top of page


Title 4: Rationality

Rationality is a prerequisite

to all uses of force in service to Law.

All enforcement actions

must be accompanied by rational arbitration

to determine the applicability of Law in the given situation,

and hence the legitimacy of the proposed enforcement action.

All enforcement requires Rationality.


The ascertainment of truth
regarding the meaning or application
of any aspect of law in a given situation.

Empathy & Common Sense
Since a publication cannot cover
every detail of every possible scenario,
it is essential to listen to empathy and common sense.

Who May Arbitrate
providated they are capable
of maintaining rational conversation.

Types of Arbitration

Enforcement Arbitration
All activity is halted, pending the arbitration
Arbitration takes place immediately, open to all present


Moral Arbitration
Initiated at Village Council

The Process

Each side gets one Leading Period,

during which that side leads the discussion.

The initiator/accuser/proposer goes first.

The first Leading Period consists of:
(1) an initial claim,
(2) a series of Supporting Arguments for the claim, listed
(3) a question and answer 'hotseat' with the other party,
in which the one being questioned must only answer questions,
and allow the questioner to direct the conversation
and not attempt to change the subject or evade a question

Then the defending party gets their Leading Period
which consists of:
(1) an opportunity to cross-examine
 every single Supporting Argument from the initiating party
one by one, all of them,
pursuing as many avenues of inquiry as can be thought of,
and checking off any argument that has been debunked,
after which the initiator is barred from using that argument
for the remainder of the arbitration,
(2) an opportunity to make a counter-claim to the initiator


How to Win
Debunk all of opponents arguments
Opponent violates one or more of the Guidelines of Rationality

repeatedly and impenitently.

Guidelines of Rationality


Any claimant who:
Habitually interrupts opponents’ speaking,
Habitually makes ad-hominem personal attacks against opponents,
Physically attacks, threatens, or attempts to intimidate opponents,
Refuses to offer support for their claim,
Refuses to address a cross-examination,
Refuses to concede a refuted argument,
Insists on adding new arguments before previous ones are evaluated,
Repeatedly changes the subject or attempts distraction,
Or simply refuses to engage in reasoned discussion...
...forfeits their entire claim.

Full Communication
A claimant is unrestricted in speech,
no argument is banned or gag-ordered.

Once speaking,
a speaker has as much time as needed
to explain their reasoning.

Logical Evaluation

In the context of arbitration:

any unrefuted statement
stands as truth until refuted.

Each side is allowed to cross-examine
any and every aspect of the other side’s argument.

Each cross-examination must be evaluated
before proceeding to the next.

If a flaw is identified in any argument
and the flaw cannot be explained,
then the argument has been refuted.

An argument that has been refuted
can no longer be used to support any claim.

A claim with no arguments to support it
holds no weight against any counterclaim.

Avoidance of Fallacies

Ignoring someone does not prove them wrong.

Ending a debate does not equal winning it.
Ignoring an argument does not equal refuting it.
Changing the subject does not equal proving or disproving anything.
Feeling offended does not equal being correct.
Causing someone to feel offended does not equal being wrong.

Powerful does not equal correct,

Armed does not equal correct
Loud does not equal correct,

Witty does not equal correct
Angry does not equal correct,

Judgmental does not equal correct
Good-looking does not equal correct,

Well-dressed does not equal correct
Popular does not equal correct,

Customary does not equal correct
Consensus does not equal correct,

Official does not equal correct
Profitable does not equal correct,

In-demand does not equal correct,
Intimidating does not equal correct,

Proficiency with insults does not equal correct
Emotionally compelling does not equal correct


If x = y , and y = z , then x = z

If x = y , and y =/= z, then x =/= z

If x and y are events, and x happened before y, then y cannot be a cause of x.

If x is required for y to be true, and x is not true, then y is not true either.


1.  Ending a debate doesn't win it.  If a position is wrong, refusing to discuss it further does not make it right.

2.  To know that a position is correct, all arguments to the contrary must be hard and evaluated rationally.  It is impossible to konw that a posoition is correct while there remain unheard (or heard but unevaluated) arguments against it.


1.  A perceived winner and a true winner.  former is whoever the crowd agreeswith.  Latter is whoeveris actually objectively correc.t  Former influrenced by heuristics, logical fallacies, biases, ignorance, and emotions.  Latterisfound through Reason and is mathematically true.
Acknpowlege that formerisnot necessary same as latter, and look forlatter.

2.  Not who is correc,t but WHAT is correct.  Former influenced by many things, but latter found through  mathematical Reason.


bottom of page