cabinetguy on Nostr: I disagree that most Austrians claim their conclusions about human action or ...
I disagree that most Austrians claim their conclusions about human action or economics as their reasoning for their positions on ethics. I can see how these might get conflated though since Austrian economics shows that the libertarian ethics of the NAP and property rights would also lead to higher standards of living.
I don’t think the action axiom is affected by environmental factors etc. it just says that humans take action in order to improve conditions. The conclusions that are drawn from that would be no different after introducing any of things you mentioned.
It’s a total straw man to say that Austrians suggest that the whole school of thought must be true because a few of its points are accepted. Although as an unimportant side note on this topic, there’s a difference between recognizing marginal utility and recognizing the ordinal nature of utility which I don’t think is so mainstream, although I could be wrong.
What’s an example of a conclusion that Austrians draw from the action axiom which you disagree with? Or is it just a disagreement with the methodology?
I don’t think the action axiom is affected by environmental factors etc. it just says that humans take action in order to improve conditions. The conclusions that are drawn from that would be no different after introducing any of things you mentioned.
It’s a total straw man to say that Austrians suggest that the whole school of thought must be true because a few of its points are accepted. Although as an unimportant side note on this topic, there’s a difference between recognizing marginal utility and recognizing the ordinal nature of utility which I don’t think is so mainstream, although I could be wrong.
What’s an example of a conclusion that Austrians draw from the action axiom which you disagree with? Or is it just a disagreement with the methodology?