THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.
—-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-
Well, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense.
(a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon.
(b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable.
(c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof
(d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits.
(e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements).
(f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content.
(g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content.
(h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever.
(i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us.
i. identity (category)
ii. internal consistency (logic)
iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power)
iv. existential possibility (existence proof)
v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)
vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)
vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)
Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth.
Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining.
Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion.
Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can.
Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.
I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on.
I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on.
I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on.
The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history.
The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life.
There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty.
Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others.
Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them.
What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit.
Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over.
Welcome to the new age.
Thus endeth the lesson.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute