kenshikenji

dont know if youre just trying to be funny or what... i refer to the "goods ability" and you somehow think this is "not determined by any inherent property of the good". DONT YOU SEE THESE PHRASES CONTRADICT? a goods ability IS an inherent property of the good certain materials have a property called thermal conductivity, therefore someone will value it for use in making clothing if its a good insulator against cold weather. certain materials have electrical conductivity/resistance and therefore make good insulators or conductors of electricity. hello therobin, i am aware of my current presentation habits but thats not what i was referring to. that should get better over time also im also not referring to my redefinitions. this is the only way i can be sure to use a logically consistent definition set (one that i have constructed myself). as i have shows other resources such as dictionary.com are not logically consistent (i have shown this mathematically). i define the word object and objective as: object: anything existing in reality. anything the mind can attempt to comprehend. a POTENTIAL object of thought, but ones who's existence is not necessarily dependent on thought. objective: being an object as you can plainly see this is not circular. while it is true objective is dependent upon object, the loop is not complete to make the circle. object is not dependent upon objective. in my other video i show that the dictionary.com reference does the same thing, while not truly circular it defines object and objective as the same set which i have shown via mathematical proof (proof 2 in my video) by comparison of definition and proof by contradiciton. https://youtu.be/ouKGHJZtWC0?t=25m47s im assuming im talking to an adult with obvious access to the internet. when i refer to mathematical terms, im assuming the person is capable of looking up the mathematical definition. for instance, arbitrary has a mathematical meanings at dictionary.com. Arbitrary (Mathematics). undetermined; not assigned a specific value: as long as you dont complete the loop the definition is not circular. also, when i say in the video "logically equivalent" that is not the same as circular definition. the only time circularity is a concern is when you use it in proof. when you assume what you are trying to prove. to have one definition rely on another without reciprocation is NOT cirucular. logically equivalent yes but not circular. also one is a noun the other is an adjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence definitions are critical, i cant use another definition set without first checking the consistency because my theory is logically rigorous. it is easier to construct a definition set than use someone elses believe it or not. as far as tangents, im aware of them, but my tangents are to provide more intuition on the matter at hand. tangents in a debate are more treacherous especially when someone challenges a tangent. but i appreciate your criticism, but i was looking for more criticisms of logic like your circular argument, not style like my stuttering or ummms . my style will evolve.

apparently you are not referring to my definition of relative. relative: determined by a mathematical relation of variables/objects. again all quantities or magnitudes or scalars are accounted for by the identity function. apparently you did not even read what i wrote. i can evaluate the relative value of a good to you. it is not up to the consumer's mind. it is up to his non-subjective goals, abilities, and external conditions. a doctor can value health goods for your consumption if you tell him all your symptoms and he examines you. you can see he is able to do this because value is relative and not determined by your mind but your objective physiology.

first money is a unit of measure. it is a measurement of production in an economy, any good can be written in terms of money and vice versa.. i gave a specific definition of relative. and when you take into account the identity function f(x)=x it shows that any scalar is still relative. did you even pay attention to my definition of the "consumer" even though this variable depends upon this consumer's goals,his goals must be set before acquiring the good to consume. once that goal is determined it becomes objective just before acquiring the good. therefore the variable "consumer" is ENTIRELY non-subjective. once given the goals, abilities, and conditions of the consumer, ANYONE can evaluate the relative value of a particular good to that specific consumer. in other words, "consumer" is INDEPENDENT of the consumer's mind. on the other had, the STV gives all weighting toward value on whatever the consumer's MIND places on the good, regardless if he is an idiot or ignorant or both. see the difference?

sure but can you give an example of what was confusing? remember the terms i use are usually actual technical terms in science. im referring to the terms i dont give an explicit definition for. do you have any problem with my definition set? i thought it was all explicit with no ambiguity.

are you sure you watched my video? ive addressed a lot of the points you bring up. there are no such things as artificial constructs. your mind doesnt create things just by classifying things. again, youve not addressed any of the contradictions i bring up in the video. you never see the products that are unprofitable brought to market. so obviously its the expectation of profit and not the labor per se that determines what to produce and how much a producer will sell his production for. inequality determines what people produce. comparative (not competitive) advantage utilizes differences in productivity of individuals. this is the mechanism in how a market optimizes efficiency.

at the ten minute mark i was making some implications that were not inherently contradictory. i was implying that libertarians claim (their INTERNAL SUBJECTIVE IDEAL) that imposing an ideal thru implicit contract (force) is wrong, but by endorsing an implicit contract to enforce what they call "rights" contradicts their claim (imposing rights). and thats what i meant by "you cant do that". it is a positive claim based on logic. you cant hold both positions at once and remain logically consistent. but also, i believe ALL normative claims are derived from positive claims (objectives) so somewhere the line blurs. but this is not one of those cases. with respect to the 14 min mark, i was just explaining the mechanism in how such behavior is eroded, not eliminated, since our world and the actors in them are not perfect. so my claim is the free market already has natural mechanisms, in the form of market action, that discourages both contract violation and aggression. as time goes on, these mechanisms become more efficient, especially with information costs going to 0, this will ensure reputation plays more of a factor instead of entities like DROs or other arbitration services. but this topic is best for another video. i did have another conversation about what i believe where i get into how people protect themselves in a free market here. https://youtu.be/mB5wimQFGKk?t=46m19s so again, if you define "self" as your mind AND body AND labor, then to own yourself you must be able to exclude others from those things ALL at once. if one of those criteria is not met you do not own yourself in a positive sense.i claim all you need is "Self"-interest to guide you. and when i say "Self" it is different defiition than the one i first game. "Self" is your definition. it is everything that describes you including all your genes and your memes. but i will talk about my ego-utilitarian philosophy in another video. just accept that brief explanation for now or ask specific questions like you are doing now. remember, i referenced what is called a "repeated game". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game once you break a contract obligation it affects your reputation and the next time you try to get into a contract. contracts are your ability to transact and get profits from comparative advantage and the gains from mutually beneficial trade. by acting only for the short term you may gain more by breaking a contract, but in the long run with perfect information and open your reputation, youll lose in the end. again i kinda get into that with the video debate i pasted above.

just from my experience with other ancoms, they always relate any value of a good, even if its raw material, to the labor that either went into producing it or consuming it. but i dont know the LTV by any formal means. but is of no use to me unless it can better explain reality compared to my theory. the man who catches 5 fish with the same amount of inputs as the guy who catches 4 will have a absolute (thanks greenbanana) advantage relative to the guy who catches 4. he will be able to charge a lower price and capture the majority of the market share which translates to an increase in profit relative the guy with 4. if demand is insufficient for fish, the guy who catches 4 will be driven to produce another good, thus maximizing his production relative to societies needs, thus the market lowers price and reallocates labor to where its most needed, maximizing the utility the market extracts from everyones production. i thought i was very careful in saying that the producer is willing to produce until what he believes will be mr=mc. often there is a loss or gain, but any gain or extra profit is an beacon for other suppliers to come in and erode his profits if there are no artificial barriers to entry from government.

i say you should define what IS property instead of saying what property should be. property rights do not exist outside of explicit contract.

it is objectively true that i am relatively bigger than danny devito. even in a connotative sense, relative is a subset of objective. im still not sure if all objective is a subset of relative. but if it is they are the same. remember, im not even applying my definitions. the word concrete has a material association. object is a more appropriate term to capture even abstract items of reality.

i just took a quick look at this, i think you mentioned this on another post. any subdivision of the universe or "world" will be similar. the important part is the differences. poppers subdivision is clearly not a partition. my subdivision would say world 2 is a subset of world 1. and world 3 is a world of concepts/or names of sets which again should be a subset of world 1 and maybe a subset of world 2. i will read this further and critique it. but so far i already see a major difference in our classification of the universe or "world". mine is a partition between subjective and non-subjective objects. his may serve no purpose if 1 is the super set , 2 is a subset, and 3 is just a sub subset. when you partition you create mutually exclusive subsets of the superset (the "world" in poppers case). partitioning differentiates between sets, subsets dont differentiate, they specialize.

my objective is substance over style. not vice versa. im appealing to those who can understand what im saying and criticize it properly.

i reject subjective, intrinsic/objective, and labor theories of values. instead i propose all value is relative. the rest of the presentation (4 parts) will done by today. any critiques or compliments are welcome. summary full presentation https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaOAGa9i274tW4BQQE7CpFv3qzxvFmL__

1. i addressed it saying there is no such thing as passive action. 2 that is not an argument so i dont have to address this. i can just reflect the same statement to you. 3. logical sense? ive shown that since they are not in the same set of action, that rape necessarily lies in the complement of murder (given no killing). therefore it is in the set called "not murder" which steph claims to be moral. how are YOU not getting this? please go read rules of set theory, i am referring ot a very specific rule of a well respected mathematical discipline. when you present irrelevant mathematical examples you make yourself look ignorant. in math im saying if rape (with no killing) is mutually exclusive with murder then it is a subset of not murder. 4.apparently you speak too much to your cat.

The only objective to life is existence itself. it applies not only to living things but even inanimate things.

the whole idea of property rights is idiotic. have any of you tried using the exclusion criteria to define what IS property to explore the desireable consequences? i suggest you try it.

if youre truly free market then vote for the candidate that puts the most fiscal pressure on the government since this is its greatest weakness. in other words, vote for the biggest statist since they put pressure on the expenditure side. it arguable if a libertarian candidate can affect anything from the revenue side. but give the statists what they want good and hard.

voting is not counterproductive especially if you have a special interest group to lead. i suggest you gather a bunch of like minded people and vote for anything that puts a fiscal strain on the government. this is much better than not voting since you are actually contributing to the greatest weakness of the state. its immorality manifests itself through unprofitability and debt that eventually lead to its downfall. no violent revolution, law breaking, or activist protest is more effective with respect to risk.

there are no rights to privacy in a free market that exist outside of explicit contract. this applies to all rights.

since im limited to 2 posts a day ill have to combine my answers into one post my alternative to any moral principle is "self"-interest. i contend this is the ONLY principle ANYTHING SHOULD have. with the intention of being brief, i will not go into the precise definition if have for "self" but emphasize that one's "self" is not bounded by the physical body. reciprocation criteria are always a projection of ones self interest on to another's actions. it is a form of trade where BELIEF in mutual economic profit must be present to take place. it is the same reasoning behind valid contracts and consideration. there are no passive actions as it is a contradiction in terms. any "not" action can be written as positive action. just as any "all" or universal claim can be written in a "none" claim. if it is true that morality is attained being passive, then the only moral beings are the ones either dead or in a coma. i contend it is just an intentional rewording of NAP with minor additions that were invented to help bolster the weaknesses of NAP. this was done from the very start of constructing UPB. i believe it was reverse engineered to prove NAP. if UPB cannot tell you what is moral, the steph has wasted a lot of time explaining on why the "opposite" of murder is moral. This is the dubious trivial contradiction that steph relies on for the convergence of NAP and UPB. i say dubious because there is no obvious reference to the importance of what the victim desires in the definition of murder itself. you can prefer to be murdered and i can hate you enough to murder you and as long as you didnt hire me or ask me to do so the act is still considered murder. even if i were to suspend this belief, this contradiction is trivial in the sense that when you assume a person that is murdered does not prefer murder, then it is trivially false that they prefer murder. saying that a murderer prefers not murder is the same trivial contradiction. this is the contradiction steph builds upon for his UPB analysis where he tries to present it as a proof by contradiction. but this is a proof that relies on the conflation of "shoulds","cans", and "does". i have training in both logic and math so there is no reason to give an example of logic when you can define the logical rule instead. examples are to complement the rule, not to present the rule itself. "and" propositions must have both premises true to be true and "or" props must have at least one true premise to be true. this is not a good analogy for what steph is trying to convince you of. the contradiction here lies in the definition. an object/element cannot be in a set and its complement at the same time. by definition a set and its complement are mutually exclusive. in this case, it is the reliance that the definition of a "victim of murder" contains the preference of "not murder" that is dubious. i believe steph has conflated two "opposites". one of sets and their complements (a set and everything outside the set), and the other of additive inverses (the number you add to another number to obtain a sum of 0). all definitions represents a set of all things that fit the criteria. so "murder" is the name of a set of actions that fit the criteria. its complement "not murder" is anything that fails to fit ALL the criteria. rape without killing the victim is by definition "not murder" since killing is a criteria of murder. so on one hand rape is UPB and not UPB. this is a contradiction deduced from steph's own analysis. again, since UPB is said to evaluate theories, then i can arbitrarily create a theory to focus any specific set of actions. by transitivity UPB can evaluate any set of specific actions. since i claim UPB is NAP only reworded and bolstered, it can only show aggression is immoral. sorry to say but this is a fallacy. you can critique UPB from many aspects. the only aspect that would fall victim to this contradiction is if you claim that there is no behavior that fits UPB. i am debating what is actually UPB. steph claims NAP is UPB, i claim "self" interested acts SHOULD be the ONLY criteria for preference which is in accordance with science, economics, and mathematics. this is somewhat related to hoppe's self-ownership argument which is also fallacious. hoppe's argument actually says "you cannot argue that ALL people own themselves, without assuming you own yourself". but the only burden upon the person arguing against self-ownership is to show that there is at least one person who doesnt or didnt own themselves, NOT to show that NO person ever owned themselves. the negation of an all claim is a SOME claim NOT a NONE claim. I never claimed UPB had to do with subjective preferences. i know UPB is SUPPOSED to be a NORMATIVE ethic and not a positive claim. but you must understand ALL SHOULD'S are derived from a well defined objective. and i argue there is only one primary objective which is existence and "self" interest. what steph is referring to with "preference" is the optimum solution given a well defined objective. its analogous to giving a system of linear equations. if the system is underdetermined then you are free to choose from a set of multiple sets that satisfy the objective (to make all equations true). if the system is determined then the system has enough restriction on the objective to force the evaluator to the "preferred" solution, or in the case of UPB, action. if you believe "opposite", especially the way steph uses the term, is well defined then you must be on some magical plane of logic. he uses moral opposites in two distinct but mutually INCLUSIVE ways. additive inverse and set complements. the 7 moral categories is a mapping of self interest on a numerical scale of economic profitability centered about 0 which represents indifference or in stephs terminology neutral. again he claims "not murder" is the set complement of murder, yet he refers to its quantitative value to show that "not murder" is upb because it is the opposite (additive inverse) of "murder". i can do better and give you the general form. its moral to aggress when its in ones "self" interest. the necessary conditions would be a situation in which a zero sum game exists (to operate at pareto efficiency) where the consequences play a significant role to my "self" interest. i would aggress to save my own life or a loved one. again i can arbitrarily come up with senarios where the benefits outweigh the costs of aggression. all i care is economic profitability when it comes to action as i should. if someone paid me a billion dollars to assault stephan i would do it, as i probably should. if i was on the titanic and i was with my child in the water and see another kid on a plank with room for only one, id probably pull that kid off the plank and give the plank to my kid. ive been bumped twice already trying to debate steph on the subjective theory of value. i dont know how much longer i can take listening to people call in with their personal problems.

hello, everyone. ive come to philosophy via math, econ, and biology. i have embraced objectivism and determinism independent of any reading of any rand books or reading anyone's particular reasoning. i self label myself as an ego-utilitarian. i was looking at steph's UPB philosophy and i have several problems with it. admittedly i reject (fail to accept) NAP so im skeptical to say the least about UPB. just some of the problems i have are upb is the name of set of behaviors yet steph insists it cannot determine what is UPB only evaluate theories. yet you can arbitrarily focus any theory to classify a particular action as moral or immoral. if steph's claim is true, then it effectively should be able to evaluate the morality of particular actions. the proof of upb seems to try to use the structure of "proof by contradiction". but the proof isnt valid because of the definition of UPB as a normative classification of behavior and in his proof he assumes UPB is a positive set of moral actions, either in a "can" or an "is" sense. also there is nothing inherently contradictory about someone preferring murder since murder isnt dependent on what the victim thinks of the act. also the act of preferring to be murdered and murdering are two different actions pivoting on the word behavior. this is a case of conflating them just because they pivot on a critical word. his two man room proof is convoluted form of proof by contradiction. steph seems to be confused about "opposites". i think he conflates two ideas in mathematics. the idea of set complements, and additive inverses. rape without killing the victim is technically "not murder" and you cant have an "opposite" of an action fall in the opposite moral category unless youre working with a continuous quantitative measurement where classification of action is transposed onto the real number line. these are just a few of the important criticisms i had, maybe someone has brought them up before but would like to discuss these and more criticisms i have. i hope to present my own philosophy of ego-utilitarianism as a more rationally consistent alternative.