Friday, February 27, 2026

Philosopher’s Confession (Leibniz), formalized

The prompt said, “Explain the core arguments using formal logic:”, and contained the full text of this dialogue.

Below is a reconstructive formalization of the main argumentative moves in the dialogue. I’ll use (i) first-order logic with identity, (ii) a light modal layer for Leibniz’s “necessary/possible,” and (iii) explicit definitions (since Leibniz’s strategy is: replace troublesome words with their meanings).

0) Notation (minimal “language”)

Individuals: agents (x,y); God $g$; events/acts $e$; states $s$. Predicates / relations:

$God(g)$
$Omni(g)$: omniscient (enough for the early proof)
$Just(x)$
$Loves(x,y)$
$Happy(y)$
$Harmony(s)$
$HasHappyState(y,s)$
$Knows(x,s)$
$Exper(x,s)$: $x$ “experiences” $s$ (as harmony)
$Del(x,s)$: $x$ is delighted by $s$
$Sin(e)$
$PartOf(e,B)$: event $e$ is part of world-series $B$
$Will(x,e)$, $NotWill(x,e)$, $Permit(x,e)$
$Cause(x,e)$, $Author(x,e)$

Modal operators (Leibniz’s “in itself”):

$\Box p$: $p$ is necessary (its negation implies contradiction)
$\Diamond p$: $p$ is possible (conceivable without contradiction)

1) “God is just” via definitions (justice → universal love)

Definitions (as in the dialogue)

Justice: $$ Just(x) \; \overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; \forall y, Loves(x,y) $$
Love: $$ Loves(x,y) \;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; \exists s,(HasHappyState(y,s)\wedge Del(x,s)) $$ (Informally: loving $y$ is being delighted by $y$’s happiness-state.)
Delight: $$ Del(x,s)\;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; Exper(x,s)\wedge Harmony(s) $$
Happiness is harmonic: $$ Happy(y)\to \exists s,(HasHappyState(y,s)\wedge Harmony(s)) $$ (This encodes the earlier sub-argument that happiness is a maximally harmonious mind-state.)
Omniscience “covers” harmony: $$ Omni(x)\to \forall s,(Harmony(s)\to Knows(x,s)) $$
Knowing harmony yields experiencing it (a substantive bridge the dialogue relies on): $$ \forall x\forall s,((Knows(x,s)\wedge Harmony(s))\to Exper(x,s)) $$

Target claim

$$ God(g)\wedge Omni(g)\;\to\; Just(g) $$

Derivation sketch

Let $y$ be arbitrary.

Assume $God(g)\wedge Omni(g)$.
Suppose $Happy(y)$. Then by (4) pick (s) with ($asHappyState(y,s)\wedge Harmony(s)$.
From $Omni(g)$ and $Harmony(s)$, get $Knows(g,s)$ by (5).
From $Knows(g,s)\wedge Harmony(s)$, get $Exper(g,s)$ by (6).
Then $Del(g,s)$ by (3).
So $Loves(g,y)$ by (2).
Since $y$ was arbitrary, $\forall y, Loves(g,y)$.
Hence $Just(g)$ by (1).

So the early “God is just” proof is essentially: definitions + (Happiness ⊆ Harmony) + (God knows all Harmony) + (knowing harmony = experiencing it).

2) Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) ⇒ God is the ultimate reason for the world-series

Core PSR axiom

$$ \forall p,(Exists(p)\to \exists r,SR(r,p)) $$ $(SR(r,p)$ = “$r$ is a sufficient reason for $p$”)

“Sufficient reason entails” principle

$$ SR(r,p)\to (Exists(r)\to Exists(p)) $$ (If $r$ is sufficient for $p$, then $r$’s existence guarantees $p$’s.)

Leibniz’s key move: let $A$ be God, $B$ be the actual world-series

Let $A := Exists(g)$ and $B := Exists(WorldSeries)$.

Assume: $$ SR(g,WorldSeries) $$ Then: $$ Exists(g)\to Exists(WorldSeries) $$ i.e. $$ A\to B $$

By classical contraposition: $$ \neg B \to \neg A $$

That is the “if this series were removed/changed, God would be removed/changed” move in formal clothing: given “this God” as the sufficient reason of “this world-series,” you don’t get the same God with a different series.

3) “God is cause of sin” but “not author of sin” (will vs understanding; whole vs parts)

Definitions he later insists on

To will: $Will(x,e)$ = “$x$ is delighted by $e$’s existence” (we can model it as) $$ Will(x,e)\;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; Del(x,Exists(e)) $$
To not-will: $$ NotWill(x,e)\;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; Del(x,\neg Exists(e)) \;\;\vee\;\; Pain(x,Exists(e)) $$
To permit: $$ Permit(x,e)\;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; Knows(x,e)\wedge \neg Will(x,e)\wedge \neg NotWill(x,e) $$
Author: (explicitly stated in the text) $$ Author(x,e)\;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; Will(x,e)\wedge Cause(x,e) $$

The “whole does not distribute to parts” point

Let $B$ be the whole world-series. Leibniz wants:

God wills the whole series: $$ Will(g,B) $$
Sins are parts of the whole: $$ Sin(e)\to PartOf(e,B) $$
But it does not follow that God wills each sinful part: $$ Will(g,B)\wedge PartOf(e,B)\;\not\vdash\; Will(g,e) $$

Formally, Leibniz blocks an invalid inference schema: $$ \forall x\forall B\forall e,\big((Will(x,B)\wedge PartOf(e,B))\to Will(x,e)\big) $$ He rejects that schema.

What he does keep

God is (in a grounding/“physical”) sense the cause of anything in the series: $$ PartOf(e,B)\to Cause(g,e) $$
But sins are not willed “in themselves”: $$ Sin(e)\to \neg Will(g,e) $$
Therefore: $$ Sin(e)\to \neg Author(g,e) $$ since $Author(g,e)$ requires $Will(g,e)$.

So the structure is:

Grounding: $Cause(g,e)$ for all $e\in B$
Non-authorship: $Sin(e)\to \neg Will(g,e)$
Therefore: God is not the “author” of sin though he is ultimate reason/cause of the existence of the series in which sin occurs.

4) The “fatalism” objection and Leibniz’s modal fix: necessity-in-itself vs necessity-by-hypothesis

Leibniz’s explicit definition

$$ \Box p \;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; \neg \Diamond \neg p $$ (“Necessary = opposite implies contradiction.”)

Then “contingent in itself” is: $$ Cont(p) \;:=\; \Diamond p \wedge \Diamond\neg p $$

His key denial

He rejects the unrestricted rule: $$ (\Box A \wedge (A\to p))\to \Box p $$ in the intended reading of “follows.” (He treats the relevant “follows” as hypothetical/certainty from the actual series, not as metaphysical entailment.)

So he separates:

Absolute necessity: $\Box p$ (contradiction if not-$p$)
Certainty given the actual harmony: think “given $H$”: $$ \Box(H\to p)\quad \text{and}\quad H $$ which yields $p$, but not $\Box p$.

This matches his line: Judas’s non-salvation is certain/foreseen/“necessary by accident” (given the actual series), while not contradictory to conceive Judas saved: $$ \Diamond(Saved(Judas)) $$ even though (in the actual world-series) ( \neg Saved(Judas)).

The reduplication point (“whatever is, necessarily is”)

He interprets “Whatever is, necessarily is” as the tautology: $$ \Box(Exists(e)\to Exists(e)) $$ not as: $$ Exists(e)\to \Box Exists(e) $$ So he’s dissolving fatalistic slogans by expanding them into what they actually mean.

5) Freedom under PSR: reject “libertarian indifference,” keep spontaneity + rational choice

PSR applied to willing

$$ Will(x,e)\to \exists r,SR(r,Will(x,e)) $$

His definitional chain (compressed)

Willing tracks what appears good/harmonious: $$ Will(x,e)\leftrightarrow AppearsGood(x,e) $$
Appearing good depends on agent+object+medium: $$ AppearsGood(x,e)=F(Temperament(x),Object(e),Context) $$ So (holding fixed the full state), will is not “up to” a further will: $$ \neg \exists w ,(Will(x,w)\wedge SR(w,Will(x,e))) $$ on pain of regress.

The criticized definition of free will

The target is roughly:

able to act or not act with all requisites equal.

If “all requisites” includes the complete sufficient conditions for acting, then:

Let $Req(x,e)$ be the conjunction of requisites for $Do(x,e)$, and define action as: $$ Do(x,e)\leftrightarrow Req(x,e) $$ Then: $$ Req(x,e)\to Do(x,e) $$ So the libertarian demand $$ Req(x,e)\wedge \neg Do(x,e) $$ is inconsistent.

Leibniz’s positive definition (Aristotelian)

He keeps:

Spontaneity: source of action in agent
Freedom: spontaneity + choice (improved by knowledge)

You can model the “degree of freedom” idea as: $$ FreedomDegree(x)\uparrow \text{ as } Knowledge(x)\uparrow \text{ and } PassionNoise(x)\downarrow $$ Not a single clean FOL axiom, but the logical point is:

no “reasonless toggling” is needed for freedom;
freedom is compatible with PSR because the relevant explanation is: the agent acts from their own reasons/character/intellect, not from external compulsion alone.

6) Damnation as self-caused: hatred of God → maximal pain → “always damnable”

Definitions paralleling the love argument

Love: delight at another’s happiness
Hatred: pain at another’s happiness $$ Hates(x,y) \;\overset{def}{\leftrightarrow}\; PainAt(x,Happy(y)) $$
God as maximal happiness: $$ MaxHappy(g) $$
Max pain (= damnation) arises from hating maximal happiness: $$ (Hates(x,g)\wedge MaxHappy(g))\to Damned(x) $$

Persistence post mortem (a substantive premise)

He assumes: after death, no new sensory inputs, so the “last dominant orientation” persists/escalates: $$ Dies(x)\wedge LastStateIsHatred(x,g)\to \forall t>death, Hates(x,g) $$ Then: $$ \forall t>death,Damned(x) $$ But he rhetorically reframes this as: they are never “statically damned,” always “damning themselves” (an “always re-instantiating” state).

“No just complaint” structure

His complaint-blocking move is basically:

If a person is shown the consequence and has the (internal) route to avoid it conditional on willing it, then responsibility attaches to the will-state: $$ (SeesConsequence(x)\wedge CanAvoidIfWills(x))\to \neg JustifiedComplaint(x) $$ Even if the will-state itself has an explanation, punishment is keyed to the present resolved wicked will, not to tracing an infinite regress of causes.

7) “Why this soul?” dissolves into individuation-by-place-and-time

He treats “thisness” (haecceity) as fixed by spatiotemporal determination in cases of maximal similarity.

A clean way to capture the punchline:

Let $Origin(x)$ be the ordered pair $\langle t,place\rangle$.

Principle (for the “maximally similar eggs/souls” case): $$ (Origin(x)=Origin(y)\wedge Intrinsic(x)=Intrinsic(y))\to x=y $$

Then the question:

Why is this soul in these circumstances?

becomes:

Why does $x$ have $Origin(x)$?

But if you “move” the origin, you are no longer talking about the same individual: $$ Origin(x)\neq Origin(y)\to x\neq y $$ So “Why am I not born elsewhere/otherwise?” reduces to “Why am I not someone else?”, which is not a substantive complaint about justice on his view.

What ties these arguments together (one meta-schema)

Leibniz is repeatedly doing this:

Replace loaded terms by definitions (justice, love, will, permission, necessity).
Block invalid distribution rules (whole → parts, “follows” → “necessary in itself”).
Distinguish kinds of explanation:
- grounding/physical cause vs moral authorship,
- absolute necessity vs certainty under the actual harmony,
- freedom as rational self-determination vs “reasonless indifference.”

If you want, I can rewrite the above into a single compact “axiom set + theorems” presentation (like a mini formal system) or do a Fitch-style proof for one thread (e.g., the anti-fatalism move) in full detail.

Saturday, February 21, 2026

Economics of animals? ft. Adam Smith

Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, book 1, chapter 2) wrote:

This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequences of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old clothes which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion.

These are broad sweeping statements about humans and animals which today would be criticized, but nevertheless, it does seem true that humans are the only objects of study by economics, decision theory, and studies of agency more broadly. Expound upon this topic.

Smith is doing two things at once in that passage:

giving an origin story for division of labour (“it’s a slow consequence of our propensity to exchange”), and
drawing a sharp species boundary (“contracts” and deliberate exchange are uniquely human).

A lot of the 18th-century biology in the contrast is dated, but the underlying question is still live: how far do “economic” and “agentic” explanations reach beyond humans, and where do they stop being the same kind of thing?

Economics as a subject vs economics as a toolkit

If “economics” means markets with prices, money, firms, contracts, property rights, and institutions, then yes—its natural home is humans (and human-like institutions).

But if “economics” means allocating scarce resources under constraints, then it’s hard to avoid animals. Modern behavioral ecology is basically “economics of survival and reproduction”: animals face tradeoffs (energy vs. risk, present vs. future, exploration vs. exploitation) and you can model them with optimization and choice under constraints.

A canonical example is optimal foraging theory and Charnov’s Marginal Value Theorem, which predicts when a forager should leave a food “patch” based on diminishing returns and travel time. (ScienceDirect) A standard synthesis frames foraging explicitly as “economic analyses of animal feeding behavior.” (De Gruyter Brill)

So: economics-the-discipline often studies humans, but economics-the-mathematics is used all over biology.

“Markets” without money: biological market theory

Smith’s “no contracts among animals” claim looks less solid once you broaden “exchange” beyond explicit bargaining. A big line of work treats many animal interactions as markets where partner choice and competition to be chosen create something like supply-and-demand “prices,” even when the “currency” is grooming, tolerance, access, or effort.

That’s basically what Biological Market Theory proposes. (EurekaMag) And it’s not just metaphor—there are empirical tests showing “market effects” (prices changing with supply).

Examples:

Female baboons: grooming time functions like a “payment,” and the “price” of infant handling varies with the number of infants available (a supply effect). (ScienceDirect)
Grooming reciprocity in baboons: framed explicitly as market forces shaping exchange patterns. (PMC)
Bonobos: recent work analyzes sex and grooming as exchangeable commodities in a daily “market.” (Nature)

These systems don’t require language or legal contracts; they require (a) repeated interaction, (b) some ability to choose partners, and (c) enough cognition (or evolved heuristics) to respond to who offers what.

Cleaner fish: partner choice, “punishment,” and reputations

One of the cleanest (no pun intended) demonstrations of market-like dynamics is the cleaner wrasse–client fish mutualism.

Experiments show cleaners prioritize “choosy clients” (those who can leave and go elsewhere) over “resident clients” (those stuck with one station), matching the idea that outside options change bargaining power. (Libra)
Clients can curb cheating via partner switching or punishment, which stabilizes cooperation. (PubMed)
There’s even evidence of something akin to reputation/image scoring affecting cooperation. (Nature)

What’s striking here is that you can analyze this with the same strategic logic economists use (outside options, incentives, enforcement), even though there’s no written contract.

And the bridge back to “decision theory” is explicit: researchers model what kinds of learning machinery are required to solve the cleaner-fish “market task” using reinforcement-learning theory. (PubMed)

Primates: barter-like behavior exists, but it’s limited

Smith says nobody ever saw an animal “make a fair and deliberate exchange.” Today we have seen exchange-like behavior—often in controlled settings—but it also highlights what may be missing relative to humans.

Capuchins have been trained to trade tokens for food and show strong reactions to unequal outcomes (“unequal pay”), which researchers interpret (with debate) as a precursor to fairness/inequity sensitivity. (Nature)
Chimpanzees will barter in some contexts (including giving up lower-value food to get higher-value food), but they don’t trade whenever it would benefit them; one proposed explanation is weak “ownership” norms and/or high perceived risk of defection. (PubMed)

So animals can “exchange,” but the scope and reliability often look different from human trade—especially when you need stable property, delayed reciprocity, or guarantees.

Why humans still look special (and why Smith’s core intuition survives)

Even if Smith overstated the uniqueness of exchange, a refined version of his point still has bite:

Generalized, scalable exchange: Humans trade with strangers routinely, and not just via repeated dyadic relationships. This depends on norms, reputations, institutions, and often third-party enforcement.
Abstract representations: money, accounting, standardized measures, transferable property claims.
Commitment devices: contracts, courts, organizational forms, “credible commitments” that make specialization safe at scale.
Cumulative cultural evolution: we inherit practices (weights, writing, double-entry bookkeeping, legal templates) that massively extend what any individual could negotiate ad hoc.

Animals can have reciprocity, partner choice, and even rudimentary “market effects,” but human economies are weirdly institution-heavy—and that’s what turns small-scale exchange into complex division of labor spanning millions of people.

Where this leaves “agency”

Modern work tends to treat agency as graded rather than all-or-nothing:

Many organisms behave as if they’re optimizing (e.g., foraging models), whether by cognition, learning, or evolved heuristics. (ScienceDirect)
Some species show strategic social behavior consistent with incentives, partner choice, punishment, and reputation-like dynamics. (Libra)
Humans add a layer of explicit reasons, shared symbols, and institutional commitments that makes “economic agency” in the full modern sense far more portable and scalable.

So the cleanest way to reconcile Smith with current evidence is:

Economics as “choice under scarcity” applies broadly across animals.
Economics as “institutionalized exchange and production” is overwhelmingly human.
The boundary isn’t “animals don’t exchange”; it’s that humans evolved (and culturally accumulated) the machinery that makes exchange general, explicit, and enforceable, which is what supercharges division of labor.

If you want, I can map this into a tighter taxonomy—e.g., reciprocity → partner choice → market effects → property norms → enforceable contracts—and show where different species plausibly sit on that ladder.

Thursday, February 19, 2026

Modal Natural Law

the parallel between deontic and alethic modalities is very convenient for natural law theory

sketch out a formal natural law theory that leans on this by having the same modalities be alethic or deontic depending on whether it’s a free being

Here’s a compact “one-operator” natural law theory that exploits the structural parallel between alethic and deontic modality by letting the same modal vocabulary become alethic or deontic depending on whether the subject is a free being.

1) Language

Two sorts of things:

Entities: $x,y,\dots$
Worlds: $w,v,\dots$

Predicates / relations:

$\mathrm{Free}(x)$: $x$ is a free (rational/volitional) agent.
$\mathrm{Nat}(x)$: the “nature” (essence/functional organization) of $x$. (Treat as a parameter supplying constraints.)
$\mathrm{End}(x,e)$: $e$ is a proper end $telos$ of $x$.
$\mathrm{Means}(e,\varphi)$: $\varphi$ is a constitutive means for $e$.
$\mathrm{Act}_x(\varphi)$: “$x$ sees to it that $\varphi$” (optional, but helpful for deontic readings).
$\mathrm{Flour}(x)$: $x$ flourishes / realizes its form well.

One modal pair, indexed by subject:

$\Box_x \varphi$
$\Diamond_x \varphi := \neg \Box_x \neg \varphi$

Intended neutral gloss of $\Box_x$:

“$\varphi$ holds by the law of $x$’s nature.”

The trick is that “law of nature” bites as necessity for non-free beings, and as obligation for free beings.

2) Semantics: one frame family, different constraints

Model:
\[
\mathcal{M}=(W,{R_x}_{x\in E},V,\mathrm{Free},\mathrm{Nat},\dots)
\]

Truth clause:
\[
\mathcal{M},w \vDash \Box_x \varphi \quad\text{iff}\quad \forall v,(wR_x v \rightarrow \mathcal{M},v \vDash \varphi).
\]

Now impose different frame conditions on $R_x$ depending on freedom:

(A) Non-free beings: alethic (necessity)

If $\neg \mathrm{Free}(x)$, then $R_x$ is reflexive (at least), optionally S4/S5-ish if you like strong natural necessity:

Reflexive: $\forall w, (wR_x w)$
validates T: $\Box_x \varphi \to \varphi$

Intuition: non-free things “follow” their natures as necessities (acorns become oaks unless impeded; electrons repel, etc.). When the modal says “must,” it’s literally must.

(B) Free beings: deontic (obligation)

If $\mathrm{Free}(x)$, require $R_x$ to be serial (at least):

Serial: $\forall w,\exists v, (wR_x v)$
validates D: $\Box_x \varphi \to \Diamond_x \varphi$

But do not require reflexivity, so you do not validate T.
That blocks “ought implies is”:

For free $x$: $\Box_x \varphi$ does not entail $\varphi$ at the actual world.

Intuition: if you can fail, then “bound by nature” shows up as practical necessity (obligation), not as guaranteed fact.

So the same operator $\Box_x$ yields:

non-free $x$: natural necessity
free $x$: natural obligation

3) Core “Natural Law” principles

Now add axioms that make this natural-law-shaped rather than just “modal toggling.”

NL1. Teleological grounding

A minimal teleology-to-law schema:

\[
\mathrm{End}(x,e)\ \wedge\ \mathrm{Means}(e,\varphi)\ \to\ \Box_x \varphi.
\]

Reading: if $\varphi$ is constitutive of realizing a proper end of $x$, then $\varphi$ is required by $x$’s nature.

For non-free $x$, this is an alethic requirement: the unfolding of form.
For free $x$, this becomes a deontic requirement: what practical reason must treat as action-guiding.

NL2. Freedom-sensitive compliance

Make the “is/ought split” explicit:

\[
\neg \mathrm{Free}(x) \to (\Box_x \varphi \to \varphi) \qquad\text{(necessity entails fact)}
\]
\[
\mathrm{Free}(x) \to \neg(\Box_x \varphi \to \varphi) \qquad\text{(obligation needn’t be met)}
\]

(Second line is not a single axiom in normal systems, but you can enforce it by not giving free agents reflexivity.)

NL3. Ought implies can (internalized)

Use the serial/D condition for free agents as the modal version:

\[
\mathrm{Free}(x) \to (\Box_x \varphi \to \Diamond_x \varphi).
\]

This is “ought implies can” in the same modality.

NL4. Practical form: obligations target agency

If you want obligations to be about what the agent does, tie $\Box_x$ to agency:

\[
\mathrm{Free}(x)\ \wedge\ \Box_x \varphi \to \Box_x,\mathrm{Act}_x(\varphi)
\]

(or instead define obligation as $\Box_x \mathrm{Act}_x(\varphi)$ and keep $\varphi$ as outcome propositions.)

4) The natural law “bridge” without an is/ought fallacy

In this setup, the classical natural law move:

“From facts about nature to norms”

is recast as:

“From teleological structure to $\Box_x$-claims; whether those are is-like or ought-like depends on $\mathrm{Free}(x)$.”

So you never infer an “ought” from a bare “is.” You infer a modal claim (“required by nature”), and then the logic itself tells you what kind of requirement it is, because the subject is free or not.

A handy definitional gloss:

Natural necessity: $\mathrm{NatNec}(x,\varphi) := \neg\mathrm{Free}(x)\wedge \Box_x\varphi$
Natural obligation: $\mathrm{NatOught}(x,\varphi) := \mathrm{Free}(x)\wedge \Box_x\varphi$

Same $\Box$, different mode of governance.

5) Defect and wrongdoing as one notion, two manifestations

Define defect relative to nature:

\[
\mathrm{Defect}(x,\varphi) := \Box_x \varphi \wedge \neg \varphi.
\]

If $\neg \mathrm{Free}(x)), (\mathrm{Defect}(x,\varphi)$ is typically impossible unless you also model impediments (injury, interference). Defect is “broken functioning.”
If $\mathrm{Free}(x)), (\mathrm{Defect}(x,\varphi)$ is exactly the shape of wrongdoing: an obligation unmet.

This yields a unified natural law idea:

vice is a kind of malfunction in a rational animal.

6) Tiny illustrative example

Let $a$ be an acorn, $h$ a human.

$\neg \mathrm{Free}(a)$, $\mathrm{Free}(h)$
$\mathrm{End}(a,\text{oak})$, $\mathrm{Means}(\text{oak},\text{develop_roots})$
$\mathrm{End}(h,\text{flourishing})$, $\mathrm{Means}(\text{flourishing},\text{seek_truth})$

From NL1:

$\Box_a,\text{develop_roots}$
By reflexivity for non-free beings, $\text{develop_roots}$ follows in the normal case (alethic “must”).
$\Box_h,\text{seek_truth}$
But no T for free beings: it does not follow that $h$ seeks truth. It’s an “ought.”

Same modal skeleton; different upshot because $h$ is free.

7) What you get “for free” with this design

A single formal connective $\Box_x$ that covers both “must” and “ought.”
A clean explanation of why natural law looks “descriptive” in biology/physics but “normative” in ethics: freedom is the switch.
A unified account of deviation (impairment vs wrongdoing) as failure to realize natural modal requirements.

If you want to push it further, the next natural move is to add a ranking (a “better-than” ordering) over $R_x$-accessible worlds for free agents (à la preference/ideality semantics), so $\Box_x$ becomes “true in all best $x$-realizations of nature,” while for non-free agents it remains “true in all nature-compatible worlds.” That gives you a very natural-law-ish story about prudence, conflict of goods, and exception handling without changing the basic modal parallel.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Summary of Vangelov et al 2026 paper on fentanyl

The prompt was asking for a summary of this paper. The prompt contained the full text, hence it is not included to avoid infringement.

Here’s the paper’s core argument and evidence, in a detailed, “what did they do + what did they find + what does it mean” way.

What question they’re trying to answer

US fentanyl overdose deaths rose for ~15 years, then unexpectedly started dropping sharply in mid-2023. The authors ask: could a fentanyl supply shock (a major disruption in supply) explain a substantial part of that decline? They argue this is hard to prove directly because trafficking networks are secretive, so they triangulate from multiple indirect indicators.

The headline pattern they’re explaining

US synthetic-opioid overdose deaths (driven mostly by fentanyl) peaked at ~76,000 in 2023.
The trend reversed in mid-2023 and by end-2024 the annualized rate was down by over a third (their cited CDC reporting).
They claim the timing and cross-indicator consistency fits a major market disruption rather than only gradual improvements in treatment/harm reduction.

Why “supply shocks” are plausible in principle

They frame fentanyl as part of a broader history where big supply changes have caused big harm changes:

Upward shocks: prescription opioid overavailability (late 1990s), fentanyl’s entry into illicit supply (~2014).
Downward shocks: Australia’s “heroin drought” (2001) followed by ~60% drop in opioid overdose mortality.
Targeted scheduling: China’s control of carfentanil (2017) preceded drops in seizures/deaths where it was common.
Precursor controls: pseudoephedrine restrictions briefly constrained meth availability/harm.

So, the “market can swing fast” premise is established.

Evidence stream 1: “Conventional” supply indicators in the US

1) Purity data (DEA)

They use DEA’s monthly estimates (2019–Oct 2024) for average purity of seized fentanyl, split into powder vs pills, and compare it with monthly overdose death rates.

Key patterns they highlight:

Powder purity: rose sharply in 2022; peaked around ~25% by weight (Mar–Jul 2023); then fell by more than half, reaching about ~11% by end-2024.
Pill purity: also declined, but later and less—down by about one-third to roughly ~1.5%.

Interpretation they push:

Dealers often respond to scarcity not mainly by raising prices, but by diluting product (“shrinkflation”), which can reduce overdose risk if users end up exposed to less fentanyl per use.

They also report correlations across the full monthly series (Jan 2019–Oct 2024):

Synthetic-opioid overdose death rate correlated with pill purity: r = 0.62 (95% CI 0.44–0.74)
…and with powder purity: r = 0.37 (95% CI 0.15–0.56)

Their takeaway: purity and deaths turned down at about the same time, and are meaningfully correlated, consistent with a supply-side shift that changed potency exposure.

2) Seizure counts (NFLIS)

They treat the number of fentanyl seizures/identifications as another supply proxy:

US fentanyl seizures peaked in the first half of 2023
Fell 15% in the second half of 2023
By the second half of 2024 were 37% below the peak

They acknowledge a classic ambiguity: seizures could fall if enforcement intensity drops even if supply doesn’t. But they argue that given strong public/political attention during this period, a real supply reduction is more plausible than a large enforcement pullback.

Evidence stream 2: An “unconventional” indicator—Reddit as a customer-side signal

Because it’s hard to survey buyers in real time, they mine Reddit discussions where users talk candidly about availability/quality.

What they did

Scraped posts containing “fentanyl” and slang/misspellings (e.g., “fetty”) across six subreddits:
- r/fentanyl, r/heroin, r/opiates, r/meth, r/cocaine, r/mdma
Within that set, they tracked monthly mentions of “drought” and similar shortage terms from Jan 2021 to Jan 2025
They manually checked that “drought” references were actually about fentanyl availability (not unrelated uses).

What they found

A first notable “drought” mention peak in July 2023
A much larger spike starting late 2023 that continued until subreddit moderation intervened
In Jan 2024, r/fentanyl’s moderator temporarily banned drought-related posts (concern about violating platform rules)
By July 2024, drought mentions rose again well above baseline and stayed elevated through end-2024

Their interpretation: discussions of shortages begin mid-2023, lining up with the beginning of the mortality decline, and persist into 2024—consistent with an extended disruption rather than a brief blip.

Evidence stream 3: Canada as a “supply chain comparator” to locate the shock’s source

This is their most “detective work” section: if both the US and Canada show downturns at similar times, it could hint the disruption is upstream (e.g., precursor chemicals), not only Mexico-specific actions.

Their premise about supply chains

They describe a “widely held view”:

Both countries depend on precursor chemicals largely sourced from China.
The US market: much fentanyl is synthesized in Mexico.
Canada: more synthesis is believed to occur domestically from imported precursors.
Cross-border US-Canada fentanyl flow is believed to be small relative to US-Mexico and Canadian domestic production.

So:

If the disruption is precursors, both countries could get hit around the same time.
If the disruption is mainly US/Mexico enforcement or Mexican producer dynamics, Canada should be less affected (or affected differently/timing mismatch).

What Canadian indicators show

Canada doesn’t publish national fentanyl-specific deaths monthly, but they use quarterly indicators where fentanyl dominates:

Quarterly opioid deaths (with >80% fentanyl-related): start declining in Q3 2023
Similar declines in:
- EMS responses to suspected opioid poisonings
- Opioid-related hospitalizations
- Opioid poisoning ED visits

Supply-side Canadian lab signals are messier:

Average purity of analyzed fentanyl powder didn’t drop until late 2024, but became more volatile starting early–mid 2023.
Identifications of fentanyl in lab-assayed samples fell through 2021–2024, but was offset by increases in fentanyl analogs—a shift they say is not seen in US NFLIS patterns.

British Columbia (BC) as a special case

BC is singled out because it was hit early and plays a big role in Canada’s fentanyl context:

BC overdoses dipped in Aug–Sep 2023
But didn’t fall sharply until Oct 2024 (later than the national “start declining” signal)

Their inference from US–Canada comparison

Both countries’ overdose indicators begin falling around mid-2023, which they argue fits an upstream disruption.
But the way the markets “adapt” differs (Canada shows more analog substitution), suggesting the markets are distinct yet potentially constrained by a common bottleneck.

What they think caused the disruption (and how confident they are)

They stop short of claiming proof, but propose a leading candidate: Chinese actions that tightened scrutiny and control of precursor production/export, plus enforcement against online advertising/marketplaces.

Pieces they cite as consistent with this:

DEA’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment language noting declining purity in 2024 and reporting that Mexico-based producers had difficulty obtaining key precursors, and that some China-based suppliers were wary due to increased controls tied to UN treaty updates.
Reported Chinese actions in late 2023 and 2024:
- A November 2023 notice warning about selling substances usable for drug manufacture
- Increased enforcement activity against synthetic drug/precursor suppliers
- Claims by June 2024 of taking down large volumes of ads and multiple platforms
- A Biden–Xi meeting in Nov 2023 linked to increased cooperation

They also discuss the geopolitical logic: the US bears huge overdose costs; China’s domestic opioid burden is small, so China may have leverage to act at relatively low domestic cost.

They acknowledge alternative explanations (including “maybe US/Mexico interventions hit the US supply while something separate hit Canada”), but argue the parallel timing makes an upstream story plausible.

Policy implications they draw

They caution against everyone claiming credit (“success has many fathers”), and emphasize that if supply disruption played a big role, it changes how you interpret “what worked.”

Three big implications if it was a supply shock:

Supply control might matter without mass street-level arrests
- They stress there wasn’t a visible surge of retail arrests like in earlier US drug wars, and that’s “heartening” because street enforcement can drive incarceration and racial disparities without reliably raising prices or reducing availability.
The good news may be temporary
- Trafficking organizations often adapt to shocks (they analogize to meth precursor controls).
- Possible adaptations: bigger inventories, hardened logistics, alternative precursors/routes.
Use the “drought window” to reduce demand
- Scale prevention and treatment with evidence for lowering demand, while supply is constrained, because incentives to restore supply persist.

And if China really contributed materially:

Diplomacy and international cooperation could have surprisingly high payoff.
Engage other potential precursor-producing countries, especially India, which they note is a growing concern in enforcement discussions.

Limitations they explicitly flag

They’re pretty direct that this is an inference-heavy, nonexperimental analysis:

No randomization / causal identification: coincident internal changes in US/Canada could theoretically explain the patterns.
Purity data representativeness: seizure purity isn’t necessarily retail purity; powder samples may be more wholesale. Shifts in the mix of sample types over time could bias average purity trends.
COVID retreat as alternative: they consider whether waning COVID reduced overdoses. They argue timing is off—ODD decline begins in 2023, well after the last major COVID mortality peak in early 2022 (they cite a week in Jan 2022 and a large decline over the next three months).
China inference is speculative because of limited transparency and episodic reporting.
Data gaps: they call for more systematic real-time monitoring of drug supply chains, including better purity tracking and structured social media surveillance.

Bottom line of the paper

They don’t claim a smoking gun, but argue that multiple independent indicators point in the same direction:

US purity down + deaths down + seizures down, starting mid-2023
Reddit users talking about shortages beginning mid-2023 and continuing into 2024
Canada’s opioid death indicators also turning down around mid-2023 (with some regional timing differences), which supports the idea of an upstream disruption (e.g., precursor constraints)

So their answer is essentially: yes, the fentanyl trade likely experienced a supply disruption, and that disruption could plausibly explain a meaningful portion of the sharp overdose-death decline beginning mid/late-2023.

If you want, I can also:

extract the paper’s implied causal chain as a simple diagram (precursors → purity/availability → dose exposure → deaths), or
list what new data would most strongly confirm vs refute the supply-shock hypothesis.

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

Lehrer vs Elster on love

Compare these texts and write a synthesis of what we learn from the comparison.

[The prompt here contained the entirety of “Love” (§IV.3 of “Ulysses and the Sirens”, by Jon Elster) and “Love and Transcendence” (Chapter 5 of “Self-Trust”, by Keith Lehrer), which are omitted from this post for copyright reasons.]

I gave this prompt to both Gemini and ChatGPT.

Gemini
ChatGPT

Gemini 3 output

This synthesis compares Jon Elster’s "Ulysses and the Sirens" (§IV.3) and Keith Lehrer’s "Self-Trust" (Chapter 5).

Both authors grapple with a central philosophical dilemma: The tension between Love and Autonomy (Freedom). Both take Jean-Paul Sartre’s pessimistic view—that love is a contradictory attempt to possess another’s freedom—as a starting point. However, they diverge significantly in their conclusions: Elster explores why love is often an "inherently unrealizable project" fraught with paradox, while Lehrer constructs a logical hierarchy to prove that "Autonomous Love" is possible through self-regulation.

1. The Shared Diagnosis: The Paradox of Possession

Both authors agree that love, in its raw or "extreme" form, creates a logical contradiction regarding freedom.

The Sartrean Problem: The lover wants to possess the beloved. However, they do not want to possess a robot or a slave; they want to possess the beloved's free choice to love them.
The Contradiction: To demand someone love you is to destroy their freedom to choose. As Elster notes via the "Be Spontaneous" paradox: "I want you to love me freely, but I demand that you do so."

2. Jon Elster: Love as an Unstable Game

Elster treats love primarily as a psychological knot and a game-theoretic problem. He focuses on why love creates instability, decay, and "clinical symptoms" of irrationality.

The Seesaw of Reciprocity: Elster highlights the "Groucho Marx paradox": I wouldn't love anyone who would stoop so low as to love me.

If the beloved does not love back, the lover is obsessed.
If the beloved does love back, the lover loses interest because the beloved has "lost value" by engaging with an inferior.

Game Theory & Dominant Strategies: Elster argues that love is like a game without a "dominant strategy" (a move that is always best). For love to work, both parties must transform simultaneously. However, this is precarious.
The Collapse of Time: Elster introduces the element of time as a destroyer of love.

Anticipation of Decay: Like a Prisoner’s Dilemma, if lovers know love might end (decay), they may preemptively withdraw to protect themselves, causing the very decay they feared.
Inner Time: Stendhal’s observation that the waiting lover consumes the present moment with past expectations and future fears, making the actual meeting with the beloved disappointing.

Key Takeaway from Elster: Love is often an "inherently unrealizable project" because the dynamics of desire, time, and strategic interaction tend toward instability and paradox rather than equilibrium.

3. Keith Lehrer: Love as a Hierarchy of Preference

Lehrer accepts the danger of "bondage" in love but rejects the idea that it is inevitable. He proposes a taxonomy of love, moving from base desire to high-level autonomy. His solution is Metamental Ascent: the ability to think about and evaluate one’s own thoughts.

Lehrer distinguishes between Desire (first-order, impulsive, bondage) and Preference (higher-order, evaluated, autonomous).

Lehrer’s Taxonomy of Love

Extreme Love (Bondage): Based on raw desire. "I desire to satisfy your desires." This creates a feedback loop (sniffing desire in roses) but results in slavery to the other’s whims.
Desire/Preference Love (Asymmetrical): One party loves based on desire, the other on preference (e.g., parent/child).
Fully Autonomous Love (The Solution): This creates a "keystone loop" of stability.

Definition: S prefers A out of fully autonomous love for T if and only if S autonomously prefers A because T autonomously prefers A.
The "Trick": How do you avoid bondage? You prefer what the partner prefers because you prefer to have that preference structure. You are not obeying them; you are obeying your own decision to align with them.

4. Synthesis: Pessimism vs. Constructivism

The comparison reveals a fundamental divide between a descriptive analysis of human failure (Elster) and a normative framework for human success (Lehrer).

Feature	Jon Elster ("Ulysses and the Sirens")	Keith Lehrer ("Self-Trust")
View of Love	A paradox; an "unrealizable project."	A manageable structure; a "transcendence."
Role of Time	Destructive. Future decay ruins the present.	Constructive. Trust implies stability over time.
Mechanism	Game Theory: Prisoners Dilemma, Dominant Strategies.	Preference Logic: S prefers A because T prefers A.
Autonomy	Threatened by love. The lover tries to be both subject and object (en-soi and pour-soi).	Secured by love (if autonomous). We "open the loop" of self-trust to include another.
Outcome	Likely instability, "seesaw" dynamics, or decay.	Potential for "Autonomous Love" based on mutual trust and reason.

Conclusion

From comparing these texts, we learn that desire is the source of the paradox, but preference is the source of the solution.

Elster remains stuck in the "desire" phase (which he calls "sentimental stuff" or clinical symptoms), where the clash of freedoms leads to a "game without a solution." Lehrer argues that we can escape this game by moving up a level: by converting raw desires (which push us around) into preferences (which we choose to hold).

Synthesis: Love is a paradox of bondage only if we remain passive subjects of our immediate desires (Elster’s view). If we exercise "metamental" control—choosing to value the other's autonomy through our own autonomous choice—love becomes a stable expression of self-trust (Lehrer’s view).

Next Step: Would you like me to construct a formal truth table or logic diagram applying Lehrer's definition of "Autonomous Love" to one of Elster’s "Seesaw" scenarios to see if it solves the paradox?

ChatGPT 5.2 output

Reading Elster beside Lehrer teaches you to see “love” as less a simple feeling than a dynamic structure—a set of feedback loops between two agents—where the same mechanisms that generate intensity also generate instability.

What both texts agree on

Both authors treat love as essentially relational and reflexive: what matters is not only what I feel, but how my feelings/choices depend on your feelings/choices, and how that dependence feeds back.

Reciprocity is central but dangerous. Each treats reciprocation as the “object” of love while also diagnosing ways it can undermine love. Elster’s “seesaw” (wanting recognition that loses value when granted) mirrors Lehrer’s “magic turns to bondage” (mutual desire becomes dependence, then manipulation and resentment).
Love tangles with freedom. Both lean on Sartre’s idea that love involves wanting the other’s freedom as freedom and yet wanting it to yield to us. Elster presents this as a paradox (“possess a liberty”); Lehrer reframes it as a conflict between love and autonomy that can be redesigned rather than simply endured.

Where they sharply diverge

1) Elster is diagnostic; Lehrer is reconstructive

Elster is mainly explaining why love becomes paradoxical: he inventories structural contradictions (Groucho Marx paradox, “be spontaneous,” game-theoretic deadlocks, anticipation reversing time, Newcomb-like self-scrutiny). Love is often an “inherently unstable project,” and his emphasis is on failure modes.
Lehrer wants a solution concept: he builds a taxonomy from desire-love up to fully autonomous love, defined in terms of higher-order preferences (preferring what the other autonomously prefers, because you prefer to have that preference). He’s not denying pathologies—he’s offering a normative architecture meant to avoid them.

2) They disagree on what stabilizes love

For Elster, a stable love relationship is conceivable when lovers are mutually and conditionally transformed—each changes the “boundary conditions” of the other’s life in a way that enables self-redefinition. The stability is precarious (like certain strategic equilibria) and constantly threatened by the value-destroying effects of reciprocation, time, and self-consciousness.
For Lehrer, stability comes from autonomy and trust: replacing first-order desire dependence with higher-order evaluation and self-trust extended to the other. The key move is metamental: you don’t merely chase the other’s desires; you endorse (or don’t) the pattern of endorsement itself.

3) Elster foregrounds time; Lehrer foregrounds levels

A distinctive contribution of Elster’s chapter is that love’s paradoxes are not only interpersonal but temporal:

love can require growth to exist,
anticipation of decay can cause instantaneous collapse,
inner time can “collapse” so the present is experienced as a junction of past expectation and future regret.

Lehrer’s distinctive lens is hierarchy of attitudes:

desire → preference → autonomous preference,
and the way each level changes what “bondage” looks like (bondage to desire vs. “higher-order bondage” to another’s preferences).

The synthesis: love as a two-person self-referential system

Put together, the comparison yields a powerful composite picture:

Love generates feedback loops that are intrinsically volatile. Elster maps the classic loop: I want your recognition because it has worth only if not guaranteed; I want your spontaneity but also want it directed at me; I want certainty about what will avoid regret, but self-monitoring corrupts the very spontaneity/candor love needs.
Trying to “solve” love at the same level that produces it often worsens it. Elster’s examples show that direct control strategies (“I’ll act so as to get you to…”) easily backfire by converting love into a game of inference, signaling, and second-guessing—where sincerity becomes unreadable and the present gets colonized by future-oriented anxiety.
A plausible escape is a shift in what is being coordinated. Here Lehrer supplies a missing design principle: stabilize love not by controlling the other’s desire, but by coordinating autonomous preferences—with trust doing the work that control cannot. This doesn’t remove vulnerability (Lehrer admits autonomous love can feel insecure precisely because it’s not capturable), but it changes the kind of vulnerability: from bondage/manipulation to risk under trust.
Yet Lehrer’s “solution” also inherits Elster’s warning. Elster helps you see why even “autonomous love” can be fragile: higher-order endorsement can itself become performative, strategic, or time-haunted (“Will I regret endorsing this endorsement?”). Lehrer anticipates this in his discussion of “love knots” (wanting to be loved non-autonomously) and in the instability of giving the other’s preferences too much weight (cycling, self-erasure).

What we learn overall

Elster teaches you why love so often collapses into paradox: it is a project aimed at another’s freedom, recognition, and spontaneity—goods that lose value when produced by force or guaranteed by design, and that are distorted by anticipation and self-scrutiny. Lehrer teaches you how love might be made livable: by moving from desire-driven dependence to preference-driven evaluation, then to mutual autonomy and trust, while recognizing that even this “highest” form has its own tensions (vulnerability, scope limits, weight-adjustment problems).

If Elster is the anatomy of love’s contradictions, Lehrer is an attempt at love’s ethics and engineering—and the comparison suggests that any “engineering” that forgets Elster’s paradoxes will accidentally rebuild bondage at a higher level.

Thursday, December 11, 2025

Voltaire and Montesquieu

Tell me about Voltaire's relationship with Montesquieu

The relationship between Voltaire and Montesquieu was one of intellectual rivalry characterized by a mixture of mutual respect, jealousy, and profound philosophical disagreement.

While often grouped together as the "twin titans" of the early French Enlightenment, they were personally distant and politically distinct. They represented two different strategies for reform: Montesquieu was the calm, aristocratic institutionalist; Voltaire was the fiery, polemical agitator.

1. The Personal Dynamic: Distant and Cool

Unlike many other philosophes who gathered in the same salons, Voltaire and Montesquieu barely knew each other personally.

Class Differences: Montesquieu was a Baron and a magistrate (a "noble of the robe") who was comfortable in established high society. Voltaire was born bourgeois (though he later bought a title) and was an outsider who spent his life in exile or fighting the establishment.
The "Beating" Incident: When Voltaire was famously beaten by the Chevalier de Rohan’s henchmen in 1726, Montesquieu (like many aristocrats) was indifferent, viewing Voltaire as an upstart who had provoked his betters.
Professional Jealousy: When Montesquieu published The Spirit of the Laws (1748), it was a monumental success. Voltaire, who prided himself on being the premier thinker of France, was privately envious. He later wrote critiques of Montesquieu's work to "correct" him, though he publicly defended Montesquieu when the Church attacked him.

2. The Core Conflict: "Lions vs. Rats"

The sharpest divide between them was their vision of how to structure a government to prevent tyranny.

Feature	Montesquieu (The Aristocratic Liberal)	Voltaire (The Enlightened Monarchist)
Ideal Government	Constitutional Monarchy. He admired the British "mixed" government. He believed liberty was preserved by institutions and the separation of powers.	Enlightened Absolutism. He believed a strong, educated King was the best way to crush the Church and the nobility's abuses.
View on Nobility	Vital. He believed the nobility and "intermediary bodies" (like Parlements) acted as a necessary buffer against the King becoming a tyrant.	Dangerous. He hated the Parlements and the nobility, seeing them as reactionary persecutors (they were the ones who tortured and executed innocents like Calas).
Philosophy	Checks and Balances. "Power must check power."	Efficiency & Reason. A single, rational hand is better than a chaotic group of petty tyrants.

The Famous Retort: Voltaire famously crystallized their disagreement with the question:

"Which is better: to be ruled by one lion, or by a hundred rats?"

For Voltaire, the "lion" was the King (whom he hoped to enlighten), and the "rats" were the aristocrats and magistrates like Montesquieu.
Montesquieu would argue that those "rats" (intermediary powers) were the only barrier preventing the "lion" from eating everyone.

3. Intellectual Disagreements

Voltaire spent years critiquing Montesquieu’s masterpiece, The Spirit of the Laws.

Climate Theory: Montesquieu famously argued that climate dictates human character and laws (e.g., hot climates lead to despotism). Voltaire mocked this as unscientific, arguing that culture and government matter far more than the weather.
Universalism vs. Relativism: Montesquieu was a relativist; he believed laws should fit the specific culture and history of a people. Voltaire was a universalist; he believed that justice and reason were the same everywhere.
Religion: Both were critical of the Church, but Montesquieu viewed religion sociologically—as a useful "check" on the ruler and a stabilizer for society. Voltaire viewed organized religion as "l'infâme" (the infamous thing) that had to be crushed to allow for reason.

4. Shared Ground

Despite their feuds, they were allies in the broader Enlightenment project against the "Old Regime":

Anglophilia: Both spent time in exile in England and used England as a stick to beat France. They both praised English tolerance, science (Newton/Locke), and commerce.
Humanitarianism: Both were fierce opponents of torture, slavery, and the barbarity of the French judicial system.
Legacy:
- Montesquieu provided the structural blueprint for modern democracy (separation of powers), heavily influencing the American Founding Fathers.
- Voltaire provided the moral fire for civil liberties (free speech, freedom of religion), establishing the modern role of the public intellectual.

Would you like me to explain how their specific views on the English political system differed?

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Libertarianism via purposes ontology

This is an idea that I was thinking about in this X/Twitter conversation (see comments there for amendments; in particular, “permanent engagement” was implausible, and unnecessary for the desired conclusions).

Consider the possibility of founding libertarian private property theory on an ontology of “purposes”. The structure of a purpose is, “agent S intends to do P with objects O₁, O₂, O₃, ... Oₙ at time T.” Purposes can be stated, and can be demonstrated in action. At every time T, every agent demonstrates-in-action some purpose with his own body. An object that has had a purpose demonstrated-in-action with it becomes “engaged” in action. The foundation of private property is simply the attempt to avoid “action conflicts”, which are attempts to use an object for conflicting purposes. Hence, once a previously unengaged object has been engaged, it remains engaged with the same agent until explicitly disengaged; this is original acquisition. Contracts are formalized statements of purpose which, by convention, also demonstrate purpose in action. Attempt to formalize this.

Let’s build a skeletal formal theory around your “purposes” idea and show how private property drops out of it.

I’ll use fairly simple, typed first-order logic with time and events.

1. Ontology

We assume:

A nonempty set of agents: A
A nonempty set of objects: O
A linearly ordered set of times: T with order <
A set of purposes (plans, action-types): P

We also assume each agent has a distinguished body-object:

body : A → O
(read: body(s) is the object that is s’s body)

We treat bodies as just special objects in O, but they’ll get special axioms.

2. Purposes and actions

Your slogan:

“Agent S intends to do P with objects O₁…Oₙ at time T.”

We formalize two main predicates:

Intend(s, p, X, t)
= at time t, agent s intends to realize purpose p using finite set of objects X ⊆ O.
Act(s, p, X, t)
= at time t, agent s actually demonstrates in action purpose p with the objects in X.

You wanted: at every time, each agent is demonstrating some purpose with their own body:

Axiom (Continuous bodily action)
∀s ∈ A ∀t ∈ T ∃p ∈ P ∃X ⊆ O
body(s) ∈ X ∧ Act(s, p, X, t)

So every agent is always doing something with their body, even if it’s just “remain seated”, “observe”, etc.

We don’t reduce intention to action here. We only assume a weak connection:

Axiom (No action without relevant intention)
Act(s, p, X, t) → Intend(s, p, X, t)

3. “Engagement” of objects in action

Now we introduce the key relation:

Engaged(s, o, t)
= at time t, object o is engaged in the ongoing activity of agent s.

This is the “property carrier” in your story.

3.1. Self-engagement of bodies

We encode self-ownership as permanent engagement of each agent with their body:

Axiom (Self-ownership as permanent engagement)
∀s ∈ A ∀t ∈ T: Engaged(s, body(s), t)
and
∀s≠s' ∀t: ¬Engaged(s', body(s), t)

So: each body is always and only engaged by its owner.

3.2. Original engagement (“homesteading”)

Your rule: when an agent first uses a previously unengaged object for some purpose, that object becomes engaged to that agent.

We need a notion of “previously unengaged” at a time immediately before t. To keep it simple, use:

Unengaged(o, t) := ¬∃s Engaged(s, o, t)

We also need a “just before t” operator. Instead of building full temporal logic, we can use a schematic “earlier than t” condition:

“Previously unengaged” = unengaged at all times earlier than t.

Unengaged_before(o, t) := ∀t' < t ¬∃s Engaged(s, o, t')

Then:

Axiom (Original engagement / acquisition)
For all s, o, t, p, X:
If Act(s, p, X, t) ∧ o ∈ X ∧ Unengaged_before(o, t),
then Engaged(s, o, t).

Intuition: the first agent to actually do something with the object brings it under their engagement.

3.3. Persistence of engagement

Your principle: once engaged, the object stays engaged with that agent until explicitly disengaged.

We add a special kind of action for abandonment:

Predicate Abandon(s, o, t)
= at time t, s demonstrates in action the purpose of disengaging object o from his activity (e.g. discarding it, publicly renouncing control).

We then define no abandonment between times:

NoAbandonBetween(s, o, t₁, t₂)
:= ¬∃t (t₁ ≤ t < t₂ ∧ Abandon(s, o, t))

And impose the persistence axiom:

Axiom (Persistence)
∀s, o, t₁, t₂:
if t₁ ≤ t₂ and Engaged(s, o, t₁) and NoAbandonBetween(s, o, t₁, t₂)
then Engaged(s, o, t₂).

Abandonment cancels engagement:

Axiom (Abandonment frees the object)
Abandon(s, o, t) → ¬Engaged(s, o, t') for all t' ≥ t.

So: objects are “sticky” to their engager until a specific action breaks the link.

4. Action conflicts

Your idea: the purpose of property is to avoid action conflicts — simultaneous attempts to use an object for incompatible purposes.

We introduce a primitive relation on purposes:

Conflicts(p₁, p₂, o)
= using object o for purpose p₁ is incompatible with using o for purpose p₂ at the same time.

Example: drinking from a cup vs. smashing it at the same moment.

Then define:

Definition (Action conflict on an object)

Conflict(s₁, s₂, o, t)
:⇔ ∃p₁, p₂, X₁, X₂ such that
- Act(s₁, p₁, X₁, t)
- Act(s₂, p₂, X₂, t)
- o ∈ X₁ ∩ X₂
- Conflicts(p₁, p₂, o)

So a conflict is literally two incompatible demonstrations of purpose using the same object at the same time.

5. The normative core: property as a conflict-avoidance rule

Now we turn the descriptive structure into a libertarian property norm.

We introduce:

Permitted(s, p, X, t) = it is morally/permissibly allowed for s to perform Act(s, p, X, t) at time t.

Property rule:

Once an object is engaged to an agent, others must not use it in ways that conflict with that agent’s potential purposes for it.

We don’t need to know exactly which purposes the owner has; you can take “potential purpose” as any purpose they might choose to demonstrate with it.

We encode it schematically as:

Axiom (Property norm)
∀s₁, s₂, o, t, p₂, X₂:
if Engaged(s₁, o, t) ∧ s₁ ≠ s₂ ∧ o ∈ X₂,
then:

For every possible purpose p₁ agent s₁ might adopt for o,
if Conflicts(p₁, p₂, o), then ¬Permitted(s₂, p₂, X₂, t).

In words: if o is engaged to s₁, no other agent s₂ is permitted to demonstrate any conflicting purpose with o.

Then you get, as a theorem, that if everyone respects the property norm, no action conflicts occur over engaged objects:

Theorem (No conflict among respectful agents)
Suppose:
(i) All agents only perform actions that are Permitted.
(ii) Engagement is generated by the axioms above.
Then for any s₁, s₂, o, t, if Engaged(s₁, o, t) and s₁ ≠ s₂, there is no Conflict(s₁, s₂, o, t).

So property is precisely the rule that assigns exclusive authority over engaged objects, to systematically prevent conflicting uses.

Self-ownership is a special case: your own body is always engaged to you, so others may not use it for conflicting purposes (assault, coercion, etc.).

6. Contracts as formalized purposes

You suggest:

Contracts are formalized statements of purpose which, by convention, also demonstrate purpose in action.

We can model a contract event e as a particular kind of action that:

States future purposes.
Counts as a present demonstration of purpose (by convention).

To keep it simple, define:

A set of contract events C ⊆ Events.
For each contract c ∈ C:
- parties(c) ⊆ A
- subject_objects(c) ⊆ O
- terms(c) = a structured description of conditional future purposes and transfers.

We won’t fully formalize terms, but assume they specify:

A set of trigger conditions on future states (e.g. “payment of price X by time T₀”)
A set of target engagement changes (e.g. “if condition holds, Engaged(buyer, o, t') instead of Engaged(seller, o, t') for t' ≥ T₀”).

We say:

Contract(c, t) = contract c is validly concluded at time t.

By your convention:

Axiom (Contract as purpose-demonstration)
If Contract(c, t) and s ∈ parties(c), then:
∃p, X such that
- subject_objects(c) ⊆ X
- Act(s, p, X, t)
- and p encodes the intention to be bound by the terms of c.

So signing/agreeing to a contract is itself an action that displays a purpose regarding the objects.

6.1. Transfer of engagement via contracts

Now we need a rule that says: when the contract’s conditions are satisfied, the engagement relation is updated as specified.

Introduce:

ConditionsMet(c, t) = at time t, the conditions of contract c are satisfied.

Then a generic transfer clause can be written:

Suppose c specifies that when conditions hold, for each o ∈ subject_objects(c):
- engagement moves from some s_old to some s_new.

We encode this as:

Axiom (Contractual transfer of engagement)
For any contract c, subject object o, time t:

If
- Contract(c, t₀) for some t₀ < t,
- ConditionsMet(c, t),
- Engaged(s_old, o, t⁻) (just before t),
- and the terms of c specify transfer of o from s_old to s_new,
then:
- Engaged(s_new, o, t)
- ¬Engaged(s_old, o, t)

This models contracts as purpose-structured actions that, once their conditions are satisfied, reassign engagement.

Note how cleanly this fits your idea:

The contract is a statement of purpose (the parties’ joint plan).
By convention, that statement is also an action (they bind themselves now).
The property system then updates who is engaged with what when the plan’s conditions occur.

7. Putting it all together

We now have:

Purposes and actions: agents continually demonstrate purposes in action, especially with their own bodies.
Engagement: a dynamic relation between agents and objects, created by first use (Act on previously unengaged objects) and destroyed by abandonment or contract-based transfer.
Conflict: simultaneous, purposive uses of an object that are incompatible (Conflicts).
Property norm: a moral rule forbidding others from using an engaged object in conflicting ways.
Original acquisition: the first successful action with an unengaged object makes it engaged to the acting agent.
Contracts: coordinated action-events that articulate future purposes and, under conventional rules, govern future updates to the engagement relation.

Conceptually:

Property = a normative closure condition on the engagement relation, whose function is to eliminate action conflicts.
Libertarianism appears as the doctrine that:
- engagement is first justified by original acquisition (purposeful first use),
- it persists until abandonment or contractual transfer,
- and others must not act in ways that create conflicts with the purposes of the engager.

If you’d like, next steps could be:

Add explicit deontic operators to prove “no-conflict theorems”.
Work out edge cases (shared purposes, co-ownership as a joint engagement relation, leasing as temporary partial engagement).
Compare this to standard Lockean/Hoppean formalizations to see where your “purpose ontology” changes or clarifies things.