Solution to Carroll's Paradox

[Lewis] Carroll's Paradox (or "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles") is a logical conundrum that purports to show that modus ponens results in regressio ad infinitum. 
(references:
https://friendsoflibertylogic.blogspot.com/2008/12/carrolls-paradox.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles)

Below, I try to show that if the Tortoise is claiming that his discovery that modus ponens results in regressio ad infinitum proves that modus ponens can't result in a sound conclusion, he would contradict himself.
Thanks to Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

Achilles returned to his tent and threw open the flap.

"Briseis," he shouted; "I'm home."

"Hello, dear," sang Briseis, as she tripped into the anteroom of their tent with a basin of floral water for bathing Achilles' feet. "How did your day go?"

"That cursed Tortoise," said Achilles; "He proved to me that the modus ponens must inevitably result in an infinite regression. That's the second time he's used that trick on me."
"Oh, I'm sorry dear. But how ever did he manage to do that?"
"Well, you see, he started with the premise A that 'things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.' Why, everyone knows this to be true. So how could I have suspected a trap? Then, he added the premise B 'the two sides of a certain triangle are equal to the same."
"Who could possibly object to that?" said Briseis.
"Well, that's what I thought," continued Achilles, "but then the Tortoise asked me if I believed that the conclusion C, 'the two sides of this certain triangle are equal to each other,' was a valid conclusion."
"Seems valid to me!" said Briseis.
"Well, of course, who wouldn't think so? But then he pointed out that I need a third premise that says that A and B lead to the conclusion C."
"No! He didn't!"
"Yes, he did. And furthermore, even when I produced such a premise, he made me produce another premise that justified the third premise and so on, ad infinitum." Achilles was near tears.
"Now, now, dear; no need to get upset. How did the Tortoise's argument end?"
"Eh? End? What do you mean 'end?' That was it---regression ad infinitum.
"But dear, was there a claim?"
"Claim? Why, of course there was. The regressio was the claim."
"But dear, did the Tortoise claim that the regression proves anything?"
"But can't you see? There was a regressio---to infinity!"
"Yes, dear, but if there was no claim, then there can be no argument. Without an argument, nothing's been proven.
"Wha-, why, pflub . . . of course something was proven. Of course it was. Why, the regressio was proven. I guess I know when something's been proven. Sure, it was." Achilles put his chin on his hand. "Wasn't it?"
"Well," said Briseis, "if something has been proven, then there must have been an argument---a conclusion based on true premises."
"Well, it may not have been stated in so many words, but there was an implicit argument."
"An implicit argument?"
"Yes, certainly."
"And how did this implicit argument run?" asked Briseis.
"Er... well, it must have been something like 'A. An infinite regression invalidates an argument. B. Modus ponens results in an infinite regression; therefore C. Arguments founded on modus ponens are invalid.'"
"I see. Well, if that was how the argument went, then might there not be a slight problem?"
"Not that I can see," said Achilles, doubtfully.
"The implied argument you gave was a modus ponens argument.
Achilles stared blankly for a moment. 
"By Zeus, so it was. That means, what; circularity?"
"Perhaps, dear, but more importantly, doesn't that constitute a pragmatic contradiction?"
"A what?"
"A pragmatic (or performative) contradiction. It means 'when the statement of an argument contradicts its claim.'"
"When the statement of an argument contradicts its . . . why, bless my myrmidons, so it does! That cursed Tortoise foiled me with a pragmatic contradiction, and I didn't even notice it! Why, why . . . that scoundrel! That blackguard . . ." Achilles leapt to his feet and dashed for the tent entrance, yelling over his should: "By all the gods and goddesses, I'll wring that impudent Tortoise's neck, and we'll have turtle soup for dinner tonight!"
"Yes, dear," said Briseis, and as Achilles ran off in search of the Tortoise, she repaired to the meat safe to see if there were any ox steaks on hand.

What is the Problem?

[Found in Comments Section of Reason Online, Posted by "Ken Schulz"]

"'Ronald Reagan famously declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.'

Reagan got the first half right. 'Government is not the solution to our problems.' However, government is not the problem. No politician would ever speak the real problem's name in public.

Reagan wouldn't identify the real problem. Ron Paul wouldn't identify the real problem. Rand Paul won't identify the real problem.

The real problem is the American people, and the correct statement is, 'Government is not the solution to our problems. You are the solution to your problems.'

You are the solution to your children's education. You are the solution to being unemployed. You are the solution to your retirement, and you are the solution to your parents' retirement. You are the solution to drug addiction. If your problem is that your children are uneducated, you're unemployed, you haven't saved for your retirement, your parents can't live on their own anymore, and you're addicted to drugs, then the problem isn't the government. The problem is you. You were the only effective solution to avoid your problems, and you are the only effective solution to your problems."

Are Human Beings Self-Owners?

     Recently in the news is the vaccination controversy. Arizona representative Kelly Townsend made the following comments on facebook:

"Our country is sovereign, our State is sovereign, our family is sovereign, our God is sovereign and the most holy and sacred last frontier of sovereignty is our own body.Dearest friends and people of Arizona, it seems we are prepared to give up our liberty, the very sovereignty of our body, because of measles. I read yesterday that the idea is being floated that if not enough people get vaccinated, then we are going to force them to. The idea that we force someone to give up their liberty for the sake of the collective is not based on American values but rather, Communist.I have sworn an oath to the Constitution five times, now, and I take that oath very seriously. It was not just something I repeated in order to get sworn in to an office. I do not make my decisions based on my next election or what the populace demands if it violates that oath.
Folks, I am going to ask you to educate your children, educate your family, educate those around you about the fundamentals of liberty and what that means. It seems we have lost those fundamentals along the way and are chasing our fears.
And finally, I am going to demand, as a mother of an injured child from her vaccines, that we insist that we spend the time and money on discovering what in these vaccines is causing so much injury, instead of insisting on taking your liberty in the name of the collective.
Benjamin Franklin once said, 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'
Live free or die,
Rep. Kelly Townsend"

     In her comments was the phrase "our own body." I take this to mean that Rep. Townsend believes that human beings own their own bodies or as the Levellers and John Locke would have it, are "self-owners." This concept of self-ownership is indeed contrary to Marxist philosophy which conceives of human beings not as individual self-owners, but members of various classes who have collective interests instead of rights. The very idea of justice, not to mention self-ownership, is deprecated by Marxism as a bourgeois (therefore minoritarian) concept invented by one class to oppress another.
     So if Rep. Townsend meant that forced vaccination is compatible with a communist society and that self-ownership is (or used to be) a feature of the American political system, then I think she was right.
     The MSM did not dare to attack the idea of self-ownership head-on, but focused on Townsend's use of the word "communist," which they seemed to think people would find ridiculous. I don't think it was ridiculous; it was in the ball park.
     Furthermore, Townsend's attackers resorted to a strawman technique---casting the argument in terms of whether or not vaccination has been proven to be effective or whether it's harmful. That is not the point. The point is whether or not a government has the right to force its citizens to be vaccinated.
    But then do I suggest that there is no remedy if someone transmits a disease to another person? Is there no remedy or legal protection against disease-carriers? Does the traditional law suggest anything?
     In criminal law, a criminal is supposed usually to have mens rea---the intent to commit a crime. Since most people never intend to infect others with diseases, it doesn't seem to qualify as a crime.
     In tort law, however, the question of whether a tortfeasor (someone who inflicts harm on the injured party) intends to commit a tort is irrelevant. All that is legally required for an injured party to prove his case is the evidence that harm was inflicted by the tortfeasor. So it seems that there might be a legal basis for action against a person who infects another person with a disease.
     (The alleged tortfeasor could have a defense by claiming that the infection was unknowing, and it should therefore be considered to have been an "Act of Nature [God]." Traditionally, one is not responsible for Acts of Nature [God], even if one's property was the direct vehicle by which the Act of Nature harmed another person.)
     The idea of forced vaccination ultimately justifies itself on a utilitarian basis. Its proponents claim that more lives are saved than lost by vaccination. This may be a reasonable claim, but there is no way to know for sure. Furthermore, the claim that more lives are saved than lost implies a value judgement: the greater number of lives saved by the vaccine were worth more than the fewer number killed by it. This calculation assumes that all human lives are of equal value. But what if we're not willing to accept this assumption?
     As self-owners, surely we should have the right to weigh the pros and cons ourselves and take responsibility for the consequences of our choices.
     And that is precisely what a forced vaccination law doesn't allow one to do. Instead, the decision of whether one is to be vaccinated is made by government officials. In that case, if the vaccination kills someone or makes them sick, as it does in rare cases, shouldn't the person or persons who made the decision to vaccinate be liable?
     Finally, what if it could be known ex ante that there would be no bad effects at all from vaccination? Would a government then be justified in forced vaccination? According to a theory of justice based on self-ownership, a person is only justified in using force on another person in defense or in retribution. It is possible that an infected person doesn't actually transmit a disease. Since we are not able to know the future, we cannot know whether or not an infected person will infect another person. No infection, no tort, and therefore no justification for the use of coercion in forced vaccination.

Representative Democracy

In our democratic system, we elect representatives to represent or protect our interests in Congress. My representative at this time is Tom O'Halleran. So when I had a complaint, I contacted him via email. Tom was the only of all my representatives to respond:

"Dear Mr. Opheim:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding   uranium mining. I appreciate hearing from Arizonans about issues facing our country and state.
As a former Chair of the Natural Resources in the Arizona House of Representatives, I am in strong opposition of any new uranium mining permits at the Grand Canyon. Uranium mining poses a serious threat to the health, water quality, wildlife, and intact habitat of the watershed.
During the height of the Cold War, uranium mines covered the Southwest region, employing thousands of workers. Within years, miners and residents in the area showed signs of diseases and cancers related to radiation. As a result, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) in 1990 to provide compensation to those who developed cancer or other diseases after exposure to radiation from uranium mining.
I have spoken with constituents across the district who are concerned about uranium mining. As your member of Congress, I believe opposition to uranium mining is essential to protecting the health of our environment and of our economy. That’s why I cosponsored the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act to permanently ban uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. Moving forward, I will work with both parties to protect the health of Arizona families and ens ure that the Grand Canyon is protected for generations to come.
Thank you for sharing your view with me. As always, I am open to learning more from you and appreciate you taking the time to express your views. If you would like to stay connected to our office, please visit our website: http://ohalleran.house.gov/ . I am honored to represent you in Congress.
Sincerely,  
Tom O’Halleran

Member of Congress

Only trouble is, my complaint was about the TSA and had nothing to do with uranium mining at all.
Democracy in action!

Trade Deficit or Basic Economic Knowledge Deficit?

  According to the Republican Party Platform (2016), "massive trade deficits" are not good for America's economy.
     Trade deficit is short for "trade deficit between Nation A and Nation B." It's a fairly useless concept. Nations, like human beings, don't conduct trade on a purely bilateral basis. Trade is multilateral. That means that while A may have a deficit with B, they can still have a surplus with C or D. If A doesn't have a surplus with anyone (i.e., produces little if anything that anyone else wants), then no trade involving A can even occur. But as long as trade continues to occur, and keeping in mind that trade can only occur if both parties expect to benefit, we have to assume that A's surpluses are more or less equaling A's deficits.
     The concept of a deficit in trade between only two nations, then, amounts to a kind of statistical cherry-picking. Deficits would only be a problem if they were absolute (i.e. between Nation A and all other nations) and not merely bilateral.
     The whole idea of "parity in trade" as measured according to nations is completely unrealistic and could never be applied consistently in practice. There is no logical reason to think that each other country's value of imports from the U.S. should balance with its exports to the U.S. Some countries have more stuff that Americans want than others. And not all the people in every other country want or can afford a lot of the stuff that Americans make. The point of international trade is not that each and every country will want a certain amount of U.S. exports to offset a certain amount of U.S. imports, but that there will be enough aggregated countries' imports of U.S. exports to offset all U.S. aggregated imports of other countries' exports.

     The only way that trade deficits could be a sign of something wrong is if they were funded by government debt. If the U.S. government issues massive amounts of debt in order to fund its deficit-spending, and if this debt is purchased by persons or institutions in foreign countries, and if this debt is then counted as a "trade deficit," then you might claim that trade deficits are bad. But to be accurate, you'd have to say that the real problem isn't the deficit; it's the government debt that enables the deficit.

On Giving and Giving Back

     I'm a little skeptical of the idea of school vouchers.
     But one thing caught my attention when glancing over an article on the topic:

"Arizona voters will get the last word on expanding a program that gives parents money to send their children to private and parochial schools."     

     "A program that gives parents money." In other words, the state is giving money to some parents who will then be able to send their children to special schools, leaving less money for the rest of the children. Isn't this unfair?
     Let's think about that. Where does the state of Arizona get the money in question? Does the state government of Arizona sell or trade something to willing partners or customers, and fund its activities from the profits of such activity? No. Does the state government of Arizona solicit contributions or gifts from voluntary donors? No. Does the state run a lottery? No. Then how does the state get the money that it gives?
     It comes from taxpayers. That's the sole source of the state money. So, the money given by the state is money that has been extracted by some people from other people by coercion or the threat thereof.
     Considering the source of the state's money, this might mean that some parents are being given back some of the money that was originally stolen from them. So, "give" should, in some cases, read "give back."
     When viewed in this light, maybe school vouchers aren't unfair after all.
   

Tariff Anyone?

     Recently, one sees a lot of warnings in the media about President Trump's intention to institute tariffs on steel. Steel is a strategic producer's good used in many chains of production and a tariff on it can be expected to have a significant impact on the economy. Many economists are saying that it will be an impact for the worse, not for the better. Why do they think they can say that?  To quote from Human Action by Ludwig von Mises:

"If A is in such a way more efficient than B that he needs for the production of 1 unit of the commodity p 3 hours compared with B's 5, and for the production of 1 unit of q 2 hours compared with B's 4, then both will gain if A confines himself to producing q and leaves B to produce p. If each of them gives 60 hours to producing p and 60 hours to producing q, the result of A's labor is 20p + 30q; of B's, 12p + 15q; and for both together, 32p + 45q. If, however, A confines himself to producing q alone, he produces 60q in 120 hours, while B, if he confines himself to producing p, produces in the same time 24 p. The result of their activities is then 24p +60q, which, as p has for A a substitution ratio of 3/2q and for B one of 5/4q, signifies a larger output than 32p + 45q. Therefore it is manifest that the division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it."

     So it's obvious why people who aim at having more prosperous lives would participate in the division of labor.
     A tariff applied to an existing free market undoes the work of the division of labor. Instead of concentrating on producing the product or service in which a comparative advantage is enjoyed, the tariff makes competing products or services from outside of the tariff area more expensive, i.e., non-competitive. This allows factors of production in the tariff area to be used to produce a product or service that could not compete in a free market. The inevitable result of this hampering of the market is more input for the same output, i.e. impoverishment.