“Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”— Is it?

–“Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”—

Is it?

Or is it the result of deception?

Or is it the result of excuse making (rationalization)?

Or is it the result of wishful thinking?

Or is it the result of cognitive bias?

Or is it the result of ignorance?

Or is it the result of stupidity?

Because it cannot be the result of informed and rational thinking since an observer of others, and an observer of the self, says that we and others retaliate for all impositions upon that which we have born costs to construct.

And that the more complex our property, norms, and institutions, the less physical are our means of production, and more behavioral. And so the decreasingly physical are our means of accumulating property.

This is why ratio-empirical ethics rather than rational ethics are necessary: to prevent deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

Because when we deceive, justify, bias, preserve ignorance, and are outright stupid, we cannot trust our reason to produce correspondent theories of action.

It is non-rational to ask others not to retaliate against your imposition of costs upon them regardless of whether physical, normative, or institutional. Therefore the NAP cannot be the result of rational thought. It can only be the result of deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

Now we can argue that a stupid person acts rationally, but we cannot argue that we construct a general rule of human action according to the limits of the stupid people’s minds. That is illogical, since a general rule for man is logically incompatible when suitable only for a subset of man.

Ergo The NAP(IVP) is not rational, or the result of rational action, unless one conflates ‘reasoning’ with ‘reasonable’ with ‘rational’. One may say that it is reasonable for a person of limited intelligence and rather broad ignorance to reasonably conclude the NAP is sufficient but we cannot say his actions are rational, since that would require the he investigate the limits of his reason and test them against the evidence in reality.

WORDS MATTER. Because fuzzy language provides the incompetent mind with venues for relying upon deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

Hence why I am adamant about your misuse of language to justify your prior, rather than learning terminology that limits or eliminates your ability to justify your prior.

THEREFORE

0) The NA/Demonstrated-Property is sufficient for the determination of rational action because it eliminates demand for retaliation, and maximizes demand for cooperation.

1) The NAP(IVP) is insufficient for the determination of rational action because it does not sufficiently limit demand for retaliation, and decreases the demand for cooperation (increasing transaction costs – and exporting them to the rest of the community.)

2) The act of reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness are not equal to a conclusion that we call rational, nor to one that is ratio-scientific, nor to one that is warrantable as ratio-scientific-and-testimonial. It can only be the result of deceit, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

3) The NAP(IVP) then is not the result of rational thought but of either deceit, or justification, or a combination of wishful thinking and bias using only the process or reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness by the ignorant and stupid.

4) Does any statement that the NAP(IVP) is the result of rational action would also mean that the NAP(IVP) is sufficient for rational action? Well if the NAP is not the result of rational analysis, nor is it sufficient for the determination of rational action, and at the same time one justifies the NAP as sufficient for rational action, then it’s either an error or a deception to state your original claim. Right. Ergo it is your failure to grasp all these consequences and the meaning of your own statement that leads to my criticism – just as I have said all along.

REMAINING ISSUES

The rest of your justification (argument) is made possible using various Errors by way of Egoistic Appeals to Intuitive Truth by misrepresenting the subjective as the objective. But I suspect I would need to delve into your use of the terms ‘fact” and “recognize” just as I have had to delve into your misuse of the term “rational”.

The reason I believe you make this error, is that you are subconsciously conflating preference and subjective VALUE, with existence and objective TRUTH. Although I suspect I would also need to delve into that subject in order to explain it to you.

So the net is that I believe you are an honest, but heavily cognitively biased person, punching far above your weight, because you lack the knowledge and skill to make the arguments that you proffer, and instead are merely justifying those biases and priors by searching for excuses to defend them using what amounts to pseudoscientific reasoning.

This does not mean you are a bad person. It means that you were a successful host (useful idiot) for one of the great lies of the twentieth century. Better minds than yours were fooled. You should not feel bad. Only seek to learn why you err, and how to avoid that error in the future.

Curt Doolittle,

The Propertarian Institute,

Kiev, Ukraine

(PS: This is how philosophy is done. I am very, very, very good at what I do, and I am keenly aware of it. People often mistake my sketches and brevity as the maximum capacity of my argumentative construction, but that is not the case. I cannot afford to produce every experiment in communication as a complete analytic argument, any more than a sculptor can produce every work in bronze, an architectural idea as finished building.)