That historical point aside, let’s consider the current state of affairs with the government. (Can you count all the puns?) Currently, there is a government debt that totals in excess of 15 trillion dollars. Who will end up paying for this debt? While the currently represented citizens will pay some part, in some way (either by direct taxation or hidden forms of taxation like inflation), there are others who will end up becoming represented citizens who will be made to pay taxes into something that they weren’t represented in. In other words, those who aren’t represented (citizens who are underage and cannot vote) pay for taxation that was decided by those who could not be called their representatives in the government. Therefore, government debt violates the principle that there can be “No taxation without representation.”

2n • n > 1 –> 2n = p + q • p,q ≠ mo

The latter part, where I state “p,q ≠ mo” is just to mean that p and q are primes, as primes cannot be expressed as the product of two integers. Hence the “not equal to the product of two integers,” i.e. the variables m and o.

We’re interested primarily in the latter half of the statement, basically just that

2n = p + q

where we remember that p and q are primes. Notice that simplifying the equation, we can state

n = (p + q)/2

which is, in other words, an average mean. Thus the difference between n and p and n and q must be the same. Thus I propose what I call Laliberte’s postulate:

For every integer there is are a pair of primes for which the distance between the integer and the primes is equal.

This can be expressed logically like this;

n –> n – d = p • n + d = q

However, this is where the problem for GC comes to the fore (Laliberte’s postulate is just a derivation of GC). Since primes are defined not in according with some positive formula, but by a negative formula (p ≠ mo), there cannot be a way for knowing what d (the equal distance) shall be in the case for every integer. Primes are, in other words, random.

This means there can be no method of determining whether, for some integer, where the primes will occur. There is no pattern in the distribution of primes, and therefore no formula.

Goldbach’s conjecture must be unprovable. Likewise for other mathematical theorems that are about primes.

Suppose a person wonders whether he is qualitatively competent at some field of study. Now, if a person were in fact competent at this field of study, it follows that they would be likewise qualified to make the judgment of their own competence. However, we also know that a person who is incompetent would not know that they are incompetent, and thus apt to consider themselves competent in virtue of their incompetence. Therefore, a person cannot know whether or not they are competent.

Another way of stating this paradox goes like this.

Only a genius could judge that one is a genius or not. A person who is not a genius would not be able to accurately judge the genius of another. Therefore, a person cannot know they are a genius.

The argument that there is a necessary being is easy to make, and follows of very basic and widely agreed premises.

The first premise is a basic truth. There are things which are possible, i.e. things which could fail to exist that might exist, and taken as a whole these possibilities comprise a set. Those who disagree with this are Parmenideans of various sorts, and certain ways that one might try and argue for ¬1 will be dealt with at a later time. For now, I’m confident there is virtually no one who will attack 1.

The second premise is also a basic truth, and it only requires some further explanation for those who happen to not understand what possibility means. In order for something to be taken as a possibility, it must be the case that this is a possibility stated of beings and their relations to other beings. For example, in order for it to be possible that a coin lands heads up, there must be the coin with a heads side and another object that it lands upon as well as another object that makes it fall (these last two requirements could be the same thing, i.e. the coin falls on the earth, which happens to be what makes it fall). No coin, no heads up possibility.

This has to do with the fact that possibility is something stated of beings. No being, nothing to state possibility of. Hence, a possibility must be grounded in a being.

So the necessary set must be grounded in a being. Since the set is necessary, it follows that the being must like be necessary. Therefore, there must be a necessary being.

So why do we have these four basic operators?

I think this has to do with being. Being, the original postulation, is in-itself. However, it is naturally opposed to that which it isn’t (in this case, to that which just isn’t), meaning that in postulation we find the necessary reflection, negation, posited. If there weren’t in some occasions negation then postulation would lose its meaning.

This gives us two objects of description, i.e. x and ¬x. Because there are two different propositions, we need some way of describing their ability to be related. Our way of understanding the possible relations of these two is what gives us the other two basic operators, the or and the and. The two ways of understanding the necessary relations between x and ¬x are;

x v ¬x

¬(x • ¬x)

So that is my theory of why the four basic  logical operators are as they are. They are borne intrinsically of being in opposition to non-being.

Law is violence, then, and as such it is only moral to do with the law what one can morally do with violence.

Are there acts of violence that are moral? Yes. Self-defense of persons, liberty, and property against those who would infringe the natural rights associated with those. But these are only infringed by those who bring forth unnecessary violence; hence the necessity of violence is only in reply to unnecessary violence.

This is a principle which many who consider political theory do not take into consideration. Where there is a political, legal solution sought, it is a solution sought by the threat of violence. Minimum wage, subsidies, copyright, and other legal acts are not something it would be moral for an individual to enforce by the threat of violence, so such laws are unjust. When it comes down to it, such laws are no different than an individual holding a gun to someone’s head and demanding obeisance.

But one might reply that the law doesn’t necessarily result in violence. Under what conditions is this the case? Suppose someone were to break a law but then submit to the law without fighting back. Then no one must engage in actual violence.

However, this is no different than a person who, being mugged in an alley, is free from actual violence because they hand over their money. It would be their right to keep their money, and they could morally fight back if they wanted. Imagine breaking the law, and resisting its application to yourself because it is your moral right to do so. Then the government will come after you with its guns. In other words, if you choose to mind your own business as is your right, violence will be brought forth against you.

Suppose there is a television set up so that it will display what is captured by a video camera. It happens to have a setting where it will display only pure black and pure white, but no grey. If you were to turn the camera on the television, then it would continue to indefinitely display whatever it was last displaying. If you were to have the camera turned towards the television at the moment that this system was started up, then it would just display black.

Now suppose there were another setting for this television, so that it would display the negative of what is captured by the camera. Consider what would happen if both the negative setting and the pure black/white setting were applied, and you turned the camera on the display. What would happen?

Receiving a white input, there would be a black output. For a black input, there would be a white output. Because of time lag between what is captured by the camera and what is displayed by the television, the screen would flicker between the positive and its negative; this is because when the television receives the input of black, it gives the output of white, which becomes an input through the camera to the television to output black, and back and forth, while the display and capture time are of a positive duration.

Suppose there weren’t a time lag between what the camera captured and the television displayed. If this were the case, then the television would instantaneously display what is captured by the camera. Now if the camera were turned upon the screen, it should be wanting to simultaneously display white and black at the same moment. In other words, it would be trying to display what it isn’t displaying.

But this is a logical contradiction. Therefore, time is a necessity for systems that undergo change.

If you’re interested in reading the rough draft and possibly giving some input, email me.

hxrtotally@gmail.com

I hope to have the edits finished in a week, and then I’ll be sending in the paper. So this is a limited time offer.

Metaphysical theories are somewhat like religions; you can’t always define just what it is that makes them a metaphysical theory, but you know them when you see them. Or was that porn? Anyhow…

First, we can make a distinction between two different kinds of metaphysical positions. There are positive and negative metaphysical systems. A positive system is one which will point to a definite, actual being, and explain how it is the arche. A negative system subsists in its lack of pointing to anything as an arche. So, in fact, negative systems aren’t even really theories, they’re just expressions of negation of the positive systems.

This proves to be the downfall of negative systems generally, since they aren’t providing an explanation of what we know. Materialists explain phenomena by positing… more phenomena. Which isn’t really an explanation of why there can be phenomena at all; it isn’t an answer about what the arche is like. It’s just the denial that there is an arche.

Positive systems will tend to be a form of theism, since it will follow that the arche has an independent existence of the rest of the known world, for the reason that it serves as the explanation of why the known world can be at all. Theism isn’t trying to answer a question with itself, like materialism does.

This helps to explain why “Just what is naturalism, anyway?” can’t really be answered except by “It denies the existence of God.” It wants to explain everything through “nature,” yes, but just what is nature? Well, it’s anything that isn’t God, you see; it’s defined as the negation of there being anything “supernatural.” What’s the supernatural? God.

So, in order to be a metaphysical system, a theory must explain what the arche is and how it explains the world.

If there is an order established in an open society by nought but the threat of violence, then it amounts to an actual violence against the welfare and prosperity of civilization.

I call myself an “Anti-Political Libertarian.” What do I mean by it?

I think government is a necessary institution in society, but there is nothing especially glamorous or honorable about serving in government. Politicians are necessary, but then they are necessary only in the way that trash services are necessary. Congress is a landfill. It exists only to take out the trash in society, but should otherwise leave people alone to develop relationships and organizations as they would like. It ought to enforce non-aggression in society; it can only utilize force to the extent that it is in reaction to someone who breaks the principle of non-aggression.

When you have a law like minimum wage, what is occurring? You have two people, both who agree to a wage out of their own free will. However, the government comes along and, holding the two people up at gunpoint, tells them that they have to agree to other terms, otherwise the agreement will not be allowed. What is the point of the government intervening and bringing the threat of violence against employer and employee (for it is as much a threat against the employee, most people don’t realize)? It trespasses on society; it establishes an order in society by nothing but the threat of violence. Such trespasses should be opposed.

In other words, minimum wage laws and other such trespasses on society by government (for that is how I see government’s intervention in society, and I would strongly separate society from government, which many liberals simply don’t comprehend) are deserving of action, but it is an action that is defensive and reactionary, not positive. I would vote (if I could do so effectively, that is) in order to remove government from the social sphere; my political orientation amounts to the negation of politics. Hence, anti-political. Of course, it is an irony that one must get one’s hands dirty to keep people from getting their grubby paws on oneself, but that is the state we are in.

Things which would not occur in society that only occur because there is a gun held at its head are not natural. They are a trespass on society. It is no different than getting mugged; just because you agree to give someone your money under gunpoint doesn’t mean they have provided you with anything you value.