VICTORY!!!! WHOOT. (personal) (philosophy) (innovation) I figured it out!!!! (It

VICTORY!!!! WHOOT.

(personal) (philosophy) (innovation)

I figured it out!!!! (It pays to keep at a problem until you solve it.)

As the author of (many) shareholder agreements, and participant in (many) lawsuits I have always been troubled by the structure of law. I’ve always intuited the problem. But it never quite got to the answer.

I knew the golden rule and the silver rule contained a hint at that answer but I couldn’t quite figure out why. Until now.

Last year I worked on the problem of platonism. I knew the answer was in mathematical philosophy. I just had to master it.

This year I’m working on formal logic. What are the grammar, syntax, rules, and method for the formal logic of cooperation (ethics and politics)?

By about 2010, living in Ottawa, I was able to understand, loosely, the human cognitive problems in converting an intuitive and normative discourse rhetoric of ethics, into a formal and calculative logic of ethics.

I outlined the propertarian method of analysis. But there was this enormous hole in it. It was descriptive alone. How does one construct ETHICAL law as theory? Meaning, how does one construct law while prohibiting in voluntary transfer? And how does one construct a process by which the ethical rules cannot be violated by ‘linguistic means’.

Since all law is theory, but the costs of those theories are very high, how do you construct law as theory open to revision without corruption? The scientific method emerged from science, but the method of science is applicable to all human epistemology, not just science. So the scientific method is just ‘the method of constructing theories both logically and ethically’.

The common law and conservatism are both ‘scientific’ in the sense that their theories are open to constant revision by evidence. But as we have seen from the american constitution, that the constitution was too poorly constructed to resist attacks.

So how do we construct a constitution (theory of law) that is subject to the same constraints as ‘the method’ that we call the scientific method?

The truth is that the founders did include a process: the modification of the constitution by procedural means. But the differences between the interests of the states was so great that it exceeded the respect for the constitution.

The Louisiana purchase made those differences in tolerable since it would have meant the conquest of one society by the other (the south would have conquered the north via political process) the north retaliated with war – over territory.

Then upon immigration of large numbers of catholics and jews from lower trust societies, and the inclusion of women into the voting pool as equal to heads of absolute nuclear households and businesses, the constitution was broken – first by the introduction of the fed and credit money, then by the depression that resulted from the combination.

So the existing law was not well enough articulated such that it was not open to ‘hermeneutic interpretation’, and outright assault.

How does one construct ethical theories in formal logic of cooperation?

How does one construct law from formal ethical logic of cooperation?

It’s fascinating. 🙂