Utility, Truth and Consequence - An Important Lesson

True enough to do what? That’s the question.

***Your opinion is only enough to determine your action, but it is not enough to claim it is ‘true’, When you claim something is true, at that point you promise to others it is true enough to determine their action. And by that claim expose them to potential harm. This violates every ethical and moral limit to cooperation.***

A Hierarchy of Truths:

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.
    True enough for me to feel good about myself.
    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

Restoring the Dimension (Property) of Action to Philosophy

The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.

Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.

As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.

Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.

Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.
But each transformation made man better than he was before.


Faith in Priors is not Rational, it's Instinctual


—“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous

So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon?

Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something.

By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception).

So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy.

Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker.

And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable.

If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness.

You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever.

Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability.

(That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. )

I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state.

By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law.

I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons.



—“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin

Exactly. ;)


It's Moral to Seek to Understand.

***A moral man asks questions until he understands. He seeks to understand. An immoral man imposes costs upon others in the hope the others cannot pay those costs, rather than seek the truth. As such cost-imposers are liars and cheats, and thieves.***


Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

There are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters.

First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs.

Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments.

What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship.

So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs.

I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon.

I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system.

But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention.



Very Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Testimonialism


1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.

2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.

3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.

4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.

Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.

Thanks for following me on the journey.


Santagata: Love and Understanding


I love my family…
Which doesn’t mean I hate yours.
It means I understand why you love yours.

I love my nation…
Which doesn’t mean I hate yours.
It means I understand why you love yours.

I love my DNA, my genes, my race…
Which doesn’t mean I hate yours.
It means I understand why you love yours.

Love cannot create hate. But hate and haters can and always do blame love and lovers for problems of the world.


Bits on Self Awareness

Once you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended.

Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us.

We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation.

Any artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration.

The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action.

I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.


Compare Kinsella's (Incomplete) NAP/(Justificationary)IVP, with Doolittle's (Complete) NAP/ (Empirical) Demonstrated Property



Many admissions of incompleteness, but failure to complete it.


This is what completeness looks like.

( I love that Woods is honest. )


NEW VIDEO: Propertarianism - Correcting and Completing Non Aggression


Sure. Or, I’ll try hard. wink emoticon

1) The “NAP” that only limits physical aggression leaves open “trickery and deceit’ as well as ‘free riding parasitism’ and ‘conspiracy’. And by leaving open these forms of aggression, the NAP cannot produce property rights, an anarchic polity, or a condition of liberty.

2) It is irrational for other than career criminals to prefer membership in a polity with the high transaction costs and high opportunity costs, and high risk due to trickery and conspiracy over one in which trickery, deceit, and conspiracy are permitted. And this is why no such economic polity exists.

3) But a definition of aggression that includes physical, trickery and deceit, free riding parasitism, and conspiracy can produce property rights, an anarchic polity, and a condition of liberty. Because it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity free of these forms of parasitism over one that has much higher costs.

4) So Rothbardian Non Aggression against ‘physical property’ can’t create a condition of liberty, while classical liberal Non Aggression against ‘demonstrated property’ can create a condition of liberty.

5) What is demonstrated property? Anything you have homesteaded or obtained through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, and without imposing costs upon the demonstrated property of others.

6) What do people demonstrate as their property? Life, Kin, Mate, Friends, Allies, physical property, territory, built capital, norms, and institutions.

7) What Exceptions are there? Communities produce opportunities by virtue of population density and cooperation in a division of labor while using property rights, and expect members to homestead those opportunities. We call this process of homesteading opportunities ‘competition’. This creating of common opportunities and homesteading them is what produces the virtuous cycle that makes cities (markets) so productive.

8) So how do we create liberty? We create liberty by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from transgression by others, thereby creating the first commons: property rights, or what we loosely call ‘cooperation’.

9) This argument kills the idea of individualism per se and instead states that all rights are possessed by individuals but rights can only be created by an organized polity willing to construct them by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from the imposition of costs.

The rest of the talk is largely a criticism of why the NAP failed, and why Rothbard came up with it for cultural reasons. And how the reason he didn’t complete the NAP or write it operationally was to circumvent the logical conclusion that with greater articulation his attempt to avoid payment for the commons would have been exposed.