> Microeconomics is a counter-example. There's also game theory and personal psychology. I guess it depends on what you consider useful.
I won't get bothered over the term "useful". I mean "non-trivial", basically. It's true that microeconomics, game theory, and personal psychology discuss individual-level actions quite a bit. What they don't do, because they generally know better, is discuss group-level actions.
And that's my point.
Unless you have an actual example of a discussion of a group entity, such as a government, in any of these fields? Surely personal psychology doesn't discuss how a high school clique acts in response to another high school clique?
> I guess I concern myself with the the largest of these groups, the human species. While cultures and economic landscapes change, the basic tenants of Praxeology and value-theory do not. Preference and desire is present in all acting humans, and I think these realities can be best used to explain why actions are taken.
But this is not real.
We have families. We have congregations. We have teams. We have armies. We have governments. We have mafias. We have corporations. We have meetups. We have discussion groups. We have social networks.
Pretending that these do not exist is not empiricism. It's confirmation bias. It's walking along a river and throwing frogs over to the other side because your hypothesis said they wouldn't be on this side.
> I'm not claiming individuals don't act differently based on their setting and peers, just that these phenomenas can be observed at the individual level in an empirical fashion. If it isn't, then your group knowledge is limited.
Show me. You're claiming to have a lot of empirical evidence. Show me.
> That I didn't make an incorrect statement?
You claimed that I made a false dichotomy when I said you could either evaluate only at the individual level OR have the capacity to talk about group-level effects.
To prove that this is a false dichotomy, you have to present a third alternative. That's what makes a false dichotomy false. You haven't done this.
> I would argue that libertarians believe in the antithesis of authoritarianism, and that they have economic and philosophical principles for believing so.
So what is it? Is libertarianism about some vague antithesis of authoritarianism, or is libertarianism a framework for analyzing human action? Those aren't the same thing.
You're the one who came in here with guns blazing saying that I didn't have a sufficient grasp on libertarian philosophy. Now every time I bring up another dimension of libertarianism, you change what you claim it is. How about starting from some of your axioms and principles and just flat-out explaining it like I'm five?
> What they don't do, because they generally know better, is discuss group-level actions.
I'll happily google for you, but I feel like you're not even trying. If you would just look over the wiki for game-theory you'd see economics is one of it's main applications.
As for economics, there's an entire field called behavioral economics. It's about the impact of the individual psyche on the market place, which also incorporates many aspects of game theory.
Value isn't real? Preference isn't real? Drive isn't real? Help me out here.
> Pretending that these do not exist is not empiricism. It's confirmation bias.
I don't know why you think I don't believe social groups. I only claimed that libertarians don't recognize the "rights" of groups, which is completely different.
>> I'm not claiming individuals don't act differently based on their setting and peers, just that these phenomenas can be observed at the individual level in an empirical fashion.
> Show me. You're claiming to have a lot of empirical evidence. Show me.
> To prove that this is a false dichotomy, you have to present a third alternative.
The alternative to "So what's the incorrect statement here" is that I didn't make an incorrect statement. The burden on proof is on you to show that "If this were actually true, then libertarians couldn't say anything useful about groups of people". I've provided numerous examples of how actions can be evaluated at the individual level to predict the outcome of a group in the wikis I've linked to. Even the study of market failure is well in the domain of the micro economist.
> So what is it? Is libertarianism about some vague antithesis of authoritarianism, or is libertarianism a framework for analyzing human action?
I claimed it's a philosophy about human action. This entails a framework for analyzing action, that also concludes authoritarianism is not compatible with maximizing the satisfaction of the individual's preference -- which would lead to the next topic of discussion which is value theory.
> How about starting from some of your axioms and principles
Don't take other people's things that don't belong to you, because you wouldn't want your stuff taken from you. Don't start fights with the other kids, because you wouldn't want them to start a fight with you. If you do start a fight, expect conflict and escalation. If you're bullied, feel free to defend yourself because you're not obligated to be bullied.
I won't get bothered over the term "useful". I mean "non-trivial", basically. It's true that microeconomics, game theory, and personal psychology discuss individual-level actions quite a bit. What they don't do, because they generally know better, is discuss group-level actions.
And that's my point.
Unless you have an actual example of a discussion of a group entity, such as a government, in any of these fields? Surely personal psychology doesn't discuss how a high school clique acts in response to another high school clique?
> I guess I concern myself with the the largest of these groups, the human species. While cultures and economic landscapes change, the basic tenants of Praxeology and value-theory do not. Preference and desire is present in all acting humans, and I think these realities can be best used to explain why actions are taken.
But this is not real.
We have families. We have congregations. We have teams. We have armies. We have governments. We have mafias. We have corporations. We have meetups. We have discussion groups. We have social networks.
Pretending that these do not exist is not empiricism. It's confirmation bias. It's walking along a river and throwing frogs over to the other side because your hypothesis said they wouldn't be on this side.
> I'm not claiming individuals don't act differently based on their setting and peers, just that these phenomenas can be observed at the individual level in an empirical fashion. If it isn't, then your group knowledge is limited.
Show me. You're claiming to have a lot of empirical evidence. Show me.
> That I didn't make an incorrect statement?
You claimed that I made a false dichotomy when I said you could either evaluate only at the individual level OR have the capacity to talk about group-level effects.
To prove that this is a false dichotomy, you have to present a third alternative. That's what makes a false dichotomy false. You haven't done this.
> I would argue that libertarians believe in the antithesis of authoritarianism, and that they have economic and philosophical principles for believing so.
So what is it? Is libertarianism about some vague antithesis of authoritarianism, or is libertarianism a framework for analyzing human action? Those aren't the same thing.
You're the one who came in here with guns blazing saying that I didn't have a sufficient grasp on libertarian philosophy. Now every time I bring up another dimension of libertarianism, you change what you claim it is. How about starting from some of your axioms and principles and just flat-out explaining it like I'm five?