ITT, we discuss the most devastating and unassailable march of logic and reason that the world has ever seen.
What is praxeology, you may ask?
Praxeology (Gr. πρᾶξις (praxis) ″action″, λόγος (logos) ″talk, speech″) is the deductive study of human action based on the fact that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior.[1] According to adherents, with the action axiom as the starting point, it is possible to draw conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. For example, the notion that humans engage in acts of choice implies that they have preferences, and this must be true for anyone who exhibits intentional behavior.
Praxeology starts from the undeniable axiom that human beings exist and act, and then logically deduces implications of this fact. These deduced propositions are true a priori; there is no need to test them in the way that a physicist might test a proposed "law" of Nature. So long as a praxeological statement has been derived correctly, it must necessarily contain as much truth as the original axioms.
If this sounds too good to be true, it isn't. Have you wondered why economists can't agree on anything, besides the things they do happen to agree on? It's because they've fallen into the trap of using "empirical data", or positivism
Praxeologists of the Austrian School have no such limitations:
logical positivism cannot predict or explain human action and that empirical data itself is insufficient to describe economics which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify economic theory and that logical positivism is not the proper method of conducting economic science.
"empirical data cannot falsify economic theory"
Okay, okay, all of this sounds good in theory, but what can you do with it? Plenty, it turns out. We can show (again, with completely unassailable logic) that the existence of the state is the greatest ongoing crime against nature in the history of nature.
Start with the idea of a man on an island (it is an undeniable axiom that men have existed on islands). He can own nothing but the fruits of his own labor (and perhaps a volleyball, which he might paint a human face on for companionship, should one wash ashore).
Now add another man. The possibilities become much more exciting (no PD)! Now these two men can engage in mutually beneficial trade. Suppose Maurice can harvest 100 nuts per day or catch two fish per day. Esch can catch four fish per day or harvest 50 nuts per day. Unassailable logic shows us that Esch should specialize in fish while Maurice specializes in nuts, and the two should trade with each other. In this way, both will be better off.
But how do we know how many nuts are worth one fish? The beauty is that there is no correct answer! It all depends on the subjective value each person assigns to a particular good. So long as both parties trade their goods voluntarily, both parties are undeniably made better off by trading freely with each other. This is the beauty of mutually beneficial transactions.
Now let's expand this. Suppose that, working solely by themselves, Maurice, Esch, and Miles could each produce half a cup of gruel per day. But along comes Doug, who owns a factory, which enables each of them to produce one hundred widgets per day. Each widget can be exchanged for a cup of gruel on the free market. Maurice, Esch and Miles would all be better off producing widgets in Doug's factory in exchange for payment of a full cup of gruel per day than they would be if they all were working alone in a state of nature. The beauty of mutually beneficial transactions is that nobody loses.
From here, it is obvious to any thinking person that interventions in the market can only hurt everyone involved. Enter Franklin, the illegitimate dictator. He imposes the mandate that Maurice, Esch and Miles can only work in Doug's factory if they are paid two cups of gruel per day. This inarguably limits the number of transactions that can be made. Franklin is saying that Doug and our other three rational actors cannot enter into agreements that all of them find mutually satisfactory. Franklin is essentially declaring himself co-owner of Doug's factory and co-owner of Maurice, Esch and Miles' labor.
Because such interventions can only make people worse off, they can only be achieved through the threat of violence. Essentially, with his
monopoly on force, Franklin declares that these four men do not fully own their lives and property. Such a state is factually indistinguishable from slavery.
So there you have it. Count yourself now among the enlightened. Alternatively, feel free to mount a critique against my logic, but be prepared for failure, as my position is based on axioms that are objective and undeniable.
