I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian

[Rick K]

@Ecstatic_Hamster
Perhaps a more sane approach is to acknowledge that, despite the illusion of a title, we never really own anything but all must depend on the natural resources for sustenance. I anyone pollutes the river everyone pays the price through a negative feedback loop of ecology/health. The concept of ownership must be transmuted into the concept of stewardship.
If we can't take "it" with us when we leave this plane then we are only borrowing it for a time as many have before us & many will after.

[CO3]

you didn't show me anything? You stated your opinion, yes, but you showed me nothing

[Creuset]

@Ecstatic_Hamster Glad you wrote this thread, however I would argue that Anarcho-capitalism is not a belief. It is based on Natural Law (jusnaturalism) which is the only legal system that can be deduced logically and Rationally, this has nothing to do with belief since it is logically and objectively demonstrated.

Every other political and legal system is based on Utilitarianism, subjective beliefs and coercion. People that endorse other systems want to impose their value systems to others because they believe in the superiority of such systems, without being able to demonstrate it.

[Kvirion]

@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

I would argue that Anarcho-capitalism is not a belief. It is based on Natural Law (jusnaturalism) which is the only legal system that can be deduced logically and Rationally, this has nothing to do with belief since it is logically and objectively demonstrated.

LOL, what a naive BS...

You probably never heard about ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, epistemic uncertainty, or even nuance, have you?

BTW Objectivism has been already qualified as utopian pseudoscience...

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~Bertrand Russell

[Creuset]

@Kvirion Relax man, I'm used to trigger people emotionally like you all the time because of jusnaturalism, but take a deep breath and grab something sugary, you will feel better.

So you're clearly ignorant of what jusnaturalism is if you conflate it with Objectivism. I am not an Objectivist, so you're wrong in your assessment. I don't have any sympathy for Ayn Rand and she wasn't an anarcap anyways.

Natural Law is an ancient legal concept, primarily developed by European scholars during the Middle Ages. They sought to define a normative law that was divinely inspired and compatible with human nature. Despite the term "natural", this concept has nothing to do with fixed "ontologies" such as "human nature" or God anymore in 2024, it was refined and evolved into a logical and coherent theory.

What justifies Natural Law: It is justified by the human necessity for clear rules to guide social interactions. Any other system of law are called Positive law, which is man made, Utilitarian and imposed arbitrary to members of society. Natural Law is discovered by reason.

Traditionally, the state has been essential in enforcing Positive law (Regalian power, Absolute Monarchy or Republic), while Natural law allows for anarchy and the abolition of hierarchies. With the evolution of individuals to less Authoritarian states of mind and a desire for decentralization, there's been a push for laws that are fair, universal, logical, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory. This was probably the aim of constitutions and human rights in the first place, but they often fall short in practice and are constantly denied and contradicted by other laws, they have no coherence in themselves.

There's also the issue of "legal inflation", where politicians promise new rights to various groups and minorities if they are elected, leading to an overabundance of laws that keep growing and contradicting each others. These laws are nonetheless illogical and arbitrary (it is for example illegal to evict squatters from your own property in many countries or prevent illegal immigrants from entering your territory). Also, since very few people understand what is a legitimate law, they can accept having their most fundamental rights being violated all the time without any justification, if an authority tell them to do so (such as what happened during covid). That's why any mass crime can happen such as during nazi Germany. This is the danger of having a population that can easily be manipulated and doesn't understand basic political and legal philosophy.

So to create an objective, impartial and universal law (Natural Law) derived from logic:

• Its rights must be negative ones, also called claim rights or liberty rights (they are non-prescriptive). They are descriptive only so they don't violate Hume's Guillotine
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

• Its different rights must be non-contradictory between themselves (principle of noncontradiction in logic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

• Its rights must be applicable to all humans, common to everybody (isonomy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

• It must concern the individual only, not society or a public institution.

The only three rights that meet these criteria are:

• Right to property (including 3 attributes which are usus, abusus, fructus).

• Right to associate freely consensually without interference from a 3rd party.

• Right to not be harmed (non-aggression principle).

Examples of how positive rights are not logical (they violate the noncontradiction principle):

• Right to get a pension -> This forces another person to pay taxes to pay for your pension, which violates the right of property (theft). This also violates Hume's Guillotine because this is prescriptive.

• Right to live -> This would force a doctor or nurse to take care of you whenever you want it and guarantee that you will live and survive, this is slavery and illogical (because nobody can guarantee that you will live no matter what).

Prescriptive Positive law always imply that an individual, because of his status or nature, or any other arbitrary thing, has to do something for another group of people, that others won't have to do, which denies the isonomy in rights (for example when poor people have more rights than rich people which need to pay for their privileges). You can also see how politicians can easily seduce easy-to-manipulate groups of voters by promising them special privileges and advantages compared with another group.

The benefits of Natural Law include:

• Resolving double binds which create learned helplessness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

• Establishing genuine individual sovereignty.

• Fostering personal responsibility.
  https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-locus-of-control-2795434

• It provides a strong model to identify manipulation and domination.

• Allows for diverse societies (panarchy) and what we call mixed strategies in game theory (instead of a fixed strategy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Émile_de_Puydt#Panarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)

For further reading on morality, I recommend Jonathan Haidt's books. He explores how our moral values, which may be hereditary, are subjective, and naturally differ from individual to individual. This then shows how inborn moral impulses can be exploited by politicians to divide and rule like all Machiavellians do. Another insightful book is "Moral Calculations" by László Mérő which bridges Game Theory with Morals.

[Kvirion]

@Creuset Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.

Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.

Current (well-researched and supported by evidence) science says, that for example:

• Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.
• It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"
• It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.

Moreover, humans are mostly social beings, individualism is just an exceptional special case.
And there are many more counter-arguments based on natural sciences, etc...

Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.

...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box

The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb

[Mulloch94]

"It became quite clear to me that the Natural Law mystique, in Catholic, libertarian or neo-pagan forms, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'the belief that the laws of one's own tribe are the laws of the universe'." - Robert Anton Wilson

[Kvirion]

@Mulloch94 said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

"It became quite clear to me that the Natural Law mystique, in Catholic, libertarian or neo-pagan forms, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'the belief that the laws of one's own tribe are the laws of the universe'." - Robert Anton Wilson

Nice one. Thanks!

[Creuset]

@Kvirion said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.

Hey, I appreciate that you decided to change your tone and to be polite, respectful and reply with arguments and not with ad hominem.

Since it appears that we can have an intelligent discussion, I will take time to reply to each of your points in detail.

Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.

It is logical and coherent, and I have never seen a good refutation of its current form, mostly misunderstandings and categorical and methodological confusion, but let's analyze your counterarguments one by one, maybe you will have me think about things I've never considered before and eventually have me change my mind.

Current (well-researched and supported by evidence) science says, that for example:

Okay, so here is your first mistake: Law is not a science (just like maths are not a science), and Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods, utilitarianism or the hypothetico-deductive method. Natural Law is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement, just like mathematical theorems are.

Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.

Again, your mistake is a categorical one. You believe that law should be derived from empirical methods without ever proving why, and I will actually show you why it is not possible to derive a coherent system with these methods.

For law to be fair, objective and coherent, you need it to apply to every human, to have isonomy of rights, for the rights to respect the law of noncontradiction, and for them to be non-prescriptive (Hume's Guillotine). Otherwise, your system of law is just a derivative of the "law of the strongest" which is subjective.

So tell me of any system of law derived from empirical methods or from utilitarianism that respect these conditions?
Spoiler alert: this doesn't exist, and if you accept such systems of law as legitimate, you're just accepting that an arbitrary authority can at any time tell you that "you won't own anything and you will be happy and you will eat bugs" or if there is a consensus that killing millions of innocent people is fine, that's enough to justify it, you just need a little bit of social engineering, majority of population that agrees, and "voilà".
All of that while being told that you are in "democracy" and that you have a "right to property" (noncontradiction law is completely obliterated and nobody even understand something as simple as that). Georges Orwell warned us a long time ago, but most people still accept doublethink and double binds. If you try to defend such systems as legitimate, you are just coping in a state of Stockholm syndrome.

It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"

I've never said that all info can be deduced, please don't put words into my mouth, this is not an honest debatting technique (I actually think that there is ample room for empiricism, the scientific method and induction in other domains), and I've never made any claim of truth or "naturality" (it is just confusing because the Natural Law theorists were postulating a human nature during religious Middle Age, but Natural Law in 2024 doesn't have anything to do with that anymore, don't conflate the two). I only claimed that Anarcho-capitalism is not based on beliefs, just like maths are not based on beliefs, and that Natural Law is the only coherent legal system that we know of.

So I just defined what law is, and I then demonstrated that only Natural Law satisfies the criterias of a coherent system of law (which is why it is an a priori synthetic judgement). All other systems don't satisfy these criterias because the "rights" of Positive law or utilitarianism contradict themselves and create double binds (such as when you're told you have right of property but cannot remove squatters from your property). They violate Hume's Guillotine, and because there is no isonomy (a group of people should have more rights than others). This is the perfect recipe for Machivellians to continue to divide and conquer populations.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have any problem to admit that the Pythagorean theorem is valid even though you cannot falsify it. The problem is that you're trying to apply the Popperian method to law, which doesn't work, as it would not work with maths and other formal systems such as logic. According to Popper, maths are not a science as well because they cannot be falsified, and it still works perfectly well within the confines of its own domain.

It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.

It is called "objective" because it doesn't depend on a human subject, like any a priori synthetic judgement. That is actually its strenght and why it allows for anarchy and decentralization, because you don't need any 3rd party to define it for it to still exist and make sense, which wouldn't be the case if it was a posteriori/empirical like what you're suggesting.

By the way, you did not prove why it should be wrong, you just claim things here but there is no demonstration.

"Rationalism" is just a set of deductive methods, just like "Empiricism" is another set of inductive methods (and you have another category of methods which is called abduction in other contexts). I've demonstrated earlier how this is done, but I think you did not really understand, it seems that you believe that empiricism is the only valid method in every domain of human knowledge and every context, which is very limited and lacks nuance and context.

Moreover, humans are mostly social beings, individualism is just an exceptional special case.

Yes we are, however methodological individualism works to create a coherent system of law. I am not denying that humans are social beings, the system I am talking about just doesn't sacrifice individuality, while still allowing for individuals to form human groups and function in societies. The opposite is not true, collectivism usually sacrifice individuals.

If your value systems make you lean more towards leftist moral values where social groups are extremely important, please know that Kropotkin that Ray was talking about, respects Natural Law, since everything in his philosophy is based on voluntary action. Like I said, Natural Law allows for panarchy and so many different systems to coexist (even systems that use Positive Law if the individuals of this society want it, but a Positive Law that would be voluntary chosen by every individual in a contractual way, and not imposed to people), not just Anarcho-capitalism (which also requires applying principles of the Austrian school of economics, that's another discussion and debate).

And there are many more counter-arguments based on natural sciences, etc...

Well you don't share any argument here and just claim without details, but if your counter-arguments are on the same level as what you previously shared, I'm afraid you will need to do much better.

Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.

Wrong, it can be used to make a functional decentralized society that doesn't sacrifice individuals, and even Ray was a Kropotkinian anarchist, who actually respect Natural Law. Even people from the 16th century such as La Boetie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude talk about Natural Law. Most anarchists were aware of Natural Law, but it is very rare in contemporary people that talk about political science, because most people don't understand basic epistemology or logic. Most people think that "anarchy is anomie", they don't even know or understand what jusnaturalism is.

And in terms of psychological developmental stages, only a few people can currently truly understand anti-authoritarianism, because everybody is brainwashed with social engineering since birth, so obviously it will be hard to create societies based on Natural Law as long as people don't free themselves from that, which of course doesn't refute that Natural Law is a coherent system, it is only because Natural Law is not imposed to individuals just like mathematical theorems are not imposed to individuals (and humans existed for thousands of years without knowing such theorems which doesn't invalidate them), you actually need to be intelligent enough to understand them.
You just have to see how Charlie acts on the Ray Peat Forum, and other members in this community, most people don't reach very high psychological development stages during their life, even though they try to "boost their metabolism". That's sad, but that's how it is, humanity currently doesn't have the means as a whole to live in a non-authoritarian way, which people like Peat or Ecstatic Hamster try to rectify here.

...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box

I know these kind of claims, and I have done a lot of research on the limits of human knowledge, epistemological skepticism and the likes. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. This by the way applies to every model and system, not just Natural Law. However, some models and systems are still more robust than others, we still use maths or logic to act in the world, because even if "the map is not the territory", some maps are better drawn and more precise than others, which helps to navigate inside the territory much better. That's the case with Natural Law.

The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I really appreciate NNT and have read most of what he has written, and this is pretty obvious that you're quoting him out of context. NNT criticizes rationalism in the field of statistics and finances, with midwits that stupidly believe that statistics and probabilities can perfectly predict the future and find the causes of every effects because they are based on laws such as the Normal law/bell curve. And I completely agree with him in this context, but being the intellectual that he is and a mathematician, I am pretty sure that NNT understands a priori synthetic judgements and mathematical theorems, and that he doesn't criticize rationalist methods in every fields of knowledge. Again, context and nuance my friend.

So, you did not change my mind as you did not refute anything so far, you showed your subjective preference that every field of human knowledge should be subjected to empiricism, and you didn't provide any demonstration or explanation of why this should be the case. Hope I brought a bit more clarity here and helped you understand one or two things.

[Creuset]

@Mulloch94 said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

"It became quite clear to me that the Natural Law mystique, in Catholic, libertarian or neo-pagan forms, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'the belief that the laws of one's own tribe are the laws of the universe'." - Robert Anton Wilson

Nice words salad. Let's replace a few words in your quote:

It became quite clear to me that the Ray Peat mystique, in online communities, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'nutrition alone can cure all diseases'.

You see? no arguments, just empty affirmations and strawmen. Can you do better than that?

[Regina]

I just so happened to be listening to this:

Matt Ehret on Why You Can't Be A Libertarian And A Nationalist.

https://soundcloud.com/mattehret/why-you-cant-be-a-libertarian-and-a-nationalist-a-cp-short?si=9f7a863931214922b20a3d78368c04c4&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

[Sugar]

I agree with a lot of what you said here. People are trying to hit you with gotcha questions because they disagree with libertarian politics.

[Kvirion]

@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.

It is logical and coherent, and I have never seen a good refutation of its current form,

For example, Star Trek universe stories are also coherent and mostly logical, but this does not make them real or true.

You seem to assume that Plato's Ideas and Forms exist. I'm not, they have been (indirectly) refuted by natural sciences, especially by Complexity Science (nonlinear causality, entanglements, emergence, interrelatedness, interdependence, constant change/evolution, etc.).

"Beyond Pythagoras: No Laws Entail Evolution"

BTW Ray was against the ideas of Descartes and Plato...

Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.

Again, your mistake is a categorical one. You believe that law should be derived from empirical methods without ever proving why, and I will actually show you why it is not possible to derive a coherent system with these methods.

It's not a mistake, it's practical scientific wisdom
It has been shown many times that most things that are some kind of "god/universe given" are usually a power grab or utopian illusion...

For law to be fair, objective and coherent, you need it to apply to every human, to have isonomy of rights, for the rights to respect the law of noncontradiction, and for them to be non-prescriptive (Hume's Guillotine). Otherwise, your system of law is just a derivative of the "law of the strongest" which is subjective.

For a law to be fair it needs to be context-dependent - understand the unique circumstances. Nietzsche explained this pretty well.

Moreover, our actions are usually just a consequence of a myriad of cause-and-effect relationships, not a free choice. I would recommend listening to Prof. Robert Sapolsky, e.g. this.

BTW being "fair, objective" is impossible "by design". Humans haven't evolved this way.
I would recommend watching this.

So tell me of any system of law derived from empirical methods or from utilitarianism that respect these conditions?

We are talking about the illegitimacy of Natural Law, do not broaden the scope, please.

Spoiler alert: this doesn't exist, and if you accept such systems of law as legitimate, you're just accepting that an arbitrary authority can at any time tell you that "you won't own anything and you will be happy and you will eat bugs" or if there is a consensus that killing millions of innocent people is fine, that's enough to justify it, you just need a little bit of social engineering, majority of population that agrees, and "voilà".

It is simply a practical approach by trial and error and also shows that imperfect hierarchies and imperfect maladaptive systems are real - and it's all that we have. Occam's razor...

All of that while being told that you are in "democracy" and that you have a "right to property" (noncontradiction law is completely obliterated and nobody even understand something as simple as that). Georges Orwell warned us a long time ago, but most people still accept doublethink and double binds. If you try to defend such systems as legitimate, you are just coping in a state of Stockholm syndrome.

I thought initially that we were talking about reality not dreams or illusions... Most people are unable to think in a way as described above...We are mostly driven by simple/simplistic ("Mode 1") thinking

Can't you accept the human's (systemic) imperfections?

It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"

I've never said that all info can be deduced, please don't put words into my mouth, this is not an honest debatting technique (I actually think that there is ample room for empiricism, the scientific method and induction in other domains),

You contradict yourself, because earlier you wrote:

Okay, so here is your first mistake: Law is not a science (just like maths are not a science), and Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods, utilitarianism or the hypothetico-deductive method. Natural Law is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement, just like mathematical theorems are.

BTW I don't belive in a priori... Aristole was wrong about this...

By the way, I assume that utilitarism is also wrong, because we usually never know if the final consequences will be good or bad...

and I've never made any claim of truth or "naturality" (it is just confusing because the Natural Law theorists were postulating a human nature during religious Middle Age, but Natural Law in 2024 doesn't have anything to do with that anymore, don't conflate the two).

This NL doctrine seem to contradicte itself even more often...

I only claimed that Anarcho-capitalism is not based on beliefs, just like maths are not based on beliefs, and that Natural Law is the only coherent legal system that we know of.

Math is based on axioms, which can be disqualified...

So I just defined what law is, and I then demonstrated that only Natural Law satisfies the criterias of a coherent system of law (which is why it is an a priori synthetic judgement). All other systems don't satisfy these criterias because the "rights" of Positive law or utilitarianism contradict themselves and create double binds (such as when you're told you have right of property but cannot remove squatters from your property).

It's your point of view, not mine. I'm not convinced at all. There is no "natural law" in the real world. There are only (changing) constraints and (strange, evolving) attractors...

I'm pretty sure that you don't have any problem to admit that the Pythagorean theorem is valid even though you cannot falsify it.

I can touch or see a triangle and measure it with my palms

It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.

It is called "objective" because it doesn't depend on a human subject, like any a priori synthetic judgement. That is actually its strenght and why it allows for anarchy and decentralization, because you don't need any 3rd party to define it for it to still exist and make sense, which wouldn't be the case if it was a posteriori/empirical like what you're suggesting.

Again an internal contradiction of NL...

"Rationalism" is just a set of deductive methods, just like "Empiricism" is another set of inductive methods (and you have another category of methods which is called abduction in other contexts).

I know that as a sense-maker, please don't be condescending... Or be - it amuses me...

I've demonstrated earlier how this is done, but I think you did not really understand, it seems that you believe that empiricism is the only valid method in every domain of human knowledge and every context, which is very limited and lacks nuance and context.

LOL, and who is using ad hominem now?

Yes we are, however methodological individualism works to create a coherent system of law. I am not denying that humans are social beings, the system I am talking about just doesn't sacrifice individuality, while still allowing for individuals to form human groups and function in societies. The opposite is not true, collectivism usually sacrifice individuals.

No, people are heterogeneous - can be seen as a Normal Distribution (Bell Curve), not dichotomous...

Well you don't share any argument here and just claim without details, but if your counter-arguments are on the same level as what you previously shared, I'm afraid you will need to do much better.

All I wrote is the current stance of the science, you claim otherwise, so the burden of proof is on you. Simple as that.

Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.

Wrong, it can be used to make a functional decentralized society that doesn't sacrifice individuals, and even Ray was a Kropotkinian anarchist, who actually respect Natural Law. Even people from the 16th century such as La Boetie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude talk about Natural Law. Most anarchists were aware of Natural Law, but it is very rare in contemporary people that talk about political science, because most people don't understand basic epistemology or logic. Most people think that "anarchy is anomie", they don't even know or understand what jusnaturalism is.

There is no "Natural Law". Humans simply have some similar dispositions (proclivities, tendencies) but in specific cases they act in context-depended (i.e not universal) ways.

You rely too much on illusionary philosophy... Or you still seem to be standing on a utopian ground - rejecting the natural traits of people and realistic characteristics of their complex systems...

And in terms of psychological developmental stages, only a few people can currently truly

"developmental stages" is a falsifed/refuted pseudoscience.

You just have to see how Charlie acts on the Ray Peat Forum, and other members in this community, most people don't reach very high psychological development stages during their life, even though they try to "boost their metabolism". That's sad, but that's how it is, humanity currently doesn't have the means as a whole to live in a non-authoritarian way,

Yep. Reality...

...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box

I know these kind of claims, and I have done a lot of research on the limits of human knowledge, epistemological skepticism and the likes. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. This by the way applies to every model and system, not just Natural Law.

You seem to like to sound smart...

However, some models and systems are still more robust than others, we still use maths or logic to act in the world, because even if "the map is not the territory", some maps are better drawn and more precise than others, which helps to navigate inside the territory much better.

It's obvious dear Watson

That's the case with Natural Law.

No, it isn't.

The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I really appreciate NNT and have read most of what he has written, and this is pretty obvious that you're quoting him out of context. NNT criticizes rationalism in the field of statistics and finances, with midwits that stupidly believe that statistics and probabilities can perfectly predict the future and find the causes of every effects because they are based on laws such as the Normal law/bell curve. And I completely agree with him in this context, but being the intellectual that he is and a mathematician, I am pretty sure that NNT understands a priori synthetic judgements and mathematical theorems, and that he doesn't criticize rationalist methods in every fields of knowledge. Again, context and nuance my friend.

Your knowledge of non-ergodic systems seems to be pretty decent, but you still have a such Platonic/Aristotelian bias...

So, you did not change my mind as you did not refute anything so far, you showed your subjective preference that every field of human knowledge should be subjected to empiricism, and you didn't provide any demonstration or explanation of why this should be the case. Hope I brought a bit more clarity here and helped you understand one or two things.

I'm simply a realist... You rather not... Thank you for helping me understand this.

The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb QED

[Creuset]

@Kvirion said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.

It is logical and coherent, and I have never seen a good refutation of its current form,

For example, Star Trek stories are also coherent and mostly logical, but this does not make them real or true.

You seem to assume that Plato's Ideas and Forms exist. I'm not, it has been (indirectly) refuted by natural sciences, especially by Complexity Science (nonlinear causality, entanglements, emergence, interrelatedness, interdependence, constant change/evolution, etc.).

Strawman fallacy. Maths or logic are not stories, they are formal systems. Natural Law is the same.

I also never talked about "true" or "real" as well, which are not properties that we care about in law, they are properties that we care about in science. In law, we care about properties such as fairness and impartiality which require different methodologies. This shows that you probably did not understand what I am talking about.

The fact that you conflate what I am saying with Platonicism clearly shows your limits in epistemology, a priori synthetic judgements have nothing to do with Platonicism.

"Beyond Pythagoras: No Laws Entail Evolution"

BTW Ray was against the ideas of Descartes and Plato...

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the "ideas of Descartes and Plato".

Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.

Again, your mistake is a categorical one. You believe that law should be derived from empirical methods without ever proving why, and I will actually show you why it is not possible to derive a coherent system with these methods.

It's not a mistake, it's practical scientific wisdom
It has been shown many times that most things that are some kind of "god/universe given" are usually a power grab or utopian illusion...

Strawman of my arguments again, and I will repeat myself: law is not a science.

For law to be fair, objective and coherent, you need it to apply to every human, to have isonomy of rights, for the rights to respect the law of noncontradiction, and for them to be non-prescriptive (Hume's Guillotine). Otherwise, your system of law is just a derivative of the "law of the strongest" which is subjective.

For a law to be fair it needs to be context-dependent - understand the unique circumstances. Nietzsche explained this pretty well.

Legal principles cannot be context-dependent, otherwise they are subjective and there is no isonomy in rights, or the rights contradict themselves. I'm pretty sure that you like it when your government tells you in some contexts that you have right to your property (including your body), and then in other contexts forces you to inject foreign substances in it "to protect you and old people from a dangerous virus" lol.

If that's what you like though, continue living and defending this kind of system man, I just feel sorry for you that you would accept and defend arbitrary legal systems.

Moreover, our actions are usually just a consequence of a myriad of cause-and-effect relationships, not a free choice. I would recommend listening to Prof. Robert Sapolsky, e.g. this.

Are you sure about that? I thought you claimed that "...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong", but you seem pretty sure of yourself all of a sudden. Are you even able to stay coherent?

BTW being "fair, objective" is impossible "by design". Humans don't evolve this way.

Which is why I am not talking about humans, but about a legal formal system to judge and organize their actions. Again, you don't seem to understand.

Natural Law is objective because it can be found by reasoning by individuals of any period or culture, just like mathematical theorems. It is fair because it respects isonomy of rights, is non-prescriptive and is impartial. Its application by humans might not always be fair, just like students can make mistakes when they try to use a mathematical theorem, this still doesn't invalidate the theorem.

Spoiler alert: this doesn't exist, and if you accept such systems of law as legitimate, you're just accepting that an arbitrary authority can at any time tell you that "you won't own anything and you will be happy and you will eat bugs" or if there is a consensus that killing millions of innocent people is fine, that's enough to justify it, you just need a little bit of social engineering, majority of population that agrees, and "voilà".

It is simply a practical approach by trial and error and also shows that imperfect hierarchies and imperfect maladaptive systems are real - and it's all that we have.

This is not all that we have, anarchist societies have existed and still exist, although they are a threat for governments who try their best to destroy them as they are afraid that their citizens see alternative models that work. If you want to continue living in the same old ways, fine for me, I am not trying to force you. It's just funny how much you're trying to convince yourself that something else doesn't exist though while claiming to be a "realist", I also see that you don't agree with Ray and Kropotkin for that.

All of that while being told that you are in "democracy" and that you have a "right to property" (noncontradiction law is completely obliterated and nobody even understand something as simple as that). Georges Orwell warned us a long time ago, but most people still accept doublethink and double binds. If you try to defend such systems as legitimate, you are just coping in a state of Stockholm syndrome.

I thought that we were talking about reality not dreams or illusions.

Exactly, which is why I am explaining that political and legal systems create doublethink and double binds which lead to delusion, and that these systems need to use constant hypnosis, propaganda and social engineering on the population for its people to continue endorsing it.

Can't you accept the human's (systemic) imperfections?

Humans will always break the law, I am fine with that. I am just talking about a legal system that humans can use to organize their societies, which is an important thing in any political system. By the way, perfection (or imperfection) is a subjective value judgement.

It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"

I've never said that all info can be deduced, please don't put words into my mouth, this is not an honest debatting technique (I actually think that there is ample room for empiricism, the scientific method and induction in other domains),

you contradict yourself, because earlier you wrote:

Okay, so here is your first mistake: Law is not a science (just like maths are not a science), and Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods, utilitarianism or the hypothetico-deductive method. Natural Law is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement, just like mathematical theorems are.

So where is the contradiction?

I said that Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods but is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement. I've never said that all info can be deduced, and I did not say that I am against empirical methods. They just don't work in the context of law, or mathematical theorems.

Just like medicine or private detectives need to use abduction which is more effective for the purpose of their own discipline.

But you're claiming that empiricism should be the only method used in all disciplines. I just pointed out your lack of nuance here, no contradiction on my hand.

A don't belive in a priori... Aristole was wrong...

Plato, Aristotle, Descartes... Again you're wrong, a priori synthetic judgements don't come from them.

By the way, I think that utilitarism is also wrong, because we usually never know if the final consequences will be good or bad...

We agree on something then, although probably not for the same reason.

So you basically consider yourself as a consequentialist?

and I've never made any claim of truth or "naturality" (it is just confusing because the Natural Law theorists were postulating a human nature during religious Middle Age, but Natural Law in 2024 doesn't have anything to do with that anymore, don't conflate the two).

This doctrine seem to contradicte itself more often...

Again you make an empty statement. Where is your demonstration of a contradiction? If someone prior to Pythagoras made a mistake in his discovery of the theorem and that Pythagoras later on corrected it, does it mean the theorem is wrong?

I only claimed that Anarcho-capitalism is not based on beliefs, just like maths are not based on beliefs, and that Natural Law is the only coherent legal system that we know of.

Math is based on axiom, which can be disqualified...

Then disqualify the Pythagorean theorem, I'm waiting. The keyword here is "can", which doesn't necessarily mean "will".

So I just defined what law is, and I then demonstrated that only Natural Law satisfies the criterias of a coherent system of law (which is why it is an a priori synthetic judgement). All other systems don't satisfy these criterias because the "rights" of Positive law or utilitarianism contradict themselves and create double binds (such as when you're told you have right of property but cannot remove squatters from your property).

It your point of view, not mine. I'm not convinced. There is no "natural law" there are only (changing) constraints and (strange, evolving) atracttors...

Again, I thought that you said "...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong". Yet you use attractors for your reasoning.

Did you know that attractors are mathematical objects and depend on mathematical theorems such as the ones in number theory or set theory to be used (for example to measure time), which are... you guessed it, a priori synthetic judgements. So you're basically using such formal tools whenever it suits you to guide your thinking, but reject them whenever you don't like them.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have any problem to admit that the Pythagorean theorem is valid even though you cannot falsify it.

I can touch or see a triangle and measure it with my palms

And I can shoot people in the ass with my gun if they attack me in order to defend my legitimate rights to not be aggressed. What's your point?

It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.

It is called "objective" because it doesn't depend on a human subject, like any a priori synthetic judgement. That is actually its strenght and why it allows for anarchy and decentralization, because you don't need any 3rd party to define it for it to still exist and make sense, which wouldn't be the case if it was a posteriori/empirical like what you're suggesting.

agina an internal contradiction of NL...

Where, why? Explain where there is a contradiction.

"Rationalism" is just a set of deductive methods, just like "Empiricism" is another set of inductive methods (and you have another category of methods which is called abduction in other contexts).

I know that as a sense-maker, please don't be condescending...

Well I am sorry if you think I am condescending (although I would remind you that you said earlier I lacked nuance and did not understand epistemology or ontology). You've shown that you don't understand a priori synthetic judgements, and were making categorical and methodical mistakes by claiming that NL is unscientific. I am just trying to help you to understand where you are wrong by taking some of my precious time and energy, nothing condescending as you can correct your mistakes, although I am starting to loose patience.

By the way, I understand that you've listened to Daniel Schmachtenberger, pretty obvious when you talk about complex systems, attractors, and now sense-making. Pretty surprised that you would subscribe to this line of thinking after all of the claims you've made in this thread.

I've demonstrated earlier how this is done, but I think you did not really understand, it seems that you believe that empiricism is the only valid method in every domain of human knowledge and every context, which is very limited and lacks nuance and context.

LOL, and who is using ad hominem now?

I was correct in my assessments that you believe empiricism is the only valid method (you even criticize my "Platonicist bias" later), so this was no ad hominem. But if you think I am wrong, then explain how.

Yes we are, however methodological individualism works to create a coherent system of law. I am not denying that humans are social beings, the system I am talking about just doesn't sacrifice individuality, while still allowing for individuals to form human groups and function in societies. The opposite is not true, collectivism usually sacrifice individuals.

No, people are heterogeneous - can be seen as a Normal Distribution (Bell Curve), not dichotomous...

I am not talking about people, I am talking about systems of laws, individualism and collectivism.

Well you don't share any argument here and just claim without details, but if your counter-arguments are on the same level as what you previously shared, I'm afraid you will need to do much better.

All I wrote is the current stance of the science, you claim otherwise, so the burden of proof is on you. Simple as that.

You actually claim to make a counter-argument, and I already told you that law is not a science. So I already did my part in regards of the "burden of proof" and am waiting for yours.

Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.

Wrong, it can be used to make a functional decentralized society that doesn't sacrifice individuals, and even Ray was a Kropotkinian anarchist, who actually respect Natural Law. Even people from the 16th century such as La Boetie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude talk about Natural Law. Most anarchists were aware of Natural Law, but it is very rare in contemporary people that talk about political science, because most people don't understand basic epistemology or logic. Most people think that "anarchy is anomie", they don't even know or understand what jusnaturalism is.

There is no "Natural Law".

Of course there is a Natural Law, I just described it to you. You can deny it if you want, as you could say that there is no Pythagoras theorem, it doesn't erase their existence, it just serves to remove your cognitive dissonance.

Humans simply have some similar dispositions (proclivities, tendencies) but in specific cases they act in context-depended (i.e not universal) ways.

Which is why I recommended you to read Jonathan Haidt's books and that I said that this isn't a good idea to base your legal or political system on subjective human value systems like done currently.

Yoy rely too much on ilusionary philosophy... Or you still seem to be standing on a utopian ground - rejecting the natural traits of people and characteristic of their complex systems...

You've shown for 5 minutes straight that you don't even understand what I am saying, so I will simply ignore this ad hominem.

"developmental stages" is a falsifed/refuted pseudoscience.

You seem quite sure of yourself again. Are EVERY developmental psychological theories and stages been refuted or some of them? I'm curious by the way, what's not refuted/falsified in social science or psychology according to you?

You just have to see how Charlie acts on the Ray Peat Forum, and other members in this community, most people don't reach very high psychological development stages during their life, even though they try to "boost their metabolism". That's sad, but that's how it is, humanity currently doesn't have the means as a whole to live in a non-authoritarian way,

Yep. Reality...

So?

...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box

I know these kind of claims, and I have done a lot of research on the limits of human knowledge, epistemological skepticism and the likes. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. This by the way applies to every model and system, not just Natural Law.

You seem to like to sound smart...

You seem to assume that I seem to like to sound smart. I just like to be precise and I don't drop concepts or names if they are not necessary to the discussion, I only use names whenever necessary to make a point and be sure that the person I am talking to understands.

However, some models and systems are still more robust than others, we still use maths or logic to act in the world, because even if "the map is not the territory", some maps are better drawn and more precise than others, which helps to navigate inside the territory much better.

It's obvious dear Watson

Glad that you agree with me there, you might not be a lost cause after all.

That's the case with Natural Law.

No, it isn't.

You can claim that a mathematical theorem isn't valid if you don't like it and it hurts your feelings, it wouldn't prevent others from using it.

The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I really appreciate NNT and have read most of what he has written, and this is pretty obvious that you're quoting him out of context. NNT criticizes rationalism in the field of statistics and finances, with midwits that stupidly believe that statistics and probabilities can perfectly predict the future and find the causes of every effects because they are based on laws such as the Normal law/bell curve. And I completely agree with him in this context, but being the intellectual that he is and a mathematician, I am pretty sure that NNT understands a priori synthetic judgements and mathematical theorems, and that he doesn't criticize rationalist methods in every fields of knowledge. Again, context and nuance my friend.

You knowledge on non-ergodic system seem to be pretty good, but you still have such a platonic bias...

I don't have any platonic bias. I use empirical or rational methods whenever they are appropriate, in context.

I do think and observe that humans seem to have some innate "categories of understanding" such as logic and causality, which helps us to perform a priori reasoning (and there are other types of reasoning), such as what we do with mathematical theorems for example.

You still don't understand that rationalism can be useful in some contexts, and still believe that law should be "real" or "true" while the purpose of law have nothing to do with that as this is not a science.

So, you did not change my mind as you did not refute anything so far, you showed your subjective preference that every field of human knowledge should be subjected to empiricism, and you didn't provide any demonstration or explanation of why this should be the case. Hope I brought a bit more clarity here and helped you understand one or two things.

I'm simply a realist... You rather not... Thank you for helping me understand this.

Again, you are making a subjective value judgement. If you want to feel superior, make value judgements and ad hominems go ahead, but since this is a waste of my time I will just ignore it from now on.

[Kvirion]

@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

Strawman fallacy. Maths or logic are not stories, they are formal systems. Natural Law is the same.

LOL! Poor defense. Formal systems above are closed complicated (reversible, linear) systems. Human Complex Adaptive Systems aren't. As I said before you are making an ontological mistake conflating different realities...
It is a fundamental error on your side, which you don't want to admit, making further discussion impossible.

BTW "Natural Law" proponents wanna force people to accept their imaginative "Law" - poorly justified by philosophical gibberish arguments. And if someone doesn't fall into their trap they start to offend them, LOL! It seems like a sect to me...

In conclusion, an insightful quote by NNT (from Principia Politica) again

[Creuset]

@Kvirion said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

Strawman fallacy. Maths or logic are not stories, they are formal systems. Natural Law is the same.

LOL! Poor defense. Formal systems are closed complicated (reversible) systems. Human Complex Adaptive Systems aren't. As I said you are making an ontological mistake conflating different realities...
It is a fundamental error on your side, which you don't want to admit, making further discussion impossible.

Formal systems aren't closed, they are discovered through reasoning. We keep discovering new mathematical theorems every year, and I am pretty sure that we will continue discovering new things in the field of Natural Law, praxeology and other similar disciplines.

Your rejection of this line of thought just shows your limits, and I just showed that most of your claims were wrong. You're out of arguments and then claim that this is a fundamental error on my side, without being able to demonstrate it.

BTW "Natural Law" proponents wanna force people to accept their imaginative "Law" - poorly justified by philosophical gibberish arguments. And if someone doesn't fall into their trap they start to offend them, LOL! It seems like a sect to me...

I just said previously I don't care if you decided to not subscribe to NL, as I don't care if you would not subscribe to Pythagoras theorem. That's just sad for you, but if that's what you want, feel free to continue subscribing to Daniel Schmachtenberger that basically endorses exactly the same things as the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab.

In conclusion, an insightful quote by NNT (from Principia Politica) again

Again, you quote NNT out of context. NNT is talking about Kant's moral theories which are different from his theories in epistemology. I agree with NNT that Kant is stupid about his moral theories, however his work in epistemology is very good although he is far from correct about everything (just like Popper which is NNT's hero was wrong about some things, and he was inspired by Kant by the way). Again: nuance, context...

[Creuset]

@Kvirion

[Mulloch94]

@Sugar said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

I agree with a lot of what you said here. People are trying to hit you with gotcha questions because they disagree with libertarian politics.

I agree with libertarian economic theory and civil libertarianism. I just think the ethical framework libertarians use to wrap everything up in is a bunch of hogwash. Natural Law is essentially "god" without the mysticism. It's just another faith based system. And utilitarians would literally murder your wife and kids if it benefited everyone else. Max Stirner (and Nietzsche) expose that bullshit for what it really is. Might makes right, that's the only ethical framework that really matters. We do things that better us because it suits us, no need to dribble useless world salad on it.

[Mulloch94]

I would also add a lot of people call themselves libertarians but I don't think they've actually read extensive amounts of libertarian theory. For example, most people in the MAGA movement see themselves as libertarians, or at least libertarian adjacent. Not even close, lol. They like co-opting the title libertarian because it makes them seem like they support liberty. But when you get into the weeds of the theory, they share nothing in common with the most rudimentary libertarian policies on stuff like defense spending, tariffs, drug war, immigration, etc.

[Kvirion]

@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:

Formal systems aren't closed

Wrong, you're mistaken about what a complicated closed system is.
I will try to simplify - it's like a box - you can change things in a box, you can add new thongs into it, but can't go outside a box or change a box. Relationships in a box can be tracked down...
In CAS they can't...I recommend watching the lecture titled No laws entail evolution.

Your rejection of this line of thought just shows your limits, and I just showed that most of your claims were wrong.

subscribing to Daniel Schmachtenberger that basically endorses exactly the same things as the World Economic Forum

LOL, you need to show alleged superiority to tickle your little ego, do you? BTW Your assessments are wrong anyway

Do you have an obsession with Popper? Have you ever heard about Kuhn or Lakatos or (more modern) ones?

BTW Have you heard about the works of Deleuze, DeLanda, or Bruno Latour? It may help understand that our world is more complex than just formal systems.