Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Does The Separation Between Mathematical Truth And Mathematical Proof Necessarily Imply A Platonist View Of Mathematics?

    Here is the debate as I understand it:

    (And forgive me if I mix language from multiple domains please.)

    The Intuitionists argue that all mathematics can be stated operationally, and as such, for all intents and purposes, all mathematical symbols other than the glyphs we use to name the natural numbers, are nothing more than names for functions (sets of operations).

    However, the intuitionist (‘recursive’) solution causes a problem in that the excluded middle is impermissible – but without it, much of mathematics because much more difficult, and harder to prove. So with that constraint on the excluded middle, the higher truth requirement of computational and constructivist, intuitionist logic has been deemed not useful for departmental mathematicians.

    So under the ZFC+AC and ‘spontaneous platonic imaginary’ creation of sets, we obtain the ability to do mathematics that include both double negation and the excluded middle. 

    This ‘trick’ separates Pure math in one discipline and  Scientific math, Computational mathematics, and philosophical realism into different discipline, each with different standards of truth. In fact, technically speaking, mathematics is absent truth (correspondence) and relies entirely on proof. ie: there are no true statements in pure mathematics.

    IF ANYONE  KNOWS —>> It does not appear that Brouwer or any of his followers understood why their method failed and the set method succeeded.  But even if they failed, I am trying to figure out if the Formalists understood their ‘hack’ and why it worked. 

    And lastly, if anyone at all understood how Intuitionist, constructivist, and computational logic could be improved to solve the problem of retaining correspondence (truth) while also retaining the excluded middle (even if it was burdensome). 

    Someone smarter than I am has got to have addressed this problem already although for the life of me I can’t find anyone who has.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-separation-between-mathematical-truth-and-mathematical-proof-necessarily-imply-a-Platonist-view-of-mathematics

  • Am I just arguing for a higher and stricter standard of truth? I think so. Opera

    Am I just arguing for a higher and stricter standard of truth? I think so.

    Operationalism in cooperation

    Operationalism in science (causality)

    Operationalism in mathematics (relations)

    Operationalism in numbers (identities)

    Operationalism in logic (words)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 16:06:00 UTC

  • ON POPPER’S POSITION VS ACTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (reposted from cr page for ar

    ON POPPER’S POSITION VS ACTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

    (reposted from cr page for archiving)

    All we can say is x set of recipes have y properties in common, and all known recipes have z properties in common, and therefore we will likely find new recipes that share z properties.

    Logic is one of the instruments we use to construct recipes. Logic is a technology. Just as are the narrative, numbers, arithmetic, math, physics, and cooperation.

    These are all instrumental technologies or we would not need them and could perform the same operations without them.

    Science, as in the ‘method’ of science, is a recipe for employing those instruments ‘technologies’. Science is a technology. It is external to our intuitions, and we must use it like any other technology, in order to extend our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and planning.

    So I simply view ‘fuzzy language’ as what it is. And statements reducible to operational language as the only representation of scientific discourse.

    Theory means nothing different from fantasy without recording, instrument, operations, repetition, and falsification. A theory is a fantasy, a bit of imagination, and the recipes that survive are what remains of that fantasy once all human cognitive bias and limitation is laundered by our ‘technologies’.

    Recipes are unit of commensurability against which we can calculate differences, to further extend and refine our imaginary fantasies.

    Just as we test each individual action in a recipe against objective reality, we test each new fantasy against the accumulated properties stated in our recipes.

    From those tests of fantasy against our accumulated recipes, we observe in ourselves changes in our own instruments of logic. Extensions of our perception, memory, calculation – knowledge – is the collection of general instruments that apply in smaller numbers, to increasingly large categories of problems. (This is the reason Flynn suspects, for the Flynn effect as well as our tendency to improve upon tests.)

    It is these general principles (like the scientific method) that we can state are ‘knowledge’ in the sense of ‘knowledge of what’ versus ‘knowledge of how’ (See Gifts of Athena). Recipes are knowledge of ‘what’. General principles of how the universe functions are knowledge of ‘how’. Popper failed to make the distinction of dividing the problem into classes and instrumentation.

    And he did so because, as I have stated, he was overly fascinated with words, and under-fascinated with actions. And while I can only hypothesize why he is, like many of his peers, pseudo-scientifically fascinated with words, rather than scientifically fascinated with actions, the fact remains, that he was. And he, like Mises and Hayek and their followers, failed to produce a theory of the social sciences.

    CR is the best moral prescription for knowledge because it logically forbids the use of science to make claims of certainty sufficient to deprive people of voluntary choice.

    Popper justified skepticism and prohibited involuntary transfer by way of scientific argument. A necessary idea for his time. In science, he prohibited a return to mysticism by reliance on science equal to faith in god.

    But that is his achievement. He was the intellectual linebacker of the 20th century. He denied the opposition the field.

    But prohibition was not in itself an answer.

    Instrumentalism is necessary. Calculation is necessary. Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience is necessary. Morality consists of the prevention of thefts and discounts. Actions that produce predictable outcomes, not states of imagination.

    That is the answer.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-02 13:08:00 UTC

  • ENDING MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM : BECAUSE IT’S IMMORAL (ISN”T THAT ENOUGH OF A REA

    ENDING MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM : BECAUSE IT’S IMMORAL (ISN”T THAT ENOUGH OF A REASON?)

    (reposted from elsewhere for archival purposes)

    Math was constructed from, and must, of necessity, consist of a series of operations. And consequently, all mathematics is reducible to a few simple operations. (Which is why computers can calculate.) In practice. everything we can think of can be reduced to adding or removing one, and the test of equality.

    (As an aside, this is why we can explain more possibilities with mathematics than the physical universe can demonstrate in reality: because the universe does not have this level of freedom due to the apparent complexity of its interacting forces.)

    The act of adding and subtracting the symbols we call numerals and positional numbers, is an obvious and common example of creating symbols to replace what would be tedious and incomprehensible repetitions.

    This necessity to use symbols to condense information into usable components (categories) is what our brains need to do. Imagine trying to do all operations by counting? It would be impossible. We could not function without these symbols.

    Furthermore, describing mathematical equations and proofs as operations is both verbally and syntactically burdensome. And since these operations are largely simple, and can be accurately reduced to symbols (named functions) there is little value in articulating them as operations.

    So mathematicians have developed a multitude of symbols and names for what are not extant objects, but names of functions (sets of operations) – just as every other discipline creates heavily loaded terms in order to allow informationally dense communication with fewer words.

    Most ‘numbers’ are anything but: they are names, glyphs and symbols, for functions that consist of large numbers of operations. “The natural numbers exist in nature, but all else is the work of man.”

    The reason for this complexity is that quantitative, and directional relationships are expressed as ratios, and while some ratios are reducible to numbers, others are not. Those that are not reducible must be expressed as functions. We have not invented a mathematical system that can circumvent this problem. It is possible such a thing cannot be done.

    Now aside from the practical utility of creating symbols, that obscure the operations, there is a practical value in using these names by disconnecting these names from their operations and from correspondence with any given scale.

    That is, that disconnection allows one to use the logic of mathematics independent of cause, correspondence and scale, to explore ONLY the properties of the relations between the entities in question. And this turns out to be extremely useful for deducing what causes we do not now.

    And this extraordinary utility has been responsible for the fact that the discipline has laundered time, causality and scale (precision) from the discipline. But one cannot say that a mathematical statement is true without correspondence with the real world. We can say it is internally consistent (a proof), but not that it is true (descriptive of reality via correspondence).

    Mathematics when ‘wrong’ most recently, with Cantor’s sets, in which he used imaginary objects, infinity, the excluded middle and the the axiom of choice, to preserve this syntactical convenience of names, and in doing so, completed the diversion of mathematics from a logic of truth (external correspondence), to one that is merely a logic of proof (internal consistency).

    Cantor’s work came at the expense of correspondence, and by consequence at the expense of truth. ie: mathematics does not determine truths, only proofs, because all correspondence has been removed by these ‘contrivances’, whose initial purpose was convenience, but whose accumulated errors have led to such (frankly, absurd) debates, .

    So the problem with mathematical platonism, which turns out to be fairly useful for the convenience of practitioners, is not so much a technical problem but a MORAL ONE. First, mathematicians, even the best, rarely grasp this concept. Second, since, because it is EASIER to construct mathematical proofs than any other form of logic, it is the gold standard for other forms of logic. And the envy of other disciplines. And as such mathematical platonism has ‘bled’ into other envious fields, the same way that Physics has bled into economics.

    Worse, this multi-axial new mysticism has been adopted by philosophers from Kant to the Frankfurt school to the postmodernists, to contemporary totalitarian humanists as a vehicle for reinserting arational mysticism into political debate – as a means of obtaining power.

    Quite contrary to academic opinion, all totalitarianism is, is catholicism restated in non-religious terms, with the academy replacing the church as the constructor of obscurant language.

    I suspect this fairly significant error is what has plagued the physics community, but we have found no alternative to current approaches. Albeit, I expect, that if we retrained mathematicians, physicists, and economists to require operational language in the expression of mathematical relations, that whatever error we are making in our understanding of physics would emerge within a generation.

    No infinity can exist. Because no operation can be performed infinitely. We can however, adjust the precision and scale of any proof to suit the context, since any mathematical expression, consists of ratios that, if correspond to reality, we can arbitrarily adjust for increasing precision.

    Mathematics cannot claim truth without correspondence.

    Correspondence in measures is a function of scale and the UTILITY of precision, in the CONTEXT of which the operation is calculated (limit).

    A language of mathematics that is described independent of scale in given context, can be correctly stated. It need not be magian.

    Fields can still be understood to be imaginary patterns.

    But the entire reason that we find such things interesting, is a folly of the mind, no different from the illusion of movement in a film.

    The real world exists. We are weak computers of property in pursuit of our reproduction and amusement. We developed many forms of instrumentalism to extend our weak abilities. We must use instruments and methods to reduce to analogies to experience, those things which we cannot directly do so.

    It’s just that simple.

    AGAINST THE PLATONIC (IMAGINARY) WORLD

    Why must we support imaginary objects, as extant? Especially when the constructive argument (intuitionist) in operational language, can provide equal explanatory power?

    Why must we rely on ZFC+AC when we have recursive math, or when we can explain all mathematics in operational language without loss of context, scale, precision and utility? Just ’cause it’s easier.

    But that complexity is a defense against obscurantism and platonism. So it is merely a matter of cost.

    I understand Popper as trying to solve a problem of meta ethics, rather than anything particularly scientific. And I see most of his work as doing the best he could for the purposes that I’ve stated.

    Anyone who disagrees with me would have to disagree with my premies and my argument, not rely on the existence of platonist entities (magic) in order to win such an argument.

    That this is impossible, is at least something that I understand if no one else yet does. I don’t so much need someone to agree with me as constantly improve my argument so that I can test and harden it until it is unassailable or defeated.

    I think that defeating this argument is going to be very, very, difficult.

    TIME AND OPERATIONS (ACTIONS) IN TIME

    One cannot state that abstract ideas can be constructed independent of time, or even that they could be identified without changes in state over time. Or that thought can occur without the passage of time. Or consciousness can occur without the passage of time.

    Whether I make one choice or another is not material. This question is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of possibility. I can make no choice without the passage of time.

    I think that the only certain knowledge consists of negations, and that all the rest is conjecture. This is the only moral position to take. And it is the only moral position since argument exists for the purpose of persuasion, and persuasion for cooperation.

    I keep seeing this sort of desire to promote the rather obvious idea that induction is nonsense – yet everyone uses it, as a tremendous diversion from the fact that induction is necessary for action in real time, whenever the cost of not acting is higher than the cost of acting.

    Description, deduction, induction, abduction, guessing and intuitive choice are just descriptions of the processes we must use given the amount of information at our disposal. Science has no urgency, and life threatening emergencies do.

    Popper (and CR-ists for that matter) seem to want to perpetuate either mysticism, or skepticism as religion, rather than make the very simple point that the demands for ‘truth’ increase and decrease given the necessity of acting in time.

    I guess that I could take a psychological detour into why people would want to do this. But I suspect that I am correct (as I stated in one of these posts) that popper was, as part of his era, trying to react against the use of science and academia to replace the coercive power of the church. So he restated skepticism by establishing very high criteria for scientific truth.

    And all the nonsense that continues to be written about his work seek to read into platonic tea leaves, when the facts are quite SIMPLE. (Back to Argumentation Ethics at this point.) The fact is that humans must act in real time and as the urgency of action increases so does the demand for truth. Conversely, as the demand for cooperation increases, the demand for truth increases. Finally at the top of the scale we have science, which in itself is an expensive pursuit, and as such one is forbidden to externalize costs to other scientists. (Although if we look at papers this doesn’t actually work that well except at the very top margin.)

    THE QUESTION IS ONE OF COOPERATION

    The problem is ECONOMIC AND COOPERATIVE AND MORAL, not scientific.

    It’s just that simple. We cannot disconnect argument from cooperation without entering the platonic. We cannot disconnect math from context without entering the platonic. We cannot disconnect numbers from identity without entering the platonic.

    Each form of logic constrains the other. But the logic that constrains them all, is action. Without action, we end up with the delusions we spend most of philosophical discourse on. It’s all nonsense.

    I understand the difference between the real and the unreal, and the necessity of our various logics as instruments for the reduction of that which we cannot comprehend (sympathize with) to analogies to experience that we can comprehend ( sympathize with).

    Which is profound if you grasp it.

    THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLS AND ECONOMY OF LANGUAGE

    If you cannot describe something as human action, then you do not understand it. Operational language is the most important, and least articulated canon of science.

    I do not argue against the economy of language. I argue against the loss of causality and correspondence that accompanies repeated use of economizing terms.

    ( I am pretty sure I put a bullet in this topic along with apriorism in economics. )

    MORAL STANDARDS OF TRUTH

    Requiring a higher standard of truth places a higher barrier on cooperation.

    This is most important in matters of involuntary transfer, such as taxation or social and moral norms.

    Religions place an impossible standard of truth. This is why they are used so effectively to resist the state. Religious doctrine reliant upon faith is argumentatively inviolable.

    As such, no cooperation can be asked or offered outside of their established terms. … It’s brilliant really. Its why religious groups can resist the predation of the state.

    I would prefer instead we relied upon a prohibition on obscurant language and the requisite illustration of involuntary transfers, such that exchanges were easily made possible, and discounts (thefts) made nearly impossible.

    This is, the correct criteria for CR, not the platonic one that is assumed. In this light CR looks correct in practice if incorrect in argument.

    (There. I did it. Took me a bit.)

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-02 10:44:00 UTC

  • ON STATING POPPER SCIENTIFICALLY: AS ACTION Popper, like most Jewish philosopher

    ON STATING POPPER SCIENTIFICALLY: AS ACTION

    Popper, like most Jewish philosophers, is overly fascinated by words, and under fascinated by actions. I haven’t quite figured out the cultural fascination with pseudoscience in that community, but I’ll leave that to others who hypothesize that the Talmudic discipline of memorizing meaningless nonsense

    Popper tries to give us categories of thinking without solving the problem of acting. We do not require additional modes of platonic thought, whether Popperian (verbal), Platonic (imaginary), or Religious (Supernatural). We have a mode of thought: action, which we call ‘science’: demonstrated correspondence with reality.

    As such, theories are recipes for actions that produce outcomes. These sets of ACTIONS (recipes) help us IMAGINE what are IMAGINARY causes, relations and properties , that we might further attempt to reduce to actions by theory and test.

    This categorization as actions (operations) prohibits platonic ideas from clouding discourse, and divides theories into imaginary recipes that we must test and falsify and those which we have tested the outcome, (reproduced) and falsified (tested the internal statements).

    I would clarify the Popper quote above saying INSTEAD that:

    “Theories are recipes consisting of actions that we duplicate by the use of instrumentation to determine correspondence between imagination and reality. Those forms of instrumentation that test correspondence are:

    0) narrative (sequences in time)

    1) logic (words),

    2) numbers (counts),

    3) measures (relations)

    3) math (ratios),

    4) physics (causes),

    5) economics (cooperation)

    6) praxeology (rational incentives and actions).”

    Each additional recipe reduces to analogy to experience, the external world which we cannot sense, perceive, count, measure, determine the causes of, and act upon without such instrumentation. As such each recipe extends our perception.

    Unfortunately, these recipes are socially constructed organically in a network of dependent assumptions both conscious, unconscious and metaphysical, almost entirely dependent upon the forms of instrumentation used to extend perception and calculation. And we must reassemble entire networks of objects, causes, relations and properties, when we improve our instruments. This is why we construct and destruct paradigms.

    And the fantasy that we hold ‘beliefs’ is verbal and arbitrary, when what we hold are ‘incentives’, investments and opportunities that are not arbitrary or easily disposed of. This difference between verbal and platonic ‘belief’ and praxeological incentives in objective reality is another influential factor in failing to grasp the ‘stickiness’ of paradigms, being even greater than the stickiness of prices, contracts, careers, and Patterns of Sustainable Specialization and Trade.

    Also unfortunately, given that learning stresses individuals, and that such paradigmatic shifts impose high costs on adherents, all people, in all walks of life, from professors to ordinary laborers, fight paradigmatic change whenever possible since it will of necessity reduce the value of their current paradigmatic mastery. People Will Not Change Ever by Means of Argument. EVER on any sufficient investment that they have made, whether material or intellectual. This applies in every walk of life from the moral to the philosophical to the political, to the scientific, and entrepreneurial. Although the entrepreneurial leaves them less choice.

    This is why science only advances with the death of prior paradigmatic advocates. Just as our political theory and institutions will only advance upon the death (none too soon) of the boomer generation.

    But, that does not eliminate the fact, that our knowledge does increase and our correspondence with reality increases along with it, and we adapt our actions more closely to a more expansive reality.

    At some point, the MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE of further knowledge (recipes) means that no further benefit can be gained from any available action, and as such, it is possible to CHOOSE BETWEEN THEORIES. Meaning that at any given point the number of available theories open to exploitation given instrumentation available, and the marginal difference in value, DOES give us reasons to choose between theories. Which is precisely why we are apparently, so good at choosing them. And the errors we do make, (mysticism in the 20th century in science and philosophy) can be prevented by adhering to scientific discipline: expression in operational language: the language of science. Of RECIPES for actions that with any given set of instrumentation, allow us to test the correspondence of our imaginations with reality, and without which we cannot test or even conceive of such a reality as exists.

    I think this description of actions, is more accurate than the verbal and allegorical description of the imaginary that Popper gives us.

    There is a very clear relationship between our inability to introspect upon our own mental processes, and imagination, platonism, and spiritualism. And this relationship tends to force us in philosophy to reduce all philosophical statements to an infinitely recursive discourse on norms. Introspection and intuition are cheap. Reason is more expensive, and instrumentalism is vastly more expensive. However, science: cataloguing sequences of actions using instrumentation that limits the distortion between our imagination and objective reality by extending our ability to sense, perceive, remember, and calculate, is, as in all sciences, a method for the prevention of error.

    Popper himself did not solve this problem. He just solved enough of it to tell us how to solve it for him.

    The distinction may appear subtle, but it is not. Mathematical platonism, which we falsely use as the gold standard for reason, has infected pretty much all of analytic philosophy, and I’m not sure it hasn’t infected physics. And my argument, like Hayek’s is that the 20th century was an age of mysticism because of the return to platonic analogy and loss of an emphasis on action.

    (I know I tend to aggravate you with these comments, but there is a method to my strategy. And I appreciate your ideas even if my thoughts annoy you. 🙂 )

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-30 10:18:00 UTC

  • Question. Is Praxeology a science, by which I mean a methodology for the purpose

    Question.

    Is Praxeology a science, by which I mean a methodology for the purpose of extending and testing our reason and perception by reducing that which we cannot sense or perceive to analogies to experience. Or is Praxeology a form of logic, like mathematics, or reason? And, is praxeology complete?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-23 20:39:00 UTC

  • THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY Compactness of any theory, is not necessa

    THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY

    Compactness of any theory, is not necessarily a virtue for the purpose of communication. Some theories can only be expressed in the form of a novel, and then via some shorthand reference to the arc of the narrative. Darwin’s evolution is an example of a shorthand that still has not managed to penetrate human cognitive biases: After all, evolution favors complexity within a niche, but not in the direction of anything.

    I am naturally wordy because I am obsessed with a certain kind of perceptive precision as guarantee against misinterpretation. I would rather lose the reader, than marginally move him, albeit in the wrong direction. I am still torn, but my experience is, that people begin to grasp my work this way without making early judgements.

    I started out with Propertarianism in narrative form, as a new parable for conservatism. And I have reduced it to a limited grammar and terminology. And now am engaged in narrowing Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics, into a very small number of rules, based upon the necessity of calculation – where I mean calculation in the broadest sense of defining differences.

    Compactness matters because it reduces your possibility of error. Intelligibility is more a problem for the reader. For the author of any theory, the expression of that theory in terms least open to misinterpretation, and your work most open to testing.

    A compact argument with vast explanatory power is the holy grail.

    Property, and Propertarianism, are that missing grail. And with property under propertarianism, we possess a set of technologies capable of expressing and clarifying, not only logic (reason), but mathematics (relations), physics (causes) and economics (actions).

    I care a bit more about knowing this than I care about anyone else knowing it. But that’s selfish. 🙂 So I will continue to improve it, and publish my work.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 12:24:00 UTC

  • EMPIRICIAL LANGUAGE VS LINGUISTIC ‘SUPERSTITION’ (Important)(profound) I suppose

    EMPIRICIAL LANGUAGE VS LINGUISTIC ‘SUPERSTITION’

    (Important)(profound)

    I suppose it’s partly that my Americanism is annoying to him, because he really doesn’t pay me any mind, but Hans has only given me I think, three bits of advice. One of them I disagree with. One I have to remind myself every day – how Hayek failed to actually solve the problem . And, one of them was critical: to use established terminology whenever possible.

    I made the same mistake many others do outside of academia, which is, that because existing paradigms are so heavily loaded, it’s tempting to define new terms, in order to load them differently – or in my case, unload them entirely.

    And it turns out that its entirely possible, because philosophy is so littered with frames of reference that one merely must play an intellectual game of conceptual pickup-sticks, and modify the properties of existing concepts to establish an entirely different order.

    I am still troubled by a few problems. The first is that the persistence of the continental model of linguistic ‘superstition’ which uses heavily loaded language, by intention, to

    It is possible that aristoctratic language, that is, the language of science, or ‘truth’ – meaning, unloaded correspondence with observable actions in objective reality, is just more natural to anglos for antiquarian reasons. I am unsure. I do know that ‘duty’ in the anglo metaphysical value system is ‘to each other’ and in the continental system ‘to place in the order’, is quite different. And it is quite different because of ancient land ownership and defense reasons. That this ancient bias served to force the english people into an empirical rather than hierarchical set of conceptual biases, is probably an obvious cause in retrospect. But at this point in time, empiricism, that is, **order independent of hierarchy**, or “unloaded” truth, is embeded into the language so deeply that anglos are indoctrinated into empiricism by simply learning the language.

    This is, of course, after the Absolute Nuclear Family, the next most important reason for forced cultural integration: Language: The Anglo Framework of Ratio Scientific Empiricism.

    And that is why the Postmoderns must undermine the english language here, and not so severely on the continent: Because the language itself prevents loading – either subjective or hierarchical. And without prevention of loading, or without reversing the ability to load the language, it is impossible to obscure inequality of ability and merit.

    One of the reasons I am attempting to reform libertarianism, is because of the German and Jewish fascination with obscurantism in creating pseudosciences: Hegel, Heidegger, Marx, Freud, and Cantor, and I must unfortunately, add Mises and Rothbard to that list. I think for precisely the same reason.

    Unfortunately, the anglo, indo-european fascination with, and intellectual bias toward, space/time and mechanisms, seems to create a vulnerability to pseudoscience created by obscurant and loaded language.

    So, I am taking this german and jewish pattern of obscurant and loaded thought and converting it to RATIO SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE.

    Every month I get closer. If I live long enough I should finish it. Right now I can get most of it across in something on the nature of 5000 words. My expectation, when done, is that I should have reduced this set of complexity down to less than 10K words in its entirety.

    And that reduction has come, because of Hans’ advice, by using and extending the properties of, existing terminology.

    That does not mean that it is trivial to grasp. And mastery of the framework will still require a bit of study. But Propertarianism is, as a philosophy, the most complete and most empirical philosophical system we have yet been able to devise.

    Now, I get a great deal of feedback on my perceived arrogance. But from my extremely skeptical perspective, as someone who has spent a lifetime in pursuit of resolving the problem of political conflict, i’m just speaking as objectively as I can.

    I did not come to libertarianism naturally. I came to libertarianism because I understood that the economic calculation argument, and its obverse, incentives, were the only NECESSARY argument that I could find in all of philosophy. And it was from that initial necessary observation that I was able, with a great deal of work, to express all philosophy in a single consistent framework, by reducing not only all rights, but all of ethics, morals, manners, to the process of voluntary exchange, given the different reproductive strategies of individuals.

    And this is the conflict that I have with both Marxist Dialectic and Rawlsian aggregates: neither are empirical. And they are not empirical, for the sole purpose of forcing cooperation between people who do not wish to involuntarily cooperate, by claiming a commonality of interest on ends, where there is none. And there is only a commonality of interest on means.

    Exchange is observable and empirical.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 09:36:00 UTC

  • Deceptions

    TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------
Operational Language............ Moral language
Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim
Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer

  • Deceptions

    TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------
Operational Language............ Moral language
Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim
Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer