For Mises, "Human action is *purposeful* behavior." (Emphasis added.) He then defines contentment:
"We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action."
This is not an analysis of the nature of contentment; it tells us how he will use the word.  He then
immediately tells us how he "makes this leap" (as you put it): "A man perfectly content with the state
of his affairs would have no incentive to change things."

Alan Isaac


John Médaille <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 > For Mises, discontent is the only motive for action, hence contented people cannot act. Hence, if the Burmese are contented, they are immobile. Why
> Mises makes this leap, he does not tell us.