(PROFOUND) Sitting here thinking: you know Lester doesn’t know what he’s doing a

(PROFOUND)

Sitting here thinking: you know Lester doesn’t know what he’s doing any more than the socialists did, or Hoppe does, or Popper did – or anyone for that matter who relies upon reason instead of science.

Lester doesn’t understand the difference between an argument reliant upon, and producing, meaning (knowledge of use – correlation), vs one reliant upon and producing truth one can testify to the construction of (knowledge of construction – causality).

Kinsella doesn’t understand (and maybe Hoppe doesn’t) that a performative contradiction is a verbalism only relevant in law, versus the possibility of demonstrated actions in negotiation regardless of words used (what I call ternary logic). It may be true that libertarianism must always consist in a legal philosophy, but that human NEGOTIATION is not constrained to the limits of legal ARGUMENT. (this is profound for those of you who still put faith in argumentation: argument is not equal to negotiation, and humans negotiate prior to agreement and retain the option to use violence, while after agreement not to use violence we agree to debate.)

I am unsure about whether Walter Block knows he’s promoting immorality and therefore violating the contract for non-violence with people of western ethics. He’s just a Jewish guy raised with those levantine low trust instincts and trained in justifying them as moral.

Mises didn’t understand that the reason he failed to develop operationalism that would have fulfilled the promise of his praxeology was his ignorance of other fields, and his fairly weak understanding of the philosophical movements of his era. Nor did he understand that the commons was the western competitive advantage and he was arguing to destroy it.

Hoppe doesn’t, from what he states in his book, understand the intuitionistic and operationalist arguments, and how they undermine his a-priorism permanently and irrefutably. Nor does he understand that the reason for the failure of intuitionistic arguments in math were due to constancies in math (relations) that are impossible in other fields (causality, information, decidability).

Rothbard I assume, knew he was just a second-hander appropriating every justification he could find – from Hospers and others like a collector of bottlecaps constructing a mosaic – and using his ability to use half true, untestable, obscurant moralism to justify cosmopolitan low trust ethics in an effort to make his own ethics applicable in the high trust society – also destroying the commons – the western aristocratic competitive strategy.

Hell, I didn’t know what I was doing either. I just knew there was a problem and I tried to solve it. I was trying to make it impossible for the postmodernists to lie, while helping the conservatives to articulate their ideas. I didn’t know that I was actually accomplishing was to remove the distinction between philosophy and science by stating all philosophy outside of Propertarian constraints to be indistinguishable from mysticism at best, but lying in universal practice. Philosophy as it was constructed, was an exceptional means of lying, and justifying lying, by loading framing and overloading.

Someone after me will probably finish that work, but the net result is that within two generations we can destroy philosophy and replace it with calculation. That is a profound prediction but I see it already. Philosophy was invented to persuade (lie) with, and calculation is invented to prevent loading, framing and overloading (lying).

If you stew on this post a bit your world will melt.

Cheers