And you completely and utterly misunderstand Mises theorizing on economics as a priori. As most do, because you believe that economics is in fact, a hard science where there are truths that can be established. In the world of economic control, thats probably true, because again, someone is making the fuciking rules. Pretty simple.
Try this out and see if it helps you understand the difference. As you've already mentioned, you refuse praxeology, human action. So apparently economics is the business of its inventors; those who control and manipulate based on perceived authorities 9even though it is not).
by categorizing the fundamental principles of economics as a priori truths and not contingent facts open to empirical discovery or refutation, Mises was not claiming that economic law is revealed to us by divine action, like the ten commandments were to Moses. Nor was he proposing that economic principles are hard-wired into our brains by evolution, nor even that we could articulate or comprehend them prior to gaining familiarity with economic behavior through participating in and observing it in our own lives. In fact, it is quite possible for someone to have had a good deal of real experience with economic activity and yet never to have wondered about what basic principles, if any, it exhibits.
Nevertheless, Mises was justified in describing those principles as a priori, because they are logically prior to any empirical study of economic phenomena. Without them it is impossible even to recognize that there is a distinct class of events amenable to economic explanation. It is only by pre-supposing that concepts like intention, purpose, means, ends, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction are characteristic of a certain kind of happening in the world that we can conceive of a subject matter for economics to investigate. Those concepts are the logical prerequisites for distinguishing a domain of economic events from all of the non-economic aspects of our experience, such as the weather, the course of a planet across the night sky, the growth of plants, the breaking of waves on the shore, animal digestion, volcanoes, earthquakes, and so on.
Unless we first postulate that people deliberately undertake previously planned activities with the goal of making their situations, as they subjectively see them, better than they otherwise would be, there would be no grounds for differentiating the exchange that takes place in human society from the exchange of molecules that occurs between two liquids separated by a permeable membrane. And the features which characterize the members of the class of phenomena singled out as the subject matter of a special science must have an axiomatic status for practitioners of that science, for if they reject them then they also reject the rationale for that science's existence.
Economics is not unique in requiring the adoption of certain assumptions as a pre-condition for using the mode of understanding it offers. Every science is founded on propositions that form the basis rather than the outcome of its investigations. For example, physics takes for granted the reality of the physical world it examines. Any piece of physical evidence it might offer has weight only if it is already assumed that the physical world is real. Nor can physicists demonstrate their assumption that the members of a sequence of similar physical measurements will bear some meaningful and consistent relationship to each other. Any test of a particular type of measurement must pre-suppose the validity of some other way of measuring against which the form under examination is to be judged.....What is notable about economics in this regard is just how much knowledge can be gained by hunting down the implications of its postulates. Carl Menger arrived at the great insight that the value of a good to an actor depends on its marginal utility to him based entirely on pursuing the consequences of the assumption that people act with the purpose of improving their circumstances. Mises's magnum opus, Human Action, is a magnificent display of the results that can be achieved along these lines.
here
Trust me, I understand von Mises more than most. One of the more absurd assumptions I see online is that “Praxeology” is the only methodology employed by Austrians. It hasn’t occurred to you that purely a priori propositions were rejected by von Hayek and by a good portion of Austrians influenced by Hayek. I hope you realize that.
It makes me think how von Hayek would have viewed the legions of Austrians on the internet prattling away about praxeology. The very notional that praxeology doesn’t require any empirical data or evidence is beyond reproach. If von Hayek were alive today, I’m sure he would classify Praxeology on par with Marxism. Literally.
As far as your post goes, it’s the more of the same. As with any a priori argument, based on Misesian theory and deductive reasoning, it must be true. No empirical evidence is required to prove von Mises’ theories correct. In the event the real world has a good amount of empirical data contractdicting von Mises, it’s viewed as irrelevant and will ultimately be explained away in a haphazard manner.
It should be clear to most economists why praxeology has tons of flaws. This apodictic certainty in praxeology dissipates under closer inspection. When we examine von Mises’ arguments, it can be ascertained that his reasoning is dependent upon synthetic propositions which are ultimately false in nature. Many of the inferences drawn from praxeology simply have no basis in reality. Ultimately, when Austrians make these assumptions, then throw in a priori reasoning to make inferences, their conclusions may possess some truth, but it’s based on a fantasy world where said assumptions are correct. Praxeology describes a world other than we live in on a daily basis. It’s about as imaginary as the yellow brick road.
I'm going to have to reread Human Action. It's been close to ten years.
) 
