Form: Dialogue

TRUTH CLAIMS : HOW LIBERTINES USE LUDDITE REASONING TO JUSTIFY PARASITISM: A SOCRATIC DIALOG

(advanced topics) (good material for refuting rothbardians)

–INTRODUCTION–

Transforming the logic of arrogant, false, stateful, individual certainty to the logic of skeptical, truthful, evolutionary knowledge, actionability.

Lets try this again to show the difference

——————————————————

arrogant……… vs skeptical

false…………… vs truthful

stateful……….. vs evolutionary

justificationary vs critical

individual…….. vs cooperative

avoidance of blame vs opportunity for action.

morality………. vs science

Or better stated, removing the stateful-ness of mathematics from the logic of human action in real time.

Does that make sense? Well, its pretty much an analog of the difference between geometry (statefulness) and calculus (constant change).

And just as we had to evolve from geometry to calculus in order to solve problems of relative change, we have to evolve other technologies that we use to perceive, compare, and decide.

And just as we had to move from normative morality of law for political decidability, we had to move to objective morality by moving from law to economics.

And just as we moved from the logic of sets without existential constraints, to the logic of operations with existential constraints programming. We had to move from *meaningful* argument when considering operations and consequences that are within our perception, to *truthful* argument by when considering effects that we can observe, but need to discover the operations that made them possible.

In physical science we do not know the first principles of the universe other than what we call the laws of thermodynamics. In the science of human decision and action we do know the first principles – acquisition – but even if we did not we can subjectively test the rationality (incentives) of each step in a sequence if that sequence is enumerated.

Apriorism and Justificationism are literally ‘primitive’ technologies of comparison and decision that evolved in the agrarian era where change was all but imperceptible, and the cause of change was perceivable with some work. Moreover they evolved out of mathematics, law, and morality through philosophy and law and morality function by justificationary means. And mathematics appears justificationary only because there is so little difference between the method of hypothesizing (operational deductions) and the method of criticizing (operational proofs).

Science and Criticism evolved in the current era where change is not only perceptible, but the cause and consequence of change is beyond our perception. And worse, where the scale of our perceptions was no longer government by justificationary consent or morality and law, but in competition with other groups’ consent, morality, and law.

So while in-group questions are often decidable, out-group conflicts between competing sets of logic or reason are not decidable by in-group means.

So just as individuals cannot achieve their ideal, but they can achieve their optimum through what we call ‘game theory’ but what is better termed as ‘compromise’, or more accurately compromise in cooperation because cooperation produces superior returns.

If you grasp this relationship between the evolution of our technologies of thought, and the evolution of the problems we must perceive, comprehend, and act upon, it is profound.

Now, on to our socratic argument that illustrates the contrast between primitive and experiential thought, and modern and extra-experiential thought.

–PREPARATORY NOTE–

(Note: I’ve taken a real argument with a NAP’er and turned it into a sort of socratic dialog by expanding it. This should cover almost all the issues involved in the NAP/Physicality/IVP versus NA/Demonstrated-Property.)

–ARGUMENT–

We can say truth consists in correspondence. but this is an incomplete sentence. We can complete the sentence by stating that if my words correspond to

I can claim something is true because I cannot determine it is false.

You can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another.

If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered.

But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability.

If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence.

We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans.

What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation”

So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak.

So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience.

You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible.

Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean.

Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness.

So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence.

This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence.

So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for.

You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard.

EXPOSING THE PROBLEM OF CONFLATING CURRENT TESTIMONY, CORRESPONDENCE, AND CURRENT IGNORANCE

—So it was not only true that the Earth was flat thousands of years ago, but it was likewise a correspondent statement.—

It is an exceptionally good demonstration of my point, and the scientific method. While in fact, knowledgeable men did not consider the world flat, but round, the OBSERVATION and common opinion of ordinary people was often that the world was flat. But this is an observation, and a fact because it was made from repeated observation. But it was also an observation that was informationally incomplete.

So while one could testify truthfully that he could not see how the world could not be flat, and therefore his testimony was that the world was indeed flat. then if that testimony was sufficient for his action, he might act upon it. And if it was sufficient for others’ action, they would not hold him accountable for his truthful testimony despite the fact that it was later demonstrated to be false.

Now, in science, I might say that the world appears flat, but there are these factors that remain that sew doubt upon our observations – including that ships disappear over the horizon, and so do mountains – and as such upon our hypothesis that the world is flat is just the best we can do at the moment. So it remains a truth candidate.

In other words there are no non trivial final truths. Truth is not determined by the platonic existence of a potential hypothetical description, but by our willingness to act upon information given to us. This is the difference between Spoken Word and Demonstrated Action. (Hence Taleb’s “Skin In The Game” requirement.) We have a lot of data now on the difference between what people say and what they demonstrate by their actions. These things differ substantially. Just as libertines SAY they prefer liberty but demonstrate retention of their membership in high trust, high consumption polities, rather than following their stated convictions.

The vast majority truth statements appear asymptotic. That if something appears to be true that it will continue to be refined multiple times, eventually to the point where further refinement is of no further use. This is the definition of a law. We can make a truth claim about a law with high confidence. We merely express this verbally as ‘this law of x is true’. This statement is nonsensical except by analogy. Instead, I can testify truthfully that this law will function for the purpose we intend it.

People speak truths by speaking truthfully. Arguments are dishonest, honest, and truthful. Statements are correspondent or not. We make truth claims about them given the knowledge at our disposal. The purpose being to determine our action while doing no harm to others.

Without the requirement for doing no harm to others ‘truth’ has no meaning. Statements are useful or not useful, they function or do not function. But I can only make a truth claim by speaking(writing etc): testimony.

There is no way out of this box. Sorry. Argument by analogy may be meaningful. It may be honest. But it is not truthful. The only truthful answer is that we write recipes that correspond (function) or not. We call them truths. This is a mistake. we speak truthfully or not. We will not be blamed for PUBLISHING truthfully, and often, not for TESTIFYING honestly, And often for SPEAKING opinion.

That is the difference between the six modes of speech:

1) Publishing/Promising/Claiming (promising others) We require Truthfulness.

2) Arguing/Exploring (a form of publication) We require Truthfulness.

3) Testifying (answering others) We require honesty only because truthfulness is provided by one’s opposition.

4) Discoursing/Speaking (providing others information.) We require honesty only because nothing else is possible, or because it’s too expensive yet to require a warranty of due diligence of truthfulness).

5) Negotiating (with potential cooperators) We require no falsehood, and expect informational asymmetry.

6) Threatening (with opponents. We expend and require nothing.

WHY WOULD YOU LIMIT AGGRESSION TO PHYSICALITY (NAP/IVP) EXCEPT TO ENGAGE IN TRICKERY AND FREE-RIDING?

The honest and truthful response to failing to understand is “I don’t understand.”

No doubt there are any number of fields you do not understand. It is perfectly normal not to understand, especially epistemology which has confounded some of the greatest minds in history.

But to try to give you a shortcut: the difference between thuggery and trickery and conspiracy and immorality is what?

The nap limited by the prohibition on Physical aggression only prohibits thuggery.

The nap limited by the prohibition on the imposition of costs prohibits trickery and blackmail and conspiracy and immorality.

You may feel that you can defend yourself against trickery, but it is unlikely you can defend yourself against conspiracy.

So if you live on the street as a beggar or traveling craftsman then it is only necessary to defend against physicality. But if you have increasingly complex assets the physicality of them increasingly decreases and these abstractions are increasingly subject to the imposition of costs by other means.

So now let’s reverse that logic and ask why you would want to engage in trickery blackmail conspiracy and immorality?

And then lets extend it and ask if it is possible to construct a voluntary polity where disputes are limited to physicality, and all other manner of the imposition of costs is for some reason tolerated?

There is a reason why societies incrementally suppress the imposition of costs. The reason is that the society cannot survive competition, so people suppress such parasitism to make the society competitive.

The problem is that in the process of suppression they centralize parasitism in order to pay for the suppression then rents expand limiting further increases.

Our problem is not to create lower standards and more parasitism, but to eliminate the necessity of central monopoly and the possibility of rents through competition.

You should be able to grasp this if you have at least a four year education.

If not I am afraid that this is not a subject upon which you should opine.

Thanks.

THE PROBLEM OF PHYSICALITY, INVENTORY, AND POTENTIAL

Or “All Property Consist of Potential Consumption”.

—“Absent thuggery, [ed: i take this to mean physicality] costs can’t be IMPOSED against my will; that’s why we use that word. Now sure, you can analyze various “likelihoods” and so on, and thus “figure” that these costs will be INCURRED, but that tells us nothing. First, all of your probabilities fall apart when dealing with a context that’s never been experienced. And even if they didn’t, the ethical aspect trumps.”—

I think what you mean to say is that if you have an asset that at some time later might be sold, that I cannot impose costs upon it without physically altering its state.

There are two problems with this. First, the costs are always imposed upon your inventory not a thing itself. So physical damage or theft of a thing does not impose a cost upon the thing but upon your inventory. Your potential. And all property consists of potential. The difference between that which is your inventory, and your potential consumption, (savings) and that which is not your inventory and your potential, is that which you have homesteaded (an opportunity you have transformed), or that which you have obtained through trade, or both of which you have transformed into some other state. This is what constitutes property: that which you have transformed. And we know this because this is what people DEMONSTRATE is their property.

So property (constructed inventory) exists prior to cooperation. The problem is creating property RIGHTS. And property RIGHTS (that which we insure for one another) must be constructed via agreement. And any such agreement must be sufficient for another to possess the incentives to enter into and maintain.

So since ONLY potential can bear costs, then all potentials can bear costs. And the only way to defend potentials (constructed inventory) is with cooperation from others with whom you offer reciprocal defense, or at least reciprocal avoidance.

PHYSICALITY VS TRICKERY (DECEIT, FRAUD), BLACKMAIL, CONSPIRACY (INCLUDING STATISM).

Now, You may feel that you can defend yourself against trickery, but it is unlikely you can defend yourself against conspiracy. But if you have increasingly complex assets the physicality of them increasingly decreases and these abstractions are increasingly subject to the imposition of costs by other means.

—Conspiracy of what? How is 20 guys trying to trick me any different than 1?—

Like I said, it depends upon the level of sophistication of your assets.

So the textbook example is ‘stranding’. I get together with others and buy the land all around you, and cut you off.

The most common practice is damaging. I get together with others and surround your property with dog kennels (or junk yards) with the combination of smell and noise attempting to make your life and rest intolerable on the one hand. And then causing the collapse of your property value on the other.

For example a man in Seattle bought a piece of property next to a childcare facility. Put up a sign that he was creating a safe house for sex offenders on the property. His strategy was that they would pay him to purchase the land, or they would have to fight him in court, which they couldn’t afford, of they would sell the property at a discount and he would buy it through a trust at a discount. (Yes, eventually, friends and I managed to get this guy financially ruined but not put away in jail.)

Now the next level of sophistication is to organize a polity. So I can conspire with others to create a polity, purchase the market and deny you access to our property.

It is easy to use property rights to deprive you of the ability to engage in production.

It is easy to use property rights to deprive you of the ability to capitalize the results of your production.

It is entirely possible to use property rights to kill you by deprivation.

So why, if you are not willing to enter a contract for moral behavior prohibiting the imposition of costs, so that we are sure we are safe from your potential immorality, then why should we not exterminate for being a risk to the rest of us?

This is purely rational behavior. And that rational behavior has been practiced throughout history.

all your tirade represents is acknowledgement of your uselessness to others in matters of the commons and therefore you rejection of contribution to the commons. NAP/IVP is just your excuse to claim that your free riding is somehow moral.

That’s a logical box man. You are not getting out of it.

LUDDISM IN ETHICS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO OUR PLIGHT.

—“I’d strongly hold that an extensive education, at least for the past 1/2 century or so, is a huge detriment to being able to consciously integrate facts. That’s an easy case to make…just look around.”—

Well, that’s an error of (a) language “consciously integrate fact” is a judgement not an operation – so it is untestable, and (b) confusing anecdote with evidence with which to test your observation against falsehood. So lets provide an alternative explanation that might survive criticism better than yours:

In criticizing my argument, you might say that while our education system has engaged in the propagation of pseudoscience over much of the past century, primarily to appeal to women. And that we can return to the logic and reason of our less technologically advanced ancestors – a form of luddism – And I would agree with both the criticism of the education system and that a luddite solution would perhaps provide defense against this era of pseudoscience in the social sciences.

But rather than regression (luddism), technological advancement in our thinking is also a possibility. So, you might consider that the prior era of thinkers in nearly all fields, including Hayek/law, Mises/economics, Popper/philosophy, Rothbard/ethics, Brouwer/mathematics and Bridgman/physics, (pretty much all logics and sciences) failed to solve the problem of ‘scale’. That is, that while we invented **probability** in the 19th century, as a means of extending our perception, we were unable to invent operationalism to criticize (test) our subsequent observations made through this new means of observation. We extended perception beyond our ability to test subjectively, and required a means of breaking these new technological observations into constituent parts so that they **could** be tested subjectively – meaning compared and judged without error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, and deception.

But this is the problem: the problem of scale was real. In every single field. So while in previous eras we engaged in justification (‘contractual facts’) using the traditional truth-finding model of Law and Morality, we took a century or more to invert that truth model into the amoral (non-justificationary), critical (scientific) truth-finding model we use in science today (if not in social sciences yet.) Which consists in free association by any means possible, then a series of tests to determine if the idea survives each possible dimension of error: identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, limits and parsimony. And that as such we do not possess static ‘facts’ with which to excuse our actions, but we possess observations, hypotheses and theories that are never concrete, only temporary markers at this period in time, open to future revision.

So just as we could not calculate fractals without computers, we could not calculate economics without substantial records, could not then perceive the consequence of man’s actions using prices at scale without them, we also lacked the philosophical and legal means to find truth in this new era of scale.

So lets catalog just a few of the fallacies “NAPers” engaged in:

1 – NAP/IVP doesn’t protect you from constructed deprivation and death, only physicality by other humans.

2 – Humans have no incentive to collect into a polity that allows low trust plotting and scheming versus a polity that disallows it.

3 – Humans possess every incentive to acquire resources (displace, kill) those who engage in lower trust, plotting and scheming, and in fact, do this throughout history: the pacification of man was pursued by this single incentive.

4 – Humans are very bad calculators without instrumental means both logical and empirical of testing their observations. The most obvious is the confusion (which you demonstrate) between an observation to which you attribute truth value only when you can measure it unaided. (which is what IVP refers to), and then refuse to validate it empirically or operationally(praxeologically), or equilibrially (which is why you’re making your errors), in order to ensure that you have laundered error, bias, wishful thinking, pure fantasy, and deception from it.

The first question of politics is ‘why don’t we kill you and take your stuff. And the only answer is that we will cooperate, for higher return, at lower risk, with greater certainty, with less effort, in less time. Which are the criteria for ‘prosper’ that accounts for all dimensional costs – and that constitute yet another example of why simple terms like ‘prosper’ are fancifully imprecise for the purpose of deduction without error.

The only means of rational cooperation is one in which we impose no costs upon each others acquisitions. The debate is whether we can compete for opportunities. And for most of history we disallowed this as well. It has only been since the evolution of smithian and humeian ethics that we have not defended opportunity to act, and limited our defense to that which we have acted upon. We call this production of consumable commons called opportunities ‘competition’.

Now, I know this is probably a bit advanced for NAP’ers. And one cannot agree to what one cannot comprehend. What you might be able to comprehend is that the NAP/IVP does not provide you with the protection you seem to think, and only the NA/Property en Toto does.

This is the observation we have made in ‘game theory’ : no individual can have his ideal, he can only have the best possible, and the best possible is that in which you come to consensus with others upon, because it is in their rational self interest.

Just how it is. It’s inescapable. Sorry.

FAITH AND GENES, NOT SCIENCE AND REASON.

For you this is a matter of faith not reason, not science, but faith. The reason is that it suits your evolutionary strategy to avoid contribution to the commons given that you either wish to act parasitically upon the commons, or because you feel you do not obtain adequate returns for contribution to the commons.

So you either err (likely), justify your error (likely), and justify it because you’re a parasitic life form (unlikely), or because you’re admitting you’re unfit for cooperation (likely), but unwilling to exit the commons (join an NAP polity somewhere) because the cost is too high for you to willingly bear. So you try to shame others into letting you free ride on their commons by appealing to western man’s pathological altruism, using obscurantist language under the pretense of morality to justify your theft.

It is extremely unlikely that I err in this analysis.

So if you’re a NAPer. you’re outed. Sorry man. But you’re a pretentious free riding emperor with no clothes.

Curt