Peter,

As far as your request that i agree or disagree with chapter one, no I do not disagree with what is said.

It is a long read, but well argued, at least in accordance to my limited exposure and understanding of such terminology and writing in terms of subject matter.

I had another text on my desktop I have to absorb, truly daunting, that I mistook for yours and read several pages of before I tweeked: "The Waning of Materialism", but yours is much more accessible:

“We could not conceive of human
beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view
that they desire and attempt to attain”.

Yes, but this predicated action depends on the context, what provokes action.

“Things that did not act,
that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified
as human”.

Why not? It’s not enough to make a statement, it has to be explained and made compelling. Moreover, who does the classifying? This sounds like there’s some ultimate classification of what’s human, but that’s not established..
And yet we go from this baseless, though high-sounding, assertion to “axiomatic truth”, without any elaboration of why it’s axiomatic:
“The fact that men act by virtue of their being human is indisputable and incontrovertible”.
Why? In any case I beg to differ. Since Mises’s antediluvian days the whole concept of human nature has been thrown into question--indeed I'm having a hard time trying to defend it at the academic level.

cont...

...cont.

“the absence of motivated behavior—would apply only to plants and inorganic matter”.

Unsubstantiated hyperbole. What is behaviour motivated by? Who’s to say that behaviour is motivated by anything essentially human, and not by cultural programming?

“The first truth to be discovered about human action is that it
can be undertaken only by individual “actors.” Only individuals have
ends and can act to attain them”.

And here we go (did Thatcher write this?)! Barely two pages into it and the ideology of individualism, the mainspring, long since sprung, of liberalism is tabled without a shred of anything but hubris to back it up! We are “told”, not persuaded, but an appeal to vanity, of the first “truth”, that only the “individual” is this or that, without any consideration of what “individual” even signifies.

“There are no such things as ends
of or actions by “groups,” “collectives,” or “States,” which do not
take place as actions by various specific individuals. “Societies” or “groups” have no independent existence aside from the actions
of their individual members.” Blah blah blah.

Peter, seriously, you blow me away! I had thought you perhaps had an academic history, but surely that cannot be!
This is about as compelling as Euclid without the geometry to back him up.
I shall look at more of this as time permits.

Please be assured I’m sincere. I have no ideological agenda to defend, indeed I would be delighted to be confronted by something truly challenging on this front, but so far this is laughable!

Oh Bravo! I feel you’ve joined issue at last.

“We could not conceive of human
beings who do not act purposefully…”.

“Yes, but this predicated action depends on the context, what provokes action.”

That's true, but it doesn’t disprove the statement. It remains universally valid and axiomatic and thus gives a good root for logic to get a purchase on.

““Things that did not act,
that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified
as human”.”

“Why not? It’s not enough to make a statement, it has to be explained and made compelling.”

It is shown why, it is explained and made compelling, by the fact that the statement
a) is true and you don’t deny it
b) is universally valid (the author excludes involuntary action like the knee-jerk reflex),
c) cannot be denied without performing a self-contradiction, and
d) is therefore axiomatic.

The rest of the book explains it: it is enough at the outset to identify the building blocks on which the logical process is to operate.

(But your theory doesn’t even do that – it doesn’t provide any way for anyone – including you – to know whether or not anything is true!)

“This sounds like there’s some ultimate classification of what’s human, but that’s not established..”

On the contrary, he’s merely pointing out what we all observe and know from being human – when you see someone doing something, he’s acting to achieve a purpose – and which you cannot deny without proving the statement. That’s good enough to make it an axiom, and you haven’t shown why it doesn’t.

““The fact that men act by virtue of their being human is indisputable and incontrovertible”.
Why?

I don’t even understand your question. What else could it be? By virtue of their being dolphins? Ducks?

““the absence of motivated behavior—would apply only to plants and inorganic matter”.

“Unsubstantiated hyperbole.”

It’s substantiated by the fact that you prove it in arguing the point.

“What is behaviour motivated by?”

That’s a different question. It’s *different* for different actions. But all conscious action has *in common* that it’s motivated.

Please answer this question: how else could it be? Are people automatons?

“Who’s to say that behaviour is motivated by anything essentially human, and not by cultural programming?”

Question doesn’t make sense. Are you implying that cultural programming is not essentially human?

““There are no such things as ends
of or actions by “groups,” “collectives,” or “States,” which do not
take place as actions by various specific individuals. “Societies” or “groups” have no independent existence aside from the actions
of their individual members.”

“Peter, seriously, you blow me away!”

Well give us an example of any group action that does not take place as actions by various specific individuals.

“without any consideration of what “individual” even signifies”

What do you mean? Even a person acting on a cultural norm or as part of a group is still acting as an individual.

Now bear in mind that you are running your argument from a position that nothing can be proved.

Therefore you have not shown
• any reason disproving that it is axiomatic that human action is purposive;
• why the above is “ideology” – presumably meaning in the Marxist sense, an economic belief dictated by economic class and acting as a justification for class interests - but if not then please define what you mean by this term, on which your entire argument depends
• how you would be able to prove or know anything.

As you would say, it’s not enough to make a statement, you have to explain it and make it compelling.

You yourself engage in motivated behaviour in denying Rothbard’s argument and thereby prove him correct.

The same can’t be said of my denying your argument that nothing can be proved.

Thus you both prove my argument and disprove your own.

You may *believe* that Rothbard’s statement is not axiomatic, but you haven’t *proved* why, except by your usual method of appeal to absent authority (someone somewhere knows that it’s all nothing but ideology whatever that’s supposed to mean).

BTW you still haven’t justified any government interventions.

PH,

I was only saying that no "ultimate" is possible, ergo nothing is "axionatic". I don't require ultimate truth, of course, and the only hypostasised axiom I prefer to observe is a human system based on co-operative and sustainable co-existence. This would be better acheived for me if the competitive element were removed and the sustainably available means of existent were distributed according to reasonable need. This precludes the ideology of the free market.
I've commented a little on individuality a little elsewhere lately, where I likened it to a snowflake, all unique but still just snow. Of course we are all individuals biologically.

Much as I would love to engage with you in all this in depth, I must apologise that for at least the next 12 months that's impossible for me. I hope you're still around in a year or so, certainly these issues will be.
But for now, all I can allow myself on OLO are bagatelles.