The Cardinal Postulate: Definition, Analysis & Logical Consequences

[osan]

[Mod note: This thread was split from another thread.]

Perhaps a formal or even less-than-formal proof or demonstration of the CP to begin?

OK, it's early in the day and I am not quite prepared, but will start by suggesting an informal demonstration of the CP. I will leave a formal proof to the harder-core philosophers because such proofs tend to become very arduous and lengthy.

The CP states:

All men hold equal claims to life.

Let us begin with a definition of terms. While this may seem extraneous, I assure all that it is vitally important that we take this most basic step. Here, I am narrowly constricting the definitions for the purposes at hand that they may not be so readily interpreted at variance with the intended meanings.

men: n., proper third-person plural pronoun of "man"

man: n., proper pronoun for "human being"

Therefore, here the use of "men" refers to all living human beings without respect to their sex.

hold: v., to validly possess

In this case, the holding is an innate, inherent condition of a man's living existence.

Where the notion of equality is concerned, I broaden a bit:

equal: adj.,

1. as great as; the same as

2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.

3. evenly proportioned or balanced

4. uniform in operation or effect

5. having adequate powers, ability, or means


While definition 1 is the more relevant, I include the others for the sake of emphasis of the nature of our equality along these lines: they are to be take as broadly as possible in their innateness of character.

claim: n., an assertion of entitlement; a right

life: n., the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual man


To be more rigorously stout, we would include definitions of terms such as "animate", "individual", etc., but I will forgo this for the sake of brevity.

Given the above definitions, let us now reiterate the Cardinal Postulate:

All men hold equal claims to life.

What does it mean, a "claim to life"? It simply means the right to live. There is nothing more to it, though some might claim otherwise, such as the so-called "progressives" who, through innuendo and other tacit means, imply that equal rights to life means equal outcomes in the lives of all. This, of course, is pure absurdity, but it is not my purpose here to expose their fraud. Leave that for another day.

The meaning of the Cardinal Postulate should be clear at this point. The CP says that as matters of the innate fabric of their living human existences, each man's right to live (his claim to his own life) is equal to that of every others; no more and no less.

Therefrom does the question of acceptance arise, and this is the central point of saliency. Do you accept the equality of claims, or do you reject it?

If you accept the CP as true, there is no further issue insofar as the Postulate itself is concerned. The matter is settled, closed, decided.

If, on the other hand, you reject it, not only does this beg justification, it also raises the question of what, then, is its truthful alternative?

Let us proceed with the case for rejection. If we reject it, there are but three possible outcomes. Either we encounter a contradiction, where the case for rejection is disproved; we establish an indisputable pattern of reason that demonstrates that rejection cannot be supported as a well reasoned position, or we discover an alternative basis of our fundamental system of beliefs regarding the nature of proper human relations. I will note here that the first two possibilities are but twists on the broader category of "establishing as false" the rejection of the CP. I make the distinction, however, because I feel it is important to do so, which I hope shall become clear later on.

Now, if we reject the Cardinal Postulate, we must then determine what such a rejection actually means.

[I will address this later as I have to go feed the goats and all that. More to come.]

Continuing...

If the claims to life between individuals is not equal, it can mean but three possible things:

1. Claims differ in quantity
2. Claims differ in quality (character)
3. Claims differ in both quantity and quality

It is my opinion that options 2 and 3 may be immediately dismissed as meaningless. This is because I see no way by which the quality of one's claim to life may differ from that of another's. If I am wrong in this, please do illustrate that I may learn. As far as I can see, a claim to life stands more or less irreducible in semantic terms. I claim my right to live. How can this be reduced into other terms? Assuming for argument's sake that it cannot, then I must then conclude that the quality of my claim, as a claim, is no different from that of anyone else. Understand that there is the claim itself and the manner in which the claim is asserted - sort of the "what" and the "how". These are clearly not the same things and it is the former to which I address this exposition with complete disregard of the latter because it is irrelevant.

A silly, but perhaps useful example may be found in the sport of automobile racing. All drivers on the track are doing the precise same thing: they are racing their cars as rapidly about the circuit as possible. How they manage this is a matter of style and has very little to do with the what of it. In Formula 1, for example, some drivers were very hard on their cars. Jackie Stewart, on the other hand, was famous for his smooth and gentle style, which was credited with not only his record setting history of winning, but also the longevity of the cars he drove.

Having eliminated two of the three options, there remains but one reasonable possibility to describe the differences in claims to life: quantity. What, then, would a difference in the quantities of various claims to life actually mean? Let us first begin in the middle, so to speak, with the notion that if we grant that such claims indeed differ in quantity, then it is implied that some hold "more" claim to life than do others. That is, we might analogously say that some men hold claims to life that are superior to those of others. Hold on to this thought as I rewind to the beginning for a moment that I may expose what I believe to be an absurdity in the very premise of differing quantities of claims to life.

If we grant that claims to life may differ in quantity, which is to say that one man holds a numerically superior claim to life than do others, this immediately leads to the question of units and measurement. How is a claim to life itself measured? What are the units? How do we observe them? With what instruments are those claims metered? Cast about as I have to discover the answers to these three simple questions, I have been unable to arrive at anything even remotely resembling an answer. In fact, my strong intuition here is that the notion is in itself yet another absurdity, but I have not really proven this to myself and therefore remain, however thinly, skeptical on the matter. Once again, if anyone has any clever or otherwise interesting notions about answers to these questions, please speak up.

I do strongly suspect that the notion of numerically different claims to life is in its very fabric, ridiculous. But for the sake of completeness in terms of nailing shut the lid on the coffin on the argument in favor of rejecting the CP, let us return to the presumption that such numerical differences are at least possible. There remains, even in the face of this questionable assumption, further questions to which rejection of the CP leads. To reject the CP is to accept, at the very minimum, that there are superior and inferior claims to life extant between individuals. If Janey's claim to life is superior to Johnny, how is it so? A brief but by no means complete list of the questions that may be raised include:

1. By what means do we determine the relative standings?
2. What is the standard of judgment?
3. How do we know the standard is correct?
4. How do we know it is complete?
5. Who has determined the standard?
6. By what standard of judgment is that person deemed fit to determine the standard of judging relative merit?
7. Who determines the standard for point 6?
8. Whence the authority for determining who makes the determination in point 7?
9. By what standard is the authority of point 8 established?
10. Who determines the standard in point 9?
11. And so on and so forth into eternity.

In computer science there is the concept of "recursion". A recursive function, for example, is one that calls itself. For example, the function for computing the factorial of a number may be written in pseudo-code as follows:

function factorial( number ):

if number = 0

return 1

else

RESULT = number * factorial ( number - 1)

endif
return RESULT

The "if" conditional statement in this simple function is what is called the "loop invariant" or "recursive invariant". It is the "bedrock" of the function in that when the condition is true, the function no longer calls itself. Without this, the function would, in principle, call itself into eternity because there would be nothing to tell it to stop - no bedrock at the bottom of the recursive hole, so to speak, with which it would collide and come to a halt.

It is not my aim to give lessons in computer science here, but let us go through a very brief example usage of the above function, that the core principle may become clear, which I assure you will be relevant to this discussion by way of serving as a conceptual example analogously applicable to the questions at hand.

Factorial of n is defined as the product of all the integer numbers 1 through n, and is written n! So then, 3! - 3*2*1, which is 6. Furthermore, 0! is defined as being equal to 1. The function above would work as follows, for 3!:

Calling the function and passing '3' as the parameter, we check to see whether that parameter is equal to zero. It is not, therefore we call factorial of 2, which checks to see whether 2 = 0. It does not, and therefore calls 1! One is not equal to zero, therefore the function again calls itself with the parameter of zero. This time, zero does in fact equal zero and the "bottom-most" copy of factorial returns the value of '1', which is then multiplied by the parameter of the previous copy of the function, in this case '1'. 1 x 1 = 1, which is then returned to the next upward copy of the function, which multiplies that result by its own parameter, 2. 2 x 1 = 2, which is then returned to the calling copy of the function, which them multiplies by 3. 2 x 3 = 6, which is returned to whatever was the original calling entity. Therefore, 3! = 6.

We see a strongly analogous situation in the list, above, in that there is no apparent answer to the questions posed that would not lead to more questions of a perfectly similar nature. In other words, there is no invariant. Each question, regardless of the answer, leads to another similar question - that is, they recurse "downward" into eternity precisely because there is no absolutely, rock solid bottom upon which even ONE answer rests. Were a single such answer to be discovered, it would satisfy its "calling" question which in turn would become the answer to the question that called it, and so forth back up the chain of questions until we arrived back at the top of the list, having thereby answered the first question, "by what means do we determine the relative standings?"

Because we have established a regular, recursively regressive pattern that has no apparent invariant, we can comfortably conclude that there is no answer sufficient to the satisfaction of the basic questions regarding the notion of quantitatively unequal claims to life. I also strongly suspect that the impossibility of the existence of such an invariant is well provable, but my formal skills in mathematical and semantic proofs are VERY rusty... and I'm being lazy here, I confess.

My shameful lassitude aside, we may nonetheless and with equal confidence, dismiss the assertion of the existence of quantitatively unequal claims to life on this basis of a recursively endless regression of questions, each of which has no irreducible and non-arbitrary answer, as determined by the perfectly analogous nature (I would say semantically isomorphic) of the questions from one "level" in relation to that of any other. In other words, when endeavoring to answer those questions, you immediately embark upon a hamster's wheel, running for all you are worth and going absolutely nowhere.

I do believe, then, that we now hold in hand the sufficient and perhaps even complete means for dismissing the argument for rejecting the CP. Rejection places the ball in one's court to justify the action. The justifications lead to nothing but an infinite regress of analogous questions, thereby illustrating that satisfactory (non-arbitrary) answers do not, in fact exist and that, therefore, the position is bankrupt in terms of both reason, logic, and most importantly, truth.

We have, by this admittedly and somewhat formally loose means demonstrated that rejection of the CP is invalid and untruthful. But does that imply acceptance, OTOH, is perforce valid and truthful? At this moment I am not 100% certain. The only alternate position of which I can immediately conceive is one of the noncommittal skeptic, which while technically valid, brings us nowhere in practical terms. The eternal skeptic waits, well... into eternity for something that may not exist. One can readily see where that will take us.

Therefore, it appears with good confidence that acceptance of the CP is both logically valid and in keeping with what we may call "truth".

From this point it is then possible to begin the derivations of the various primary principles of proper human relations, and from there those of a secondary nature. Prior to proceeding there, however, I would like to hear what you all have to say about the issue addressed here.

[Bryan]

If we grant that claims to life may differ in quantity, which is to say that one man holds a numerically superior claim to life than do others, this immediately leads to the question of units and measurement. How is a claim to life itself measured? What are the units? How do we observe them? With what instruments are those claims metered? Cast about as I have to discover the answers to these three simple questions, I have been unable to arrive at anything even remotely resembling an answer. In fact, my strong intuition here is that the notion is in itself yet another absurdity, but I have not really proven this to myself and therefore remain, however thinly, skeptical on the matter. Once again, if anyone has any clever or otherwise interesting notions about answers to these questions, please speak up.

I think you are on-target here, it does not make sense to quantify an inherent greater claim to life.

I do strongly suspect that the notion of numerically different claims to life is in its very fabric, ridiculous. But for the sake of completeness in terms of nailing shut the lid on the coffin on the argument in favor of rejecting the CP, let us return to the presumption that such numerical differences are at least possible. There remains, even in the face of this questionable assumption, further questions to which rejection of the CP leads. To reject the CP is to accept, at the very minimum, that there are superior and inferior claims to life extant between individuals. If Janey's claim to life is superior to Johnny, how is it so? A brief but by no means complete list of the questions that may be raised include:

1. By what means do we determine the relative standings?
2. What is the standard of judgment?
3. How do we know the standard is correct?
4. How do we know it is complete?
5. Who has determined the standard?
6. By what standard of judgment is that person deemed fit to determine the standard of judging relative merit?
7. Who determines the standard for point 6?
8. Whence the authority for determining who makes the determination in point 7?
9. By what standard is the authority of point 8 established?
10. Who determines the standard in point 9?
11. And so on and so forth into eternity.

The “who” questions are quite simple, it is the divine right of the king, of course. (that's sarcasm)

In computer science there is the concept of "recursion". A recursive function, for example, is one that calls itself. For example, the function for computing the factorial of a number may be written in pseudo-code as follows:

function factorial( number ):

if number = 0

return 1

else

RESULT = number * factorial ( number - 1)

endif
return RESULT

The "if" conditional statement in this simple function is what is called the "loop invariant" or "recursive invariant". It is the "bedrock" of the function in that when the condition is true, the function no longer calls itself. Without this, the function would, in principle, call itself into eternity because there would be nothing to tell it to stop - no bedrock at the bottom of the recursive hole, so to speak, with which it would collide and come to a halt.

It is not my aim to give lessons in computer science here, but let us go through a very brief example usage of the above function, that the core principle may become clear, which I assure you will be relevant to this discussion by way of serving as a conceptual example analogously applicable to the questions at hand.

Factorial of n is defined as the product of all the integer numbers 1 through n, and is written n! So then, 3! - 3*2*1, which is 6. Furthermore, 0! is defined as being equal to 1. The function above would work as follows, for 3!:

Calling the function and passing '3' as the parameter, we check to see whether that parameter is equal to zero. It is not, therefore we call factorial of 2, which checks to see whether 2 = 0. It does not, and therefore calls 1! One is not equal to zero, therefore the function again calls itself with the parameter of zero. This time, zero does in fact equal zero and the "bottom-most" copy of factorial returns the value of '1', which is then multiplied by the parameter of the previous copy of the function, in this case '1'. 1 x 1 = 1, which is then returned to the next upward copy of the function, which multiplies that result by its own parameter, 2. 2 x 1 = 2, which is then returned to the calling copy of the function, which them multiplies by 3. 2 x 3 = 6, which is returned to whatever was the original calling entity. Therefore, 3! = 6.

We see a strongly analogous situation in the list, above, in that there is no apparent answer to the questions posed that would not lead to more questions of a perfectly similar nature. In other words, there is no invariant. Each question, regardless of the answer, leads to another similar question - that, is, the recurse "downward" into eternity precisely because there is no absolutely, rock solid bottom upon which even ONE answer rests. Were a single such answer to be discovered, it would satisfy its "calling" question which in turn would become the answer to the question that called it, and so forth back up the chain of questions until we arrived back at the top of the list, having thereby answered the first question, "by what means do we determine the relative standings?"

Excellent points on explaining the endless recursion- there needs to be an axiom defined for these situations where something is logically false as it leads to an endless recursion of questions that must be answered. Is there an name for this already?

Because we have established a regular recursively regressive pattern that has no apparent invariant, we can comfortably conclude that there is no answer sufficient to the satisfaction of the basic questions regarding the notion of quantitatively unequal claims to life. I also strongly suspect that the impossibility of the existence of such an invariant is well provable, but my formal skills in mathematical and semantic proofs are VERY rusty... and I'm being lazy here, I confess.

Well, much less "lazy" than most...

My shameful lassitude aside, we may nonetheless and with equal confidence, dismiss the assertion of the existence of quantitatively unequal claims to life on this basis of a recursively endless regression of questions, each of which has no irreducible and non-arbitrary answer, as determined by the perfectly analogous nature (I would say semantically isomorphic) of the questions from one "level" in relation to that of any other. In other words, when endeavoring to answer those questions, you immediately embark upon a hamster's wheel, running for all you are worth and going absolutely nowhere.

I do believe, then, that we now hold in hand the sufficient and perhaps even complete means for dismissing the argument for rejecting the CP. Rejection places the ball in one's court to justify the action. The justifications lead to nothing but an infinite regress of analogous questions, thereby illustrating that satisfactory (non-arbitrary) answers do not, in fact exist and that, therefore, the position is bankrupt in terms of both reason, logic, and most importantly, truth.

We have, by this admittedly and somewhat formally loose means demonstrated that rejection of the CP is invalid and untruthful. But does that imply acceptance, OTOH, is perforce valid and truthful? At this moment I am not 100% certain. The only alternate position of which I can immediately conceive is one of the noncommittal skeptic, which while technically valid, brings us nowhere in practical terms. The eternal skeptic waits, well... into eternity for something that may not exist. One can readily see where that will take us.

Therefore, it appears with good confidence that acceptance of the CP is both logically valid and in keeping with what we may call "truth"..... Prior to proceeding there, however, I would like to hear what you all have to say about the issue addressed here.

Overall, very well stated, (outstanding, actually). I cannot disagree with any points but could add something - another way to look at a possible rejection of the CP is to look at what the logical conclusion of it would be. If all men do not have an equal claim on life then some will have claim over others. In having this claim, one will be able to kill others as they wish. This can be repeated over and over to the point where everyone is dead except for those who one person wishes to spare. This is not a pleasant outcome and is basically advocating your own death.

From this point it is then possible to begin the derivations of the various primary principles of proper human relations, and from there those of a secondary nature.

To move things forward, I think there are six key principles that can / should be made next. At this stage I will not attempt to repeat the fantastic logical and linguistic rigor that you undertook, we should first agree on the direction of the principles.

Here are the six principles with an analysis that follows:

• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their life.”
• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their liberty.”
• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their justly acquired property.”

• It is a crime to take a non-criminals life.
• It is a crime to take a non-criminals liberty.
• It is a crime to take non-criminals justly acquired property.

To analyze… The first point is a direct consequence of the CP. The first point also leads to an issue that to sustain life one needs two key things: property and liberty. Humans require food, clothing and shelter to contend with environmental elements, these items are property. Thus, one needs a right to property to sustain their life that they have an equal right to. On the issue of liberty, to acquire property humans need production, which requires the liberty to produce.

As we establish that these three principles are true and valid, we can also recognize principles of what happens when one of these principles is violated, which establishes the first defined “crimes”. Other crimes may follow, but these are logically bound pairs to the first three points.

[Anti Federalist]

[HVACTech]

you cannot give reputation to the same post twice

Foiled by the Mods again.. curses!

[Natural Citizen]

You know, we really need to amend the 14th amendment to specifically define a man as "Natural Citizen".Especially given the age in which we live. Could likely pull it off at the state level. I was reminded of the notion after reading through your definition of terms, osan. I stopped there just because I wanted to add my thought on that before going further into your thought. I read your thought on it over in the other thread but between you an Bryan I got a brain freeze. This is a bit easier to absorb. So anyhoo...

[Sola_Fide]

All men hold equal claims to life.

Based on what? Nature? You cannot validly get "ought" from nature. This is similar to what John Locke and all natural lawyers say.

John Locke illustrated the naturalistic fallacy when he wrote that persons in the state of nature, “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” If the premises of an argument are descriptive (as in Locke’s statement), the conclusion must also be descriptive. Ought cannot be derived from is.

If the premises of your argument are descriptive (which they are), the conclusions of your argument cannot be prescriptive (which you are trying to make them be).

[Natural Citizen]

Based on what? Nature? You cannot validly get "ought" from nature. This is similar to what John Locke and all natural lawyers say.



If the premises of your argument are descriptive (which they are), the conclusions of your argument cannot be prescriptive (which you are trying to make them be).

Hm. Well. I almost want to agree with you there except from an assbackward perspective. I almost want to compare osan's schematic to how Einstein pulled off what he did. What Einstein did was that he took his own hypothetical equations and used math to create a new physical science as opposed to using math to analyze observation/data. Irrelevant of that I don't like that men aren't specifically defined in the constitution.

It's an interesting subject. Well...an interesting line of reason, I should say.

[HVACTech]

Based on what? Nature? You cannot validly get "ought" from nature.

well, that is the only place I ever found some..
or were you talking about the size of a wire?

[HVACTech]

Hm. Well. I almost want to agree with you there except from an assbackward perspective. I almost want to compare osan's schematic to how Einstein pulled off what he did. What Einstein did was that he took his own hypothetical equations and used math to create a new physical science as opposed to using math to analyze observation/data. Irrelevant of that I don't like that men aren't specifically defined in the constitution.

It's an interesting subject. Well...an interesting line of reason, I should say.

Einstein pulled off what he did.

Einstien did not pull off spit, 100 years LATER it is STILL a theory. same thing with Maxwell Plank.

think about it dude. E=MC2. can "m" be defined? no.
can "C2" be obtained? no.

[Sola_Fide]

well, that is the only place I ever found some..
or were you talking about the size of a wire?

I don't know what you're talking about. Could you clarify?

[Natural Citizen]

Einstien did not pull off spit, 100 years LATER it is STILL a theory...

That's what I said.

[HVACTech]

I don't know what you're talking about. Could you clarify?

The term “aught” is used for wire 1/0 AWG and larger.

what did YOU have in mind?

[Sola_Fide]

what did YOU have in mind?

I had in mind the logic problem with is/ought arguments.

[osan]

I think you are on-target here, it does not make sense to quantify an inherent greater claim to life.

OK, glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. It would be nice to hear from others, though.

The “who” questions are quite simple, it is the divine right of the king, of course. (that's sarcasm)

You know, this is actually a great example of the brand of retort that would shut many people down, and in fact did for centuries in places such as Europe. Forgetting about the swords that backed the king's opinion on such matters in those days, today we can readily dismantle anyone making such claims by simply demanding they prove the assertion. If they refuse, they concede their point as bull$#@!. If they attempt to make the proof, they fail because of the innate nature of the argument. Because it is baloney, the only thing further argumentation can beget is more of the same. With such arguments, always keep the ball in the opponent's court by hammering at them with questions that stab at the underlying assumptions of their arguments. Keep going and eventually you hit a snag, usually a contradiction or something so wholly and utterly absurd that nobody short of a brain-damaged idiot would accept it as true. There are ways to defeat people who subscribe to stupidities and the socratic method is one of the absolute best. It takes some skill, but anyone of nominal intellect who has placed themselves into the mental habit of questioning EVERYTHING can become adept at identifying the most effective questions to ask next.

Honestly, there should be online classes teaching the basics of the mass-destruction of phony-baloney arguments. The techniques are easy enough to learn - it is the attitude of defiance and the habit of using the tools effectively that are difficult.

Excellent points on explaining the endless recursion- there needs to be an axiom defined for these situations where something is logically false as it leads to an endless recursion of questions that must be answered. Is there an name for this already?

Yes. This is the quality of being "periodic". For example, if you want to prove whether a number is rational, you may seek periodicity, which is to say, some pattern of periodic repetition. If you can find such a period, you have demonstrated the repeating cycle and if it is stable, you have proven that the number is, in fact, rational. For example, the fraction 1/3 is rational. It's value is 0.3333333333333(bar), "bar" meaning the 3 repeats forever. Doing the simple division on paper will demonstrate why 1/3 is rational and why the single-digit period of '3' must repeat itself stably forever. It is because the result of each step of the division is precisely the same as all other steps. You divide 3 into 1, which will not produce an integer result, so you add a zero. how many times does 3 divide ten? Thrice, with a remainder of one. Adding another zero, you now ask the same question: how many times will three divide ten? By the second iteration the periodicity is already established.

But now look at the base of the natural logarith, 'e'. If you do the calculations for the first 9 decimal places, you get 2.718281828. If you are not paying close attention, you might be tempted to conclude that 'e' is rational because it appears that a period manifests as 28182818... But if you go to the tenth decimal, your joy is cruelly shattered when you find the value to be 2.7182818284. You might then ask how can one prove irrationality if the period of repetition is, say, 100 trillion decimal places long? There are proofs that demonstrate that numbers such as 'e' and Pi have no period. I do not recall them offhand, but they are there.

Anyhow, sorry for the math digression, but I thought it would help you understand what is meant.

That all said, it is the provably periodic nature of the questions that arise from the rejection of the CP that demonstrates rejection to be not only invalid, but a false position. I am 99.999% certain that it can be formally proven that such an argument can never arrive at the requisite invariant which answers once and for all whose claims are superior and why.

I cannot disagree with any points but could add something - another way to look at a possible rejection of the CP is to look at what the logical conclusion of it would be. If all men do not have an equal claim on life then some will have claim over others. In having this claim, one will be able to kill others as they wish.

If we ignore practical matters such as stronger, better armed, and sneakier men with inferior claims fighting in disagreement with those of superior claims, your point is valid. If we look at the pure principle of the matter an assume that everyone obeys the practical dictates of principle, then those with inferior claims to life would be obliged, like good Mennonites, to stand idly by as those with superior claims gutted them like fish. From the stand point of pure principle, the inferior men would have no choice but to submit to the whim of the superior men. Has this not, in fact, been the basis of the sordid history of the human race in the age of Empire? Did the Divine Right of Kings not entitle the king to ball your wife before you got to on your wedding night?

This can be repeated over and over to the point where everyone is dead except for those who one person wishes to spare. This is not a pleasant outcome and is basically advocating your own death.

This is precisely so. If my claim to life is greater than yours, then by extension I am entitled to trespass upon you for any reason whatsoever, including no reason at all. You are at my whim precisely because my life, being more important to me than yours, can be expanded arbitrarily at whatever cost I deem fit because my right to live is superior to yours. This is pure absurdity.

To move things forward, I think there are six key principles that can / should be made next. At this stage I will not attempt to repeat the fantastic logical and linguistic rigor that you undertook, we should first agree on the direction of the principles.

Here are the six principles with an analysis that follows:

• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their life.”
• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their liberty.”
• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their justly acquired property.”

This is very similar to what I contrived in my Canon, which is not really quite complete in terms of proofs of the fundamental elements. Therefore, dubbing it a "canon" may be premature, but I intuitively feel it is correct even though it needs more work.

That said, I would label your first three points as the fundamental principles. The other three, below, are more like the RULES that follow from the principles. Furthermore, there is a single declarative that states that the commission of a criminal act automatically causes the perpetrator of the crime for forfeit his fundamental rights. After all, if we hold equal claims to life and we are, through that equality of status, within our rights to claim life, liberty, and property, then no man may violate those claims for the simple reason that his authority to do so does not exist, save in the single instance where the sanctity of his own rights are threatened by the actions of another.

But let me not leave things in this state because they are too messy and not quite correct.

The CP leads directly to points two and three. I would leave point 1 out because it is nothing more than a restatement of the CP itself. I am not sure redundancy serves any good purpose here.

Therefore, my construction thus far would be as so:

Cardinal Precepts

Cardinal Postulate:

0 - All men hold equal claims to life.

Cardinal Principle

1 All men, by the virtue of their equal claims to life, are equal in their authority with respect to one another.

Cardinal Circumscription (Proscription??? Opinions??)

-1 By virtue of the equal authority that the universally equal claim to life bestows upon and between all men, no man may trespass upon or otherwise violate the rightful claims that descent and evolve from said equal authority of another against the other's will.

This is the beginning of a refinement of my originally structured Canon. It is simple, elegant, logically unbreakable, and truthful, which is more than I can say of the original, which shall be updated to reflect this improvement. Note how the Cardinal Circumcription is given a negatively numbered label, symbolizing the injunctive prohibition against trespass.

From these cardinal principles may we then deduce the primary derivative principles, what we might call Fundamental Principles. Let me sketch this out without much care in my consideration and off the top of my head:

Fundamental Principles

2 - Because all men are of equal authority with respect to each other, they are therefore free with respect to each other save they do not violate the dictate of Cardinal Circumscription

3 - Because all men are free with respect to one another, it follows that they are praxeologically free to the extent they do not violate the Cardinal Circumscription

I believe this covers it all. From here, secondary principles are readily deduced, and from those perhaps tertiary derivatives, and so on.

What we now have is a body that establishes with tautological force the basic nature of proper human relations. It says NOTHING about the fundamental character of human beings, per sé, but only of the relationships between them.

We begin with the Cardinal Postulate which establishes the equality of claims to life between all men. From there we immediately deduce that the authority of one man in relation to another is precisely identical in every aspect and measure. Note that this says nothing positive about the nature of such authority. That nature is to be deduced NEGATIVELY through the successive waves of logical derivation. Based on the identity of authority between all men, we directly infer that, holding no superior authority, no man may exercise his authority over another against the other's will, i.e., without his consent and approbation.

From the Cardinal Precepts we then quite naturally derive the Fundamental Principles. The first states that, based upon the equal authority of all men, every man is thereby free with respect to all other men. The next continues down the chain of direct implication by establishing that because all men are free with respect to one another, each man is therefore praxeologically free as well.

Through this simple, direct, complete, and intuitively clear chain of implication, we have just established the entire structural basis for Proper Human Relations, which I will hereinafter refer to simply as "PHR".

I am sure these can all use some tuning of their wordings, so please anyone and everyone feel free to make suggestions. The remaining derivations will follow in subsequent posts.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

[osan]

Thus far we have identified the structural basis for Proper Human Relations (PHR). Beginning with the Cardinal Postulate (CP1), it may be seen that the Cardinal Principle (CP2) and the Cardinal Circumscription (CC) each follow directly and most freely therefrom. To wit:

Cardinal Precepts

Cardinal Postulate:

0 - All men hold equal claims to life.

Cardinal Principle

1 All men, by the virtue of their equal claims to life, are equal in their authority with respect to one another.

Cardinal Circumscription (Proscription??? Opinions??)

-1 By virtue of the equal authority that the universally equal claim to life bestows upon and between all men, no man may trespass upon or otherwise violate the rightful claims that descend and evolve from said equal authority of another against the other's will.

From these precepts, the primary Fundamental Principles are derived with equally apparent ease.

Fundamental Principles

2 - Because all men are of equal authority with respect to one other, they are therefore free with respect to each other save they do not violate the dictate of Cardinal Circumscription

3 - Because all men are free with respect to one another, it follows that they are praxeologically free to the extent they do not violate the Cardinal Circumscription

At this point, we may now proceed to the next iteration of consequential results.

4 - Because all men are free with respect to each other and are thereby praxeologically free to act in accord with their conscience and will within the circumscriptions placed about them by the equal rights of others, each man holds the right to acquire, retain, use, and dispose of property as his desires may direct him and as his rightful abilities may enable him.

5 - Any act that constitutes a violation of the Cardinal Circumscription and where an articulable material loss has resulted, is a crime.

6 - Any man who commits a crime against another is a criminal.

7 - A criminal, in the act of committing his crime forfeits his claim to life and all that it sustains, implies, and asserts.

8 - A man may, in the defense of his claim to life and all that it sustains, is entitled to act as he deems fit in such defense against the crimes of another, whether committed against his life, his property, or the life or property of another.

9 - No valid act by one man in the defense of life or property against the criminal trespass of another may be regarded as itself a crime.

10 - ...

Point 9 promises to raise issues and points of contention, I suspect.

Any comments or questions, thus far?

[Ronin Truth]

Got any fixed or mutable postulates to share?

[Tod]

It would seem that the logical outcome of all this is that any sort of coercive interaction between people is illegitimate, including any sort of government (government is an individual or individuals that believe they have special authority to coerce others). Clearly, there are NOT very many people that agree. The question is: why? What part of all of this do they believe is false? Is it the "cardinal postulate", or some intermediate step?

Statists, what say ye?

[Bryan]

OK, glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. It would be nice to hear from others, though.

I think I just saw AF hiding in some hedges.

You know, this is actually a great example of the brand of retort that would shut many people down, and in fact did for centuries in places such as Europe. Forgetting about the swords that backed the king's opinion on such matters in those days, today we can readily dismantle anyone making such claims by simply demanding they prove the assertion. If they refuse, they concede their point as bull$#@!. If they attempt to make the proof, they fail because of the innate nature of the argument. Because it is baloney, the only thing further argumentation can beget is more of the same. With such arguments, always keep the ball in the opponent's court by hammering at them with questions that stab at the underlying assumptions of their arguments. Keep going and eventually you hit a snag, usually a contradiction or something so wholly and utterly absurd that nobody short of a brain-damaged idiot would accept it as true. There are ways to defeat people who subscribe to stupidities and the socratic method is one of the absolute best. It takes some skill, but anyone of nominal intellect who has placed themselves into the mental habit of questioning EVERYTHING can become adept at identifying the most effective questions to ask next.

Honestly, there should be online classes teaching the basics of the mass-destruction of phony-baloney arguments. The techniques are easy enough to learn - it is the attitude of defiance and the habit of using the tools effectively that are difficult.



Yes. This is the quality of being "periodic". For example, if you want to prove whether a number is rational, you may seek periodicity, which is to say, some pattern of periodic repetition. If you can find such a period, you have demonstrated the repeating cycle and if it is stable, you have proven that the number is, in fact, rational. For example, the fraction 1/3 is rational. It's value is 0.3333333333333(bar), "bar" meaning the 3 repeats forever. Doing the simple division on paper will demonstrate why 1/3 is rational and why the single-digit period of '3' must repeat itself stably forever. It is because the result of each step of the division is precisely the same as all other steps. You divide 3 into 1, which will not produce an integer result, so you add a zero. how many times does 3 divide ten? Thrice, with a remainder of one. Adding another zero, you now ask the same question: how many times will three divide ten? By the second iteration the periodicity is already established.

But now look at the base of the natural logarith, 'e'. If you do the calculations for the first 9 decimal places, you get 2.718281828. If you are not paying close attention, you might be tempted to conclude that 'e' is rational because it appears that a period manifests as 28182818... But if you go to the tenth decimal, your joy is cruelly shattered when you find the value to be 2.7182818284. You might then ask how can one prove irrationality if the period of repetition is, say, 100 trillion decimal places long? There are proofs that demonstrate that numbers such as 'e' and Pi have no period. I do not recall them offhand, but they are there.

Anyhow, sorry for the math digression, but I thought it would help you understand what is meant.

Thanks, no problem with the math digression, I think it is valuable since it shows the parallels of logic. I do follow given my math background and I hope it helped some others too. Part of my point was that we should provide a name for issues of logical non-possibilities within the scope of PHR due to the infinite recursion they introduce. As an example we could say “This path leads to Infinite Question Recursion (IQR) and is therefore …”

This is very similar to what I contrived in my Canon, which is not really quite complete in terms of proofs of the fundamental elements. Therefore, dubbing it a "canon" may be premature, but I intuitively feel it is correct even though it needs more work.

That said, I would label your first three points as the fundamental principles. The other three, below, are more like the RULES that follow from the principles. Furthermore, there is a single declarative that states that the commission of a criminal act automatically causes the perpetrator of the crime for forfeit his fundamental rights. After all, if we hold equal claims to life and we are, through that equality of status, within our rights to claim life, liberty, and property, then no man may violate those claims for the simple reason that his authority to do so does not exist, save in the single instance where the sanctity of his own rights are threatened by the actions of another.

But let me not leave things in this state because they are too messy and not quite correct.

The CP leads directly to points two and three. I would leave point 1 out because it is nothing more than a restatement of the CP itself. I am not sure redundancy serves any good purpose here.

I understand they are very similar, but I would suggest keeping it since:

• While similar, the statements are different and have a slightly different meaning
• it’s important to enumerate this critical point
• Keeping it allows for the definition of a complete set of principles that fit in very well within common pro-liberty language.

Otherwise, I completely agree, the first three are the key points, the second three are their logical corollaries.

Therefore, my construction thus far would be as so:

This is the beginning of a refinement of my originally structured Canon. It is simple, elegant, logically unbreakable, and truthful, which is more than I can say of the original, which shall be updated to reflect this improvement. Note how the Cardinal Circumcription is given a negatively numbered label, symbolizing the injunctive prohibition against trespass.

From these cardinal principles may we then deduce the primary derivative principles, what we might call Fundamental Principles. Let me sketch this out without much care in my consideration and off the top of my head:



I believe this covers it all. From here, secondary principles are readily deduced, and from those perhaps tertiary derivatives, and so on.

What we now have is a body that establishes with tautological force the basic nature of proper human relations. It says NOTHING about the fundamental character of human beings, per sé, but only of the relationships between them.

We begin with the Cardinal Postulate which establishes the equality of claims to life between all men. From there we immediately deduce that the authority of one man in relation to another is precisely identical in every aspect and measure. Note that this says nothing positive about the nature of such authority. That nature is to be deduced NEGATIVELY through the successive waves of logical derivation. Based on the identity of authority between all men, we directly infer that, holding no superior authority, no man may exercise his authority over another against the other's will, i.e., without his consent and approbation.

From the Cardinal Precepts we then quite naturally derive the Fundamental Principles. The first states that, based upon the equal authority of all men, every man is thereby free with respect to all other men. The next continues down the chain of direct implication by establishing that because all men are free with respect to one another, each man is therefore praxeologically free as well.

Through this simple, direct, complete, and intuitively clear chain of implication, we have just established the entire structural basis for Proper Human Relations, which I will hereinafter refer to simply as "PHR".

I am sure these can all use some tuning of their wordings, so please anyone and everyone feel free to make suggestions. The remaining derivations will follow in subsequent posts.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Excellent analysis and descriptions.


To move the logic forward, if we look at the three “crime” principles, they beg a question- So what? So what if these are crimes, what are you going to do about it? Should there be consequences when there is a crime? I think the answer has to be “yes”. If there were no consequences the CP would just be inert and could be violated at will, we would quickly devolve into the survival of the “strongest”. We’ve already shown the need for the CP, so now we have a need for consequences to deal with crimes of violating the CP, we can call these consequences as “being brought to justice”. From this we can define the principle:
“To sustain liberty (and the CP), individuals that commit crimes need to be brought to justice (regardless if they like it or not).”

The next question is, how will justice be served? Here is where we run into principles that are not logical outcomes of the CP, but are demanded to support it insomuch that any dealing of justice will be based on an imperfect system. It is for this that I see justice as a separate pillar from liberty, but one that is equally as important since it is necessary to sustain liberty.

With this, I would submit we can break down our principles into two pillars so far: liberty and justice. They are as follows:

Liberty:

• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their life.”
• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their liberty.”
• “A non-criminal individual has a right to their justly acquired property.”

Justice:

• “To sustain liberty (and the CP), individuals that commit crimes need to be brought to justice (regardless if they like it or not).”
• It is a crime to take a non-criminals life.
• It is a crime to take a non-criminals liberty.
• It is a crime to take non-criminals justly acquired property.
• A system of justice is required to administer the management of crimes. This system will be imperfectly based but necessary.

A next logical step in the area of justice would be to identify principles that will minimize the imperfect nature of the system.


Here is a question that highlights another key front – does the CP relate to honest markets? If so, how? For example, if you engage in fraud during a transaction are you violating the CP? I would argue, it’s a bit of a stretch to say it does. An argument could be made that if someone engages in fraud they are depriving the other person of their property (via swindling them) but in some regard they aren’t since the other party is voluntarily making the exchange and the parameters of what is swindling vs. not are subjective.

Perhaps we could step back by agreeing on some principles of honesty relating to markets:

• It is dishonest to misrepresent the condition of any good, currency or raw material in the course of commerce.
• It is dishonest to misrepresent your identify when making any agreement that will be completed later.
• It is dishonest to not intent to follow up on any agreements you make.

Question: Even if these are dishonest, should they be a crime to commit? Should justice be served if someone violates these principles?

I would argue that to have Proper Human Relations that a third pillar of “honest markets” is necessary and that doing these things would be a crime based on the context of ones agreement as part of the exchange of goods and services.

So I see this as the basis for a third pillar, leaving us with: liberty, justice and honest markets.

Here is a final question – is there another pillar equal to liberty, justice and honest markets? I cannot think of anything, some prime considerations are “peace” and “prosperity” but I think both of these are just outcomes of liberty, justice and honest markets.

So I see three main pillars necessary for PHR. I do see there to be 100’s of principles that are “good ideas” (such as “love your neighbor”) but I do not see these as equal and necessary pillars.

[Bryan]

It would seem that the logical outcome of all this is that any sort of coercive interaction between people is illegitimate, including any sort of government (government is an individual or individuals that believe they have special authority to coerce others). Clearly, there are NOT very many people that agree. The question is: why? What part of all of this do they believe is false? Is it the "cardinal postulate", or some intermediate step?

Statists, what say ye?

Please define "statists".

[Anti Federalist]

I think I just saw AF hiding in some hedges.

You guys have out-philosotarianized me.

[Tod]

Please define "statists".

Anyone other than an anarchist; an individual who believes that a state is necessary and that power wielded by the state must be greater than the power of the individual. This would include people who believe in a constitutional representative republic, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, etc. A ruling class.

BTW, the notion that a government's legitimate function is to "protect the rights of the individual" is an oxymoron. Government first violates the rights of individuals before it does anything else, or it is impotent. Our own constitution outlines how the federal government should do it, and is a glaring violation of the ideas laid out in this thread.

[otherone]

Based on what? Nature?

Based on it being a Cardinal Postulate.

[Tod]

No one who believes in some form of government (that some have special "authority" to coerce others) wants to say why the idea presented in the OP is flawed?

[jmdrake]

[Mod note: This thread was split from another thread.]

What was the original thread? I'm lost without the context.

OK, it's early in the day and I am not quite prepared, but will start by suggesting an informal demonstration of the CP. I will leave a formal proof to the harder-core philosophers because such proofs tend to become very arduous and lengthy.

The CP states:

All men hold equal claims to life.

Is that a take off of the DOI claim that "We hod these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?"

In computer science there is the concept of "recursion". A recursive function, for example, is one that calls itself. For example, the function for computing the factorial of a number may be written in pseudo-code as follows:

function factorial( number ):

if number = 0

return 1

else

RESULT = number * factorial ( number - 1)

endif
return RESULT

+rep for computer psuedocode!

[jmdrake]

Anyone other than an anarchist; an individual who believes that a state is necessary and that power wielded by the state must be greater than the power of the individual. This would include people who believe in a constitutional representative republic, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, etc. A ruling class.

BTW, the notion that a government's legitimate function is to "protect the rights of the individual" is an oxymoron. Government first violates the rights of individuals before it does anything else, or it is impotent. Our own constitution outlines how the federal government should do it, and is a glaring violation of the ideas laid out in this thread.

All men holding an equal claim to life is not the same as saying all men hold an infinite claim to life. If you kill my son an I use "coercion" to force you to be held accountable, how is that saying that your claim to life is less?

[otherone]

No one who believes in some form of government (that some have special "authority" to coerce others) wants to say why the idea presented in the OP is flawed?

To get the ball rolling:
1) people view themselves as members of a herd, not individuals.
2) In order to have an equal claim, one must make a claim.
3) The claim of men outweigh the claim of a man.

[Ronin Truth]

Please define "statists".

http://www.google.com/custom?q=stati...ewrockwell.com

[Tod]

All men holding an equal claim to life is not the same as saying all men hold an infinite claim to life. If you kill my son an I use "coercion" to force you to be held accountable, how is that saying that your claim to life is less?

Who said anything about infinite claim to life? If you initiate aggression against another, that person, or any representative, has the right to defend themselves. How does that give "government" the right to initiate aggression?

The us constitution purports to give a certain group the authority to initiate aggression.

[Tod]

To get the ball rolling:
1) people view themselves as members of a herd, not individuals.
2) In order to have an equal claim, one must make a claim.
3) The claim of men outweigh the claim of a man.

1) possibly some people view themselves that way.
2) so those unable to communicate their preferences do not have a claim to life and may be executed with impunity?
3) how does a group obtain special authority that none of its members posess when acting as individuals? Yes, strength in numbers, but that is not the same as authority in numbers.

[jmdrake]

Who said anything about infinite claim to life? If you initiate aggression against another, that person, or any representative, has the right to defend themselves. How does that give "government" the right to initiate aggression?

After you have killed my son, if I force you to be held accountable (be put to death, be put to prison. pay restitution), I'm not at that point "defending myself" or anyone else. (Maybe the next person you might kill but that's pre-crime). The reason that I said infinite claim to life is that you are asserting, without merit, that all having an equal claim to life somehow excludes the possibility of government because those in government somehow have "more" of a claim to life. As otherone pointed out, from a "herd" point of view, aggregate claims would add up to more than one individual's claim. That said, that can lead to all kinds of mischief as well.

The us constitution purports to give a certain group the authority to initiate aggression.

Forget the constitution for a moment as you said any form of government. Again you and I live in a society. You kill my son. Or let's make it less emotional. You kill my cow. If it's just me and you than then I'm only able to get restitution if I'm more powerful than you in some way. If there is a larger society than if I can convince them that you were wrong to kill my cow then we can collectively force you to pay restitution. That's the majority working for the common good. Of course our majority could be made up of jerks. You might own sheep and we might not like sheep so we collectively come together to force you to give up your sheep. Either way the some of our "life worths" is more than your single "life worth." In contrast if there is one person with more life worth, say a king, then the power for good or the bad all resides in one person. The equality of life worth prevents kingship. It does not prevent democracy or even the tyranny of the majority. What goes against tyranny of the majority is if I value your life and not just my own.