Lets reframe the argument:
I SAID THIS
“The NAP/IVP is insufficient for the determination of rational action, insufficient for decidability in the resolution of disputes, and insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity.” (or thereabouts)
But your criticism was that the NAP was sufficient for the determination of rational action and that I was wrong.
We then go on to demonstrate that it you can come up with excuses to circumvent common examples of conflicts that have arisen over the problem of hinderance rather than physical aggression. But you ignore the costs imposed by hinderance and the resources available for alternatives.
So we demonstrate that physicality is insufficient for the determination of rational action. Ergo, you were wrong.
You then counter that it is rational to do what you want, and I counter that it is only rational if reasoning can result in the desired ends. Otherwise it’s irrational. And since your reasoning from the NAP/physicality cannot result in the desired ends of non-retaliation, then it cannot be sufficient. Ergo you were wrong.
I then explain that others determine the ethical limits of your actions, not you, and now you flip around and say you agree, and were saying that all along. When it’s logically impossible that your judgement is the source of ethical limits AND we require others to determine if ethical limits exist. Ergo, you were wrong.
I try to correct your representation. I show you the observation, hypothesis, criticism cycle or what is called “PTT”, but apparently this level of precision which would correct your use of terms and disallow you to claim that your egoistic perception provides truth content, rather than the survival of your perception from criticism. And you accuse me of unnecessary precision as a means of escaping your error. Ergo you were wrong.
I try to correct your misrepresentation. You use the verb to-be: “is” and “are” to refer to existence without referring to the form of existence so that you can engage in a deception by conflating existence, action, and experience. This is an amateurish error but it allows you to make the false statements that you observe an existing fact rather than a fact is the result of criticism in order to ensure that you have not erred. You have avoided all of these statements and engaged in banter and distraction in order to avoid answering the basic premise that your perceptions are fallible on the one and and that the constraint on your behavior toward others is not determined by your choice, your reasoning, your argumentary justification, but by empirical evidence of what people choose to retaliate for and against. Ergo you were wrong.
You constantly misuse terms as a means of avoiding falsifying your argument yourself. You seem to think “ethical judgement” refers to the individual alone, but this cannot be, since ethical only refers to interpersonal actions, and only can. Other judgments are useful only. Ethical judgements may be useful. Otherwise they are merely beneficial or not. Ethical statements require others. Just as I can demonstrate defense of property against all of nature and animals, but rights cannot exist without others.
You then abandon the argument saying I need to learn something, and return to your question of correspondence hoping that retreat will save you from failure, but this requires you again rely on your ability to determine truth or falsehood without testing it. And your conflation of reality (existence), action (observation), cognition, and criticism.
Well here is the thing.
Here is your tactic: “I use imprecision (fuzzy language), conflation, terminological misrepresentation, bypassing contradiction, and outright distraction or deception in order to preserve myself from admitting that my faith in the NAP is nonsense justified by nonsense: a deception.
So lets look at some more ways you engage in deception.
—Golly, I thought that was my point!—
if that was your point then show me where it was your point because your argument is was that I erred in my statement that the NAP was insufficient for rational action – because physicality is too limited a constraint on one’s physical aggression against their physical property, because OTHER human beings do not limit their retaliation against you to your physical property.
TRANSLATE
— how I use it—
“how I misrepresent my ideas”
— thuggery —
“how I create an excuse to refer to non-physical violence, while claiming it’s physical violence – ‘in some sort of *way*’ “
—I just said —
“how I pretend what I just said is equal to what curt said even though i am simply avoiding the difference between the self determination of truth by personal judgement as if I never err, rather than the empirical determination of truth through criticism precisely because I err.”
— waste my time—
“how I avoid learning why I err and why I misrepresent arguments, and acknowledge the defeat of my ideas.”
SO HERE IS THE TRUTH
There are many kinds of liars. And the kind that attempts to lie to himself, is an a common one. And that is the liar you appear to be.
You are justifying your free riding by an elaborate justificationary self deception by the misuse of terms, and intentional ignorance.
—I don’t care—-
But that is because you are an immoral man, working to maintain a false fantasy just as much as any religious obsessive. And for the same reason; reality is undesirable to you.
I DO CARE
Because it is a moral man’s duty to protect the commons from pollution by error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, and deception of every kind.
And as a moral man I care that you are perpetuating the rothbardian lie just as others perpetuate the boazian, marxist, freudian lies, and keyneisan deception by innumeracy.
So this is why I worked so long to defeat your argument entirely.
I do not need your consent to invalidate your argument. I don’t need you to change your mind. A dishonest man’s opinion is irrelevant. I just need to show the audience how people like you carry on deception an self deception by wishful thinking using all sorts of techniques to preserve their ability to criticize using deception, and maintain the pretense of the superiority of their ideas using deception.
You’re either a useful idiot, or a bad human being spreading verbal disease to protect an investment in a falsehood that gives you confidence and status.
MY ARGUMENT STANDS
“The NAP/IVP is insufficient for the determination of rational action, insufficient for decidability in the resolution of disputes, and insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity.” (or thereabouts)
ONLY Non aggression against property-en-toto – demonstrated property determined by empirical means, and tested sympathetically for the rationality of incentives – is sufficient for rational action, decidability in law, and the formation of a voluntary polity.
ergo, nomocracy.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 11:56:00 UTC