[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus,

precisely which of von Mises' axioms do you take issue with, and why? I'm not an ACer, just interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the ACists will claim that everything can be derived from "self-ownership". That in and of itself is debatable, since at the very least that can be considered an oxy-moron. However, most of my issues relate to dogma such as "monopolies can only arise in a state", "the free market is the perfect solution to everything". You can compile a pretty exhaustive list of them by searching on borodog. The majority of his AC posts contain one or more leaps that don't have any empirical or logical support. (You can skip the lindy hop posts)

[/ QUOTE ]

The core axiom of Austrian theory is that human beings act; that is, exchange a less favorable state of personal affairs for a more favorable state of personal affairs. I view this as self-evident, and the fact that literally every psychology professor I ever had at my state-funded college agreed with it makes me not inclined to argue it.

The other things, like self-ownership (and to a much greater extent, state monopolies) are deduced a priori from the axiom of human action. They're certainly open to debate, but it's not fair to view them as isolated, dogmatic axioms when they're deduced by more fundamental logical elements. "Property" isn't so much a dogmatic, moral mandate in Austrian theory; it's a strategy to maximize subjective human well-being.

You've been debating Austrian theory on this forum for over a year now, Copernicus. The axiom of human action is the core element to anarcho-capitalist thought. It's what borodog would teach on day one of his AC 101 class. If you don't know this yet, perhaps it's time to either read something about Austrian thought without automatically trying to attack it, or just stop.