Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • HERE IS WHY YOU’RE AN IDIOT: CAPITALISM VS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, COMMUNIS

    HERE IS WHY YOU’RE AN IDIOT:

    CAPITALISM VS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM?

    Morons fall into the trap of capitalism vs communism, neither of which are possible, and both of which constitute means of parasitism, rather than advocating Rule of Natural Law.

    One can rule by command, one can rule by Religion, one can rule by Credit, and one can rule by Natural Law. Command does not require information, just obedience. Religion is a deception with which anything can be justified. Credit and financialization are a deception by which to abstractly steal from you.

    And only RULE OF NATURAL LAW requires productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs by externality.

    So markets in everything – public and private – MUST result from Natural Law. But natural law DOES NOT RESULT FROM CAPITALISM.

    (If you read this, I assume you’re not a moron. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 07:57:00 UTC

  • (tip: I’m attacking german philosophers elsewhere) (Germany has the worst philos

    (tip: I’m attacking german philosophers elsewhere)

    (Germany has the worst philosophers, except for Nietzsche. Naught but authors of fantasy moral literature. Secular scripture. Conflationists. Continental Philosophy (conflating literature, ethics, politics, law, and science) is a code word for ‘secular attempt at the restoration of religion’, and both libraries and Universities now categorize philosophy with religion. This technique of conflation is middle eastern, and anti-european. The west was deflationary: Religion separate from festivals, separate from literature, separate from philosophy(personal choice/ethics/politics/group-strategy), separate from law(decidability), separate from science(truth telling). The question is why german culture (aside from its undue postwar loss of confidence) has been the source of europa’s competitive excellence for the past 3500 years. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 09:05:00 UTC

  • Education myth: the headstart program: remove the context, remove the demonstrat

    Education myth: the headstart program: remove the context, remove the demonstrated improvements.

    Education myth: put idiots in with exceptionals and they improve. False. Remove the context and restore the natural differences.

    What does all society (markets) do? Sort people by ability.

    What do smart people do? struggle to separate themselves from lesser (more annoying, untrustworthy, accident prone, error-spreading) people.

    People below 90 iq cannot (its just science) make use of democracy, or markets, anything else for that matter. Middle easterners cannot make use of democracy and markets.

    Social pathology takes place in the lower end of the iq scale. And high intelligence is inversely correlated with social pathologies. It’s a linear progression.

    The G-factor (how you process complexity) is not affected by the flynn effect, our white Iq has gone down by 1 standard deviation (15 points) since 1850 according to Nyborg, and Lynn. (I havent asked Flynn).

    It’s really simple. Educational gains whither when exposed to the light of reality. You can harm a child. But you cannot improve him or her. The market seeks truth. Parenting and education are crutches. Once gone the organism reverts to type.

    You want better and smarter children? Less school. Less prepared food. More mom, and exposure to reality. More reading books.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 19:16:00 UTC

  • The Literature of “Growing Up”

    Literature of Growing Up: Rothbard, Friedman, Sowell, Hayek. (and Me) Grownups should ignore Rothbard. He’s talking in children’s stories. Parables. Silly stuff. If you wanna read teenager stories read Friedman. He is as close to correct as I know how to get. If you wanna read junior college stories read Sowell. He talks about the rest of the society not just the economy. If you want to read university stories read hayek. He talks about civilizations. If you want post-graduate work, you’re gonna have to wait for me, ’cause it’s gonna take that to make conservatism and libertarianism into a persuasive science rather than a moral literature.

  • The Literature of “Growing Up”

    Literature of Growing Up: Rothbard, Friedman, Sowell, Hayek. (and Me) Grownups should ignore Rothbard. He’s talking in children’s stories. Parables. Silly stuff. If you wanna read teenager stories read Friedman. He is as close to correct as I know how to get. If you wanna read junior college stories read Sowell. He talks about the rest of the society not just the economy. If you want to read university stories read hayek. He talks about civilizations. If you want post-graduate work, you’re gonna have to wait for me, ’cause it’s gonna take that to make conservatism and libertarianism into a persuasive science rather than a moral literature.

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • LUNATIC FRINGE V 2 (archive. don’t bother reading) I mean. 1) you are making an

    LUNATIC FRINGE V 2

    (archive. don’t bother reading)

    I mean.

    1) you are making an accusation that I”m copying evola, but I don’t know what it is that you think I”m copying. What I suspect is that you don’t know the history of reciprocity and natural law.

    2) You state that some article refutes me, but you don’t state what the argument is, demonstrating (as usual) that you don’t understand that argument, and can’t make it yourself. (even if there IS an argument).

    3) You post a third time stating that somehow some argument, that can’t state yourself, is somehow a refutation of an argument I’ve made against platonism.

    4) and you have a history of mental illness on a scale that I am surprised hasn’t ended you with stalking charges. I haven’t banned you out of mercy for people with mental illnesses but high information processing ability.

    So now, why is it that you think there is some argument here?

    Because all I can gather is that it’s impossible for ordinary minds to envision the deterministic consequences of algorithms, and for some reason this kind of ‘scale’ borders on magic or the occult, rather than ‘consequences of permutations beyond our ability to sense perceive, and forecast independently of symbolic and mechanical instrumentation that allows us to do so.

    I mean, the more interesting question, is, why do people with various forms of mental illness seem to hallucinate at the extremes without the ability to distinguish reality from imagination, and those people that have a problem distinguishing deterministic consequences of simple operations that CAN be at least symbolically or instrumentally measured or forecast, from reality.

    I mean, why aren’t you just saying that this is another example of Your and Dyer’s different degrees of mental illness? I mean, it fits the model of incremental detachment that evolves from schizotypal behavior, to schizophrenic behavior, right?

    I mean, there is nothing magic to order emergent from complex permutations using a small number of simple rules. Look at what Wolfram has been doing – talking about just that forever.

    Isn’t what you’re really doing trying to justify your mental illness in an attempt to restore confidence despite your borderline sanity?

    Isn’t that a more reasonable scenario than there is some sort of magical design behind the universe, or magical intention by the gods?

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 15:32:00 UTC

  • A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS (INCLUDING ARGUMENTATION) (REPOST) [I] consider my work

    A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS (INCLUDING ARGUMENTATION)

    (REPOST)

    [I] consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s aprioristic justificationary rationalism in ratio-scientific terms.

    Hoppe’s errors are natural for a German philosopher who was trained by Marxists. And while the errors are substantial by today’s standards, they are limited to errors in construction (justification), with his conclusions from his justifications surviving. This is important. From Hoppe’s earliest work onward, his deductions from incentives are correct.

    – We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules, and we criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translate to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all know attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.” Hoppe confuses legal justification (excuse making), with truth (survival from all competition). As Mises discovered but failed to understand, truth propositions including human choice require the possibility of constructing a sequence of rational choices AND the survival from categorical, logical, empirical falsification. Truth propositions survive competition.

    – Possession demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and property exist after an agreement to cooperate. Scarcity exists prior to cooperation. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of possession nor the origination of property.

    – Different sets of Property rights evolve in communities due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation at the given level of division of ability, knowledge and labor – and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation. We pay for cooperation by forgoing opportunities to use or consume that which others have already invested in using and consuming. Man like other animals retaliates against the imposition of costs upon that which he has himself born costs with the intent to inventory. The universal demonstration of altruistic punishment (disproportionately costly punishment of free riders, parasites, predators) demonstrates the evolutionary necessity and value of cooperation as the most costly and scarce good. (thus upending libertarianism’s attempt to suggest cooperation can be obtained for free, or that it is the natural bias of man or animal. instead, man and animal are rational. we cooperate when possible, parasite when possible and prey when possible, depending upon costs.)

    – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to:

    (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it,

    (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either

    (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation

    (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same,

    (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level.

    So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.

    – The minimum scope of property necessary to construct a reciprocal exchange, in order to provide minimum incentives for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is property-en-toto, or what we call “demonstrated-property” (demonstrated defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), and the minimum scope of property is not IVP: intersubjectively verifiable property – (property that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.) Arguably Hoppe suggests that IVP is merely a minimum criteria and that all other properties must be arbitrarily constructed upon it. However, this means that IVP is an insufficient criteria for a basis for law. Whereas Property in Toto (demonstrated property) is a sufficient criteria for the basis for law. In other words, physical property is insufficient for the formation of a polity, it is merely sufficient for cooperation between states (organized polities).

    – The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliation for violations of property in toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deception and cheating. A rational anarchic polity can only form under property en toto, not IVP.

    – Those arguably voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, because larger states have used squatters, settlers and settlers and given away territorial rights in borderlands in order to hold it from competitors cheaply, without having to invest heavily, but still giving them an excuse to conduct war if attempts taken against it. If those have evolved for other reasons, they have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end.

    – The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism (a militia) and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide).

    – Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) as a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperative and economic phenomenon, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.)

    I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights have been in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights.

    All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them.

    I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE.

    Rothbardian libertarianism is just the extremism of the Marxist prohibition on Private Property inverted into an the extremism of a Marxist prohibition on Common Property – despite the fact that property rights can only exist as a commons, and no polity can survive competition for people and trade, and against competitors without providing commons as the multipliers necessary to do so.

    I hope this is of some value to you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 12:21:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT

    —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms

    > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms

    You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe

    Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid.

    (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty)

    1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie.

    2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property.

    3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order.

    Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation.

    Ergo:

    3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie.

    4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses.

    5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”.

    You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else.

    Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value.

    The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution).

    People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie.

    If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 09:26:00 UTC