dosnt lead to other self interest like socialism and so on

the greater structure of voluntary exchange is considered capitalism, but there is no reason people in an anarchy wouldnt be able to enter into a voluntary socialistic system if they so chose or thought it was in their best interest, the precursors to insurance was something like that (I dont remember what they were called but I do remember they were popular at one point in England)


 No.72913

>>72912

>the precursors to insurance was something like that (I dont remember what they were called but I do remember they were popular at one point in England)

Are you thinking of fraternal societies or friendly societies? Those were very popular in the United States as well.


 No.72915

>>72913

YES that is in fact what I am talking about, fraternal societies is the name that popped into my head but I dismissed it

>inb4 wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society

it goes even further then that (if the voluntary participants wish) and can go full blown voluntary commune in what /leftypol/ would call capitalism but what many of us would call voluntarism,after all there is no force stopping you except your own willingness


 No.72918

>>72900

Oh, welcome back, then.

>although I was just looking for the simple and clear answer like the anon above provided, which you constantly kept intellectualizing.

Wasn't aware I was intellectualizing anything, but still, glad the anon above helped you.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / caos / chicas / general / late / radcorp / stasis / sw / thestorm ]