“So, is the “bottom line” of “Propertarianism” a distinction between “decidabili

—“So, is the “bottom line” of “Propertarianism” a distinction between “decidability” and “meaning”? Is that the departure point?

Can the antimony and dichotomy of “decidability” and “meaning” be understood as the relation(ship) between Being and non-Being?

Your philosophy is ultimately grounded in Aristotle, is that accurate?

“–Francisco Antonio

Yes, in order to produce an amoral, scientific language of cooperation, all statements are reduced to the transfer of assets. In this way we advocate truth and transparency and voluntary exchange: reciprocity (the balance of both sides) just as we describe a balance sheet, or just as an equation is balanced.

SERIES

0) Identity (Correspondence / non-correspondence)

1) Counting (correspondence balance, including identities),

2) Mathematical balancing, (including ratios)

3) Accounting balancing, (including market goods with prices)

4) Property in toto balancing. (including common goods without)

In my view I dont’ take philosophers very seriously. And I tend only to read sciences. The science I understand is the common law of sovereign men. but the common law is parsimonious. it tells us only how to decide. it does not provide us with what we desire in a PHILOSOPHY: what is GOOD. it tells us only what is bad, so that we may all select philosophical goods from a market for philosophical goods. But as I have articulated this law to require truthfulness, reciprocity, and beauty, in the provision of ‘shoulds’, this means philosophy is then the study of preferences WITHIN the limits of Natural Law. And this presents a problem for the pseudoscientists and pseudorationalist, but not for the essayist, the novelist, or necessarily the mythicist.

So when you say, grounded in Aristotle, I would say that greek philosophy was an attempt to improve upon then current current law. and I see Aristotle as the non-conflationist – the proto-empiricist. that applied the law to matters commonly outside the law. This is how bacon also applies the law in the evolution of empiricism. and it is how I apply the law (via Hayek) in the evolution of testimonialism – which I think is the ‘complete’ version of the empirical or scientific tradition.

My self I see my work as grounded in popper, Kuhn, and Hayek. Philosophers of science and of law.

If we are to label Aristotle as the first “Deflationist” in the sense of “Deflationary Truth”, then that would make me an aristotelian.