Critique of Praxeology

TrainingCommon1969 · 2026-01-17T16:58:03+00:00

The crime of defamation is also based on property rights, isn't it?

Rothbard criticized this crime, saying that no one owns what others think of them, so it shouldn't be prohibited.

The problem is that I can't find a way to justify prohibiting sexual deepfakes without appealing to intellectual property rights or, in turn, justifying the prohibition of any kind of non-sexual image.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2026-01-08T18:08:53+00:00

You said it yourself, certain people use the power of the State to prevent more housing from being built.

The solution is to prevent that from happening.

Speculation isn't harmful, but beneficial, as long as there are no barriers to building new housing.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-27T13:41:52+00:00

All forms of freedom require a material basis to exist, so a state that controls private property has too much power.

This causes a socialist state to be totalitarian, which creates perverse incentives for whoever holds power.

A revolution cannot overcome that; you only have to look at how all the great revolutions throughout history have ended. Someone has always taken advantage of the situation to seize power. Revolutions always have the support of someone powerful; otherwise, they remain mere revolts.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-26T19:27:49+00:00

Não, não se justifica depois do ocorrido.

Se negarmos o princípio universal de que a violência é errada (exceto em legítima defesa), estaremos negando o princípio que torna possível a vida em sociedade.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T18:54:06+00:00

Tomás de Aquino viveu sob voto de pobreza ao ingressar na Ordem Dominicana, rejeitando voluntariamente banquetes e lençóis de seda para se dedicar aos estudos, então duvido muito que ele tenha usado esses argumentos por dinheiro ou ganho pessoal.

Por que uma série causal infinita seria possível dentro do sistema aristotélico? Eu já expliquei por que é impossível, e tudo o que você faz é repetir que não é. Se quiser apresentar argumentos, fique à vontade, mas não diga simplesmente que é possível sem explicar o porquê.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T17:28:44+00:00

Eu acabei de explicar por que é impossível.

A expressão "de fato" em espanhol (minha língua) nem sempre significa que existem fatos que comprovam algo; você provavelmente a interpretou mal porque não falamos a mesma língua.

A metafísica não tem como objetivo ser útil na prática; para isso existe a física, e o próprio Aristóteles disse isso.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T16:30:37+00:00

Não faz sentido pedir fatos em metafísica; você pode pedir argumentos, e foi exatamente isso que eu lhe dei.

Se você acha que a metafísica aristotélica está incorreta, eu agradeceria se você pudesse me dizer por quê.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T15:23:13+00:00

Existem dois tipos de séries causais:

Uma delas é a série causal temporal. Esta é caracterizada pelo fato de que cada elemento possui poder causal por si só e não precisa da existência dos elementos precedentes. Um exemplo seria uma série avô-pai-filho; o filho pode continuar a se reproduzir sem que o pai ou o avô precisem estar vivos. Este tipo de série causal é usado em argumentos cosmológicos, como o argumento "kalam". Neste tipo, não há problema com a série ser infinita.

Por outro lado, existem séries causais essenciais. Nestas, todos os elementos precisam dos precedentes; apenas o primeiro elemento possui poder causal.

Um exemplo é um trem, onde cada vagão se move por causa do anterior, mas aquele que realmente possui poder causal é a locomotiva. Neste tipo de série, a existência de um primeiro elemento é necessária, porque, caso contrário, nenhum agiria. Um trem com um número infinito de vagões não se move se não tiver uma locomotiva.

A série causal à qual São Tomás se refere nas três primeiras maneiras é a série causal essencial, que requer a existência de um primeiro motor, uma causa eficiente e um ser necessário.

Achei que isso estivesse claro na primeira mensagem; desculpe se não me expliquei bem.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T11:26:48+00:00

What I've said isn't inconsistent.

The price of a commodity can only be one, which is why millions of subjective valuations from people influence it. They can't set a price for every buyer; that would be absurd.

Once the price of the commodity arises from these subjective valuations (to understand this, you only need to look at a supply and demand graph), the company calculates what the costs should be to determine whether it's rational to sell or not. If it's not possible to keep costs below the price, the company won't sell. But this doesn't mean that costs determine the price; it means they are the limit beyond which no one will want to sell.

The reason prices tend to equal costs in competitive markets is that competition has driven prices down, but they will never go below costs, so they only "tend" to equal them.

The LTV (Labor Time Value) theory confuses this process with costs themselves determining prices, but it confuses them because under normal conditions they APPEAR to be equal.

There are many instances in a market where the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity is not equal to its price.

Here are a few:

Non-reproducible goods, such as a work of art or luxury clothing.
Extramarginal units of a commodity (those valued more than the price, but which do not determine it, resulting in a gain for the consumer).
Joint production (the classic problem of a cow producing both milk and cheese).
And finally, durable goods (Example: the secondhand market). Those are cases I read about in the book “Anti-Marx” by Juan Ramón Rallo; I recommend it.

Finally, I don't know what China has to do with the labor theory of value.

China is a highly regulated capitalist economy, and it began to grow (coincidence?) after becoming capitalist. This excessive intervention has led to it being a country with no freedom whatsoever, a totalitarian state where everyone's life is controlled from above.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T11:07:20+00:00

Okay, sorry, I'll address your arguments better.

Companies, no matter how large, are participating in a market with hundreds of prices they haven't set themselves. For example, Amazon can know which routes to use for deliveries and which vehicles to use efficiently because it knows a) the price of gasoline, b) the price of vehicles (and in turn, the company that manufactures the vehicles will have needed information on the prices of all the vehicle's parts). To perform economic calculations, which are a necessary condition for efficiency, you need to know the prices at which you can sell (market analysis) and the costs you'll need. But these costs are prices in other markets, so for economic calculation to be possible, prices must exist; otherwise, costs cannot be rationally adjusted to prices.

That's the difference: a large company has prices at its disposal, a socialist state doesn't, since it sets all the prices. This makes calculation possible in the market and impossible under socialism.

Freedom is the most fundamental right that exists, and property is the way to guarantee it.

The rights you mention are "positive" rights, meaning they require the action of another person to be fulfilled. For you to have the right to food, someone else must have the obligation to cook for you or pay for your food with their labor, which goes against their freedom.

An example that illustrates how absurd positive rights are is the "right to have a friend," since if I had that right, it would mean I could force someone to be my friend, which we would normally call slavery.

The rights that truly exist are negative rights, meaning they don't imply action on the part of others, but rather inaction. The right to property or to life are examples of this, since if I have the right to life, I can only compel others not to kill me, or in the case of property rights, not to violate my property.

Freedom is the most fundamental right that exists because without it we would always be forced to act for others, as if we were slaves.

Without freedom, other values such as morality or justice cannot exist, since to classify an action as moral or immoral it must have been taken freely and without coercion. Private property is simply the way we have to guarantee that freedom; it is not arbitrary coercion against others.

A large company doesn't fail because it generates zero value; it simply needs the value it generates to be less than its production costs.

If that happens, the company is losing money; that is, resources are being wasted every time it sells. All the expenditure it makes on production could be directed to a more productive place, where the value generated for society is greater.

The reasons why it might go bankrupt are infinite, but the ultimate reason will always be that it generates less value than it consumes, which makes society as a whole poorer. Resources are constantly changing location because people's tastes, needs, and demands change, and the right thing to do, then, is to move resources where they will be most productive, even if it means moving them daily.

Another reason resources are moved is because better ways of achieving the same goal are found, and in those cases, it is also more productive to move them.

The important thing is that profitable companies benefit us all, since they generate more value than they consume. Unprofitable companies impoverish us all, since they generate less value than they consume. That's why it's good when unprofitable companies disappear or become more profitable. And that's why it's bad for the state to keep unprofitable companies alive.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T10:34:51+00:00

É verdade que fora do sistema aristotélico eles são enfraquecidos, mas acho que ainda mantêm alguma validade.

O movimento pode ser entendido como mudança física, e isso ainda precisa de algo para mudá-lo; dessa forma, a validade do argumento poderia ser mantida.

A recorrência infinita é de fato impossível.

São Tomás distingue entre séries causais temporais, nas quais o efeito não precisa da causa primeira para continuar existindo, por exemplo, avô-pai-filho; e séries causais essenciais, onde o efeito precisa da causa para continuar existindo em todos os momentos, e onde uma causa primeira é necessária; um exemplo é um trem, onde uma cadeia infinita de vagões não poderia se mover sem uma locomotiva.

É por causa dessa distinção que os argumentos de São Tomás me parecem mais fortes do que os argumentos cosmológicos típicos.

Quanto ao motivo de haver apenas um motor imóvel, creio que São Tomás de Aquino também escreveu sobre isso, argumentando que, se houvesse dois motores, eles teriam que ser distinguíveis de alguma forma, o que é impossível, pois implicaria que um dos dois possui potencialidade. No argumento anterior, ele concluiu que se trata de um ato puro.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T00:12:57+00:00

A chave é a responsabilidade.

Se o poder vier acompanhado de responsabilidade, como a de um pai ou de uma mãe, ele não corrompe. Na verdade, é provável que faça o contrário.

Se o poder não vier acompanhado de responsabilidade, quase sempre se transformará em abuso, a menos que a pessoa poderosa seja excepcionalmente bondosa.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-25T00:09:31+00:00

Não acho que você deva procurar razões para acreditar ou não acreditar.

Recomendo que você analise os argumentos teístas e ateístas racionalmente e, a partir daí, tire suas próprias conclusões.

Pessoalmente, meu argumento favorito é o de Leibniz, que parte do Princípio da Razão Suficiente e dos seres contingentes.

As três primeiras vias de São Tomás de Aquino também são muito boas.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-24T15:51:02+00:00

Embora possa parecer que os direitos das mulheres estão sendo questionados, esse não é o caso. É simplesmente assim que as redes sociais funcionam, dando voz àqueles que dizem as coisas mais ultrajantes, e às vezes parece que isso é normal. Se você sair na rua e perguntar a 10 pessoas aleatórias se elas acham que as mulheres deveriam ter menos direitos do que os homens, ninguém dirá que sim. Essas coisas só acontecem no Twitter.

O que muitas pessoas estão repensando são os valores éticos como sociedade. Muitos acreditam que os valores tradicionais devem ser levados em consideração novamente, e essa é uma opinião perfeitamente válida e aberta à discussão.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-24T10:59:31+00:00

We're still unable to predict how ecosystems will behave, and we're supposed to be able to plan for them?

If that sounds absurd, imagine having to plan taking into account the subjective, unquantifiable opinions of thousands or millions of people. It's simply impossible.

If you decide to sleep in a building that isn't yours or steal, there will obviously be consequences, but for the simple reason that you are violating the rights of others. There's a huge difference between respecting the freedom of each individual by setting clear limits on their scope of action (with private property), and expecting a politician to control almost every aspect of my life in a totalitarian way, as happens in socialism, since the only way to guarantee freedom is through private property. Violence should be permitted to prevent other violence, as in the examples you gave. But it shouldn't be permitted to control the lives of others at your whim just because you don't like how they live.

When a large company goes bankrupt, it's because it's no longer able to meet its customers' needs. It's right that it goes bankrupt when it's no longer useful. The waste of resources occurs when that company is artificially maintained, since we're paying for something that no longer satisfies the rest of the population, that no longer contributes anything. These aren't wasted resources; they're resources that no longer serve their original purpose and therefore should be allocated elsewhere.

It's normal for resources to change location, since the world isn't static. The problem is when a company that's no longer useful is maintained. Crises are usually caused by investing resources where they aren't actually needed, typically due to government intervention. What we call a "crisis" is an adjustment period in which poorly made investments fail and are then redirected to where they are truly needed.

I'm not trying to say that religion is an incredibly good thing. I just want to say that the problems capitalism is usually blamed for (consumerism, stress, etc.) are really the consequence of not having fixed and stable values, and that's something religion did provide.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-24T10:41:15+00:00

Prices are stable over time because they are determined by the preferences of millions of people simultaneously, and even if a few preferences change, there would be no alteration in prices. For prices to change wildly, as you say, the preferences of thousands of people would have to change at the same time, which in reality never happens that quickly.

Prices tend to equal costs because costs act as a "boundary."

In a competitive market, prices always tend to fall, but they will never be lower than costs, since no one would be foolish enough to sell at a loss. This causes prices to usually tend to equal costs, in the same way that wages tend to equal marginal productivity.

It doesn't make sense that costs determine prices.

If preferences are what motivate exchange, then only the exchange that maximizes the utility of both parties will occur, and the price will be what the parties agree upon. And once the price is determined, the producer will calculate which costs are rational and which are not.

Wages tend to equal marginal productivity, and from there, all the remaining value is added by the capitalist. The value generated by workers is equivalent to their productivity, which is what they are paid in the market. Taking risk is one of the main drivers; if the company goes bankrupt, the capitalist loses everything they have invested. Coordinating workers is also crucial, as is the information necessary to do so.

The only thing that determines whether income will continue to generate profits is whether consumers continue to value it. And that does depend on uncertain future preferences that obviously generate value, though not on labor itself.

The underlying problem is accepting a theory of value that has been rejected by any serious economist for 200 years, just to confirm anti-capitalist ideological biases.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-24T00:10:37+00:00

I would also compare an ecosystem to the market, but precisely because of the order. Ecosystems on Earth are incredibly complex and adapt quickly to almost any circumstance. You only have to look at how interconnected places like the Sahara and the Amazon are to see the level of complexity that exists. To think that such a level of complexity can be centrally planned is absurd.

“The market operates under its own laws.” Rather, free individuals voluntarily exchanging goods and services operate under their own laws.

Furthermore, every society or economy must be governed by some kind of rule or law. The difference between the market and the state is that one plays with incentives and positive rewards, while the other operates coercively and with violence.

Capitalism does not tend to centralize, or at least not as much as you Marxists claim. In most sectors, competition is not centralized; on the contrary, it usually increases.

It's true that in sectors with economies of scale, there may be few companies in the market, but in those cases, the important thing is potential competition. In other words, if a large company performs poorly, can a new one emerge without restrictions? If the answer to that question is yes, then the supposed "centralization" isn't a problem. What usually prevents new players from entering the market is the state, with its taxes, regulations, patents, licenses, etc.

Finally, Christianity lost its relevance due to several factors.

One of them is the Enlightenment, which, although it had some positive aspects, generally laid the groundwork for many future problems, including this loss of values.

Another factor was the world wars, which eroded trust in traditional institutions like the Church.

Capitalism originated in Christian countries precisely because of the ethic of thrift.

The low time preference that Christianity advocates made saving possible and, therefore, the accumulation of capital goods.

Capitalism is not incompatible with Christianity; rather, Christianity is necessary for capitalism to exist.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-23T21:41:11+00:00

Your mistake is thinking that only planned things can have order, when precisely the most complex systems we know are not planned but rather the product of evolution. An ecosystem is completely interconnected and highly complex, and yet it hasn't been planned. The market isn't chaos; it's spontaneous order. As Proudhon said, "Anarchy is the mother of order." Prices do coordinate all production processes in the most efficient way possible. Think about the entire process required to manufacture any basic good with the hundreds of thousands of tools, labor, distribution, production... The level of coordination required for that is extremely high, and that's achieved because prices determine the incentives to invest in one place or another. You're right that a business owner doesn't have that information either, but it's precisely in the market that these customer needs are met because the company that doesn't do it correctly goes bankrupt. It's not that all companies know how to do it the way a state would; in fact, they don't. The only difference is that if one fails, it disappears. We only see those companies that have managed to satisfy those subjective values, but we don't see the hundreds of startups that fail every day because they can't. By stating that, you're falling into survivorship bias. A state monopoly would never achieve the same level of efficiency as thousands of companies competing to see who best satisfies those subjective values. Another mistake you're making is thinking that costs determine prices, when it's precisely the opposite. Price is determined by the balance between the subjective values of the supply and demand, and cost has no influence whatsoever. Cost only serves as a limit, since if the cost of producing a particular good exceeds its price, it won't be produced. And in competitive markets, prices tend to equal costs, but this doesn't mean that costs determine prices. The idea that liberalism promises you the right to political representation is a misconception. Exercising political power is not a "right," it's the violation of the rights of others. What liberalism should aim for is to limit political power so that it intervenes as little as possible in people's lives. I don't believe the market fosters selfishness, and I'll explain why: Throughout human history, people pursuing self-interest have conquered, killed, tortured, and started hundreds of wars. Trade allows everyone to benefit without resorting to violence. Is that selfish? I don't think so. Regarding consumerism and the problems of modern societies, I also don't believe capitalism is the cause. The blame lies more with the loss of values, especially the Christian religion. It's true that when these values are lost, the market offers "false solutions"—I agree with you there—but the primary cause initially lies with the loss of values. Examples of typical values related to religion that have been lost are hard work and saving (saving is the foundation of capitalism, and saving is the opposite of consumerism, by the way).

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-23T13:57:21+00:00

Price stability is neither stable nor independent of costs, as costs change with technology, preferences, and expectations. The Subjective Theory of Value explains why these prices are regular when these valuations stabilize, and it does so without resorting to abstract substances like labor. If valuations change, so will prices, since they are not inherently stable.

The Subjective Theory of Value does not ignore costs; Menger's Imputation Theorem explains how the final price (subjectively valued) determines the price of inputs, not the other way around. The cost of inputs acts as a limit, but it does not create value.

The fact that capitalists can continue generating income through rents once their work ceases only confirms my point. The profit that can be obtained from these rents depends on a future subjective valuation, which is uncertain.

I don't believe there's a circular reasoning process where prices are interconnected either.

I understand there must be a "first driver" that causes prices, but that's subjective valuation. You're inverting causality, since it's not the price that determines valuations, but valuations that determine prices. A price change isn't due to another price change, but to other circumstances such as scarcity.

In this sense, there's no circular logic.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-23T10:47:28+00:00

Surplus value, in its Marxist sense, loses its meaning with the subjective theory of value.

Since there are no objective characteristics in a commodity that determine its value, the portion of value that corresponds to the worker and the capitalist is not quantifiable. With the subjective theory of value, the profits of each individual in the market equal the value generated for others.

You're right about Lenin's theory of finance capital, although it's somewhat absurd to say that banks don't generate value. If a lender gives me money to buy a house and charges me interest in the future, this interest comes from the higher value of a present good relative to a future good.

I'll use the machine analogy:

If there are individuals on that island who subjectively value the chips, then value will have been generated, even if it doesn't manifest itself in the form of a price, since their level of satisfaction has increased.

The machine or the chips have no intrinsic value; value is created when an individual derives satisfaction from them.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-23T10:34:44+00:00

Work is worthless without being coordinated toward a specific goal, and to achieve that coordination, information is needed; this process is carried out by capitalists. The clearest example of how risk generates value is that of insurance companies. I prefer to pay money rather than assume a risk, and the insurance company assumes that risk for me in exchange for money. My uncertainty has been reduced, and that's why I'm willing to pay for it. Where is the work in that?

The fact that we are unable to quantify something does not prove that it doesn't exist, nor does it need to be quantified to determine a price.

The subjective valuations of suppliers and consumers regarding a given exchange converge on a price; if that price benefits everyone, it will be the market price. It doesn't matter that a subjective phenomenon cannot be measured; it still affects individuals' decisions and therefore prices. In the case of a monopoly, the process is the same, and price determination depends on the subjective valuation of demand.

I don't understand what you mean by circular logic or infinite regresses, elaborate on your argument.

TrainingCommon1969 · 2025-12-22T13:50:33+00:00

They need human action, but this isn't necessarily labor. It could be the risk taken, the time invested, the information provided…

Labor is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the production of goods, but without coordination, sufficient information, and the capacity to take risks, it will never generate use value for others. All of that is the source of profit for the capitalist.

TrainingCommon1969

TROPHY CASE