Because a commenter by the name of Keshav Srinivasan told me to read this paper. Now if this author is not idiosyncratic, then there were a couple of things I wasn’t aware of.
1. Mises does not view his system as axiomatic.
2. Rothbard and Hoppe are wrong to call it axiomatic.
3. There is a difference between axiomatic and analytical approaches.
Now, I have always agreed that the action “axiom” is not a synthetic a proiri proposition. Furthermore, I am not even convinced that there is any such thing as a “synthetic a priori” proposition for reasons I will not go into.
There is one error committed on Keshav’s part, one of them being that he says the deductions the author is making are axiomatic. Which, according to the author’s view, is incorrect.
Also Major Freedom, in my view, is over-reacting at the author’s view that praxeology it is not technically speaking axiomatic. They are still valid deductions, even if you don’t call the approach axiomatic.
So the point of the title was to express how unaware I am of certain philosophical terms that the author uses. However, I am alive to the concepts these terms signify, so this is not too much of an issue. But if the author is correct, then this answers Keshav’s question of why Mises did not write Human Action in the same style as Euclid’s Elements.