Reply #5: The philosophical origins of praxeology are Kantian. [View All]

[Coffee and Cake]

Kant believed that there were certain principles that formed our basis of knowledge--as rules of logic, the idea that every effect has a cause, and that objects exist--that are so fundamental to our understanding, that without them no meaningful experience would be possible. That all knowledge of such principles cannot come from the outside (i.e empirical observation), but must be a synthetic a priori true (i.e. self-evident truths).

For Mises, economic knowledge also had an a synthetic a prior true proposition for necessary meaningful experience and is is that humans beings act and engage in a purposeful manner. To act means: To choose a goal and resort to means in order to attain that goal sought.

One of the earliest and strongest criticism of praxeology was Terrence Hutchinson and his book, "The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory". Hutchinson argued that economics should be molded after the natural science, which clearly differentiates metaphysical speculation from objective empiricism. Not only did Hutchinson attack Mises's praxeology, but also Mill's "moral science" and Keynes's "normative science".

As for (most) government being bad, this is a rather nebulous statement. I prefer to debate on more specific terms such as provision of public goods or environmental regulations. In general, libertarians first see the government as a coercive entity which limits freedom. They also believe strongly in negative rights and the non-aggression principle. I think the main objective of libertarianism is that they solely rely upon negative rights in their explanation of liberty; absence of the obstructions or impediments are negative. Coercion happens when man or government alters nature to force another to act in a way that they would not originally, even if it is to force the individual into making a "lesser of two evils" decision.

The modern liberal believes in various bundles of "subsistence rights"; that all people should be guaranteed basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, education, medical) and that meeting these rights requires a valid form of coercion via government. Where liberals see this as a benevolent act where the means justify the ends, the libertarian views coercion, no matter how good the outcome, as a malevolent act. Another example is anti-discrimination laws. The state, through the wishes of the people, have the right to enact anti-discrimination laws in order to have men and women compete on the same playing field. Liberals see this as rational and that the state is in a prime position to impose on people what they "should" desire rather than what they actually desire. That granting this positive right is reasonable and justifies the taking away someone's right to discriminate.

If you can build upon the necessity of "subsistence" and positive rights in society, then you can strengthen your argument that government is not a necessary evil, but rather a benevolent entity.