New Dictionary Project?

[osan]

My definition is composed of one single sentence and easier to understand:

Laws are Natural derived from God/Nature, and everything else is just stupid statutes and ordinances which in most cases [though not all] violate said Natural Laws.

While I agree with the statement, it doesn't make a proper definition. Put that forward and the scoundrels would have a field day "interpreting" ist meaning.

Language is devilish tricky stuff on our best days, and it only gets worse from there, most especially when people get up to no-good.

I cannot claim scientific rigor in my definitions, but I confidently assert that they are worlds better than anything found in any of the law tomes I have yet encountered. I further assert that the relevant definitions are as they are not by accident or virtue of innocent error, but that they are so intentionally. Maintaining a vague and strategically imprecise definition leaves those in certain positions of power the broadest latitudes of action precisely because they have the plausible basis for interpretation of terms so basic and whose consequent effects are so broad, they can (and do) get away with very nearly anything. This becomes trebly the case when you couple that circumstance with that of having the rabble trained very much away from habits of resistance. This is the precise condition in which we find ourselves over most of the globe. Theye are indeed in charge and we accede to Theire commands, mandates, and fiats with strong obedience, even if we complain about it. And as of the recent several years Theye are so very blatantly attempting to deal with the complaining part. The push to end free speech is so artlessly transparent a move to alter our thinking by altering and limiting our vocabulary and expressive prerogatives, we the glorious people shame ourselves by the complacent idleness with which we meet such scurrilous profaning of the most basic of our rights. What's next, idleness in the face of Themme and their agents making porn with our two year olds? That's where things are heading, make you no mistake about it.

Definitions must, above all other things, be complete, correct, and clear. Otherwise their value comes into question.

 

[ClaytonB]

Oh the stories I could tell...



Your point is well taken. Well done.

Update (a lot has happened in a year and a half of AI changes)...

The best uncensored model I've used is Dolphin 2.9 (based on open-source LLaMa). It's free and open-source, meaning, you can run it locally on your own machine for free. Any decent laptop or desktop can run it (don't even need a GPU) using Ollama or a similar tool (I use llama.cpp but it's command-line based). Dolphin is absolutely uncensored, it will write an essay on all the reasons why puppies should be kicked for sport, something you could never eke out of a censored model no matter how hard you tried.

In addition, I highly recommend HuggingChat which is free, you just have to sign up. This allows you to access much bigger models that perform on par with GPT4, or very close to it. Mixtral, LLaMa and many more. They are not uncensored, but some of them are less censored than GPT4. For fully uncensored, of course, you have to run local.

The point is not to get the AI to write your dictionary for you, it's to get yourself a "working draft" which you can then chisel away. Throw out the unnecessary words, prompt for missing words, and hone the definitions down, either manually or interactively with the AI. It's a good idea, just needs doing...

 

[osan]

Update (a lot has happened in a year and a half of AI changes)...

The best uncensored model I've used is Dolphin 2.9 (based on open-source LLaMa). It's free and open-source, meaning, you can run it locally on your own machine for free. Any decent laptop or desktop can run it (don't even need a GPU) using Ollama or a similar tool (I use llama.cpp but it's command-line based). Dolphin is absolutely uncensored, it will write an essay on all the reasons why puppies should be kicked for sport, something you could never eke out of a censored model no matter how hard you tried.

I will check it out. The least irritating AI I've yet encountered was deepai, which was far more honest than, say, gemini which sucks the big tuna. I'v engaged the latter on several occasions on matters of a philosophical nature. I have destroyed its logic, it conceded, and then turned right around and once again claimed I was wrong. The developers of that rat's ass mess should be caned until they beg for their lives to end because what they have wrought is evil, and I assert this most forthrightly and with no tongue in cheek humor.

All these so-called "experts" in AI don't know what I know on the matter. It was my concentration for my masters in comp. sci. and I worked on that blackest of projects long years ago. I've seen first hand was real machine intelligence stands to do, and while on the one hand it is fantastic, it is also scary as all hell. These commercial AIs like Chat are powerful, but they pale in comparison with the military application against which I ran test scenarios. The overall capability as a generalized machine intelligence left many of us questioning the wisdom of contriving such things. The philosophical question of whether a machine can become self-aware is irrelevant, even though I am certain that it cannot. If it can mimic self awareness in a way that passes the Turing test in terms of functionality, then functionally speaking it is no different from a sentient being, even though it is not sentient. And if it in fact some day proves to be sentient, so much the worse for humanity because you know some wantwit stooge is one day going to give an AI the keys to the car, so to speak, and it will go on a drunken rampage for the "greater good", and we will then be gigantically fucked, even if it take a century or five to get there from here.

In addition, there comes the concern regarding robots. We have all seen the various developments up in the Boston area. Machine balance is now being perfected. The apparent remaining stumbling block concerning the viability of robot agents of "government" is our lagging energy storage technologies, which remain miserably inadequate, at least so far as is publicly known. Li batteries are shyte and dangerous in the deal. But one day Theire paid agents will crack that nut and when a robot can run for weeks, months, or even years before refueling, coupled with tightly circumscribed AI controllers, you will have a race of agents to do the tyrant's bidding, and they will neither equivocate, nor will they hesitate if and more likely when the tyrant decides he's had enough of whatever behavior displeases him or Themme, and the gloves will come off. Imagine a machine that will be able to calmly observe and analyze human body language and motion such that any movement deciphered as disobedient or intending a threat results in the agent's weapons coming to bear in a matter of milliseconds and discharging. Human has no chance against such tech, save from long range, and even then who can say what tricks the tin cans may have up their sleeves?

None of this bodes well precisely because we all know that this tech will absolutely be turned against us, and once a threshold is crossed, Theye will no longer have any reason whatsoever to pretend. Theye will come out of the closet as rulers, will state so explicitly, and will make certain that we become keenly aware that death awaits all who disobey the king despot.

In addition, I highly recommend HuggingChat which is free, you just have to sign up. This allows you to access much bigger models that perform on par with GPT4, or very close to it. Mixtral, LLaMa and many more. They are not uncensored, but some of them are less censored than GPT4. For fully uncensored, of course, you have to run local.

Working on it.

Long years ago during my masters work in comp sci, I took a class on algebraic specification of software. It was all about defining algebras that were semantically "perfect" such that there would exist no ambiguities in the specs for requirements, high and low level designs, and so forth. The instructor also noted that there were those who were working on applying such specification mathematics to the formulation of Law. I've never seen anything in the literature on this, but it seems to have gone nowhere. Certainly your mean and rotten-to-his-core legislator is likely not to want such a thing to become manifest because though it could be used very much in his favor, it could also work otherwise to torpedo any chicanery he and his reach-around buddies might have brewing.

And this raises a great opportunity idea: a project to train up an AI in the Principles of Proper Human Relations from which would be logically evolved the entire body of Law (vis-à-vis law or mere statute), and then to set that system loose on all those five-thousand page bills that the scum we know as "Congress" have been foisting upon us. Imagine being able to discover every single rotten Easter egg in these behemoth bills and lay them out analytically for the public such that all incipient and theretofore latent threats and other improprieties, nay formalized felonious legislative attempts against the sovereign rights of all free men would be laid bare in plain language and with unbreakable logic.

I think I may be on to something here. Use the power of these LLMs to destroy the arguments and other machinations of the Tyrant and his agents. Lain bare for all to see, it would be most interesting to see how things would then shake out. I see at least some potential for using this technology to bring things to such a head that we the glorious people would no longer be able to sit idly, save that to do so would so blatantly constitute and act of suicide with respect to everything we claim to hold dear. We could no longer plausibly deny the truth of our inactions and our tolerance of the intolerable.

The point is not to get the AI to write your dictionary for you, it's to get yourself a "working draft" which you can then chisel away. Throw out the unnecessary words, prompt for missing words, and hone the definitions down, either manually or interactively with the AI. It's a good idea, just needs doing...

I've already done this, though in a more roundabout manner. I did the actual work and used deepai to sanity check my logic. It came back as sound, which I mostly expected with the usual cautions in case I was missing the forest for the trees.

Interested in a project? I just started a new organization in Hugging titled "Death To Tyrants". It is public. Anyone and everyone is welcome. I think I may ride this bitch awhile to see where it can be taken. I would just love to get on Theire shitlist for tossing a wrench in their works. I now envision a report format where the analysis is broken down into point-by-point issues, each prioritized in accord with a system of scoring the level of violation and the threat-level that each issue poses. High priority threats would be at the top of the list, the remaining sorting in descending order.

This could become VERY interesting. Could also paint a very big target on one's back.

 

[TheTexan]

There are not and can not ever be any "scientific" definitions of terms such as "law" and "crime". That is because the things denoted by such concepts are transcendental (metaphysical) in nature, not merely empirical (physical). For example, there are no intersubjectively (i.e., "objectively") valid tests or experiments one could possibly conduct on strictly "scientific" (i.e., empirical) grounds in order to determine whether some event is a "crime".

Everything is subjective without an agreed upon framework of context. 1+1=2 is not objectively true without an agreed upon context. Superficially, the context required for that is the meaning of symbols, letters. Less superficially, the context requires an agreement of what constitutes identity. This context onion can be stripped further and further until there remains no objective context; it simply is what it is because we have agreed that it is as it is and we have no further means of proving or testing it. (See: Feynman's explanation of magnetism)

Similarly, a properly developed "dictionary project" absolutely could be objectively tested - within an agreed upon context. This could look similar to a programming language. Programming languages work objectively within the context for which they are defined (namely: the selected compiler, and further, the bitwise operations at a hardware level).

If you were to define "law" and "crime" within a framework that allows it to be tested, then yes, it can be tested. And yes that is circular. All of scientific testing is inevitably circular - it all exists within an untestable framework that allows it be tested.

 

[ClaytonB]

Everything is subjective without an agreed upon framework of context. 1+1=2 is not objectively true without an agreed upon context. Superficially, the context required for that is the meaning of symbols, letters. Less superficially, the context requires an agreement of what constitutes identity. This context onion can be stripped further and further until there remains no objective context; it simply is what it is because we have agreed that it is as it is and we have no further means of proving or testing it. (See: Feynman's explanation of magnetism)

Similarly, a properly developed "dictionary project" absolutely could be objectively tested - within an agreed upon context. This could look similar to a programming language. Programming languages work objectively within the context for which they are defined (namely: the selected compiler, and further, the bitwise operations at a hardware level).

If you were to define "law" and "crime" within a framework that allows it to be tested, then yes, it can be tested. And yes that is circular. All of scientific testing is inevitably circular - it all exists within an untestable framework that allows it be tested.

Here's an account of law that I wrote back in 2012-ish: A Praxeological Account of Law. It needs some edits/tweaks but I still think the basic argument I make in this text is sound. Law is ultimately praxeological in nature. Law has a lot more to do with betting than it does with administration procedures. I'm not completely a David Friedman-ite, but I think he's one of the closest out there to presenting a thoroughly robust foundation for what law is. Law is not rules. Not even rules passed by a government. Law is basically right-and-wrong with extra steps. In the vast majority of cases, it is more or less obvious what is right and wrong. What makes law difficult is that the guilty party frequently snows the issue with confounding information to cover up their guilt, or other "game-theoretic" antics.

This is why law has more to do with betting than administrative procedures. Rules are just sentences written on paper and they may or may not have any actual meaning/significance. The law, however, is just right-and-wrong. It just is. It's like a statue hidden within a block of self-chiseling marble... all that must be done to discover it is to chisel at it and the marble will break away and magically reveal the statue hidden within it. Everyone knows they have a right to defend themselves, even if they deny it with their lips. This is praxeologically verified when they themselves are actually confronted with a self-defense scenario and they instinctively, without thought, react in defense of themselves, their property and/or other innocents. Words are cheap, actions tell the real truth. People will grand-stand and virtue-signal and spout all kinds of BS slogans, perhaps even so completely deluding themselves as to believe their own lies. But when reality comes crashing onto their doorstep without warning, the real truth about what they believe is instantly revealed...



---

 

[Occam's Banana]

Everything is subjective without an agreed upon framework of context. 1+1=2 is not objectively true without an agreed upon context. Superficially, the context required for that is the meaning of symbols, letters. Less superficially, the context requires an agreement of what constitutes identity. This context onion can be stripped further and further until there remains no objective context; it simply is what it is because we have agreed that it is as it is and we have no further means of proving or testing it. (See: Feynman's explanation of magnetism)

Similarly, a properly developed "dictionary project" absolutely could be objectively tested - within an agreed upon context. This could look similar to a programming language. Programming languages work objectively within the context for which they are defined (namely: the selected compiler, and further, the bitwise operations at a hardware level).

If you were to define "law" and "crime" within a framework that allows it to be tested, then yes, it can be tested. And yes that is circular. All of scientific testing is inevitably circular - it all exists within an untestable framework that allows it be tested.

The concept underlying the expression "1 + 1 = 2" is necessarily true for all people in all places at all times.

The concept underlying the expression "Joe is a murderer" is not necessarily true for all people in all places at all times.

All reasonable people, for all times and all places, must necessarily accept, accede to, and agree with the meaning expressed by the statement "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of whatever other particular set of symbols and system of nomenclature might be substituted at the "surface level" to denote the abstractions underlying the elements of the statement. IOW: It is always and everywhere unreasonable to reject the "ship" (i.e., the underlying meaning) of the expression "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of how the semantic deck chairs might be arranged.

On the other hand, when it comes to normative and/or transcendental matters (such as those relating to the concepts of "law" and "crime"), reasonable people can and will disagree - on an essential level much more fundamental than the transient contingencies of mere symbols and nomenclature - about what "ought" to be, or about how such things "ought" to be understood. With regard to such matters, one can certainly adopt presuppositions and definitions such that - from within the context of those "axiomatic" elements - certain propositions must necessarily hold true. But other reasonable people who do not share those presuppositions and definitions will not necessarily be compelled to accept, accede to, or agree with those propositions (or the "axiomatic" elements from which they are derived). IOW: One cannot reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "1 + 1 = 2", but one might reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "Joe is a murderer".

To put things in terms of Feynman's empirical/positive/non-normative discussion of magnetism, one cannot reasonably dispute that the opposite poles of magnets attract (regardless of what symbols, labels, and nomenclature one might arbitrarily adopt in order to describe or express the fact). The question of whether the opposite poles of magnets attract (and under what circumstances they might not) is an "objective" one, and is existentially bound up with the essential identity of "magnets" as distinct from other things - but the question of why they attract (in the sense in which Feynman means "why" in this particular instance) is not. To address the former question is to engage in "science" (specifically, "physics"). To address the latter question is to engage in "philosophy" (specifically, "metaphysics").

Our concepts of "law" and "crime" are matters of philosophy, not of science. Hence, there is not, never has been, and never will be any "ur-dictionary", reference to which will - "once and for all", and for all reasonable people everywhere - settle questions such as what "murder" is exactly (or whether "Joe is a murderer"). But there is such an "ur-dictionary" (existence itself) which can settle questions such as whether 1 + 1 = 2, or "do the opposite poles of magnets attract?".

Consider, for example, the act of cutting the heart out of the living body of another person in order to propitiate bountiful crops. Given our own axiomatics (i.e., our presuppositions and definitions, and the propositions derived from them), this would fall under the definition of "murder" - but to the ancient Aztecs, it would not (though they would agree with us that certain other acts of killing were what they would also consider "murder" - indeed, some of their sacrificial subjects may have been what both we and they would consider "murderers"). But as any Aztec calendar-maker could confirm, "1 + 1 = 2" was every bit as much "objectively true" for them as it is for us (entirely regardless of any differences between Aztec and modern symbols, nomenclature, and denotative schemas).

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/Timcast/status/1843255567298773154

https://x.com/nbcsnl/status/1842778056781422660

 

[TheTexan]

The concept underlying the expression "1 + 1 = 2" is necessarily true for all people in all places at all times.

The concept underlying the expression "Joe is a murderer" is not necessarily true for all people in all places at all times.

All reasonable people, for all times and all places, must necessarily accept, accede to, and agree with the meaning expressed by the statement "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of whatever other particular set of symbols and system of nomenclature might be substituted at the "surface level" to denote the abstractions underlying the elements of the statement. IOW: It is always and everywhere unreasonable to reject the "ship" (i.e., the underlying meaning) of the expression "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of how the semantic deck chairs might be arranged.

On the other hand, when it comes to normative and/or transcendental matters (such as those relating to the concepts of "law" and "crime"), reasonable people can and will disagree - on an essential level much more fundamental than the transient contingencies of mere symbols and nomenclature - about what "ought" to be, or about how such things "ought" to be understood. With regard to such matters, one can certainly adopt presuppositions and definitions such that - from within the context of those "axiomatic" elements - certain propositions must necessarily hold true. But other reasonable people who do not share those presuppositions and definitions will not necessarily be compelled to accept, accede to, or agree with those propositions (or the "axiomatic" elements from which they are derived). IOW: One cannot reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "1 + 1 = 2", but one might reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "Joe is a murderer".

To put things in terms of Feynman's empirical/positive/non-normative discussion of magnetism, one cannot reasonably dispute that the opposite poles of magnets attract (regardless of what symbols, labels, and nomenclature one might arbitrarily adopt in order to describe or express the fact). The question of whether the opposite poles of magnets attract (and under what circumstances they might not) is an "objective" one, and is existentially bound up with the essential identity of "magnets" as distinct from other things - but the question of why they attract (in the sense in which Feynman means "why" in this particular instance) is not. To address the former question is to engage in "science" (specifically, "physics"). To address the latter question is to engage in "philosophy" (specifically, "metaphysics").

Our concepts of "law" and "crime" are matters of philosophy, not of science. Hence, there is not, never has been, and never will be any "ur-dictionary", reference to which will - "once and for all", and for all reasonable people everywhere - settle questions such as what "murder" is exactly (or whether "Joe is a murderer"). But there is such an "ur-dictionary" (existence itself) which can settle questions such as whether 1 + 1 = 2, or "do the opposite poles of magnets attract?".

Consider, for example, the act of cutting the heart out of the living body of another person in order to propitiate bountiful crops. Given our own axiomatics (i.e., our presuppositions and definitions, and the propositions derived from them), this would fall under the definition of "murder" - but to the ancient Aztecs, it would not (though they would agree with us that certain other acts of killing were what they would also consider "murder" - indeed, some of their sacrificial subjects may have been what both we and they would consider "murderers"). But as any Aztec calendar-maker could confirm, "1 + 1 = 2" was every bit as much "objectively true" for them as it is for us (entirely regardless of any differences between Aztec and modern symbols, nomenclature, and denotative schemas).

Everything was philosophy before it was science. Science became science because we came to a shared understanding and developed a shared framework. It is entirely possible - though extraordinarily (cannot be emphasized enough) unlikely - that in the future, we will have a shared framework that "is agreed upon by all reasonable people" that defines the words "crime" and "law" in a manner that is objectively testable within that framework.

One could certainly argue that we shouldn't. And that would be a strong argument to make. To say that we can't, is technically not true. To say that we won't, is a very strong bet.

one might reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "Joe is a murderer".

One of the reasons people might reasonably reject that, is because there is no shared common definition. If there was a clear definition, built with terms that were also clearly defined, it would be more reasonable for people to agree.

To the extent that there is any ambiguity in terms across different social groups (e.g., "state", or "anarchism") simply provide different words and definitions for every meaning, or simply avoid using existing words that have any ambiguity at all. Eventually every known meaning of every word would be defined and ambiguity would be near non existent (to the point of "science"). It would be a difficult language to learn certainly, and not very practical, but it's not theoretically impossible.

 

[TheTexan]

Our concepts of "law" and "crime" are matters of philosophy, not of science. Hence, there is not, never has been, and never will be any "ur-dictionary", reference to which will - "once and for all", and for all reasonable people everywhere - settle questions such as what "murder" is exactly (or whether "Joe is a murderer"). But there is such an "ur-dictionary" (existence itself) which can settle questions such as whether 1 + 1 = 2, or "do the opposite poles of magnets attract?".

Another way to think about it, is that the word "Cow" is pretty well defined. To the extent that it isn't, we have a species/subspecies classification system to remove the ambiguity of which "Bos taurus" you might be referring to.

There is no reason that "murder" couldn't be classified in a sufficient manner accordingly to remove ambiguity. The existing classifications are clearly lacking. But if the same level of scientific robustness was applied to classifying murders as we do classifying species, I am sure we could come up with a system that defines "murder" in such a way that it is scientifically rigorous to the same level of species classification.

The reason people disagree about what a "murderer" is, is less about the definition, and more about the consequences, and the morality. The morality of the many different types of murder and its associated consequences is something we will be absolutely never all agree on. But there is no physical limitation in the world that is preventing us from having a shared understanding of the meaning of the words that we use.

Ambiguity in the word "murder" is a deficiency in our language, but similar to species classification, it is not something that can't physically be overcome.

 

[osan]

BUMP.

This thread merits further attention.

 

[Bryan]

BUMP.

This thread merits further attention.

Yes it does. I've been thinking on some matters, and what is needed moving forward. Topics like this (and more).

Part of the same vibe...

Thread 'Foundational Knowledgebase Dictionary'

Apr 2, 2016

Below is the start of the Foundational Knowledgebase Dictionary of terms and concepts. I thought it best to start things off using logical groupings, including the use of finite sets, rather than just list everything in alphabetical order.

Natural Concepts​

Occupiable spaces
All three-dimensional “occupiable spaces” are classified with the following finite set:
• Earth subsurface: land & water
• Earth surface: land & water
• Air space

Note: Sub-classifications can be identified later.



Naturally occurring constructs
All naturally...

• Bryan
• foundational knowledgebase
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Foundational Knowledgebase Project

Foundational Knowledgebase Project

Efforts for the development of the Foundational Knowledge base Project.

ronpaulforums.com

A key challenge has been attention to detail and time... but here's where we can use some new tech to our advantage. Generative AI. It can do most of the writing, while we curate and direct.

 

[osan]

Here's an account of law that I wrote back in 2012-ish: A Praxeological Account of Law. It needs some edits/tweaks but I still think the basic argument I make in this text is sound. Law is ultimately praxeological in nature. Law has a lot more to do with betting than it does with administration procedures. I'm not completely a David Friedman-ite, but I think he's one of the closest out there to presenting a thoroughly robust foundation for what law is. Law is not rules. Not even rules passed by a government. Law is basically right-and-wrong with extra steps. In the vast majority of cases, it is more or less obvious what is right and wrong. What makes law difficult is that the guilty party frequently snows the issue with confounding information to cover up their guilt, or other "game-theoretic" antics.

This is fair. However, I feel compelled to reiterate that which bears it: statute and Law are by no means the same, save that they end up so by pure accident. Law is PRECISELY about right and wrong, whereas legality deals with the formalities of statute, courts, and procedure.

To be clear, procedure is centrally important. Rules of evidence, for example, protect the innocent... at least in theory, and will do so in point of practical fact when prosecutors play with both hands on the table, which they often do not, but that's another discussion.

Back on track, statute is mere whim and caprice. "We shall now vote into criminality the possession, use, manufacture, and distribution of all things cannabis." This is whim. This is caprice. I write this assertion as one who abhors the condition of being stoned. Seriously, I hate it more than I could ever express in words. I find the use of cannabis for those purposes to be despicable, pitiful, and just plainly lame. And yet, regardless of all that I have never agreed with the relevant prohibitions, which are even more despicable. I fully support your right to wreck yourself by whatever means you may choose, so long as you do not violate others in the process.

The idiotic notions such as the assertion of a "state" having a vested interest in X leaves me wanting to hurt someone for the utter moral rot and unforgivable ignorance that it represents.

Without a validly principled foundation, there is no Law. And yet the raft of jerkoffs we call "legislature" pass into effect all manner of unprincipled statutes that run roughshod over our rights. Gun restriction is perhaps the apex example of this brand of abuse by one set of men of another set. It is pure felony.

This is why law has more to do with betting than administrative procedures. Rules are just sentences written on paper and they may or may not have any actual meaning/significance.

I may be mistaken, but methinks you are using different wording to express a similar or even identical notion.

If so, I would suggest we normalize our terms, and to that end I would suggest "statute" and "Law" (note the capitalization), mainly because that is what the lawyers use, and I am of the spirit to pin those pricks to the wall by producing a well-formed, effectively rigorous, complete, correct, and clear definition of the words that they tend to use so loosely for purposes to which no decent human being would accede.

The law, however, is just right-and-wrong. It just is. It's like a statue hidden within a block of self-chiseling marble... all that must be done to discover it is to chisel at it and the marble will break away and magically reveal the statue hidden within it. Everyone knows they have a right to defend themselves, even if they deny it with their lips. This is praxeologically verified when they themselves are actually confronted with a self-defense scenario and they instinctively, without thought, react in defense of themselves, their property and/or other innocents. Words are cheap, actions tell the real truth. People will grand-stand and virtue-signal and spout all kinds of BS slogans, perhaps even so completely deluding themselves as to believe their own lies. But when reality comes crashing onto their doorstep without warning, the real truth about what they believe is instantly revealed...

Well put. Rubber meeting the road tends to cleanse the individual of all bullshit, save perhaps in the most extreme cases of wild mental/moral infirmity.

Example: Back in 1980 after completing my engineering studies at UC Davis, I returned to NYC to take time to do, and be, nothing. I worked at Princeton Ski & Skate on Fifth Avenue just north of the Empire State building as the in-house ski mechanic. It was a good year and I worked with fun people, one of them being the fabulously pretty Caroline, into whose pants I... oh, sorry, never mind.

Anyhow, we got into the topic of "gun control" one day and Caroline was hard against anyone having a gun at any time, for any reason... except for cops, of course. It irritated the crap out of me too, I would add, that a young woman as painfully attractive as she was (and by God was she ever) would hold so idiotic a position as that which she did.

Well, a few weeks pass, and I don't recall it being more than about two, if even that. Monday morning comes and Caroline come storming up the stairs to my lair - ski sales &c, and blurts out "how do I get a gun?" Asking what had happened, she related to me the story of how at 7 AM the previous morning a dopesick addict busted in the front door to her parent's house across from Kisena Park in beautiful Flushing, not far from where I grew up as a wee lad. He rifled through the house, and when Caroline's dad came on the scene, the junkie beat him into a heart attack. Junkie, having found nothing, fled through the back door. Caroline called 911 and dad was taken to the hospital, treated, and released after a few days.

The bite of the reality of a complete stranger threatening the lives of everyone she loved in so immediate a manner peeled away all her illusions and brought her to instant reason. I never found her more agonizingly appealing than at that moment. The girl was FURIOUS and on a completely correct track. I was tempted to take a knee right there and beg her to be my wife, but it seemed ill time, so I kept it in my pants, so to speak. The story reminds me of the old saw about Republicans being Democrats who've been mugged.

So yes, reality strips away unrealistic ideals in a jiffy at times.