Form: Argument

  —For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”— Not even close. “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.” The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself. You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law. All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses. So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant). So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft. What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm. We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between. We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds. We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others. Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion. It’s a truth. Thus endeth the lesson. —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion. Painful truths are not popular. The law is the least popular. They are however, decidable. Apr 13, 2018 1:33pm