Form: Reply

Do you mean I have to repeat the last time I eviscerated you? Why do you waste my time?

1) Tell me how my work in Testimonialism recommends use of Natural Common, Judge Discovered Law to demand warranties of due diligence for public speech in matters of coercion (politics).

2) Tell me what seven due diligences one must perform in order to satisfy that warranty, and why any of those is particularly difficult (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, and limited). (Especially when it was mises who discovered operationalism in Economics; when )

3) Then tell me why this model will not work to incrementally suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, propaganda and deceit.

4) Then tell me why, except for reciprocity (moral consistency), if the hard sciences practice these warranties of due diligence, the same results in hard science would not be possible in psychological science, social science, economic science, and political science, if we include reciprocity in the list of required due diligences.

5) Then tell me why we could not demand these due diligences in political speech in a court of law, just as we do for advertising claims, marketing claims, commercial sales presentations, contract provisions, services brought to market, and goods brought to market?

6) Then tell me if defense of the informational (political) commons is policed by ordinary citizens (universal standing in matters of the commons) and if rule of law (universal application of the law to all individuals without exception) how this does not produce a market for Truth by suppressing the market for falsehood, just as we produce a market for truth by suppressing a market for fraud.

There is no reason logical, empirical, functional, or ethical that we cannot demand truthful speech in politics.

Except for those who wish to perpetuate lies.

if you can construct an argument against this series then you will ‘have me’. But you write a great deal of nonsense without actually addressing the very boring reality that between the hard sciences and the law, we already do most of this demanding of due diligence. And do it successfully. Daily. In fact, if it weren’t for the long standing legal proposition that we should tolerate error and deceit in order to encourage political speech, in the same way we tolerate slander and libel of public figures to give license to opinion and error, in the same way we tolerate abuse of patents in order to encourage innovation, in the same way we allow legal interpretation instead of strict construction from original intent, then we would already do most of this. What we learned in the 20th century was (a) the use of operational language to create existential (observational) consistency, (b) and that operational consistency allowed us to discover limits of theories. But operational language has been studied (EPrime) and authors have written entire works in it. Law already favors reciprocity, and law already constructs documents increasingly operationally. What our framers did not expect was that propaganda was so cheaply manufactured and in such industrial quantity, and the common man or woman is so susceptible to it, that the cost of refutation would be impossible to defeat. So rather than leave such ‘frauds’ to be freely made, we can use consumer protection to protect consumers.

Either you can respond to this or you cannot.

(or perhaps you will not publish this response like you did not publish my last.)