preview of a possible praxeological application

I'm working on developing psychology as an axiomatic logico-deductive system based on praxeology.  Praxeologists have long argued that our science has nothing to say about what happens before values are ranked.  But I'm convinced that the logic of human action has powerful implications for the process of value formation.  I'll have a full post on that soon. In the mean time, today I was thinking specifically about the relationship between values, self efficacy and action.

The value that a man chooses to act on isn't necessarily his highest ranked value. The values that he chooses to act on are tempered by his estimation of the difficulty of the task, and his own ability to achieve his ends. His highest value may be to secure hegemonic control of the planet, but if he doesn't think that he's capable of achieving it, he won't act on it. He'll settle for acting on a lower ranked value, like getting a degree in economics or watching another episode of Breaking Bad.

Let's take a friend of mine as an example.  On any given day, his four highest ranked values are as follows:

He would prefer first to act on getting a hot girlfriend or getting a job, but he doesn't choose to act on them.  This is evidence of his conviction that he is incapable of achieving them.  This, of course, isn't some earth shattering insight.  A therapist would already ask his patient what his values are and why he isn't acting on his highest ranked values.  But the psychological literature is completely devoid of a logical system of necessary cause and effect relationships to explain this kind of phenomenon.

Consider the example of the minimum wage.  In praxeology, we would say that, ceteris paribus, if the government raises the minimum wage above the market clearing wage, it will increase unemployment.  This is a clear cause and effect relationship and a praxeological fact.

I think we can do the same thing for psychology.  We might say something like, ceteris paribus, if a patient's self efficacy falls to below his estimation of the difficulty of the current value he is acting on, he will choose to act on the next highest ranked value he believes he is capable of.  A system of deductions like this, properly elaborated, could be the beginning of a major paradigm shift in psychology and the catalyst that finally launches it into a mature science.

More on all of this soon.

negligent sexual fraud

Let's say I steal $10,000 from you.  I owe you lots of money for this.  I owe you:

1. your money back.
2. any costs you incurred trying to get that money from me.
3. compensation for any inconveniences resulting from the loss.
4. market returns on all of that money for as long as it takes me to pay you back.

Now lets say I sell you a car for $10,000.  I know that the car is a piece of junk, but I tell you the car will last you for the rest of your life.  I tell you it will never break down.  You pay me for the car.  And 3 weeks later, the car completely breaks down.  What do I owe you?  well:

1. your money back.
2. any costs you incurred trying to get that money from me.
3. compensation for any inconveniences resulting from the loss.
4. market returns on all of that money for as long as it takes me to pay you back.

The situation is exactly the same as when I just stole the money from you.  Whether I steal your money, or trick you into giving it to me, it's exactly the same crime.  I owe you exactly the same compensation.

Now lets go back to that car I sold you.  Let's say that when I told you that the car would last you for the rest of your life, I believed it.  I truly believed that this car would never break down, and I was so sure of it, that I convinced you that it was true.  And 3 weeks later it broke down.  What do I owe you?  Well:

1. your money back.
2. any costs you incurred trying to get that money from me.
3. compensation for any inconveniences resulting from the loss.
4. market returns on all of that money for as long as it takes me to pay you back.

This is what I would call negligent fraud.  And again, it's exactly the same crime.  It doesn't matter if I'm sinister or stupid.  It doesn't matter if I deliberately rob you of your savings or if I accidentally sell you a lemon. It's exactly the same crime.  I owe you exactly the same compensation.

The situation gets more complicated when violence is introduced.  If I threaten to shoot you if you don't give me your money, in addition to points 1 through 4, I also owe you:

5. The cost of therapy to process the trauma.

And if I actually shoot you in the process of the theft, I also owe you:

6.  the cost of hospitalization and ongoing treatment.

7. compensation for any permanent disability resulting from the attack.


This analysis applies equally to sex crimes.

Let's say that I rape you in a way that doesn't involve any physical pain or the threat of any physical pain.  Like if you were in a coma during the act.  Rape is still rape, though.  I owe you as much compensation for the rape itself as I would if I had raped you violently.  The amount I owe you for the rape itself is unclear, and should be determined in a free competitive arbitration market, but whatever amount it is, I at least owe you points 1 through 4.  And no matter how "nonviolent" the act is, it's probably still traumatic and I probably owe you for point 5 as well.

Now let's say that you would only have sex with me if I were in love with you and wanted to be with you forever.  And let's say that I'm not in love with you and don't want to be with you forever, but I lie to you in order to get you to have sex with me.  Then you do have sex with me.  Then 3 weeks later I break up with you.  What do I owe you?

This situation is exactly the same as the "nonviolent" rape.  It's sexual fraud.  I owe you exactly the same compensation.

But what if I truly believe that I'm in love with you.  What If I truly believe that I'm going to want to be with you forever.  Then you have sex with me.  Then 3 weeks later I realize that I was wrong and I break up with you.  What do I owe you?

This is what I call negligent sexual fraud.  And it's exactly the same crime.  I owe you exactly the same compensation.

And I think more importantly, I feel exactly the same guilt.  Stupid is no excuse when other people are getting hurt.

anti-rape to anti-state in 5 easy steps

Rape is bad

Rape is special to me, because there is absolutely no scenario in which it is ever ok.  It is the one universally decried, unambiguously wrong behavior.  Even the guy who shoots planned parenthood doctors thinks rape is bad.  Even the mealy mouthed college professor peddling multicultural moral relativism will in his very next breath assert the immutability of the prohibition on rape.  Everyone, liberals and conservatives, statists and anarchists, brights and supers, everyone can join hands and shout with one voice their unwavering opposition to all rape at all times and under all circumstances.  Rape is ALWAYS bad.

Theft is also ALWAYS bad, but some people don't see it that way.  Tell a staunch statist, on the left or the right, about the sacredness of private property, and you're likely to get a lecture on a lifeboat scenario.  Imagine that 10 of us are on a lifeboat in the Atlantic.  Everyone is dying of thirst, except for me.  I have a jug of fresh water, but I don't want to share.  Will you force me to share the water?  Of course you will.  I'd do the same thing if the situation were reversed.  But does that make it ok?  The statist will tell you that this situation proves that property rights are situationally relative and that they flow from the consent of society as a whole.

But that's unforgivably stupid.  If rape is ALWAYS bad, then theft is also ALWAYS bad.  I'll prove it to you.  We'll do it as a series of increasingly broad moral principles.  We already agree on the first step.
Step 1:  Don't rape.

What is rape?

A guy violently having his way with an unlucky jogger in the park is clearly rape, but rape isn't always between strangers or even violent.  If a husband forces sex on his wife, it's still rape.  If you have warm, tender, gentle, thoughtful, patient sex with somebody without their permission while they're sleeping, it's still rape.  And finally, if you tell someone that you'll kill them if they don't "volunteer" to have sex with you, it's still rape. So rape is the initiation of force or the threat of the initiation of force against another person's body for sex. so let's update our principle.

Step 2:  Don't initiate force or threaten to initiate force against another person's body for sex.

Why is rape bad?

 The person using force against your body for sex didn't get your permission first.  You have the right to grant and withhold permission.  You have the right to decide who can and can not have sex with you.  This isn't a right that is conditionally granted to you by a benevolent society.  This is an unbendable fact of moral reality.  You have the exclusive right to control your own body.  What do we call that when someone has the exclusive right to decide what happens to some physical object? 

We call that ownership.  Rape is bad because you own your body.


So if it's not ok to initiate force or to threaten to initiate force against another person's body for sex because they own their body then it's not ok to do it for any purpose.  So it's not ok to assault, kidnap, enslave, torture, or murder somebody all for the same reason that it's not ok to rape somebody.  It's all the initiation of force against someone elses body.  So let's update our principle by dropping the "for sex" bit.

Step 3:  Don't initiate force or threaten to initiate force against another person's body.

Why do you own your body?

You could say that you own your body because you need it to live.  But remember the situation in "my sister's keeper".  A couple has a child with a life threatening illness.  Then they have a specially-chosen-for-it's-magically-perfect-DNA second child in order to harvest the second child's tissues in a painful and lifelong process in order to keep the first child alive.  So now, the first child needs the second child's body in order to live, but that doesn't mean that the first child has an equal right to own the second child's body.

But the idea that you need your body to live almost has something to do with it.  You need it to live because you're inside of it.  Owning your body has something to do with you being inside of it.  But that's not quite enough.  If someone gets in your car, they don't own it just because they're inside of it.  Imagine a future scenario where we have the technology to move your mind from one body to another.  Maybe you've parked your body somewhere while your mind goes for a vacation on the internet.  But when you get back, you discover that someone else is in your body.  That person doesn't now own your body simply because they're in it.  That body is still yours.

so you own your body not just because you're in it, but because you were the first one in it.  Your mind was the very first mind to set up shop in that body.  You claimed it even before your infancy.  What do we call that when someone is the legitimate owner of something that wasn't previously owned by anybody because they were the first person to claim it and make use of it?

We call that homesteading.  You own your body because you homesteaded it.

So it's not ok to initiate force or to threaten to initiate force against a body, because that body was homesteaded.  So it's not ok to initiate force or to threaten to initiate force against anything that has been homesteaded.  So let's update our principle.

Step 4: Don't initiate force or threaten to initiate force against anything that has been homesteaded.

So now we've created this category called things that have been homesteaded.  And we know that it is absolutely forbidden to initiate force or to threaten to initiate force against it.  And we know that human bodies are one of the things in that category.  But what else is in that category?  what else can be homesteaded?

Actually, everything else.

Like land:

You go into the unowned wilderness.  You spend years chopping down trees and pulling out stumps and building a house and a silo and a fence and planting and harvesting crops and now that land is yours.  If someone comes along and says "actually, I have just as much right to this land as you do, because...", that person is wrong.  It doesn't matter how they end that sentence.   ...because I want it really bad.  ...because I need it to live.  ...because I'm a human being and the earth is the collective inheritance of our species.  It doesn't matter what he says.  You got there first.  You made it useful.  You homesteaded it.  It's yours.  Someone trying to use force against your farm is just as unambiguously wrong as someone trying to use force against your body for sex.  And for the same reason: homesteading.

And water:

You go into the unowned wilderness.  you spend years chopping down trees near a river and digging canals off of that river for irrigating distant farms and now that section of the river is yours.  And so is the land where your canals are.  If someone who owns another part of the river upstream from you starts pouring bleach into it and killing all of your customers crops, you have the right to stop him.  And he owes you compensation for the damage that he caused.  And if someone comes along and says "I want to use this part of the river to cool my nuclear reactors and i have just as much right to this part of the river as you do because...", he's wrong.  You were there first.  You made it useful.  You homesteaded it.  It's yours.  Using force against your section of the river is just as unambiguously wrong as using force against your body for sex.  And for the same reason: homesteading.


And air:

you go into the unowned wilderness and you spend years chopping down trees and building two mighty towers, but you don't homestead any of the land between the two towers.  However, you use the air space between the two towers from between 50 and 100 feet up to send messages using Morse code and occasionally to travel between them using zip lines.  If someone comes along and builds a farm between your two towers he has every right to.  But if he tries to build something that invades the air space between your two towers between 50 and 100 feet up then you have every right to stop him.  If he says, "I want to build a replica of the Eiffel tower and I have just as much right to this airspace as you do, because...", he's wrong.  You were there first.  You made it useful.  You homesteaded.  It's yours.  Using force against your airspace is just as unambiguously wrong as using force against your body for sex.  And for the same reason: homesteading.

So, literally everything can be homesteaded.

But what if you homestead some land and build a farm and grow some cotton and make a sweater and then give it to your grandmother for her birthday?  Now Grandma owns the sweater.  You have the right to transfer ownership of anything that you own.  You can do that through gifting.  Or maybe your neighbor grows corn.  You make sweaters and he makes tortillas and the two of you trade.  Now you own tortillas and he owns sweaters.  So you can transfer ownership through trade.  Or maybe you died and you wrote in your will that you want your favorite niece to have all of your sweaters.  Now she owns your sweaters.  So homesteaded property can be gifted, traded or willed and the recipient of the property is now its legitimate owner.  What do we call something that is legitimately owned by somebody through homesteading, gifting, trading or willing?

We call that private property.

And if someone comes along to your grandmother, your neighbor, or your niece and says, "I want some sweaters too and I have just as much right to them as you do, because...", he's wrong.  Those sweaters belong to your grandma, your neighbor, or your niece.  They acquired them justly.  They're theirs.  Someone using force against their sweaters is just as unambiguously wrong as someone using force against their bodies for sex.  And for the same reason: private property.  So now we can update our principle again.

Step 5:  Don't initiate force or threaten to initiate force against private property.

OK, let's do a quick recap.

Rape is bad.
   Because initiating force against your body is bad.
   Because you own your body.
   Because you homesteaded it.
   And homesteaded property can be transferred through gifting, willing and trading.
So it's not OK to initiate force against private property.  That is:  stealing is bad.

In other words:

Rape is bad BECAUSE stealing is bad.  Rape is just a special kind of stealing.

So let's go back to that lifeboat in the Atlantic:

 This time you're the water miser.  You're sitting on a life sustaining stash of aquafina.  Do I force you to share with everyone on that boat?  Of course I do! But that doesn't make it OK.  If we survive, I know that I owe you market value for that water.  I also owe you compensation for the pain and suffering associated with the force I used to get the water and with the terror of just not having the water.  I also owe you interest on all of that money for as long as it takes for me to pay you back.

Nobody has the right to use force against your body.  Your body is sacred.  And it's sacred for the same reason that all private property is sacred.  Nobody has the right to use force against your home, your business, your inheritance, the product of your labor or even your crummy bottle of aquafina.  Nobody has the right to control your body or your assets no matter how many of your neighbors vote for it and no matter how many thugs in blue costumes come to enforce their edicts.

the god hypothesis

What I love most about myself is the courage I have to constantly challenge my conclusions.  I argue against them and I seek out new evidence.  And I keep doing that until I come to conclusions that I can show are logically impossible to argue against.  Atheism is one of those conclusions.  God might exist, but belief in god is never substantiated by science or philosophy.  It's always illogical to prefer an explanation that requires the existence of god over literally ANY other explanation and for ANY phenomenon.

For example:

The oceans turn into blood and all the Christians start floating into the sky and the heavens part and a giant bearded Palestinian descends in a fiery chariot and begins to smite the unrighteous.  Or whatever.  Pick your crazy.  We could say that the existence of the universe itself is sufficiently crazy, but let's go with the revelation apocalypse scenario.

It's tempting to say that prophecy has been fulfilled and that the becharioted brute must be the son of god.  But there's a better explanation.  Maybe an alien race from another galaxy has decided to enslave us for fun and profit and they've decided that the most cost effective enslavement strategy is to convince everyone that they are one of the gods that most of the world already believes in.  They have nanobots that turn water into hemoglobin and they have tractor beams and they have a big alien in a suit who loves killing lesser beings.

And that's just one explanation.  Maybe it's mischievous  time travelers from the future.  Maybe it's an elaborate hoax orchestrated by governments or mega churches or magicians.  There are literally infinitely many explanations for this scenario.  And of all the explanations, of all the ridiculous and nearly impossibly unlikely to be correct explanations, the least likely is the hypothesis that there is an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, eternal being who created the universe out of nothing and has now come in human form to murder people who disagree with him.

"god" will always be the least likely explanation for any phenomenon because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  And the more extraordinary your claim is, the more evidence it requires.  Literally any and every explanation you come up with to explain any scenario will always be INFINITELY more likely than the god hypothesis because the god hypothesis requires the existence of a being who is infinite in at least 4 ways.  God has infinite power.  God has infinite knowledge.  God has infinite spacial presence.  And god has infinite temporal presence.  Can you even think of another way in which he could be infinite?  You can't make a more impossibly unlikely hypothesis than that.  It requires an infinite amount of evidence.

And that's just one way in which the god hypothesis is always the least likely explanation.  If you want to bring up the existence of the universe, then we can talk about how the god hypothesis is actually a worse explanation than no explanation at all.

So when you see a "ghost" or have an "out of body" experience or seem to to get your prayers answered or whatever the experience is, you can be convinced that god exists.  I don't fault you.  I've never had those experiences.  But don't pretend that those experiences constitute sufficient evidence for your conclusion.  I'm sympathetic to people who have had the kind of profound experiences that lead them to believe that god exists.  But I have nothing but contempt for anybody who tries to pretend that science or philosophy justifies that position.  Believe in god if you must, but have the courage to admit that you're being illogical.  It's called FAITH, right?