D.1. The Primacy of Time - The Government of Future:
I. Since from Causal Order of Goods it follows that a production process precedes satiation of Human Needs which incurs time, and since thwarting of needs is increasingly debilitating over time, often breeding new needs, prime motive which governs current actions is the concerns of the futures Needs.
II. Because a Causal Order exists most frequently with more than one layer, or orders, a transition, or production, takes place before consumption which incurs an expenditure of time, and since thwarting of needs is costlier, a primacy of the future time is established.
Axiomatic Derivation:
1. Primacy of Need Satiations holds True.
2. Causal Order of Goods implies processes either to transform provisions of nature into consumable goods, or to mitigate uncertainty of future need satiation.
3. The 2 implies a non-zero expenditure of time.
3.1. Since it is processes and any process is an ordered set of activities consuming a definite time, the longer the Causal Order the longer the time, and in minimum case it is non-zero.
4. Considering that Causal Order of Goods is initiated, i.e. production begins, only after a Need has come into existence.
4.1. The Need is thwarted for a time T equivalent of the time required to execute the entire Causal Order starting from the use of raw provisions of nature. T is non-zero.
4.2. Observation: The prolonged thwarting of Human Needs either implies an increased intensity of that Needs, or that new Needs are born.
For instance, if it is too late to drink water, we feel more thirsty, and increased thirst requires more water. Or for instance, if winter clothes are developed only after winter has arrived, some may fall sick, and some may in fact get pneumonia which are additional needs.
5. Following 4, the thwarting of Needs over time is increasingly debilitating.
5.1. All that is increasingly debilitating is increasingly undesirable, or all that satiates needs at increasingly high pace or intensity is increasingly desirable.
6. Increased Needs, or increased intensity of Needs implies a negation of the 1 - the Primacy of Need Satiation.
7. The 6 is impossible to hold true since 1 has a primacy.
8. Following 7, since Primacy of Need Satiation holds, it is not desirable to face an increasingly debilitating scenario i.e. aggravation of Needs, their intensity, or new needs.
9. Following 8, it is not desirable to thwart Needs for a non-zero time period.
10. Following 9, it is not desirable to initiate a Causal Order or production after the Need has come into existence.
11. Following 10, initiating a Causal Order or production before the Need has come into existence is desirable.
12. The 10 and 11 are consequences of the 1.
14. Due to 12 in presence of 1 a Primacy of Time Ahead is established in matters of Need Satiation.
15. In practice, 14 implies that concerns of future needs, especially their thwarting, govern current actions.
16. The 14 and 15 in modern lingo of Economics are the Rational Agents.
Explanations:
E.1. Since provisions of nature most frequently cannot be consumed directly, they must first be transformed into goods which can be directly consumed for gratification of our human needs.
E.2. Since transformation or transition implies a definite process, a step by step ordered activity (production) which is inevitable, and since these activities consume time, any transition consumes time.
E.3. From these two propositions, which follow from The Causal Order of Goods, we can infer that before human needs can be gratified, a time is consumed for transforming provisions of nature into goods for consumption, and this lag of time is inevitable.
E.4. This lag can be short or long, but in any case it would be too late, if we begin the transition process (production) only after we have felt a need. The more chronic a need becomes, more additional needs it yields (sickness for an example), and sometimes even death. Thus, the longer a need is thwarted, the costlier it becomes.
E.5. From E.4 and E.3. we can establish the Primacy of Time. More accurately, it is prudent to foresee the needs in a certain time period ahead, and in all contingencies possible. And then prepare for these in the current time period. Repeatedly done, it implies our current needs are gratified by past actions, and current actions serve future needs. Finally, this fact that thwarted needs are costlier, along with inevitable lag of time between production and consumption as aforesaid, establishes primacy of the future.
E.6. Consider the following instances for an elaboration:
a) For winter clothes, we may say it would be far too late if we start to produce warm clothes only after winter has come. It would not merely be late. Sickness would fall upon weaker, or less protected which would create new needs. And those weaker without warm clothes may eventually pass to death.
b) Alternatively, consider the simplest case of hunger. Our bread requires flour, flour requires the wheat grains, wheat grains the wheat farm, etc etc. Thus, the wheat we sow this year is in fact a step towards the preparation of our bread which will satiate our hunger next year.
E.7. Accordingly, we can infer from all these deductions E5 and observations E6 that all provident activity is conducted under the government of the predictions of time ahead - future; How much time the Causal Order of Goods tied to a need consumes? What additional Needs will we face in that time period? What contingencies may arise during this transition? What outcomes shall we expect after all the strife? etc etc. Such questions now must be responded to and actions carried accordingly.
Reference: Menger, Carl (2004). Principles of Economics, Online edition, The Mises Institute, 2004. (Chapter 01 page 69-71)