[W]ell, I can’t quite do that without a whole book. But I think some people are beginning to understand the whole package I’ve put together, and why I’m criticizing feminism, postmodernism, ghetto libertarianism, left libertarianism, and even to some degree, conservatism: because the moral codes of all these groups advocate are predicated on assumptions about the nature of man, our common interests, and our economy, that are a mix of agrarian, industrial, and marxist thought dependent upon assumptions about our equality of reproductive value , equality of reproductive organization, our equality of value in organizing and participating in production, and organizing and participating in the production of norms that facilitate production at low transaction costs. All advancement of productivity and therefore wealth in civilization requires advancement in institutions that assist in creating ‘calculability’: the means by which we cooperate in a division of labor while suppressing the ability for anyone in that division of labor to conduct free riding. [callout]…we must also compensate people outside of the production process for their diligence, labor, and construction of the normative commons that makes an elaborate division of labor in a high trust, low transaction cost society possible.[/callout] Outside of our direct perception, which is very limited, we can only know anything else about the world if it is calculable – and therefore reducible to analogy to experience. Otherwise we cannot sense or perceive it. And we are notoriously bad in our perceptions without instrumentation and calculation to assist us in judging even the most trivial of things. Prices for example are calculable. Our imagination of people’s lives in different parts of the world is not. The evidence that someone is wiling to trade with us, is proof that we have calculated the use of resources and time correctly. Just as their failure to do so tells us we have wasted them – or consumed them as entertainment. Science is a discipline entirely devoted to using instrumentation to sense what we cannot, then reduce it to analogy to experience, where we can use our limited faculties of deduction by employing our various fascinating tools of logic to ensure that what we sense is both internally consistent and externally correspondent. So whether we are talking about science, technology, production, money and accounting, cooperation or law, we are still talking about various forms of instrumentation that assist us in performing calculations on what we are not able to perform without relying upon those tools. Now, because productivity was so important in the past, we assumed that our relative equality of value in production, organizing production, reproduction, organizing reproduction, investigation and discovery, were all the same, and we limited our concept of moral life to attempting to create universal rules and incentives for each of us to follow. But that turns out to not make any sense. Because one must have the incentive to follow rules. And if we are marginally different in what we value, and in what we NEED to value as reproductive organisms; and we very clearly demonstrate that we are different, then the incentives that we have are quite different. And if the incentives are quite different we must construct alternative means, other than a MONOPOLY definition of human morality, that provides the incentives for us to act with common interests, despite the fact that we have uncommon interests. That is the job of institutions. The market allows us to cooperate on means even if we cannot cooperate on ends. But the market assumes that the primary value we each provide is our productivity in the market. (Which was true during the formation of market towns, and when human labor was necessary for production.) However, if we take into consideration, that in fact, only some of us have value in organizing production, only some others have value in participating in production, and still others only have value in organizing the norms such that production is possible, then we are all simply participating in a division of knowledge and labor. And therefore the rewards of production would be earned by those who prefer and are able to engage in production. But we must also compensate people outside of the production process for their diligence, labor, and construction of the normative commons that makes an elaborate division of labor in a high trust, low transaction cost society possible. As such these people who are outside of the production process, but who facilitate the creation of the high trust society by suppressing free riding in all its forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, and statist behavior, therefore must be paid for their services (or not paid if they fail to deliver them.) Furthermore, every individual who eschews criminal, immoral, unethical, conspiratorial, (statist) behavior, pays a cost with every opportunity he forgoes. Respect for property rights is costly for each individual. Every time an individual suppresses another’s ability to conduct free riding on others: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial (statist), it is a cost to him. To ask someone to obey these rules which facilitate the voluntary organization of low transaction cost hight trust society, when they are unable to participate in production or the fruits of it, is to ask them to conduct security guard work, and to exert restraint without compensation. Producers are nothing without consumers. Producers must compete for the attention of consumers. The more successful producers gain greater rewards, which in current civilization means little more than greater status signals and associations with others who likewise possess greater status signals, for more successfully satisfying the wants of consumers. This argument is entirely consistent with property rights theory. I will get to the criterion for compensation in one of my next posts.
Theme: Deception
-
Rothbard's Ethical Ghetto
Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.
-
Rothbard’s Ethical Ghetto
Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.
-
Rothbard's Ethical Ghetto
Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.
-
Rothbard’s Ethical Ghetto
Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.
-
Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics As A Parasitic Scam
Rothbard’s ethics are just another a parasitic scam seeking to replace low transaction cost state parasitism, with high transaction cost universal parasitism. Aristocratic Egalitarians (protestants) had it right: universal responsibility for the universal suppression of all involuntary extractions, thereby forcing every living soul to compete in the market for goods and services, where his efforts produce a virtuous cycle. 1) We can describe all involuntary extractions of property as one of the following: Criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial (statist). Attached is one of my diagrams that illustrates this spectrum. The curve on the right is the DEMONSTRATED demand curve for liberty. Because it represents the REPRODUCTIVE return on forgone opportunities (opportunity costs). 2) All costs are opportunity costs. That definition of property is the human behavioral definition of property, not some artificially constructed definition of property that was created to justify aggression against property by non physical means. (Which is the very purpose of Rothbard’s argument.) If all costs are opportunity costs then it is not possible to make the argument for bribery except as an excuse to justify theft. (and it is an excuse to justify theft, which is why it’s almost universally rejected except by social outcasts.) The human intuitive perception of property, the human normative description of property, and the reproductively and cooperatively NECESSARY and non-arbitrary definition of property, is defined by the requirements for decreasing transaction costs of cooperation. From the most severe and direct (crime) to the most indirect and imperceptible (displacement via outbreeding or immigrating. A fact which is illustrated in the diagram.) 3) As I’ve said. Either the NAP is insufficient, or the definition of property rights is insufficient. I’m able to construct an argument that the NAP is sufficient as long as the definition of property rights is DESCRIPTIVE. But it is not possible to rationally choose an arbitrary description of private property limited to that which is necessary for economic production (private property) and its dependent ethics, and not ALSO leave unanswered the further definitions of property in all its forms that create the trust necessary for rational risk taking in a polity. My original assumption was that first mises made the error because of his obsession with commodity prices, which are a reductio example of property, and that rothbard further expanded that error with his appeal to predatory extractive ghetto ethics, as an group evolutionary theory. And I can forgive both authors for such errors. We cannot expect all men to be wise in all matters. But as time has progressed I’ve understood the damage that has resulted from the emphasis on a FAILED minority strategy (low trust society), to a successful majority strategy (high trust societies) in producing both eugenic reproduction and expanding wealth. 4) What is circular reasoning, is the arbitrary definition of rothbardian private property rights as a means of justifying involuntary extraction via PRIVATE SECTOR PARASITISM, as a means of replacing involuntary extraction via STATE PARASITISM. Rothbard’s ethics, statism and socialism, are parasitic. ROTHBARD’S ETHICS ARE PARASITIC. Only high trust property rights are fully productive and NOT parasitic. ONLY those high trust ethics. ONLY THOSE AND NO OTHER. Northwestern europeans managed to almost exterminate all involuntary extraction and forcing all human action into the market for goods and services. All of it. Forbidding all other means of free riding. Apriorism is an interesting tool for deceiving mediocre minds via overloading. It works in mathematical philosophy for the same reason it works in ethical philosophy: because these reductive arguments rely on aggregation of concepts that obscure the causal properties. So, yes, rothbardianism is a parasitic scam. 5) If we can get past that point we will get to the dispute over whether it is rational for people to exchange pervasive parasitism, pervasive transaction costs in daily life, for limited parasitic rents, corruption and conspiracy via the state. CLOSING All costs are opportunity costs. Humans DEMONSTRATE that they behave this way in all circumstances. And it is rational for them to do so. And irrational for them not to. And Rothbardian ethics are an attempt to trade one parasitic scam for another. Nothing more.
-
Prohibiting Magical, Socialist, Postmodern, and Pseudoscientific Arguments, as Immoral Deceptions
(This is profound, and a lot to grasp. I have copied it here from elsewhere.) While one might say that ‘it does not matter what we do, that discipline over there, is none of our concern, because whether true or not, this technique is useful to us’. The fact is that such a statement is arbitrary and preferential and not ‘true’ remains. If instead of placing higher value on one’s personal utility in an isolated domain, one places higher value on suppressing immoral political speech such that freedom is possible, one might reach a different conclusion. Just as high trust ethics are possible by the suppression of additional immoral actions over low trust ethics, higher trust ethics are possibly by the suppression of further immoral actions. In low trust ethics, asymmetric knowledge is an ethical means of profit. In high trust ethics profit from asymmetric knowledge is immoral. In ‘higher trust ethics’ (In propertarianism) we place a greater ethical constraint, such that profit from obscurantism, mysticism, and platonism are prohibited. If operational language will allow you to express an idea and serves the needs of one’s function, then it is immoral to rely on platonic argument. If symmetrical knowledge will allow you to cooperate with another then it is immoral to express your thoughts in asymmetric terms. (incomplete information). If telling the truth will allow you to cooperate with another then it is immoral and unethical to express your thoughts in fraudulent terms. If voluntarily cooperating with someone such that you can obtain something without stealing, then it is immoral to steal from them. If is possible to cooperate with someone such that you can both survive then it is immoral to kill them. So, we must, in order to suppress increasingly complex forms of crime, ethical violation and immoral violation, we must forgo opportunities for self benefit by restraint, then to suppress the use of obscurant, mystical, platonic deceptions requires that we refrain, even at cost, from obscurant, mystical, and platonic statements. That this is in fact, what is required of Science (to make statements in operant language), then why is it that we cannot require this level of TRUTH in all other disciplines – especially if it prevents criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior, and enables as great a leap in cooperation as the high trust ethic did over the low trust ethic? Again, I believe I have solved the problem. But it may be just too much to ask for someone else to understand unless I am able to either condense it to a Confucian riddle, or extend it to a Hayekian narrative, or a Darwinian exposition of cases. ETHICAL BEHAVIOR COMES AT A HIGH COST. Ergo: If you want a politically ethical society we must pay this cost: the abandonment of the convenience of imaginary objects and confusing the utility of a conceptual tool with the existence and truth of that tool as a construction. This is how to make politics ‘scientific.’ We outlawed violence. We outlawed theft. We outlawed fraud. We suppressed fraud-by-omission with warranty. We suppressed free riding with marital structure and property rights. We tried to suppress corruption with the constitution, but it failed. It failed because the constitution was not precise enough – in no small part because it should have specified original intent. We have failed to suppress mysticism, monotheism, marxian obscurantism, and Hegelian and postmodern conflation of mysticism and obscurantism. The requirement for scientific speech makes such arguments impossible. It means that public discourse is a property-commons, and one may not free ride or privatize it for one’s own convenience. Because it is immoral to do so. This is pretty profound. But again, it may be that such a profound statement is not of interest to you. But to me, as someone who has tried to solve the problem of ethics in an ethically and morally heterogeneious polity and to protect us from another dark age of ignorance and mysticism that Marx, Freud and Cantor have tried to drive us into, it is of a greater priority, and it is entirely worthy of the cost. -Cheers ================ END NOTES FOR LATER REFERENCE 1) If i say that the square root if two is the name for a function but is not reducible to a number, and cannot be demonstrated to be possible, that does not in fact prevent me from using the name of that function as a symbol in deduction, because in no circumstance is infinite precision applicable. 2) (Lest we lose sight of the source of my argument here, I am trying to define extensions of political morality such that we can create institutions that permit the cooperation of individuals and groups holding heterogeneous moral codes, each of which reflects a different reproductive strategy. If you are going to create a means of resolving differences between moral codes, what constraints does one place upon the formation of argument, procedure, policy, and law, such that suppression of discounts would be possible, and theft by obscurant means would be impossible. How do we prevent the use of deception via various forms of obscurantism in a polity consisting of morally and ethically heterogeneous individuals and groups? If, as I’m arguing, mathematics is justificationary, but need not be, and need not be without sacrifice of functionality, and if it can be such that mathematicians (or members of this group) can be fooled into justificationary positions, then how would we prevent the ‘leakage’ from either this group’s ideology or the platonism of mathematics, (or that of socialists and totalitarians) into law? 3) limits solve the problem of arbitrary precision (general rules) when in physics, correspondence with reality provides the ‘limit’ of precision. This is the difference between math (the study of pure relations independent of context) and the study of reality (relations within context). But that does not mean that when we make a reference to any mathematical object, we are naming a function (label for the result of operations) not naming an extant entity. That by definition a number system can be used to construct the rules for any n dimensional construct deterministically because of the constancy of relations, we should not confuse the determinacy we have ourselves described in constant relations, with existence. I cannot speak something into material existence other than the vibrations caused with my voice. I actually find this subject fascinating because it sort of renders most of the world ‘childish’. 4) what good does a personal philosophy of ethical (interpersonal) action, and moral (political) action do you when the others do not share a marginally indifferent ethic and moral code? So, for example, what good does it do you if the vast majority economically, politically, or physically deprive you of any ability to act on this code? Politics is a contract, not a personal philosophy. And you might say that you will offer others these terms that you prefer. But if you must construct a contract (constitution) what terms must exist in this contract to make your personal philosophy both ethical and moral, possible to act upon? 5) a) Empirical means “observable”, not quantifiable: “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.” Which is of course, the difference between the motion of planets vs unicorns (and infinity). That which is empirical is different from that which is imaginary. It is observable in time. (Very common mistake btw. You are not alone.) b) So, again, existence is different from utility. I can tell a fable with a unicorn, and I can imitate arbitrary precision with infinity. But that is different from saying such a thing exists scientifically (empirically). When you say that something is infinite, you are in fact, RELYING ON INDUCTION. (Ouch. I know.) c) God, and magic for that matter, are ‘older’ old hat. And they well served the purpose of their authors. Just as does infinity. d) Why is it that we need the ‘concept of limits’ (a form of justification)? It’s arbitrary precision instead of contextual precision – general rules independent of context versus precision determined by context. Why is it that we can use boolean logic (boolean algebra) for computation? (see Turing) And what utility does the function limit() serve in transforming contextual precision into arbitrary precision (general rule)? e) Constructivist, Intuitive, computational, operational, empirical, natural – all are expressions in math, logic, philosophy and science of attempts to circumvent the problem of reliance on justification. Departmental math, is justificationary. f) So, again, given that the difference is unnecessary and justificationary, and imaginary, while if stated operationally, math is descriptive, deductive, natural and ‘real’, and that the necessity of this conversation is DEMONSTRATION of the very problem of justificationary logic, even among people who assert that they deny the existence of justification, it should be somewhat obvious by now that there exists in fact the problem of externalizing immoral, unreal, illogical, platonism that is exported by justificationary departmental mathematics. g) Given that mathematical platonism is, like divine intervention, the hand of god, or some other magical mater of existence, ‘correctable’ without sacrifice of functionality in mathematics, then I will return to my asserted thesis that it is immoral to use non-operational, non-constructivist argument in public discourse (the export through obscurant language of error), because the institution of politics, exists for the purpose of transfer of wealth. Further, that we can, by placing the reuqirement for constructivist, operational, language on public discourse, we can (at least in theory) prohibit organized theft, corruption and immorality via justificationary psuedoscience, magic, or the pretense that mathematics can be used to describe phenomenon that is absent of constant relations (economics).
-
Prohibiting Magical, Socialist, Postmodern, and Pseudoscientific Arguments, as Immoral Deceptions
(This is profound, and a lot to grasp. I have copied it here from elsewhere.) While one might say that ‘it does not matter what we do, that discipline over there, is none of our concern, because whether true or not, this technique is useful to us’. The fact is that such a statement is arbitrary and preferential and not ‘true’ remains. If instead of placing higher value on one’s personal utility in an isolated domain, one places higher value on suppressing immoral political speech such that freedom is possible, one might reach a different conclusion. Just as high trust ethics are possible by the suppression of additional immoral actions over low trust ethics, higher trust ethics are possibly by the suppression of further immoral actions. In low trust ethics, asymmetric knowledge is an ethical means of profit. In high trust ethics profit from asymmetric knowledge is immoral. In ‘higher trust ethics’ (In propertarianism) we place a greater ethical constraint, such that profit from obscurantism, mysticism, and platonism are prohibited. If operational language will allow you to express an idea and serves the needs of one’s function, then it is immoral to rely on platonic argument. If symmetrical knowledge will allow you to cooperate with another then it is immoral to express your thoughts in asymmetric terms. (incomplete information). If telling the truth will allow you to cooperate with another then it is immoral and unethical to express your thoughts in fraudulent terms. If voluntarily cooperating with someone such that you can obtain something without stealing, then it is immoral to steal from them. If is possible to cooperate with someone such that you can both survive then it is immoral to kill them. So, we must, in order to suppress increasingly complex forms of crime, ethical violation and immoral violation, we must forgo opportunities for self benefit by restraint, then to suppress the use of obscurant, mystical, platonic deceptions requires that we refrain, even at cost, from obscurant, mystical, and platonic statements. That this is in fact, what is required of Science (to make statements in operant language), then why is it that we cannot require this level of TRUTH in all other disciplines – especially if it prevents criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior, and enables as great a leap in cooperation as the high trust ethic did over the low trust ethic? Again, I believe I have solved the problem. But it may be just too much to ask for someone else to understand unless I am able to either condense it to a Confucian riddle, or extend it to a Hayekian narrative, or a Darwinian exposition of cases. ETHICAL BEHAVIOR COMES AT A HIGH COST. Ergo: If you want a politically ethical society we must pay this cost: the abandonment of the convenience of imaginary objects and confusing the utility of a conceptual tool with the existence and truth of that tool as a construction. This is how to make politics ‘scientific.’ We outlawed violence. We outlawed theft. We outlawed fraud. We suppressed fraud-by-omission with warranty. We suppressed free riding with marital structure and property rights. We tried to suppress corruption with the constitution, but it failed. It failed because the constitution was not precise enough – in no small part because it should have specified original intent. We have failed to suppress mysticism, monotheism, marxian obscurantism, and Hegelian and postmodern conflation of mysticism and obscurantism. The requirement for scientific speech makes such arguments impossible. It means that public discourse is a property-commons, and one may not free ride or privatize it for one’s own convenience. Because it is immoral to do so. This is pretty profound. But again, it may be that such a profound statement is not of interest to you. But to me, as someone who has tried to solve the problem of ethics in an ethically and morally heterogeneious polity and to protect us from another dark age of ignorance and mysticism that Marx, Freud and Cantor have tried to drive us into, it is of a greater priority, and it is entirely worthy of the cost. -Cheers ================ END NOTES FOR LATER REFERENCE 1) If i say that the square root if two is the name for a function but is not reducible to a number, and cannot be demonstrated to be possible, that does not in fact prevent me from using the name of that function as a symbol in deduction, because in no circumstance is infinite precision applicable. 2) (Lest we lose sight of the source of my argument here, I am trying to define extensions of political morality such that we can create institutions that permit the cooperation of individuals and groups holding heterogeneous moral codes, each of which reflects a different reproductive strategy. If you are going to create a means of resolving differences between moral codes, what constraints does one place upon the formation of argument, procedure, policy, and law, such that suppression of discounts would be possible, and theft by obscurant means would be impossible. How do we prevent the use of deception via various forms of obscurantism in a polity consisting of morally and ethically heterogeneous individuals and groups? If, as I’m arguing, mathematics is justificationary, but need not be, and need not be without sacrifice of functionality, and if it can be such that mathematicians (or members of this group) can be fooled into justificationary positions, then how would we prevent the ‘leakage’ from either this group’s ideology or the platonism of mathematics, (or that of socialists and totalitarians) into law? 3) limits solve the problem of arbitrary precision (general rules) when in physics, correspondence with reality provides the ‘limit’ of precision. This is the difference between math (the study of pure relations independent of context) and the study of reality (relations within context). But that does not mean that when we make a reference to any mathematical object, we are naming a function (label for the result of operations) not naming an extant entity. That by definition a number system can be used to construct the rules for any n dimensional construct deterministically because of the constancy of relations, we should not confuse the determinacy we have ourselves described in constant relations, with existence. I cannot speak something into material existence other than the vibrations caused with my voice. I actually find this subject fascinating because it sort of renders most of the world ‘childish’. 4) what good does a personal philosophy of ethical (interpersonal) action, and moral (political) action do you when the others do not share a marginally indifferent ethic and moral code? So, for example, what good does it do you if the vast majority economically, politically, or physically deprive you of any ability to act on this code? Politics is a contract, not a personal philosophy. And you might say that you will offer others these terms that you prefer. But if you must construct a contract (constitution) what terms must exist in this contract to make your personal philosophy both ethical and moral, possible to act upon? 5) a) Empirical means “observable”, not quantifiable: “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.” Which is of course, the difference between the motion of planets vs unicorns (and infinity). That which is empirical is different from that which is imaginary. It is observable in time. (Very common mistake btw. You are not alone.) b) So, again, existence is different from utility. I can tell a fable with a unicorn, and I can imitate arbitrary precision with infinity. But that is different from saying such a thing exists scientifically (empirically). When you say that something is infinite, you are in fact, RELYING ON INDUCTION. (Ouch. I know.) c) God, and magic for that matter, are ‘older’ old hat. And they well served the purpose of their authors. Just as does infinity. d) Why is it that we need the ‘concept of limits’ (a form of justification)? It’s arbitrary precision instead of contextual precision – general rules independent of context versus precision determined by context. Why is it that we can use boolean logic (boolean algebra) for computation? (see Turing) And what utility does the function limit() serve in transforming contextual precision into arbitrary precision (general rule)? e) Constructivist, Intuitive, computational, operational, empirical, natural – all are expressions in math, logic, philosophy and science of attempts to circumvent the problem of reliance on justification. Departmental math, is justificationary. f) So, again, given that the difference is unnecessary and justificationary, and imaginary, while if stated operationally, math is descriptive, deductive, natural and ‘real’, and that the necessity of this conversation is DEMONSTRATION of the very problem of justificationary logic, even among people who assert that they deny the existence of justification, it should be somewhat obvious by now that there exists in fact the problem of externalizing immoral, unreal, illogical, platonism that is exported by justificationary departmental mathematics. g) Given that mathematical platonism is, like divine intervention, the hand of god, or some other magical mater of existence, ‘correctable’ without sacrifice of functionality in mathematics, then I will return to my asserted thesis that it is immoral to use non-operational, non-constructivist argument in public discourse (the export through obscurant language of error), because the institution of politics, exists for the purpose of transfer of wealth. Further, that we can, by placing the reuqirement for constructivist, operational, language on public discourse, we can (at least in theory) prohibit organized theft, corruption and immorality via justificationary psuedoscience, magic, or the pretense that mathematics can be used to describe phenomenon that is absent of constant relations (economics).
-
Respecting The Person Or The Ideas Or Conflating The Two
(interesting) (tolerance as tax evasion) Do you separate respect for the person from respect for their ideas or do you make the solipsistic error of conflating a persons beliefs which they can change with their physical body which they cannot? One can say: i) that we coexist peacefully, ii) that we compete peacefully, iii) that we cooperate on different ends peacefully, iv) that we cooperate on the same ends peacefully. If someone possesses a catastrophic error, and you wish to cooperate with them, what is the impact of letting them hold on to silly ideas? Well, they can have whatever silly idea they want as long as it doesn’t affect your ability to cooperate on ends together. It is possible to possess ideas, values, beliefs, traditions, myths, metaphysical value judgments that are not merely differences in tastes, but which actively PREVENT cooperation on certain types of ends and means. If your culture denies reality, provides no means of correction of knowledge, provides no means of correction of individual thought, and at the same time, we know we must use science to understand that which we cannot perceive and sense directly, and such that TEACHING COOPERATION ON MEANS IF NOT ENDS In solipsistic argument, respect is for the purpose of raising children who do not yet have the ability to cooperate in the world. At some point we must become adults, or be the wards, subjects and victims of adults forever. One becomes an adult at the very point where one abandons solipsistic argument (the one you’re making probably) and distinguishes between the meaningless errors of children which they may grow out of, and the meaningful errors of adults that they may not grow out of. Tolerance in children is necessary for pedagogy. Tolerance in adults is only logically necessary for tastes, but not for truths. If you do not correct the errors in thinking of yourself and your fellow citizens then you are a conspirator in the conspiracy of ignorance, and a threat to society – and to man. Just as you are a threat to a society and to man if you fail to enforce and adhere to manners, ethics, and morals. TOLERANCE AS “FREE RIDING, CHEATING AND STEALING” If you do not enforce and adhere to manners (ethics of signals), ethics (participatory ethics), and morals (ethics of externalities) then you are not paying the behavioral ‘tax’ for living in a society – you are a tax cheater so to speak in the normative system of costs. if you are less ABLE to pay normative taxes, that is the same as if you are less ABLE to pay real taxes – in both cases these are statements of your willingness and ability. In other words, if you let adults around you believe that which is economically dangerous to the polity, then you are just trying to save yourself the cost of paying for the normative infrastructure, just like any other tax cheat is trying to save himself the cost of paying for physical infrastructure. You can say that you are not competent (productive enough) to pay that normative tax, but if that is so, then you of course, like any other person who evades taxes, no right to speak about norms.
-
Respecting The Person Or The Ideas Or Conflating The Two
(interesting) (tolerance as tax evasion) Do you separate respect for the person from respect for their ideas or do you make the solipsistic error of conflating a persons beliefs which they can change with their physical body which they cannot? One can say: i) that we coexist peacefully, ii) that we compete peacefully, iii) that we cooperate on different ends peacefully, iv) that we cooperate on the same ends peacefully. If someone possesses a catastrophic error, and you wish to cooperate with them, what is the impact of letting them hold on to silly ideas? Well, they can have whatever silly idea they want as long as it doesn’t affect your ability to cooperate on ends together. It is possible to possess ideas, values, beliefs, traditions, myths, metaphysical value judgments that are not merely differences in tastes, but which actively PREVENT cooperation on certain types of ends and means. If your culture denies reality, provides no means of correction of knowledge, provides no means of correction of individual thought, and at the same time, we know we must use science to understand that which we cannot perceive and sense directly, and such that TEACHING COOPERATION ON MEANS IF NOT ENDS In solipsistic argument, respect is for the purpose of raising children who do not yet have the ability to cooperate in the world. At some point we must become adults, or be the wards, subjects and victims of adults forever. One becomes an adult at the very point where one abandons solipsistic argument (the one you’re making probably) and distinguishes between the meaningless errors of children which they may grow out of, and the meaningful errors of adults that they may not grow out of. Tolerance in children is necessary for pedagogy. Tolerance in adults is only logically necessary for tastes, but not for truths. If you do not correct the errors in thinking of yourself and your fellow citizens then you are a conspirator in the conspiracy of ignorance, and a threat to society – and to man. Just as you are a threat to a society and to man if you fail to enforce and adhere to manners, ethics, and morals. TOLERANCE AS “FREE RIDING, CHEATING AND STEALING” If you do not enforce and adhere to manners (ethics of signals), ethics (participatory ethics), and morals (ethics of externalities) then you are not paying the behavioral ‘tax’ for living in a society – you are a tax cheater so to speak in the normative system of costs. if you are less ABLE to pay normative taxes, that is the same as if you are less ABLE to pay real taxes – in both cases these are statements of your willingness and ability. In other words, if you let adults around you believe that which is economically dangerous to the polity, then you are just trying to save yourself the cost of paying for the normative infrastructure, just like any other tax cheat is trying to save himself the cost of paying for physical infrastructure. You can say that you are not competent (productive enough) to pay that normative tax, but if that is so, then you of course, like any other person who evades taxes, no right to speak about norms.