TIP ON PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS. Notice how I don’t describe ‘points’ (ideal types

TIP ON PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS.

Notice how I don’t describe ‘points’ (ideal types), but that I describe spectra from limit to limit?

So I might say Natural Law, but I repeat the NPP at every opportunity: “Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria”. By repetition, I state the precise definition of natural law: the law of cooperation.

Then I make sure I state the inverse of natural law, the means of violating it: “murder, harm, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, and conquest.”

And when I talk about falsehood, I use the means of conducting it: “error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.”

When I talk of philosophy, I use metaphysics(action), psychology, epistemology, sociology, ethics, economics, morality, Law and Politics, group competitive strategy, and religion/war/immigration.

In other words, I try to show by repetition the difference between the many verbal fallacies that arise from the use of ideal types (analogies) that are corrected by the use of spectra and limits.

This eliminates many of the ‘weasel words’ that fallacious arguments depend upon. But more importantly it teaches people how to think in more dimensions than we desire to. Just as we want to train people to think intertemporally rather than impulsively or temporally, we want to to train others and ourselves to think in high causal density with precision.

Humans want simple answers they want a single axis of causality. But almost nothing we do is not caused by multiple axis (spectra) operating in multiple supply and demand curves.

Now, you can see what most people do is reach for a word that they don’t understand but sounds more sophisticated. This is almost always nonsense. Instead, create a ‘proof’. If you write a spectrum you are writing a ‘proof’ of meaning. You are describing what something MUST MEAN, not what you imagine it means from colloquial usage.

So when you want to use a term, write out the spectrum from beginning to end, and instead of using the term, enumerate the sequence, over, and over, again. You will refine it over time. And it will be very difficult for you, and for others to err by the use of ‘loose analogy’.