This private message to Arthur seemed to sum up the discussion from my point of view. The Assumptions are simply springboards to further thought. There is nothing in them that attempts to say what any persons desires may be. After basic survival, we may go off in any direction.
However, we know more about each other than we realize.
Here's the note to Arthur.
Harry,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur,
Unfair.
I've spent about 50 years working in the business of teaching economics. The two hypotheses, theories, or laws, are mentioned by Henry George in Progress and Poverty - but something like 165 pages apart.
When I wrote my major adult course in political economy at about the end of the seventies, I abstracted the two and placed them at the front - even before the basic terms - as Assumptions.
They seem to be perfectly true and unlike religion they are easily observable. There is nothing emotional about them, though some of the fellows talked of selfishness and greed. People aren't selfish and aren't greedy. They simply appear to have unlimited desires and seek to avoid exertion.
I had a hell of an argument with Hayek on the least exertion principle some years ago amid a bunch of other economists. I don't think I persuaded him.
The trouble is that people don't trust their reasoning power. They are scared of "This is so." They prefer "this may be so". Or, "this is probably so" - "this is potentially so" - and so on. They feel safer. Those statements cannot be challenged. If suddenly it isn't so, it doesn't matter, because they only said it would probably be so.
Ray, bless him. suggested replacing the Assumptions with:
"Man's desires are potentially unlimited."
as for : "Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion."
his suggestion was:
"Man seeks to find the ideal balance of his available energy with the greatest accomplishment".
His first replacement adds doubt, his second uses more words to say almost the same thing - but doesn't it sound a little more academic?
Anyway, after decades of thinking about these things, my conclusions are labelled "religious", or "ad hoc" or "dogma". (This isn't a dig at you - these happened during the discussion. I rather liked your comment. You obviously used religious in its sense of "extremely scrupulous and conscientious."
If these assumptions are wrong I want to be the first to know.
The way to find out if they are wrong is to use them. If they obviously don't apply to people, then they are not much good as assumptions, so they should be forgotten.
Yet, not one discussant has said "These Assumptions don't apply to . . . . "
They attack them without checking them out.
If, as you say, life is so complex, if you wish to examine it, it becomes imperative to simplify the study. One cannot wallow in complexity and expect to get anywhere. So, let's start with what we KNOW - then begin the great trek toward some kind of understanding.
The alternative is that we know nothing and fail to begin the trek.
The two assumptions that precede all sciences are so obvious that a modest acquaintance with logic - or perhaps reason - should be enough to see they are pertinent. I suppose few scientists would actually quote them. They simply assume them and start work.
Which is what you do with assumptions.
Harry
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
