Mises' Dogma Dilemma <-----(Praxeology/Austrian Economics): - Mis-understood by Traditional Economics for 75+ Years. Mises' skepticism of absolute systems is clear - his critique of collectivism and progress was unequivocal: "Free markets as spontaneous order" @Max captures the essence in his latest The Praxeology of Privacy v2 Book: A priori truths in praxeology: Economic laws derived deductively from action axioms, not empiricism; and it is exactly here we find that dirty phrase: ---> a prior Some fancy philosophy term used by sophisticated thinkers - which often triggers the dreaded DOGMA alert for many causual Austrian Economics thinkers, (like me). But why the alert? A prior what does it REALLY mean? The short version - some truths you can verify by thinking clearly about what words mean—you don't need to run an experiment. So what's the problem? The logic seems easy to understand - no ambiguity. “If A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then A must be taller than C.”You don’t have to go out and measure a bunch of people (A, B, and C) to check if this is true. You don’t need any real-world examples or experiments at all. As soon as you truly understand what “taller than” means, your mind can see that this has to be true—it’s built into the idea itself. It’s the same kind of thinking Mises uses for human action. Seems obvious. Mises' claims the action axiom is like this.: "Once you understand what "purposeful action" means, you can see it's true without collecting data. And if you try to argue against it, you're... acting purposefully. The denial proves the claim." This isn't dogma. It's more like noticing you can't step outside your own shadow. But in Mises' case he hits a brick wall with science. Mises' insistence on deductive, incontestable axioms seems to prioritize absolute, non-revisable truths. This is the exact kind of language that could resemble the dogmatic notions of a pompous Keynesian Eco Prof . from Yale. Hence the dilemma - freedoom in the markets, by an absolute axiom that smells like dogma. The Praxeology of Privacy echo's this in chapter 2 & 3: Chapter 3 opens with: "The Action Axiom, formulated by Ludwig von Mises, states that human action is purposeful behavior. This is not an empirical generalization subject to falsification but a self-evident truth: any attempt to deny it is itself an action, purposeful behavior directed toward convincing others, thereby confirming what it attempts to deny." I personally think Max could do a better job here - I don't disagree with the acts - but it completely misses the opportunity to show mastery of praxeolgy in action. Many NON-bitcoin people see this statement as DOGMA. Not walking the reader through the nuance and historical push-back misses a teachable-moment. This is the creative tension between A Priori Rigidity vs. Empirical Flexibility, but it is superficial. I would go further and state that's the opposite of what praxeology should demonstrate. If human action is about purposeful behavior—about choosing, weighing, pursuing ends—then teaching praxeology should invite that process, not short-circuit it. Show the errors. Let skeptics see their objections dissolve. That's how you earn trust instead of demanding submission. Mises' has an eloquent counter for those worried about Dogmatic assertions. Other ideas include Mises' ideas were timeless - found in ancient cultures far aware from western paradigms: Mises didn't invent praxeology from nothing. He adapted it from Tadeusz Kotarbiński's "praxiology"—a Polish theory of efficient action from the 1920s-30s. And the core insight is older still. Confucians viewed human action as inherently purposeful, driven by self-improvement and ethical ends. Similar intuitions appear across cultures, far from Western rationalism. That's not weakness—that's strength. When multiple traditions converge on the same foundation independently, it suggests they're touching something real. Max could use that history to defuse the dogma attack instead of triggering it. However, the most important thing that The Praxeology of Privacy book opens the space for this understanding - I am reading it a second time now - revisiting ideas I thought I knew, but now at a deeper level.