Theme: Truth

—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)

—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)