Form: Argument

SILLY PEOPLE, SOPHISTRY-TRIX ARE FOR KIDS!

(P law forces people into exchanges for what they desire. That isthe purpose of the law: to force people out of rent seeking, parasitism and predation and into markets for survival.)

Dear Silly Person;

You should really ask questions rather than presume you are somewhere, anywhere, near capable of conversation let alone argument, on a multiple subjects that have frustrated thought leaders in mathematics, logic, economics, science, philosophy, jurisprudence and law. But you lack sufficient domain knowledge in any of those disciplines to put forth an argument, or even ask questions. So you are stuck with disapproval and sophistry. That’s ok. Because these dialogs … although apparently a waste of time … serve to educate followers by example.

—“This isn’t woo; it’s wisdom”–

No. It’s either (a) an admission of failure to solve the problem of the age, and a justification for continuation of predation, parasitism, fraud and deceit upon the people who certainly sense ‘something is wrong’ but have no idea what to do about it. I (we) solved the problem. It was a very hard problem. It took standing on a host of giants largely in the 20th century to do it. But it was a solvable problem because of their successes and failures. Or it’s (b) an act of fraud by which you seek to obscure some crime you yourself profit from. (I expect the latter.)

—“Propertarians think the fact that their system has an answer for everything is its strength”—

No it’s just a test of falsehood and irreciprocity in public to the public on matters public – particularly the abrahamic method of deceit that created the past dark age and has brought us to the bring of a second.

—“P has a vision of society extrapolated from computer programming, “—

Between the failure of the 19th-20th analytic program to discover any justificationary method, and the success of Falsificationism, Operationalism, and Programming in finally merging epistemology with testimony and law – ending the platonic (ideal) and set-logic programs, just as the success of empiricism ended the theological and analogistic-logic program, yes, I was, we were, able to apply falsification, operationalization, and formal grammar to the law, thereby completing the conversion of all of previously philosophical (justificationary) disciplines to science (evidentiary) – leaving philosophy to the domain of choosing preferenes and goods, and science with truth-falsehood(falsehood) and reciprocity-irreciprocity(harm).

As such we are able to repair weaknesses in the Common Law tradition, and the anglo saxon constitutions, because of failures of a formal logic, and prior lack of necessity of formal logic, given the state of lying and undermining available to the law prior to the second abrahamic revolution in deceit.

—“letter of the law is easily manipulated by unconscious people”—

Why isn’t mathematics or programming subject to that failure? It’s perfectly possible to make legal prose both simple and equally impossible to undermine. I mean, division by zero exists. The halting problem exists. Some questions in law are “under-decidable” and as such must be left to the preference of the people. But these are not defects they are features.

—“Abrahamists and feminine thinkers have been incentivized to shut up by being subordinated or liquidated, “—

You don’t know this but P largely restores defamation, sacredness of commons, and the crimes of baiting into hazard. in other words, these were loosened

P is a formal operational logic for testing against falsehood and ir-reciprocity sufficient for use in writing constitutions, legislation, regulation, findings of law, and contract in strictly constructed form under original intent – that as the framers intended force transactional (process) modification of the law under rule of law, wherein judges can discover applications of that law, but not invent new law – inventing law is limited to legislators. Rule of law is the traditional anglo saxon method of rule, within which we have constructed both monarchical, parliamentary, and multi house republican governments under the english, american, Canadian, and Australian constitutions. The innovation in P-law is that it prohibits the means of undermining that law by solving the problem of demarcation between truthful and reciprocal and untruthful and ir-reciprocal speech, just as it solves the demarcation problem of scientific vs unscientific speech, and does so in the traditional manner of demarcation used in the law: standards (lists) of minimum due diligence.

1) People require mindfulness – this is something we understand. It’s emotional-intuitionistic fitness (training) just as they need physical fitness, and rational fitness (training). That’s even before we get to training them with skills. The demand for fitness-substitutes (drugs, religions, ideologies, fictions) is driven by failures to provide fitness. It is certainly true that the vehicle for providing fitness must reflect the agency (ability) of the individual: submission (woo woo/buddhism), living within means (stoicism/epicureanism), or maximizing one’s abilities (Heroism/Achievement). But there are no conditions under which falsehood and irreciprocity are necessary. And moreover, there is no reason that those lacking agency (those lacking agency, those that are incompetents, those that are infantilized) should be left as resources for malcontents undermining civilization by false promise, baiting into hazard, and profiting from it. In other words, those that are weak of ability and agency must be educated so that they are not a harm to society. The question is only the least harmful and most beneficial means of educating them. After all, that is the only justification for mass education: so that the masses are not indolent dependents upon the productivity of their betters.

2) People always justify their crimes. People always demonstrate the minimum ethics and morality that they can reliably get away with. Why would we not expect frauds, thieves, and harmers to resist the formal criminalization of their fraud, thievery, and harm by creating a market for the prosecution of, restitution of, and prevention of their fraud, thievery, and harm?

3) Peoples universally adapt to laws whenever a market is created by the law for the prosecution of fraud, thievery and harm. Why would people not adapt to the suppression of all the means by which they are parasited upon by advertising, finance, politics, academy, and a vast invading underclass? Why wouldn’t the vast majority of people prefer the eradication of baiting into hazard with false promise and asymmetry of information, and asymmetry of incentive from the commons? Why would it be other than wonderful to force political organizations to compromise rather than to conduct propaganda and deceit in the population?

4) Straw manning is adorable. So lets move from sophistry to science, and let’s run tests: Pick three subjects that you think is anything from controversial to ordinary that might generate public conflict or appear before the court. I’ll respond. 1, 2, 3 or a, b, c. Doesn’t matter.