# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Questions regarding the Fundammentals of Human Action-Rothbard

## BV2

I am reading _Man, Economy, and State_, starting from the beginning in the hopes of alleviating myself of some of this painful ignorance.  I have just completed the first section on the, "Fundamentals of Human Action," and I have some questions.

Rothbard writes of human action, "All human beings _act_ by virtue of their existence and their nature as human beings.  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.  Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human," (Rothbard 2). It seems to me he's made a mistake.  To say that only humans behave purposefully  seems like a gross misjudgement, indeed even the interpretation of action doesn't belong to a sapien monopoly.

Take dogs.  A dog is constipated.  A dog eats grass for the diuretic effect that it has.  That is, the dog uses means in pursuit of a more satisfactory state of being.  Fundamentally, how is this different from a human taking diuretics?  Ignoring the vastly more complex chain of production involved in the use of diuretics.

So I suppose the question is: Can other species act purposefully, ie use means in the present with some sort of intention of achieving a more satisfied state in the future?  I believe it so.

Rothbard writes of recipes, or "technological ideas", ie how means are employed.  He makes the claim that once a technological idea is learned it becomes a general condition, or an inextinguishable and unaffectable element in the environment.  I think this is close, but not quite.  Ideas may be forgotten, thus require maintenance (generally through the application of such ideas).  Original ideas, also, lose their value as more accurate ideas grow out of them.  This encourages an individual to constantly improve an already learned technological recipe, by innovation or adaptation, which implies a thing in flux-not a general condition.  My question is, shouldn't technological recipes be considered a capital good rather than general conditions.

Oh, and how would intellectual property differ from a technological recipe.

I will come back with more questions, thanks in advance to anyone that involves themselves in this.  Its for another's good, but you aren't being forced. haha.

----------


## presence



----------


## presence

> My question is, shouldn't technological recipes be considered a capital good rather than general conditions.


capital goods are finite; there are only so many trees; diamonds, etc.   If I ponder hard enough... I can't manifest diamond from thin air.   If I ponder hard enough... I can manifest the same recipe as you.  Ideas are without bound. 




> Oh, and how would intellectual property differ from a technological recipe.


I don't see a difference; synonym

----------


## BV2

> capital goods are finite; there are only so many trees; diamonds, etc.   If I ponder hard enough... I can't manifest diamond from thin air.   If I ponder hard enough... I can manifest the same recipe as you.  Ideas are without bound. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a difference; synonym


But the idea itself takes time to implement, thus
making it finite.  ie the elements necessary to employing the idea are limited.

----------


## presence

> But the idea itself takes time to implement, thus
> making it finite.  ie the elements necessary to employing the idea are limited.


The time you have into "creating an idea" has no inherent value.  
Nobody owes you anything for that; certainly not more time to implement it. 

The value of property exists only in exchange and is ever fleeting from that moment.

----------


## BV2

> The time you have into "creating an idea" has no inherent value.  
> Nobody owes you anything for that; certainly not more time to implement it. 
> 
> The value of property exists only in exchange and is ever fleeting from that moment.


Certainly no one owes me for the time required to implement and idea, but that doesn't change the fact that time, which is a means, is required.  So an autistic exchange does take place.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Mises is the father of 'Human Action'. 

*A Treatise on Economics: Human Action (pdf)*

----------


## BV2

> Mises is the father of 'Human Action'. 
> 
> *A Treatise on Economics: Human Action (pdf)*


Granted, but I am talking about the first chapter of Murray Rothbard's book.  I thought I made that clear in the title of the thread.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Granted, but I am talking about the first chapter of Murray Rothbard's book. I thought I made that clear in the title of the thread.


You did. I just supplied you with a better and more authoritative source.  Take it or leave it. Good luck!

----------


## BV2

> You did. I just supplied you with a better and more authoritative source.  Take it or leave it. Good luck!


I see I've found an arbiter.  What a relief! Stagnant dweller of ideas that sit.

----------


## presence

> So an autistic exchange does take place.


Certainly an autistic exchange is made when you exchange your time for knowledge. 

But that doesn't mean uncle should thump me on the head with a stick if I arrive at the same tidbit of wisdom thereafter and capitalize upon it first.

----------


## BV2

> Certainly an autistic exchange is made when you exchange your time for knowledge. 
> 
> But that doesn't mean uncle should thump me on the head with a stick if I arrive at the same tidbit of wisdom thereafter and capitalize upon it first.


Yeah, no doubt.  My point is if an exchange is taking place when it is used then an idea/technological recipe doesn't become a general condition once learned.

----------


## Xerographica

Hmmm.   Ever wondered why humans are exceptionally intelligent?  Here's my theory and some relevant clips.  

Let me cut to the chase on Rothbard.  His diagnosis of the fundamental problem with government was correct... (unable to correctly valuate public goods)... but his prescription was incorrect (eliminate the government).   Public goods can be correctly valuated simply by allowing people to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism FAQ).

Here are the two relevant papers by Rothbard...

Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics
The Myth of Neutral Taxation 

The fundamental problem with Netflix is that the "leaders" of Netflix are unable to correctly valuate shows/movies.  They aren't mind-readers.  They can't reach into your mind and pull out your valuation of Charmed.  Sure, they have access to your star ratings... but ratings, like ballot votes, cost you absolutely nothing.  There's zero opportunity cost.  When you give Charmed 5 stars you really aren't _demonstrating_ your preference.  You're simply _stating_ your preference.  The solution would be to allow Netflix users to allocate their fees.  You would be able to spend all of your Netflix fees on Charmed.  Would you be willing to spend all your Netflix fees on Charmed?  I don't know.  I'm not a mind-reader.  

Demonstrating preference allows people to indicate *how much* they value things.   This quantification of value is necessary in order to determine the most valuable allocation of society's limited resources.  

Do people understand the importance of being able to demonstrate preference?  Nope.  Even the people most familiar with Austrian economics don't understand the importance of demonstrating preference.  If they did... then this forum would facilitate micropayments.  You would be able to demonstrate your preference for this thread.  I would be able to demonstrate my preference for your thread.  Anybody could demonstrate their preference for your thread and everybody could demonstrate their preferences for the replies to your thread.  

If everybody's valuations were far more accessible, then everybody's decisions would be far more valuable.

----------

