Adam Smith said that ‘the propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals.’ Smith addressed the mark of the man economical, and there is no denying that this is the peculiar way he acts: clearly, to truck, barter and exchange is to act in a certain way. Austrian economics adopts this way of looking at the realm of economics. It prides itself as a (...) theory of human action. This claim seems ill-founded as long as so important a contribution as Ludwig von Mises’s praxeology remains insufficiently understood. In this paper, I address Barry Smith’s charge that in praxeology ‘other core notions, in addition to the concept of action, have been smuggled into and the theory is therefore not purely analytic’. I offer logical proofs of two cornerstone theorems of praxeology, the uneasiness theorem and the scarcity theorem, and thus provide vindication. Also, the findings support Mises’s controversial claim that economics is a priori founded in action theory. Thus, Carl Menger’s dream to lay foundations to economics and the other social sciences may have come true in the guise of praxeology. (shrink)

Philosophical action theory seems to be in pretty good shape. The same may not be true for the study of human action in economics. Famous is the rant that the study of human action in economics gives reason to tremble for the reputation of the subject. But how does this come about? Since economic action is about action, the broader study must surely have a strong impact on the more specific field. The paper sets out, from the ground up, how (...) an essential concept in economic theory–the concept of competition–can fundamentally benefit from insights derived exclusively from analytical action theory broadly conceived. In doing so, the paper delivers on an old Austrian promise: it is sometimes claimed that Austrian economists understand competition better than most economists. This may be a bold claim, since Austrian economists have neither traced the understanding of subjectivity to its very origin (the theory of intentionality), nor have they traced their sympathy for methodological individualism in relation to market processes to its very ground (the theory of (human) action). This paper aims to fill this gap. Moreover, by grounding an Austrian view of competition in analytic action theory, it succeeds in avoiding the serious problems of the dominant equilibrium approach. By explaining competition as rivalry, the paper draws on the philosophy and logic of human action to bring the (economic) agent back into play. In this way, a case is made for an integrated view of Austrian theory as an amalgam of Austrian economics and analytic action theory. (shrink)

The theory of the just price is commonly assumed to have three sources: Political philosophy of Greek antiquity, scholastic ethics of the High Middle Ages, and the Roman law of obligations of late antiquity. While closer inspection confirms this holds for the first two worlds of thought the latter assumption seems ultimately unfounded. The paper claims that the evidence notoriously presented on behalf of that assumption – two rescripts attributed to Roman emperor Diocletian, namely Codex Iustinianus 4.44.2 and 4.44.8 – (...) ultimately points in another direction. Offering both an analysis and an alternative reading of the rescripts an integrated interpretation is given that reconciles them with the “liberalistic spirit of Roman law”. Also, it is explained why, from the point of view of legal and social philosophy, the fact that Roman law refrains from introducing a moral aspect to the institute of price fixing speaks in favour of Roman law rather than against it. [in German]. (shrink)