Re: ExI = Truth First ?

Michael Lorrey (
Sat, 16 May 1998 19:25:14 -0400

Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 02:42 PM 5/15/98 CST, The SHO master c.c." wrote:
> >If people had an open mind they could see that "truth is in the eye of
> >the beholder".--this has always, will always, and should always be
> >true (in my eyes).
> IAN: I think that that gets to the heart of
> the matter pertaining to why truth is seen
> as an unreliable standard... my truth, their
> truth, this truth, that truth. The same sub-
> jective morass applies to utility, their
> utility, my utility, this, that...

Unfortunately, I must seriously disagree with you, as treating truth
subjectively is the first step toward the destruction of the concept of
contract law. In any libertarian type society, where there is no
overarching sovereign authority to enforce the public will and contracts
amongst individuals, on individuals, individuals must rely on and protect
in their daily lives the concepts of integrity, honesty, and truth to
ensure that the contracts they make between sovereign individuals are
honored. THis is the essential key to keep a libertarian society from
devolving into chaotic anarchy/civil terror. I think that demanding that
truth for a given be at least agreed to by two soveregn individuals,
otherwize a contract has no meaning, if it means two different things to
two different people. Being strictly utilitarian with regard to truth means
one is merely an opportunist, with no regard for others and with no greater
purpose other than for one's immediate short term profit.

Libertarians know that a stable libertarian society requires that most, if
not all members must have a distinct sense that integrity and honesty
amongst members of the community is most beneficial to every individuals
long term self interest.

> But this picture paints a false "same as"
> relation between utility and truth. While
> utility can always be defined as subjec-
> tive (even a useful thing like a spoon
> is not useful if you prefer to eat with
> your hands), but truth is no so subjec-
> tive. If all can see that it's raining
> outside, but one guy says it's a sunny
> and dry day, we may say, "Well that's
> the truth for him," but I'm comfortable
> is saying that it is not THE truth, and
> thus I feel we can say truth is objective.
> I believe that we can have a scientific
> definition of truth (a one-one or maybe
> onto function, or both) that eliminates
> in one fell swoop this morass of subjec-
> tive truth, which I think is a direct
> threat to science and ethical standards
> as this leads to a "utility first" frame-
> work that leads to "anything goes."

Yes, this is the whole reason behind what is termed by many conservatives
as the 'degradation' of society. If everything is subjective, as liberals
are wont to establish as a societal truth, then anything goes. THe
resulting destabilization causes people to prefer more authoritarian
statist measures to return society to 'normalcy'. This is not an accident.
Creating dissafected classes is essential to generating support for
authoritarian statist measures in any society, which is a central strategy
of terrorists and subversive groups in order to generate general sentiment
for their goals, as increasing authoritarian repression of dissafected
classes is essential to creating the atmosphere for a general uprising.
This is standard strategy taught in ChiCom, bolshevik, and other nihilist
guerrilla schools.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?