Let it be known. One does not see action. One interprets physical changing events as actions.
To interpret as action requires the bringing to bear on those physical changing events the elements which must always be found in any action: ends, means, values, preferences, choice, time, cost, loss, profit.
The attempt to invalidate such a thesis that there are apriori elements would require making that invalidation the end, employing the means of the brain, presupposing values and preference for doing this rather than any of the other things that could be done with one’s self and other scarce resources.
Hans Herman Hoppe has made most clear to me the latter sticking point for anyone who would approach to say that such and such is not true of action. All of the elements would be found in such an approach.
Hoppe looks to von Mises and the seminal Human Action for the apriori approach. What is original to Hoppe is the derivation of of the account from argumentation such and the establishment of absolute private property rights to body and first use of unowned goods.
After time spent with the analysis there is a homeliness to the account that puts one in the kind of condition one would be in with the knowledge of the elements of geometry. There is much fruit that can be gleaned from the analysis.
In what follows we look in particular at the nature of initiated aggression and how it alters economic life for would be actors. That initiated aggression against the property of others is wrong follows form the establishment of the absolute right to body and first use of unowned stuff. What follows about production and trade with the introduction of initiated aggression follows rather straightforwardly from the apriori elements of action without much in way of experience about the world. It follows apriori the way the truths of geometry follow from the combination of elements and axioms.
It is in vogue these days to be full of the empirical. And I do not deny the importance of much that it is empirical. But, that the empirical is everything is untenable, and acquaintance with the apriori in action both frees one from the tyranny of the empirical and allows one to perform critique of the avowed efforts of those who employ the empirical without the sense of the apriori.
An example: ask a set of young people how things are made better by assigning to one member of a group (government) monopoly power over decision making and the right to live off of the production and trade of the other members regardless of those members’ consent (citizens). You can visibly see the discomfort. If unacquainted with the implications (no enslavement of the productive for the non-productive), they will vow allegiance to no tyranny. If acquainted with the implications, they will squirm this way and that in an effort to justify tyranny.