I really don't understand the basis of your objection to my statement.  A principle of choice is not a principle of thought, although the  specific way in which we choose is. We think the way we do because we  are human. We choose because we have free will and human actions are  non-deterministic. [Apologies to you Marxists out there who have  swallowed the historical materialism argument. I think you are wrong,  but that is another argument.] We cannot do otherwise, unless we simply  refuse to think at all and curl up in a vegetative state--renouncing  our humanity. 
  
  Psychologists attempt to explain all the aspects of our thinking or not  thinking. They attempt to identify principles of thought. These are  different from the principles of physics, for example. Principles of  physics convince those of us who choose to be rational to apply those  principles in our thought processes involved in daily living to avoid  stepping off high buildings.
  
  Those of us who choose to think rationally attempt understanding so  that whatever goals we set for ourselves have a decent prospect of  achievement, given that we think we know what principles of action to  apply in our attempt to achieve them.Think about the meaning of the  word "choice. Why would anyone ever state that "men always make choices  based on maximum utility to oneself." I haven't the slightest idea what  that means or why you made that statement as if it was implied in  anything I said or Mise wrote. Mises simply said that individuals have  ends that they seek to achieve. They choose among means to achieve  those ends. We only know what they have chosen by their choices. We  don't know why. Some means are inappropriate to the ends sought because  the principles of the applicable science tell us so. Inappropriate  means are to be avoided if the ends sought are to be achieved. To give  an economics example: If you wish to increase the amount of bread and 
 other staples available to consumers, a price ceiling is an  inappropriate means. The current experience of Venezuela is a "real  world" example.
  
  You need to read Mises again with some minimum willingness to  comprehend his argument outside of whatever strawman you have erected  for either his ideas or mine. There is no question of "ideology" here. It's just science.
  
  I don't wish to appear to be unwilling to continue this discussion, so  I must tell all on this list that I am moving to Champaign, Illinois,  in the next two days and will be dismembering my computer tomorrow . I  have no idea when I will be back online. Drinks for everyone!
  
  Sam Bostaph