Universality: A Universal Philosophical Blunder

One of the most abused terms used in modern libertarian philosophy is the word “universal”.  at the moment i can only think of one other term that is more abused than this,  which is the term “subjective”, but ill be addressing the ambiguous and often contradictory nature of “subjective” in a separate video.

the wide spread misconception of libertarian figures such as hoppe and molyneux that something is “universal” if the value of this universal property is the same for all people. this is and isnt true depending on how you interpret it.  this conflation has caused wide spread confusion within the realm of morality if not all of philosophy

the problem with the analysis of “universality” by “philosophers” like hoppe and molyneux is that they have not taken into account the CRITICAL variable of perspective when trying to evaluate the “universality” of a value. its apparent these types of “philosophers” have not had their “relative value” revolution in their moralities.

it is PERFECTLY analogous to the general relativity revolution in physics.  before einstein articulated general relativity, it was always believed that things like time, length, mass, and energy were “universal” (constants)..  but this myopic view was quickly overturned.  einsteins theory articulated an empirically accurate view that these properties/values were dependent upon the conditions of the observation.  things like time and length (time dilation and lorentz contraction) dont make any sense when you omit the critical variable of the conditions of observation (not the observer).  that elapsed time of an event and length of an object are different for different conditions of observation. the true universality of these properties/values are revealed in the fact that anyone can evaluate elapsed time or object length given all the variables that determine them including perspective. the mathematical relation/function that determines these properties is truly universal (it can be evaluated by anyone given all the critical variables and information to process them).  modern philosophy has conflated universality into meaning the value of  this function is a constant, a totally fallacious idea.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

now molyneux and hoppe commit several methodological errors in formulating their ideas of universality.  their idea of classifying all aggression as immoral in any circumstance would be as fallacious as saying the gravitational force of the earth is the same for any object (everything’s weight is the same).  this totally disregards perspective (since the gravitational force of the earth is dependent upon the mass of the object in question). with respect to morality, the conditions under which any action are performed make all the difference in determining its moral value.  egoutism does not preclude the possibility that certain acts of aggression, given the correct circumstances, can be moral since it values all action/strategy with respect to an evolutionary principle, instead of religious doctrine. (egoutism defines morality as the optimum, or pairwise greater, strategy in achieving the perpetuation of instances of one’s meta-self)

while on one hand it seem intuitive that aggression is wrong (since it is an economically expensive action relative to voluntary transaction),  one the other hand it is also intuitive that one should aggress if the situation, not necessarily extreme, dictates (when benefits exceed costs). religious philosophers with low standards of knowing feel that if its good enough it is moral.  unfortunately reality can be much more complex than they care to consider and nature rewards the moral models that can precisely describe what natural selection selects for.  just because defining an optimal universal morality is difficult, you do not pretend a rule of thumb/aphorism is a principle/law.  its both intellectually lazy and dishonest. its the moral equivalent to saying newtonian mechanics is a physical law.  just because newtonian models have useful prediction capabilities in “normal” circumstances you dont ignore the extremes in which these set of laws totally loses all accuracy.

you get adverse reactions from the nap apologists such as scoffing at “lifeboat situations” with such remarks as “yeah but thats unlikely to happen”.  this is an intellectually dishonest way out of a sound argument.  its like a person who defends newtonian physics as an ABSOLUTE law of the universe were to ask “yeah but when will we ever reach the near speed of light to experience relativistic effects?”  the fact that egoutism presents an alternative moral ethic that describes BOTH normal situations (using the non-aggression APHORISM, N.A.A. or the non-aggression RULE OF THUMB, N.A.R.T.) and a more precise general ethic for all situations (perpetuation of the existence of one’s meta-self).  the logical consistency of egoutism lies in the fact that the non-aggression aphorism can be deduced as an estimate from the primary principle of egoutism (like newtonian mechanics can be deduced from assuming very low speeds relative to the speed of light)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aphorism

http://www.wiley.com/college/phy/cutnell32146X/integration/ch28.pdf

when navigating morality one must be able identify any “universal”moral value for any action. the universality actually lies in the evaluation, and not from a constant value that”philosophers” like molyneux and hoppe would falsely lead you to believe.

what sense does it make for an actor to prefer someone elses action?  this question  may seem to generate paradoxes.  the resolution to this is that one cannot prefer someone elses actions (or at the very least it makes no rational sense in preferring something you have no power to directly control).  all preferences of any person are necessarily revealed by the choice of THEIR OWN actions, and not anyone elses. for instance when one says one thing but does another, their actions tell you their true preferences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

to say you prefer someone else’s actions is a non-sensical proposition. there is no valid reason that the goals of two different people (meta-selves) will necessarily have the same objectives.  egoutism also says one can always translate any such non-sensical statement of a preference of another’s action, into a preference of one’s own action.

for instance when one says they prefer that no one commits an act of aggression against them it must be also true that they take any measure necessary to try to prevent aggression upon them.

given the fact it does not make any sense to have a preference for anyone else’s action,  the only logical resolution is to restrict the evaluation of moral value to the ACTOR’S perspective so we dont run into any unnecessary paradoxes like those presented in stefan molyneux’s “universal preferable behavior”.  when one does this, the reasonable standard of morality changes from the golden rule (do onto others as you would have done onto yourself) to a more perspective conscious and logically consistent rule (did the actor do what a perfectly rational person would have done in their place? or lower standards…)

 

once perspective is established one can begin the moral calculation of an action. the moral value of each action, including aggression, is defined by the circumstances under which it is enacted.  its the same for any analysis of strategy. for instance in chess, the queen is a highly critical piece, and in only rare circumstances should one sacrifice or lose it. to implement the obtuse rule of “never sacrifice the queen” loses sight of the primary objective of capturing your opponents king. its just as obtuse to eliminate any strategy that implements aggression even in extreme circumstances merely for the sake of religious declaration.  it is incumbent upon those who defend nap to prove aggression is never in one’s evolutionary interest (meta-self interest) since this principle is the only one that is sustainable (consistent with existence). in this case,it is safer to adopt the non-aggression aphorism and never rule out the rare occassional case where aggression is in one’s meta-self interest.

one must take great care in implementing this moral evaluation process when analyzing acts, especially when it comes to aggression.  it is very easy to forget to remove YOUR (meta-self) PERSPECTIVE from the equation to take into account ONLY THE ACTOR’S (meta-self) perspective  by failing to remove the evaluator’s perspective, one will likely prematurely label all aggression as immoral.  this is the same as only accounting for the costs of aggression and ignoring any benefits. the universality of this calculation manifests itself in the fact that once a rational observer admits some aggression can be moral, they are endorsing it for every meta-self IN THOSE CRITICAL CONDITIONS.  for instance, i may endorse eating, but this is not enough. i have not explicitly defined the conditions under which eating is desirable for a person.  one could be overweight and have just finished 5 burgers.  these conditions more than likely warrant a prescription that is significantly different than “eating is desirable”  but given enough care, one can articulate the conditions under which eating is desirable.  now one can replace “eating” with any action including the most egregious forms of aggression one can think of.  this clearly shows what is wrong with the analysis that saying that “some aggression may be moral” equates to an absurd equivalent “i endorse all aggression upon me at all times”.

the universal property of egoutism says that “if an act, which is defined by its particular conditions, is moral, then any meta-self that finds himself in these conditions SHOULD prefer it”

 

 

 

 

Praxeology: a Logical Fallacy

 

praxeology is one big logical fallacy since it is built upon a fallacy. look the praxeological statement 1. “(ALL) human action is purposeful behavior” and the fallacious proof by contradiction that follows in this persons video on the methodology of praxeology. first she states  a totally different statement, 2. “if you TRY TO DENY that (ALL) human action is purposeful, YOU would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance)“. praxeology claims this is a performative contraction and therefore proves 1.  but this is either a fallacy or deception.  what 2. actually proves is that 3. “one cannot DENY that SOME of their own action is purposeful “  

notice that 3  is not an equivalent statement to 1, the original statement praxeology was set out to prove.

analogy: its as if praxeology claimed “every person that ever existed is still alive” therefore “if you try to deny this claim you would prove you yourself are alive and therefore prove the original claim since this is true for all people who try to deny it” the fallacy here is that it only captures the set of people that it is true for and ignores all the people that are dead that cannot argue against it. so in context of human action, purposeless people would never deny  the statement  “all human action is purposeful” even if it were false, but that doesnt mean “all human action is purposeful” is true.

its somewhat related to statistical response bias. only the ones that can respond, respond, but that isnt sufficient to show that all people can respond. imagine i conduct a sample where the hypothesis being tested is that “everyone has a phone” and then restrict my sample to a phone survey where only people can call in to contribute to the data.  i will necessarily conclude, using the fallacious “logic” in the video, that all people have phones, because those who call in cannot deny they have a phone and those who dont have phones cannot call in.

it still is a possibility (no disproof) that a person can act purposefully and argue in one instance then purposelessly act in the next instance. so a person arguing against the statement “all human action is purposeful” is insufficient to prove ALL his own action is purposeful let alone the rest of humanity.

the logical negation of  ” all human action is purposeful” is “there exists human action that is not purposeful”.  one can make this argument and not commit the “performative contradiction” since the person making the argument is not restricted to their own action and purpose.  one can argue that someone else is acting without purpose and not commit a contradiction

now you can just declare “all human action is purposeful” as an axiom, and i have no problem with this. but you cannot say its a valid theorem,  or sound argument.

 

there are sound reasons why austrian “praxeology” is on the fringe of any conventional peer reviewed academics. praxeology is a non-rigorous form of math and logic, and should not be taken seriously

 

 

 

 

eagleeye 1975

logic is at the very least a subset of mathematics. they are very arguably the same thing. writing proofs is the ultimate and purest form of logic.  logic is merely deductive reasoning.  philosophy is a loose form of “logic” with ambiguous language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

for every axiom that exists in math, philosophy will have tried to adopt it.  and for every consistent axiom in philosophy, math will have an equivalent.  any extra philosophical axioms that may or may not exist are dubious at best. and the self-ownership axiom isnt even that.  its a genuine fallacy.

adding axioms is a very serious thing if youre going to project them as some general morality.  apparently you dont give it the respect that is required from any intellectually honest and logically capable mind

 

philosophy without mathematics and science is obsolete. modern philosophy is not needed since mathematics, science, and economics have clearly replaced the role of philosophy in analysis and knowledge.

as far as  axioms are concerned (as i said in my other video which you didnt even watch), they must be true throughout time.  if your self-ownership can be taken from you, either by slavery or murder, then it cannot be an axiom since your “axiom” CAN be falsified for you and IS falsified for somebody throughout time (counterexample past slavery, contemporary slavery, future slavery)

and again, your statement “i own myself” really is “everyone owns themselves” unless your are only arguing for your own self-ownership. and its apparent you meant this for all  points in time therefore your “axiom” must be “all people, at all times, own themselves.” and again this statement can is falsified when someone has the will and ability to overcome the “owner’s” ability to defend it.  if you actually watched my video, not only does an axiom have to be seemingly true at all times, BUT IT MUST NEVER BE ABLE TO BE FALSIFIED.

when it comes to any property including one’s self…

owning your __________ is violatable (meaning all it takes is someone with the will and ability to do so and all your “axioms” become bonafide fallacy)

also if owning yourself is always true, then there is no argument against enslaving  or killing you.  then your whole goal of showing why slavery is wrong becomes moot.

please learn to distinguish between the terms can, is, and ought.  ability statements, descriptive statements, prescriptive statements .  prescriptive statements are a subset of ability statements , and ability statements are a subset of descriptive statements.  

amateur logicians and modern philosophers that arent logicians tend to conflate by using ambiguous poorly defined terms.  that is sophistry.  with proper math training, you learn to differentiate by adopting a well-defined definition set, which obviously you have not done.

what you are trying to establish as an axiom is “a person should own himself”.  but this is perspectiveless and does not evolutionarily make sense with egoutist analysis.

egoutism says that well-defined terms must be a type of well-defined function.  if a term is well defined, it will classify any object in reality as either an element of that definition set (meta-self) or its complement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-defined

 

you didnt select the best axioms that make sense of the world. you picked the best set of axioms that make sense of rights.

telling a slave he has the right to defend himself when there is no sufficent ability to allow him to do so makes no sense in reality.

just like saying someone has the right to jump to the moon as long as he doesnt violate others right to do so makes no sense.

where is the logical deduction from you own your body to you own everything you produce?that is just other axioms!. therefore i own everything i look at. also another counterexample is laboring a piece of property that you stole. do you own it?  obviously you need to instill a first to labor rule. and also by this silly reasoning you own all intellectual property that your mind “produces”

cost of defending rights has been so diluted you dont even see it.  two man island and costs of rights.

 

 

 

Axioms and self ownership

axioms and definition are the foundations of knowledge and understanding. the limits of knowledge manifest itself in the axioms (in particular, with respect to the people who adopt a set of axioms), as it is impossible to be certain about anything.

while ultimately the choice of axioms is arbitrary, their usefulness is not (just like solving a system of equations).  once a well-defined objective is set (like seeking the truth), the value of your axioms becomes determined.  if your intent is to make sense of rights, then your goal is not intellectually honest (not seeking the truth, since it assumes rights are consistent). since the true purpose of adopting a set of axioms should not be to validate a conclusion that makes you feel better but instead to better explain the world.  Egoutism makes a point to always be careful not to project your emotional meta-self onto a general rule like morality. one could just as easily adopt an axiom that says no one owns themselves (which is equally preposterous) if they were out to prove your concept of “rights” ridiculous.

since all logical deduction is conditional on the set of axioms chosen it is incumbent upon the person (who has a sincere desire to find truth and not to validate the silly idea of rights/entitlements)to choose a set of axioms that meet the following minimum requirements

1. be sure that each axiom does not have a counterexample that DISPROVES the axiom. the axiom of “Everyone owns themselves” clearly fails this most important test. (also there should be no proof of the axiom since it would not longer be called an axiom)
2. minimize the number (or scope) of the axioms. since axioms should be assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven but are consistent with all physical evidence (statistical or empirical)
3. choose the set of axioms so that they are consistent with eachother. (minimize the number of contradictions generated by deductive logic).
4. resolve as perceptual paradoxes, and makes the best sense of reality, make the most accurate predictions
5. cover the ground not touched upon by axiom, theorem and law of math and science, remain mutually exclusive of any other axiom (to avoid inconsistencies).

 

here are some of axioms of ego-utilitarianism that satisfy the rules above:

• axiom: all math axioms and theorems, and all laws of science (and to a lesser extent economics) are compulsory axioms
• deduction: therefore evolution exists and is the mechanism that determines existence at anyone one point in space/time.
• axiom: concepts exist by default
• axiom: only well defined statements have a true or false value (can be proven or disproven)
•  …

 

it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest of me to adopt the axiom “im always right” just because from my perspective its true and it proves you wrong

now the self ownership axiom already blows up when you consider 1. the logical negation of statement “everyone owns themselves” is the statement “there exists a person who doesnt own himself” (throughout time). since there are explicit counterexamples of past, modern, and future slavery. this is sufficient to PROVE that the self ownership statement is UNEQUIVOCALLY FALSE. also murder is a form or removing one’s self-ownership of one’s body.  and i think there exist clear cases of murder…

 

if you claim that the self-ownership axiom proves rights, then you have to explain the fact that rights have no value when no one provides them. and on a  two man island rights seem to vanishm showing rights are a statist/religious concept

the fallacy that if i reject the self-ownership axiom then i necessarily say its moral for you to beat me up and take my stuff.

brainwashing wasnt my counterexample

at any point in time people can take over self-ownership of another, simply by murdering them or imprisoning them.

right to defend yourself is meaningless. your ability to defend your self is not necessarily sufficent to fend off someone elses ability to violate your “rights”. i doubt jews had this “self-ownership right” back in nazi germany, or black people back in the american slavery days.   why did their rights just vanish?

eagleeye1975 is just projecting his self-interest on morality which just shows he feels he should be able to keep his stuff.  a bias toward wanting to own onesself. also he fails to transcend all the statist and religious bullshit that was inculcated into him and truly pursue truth.

if you want feel good axioms i can just adopt axioms like “i am the best”, ” i never lose an argument”, “value is subjective”

the reason i referenced hoppe is because he made the most compelling logical case for self-ownership (and still failed miserably since trying to prove a clearly false claim is quixotic)

didnt even listen to my property ethic: the exculsion criterion of property

as far as intellectual integrity is concerned, you lose that argument as well since you admit youre out to prove the concept of rights, to justify them. youre not set out to know truth.

also as a determinist, one can make a compelling case you dont even control your own thoughts.  i dont even have to envoke this since my previous arguments are more than sufficient to transform the self-ownership “axiom” into a bonafide self-ownership FALLACY

 

The Exclusion Criterion of Property: Intellectual property

egoutism says that property is determined, at any point in time in any hypothetical, by the exclusion criterion.  That is to say an object is the property of a meta-self if and only if it can exclude any other meta-self from the object.  This ensures the cost of exclusion is completely the burden of the owner and the people benefiting from their ownership, creating the need to utilize the good well enough to at least cover the expense of exclusion. This rule is consistent with sustainability and mutually beneficial gain once the goods produced with the property is traded into the marketplace. also any transfer of ownership, even thru theft or seizure, is not precluded.  but all costs of doing so must be distributed proportionally to those who seek to benefit from it.

all rivalrous property, intellectual or not, will be allocated based upon productivity

the good of intellectual property comes from discovering a concept/technology which in turn  lowers the cost of production or raise the value per unit of a good or service.  Once a technology is discovered and disseminated, even with the mere sale of a good that utilizes the technology, becomes exponentially costly to exclude others from it.  This high costs makes it unlikely for a person to both utilize a technology for profit and simultaneously excluding others from imitating the technology in the form of a competing good.

my argument relies on the assumption that government does things less efficient (negative economic profit) since its non-meta-self interested and the interests of meta-selves are NEVER perfectly aligned. and a government taxation and monopoly creates further deadweight loss. government is not a meta-self interested entity because it is not concerned with generating a profit for its meta-self. it may generate profit for other meta-selves (special interests) but only does so at its own expense, ensuring its eventual fiscal demise.

so since this applies to the good of providing exclusion, then the free market can provide this good more efficiently creating an economic deadweight loss.

an axiom of ego-utilitarianism says ALL concepts exist by default, and that human only discover them, they dont create them. like mathematics and laws of physics. a more abstract example would be quantity.

egoutism also says meta-self profitability for the actor is the true measure of morality, or “whats right”

egoutism says property is an object that is excluded from the complement of the owner’s meta-self.  in other words the only criterion that determines who owns what is if the prospective owner can exclude others, whether it be by his own means or with help from others.

, which economic analysiswhen government protects intellectual property it promotes monopoly profits shows creates a net deadweight loss that is suffered by the consumer through lower quantity and quality of goods, and higher prices which is greater than the additional revenue gained by the monopoly supplier.

but more importantly when government protects intellectual property, or any property for that matter, it artificially lowers the cost of exclusion.  making it artificially cheaper to own intellectual property. and since government takes on some of these costs of exclusion, by the assumption earlier, it does so inefficiently and creates economic loss.  in other words, if it were ECONOMICALLY profitable to exclude others from a general idea/technology, then the prospective owner would have done so more efficiently in a free market.  when government subsidizes an industry by absorbing exclusion costs it creates another deadweight loss. and as everyone knows from the deadweight loss of a subsidy, the result is that even though we have more research and development, it is more than the optimum amount that would have occurred prior to the government intervention. in otherwords we have TOO MUCH research and development.

people always worry that we have too little intellectual property.  the problem is that they are not considering opportunity costs of research and development. one of the axiom’s of ego-utilitarianism is that all concepts and technology exist independently of humans awareness of them.  the mind only discovers them and does not create them.  and given enough time all possible technology is inevitable.  but what is more important is the order in which its discovered and how much productivity is forgone  for this research necessary for discovery. this should be dictated by meta-self profit.

also, a sufficiently competitive market will necessarily have to invest in “low hanging fruit” r&d since keeping the quality of your product static necessarily means that if any one of your competitors does it first you will necessarily lose market share and eventually go out of business with an obsolete product.  the prisoner’s dilemma is quite a powerful free market mechanism.

opportunity cost with r and d

an investment may have such high opportunity costs that you could have had both if taken in the right order.

innovation and concepts, the efficiency is in the order of discovery

 

 

why rights theory are inadequate and rivalry and theft are a dead end since it relies on all theft as being wrong

reverse engineering

 

IP and sharing

capital intensity and innovation

consequences…

reputation as justice

 

math ideas’ and ip

 

 

 

The Meta-Self: The Meta-Venn Diagram, a refined definition

the mathematics of definition and morality and the foundation of egoutism

the meta-self is central focus of an actor. it is whats used to calculate the value of action.  and it can be evaluated from evolution’s perspective

when analyzing the description/meta-self of a set in terms of set theory you get an inverted venn diagram.  or what i call a meta-venn diagram or meta-self venn diagram.

descriptor: a definitional element/condition of a superset that contains the object (meta-self under consideration) as an instance/element. each descriptor represents a component meta-self ( a superset or sub-meta-self)

submeta-self is equivalent to superset 

Consider a meta-self (conceptual set) A that refers to an object of reality.  Then the meta-self of A is such that A that contains all descriptors that describe the object, AND if a is an elements of A then a is a descriptor.

weighted moral meta-self:  a proportional weighting distribution between a partition of the meta-self under consideration into mutually exclusive spanning set of component meta-selves (supersets/descriptors).  egoutism says the weighting SHOULD be proportional on how useful the component is in perpetuating instances of the meta-self under consideration.

the null set: the set that contains all descriptors ensuring contradiction and no instances

 

 

indifference curves and negative utility

1. tenuous last message regarding circular indifference curves: “I talked to Mike about that. Circles was the immediate idea. Like a utility hill with contours.However the problem with that is that the other side of the hill represents dis-utility, whereas the side of the hill closer to the origin represents being less than satisfied. These two states cannot be equivalent. For example lets assume im at my utility hill with 10 bananas. 9 bananas and im not at the top, 11 bananas and im over-fed. But if we have circles that means that as far as utility is concerned 9 bananas is the same as 11, which is clearly not the same intuitively (at least for me). Underfed, and overfed are different experiences.So if it was a hill perhaps one side of the hill would be continuous, the other side would be a discontinuous drop into negative utility.

   So I dont think an indifference curve can ever take a nice shape. Realistic curves wouldn’t even be continuous, but discrete and they might look like piecewise functions not defined for all x. Simply because 10000000x whatever x is would represent disutility for many goods. Moreover the curves change with time. Pretty much utility theory seems like a dead end.

   It depends what we mean with utility, is utility an independent variable that every good gives us a little bit of (like energy). Or is utility a set of things? Or is utility a fancy word for describing dynamic behavior with some sort of end in mind?”

2. ) I mean in all likelihood the utility function would not make a smooth surface. It probably wouldnt even be continuous assuming we are using discrete quantities of goods. I was saying the surface might look like a hill on one side, and a cliff on the other.
3. quantities and circles
4. if indifference curves (equi-total utility curves, level curves of the total utility surface) are circles then they must be insances of circles. here is  my resolution.  the indifference curve will be an ellipse (intuitively) for normal good/bad.  the major and minor axes (x=Qx, y=Qy) represent the critical quantities of each respective good/bad where marginal utility changes from positive to negative or vice versa depending on where you are on any respective elliptical indif curve. the intersection of each respective critical lines is the center of the elliptical indifference curve and together with the magnitude of the critical quantities, determines if it crosses any of the axes on the graph and also what quadrant(s) the elliptical inidfference curve will lie.  if the axes are both positive then the center of the ellipse will lie in the 1st quadrant. if they are both negative then they are in 3rd quadrant. if they are either negative/positive and positive/negative  then the centers of each ellipse will be in the 2nd and 4th quadrant respectively. if the magnitudes of the critical points are equal  (magnitude(Qx)= magnitude(Qy) ) then you will have a circular indifference curve somewhere on the cartesian plane.
5. the top of the level surface may represent the maxium utility one can get from consuming those two goods. the budget constraint (a meta-self production capacity) is another dimension that allows you to move up the total utility surface (or what you call your “hill”)
6. http://sites.csn.edu/istewart/mathweb/math127/ellipses/ellipses.htm
7.   the first video was kind of done in haste after reading the first paragraph of the response im parsing here.

   “For example lets assume im at my utility hill with 10 bananas. 9 bananas and im not at the top, 11 bananas and im over-fed. But if we have circles that means that as far as utility is concerned 9 bananas is the same as 11, which is clearly not the same intuitively (at least for me). Underfed, and overfed are different experiences.”

   no contradiction here.  again, if it is ELLIPTICAL then this would only happen when the critical point that maximizes utility for the banana is 10.  once you cross the other side you are decreasing total utility.  dont understand why this is not the same intuitively.  underfed and overfed are different experiences with the same value/utility.  i think youre again reaching for a criticism here trying to conflate the statement 9=11 and f(9)=f(11) where f(x) is the total utility function. (more generally tenuous is saying (9,y)=(11,y) instead of f(9,y)=f(11,y) where f(x,y) is the total utility function).  this is either dishonest or ignorant. if your goal is to get out of a circular forest being x meters from the center have the same distance away from their respective closest “exit” point.

   “So if it was a hill perhaps one side of the hill would be continuous, the other side would be a discontinuous drop into negative utility.”

    first, remember this analysis was just an extention of how the continuous normal goods indifference curve presented in econ 101 accounts for negative utility.  this particular example does not mean this is the only type of indifference curve shape.

   as far as discontinuity (even when considering other indifference curves) it seems more intuitive that there are no discontinuities because it is a sum of an uncountably infinite amount of indifference curves.  units of goods are really continuous too. i can eat a half a banana or any proportion of that.  for every real number between two integers, i can consume that amount of banana (at least for the non-negative numbers), ensuring continuity.  bananas are sold and MORE IMPORTANTLY consumed by weight.  if you think weight is discrete… yeah. why arbitrarily choose the back side of the hill to be discontinuous?  even poison has gradual effects as you increase dosage.  temperature.  most if not everything seems proportional and continuous in nature. levels of nutrition and toxicity for bananas is not discrete since nutrition/toxicity is proportional to the amount consumed.    discrete units of goods are artificial.  buying isnt consuming. time you spend doing activities…

“It depends what we mean with utility, is utility an independent variable that every good gives us a little bit of (like energy). Or is utility a set of things? Or is utility a fancy word for describing dynamic behavior with some sort of end in mind?”

egoutism says utility/value is relative and objective.  it is the amount of usefulness an action provides in accomplishing the primary objective that evolution imposes upon any object in reality, namely to perpetuate instances of one’s meta-self.    

“I mean in all likelihood the utility function would not make a smooth surface. It probably wouldnt even be continuous assuming we are using discrete quantities of goods. I was saying the surface might look like a hill on one side, and a cliff on the other.”

taking ANY particular shape is virtually an impossibility.  like a probability distribution.  your shape is not only irrational or hard to explain why it would happen but even assuming they were equally reasoned would have the same probability as any specific shape. the goal is to describe the rough shape of a rational indifference curve.  not to describe all indifference curves of anything under any exceptional circumstance.

AT THE VERY LEAST MY ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT ELLIPTICAL AND CIRCULAR INDIFFERENCE CURVES ARE POSSIBLE SPECIAL CASES, NOT THE ONLY CASE.  it is just an example of an indifference curve. dont conflate this analysis to say that this specific shape applies to ALL indifference curves. 

https://mnmeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/shapes-of-indifference-curves/

 

it would somewhat make sense that for every quantity of any good there exists only 2 quantities of the other good that would correspond to the same indifference curve.  if there were more than two goods it violates the assumption of good and bad.  that would mean  a good oscillates between good and bad as you increase quantity monotonously. somewhat seems ridiculous if preferences are held constant ONLY FOR ANALYSIS.  one can easily vary preferences and make the curves do what you want them to do, but you must show that there is a dependent relation between quantity and preferences.  why would preferences change based upon quantity consumed?  its obvious you have the cart before the horse.  your sense of causality is ass-backwards. given a certain set of preferences, especially preference of evolution itself, determine the quantities and their utility.  if youre a determinists evolutionary preferences do not change with respect to a change in quantity consumed.

just take your example with bananas. if utility/value is relative and objective then were talking about nutrition here.  assuming each bite of the banana is the same good (no poisonous insect in a particular bite which necessarily makes it a different good or even bad), it doesnt make sense that if it provides the same nutrients per weight, that the objective utility of the nutrition wouldnt follow the weak law of diminishing marginal utility.

again, i dont think a criticism of continuity is applicable here as ive reasoned above.  the elliptical indifference curve is an abstraction.  they are cross sections of an infinitely dimensional (complex) euclidean space. the reason for the high level of abstraction is to isolate the dependence relationship between two variables, quantity and utility.  so it is somewhat saying the other variables held constant are independent upon quantity. but when the circle retraces quantity it only would be relevant if consumption of one good did not affect the other’s utility of the other, which is assumed in the “normal” goods as i started the analysis from.  so again, this is a special case of NORMAL goods.  there is a separate analysis of substitute, complementary, superior, and inferior goods.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good

does the analysis stop there? dont know, does the indifference curve have to be closed? can it spiral or take different shapes? obviously this is a more complex case that isnt necessarily assumed to be impossible its just theres no good reason to waste time analyzing strange cases.  its the law of diminishing marginal utility.  consider the easy more intuitive ones.  and when the time comes consider more complicated ones. but keen’s criticisms rely on a violation of ceteris paribus.

inverse error,  what alternative accounts for a radically different indifference curves that elminates the arguments for deadweight loss? and shows better explanation of the neo-classical or even neo-keynsian model?  there is not one that exists that has been shown to work over such a large time series like the analysis of the classical econ. if there were, profit seeking business men will adopt it in the long run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oughtism: the is/ought dichotomy resolved!

egoutism (ego-utilitarianism) says that all “oughts” are a subset of “is”

the idea that prescriptive statements are mutually exclusive from descriptive statement is a fallacy since prescriptive statements have truth value (according to the relative theory of value of egoutism).  genuine prescriptive statements ATTEMPT to describe the optimum strategy for an actor (real or hypothetical) given particular conditions and restrictions.

analogies in mathematics…

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimization

optimization and morality. optimum answers have four possibilities, no solution, a unique, finite, infinite.

in linear and non-linear algebra (solving systems of equations)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_and_inconsistent_equations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermined_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermined_system

http://www.charleston.k12.il.us/cms/Teachers/math/PreAlgebra/paunit6/L6-5.PDF

 

the number and type of restrictions determines how many solutions satisfy the system (set of points that make all equations true). like determined, consistent, unconsistent, underdetermined, and overdetermined systems.

we use prescriptive analysis in game theory… (stupid austrians and their ordinal value lol)

Click to access handout_micro_games.pdf

dominated strategy and best response

so prescriptive concepts describe what is thought to be the superior strategy set of the actor.

determinism…the universe is mechanical.  that means the probability of any well-defined event in time is either 0 or 1.  BUT, it extends beyond events in time.  since the universe is mechanical it also means the probability of any well-defined event in a well defined hypothetical is either 0 or 1 AND the value of all well defined strategies in a given hypothetical (real or not) is DETERMINED MATHEMATICALLY!  HENCE, THE RELATIVE THEORY OF VALUE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS AND THEREFORE WE CAN ANALYZE WHAT IS TRUE MORALITY UNDER EGOUTISM!

the actor of concern when analyzing moral strategy is the meta-self. meta-self:  the smallest (in terms of the number of descriptors) conceptual set that contains ALL the descriptors that describe the actor under analysis

are descriptive also prescriptive (tenuous theories video)?  dont think so because prescriptions are statements explicitly describing the optimum strategy set of action of an actor.  more specifically you can say prescriptive statements discuss the value of any strategy. descriptive doesnt explictly refer to strategy. even though one can infer strategy from it if given other descriptive information of the actor indirectly.

trivial statements about past events have little to no value in determining strategy since. these events contribute little to no mechanical information. analogous to sunk costs.  and statements about past events taken together with a statement giving all relevant present conditions renders it irrelevant to any current or future strategy.

also egoutism holds all concepts exist by default, including any possible statement. therefore any statement about the past has no relevance to the validity of prescriptive, unless it hypothetically changes a variable….

so therefore, its likely descriptive is not a subset of prescriptive.

Argumentation Ethics: A Praxeological failure

 

praxeology, argumentation ethics, and the argument for self-ownership is the basis of all property and rights theory of the austrian school. it is considered to be proper application of “praxeology” by most of their scholars.

“The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of Property and Exchange each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference.”- rothbard

obviously, we are not talking about merely owning ones mind, because if it were that simple then enslaving someone doesnt necessarily violate self-ownership

“The mere fact that an individual argues presupposes that he owns himself and has a right to his own life and property. This provides a basis for libertarian theory radically different from both natural rights theory and utilitarianism. ” – hoppe

now taking these two quotes together…

obviously one can argue and be coerced.  one can definitely be coerced into arguing.

as far as rights are concerned

Ego-Utilitarianism says that ALL concepts exists by default, but instances of the concept dont.

Ego-Utilitarianism says that instances of rights either do not exist, or the concept itself does not provide any useful information or have any significance (positive or normatively) if the ability to enforce them does not follow. meaning any privilege must be provided by someone or something. Ego-Utilitarianism also says that for something to be personal property, it must be made exclusive to the owner (the exclusion principle).  There is no magical right to one’s mind, body, or other property.  One must satisfy the cost of exclusion and unless it is profitable for the cumulative interests of society or any other meta-self with the ability to provide these privileges, then they will not be provided or at the very least sustainably provided.   Meta-self profitability is what measures rationality, practicality, sustainability, and most importantly morality, since in Ego-utilitarian’s definition set, they are equivalent. it is meta-self interest that is truly universal. the meta-self interest cost/benefit analysis (profit) function to be specific.

ego-utilitarianism says if you want to claim a natural rights exist you must show why someone will provide them.  in other words you must show why “natural” rights are meta-self profitable IN ALL INSTANCES. this is an impossible task as i can always provide a situation when they shouldnt be provided (where its not profitable to do so).

to all the people that believe in rights…can someone show me an instance of a right (privilege) without someone or something providing it?

rights are an idea inculcated into us by the state and religion.  we must learn to apply analysis without this confounding idea.

Assumption criticisms: Austrians have taken too many liberties with the assumptions with this self-ownership argument.  if you want to maximize logical consistency you must minimized assumptions.  I believe what hoppe has done here has maximized the assumptions necessary  to “deduce” the non-aggression principle.

when someone argues, it can only be assumed that he has the ability to argue, not necessarily that he owns himself (free from coercion).  a personal slave can be given the permission to argue. so one can argue without owning themselves.

it is also argued by those in the austrian school that when one argues he is also respecting the rights of the people he is arguing with. the only thing he is respecting at that moment is the other person(s) opinion at that moment. either he wants to convince the other participant(s) on that particular topic or wants to challenge his own ideas using another perspective. it does not necessarily mean he respects ALL the property rights of anyone taking the other side of the argument.  again one can argue with one’s personal slave.  a person begging for their life at gunpoint is also making an argument without being free from coercion. one cannot make a convincing case that the rights of the person arguing for their life is being respected.  especially if he should lose that argument and the trigger were pulled.

 

here is hoppe’s “proof” of self-ownership

conjecture A =  it is impossible to argue against/deny the statement “you own yourself”

proof:

assumption 1: in order to be able to argue you must own yourself. alternatively self-ownership is a necessary condition of argumentation.

therefore the contrapositive (equivalent statement) is that if you dont own yourself, you cannot argue.

therefore when anyone tries to argue or claim the negation of A then the person arguing has committed a “performative contradiction”.  In other words, the arguer has shown that he can argue, and therefore he owns himself which contradicts his argument and proving the opposite of his argument.  This is equivalent to proof by contradiction.

Major logical criticism 1:

hoppe believes he has proven a very significant point that austrian praxeology builds upon in their property rights theory.  hoppe believes he has proven “everyone owns themselves”.

but in fact hoppe proves a very trivial fact.  he has only shown “you cannot ARGUE against ONE’S OWN  self-ownership” (assuming self-ownership is a necessary condition for arguing)

one must take great care to distinguish between these two statements.

the statement  “you own yourself ” is equivalent to “everyone owns themselves” as this is directed to all of humanity (past, present, and future) using hoppe’s own idea of “universality”.  it is unreasonable to assume that the statement is only directed at the people who do own themselves that can argue. which leads to my point…

the statement “you cannot argue against self-ownership” is true if you assume self-ownership is a necessary condition for arguing. (and even this assumption is proven false with counterexamples i have presented, like a person arguing for his life at gunpoint)

BUT  it is not simply because everyone owns themselves which hoppe believes. there is a second possibility that hoppe’s argument has failed to consider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery

hoppe’s argument falls flat on its face because it does not consider the proportion of the population who dont own themselves.  this segment of the population by default cannot argue (by the assumption)

hoppe’s argumentation ethics is like saying ” you are not turtles” to all the turtles in the world.  because they lack the ability to argue. then by default the turtles cannot argue with the claim. but clearly that doesnt prove the patently false claim that they are not turtles. only the trivial claim that it cannot be argued against by the turtles themselves.

in otherwords, hoppe’s argument is only going to consider arguments from people who own themselves and can argue and ignores the people who dont own themselves, who cannot argue.

even assuming self ownership is a necessary condition to argue for or against it, at best it only proves you cant ARGUE against self ownership, it does not prove EVERYONE owns themselves.

 

major logical criticism 2:

one CAN SUCCESSFULLY argue against self ownership and the universal (all-humans throughout time) application of non-aggression

when making the statement “you cannot argue against self-ownership”, the actual intent of this claim is:

“everyone owns themselves.”

in other words, if i set out to prove this false, i must prove the negation of the statement “everyone owns themselves.”

which is explicitly:

“there exists at least one person that doesnt own himself”

http://raider.mountunion.edu/ma/ma125/fall2011/chapter3/negationsofquantifiedstatements.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery

one can surely argue that another person doesnt own themselves and avoid committing hoppe’s fallacious performative “contradiction”. just by pointing to slavery in the past, present, or future suffices to show this claim is patently false.

 

 

if argumentation ethics were truly a valid proof, then self ownership would not be an axiom. one could praxeologically call this a law or theorem.

praxeology is not a rigorous way of using logic.  it suffers the same weaknesses as most philosophy, its language and definition are not well defined, and the “rationalization” isnt a valid form of logic.  rationalization without  rigorous (quantitative) definition will suffer the same reasoning traps that communism or flat earthers commit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The “Unassailable” Molyneux a fallacy by Chris Cantwell

The structure of Molyneux’s proof (proof by contradiction):

Prove murder (aggression in general) cannot be universally preferrable (the statement P).

assumptions and definitions (all are true by default):

1. assumption (since Molyneux doesnt define ALL aggression/murder requires that the victim does not desire the act itself. assumed as part of the criteria of the definition. (point of contention)

2. preferable: (p.33 UPB) Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the – 34 – scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content themselves with mystical nonsense.

3. theorem: “can” is a necessary but not sufficient condition for “to do” (no proof necessary, trivial proof)

again molyneux is essentially going against his definition of a normative (should) definition of preferable and instead proceeding with a positive definition (what they actually do prefer) to complete his proof. which is a substantial error in his proof which i will elaborate on in my future video with the complete. not only that but his choice of terms in particular (preferable) contains the suffix “able”.  this is a “CAN”, not a “should” or a “is”

but let set that MAJOR error aside for not to explore if there is another error.  we shall allow Molyneux to redefine universally preferable to mean what the two people in hypothetical room actually do prefer.

since 3. the objective of molyneux is to show they cant both prefer murder. because if a necessary condition isnt present, then that is sufficient to guarantee that is not preferred.  therefore it would be universally preferable (really preferred,under the new positive definition)

so his proof, at least as presented by cantwell, is proof by contradiction.

since the goal is to prove murder/aggression is not UPB.  we assume the opposite of what molyneux set out to prove.  namely “murder/aggression is preferable” or more literally by the conflated positive definition “murder aggression is preferred”

but by 1. (the assumption that the aggression/murder require the victims non-preference) then this necessarily leads to the contradiction the victim both prefers and does not prefer murder/aggession.

since this leads to a contradiction the assumption “murder/aggression is preferable” must be false (proof by elimination, if the truth value of a statement is false then its negation must be true)

the problem with 1. is that one can construct a counterexample.

 

molyneux commits induction fallacy or black swan fallacy. the fact that a person’s experiences have yet to contradict a belief, so he believes it to be a universal absolute.  this is not valid logic.  one must deductively show by analysis of the definition that the entire set under consideration (in this case humans) must abide by this belief.

 

symbolic:

 

Molyneux’s proof:

let P= “murder/aggression is not UPB”

then ~P= “murder/aggresion is  UPB”

let Q = “the victim of the murder prefers murder”

then ~Q = “the victim of the murder does not prefer murder”

assume ~P

from 1,

we have the contradiction Q and ~Q

therefore P

qed

 

my proof:

let A= the set of aggression

let P= “A is never preferred by the victim”

therefore ~P = “there exists an element “a” of A that”

consider a=

qed