My notes and comments are in block quote form below like this:
. . .
FYI: The libertarian community is generally afraid of having me debate anyone of merit. Every time we have tried to organize this before the event has been cancelled after pressure. IMO walter is a good candidate but only hoppe can really debate me. The value in a hoppe debate is demonstrating that we solved social science in three generations (mises, rothbard, hoppe, doolittle)
Version 2 (work in progress)
Rules and Agreements:
- Truth: That which is logically consistent (conforms to rules of reason) and congruent with the evidence (conforms to reality).
Truth: satisfaction of demand for infallibility of the question, and fulfillling the criteria of survival from tests of realism, naturalism, categorically (identity) consistent, logically (internally) consistent, operationally (sequentially) possible, empirically (externally) consistent, rational (incentive), reciprocal ( moral), testifiable, fully accounted within stated limits, within limits of restituability, and warrantied.
(That’s the complete definition of truth)
- There are three primary goals of this engagement. All three must be served at all times.
- Be partners in a search for Truth.
- Audience education and understanding.
- Conform to rules of reason (logic) and evidence (facts)
Conform to the rules of testifiability, reason (logic), and evidence (facts).
- The “style” of the debate should be to make productive back and forth conversation.
- There are three primary goals of this engagement. All three must be served at all times.
- Arrive with an attitude of hoping to be proven wrong and a willingness to learn new things from the others.
- Recognize the good will in each other and should treat the other with respect and kindness and generosity. The “benefit of the doubt” should be given to all involved.
- Defer the “talking stick” to the audience (moderator) at all times. Consider the mod speaking as the audience speaking. Do *not* talk over the audience. Mics will be muted if needed.
- Engaging in bad faith, with insults, or without the above attitudes and goals will be reprimanded and if it continues the debate may be ended at the audiences’ (moderators) discretion.
Philosophy(idealism) vs Law (realism)
The difference between justificationary rationalism (philosophy, sophistry), and the higher standard of falsificationary scientific and legal argument (science and law), is the philosophical search for ‘what can I get away with saying’ versus the legal and scientific search for ‘means motive and opportunity to engage in evasion, obscurantism, suggestion, falsehood, immoral, unethical, and criminal behavior’. As such, it behooves (me) explaing this to the audience, since a great deal of rebuttals are not just true-false, but testifiable or not, fraud or not, unethical or not, immoral or not, and criminal or not. Since most political debate attemtps to justify one fraud, crime, theft or immorality or another. In general this doesn’t mean the speaker is engaging in these activities, but that the activities constitute crimes.
How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?
You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic):
0) uses series (supply-demand) vs ideals.
1) uses operational vs set logic
2) users ternary logic (undecidable, truthful, false) not binary
3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth
4) tests for deceits not just errors
5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’
6) tests for costs not just internal consistency
7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction
8) tests for limits and full accounting.
9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.
Specializing in a particular ‘crime’
In advance: I specialize in refuting (exposing) a particular category of criminal speech, and most of marxist, socialist, postmodernist, feminist, anarchist, libertarian, and neoconservative argument makes use of this form of criminal speech (false promise of freedom from physical, natural, and evolutionary law, baiting into hazard, by claims of plausible deniability, despite unwarrantability.)
Preserving Gentlemanly Discourse
My strategy generally, and certainly in this debate, will emphasize the reasons for which we humans – especially high trust europeans – are vulnerable to this category of fraudulent (criminal) speech. This avoids the blame.
- Participants may bow out at any time.
- Attempt to answer questions directly before making new points or explanations.
- Do not filibuster (bad faith)
- Interrupt *only* when you think the audience (the moderator) would agree that what you are wanting to say is more important than what the other person was already saying. The moderator will tell you if you get it wrong too many times. This should primarily be things like clarifying questions or when there is an obvious misunderstanding that would easily be cleared up.
Depending on the circumstances I might need moderator assistance in controling my enthusiasm. 😉 I am fine with it. Just being honest.
- Be prepared with:
- A solid internet connection (not mobile) (wired connection preferred)
- A quiet environment.
- A well lit environment.
- An environment that will be available for the duration of the debate.
- The Audience (moderator):
- Represents the audience.
- Actively participates.
- Makes sure terms are defined
- Makes sure arguments are clear
- Keeps the conversation on a productive tack
- Enforces this agreement
- Calls out participants’ weak arguments or fallacies.
This will be a learning experince for you. If you don’t know my work ahead of time you have difficulty moderating. We have a ‘dummies version’ so to speak “Propertarianism (Natural Law) For Libertarians” on the site that is a introduction (below) and these may help:
PROPERTARIANS (NATURAL LAW) FOR LIBERTARIANS: https://naturallawinstitute.com/basic-concepts/propertarianism-for-libertarians/
SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY (HOW MISES AND LIBERTARIANS FAILED): https://naturallawinstitute.com/2018/05/01/economic-intuitionism-or-scientific-praxeology/
- Elicits the best possible steel man positions from all participants.
- If at any time the debate is not serving the audience – ends the debate.
Live Audience Rules:
- Members of the audience should be as genuine and respectful as the debate participants. Their comments will be displayed in real time and will be seen by the participants.
- The audience should help foster a good quest for truth and avoid toxicity.
- The audience should assume that all participants are operating in good faith and are deserving of respect.
- Ask thoughtful questions!
- All participants must come to agree on a specific proposition to be debated beforehand. The proposition must be falsifiable / have a NULL hypothesis. For example: “Gravity on Earth equals 9.81 m/s2”.
1 – It doesn’t matter who starts.
2 – Walter uses a script. He will start from the position of an ideal, just society. He has used the same script for decades. I know hoppe can vary I am not sure if walter can. We will see.
3 – I start instead with the ideal just society the best possible society. and a short expanation of the rason for the universal evolution of the state. But that this doesn’t fully answer the qestion: I will steel man (falsify) by starting with the first three questions of philosophy, which is the Genghis Khan position: self: why not suicide? Ethics: why not kill and steal? Politics: why not war, genocide, pillage, loot, rape Then the ternary logic (thre choices) of cooperation. This ends the presumption of the infinite value of coopereation. It also prohibits the fallacy of argumentation ethics which most of these folks rely upon.
My Position will result in something like this argument:
1 – All civilzations produce a group strategy, a mythology, a method of argument to advance them, and institutions of intergenerational transfer to persist them. Classes and sexes produce variations on them. All civilizations appear to have produced them in the Axial Age (recovering from the bronze age collapse), and anchored at that point, and cannot evolve without crisis, or change without conquest.
2 – Europeans for accidental geographic reasons developed truthful testimony (military reporting) as a norm, sovereignty reciprocity, heroism and duty, excllence and beauty, as a group strategy – and metalworking as and martial conquest as the high ranking positions. The Smith and the Demon, The Faust Myth, these are our founding mythos. This is the male group strategy. I call this strategy Aristotelianism (elitism)
… this strateg produces the optimum adaptation of man becaus of the highest correspondence to physical natural and evolutionary laws.
… With this strategy, in a few centuries in the bronze age (indo european expansion) a few centuries in the iron age (mediterranean expansion) and a few centuries in the modern steel age ( north sea expansion), europeans dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty. starvation, disease, suffering, early mortality and the victimization of nature.
… We do not need to be first but fastest. The quesiton is, why all other civilizations failed to discover continous adaptation, and instead, stagnated, or collapsed. The answer is rather obvious: the human want of stability and his hatred of adversarial markets, and the inability to shrink the underclass so that a majority genetic middle can form, or as in the case of the hinus and chines, and less so tehe europeans, an elite caste can form.
3 – The people of the middle east maintained the problem of the hermes and teh cart of lies. They were weak poor slaves or peasants who were the victims of various warrior aristocracies, and endless tribalism. They developed the strategy of undermining by social construction.This is the female group strategy. I call this strategy Abrahamism (undermining).
4 – Judaism, Chrstianity, Islam used the false promise of freedom from physical, natural, evolutionary law, in exchagnge for resistance to undermingin of, and sedition against, the masaculine strategy, resulting in judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to destroy – and by that method they reversed evolution of the great civilizations and destroyed those great civilizatons of the ancient world, their arts, letters, cultures, governments, religions, reducing them to ignorance, poverty, dysgenia, and collapse.
5 – They repeated this technique in the modern world, instad of using supernatural and sophomoric false promise, used psuedoscientific and sophomoric false promise with marxism to undermine european tripartism, socialism to undermine rule of law, postmodernism to underming testimonial truth, feminism to undermine the family as teh central object of both policy and intergenerational transfer, hbd-denailism to undermine our long tradition of market(meritocratic) eugenics, and political correctness to undermine our use of signal and social pressure to conform to our group strategy of natural law.
6 – However, just as marxism was an underclass monopoly strategy that prohibits private goods, libertarianism is a middle class monopoly strategy that prohibits commons, and neoconservatism is a political class monpoly strategy that prohibits political goods. So what all six strategies in both ancient and modern world share is monopoly (Feminine) vs market (male) tripartism and trifunctionalism.
7 – So whether supernatural judaism, chrsitianity, or islam, or pseudoscientific Neoconservatism-globalism, Librtarianism-Anarchism, or marxism-Communism with neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, hbd-denial, political correctness., the tchniqe of underminging the european group strategy of:
1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost
2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost
3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost
4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost
5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost
6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost
7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost
8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests.
9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in:
.. – association
.. .. – cooperation
.. .. .. – production
.. .. .. .. – reproduction
.. .. .. .. .. – commons
.. .. .. .. .. .. – polities
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war.
10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances;
11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital);
12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics,
13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom;
14 – Including the unique high trust society;
15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom.
16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care.
8 – Libertariaism and anarchism rely on baiting people into hazard (defeat), by use of a false promise (freedom from costs of commons), sold by the method of deception called suggestion using the half truth of the NAP, is criminal unethical and immoral, impossible to bring into being, and unsustainable in competition for people and trade, unsurvivable in competition with other polities, because it would as always attract parasites upon those polities (pirates, scammers), and hostilitiy from them As such teh only vaugely anarchic polities have been borderlands claimed by states and empires, who trade settlement by otherwise undesirable peoples, in exchange for plausible claims to territorial possession, while esaping the costs of administration.
9 – IT IS THE PREVENTION AND REVERSAL OF THIS DEFEAT THAT I SEEK TO CORRECT SO THAT I CAN UNIFY LIBERTARIANS, CONSERVATIVES, AND CENTRISTS TO RESTORE WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND IT’S NORMATIVE INSTITUTIONS BEFORE THE ENEMY SUCCEEDS IN CREATING ANOTHER FALL OF ROME AND ANOTHER DARK AGE.
10 – My mission is to deprive moral men of childish folly so that we can together bear arms and restore our people to the only freedom that is possible: soverignty under a universal militia, and the natural law, in the distributed dictatorshiop of sovereign men, who produce sufficient violence to deny the alternatives. …. or leave behind with the primitives, those unfit to transcend into the gods we imagine.
- All participants must agree on a maximum duration for the debate beforehand.
- Participants must provide the resources they intend to cite well before the day of the debate and refrain from citing resources not offered during discovery without good justification (determined by the audience (moderator)).
Part 1 – Introductions:
- All participants should make sure to:
- Introduce themselves with information on their reason for and depth of study of the topic and any relevant credentials.
- State their faction (proponent / opponent)
- Define the important terms they will be using.
- Keep it short. The goal should be to set things up for the conversation to be as productive as possible. This should not take longer than a few minutes.
- The proponent of the proposition should make sure to:
- State their epistemology (their method of verifying the proposition)
- Define their null hypothesis (how the proposition could be disproven)
- The opponent of the proposition should make sure to:
- State their epistemology.
- Summarize their points of opposition.
Part 2 – Conversation:
- This should be a 3 way back and forth discussion between the participants and the audience (moderator) with the participants getting the lion share of the time.
- The conversation should be a deep dive starting at the top with agreeing on definitions and then following the logic down until truth is arrived at on the proposition at hand. Try to stay on topic, follow the flow of the conversation, and not wander.
Well, since the entire purpose of the P-method is disambiguation by inventory, serialization, and operationalization to prevent the use of conflation and misrepresentation, this is easy for me. It is very hard for most people. But this is something we can deal with.
- Questions will be taken and presented by the audience at appropriate times by the moderator.
- The moderator will call an end to the debate when the maximum time is reached, when truth has been found, or if the debate becomes unproductive or toxic.
- If an impasse is reached the debate may be halted and reset for a future date after both sides have further researched the proposition.
Part 3 – Closes:
- All participants should make sure to:
- State what their position is after the debate.
- State why they changed or remained the same by reiterating the arguments and facts that they learned or that were not addressed or how they were addressed to your satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
- List resources for the audience to study on their own.
- Keep it short. The debate is already over. Wrap it up in a few minutes.