If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration.

And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests.

This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction.

And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism.

You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim.

Which is unethical.

 

“The failures of Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Argumentation to withstand rational and scientific criticism do not diminish Hoppe’s solutions to the problems of democracy, monopoly bureaucracy, and the private production of public goods.”

Cheers.

COMMENTS
Michael Pattinson likes this.

Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
Quite true. The problem of course is that Hoppe purports to derive his solutions from his meta-ethics and philosophy. An argument may have true conclusions and yet invalid premises.

Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
If we treat argumentation and praxeology as metaphysical assumptions that are thereby unjustified and unjustifiable, we can now just turn pur attention to the a detailed analysis of conclusions without worrying about meta-theory

 

(interesting)(important piece)

Our logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

Reason (Kahneman’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration (System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.

COMMENTS
William L. Benge likes this.

Curt Doolittle
I wrote, I think, about six months ago, that property was the missing necessary means of commensurable data representation required for functional AI to simulate the behavior of man. I knew this back when David Trowbridge and I were thinking about Runcible.
April 17 at 9:38am · Like

William L. Benge Utterly fascinating interview of Kahneman by Charlie Rose.
April 17 at 5:28pm · Like · Remove Preview

William L. Benge
This really is an amazing post, Curt. Grateful for your work.
April 17 at 5:34pm · Like

Curt Doolittle
Thank you william. That means a lot to me.
April 17 at 6:20pm · Like

 

Murder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use.

Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language


    1) In legal terms resolvable under the common law, the word we use for involuntary transfer is ‘theft’. That is the most general categorical name we have available to us.

    2) Now, the PROBLEM that arises with cooperation is called ‘free riding’. The “problem of free riding’ is how it is discussed in the literature. In the context of social science, and in the context of economics, the term ‘free riding’ refers to that category of involuntary transfers (thefts).

    3) In moral philosophy we must identify first causes. I have borrowed the term ‘involuntary transfer’ from law, in which title is forcibly transferred by the state without consent of its owner. This was the most general and unloaded term I could find. (I should note that Jan Lester uses ‘forced costs” or something of that nature, for the same purpose.)

I do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law).

However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent.

Cheers

 

You can’t reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition any more than you can reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition.

So, it’s pretty clear to me today, that libertarians are as morally blind (or in Haidt’s terms ‘tasteless’) as progressives are (albeit at a different part of the spectrum), and that the only conservatives can carry on a rational moral discussion – because only conservatives are not affected by large moral blind spots. The data says it. But I just experienced it first hand. And I hate what it means. It means that libertarians are just as irrational and impenetrable as progressives.

That doesn’t mean that libertarians haven’t solved the problem of formal institutions. They have. (Hoppe has.) But it means that except as a sort of minority conducting intellectual experiments, libertarians are useless for the purpose of discussing political solutions. They’re by definition ‘immoral’. Or perhaps a form of moral color-blindness in which the majority of the spectrum is invisible to them.

I’m a conservative libertarian. I place a premium on liberty and discount all the other moral values. That’s the definition of the moral intuitions of a libertarian. But that PERSONAL intuition and personal objective, is different from my understanding of POLITICS as a set of institutions that allow heterogeneous peoples to cooperate on means even if they possess competing ends. (Give the citizenry a circus and let their actions sort them out.)

ANALOGY:
1) RED : PROGRESSIVISM – Sees only red. (Harm/Care : the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children.)
2) BLUE : CONSERVATISM – Sees red, blue and yellow (Harm/Care, Proportionality, Authority/Hierarchy/Duty, Loyalty, Purity/Sanctity, Liberty/Oppression)
3) GREEN : LIBERTARIANISM – Sees only green (Liberty/Oppression : )

– Libertarians are “Red/Blue color blind.”
– Progressives are “Green/Blue color blind.”
– Conservatives are not color blind at all.

Just how it is.

YOU CAN”T REASON WITH A LIBERTARIAN EITHER

You can’t actually reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition. It’s as irrational as trying to reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition. Both just justify their positions.

You can reason to a conservative, or conservative libertarian, *EVEN IF* they rely on moral intuition. Because they aren’t morally blind to any part of the spectrum.

And here I keep thinking (stupidly) that because I am not morally blind, even though I place a premium on liberty, and because I understand the RESULT of libertarian moral blindness: the reduction of all rights to property rights – that other libertarians will of course be as rational as I am.

But that’s not true. I am literally talking to people who are for all intents and purposes, physically incapable of moral discourse, just as a color blind person is physically incapable of aesthetic discourse on colors that he cannot see. (Or the disability called “Ageusia” which prohibits taste.)

THE INTELLECTUAL LIMIT

There is some point at which individuals abandon intuitionism (feelings) and resort to either rationalism (rules), or ratio-empirical science ( outcomes) for their epistemic judgements. The only libertarians that one can speak to rationally about morality are those that have abandoned intuitionism. And since it APPEARS to me that rationalism is just a form of justification, then further it appears that only those who adopt the ratio-scientific level of thought, abandon both intuition and justification, are capable of discourse.

That means that we are very limited in the number those people who possess the capacity for rational discourse on ethics and politics. And that since only conservatives are not morally spectrum blind, that it is only conservatives who can rationally discuss these issues EVEN IF they are relegated only to intuition.

THE TRIANGLE IS INVERTED

Conservatives form the base of an inverted pyramid.
Progressives and Libertarians are specialized variants of human.
Progressives are ‘excessively female’ and libertarians ‘excessively male’.
(I think some conservatives specialize in being ‘warriors’ but they’re indistinguishable because they have identical moral intuitions.)
Where progressive, conservative and libertarian refer to moral intuitions.

BUGS

The more I work on this problem the more I see humans of different moral persuasions just like specialized forms of ants. ‘Cause pretty much, that’s what we are.

 

The question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition.

I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary.

All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease.

These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.

 

I have to accept the evidence, but I do not like it.

I would like very much to believe that we grasp the world as it is. And it appears that, at least with the help of instrumentalism (logic and science), we can grasp the physical world with a high degree of accuracy – at least, sufficiently to make use of it for our purposes.

The cooperative world of human beings consists of inconstant relations, we desperately try to reduce to an ideal type, a stereotype, a single simple rule, a universal value. But it is more complex than the physical world that consists of constant relations. For that reason we may be limited to a logic of cooperation and every prohibited from a mathematics of cooperation – except at the highest levels.

The data is conclusive: we are far more morally blind than I had expected. Our moral and ethical intuitions are genetically weighted but our moral biases evolve and are emergent – still invariant. Our metaphysical assumptions (assumptions about the way the world functions) are far more unconscious and unalterable than I’d expected. And very, very, very few of us are capable of working hard to modify those assumptions. (The process of which I am at this moment writing about.)

Libertarians can speak of morality in it’s logical language: economics. But that is partly because libertarians are both severely affected by moral blindness, less dependent upon others for information and decision making, and less vulnerable to deception. Libertarians not only are blind to morality, but discount it because it’s not useful to them.

Our language, common protocol that it is, fools us into a sense of similarity.

Progressives are interesting in that the world appears simple to them, and is simple to them computationally, because like any form single-variable calculation, it is in fact much simpler to reason with. But they are also the most morally blind demographic: progressives dysgenically and anti-socially apply their moral simplicity to all matters – like the mother of a serial killer who believes her son is merely misunderstood, and incapable of the crime. That analogy is all one needs to understand the moral blindness of progressives.

Conservatives have the worst computational problem. They weigh all of the moral instincts about the same. Which means that they must contend with seven or more different weights and values that must be compared at any given time – something that the single-axis human capacity for reason cannot possibly manage, and abandons to the wind. So conservatives speak in moral language. Partly because it is simply too complicated to speak in any other. And largely because we have only recently understood these underlying intuitions. While Machiavelli, Hume, Pareto, Durkheim and others have attempted to derive the answers, only in the past twenty years with the help of science, anthropology and experimental psychology, have we been able to understand them.

We humans speak to justify our genes. That is about all.

The very last thing that we should try to engage in, is the politics of anything larger than an extended and homogenous family.

The market – in this case, a market of communities (states) – is the only possible means of computing and calculating the future by scientific means.

 

I disagree vehemently with Walter Block on ethics, but I agree with his proposition that Statism should be criminalized.

Under Propertarianism it’s the crime of conspiracy. And can be brought to justice by any citizen against any other.

 

Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries.

It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology.

Knights are just as important today as they were in the past.

WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.

 

I can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments.

And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people.

Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness.

But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments.

My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases.

But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.