tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1420813551903723817..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Keynes and Pyramid-Building: What He Really MeantLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47012057832350988262011-08-26T07:25:36.067-07:002011-08-26T07:25:36.067-07:00"That's what I was referring to! You fall...<i>"That's what I was referring to! You fallaciously claimed it is irrelevant to Mises' praxeology, when it is what actually UNDERLIES his epistemology!"</i><br /><br />Read carefully:<br /><br />"The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions <b>is irrelevant to the question whether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments."</b><br /><br />I did <i>not</i> say:<br />"The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions is irrelevant to the question of the framework of Mises's praxeology"Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66024341663410625032011-08-26T07:15:43.357-07:002011-08-26T07:15:43.357-07:00In other words, "the question whether Mises&#...In other words, "the question whether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments" is a part of Mises' framework!Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-83227880523818852802011-08-26T07:13:16.110-07:002011-08-26T07:13:16.110-07:00The sheer dishonesty and idiocy of this last comme...<i>The sheer dishonesty and idiocy of this last comment is astonishing:</i><br /><br /><i>"Yes, you did. You said:</i><br /><br /><i>"The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions is irrelevant to the question whether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments."</i><br /><br /><i>LOL... Right before your eyes I directly said "irrelevant to the question whether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments."</i><br /><br />That's what I was referring to! You fallaciously claimed it is irrelevant to Mises' praxeology, when it is what actually UNDERLIES his epistemology!Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-4887834537542660852011-08-26T07:11:03.170-07:002011-08-26T07:11:03.170-07:00The sheer dishonesty and idiocy of this last comme...The sheer dishonesty and idiocy of this last comment is astonishing:<br /><br /><i>"Yes, you did. You said:<br /><br />"The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions is irrelevant to the question whether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments."</i><br /><br />LOL... Right <i>before your eyes</i> I directly said "irrelevant to the <b>question whether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments.</b>"<br /><br />I didn't say "irrelevant to Mises's framework".<br /><br />Game over.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13162462254052851582011-08-26T07:00:14.638-07:002011-08-26T07:00:14.638-07:00"That is a direct RESPONSE to your claim that...<i>"That is a direct RESPONSE to your claim that the existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is irrelevant to the Mises' framework."</i><br /><br /><i>I claimed no such thing.</i><br /><br />Yes, you did. You said:<br /><br />"<b>The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions is irrelveant</b> to the question wether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments."<br /><br /><i>"If you understood Mises' framework, you would have known that true synthetic a priori propositions UNDERLIE the entire Misesian epistemology!"</i><br /><br /><i>LOL.. I am aware of Mises's views on epistemology:</i><br /><br />Apparently not.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-49467710886725827952011-08-26T06:54:43.757-07:002011-08-26T06:54:43.757-07:00So we have astablished that
(1) you also accept ...So we have astablished that <br /><br />(1) you also accept that Mises' praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32522817819879369932011-08-26T06:52:05.770-07:002011-08-26T06:52:05.770-07:00"That is a direct RESPONSE to your claim that...<i>"That is a direct RESPONSE to your claim that the existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is irrelevant to the Mises' framework."</i><br /><br />I claimed no such thing.<br /><br />My statement:<br /><br />"The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions <b>is irrelveant to the question wether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments.</b>"<br /><br />Learn actually address arguments.<br /><br /><i>"If you understood Mises' framework, you would have known that true synthetic a priori propositions UNDERLIE the entire Misesian epistemology!"</i><br /><br />LOL.. I am aware of Mises's views on epistemology:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/10/mises-praxeology-critique.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47206139955477110822011-08-26T06:37:45.556-07:002011-08-26T06:37:45.556-07:00Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses syntheti...<i>Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises:</i><br /><br /><i>There is nothing at all compromised in the Austrian framework by utilizing such propositions."</i><br /><br /><i>LOL... So after loads of rubbish, all you can now do is just concede that "Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises".</i><br /><br />Straw man. Red Herring. Non Sequitur.<br /><br />That is not a "concession". The existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is the very foundation of Misesian epistemology. To "concede" this is to just elucidate an obvious fact to anyone who understands Austrian epistemology.<br /><br /><i>This after wasting more space in this red herring:</i><br /><br /><i>"False. The existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is entirely relevant to Mises' framework, because "humans act" is itself a synthetic proposition that Mises argued is true a priori."</i><br /><br />Straw man. Red Herring. Non Sequitur.<br /><br />That is not a red herring. That is a direct RESPONSE to your claim that the existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is irrelevant to the Mises' framework. If you understood Mises' framework, you would have known that true synthetic a priori propositions UNDERLIE the entire Misesian epistemology!<br /><br /><i>We are not engaged in a debate about Mises' general "framework": the issue was whether his praxeology does use "synthetic propositions as premises". Now you concede that.</i><br /><br />Straw man. Red Herring. Non Sequitur.<br /><br />It is nothing to "concede" as if it is an embarrassment or compromise to praxeology.<br /><br />Human action IS a true synthetic a priori proposition, and it underlies the entire Austrian epistemology.<br /><br /><i>Anonymous said...</i><br /><br /><i>FFS, please ban this troll etc</i><br /><br /><i>Yes, I am sorely tempted to. But MF does a service in exposing the intellectual vacuity, nonsense, or just outright invention of much of popular/vulgar Austrians.</i><br /><br />You have not once shown how Austrian economics is "vacuous", or "nonsense."Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54053344833893451342011-08-26T06:28:50.481-07:002011-08-26T06:28:50.481-07:00"Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses sy...<i>"Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises:<br /><br />There is nothing at all compromised in the Austrian framework by utilizing such propositions."</i><br /><br />LOL... So after loads of rubbish, all you can now do is just concede that "Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises".<br /><br />This after wasting more space in this red herring:<br /><i>"False. The existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is entirely relevant to Mises' framework, because "humans act" is itself a synthetic proposition that Mises argued is true a priori."</i><br /><br />We are not engaged in a debate about Mises' general "framework": the issue was whether his praxeology does use "synthetic propositions as premises". Now you concede that. <br /><br /><i>Anonymous said...<br />FFS, please ban this troll etc</i><br /><br />Yes, I am sorely tempted to. But MF does a service in exposing the intellectual vacuity, nonsense, or just outright invention of much of popular/vulgar Austrians.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-63427828426928728402011-08-26T06:10:37.283-07:002011-08-26T06:10:37.283-07:00Lord Keynes,
FFS, please ban this troll. There ha...Lord Keynes,<br /><br />FFS, please ban this troll. There have been plenty of great ideas and arguments on this blog in the past involving multiple schools of thought, including various forms of Austrianism, which I've found illuminating. The recent spate of solipsism about Free Markets would make Rothbard and Engels throw their hands up in disgust. Scholarship about even fantasy ideas can be fascinating and worthwhile, if everyone has a genuine interest in discovering truth and maintaining standards of decorum and rigor.<br /><br />Major_Freedom, I don't give you permission to respond to me, and I have no interest in engaging with violently aggressive individuals like you. I guess we'll see if you can respect that, or if you're the kind of person who thinks no means yes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10559122714006026572011-08-26T05:45:39.948-07:002011-08-26T05:45:39.948-07:00Mises is also a third rate logician:
Acceptance o...Mises is also a third rate logician:<br /><br /><i>Acceptance of Mises’ stated axioms does not necessarily imply acceptance of the “principles” or “applications to reality” which he has drawn from them, even though his logic may be impeccable. When a logical chain grows beyond the limits set by stated assumptions, it uses unstated assumptions. The number of unstated assumptions (axioms, postulates, or other) in <i>Human Action</i> is enormous. If Mises denies this, let him try to rewrite his book as a set of numbered axioms, postulates, and syllogistic inferences using, say, Russell’s Principia or, closer home, Von Neumann’s Theory of Games as a model”</i> <br />Schuller, G. J. 1951. “Mises’ ‘Human Action’: Rejoinder,” American Economic Review 41.1: p. 188.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-63031876671342906282011-08-26T05:44:18.768-07:002011-08-26T05:44:18.768-07:00Since you keep throwing around the terms: red herr...Since you keep throwing around the terms: red herring, straw man, and non sequitur, even though you clearly have no clue what any of them actually mean, starting now I am going to preface every single one of my posts with<br /><br />"Straw man. Red herring. Non sequitur."<br /><br />Straw man. Red herring. Non sequitur.<br /><i>the whole basis of Mises' neoKantian framework is that there exists true synthetic a priori propositions.</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>Red herring. The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions is irrelveant to the question wether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments.</i><br /><br />Straw man. Red herring. Non sequitur.<br /><br />False. The existence of true synthetic a priori propositions is entirely relevant to Mises' framework, because "humans act" is itself a synthetic proposition that Mises argued is true a priori.<br /><br /><i>Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises:</i><br /><br />There is nothing at all compromised in the Austrian framework by utilizing such propositions.<br /><br /><i>If you have "assumptions concerning the conditions of the environment in which an action takes place" that are false, your deductive inferences are also false.</i><br /><br />The human action axiom is not false, so your worry is unfounded.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5466806895184602572011-08-26T05:43:11.693-07:002011-08-26T05:43:11.693-07:00"All I am doing is proving to you that the hu...<i>"All I am doing is proving to you that the human action axiom itself cannot be refuted.</i><br /><br />The human action axiom is a trivial observation that can also be held by Marxists, communists, Keynesians, neoclassicals, monetarists, or any other economist you care to name. And there is nothing significant you can deduce from it without other premises, since the most simple, useful deductive argument like the syllogism requires 2 premises to infer anything.<br /><br /><i>If it cannot be refuted, then everything that follows from it deductively, provided the logic is sound, also cannot be refuted."</i><br /><br />That is laughable nonsense. Again: the simplest deduction requires 2 premises: a major and minor premise. Even with the human action axiom true, even in your FIRST deduction using it, you must also prove the truth of your other premise. When one gets into long chains of arguments, the number of premises becomes large. Hidden and stated synthetic propositions quickly enter the arguments, as even Mises admitted.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-92181723616510592052011-08-26T05:37:14.147-07:002011-08-26T05:37:14.147-07:00Your attempt to refute praxeology, right there, ju...<i>Your attempt to refute praxeology, right there, just verified it, because it was an action on your part.</i><br /><br /><i>Now you are make the laughable error of conflating</i><br /><br /><i>(1) a inference arrived at by a long chain of deductive reasoning in praxeology with</i><br /><br /><i>(2) the mere truth of the human action axiom.</i><br /><br />False. All I am doing is proving to you that the human action axiom itself cannot be refuted. If it cannot be refuted, then everything that follows from it deductively, provided the logic is sound, also cannot be refuted.<br /><br />I was not conflating the axiom with what can be deduced from it. I was just showing you that human action is an a priori true axiom. The knowledge of this axiom has its origins in observation, but the truth of the axiom arises from a priori self-reflection. It cannot arise from observation alone. You cannot gain knowledge that someone is making an observation solely by observing them. Observation itself must be understood a priori, and then one can understand that one is observing someone making an observation.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-61578025771802927322011-08-26T05:31:43.079-07:002011-08-26T05:31:43.079-07:00"That Mussolini at some points in time enacte...<i>"That Mussolini at some points in time enacted liberal market reforms does not mean he did not enact fascist reforms."</i><br /><br /><i>LOL... Correct, though a straw man, since I no where denied that after the mid-1920s he adopted state interventionism.</i><br /><br />After repeated claims that I am straw manning you, it is now crystal clear that you actually have no clue what it means.<br /><br />A straw man is attributing a position to someone that they do not in fact hold, with the intention of refuting the person's actual position by refuting the false position.<br /><br />I did not attribute to you the position that you believed that Mussolini did not enact fascist policies after the mid-1920s. I made the argument that Mussolini did enact fascist policies not because I claim you held the opposite, but because you said that Mussolini enacted liberal economic reforms. <br /><br />His liberal market reforms were not fascist reforms (no, I am not attributing to you the opposite position, so for the love of christ, realize this is not a straw man. It's my argument. In fact, all my statements are my own positions and my own arguments unless I explicitly say otherwise, ok?). A policy doesn't become fascist or free market based on the label you assign to the policy maker. A policy is fascist if it is an exercise of government control over the disposition and/or use of a means of production.<br /><br /><i>The point was that fascism had diverse economic policies: there was no "universal" fascist economics.</i><br /><br />False. The liberal market reforms pre-mid-1920s were not fascist reforms, even though Mussolini was the one who enacted them, even though he is considered a fascist.<br /><br />Fascism has one and only one economics. Government control, but not ownership, over means of production. If a policy is directly against this, then it's not fascism. If it is consistent with this, then it is fascism.<br /><br /><i>You have not refuted that.</i><br /><br />Oh yes I have. I just did so again. Hopefully it will click in this time.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73492025984977866872011-08-26T05:25:29.119-07:002011-08-26T05:25:29.119-07:00> In other words, praxeology relies on
> de...<i>> In other words, praxeology relies on <br />> deduction and requires premises that are <br />> sometimes synthetic propositions, not ones <br />> true a priori.<br /><br />... the whole basis of Mises' neoKantian framework is that there exists true synthetic a priori propositions.</i><br /><br />Red herring. The existence or non-existence of synthetic a priori propositions is irrelveant to the question wether Mises's praxeology uses hidden and present synthetic propositions as premises in its chains of deductive arguments.<br /><br />Mises is quite clear that praxeology uses synthetic propositions as premises:<br /><br /><i>“Man … can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is to submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination. This means for the economist to trace back all theorems to their unquestionable and certain ultimate basis, the category of human action, <b>and to test by the most careful scrutiny all assumptions and inferences leading from this basis to the theorem under examination.</b> It cannot be contended that this procedure is a guarantee against error. But it is undoubtedly the most effective method of avoiding error”</i> (Mises 1949: 68).<br /><br /><i>“Every theorem of praxeology is deduced by logical reasoning from the category of action. It partakes of the apodictic certainty provided by logical reasoning that starts from an a priori category. <b>Into the chain of praxeological reasoning the praxeologist introduces certain assumptions concerning the conditions of the environment in which an action takes place. Then he tries to find out how these special conditions affect the result to which his reasoning must lead. The question whether or not the real conditions of the external world correspond to these assumptions is to be answered by experience.</b> But if the answer is in the affirmative, all the conclusions drawn by logically correct praxeological reasoning strictly describe what is going on in reality”</i> (Mises 1978: 44)<br /><br />If you have "assumptions concerning the conditions of the environment in which an action takes place" that are false, your deductive inferences are also false.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55429429857942877342011-08-26T05:18:45.224-07:002011-08-26T05:18:45.224-07:00Your attempt to refute praxeology, right there, ju...<i>Your attempt to refute praxeology, right there, just verified it, because it was an action on your part.</i><br /><br />Now you are make the laughable error of conflating <br /><br />(1) a inference arrived at by a long chain of deductive reasoning in praxeology with <br /><br />(2) the mere truth of the human action axiom. <br /><br />Two different things.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3540184853504920792011-08-26T05:15:11.556-07:002011-08-26T05:15:11.556-07:00"That Mussolini at some points in time enacte..."That Mussolini at some points in time enacted liberal market reforms does not mean he did not enact fascist reforms."<br /><br />LOL... Correct, though a straw man, since I no where denied that after the mid-1920s he adopted state interventionism.<br /><br />The point was that fascism had diverse economic policies: there was no "universal" fascist economics.<br /><br />You have not refuted that.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81033963426356093642011-08-26T04:54:08.965-07:002011-08-26T04:54:08.965-07:00Fascism has one and only one economics. It is gove...<i>Fascism has one and only one economics. It is government control, but not ownership, over the means of production.</i><br /><br /><i>Mussolini didn't always impose fascism.</i><br /><br /><i>Fascists can eat sandwiches too.</i><br /><br /><i>Priceless. Reduced to blathering idiocy, huh?</i><br /><br />No you idiot. That Mussolini at some points in time enacted liberal market reforms does not mean he did not enact fascist reforms.<br /><br />The sandwich quip was to mock your irrelevant claim that "The Austro-fascism of the Dollfuss and Schuschnigg regime purused classical deflationary neoclassical policies."<br /><br />But I'm not surprised it went over your head.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34386084037067929212011-08-26T04:52:02.026-07:002011-08-26T04:52:02.026-07:00"You cannot deny it without verifying it, bec...<i>"You cannot deny it without verifying it, because any refutation attempt of any argument whatsoever, including praxeology, is itself a human action.</i><br /><br /><i>The most vulgar and ignorant distortion even of what even Mises thought</i><br /><br />Red herring. I was not even attempting to summarize what Mises thought you idiot. I could not have "distorted" what he said.<br /><br /><i>You are perfecet exmaple of a “pop” Austrian making truly absurd claims on the basis of the human action axiom, such as that all inferences of Austrian economics must be true because they follow from the human action axiom. Not even Mises believed such rubbish</i><br /><br />Fallacy of authority. It doesn't matter what Mises thinks or didn't think. The argument stands on its own.<br /><br /><i>In other words, praxeology relies on deduction and requires premises that are sometimes synthetic propositions, not ones true a priori.</i><br /><br />You idiot, the whole basis of Mises' neoKantian framework is that there exists true synthetic a priori propositions.<br /><br /><i>Once you get into praxeological arguments they quickly come to use synthetic propositions – either present or hidden – that can only be verified empirically. Thus empirical evidence becomes very relevant indeed.</i><br /><br />Wrong. While there can be no doubt that all knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all knowledge <i>arises</i> out of experience. Experience can "awaken" certain knowledge that is not itself apprehended by experience, but by a priori logic.<br /><br /><i>The “apodictic certainty” claimed for praxeology actually vanishes like a puff of smoke, if there is doubt about the truth of its synthetic stated and hidden assumptions or premises.</i><br /><br />There is no doubt of the human action axiom. Any attempt to refute it, verifies it.<br /><br /><i>And there certainly is.</i><br /><br />There certainly is not. Claiming "there certainly is" is itself a human action you dolt.<br /><br /><i>One example I have dealt with before is the argument for free trade by comparative advantage:</i><br /><br />You've already been refuted there too.<br /><br /><i>"so deduction is valid in other fields except Austrianism. "</i><br /><br /><i>Deduction is valid. The actual arguments offered by Misesians through praexology are flawed through flase hidden assumptions and false empirical assumptions.</i><br /><br />Your attempt to refute praxeology, right there, just verified it, because it was an action on your part.<br /><br />The arguments are not flawed, they are not hidden, and they are not false empirically.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13318354521418400442011-08-26T03:37:26.930-07:002011-08-26T03:37:26.930-07:00Fascism has one and only one economics. It is gove...<i>Fascism has one and only one economics. It is government control, but not ownership, over the means of production.<br />....<br />Mussolini didn't always impose fascism.<br />....<br />Fascists can eat sandwiches too.</i><br /><br />Priceless. Reduced to blathering idiocy, huh?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53357152055342647802011-08-26T03:36:04.367-07:002011-08-26T03:36:04.367-07:00"so deduction is valid in other fields except...<i>"so deduction is valid in other fields except Austrianism. "</i><br /><br />Deduction is valid. The actual <i>arguments</i> offered by Misesians through praexology are flawed through flase hidden assumptions and false empirical assumptions.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-40782305044755523642011-08-26T03:34:14.619-07:002011-08-26T03:34:14.619-07:00"You cannot deny it without verifying it, bec...<i>"You cannot deny it without verifying it, because any refutation attempt of any argument whatsoever, including praxeology, is itself a human action.</i><br /><br />The most vulgar and ignorant distortion even of what even Mises thought:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/02/limits-of-human-action-axiom.html<br /><br />You are perfecet exmaple of a “pop” Austrian making truly absurd claims on the basis of the human action axiom, such as that all inferences of Austrian economics must be true because they follow from the human action axiom. Not even Mises believed such rubbish:<br /><br /><i>“Every theorem of praxeology is deduced by logical reasoning from the category of action. It partakes of the apodictic certainty provided by logical reasoning that starts from an a priori category. <b>Into the chain of praxeological reasoning the praxeologist introduces certain assumptions concerning the conditions of the environment in which an action takes place.</b> Then he tries to find out how these special conditions affect the result to which his reasoning must lead. <b>The question whether or not the real conditions of the external world correspond to these assumptions is to be answered by experience.</b> But if the answer is in the affirmative, all the conclusions drawn by logically correct praxeological reasoning strictly describe what is going on in reality”</i> (Mises 1978: 44).<br /><br />In other words, praxeology relies on deduction and requires premises that are sometimes synthetic propositions, not ones true a priori.<br /><br />Once you get into praxeological arguments they quickly come to use synthetic propositions – either present or hidden – that can only be verified empirically. Thus empirical evidence becomes very relevant indeed.<br /><br />The “apodictic certainty” claimed for praxeology actually vanishes like a puff of smoke, if there is doubt about the truth of its synthetic stated and hidden assumptions or premises. And there certainly is. One example I have dealt with before is the argument for free trade by comparative advantage:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/01/mises-on-ricardian-law-of-association.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20271031503317986762011-08-26T03:24:32.685-07:002011-08-26T03:24:32.685-07:00"In other words, you hold that my knowledge o...<i>"In other words, you hold that my knowledge of the argument "There is no problem of involuntary unemployment in the market" cannot be a priori, but must arise from observation a posteriori."</i><br /><br /><i>The belief there is "no problem of involuntary unemployment in the {Rothbardian free] market" is derived from a FALSE aprioristic praxeological system.</i><br /><br />False. The praxeological system is undeniably true. You cannot deny it without verifying it, because any refutation attempt of any argument whatsoever, including praxeology, is itself a human action.<br /><br />It would like saying "There is no such thing as language." The content contradicts the argument.<br /><br />Similarly, by attempting to refute praxeology, you'd be verifying it. You'd be committing a performative contradiction.<br /><br />You can try to refute praxeology as many times as you want. Every single attempt will be a self-contradiction, because they would all be human actions.<br /><br /><i>That does not deny the validity of deductive reasoning in other forms or of theorising using deduction per se.</i><br /><br />Hahahaha, so deduction is valid in other fields except Austrianism. Hahahaha, your dogma is more obvious than herpes on a hooker.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38617924907660978662011-08-26T03:19:52.526-07:002011-08-26T03:19:52.526-07:00"Economically speaking, fascism has to do wit...<i>"Economically speaking, fascism has to do with who controls the means of production."</i><br /><br /><i>Not even true. Fascism had diverse economic policies: there was no "universal" fascist economics.</i><br /><br />False. Fascism has one and only one economics. It is government control, but not ownership, over the means of production.<br /><br /><i>(1) Mussolini originally pursued standard neoclassical laissez faire policies:</i><br /><br /><i>"From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini's regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders, and De Stefani was eventually forced to resign."</i><br /><br />Mussolini didn't always impose fascism.<br /><br /><i>(2) The Austro-fascism of the Dollfuss and Schuschnigg regime purused classical deflationary neoclassical policies:</i><br /><br />Fascists can eat sandwiches too.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.com