Algorithmic Law


This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose). However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well.


Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.)

One Law of Cooperation.

The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended).

Acquisitionism and Property In Toto

The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet.

Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions

The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language.

Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure)

Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know. We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand. It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know.

Structuring Arguments as Functions

Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’.

Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression

The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.



Strictly Constructed Law And Contract

It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe.

The Structure of a Program or Contract


1 – Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist)

2 – Returns (and whereas we wish to produce these ends)

3 – Constants and Variables (definitions constructed)

4 – Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”)

5 – Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions)

6 – Functions (clauses that can be performed)

7 – Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses)

8 – Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value)

9 – Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)


The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived:


1 – Productive

2 – Fully informed (and truthful)

3 – Warrantied

4 – Voluntary Exchange

5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria.



Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like English requires more planning than other languages do already.

For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.


Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.

Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.

So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.


actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result


“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false).”


In Sovereignty (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(Acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.



If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.


{terms and definitions }

-We … (who)

-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )

-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)

-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)

and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)

-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)

and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),

-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).


…. -Juried

…. …. -Adjudicated.

…. …. …. -Recorded.


This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of Anglo-Saxons that Jefferson and Adams attempted to formalize in the US constitution – but failed.

Our principal function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the American experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the English experience, and thousands of years of the various Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Aryan European traditions.



” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “

The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat you will perceive it as the color black, as will anyone else that observes it.”



If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings.




1) Exists (identity)

3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time)

2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties)

4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories)


We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts.



We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order:


1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject.


2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy.


3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost.


(Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.)


4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions.



The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies.


The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties


Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property.


It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything).


So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties.


But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen.



Conflation and De-conflation (or Deflation) in Argument



I’m not necessarily objecting to the conflation of experience, action, observation, and existence, because otherwise we could not produce literature and art, the purpose of which is loading and framing in order to attribute value through shared experience, to ideas. But I want to point out the consequences of conflationary( monopoly ) and deflationary (competing) models by which civilizations produce and use knowledge.



In the western tradition, we maintained separate disciplines for Law, Religion, and ….well… “Theory”, or what we call ‘science”. Or Religion: what we should do, Theory, how we do it, and Law, what we must not do. In the west , our civic disciplines are divided into the common law; contractual politics that are limited by that common law;


Our celebrations and festivals and art function as our ‘church’ experience (bonding), and our mythology as our literature (aspirations).


Our science and technology and commerce function as their own discipline inspired by religion and limited by law.


Our success at discovering truth proper (scientific truth) is due to our evolution of empirical contractual law, independent of the state, independent of religion,


We divided the related properties of existence, and thereby deflated them just as all human thought consists of a process of deflation (increasing information), free association (pattern recognition), and hypothesis (ideation).



Other civilizations that did NOT start with sovereign contractualism did not do this, and they retained conflation, in order to retain authoritarianism. (fertile crescent, east Asia). Monotheism, uniting law, religion, and even a pretense of existence into a literature, created the most conflationary totalitarianism yet developed. Law, politics, religion, and science deflated those same concepts and left them not only open to further investigation and evolution, but prevented the deception that arose from the conflation of manipulation of the physical world(cafts and science), dispute resolution(law), cooperative action(trade), common aspiration(religion), and education.


The result in every civilization and in every era is that conflation led to stagnation. and deflation led to innovation. (We can go through every civilization. Fukuyama does it for us actually.)



All of us seek opportunities and aspirational information provides us with opportunities. We all want something for nothing, and we feel intellectual opportunities are the most valuable ‘freebie’ we can obtain. Moreover, we can read books and decide ourselves, rather than enter into production of goods and services, production of commons, production of arts, or production of offspring – all of which require cooperation with those who differ in knowledge, opinion and desire from us. Which is why many of us seek to use philosophy, like religion, like science, as an authoritarian method of decidability rather than a voluntary exchange of promises, contracts, goods, services, commons, and liabilities.


All of us seek to avoid limits upon us, and so we seek to separate the limits of cost, and the limits of morality, the limits of cooperation, and the limits of law, and by doing so the limits of reality. Philosophy notoriously throughout history differs from Law and science, by ignoring costs (effort, resources, time, and money), which is why it’s failed to retain independence from religion in the modern academy.



The Anglo enlightenment, beginning with Bacon’s creation of empiricism by applying the methods of the common law, to the methods of scientific investigation, was terribly disruptive to the non-contractual peoples, even though it was natural to the Anglo-Saxons (north sea peoples) who had been operating a contractual government since at least the 700’s if not earlier. The English revolution was painful but was eventually settled by contract – as is traditional in Anglo-Saxon civilization, and remains today in the USA.


The French enlightenment was written as a literature of moral persuasion, in order to protect itself from empiricism and contractualism. And its revolution destroyed French civilization, created state currency financed total war, and force the uniting of German princedoms in response. That this effort was merely an attack on the land holders in both private (noble) and church hands is obvious to us. That this ended French contribution to western civilization is less so. That it has been the sponsor for Marxism and Islamism are less obvious. France fell from the stage and without interference from other nations would be German colony today.


The German enlightenment used not empiricism, and not moral literature, but rationalist literature (Kant) in order to protect its social order from empiricism and contractualism that threatened the hierarchy that constitutes German ‘duty’. Kant replaced Germanic Christianity not with science but with rationalist literature. He spawned the continental philosophical movement retaining conflation which has tried every bit of verbal trickery to retain conflation while proposing alternate methods of INTERPRETING and VALUING what we experience, but not better methods of ACTING upon the universe we exist within. in other words, the Germans remain desperate to restore religion. Unfortunately, the Germans were cut short in their maturity by the entrapment between the Bolshevik/soviets who wanted to obtain eastern Europe, and conquer Europe, to defeat deflationary empirical contractualism – and the Anglos who wanted to maintain the balance of power. And the Germans who had spread what remains of Hanseatic civilization across central and eastern Europe with members of her own nation, and wished to defend them.


The Jewish enlightenment expanded on the French and German by creating the great authoritarian pseudosciences: Boazian anthropology (ant-Darwinian), Freudian psychology (anti-Nietzsche restorationism), and Marxist socialist (anti contractualism), and even Cantorian mathematical Platonism (anti-materialism), Frankfurt-school criticism (anti aristocratic ethics), and combined it not just with press, but with new mass media, and new consumers with disposable income from the consumer capitalist industrial revolution. Out of the Jewish enlightenment, we get the horrors of the Bolsheviks, the soviets, the Maoists, and world communism. 100M dead. And at present, we are about to lose Europe for the second time in two thousand years to another wave of ignorance.


Without bolshevism and communism we would very likely never had the world wars, and would still retain the best system of government ever evolved by man: Juridical monarchy, a market for commons by houses representing classes, a market for goods and services, and a market for reproduction, all under the rule of law.



What has been the cost of each of these failed enlightenments? What has been the cost of the Jewish alone? What of napoleon? The British was a trivial tribal dispute between the (failed) corporate-republicans and the (successful) national-monarchists.


What if the British enlightenment hadn’t been cut short by the conflicts (counter enlightenments) of the French, German, Jewish and Russians? What if the Greeks had finished their invention of the industrial revolution? What if Justinian hadn’t closed the stoic and Greek schools, and forcibly indoctrinated Europeans into mysticism instead of literacy and reason? What if the RESTORATION OF DECONFLATION imposed on the west by the first great deception of authoritarian monotheism had not been necessary?


Most of the great lies in history are created by conflation, and all our great achievements in dragging mankind out of ignorance and poverty have been achieved through information provided by deflation and competition.


SO while as a human I can empathize with the desire to assist in COMMUNICATION through conflation – thereby allowing us to impose values upon ideas, during education, and allowing us to experience life through the words of other minds. That is very different from the act of conflation in philosophy which appears in large part, whether literary philosophy, moral philosophy, or religious philosophy, to be nothing more than the use of subterfuge (the use of suggestion under the influence of suspension of disbelief), to cause either submission or agitation by artful deceit.


So just as we must have communication and education (conflation) we must have analysis and prosecution(deflation). Without both tools, (literature for education, law for deflation) we cannot protect ourselves from the greatest crimes in history.


Because outside of the great plagues, philosophers and prophets are responsible for more death and destruction, ignorance and poverty, susceptibility to starvation and disease than any general ever dreamed of being.


So contrary to giving philosophers a license to special pleading, my position is that the evidence is in, and that unless words are backed by warranty that they do no harm, the are no different from any other product of man. And that while no producer of goods, services, and ideas, wishes to be accountable and to warranty his materials, actions, and words, that we must constrain those people such that no intellectual products, like no services, and like no material goods can enter the market for knowledge any more so than goods and services can enter the market for consumption.


My assessment of history is that the jurists and scientist do all the work, and the prophets and the philosophers take all the credit, and us it like today’s marketers and advertisers for personal gain despite the drastic consequences of their deceptions.


So I tend to damn philosophy or literature that is objectively criminal, regardless of the intentions of the producers and distributors of it.



I have no idea why, in an era of mass manufacture and distribution of information that we do not require the same increase in due diligence against harm, that we have incrementally added to the production of goods and services.


If we can police polite speech (political correctness) against shame by the true, then why can we not police philosophical speech against damage by the false and immoral?


We cannot ever know what is good or true until we test them. We can, however, know that is bad and false.

If it is bad and false we can either regulate(prior constraint) in the continental model, or enforce involuntary warranty(post facto restitution) in the American model. My opinion is that regulation creates corruption and restitution creates quality.


So as to your preference for conflationary philosophy, I would say that as long as you would warranty that your conflation does not harm, then it seem you have nothing to worry about. But if your use of conflation does harm, then you do.


And if we had the same defense against deception that we have against every other kind of fraud, that there would be very few philosophers – and the few we had, would be of much higher caliber rather than simply those who write the rationalist equivalent of science fiction and fantasy, under the pretense of possibility, thus inspiring people to the social equivalent of yelling fire in the theatre.



There is only one moral law of nature: do no harm. Everything that does not harm, is by definition good. One thing may be better good than another. But that is a matter of preference and taste, not of truth,


No free rides. No special pleading. Ideas produce more harm than material goods by orders of magnitudes.




1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.


2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.


3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.


4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.


5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs. cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.


6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.


7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.


8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.


9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.


10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.


11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).


12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.


13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.


14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo European genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.



1) Take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.

2) Identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)

3) Identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.

4) Determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).

5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.

6) State the user’s request in amoral terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.

7) Fully expand all sentences in operational grammar.


You will not be able to construct a positive argument unless you are honest and truthful, and understand what it is that you seek to exchange.


You will easily identify:


8) When you have a complete description of all actors, actions, property in toto, and transfers you will have constructed a proof. But you must understand what a proof means: it means it is possible. There may be other proofs that produce the same or different descriptions (algorithms). But you will rapidly defeat all arguments that attempt to advocate for an involuntary transfer or cost imposition.



(undone) (use liars paradox as an example)






1) Analyze the Question: The question itself is misleading – the phrasing is a parlor trick. It takes advantage of the victim’s susceptibility to historical and moral Framing: the victim naturally desires to answer the question as stated even though the use of the generic verb ‘is’ frames the answer. Many Victorian parlor tricks posed false moral dilemmas as a means of providing entertainment. This question is constructed in that same manner. The question should instead be phrased as either “Define Evil” or more thoroughly “Given that we use the term evil in a variety of contexts what does the term mean in those contexts – i.e.: subjective analysis. Given the set of meanings in those contexts, are any or all of those meanings impossible or self-contradictory? i.e.: objective analysis. And of what remains, can such a thing as evil exist?”


2) Explore Evolutionary History: What can we learn from the evolution of the term?


There is a term we call “Evil”.

The term has an etymology – a history – a time at which it was invented.

The meaning of the term was originally political – to denote ‘a competing way of life against our interests’.

The term was then expanded by analogy to address individual actions.

The term was then anthropomorphically expanded by analogy to cover random (natural) events.

The term was then applied as a criticism of monotheistic divinity in order to illustrate a self contradiction.

The term is now – post Darwin and under democratic secular socialism– becoming loaded and archaic.

Like most things, understanding something’s history tells us far more than understanding its current state.


3) Collect All Possible Examples: What are all the examples we can think of, or find that refer to the term in context? Both in-group (culture) and out-group?

Answer: Murder. Sibling murder. Killing an ant. Undermining institutions. Creating a moral hazard. Selling an immoral product. Plotting terrorism. What about the DC sniper versus the top military sniper? The list is long, and I’m not going to be creative here, other that to suggest that any inventory of examples we create has to be fairly large, and cover the individual, institutional, local political, cultural-political, and geo-political spectrums if this exercise will have any value.


4) Determine Population Dimension: Does the term apply to individuals or groups or both?

Answer: Both. From our examples, it applies to both individuals and groups of both actors and victims.


5) Determine Time Dimension: What about different economic eras? Are ‘evil and immoral’ considered to be different under hunter-gathering, agrarian, manorial, industrial, urban technological eras?

Answer: yes. Markedly so. Hunter gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and urban ethics are markedly different.


6) Separate Actions from Actors from Consequences: What is the difference between an evil person and an evil action, or an evil semi-autonomous process (a virus, or a viral meme)?

Answer: A person is evil with intention and repetition. An action produces evil results regardless of intention, and is evil only by analogy. A process produces evil results but is only evil by analogy.


7) Separate Subjective from Objective: Emotions – how do emotions play into determining ill mannered, unethical, immoral and evil actions, individuals and groups??




  1. a) Emotions are descriptions of changes in state of perception of an individual’s assets. Moreover, they are reactions to descriptions of changes in state of capital. (Yes, really.) Nothing more. Given the differences in knowledge and experience (and intelligence) emotions are subjective descriptions of the perception of each individual’s inventory.
  2. b) Empathy is an ability to imitate the experience of the change in state of other individuals. It is pre-verbal communication of changes in property (capital).


8) Narrow the definition until it is exclusive: What can we learn by determining what is not considered ‘Evil’, or which is covered by other terms?

What ‘bad actions’ are not classified as evil?

Answer? Accidents. And errors that are not repeated.


9) Determine Limits Of The Cases: What is the difference between ill mannered, unethical, immoral, and evil actions? Are displays of bad manners evil? Is someone unethical classifiable as evil? Is someone immoral classifiable as evil? Aren’t unethical and immoral lower bars than evil? Why?

Answer: because we are all unethical and immoral at times, but evil we tend to think of ‘evil’ as repetitive systemic and intentional.


But let’s look at this carefully: lets say we have a diamond ring dealer that preys upon the dreams of the poor by selling them low-down-payment engagement rings at very high interest rates. (This example is from real life.) Then when they default on the payments he repossesses the ring, pulls the diamond for resale and melts it down. What about the mortgage broker who sold all those mortgages before the crash to people who couldn’t afford them? What about the Marxist who, despite the evidence of near genocidal consequences, still advocates Marxism? What about the Christian scientist who prays rather than takes a child to the hospital? What about the mother who advocates avoiding shots for her children? What is the difference between stealing water, and poisoning a well?


10) Further Refine into a spectrum: What is unique to ‘Evil’ that is not unique to ill-mannered, unethical, and immoral actions?

Answer: Knowledge (intent), Destruction, and Frequency (repetition).

Ignorance is pervasive, so a single instance that one learns from is not evil, but accidental. Repetitive actions can no longer be made in ignorance.


11) Identify Remaining Causal Dimensions: Are any of the properties we have discovered possible to express in consolidated form as a continuum?


Yes, the following continuum can be composed from the discussion:

  1. a) ACTORS: Individual->Group->Extra-Group->”Nature”
  2. b) VICTIMS: Individual->group->Humanity->Life->Universe
  3. c) KNOWLEDGE: Accidental/Made_In_Ignorance->Intentional/Made_With_Knowledge->Systemic/Habitual/Made_Without_Intent
  4. d) CAPITAL: Accumulation->Transfers->Destruction
  5. e) FREQUENCY: One-Time->Repetitive->Pervasive


12) Graph Dimensions: Is it possible to graph these continuum in order to show their dependence upon one another (taking into consideration that more than three dimensions is difficult for humans to comprehend.)

Answer: Yes. We can create six or eight before they become repetitive.

[Graph any two axis, and then attempt to add third, then repeat permutations until all are covered.]



What do these graphs tell us about objective evil? And about evil by analogy?

  1. a) To the actor(s), knowledge is the only relevant criteria for determining whether he is objectively evil or not.
  2. b) To the victim, capital is only relevant if a transfer or destruction of capital is created. Meaning that there is a standard that must be met in order to qualify as ‘evil’.
  3. c) To the victim, the actor’s knowledge is only relevant if frequency is repetitive and the actor is a group or individual.


Therefore, the necessary and sufficient definition of the term ‘Evil’ consists of repetitive transfer or destruction of capital.


(NOTE: This definition applies to the divinity argument as well, since by definition, the divine is all powerful and eternal and therefore repetitive.)



P.1) ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic destruction of capital – individual or social, by individuals, groups, or ‘nature’. Conversely, ‘Good’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic accumulation of capital – individual or social, by individuals groups or ‘nature’.

P.2) ‘Immoral’ is a term that refers to anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Moral’ is a term that refers to refraining from conducting anonymous involuntary transfers of capital due to informational asymmetry.

P.3) ‘Unethical’ is a term that refers to non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Ethical’ is a term that refers to refraining from non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry.

P.4) ‘Ill-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous failure to contribute to normative capital – privatization (theft) of social capital stored in norms. Conversely, ‘well-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous contribution to normative capital by habitual demonstration of adherence to norms.



  1. a) ‘Capital’ consists of life, body, several property, communal (shareholder) property, informal institutions (morals, ethics, manners, myths), formal institutions (laws, government).
  2. b) ‘Transfers’ consists of the movement capital from one set of one or more people to another set of one or more people.
  3. c) The normative composition of capital, property, and institutions varies from social group to social group.
  4. d) The primary purpose of ‘manners’ is ‘Signaling’. (i.e.: class status and demonstrated fitness to the group for the purpose of mate selection and association, and pedagogy through imitation.)


NOTE: I am unsure whether ‘capital’ in these contexts also includes opportunities. I think that ‘opportunities’ may be forced expressly outside of all ethical systems that allow for competition (research and development). Any ethical system that did not allow for competition would not survive contact with those that do. In this sense, it is possible to have ‘bad’ ethical systems and ‘good’ ethical systems depending upon one’s time preference.


1) I believe it will not be possible to define Good and Evil, Moral, and Immoral, Ethical, and Unethical, or well-mannered, and Ill-mannered, by any other form of demarcation that would not be answered by this set of propositions.



‘Evil’ is an archaic term that is heavily loaded with mystical connotations– primarily because it has been politically loaded by the consumer class’ public intellectuals in their desire to undermine the social and political status of the church so that they could obtaining status through control of the public dialog. (Which in itself is an economic and political process.)

Evil exists as an objective political and economic classification of human actions and effects. Groups can be classified as evil, and individuals can be classified as evil, if they take actions that produce outcomes that systemically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. Abstract entities (nature, god) an be classified as evil by analogy because they destroy capital. Ideas can be classified as evil, and abstract processes can be classified by analogy as evil if they produce outcomes that systematically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital.

i.e. Marxism is evil. It may be the ultimate evil that man has yet discovered, since it destroys the institutions that make cooperation in a division of labor possible. Its arguable either way whether, as Nietzsche stated, that the most evil person in history is Zoroaster. And from both an eastern and western perspective, if not Zoroaster, then at least Abraham is a candidate for the most evil person in history. But the monotheistic religions pale compared to the deadliness of Marxism.



The end of victorian presumption in argument

(how to prosecute, assuming avoidance of reciprocity, assuming theft, survival from falsification, survival from externalities….)

Was this page helpful?

. . .