This is a common retort used by those who believe in states and hate my work. When confronted with the truth that there’s no evidence political rules (“laws”) apply to anyone, the apologist argues, “Law is philosophical, it requires no evidence.” It’s claimed that I start with a faulty premise, that I’m asking for evidence where evidence is not required. Why not? Because philosophy. This is ridiculous as I will show.
Philosophy is defined as: “ .” “Rational investigation” is the key phrase critics and haters leave out. They put forth an irrational, easily dis-proven claim, and defend it by saying a rational basis is not required. Their philosophy also contends that asking for proof is delusional. You see, having a prison system means never having to back up your claims.
Philosophy deals with how we find and know the truth, it’s not an answer to a question of evidence, nor does calling something philosophical make it philosophical and magically relieve one of their burden of proof. How a written instrument from 1787 allegedly applies to me is not a philosophical question requiring no evidence to be true, especially when robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment and death are involved.
Philosophy is a rational investigation, so it’s logical to expect proof of one’s claim, claiming something is true because you say so is irrational. My asking for evidence proving the claim that political rules apply to me because I’m physically in Arizona is a rational investigation for the truth. That is no more philosophical than asking for evidence proving your claim I owe you money.
While there are differences of opinion, many notable jurists claim there is a science of law, that it’s not a mere philosophy:
Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, page 345.
The critics never take the time to explain why/how this is just philosophy. A philosophy with a prison system?
We’re not talking about abstractions, we’re talking about real people with guns alleging written instruments and rules apply to us because of our physical location. If one is physically in Arizona, then the Arizona constitution and laws apply and those called “government” have jurisdiction by virtue of those written instruments. These are very real, they are observable, such as:
This document, unlike Plato’s writings (actual philosophy), is supposed to apply to me for no other reason than I’m physically in Arizona. That’s the basis of jurisdiction, saying it’s “philosophical” is just a poor excuse for not having proof. Since when do you get to force your will on someone else and have it morally justified because you call it a philosophy? A “philosophy” that says basic principles of right and wrong don’t apply to you? Yeah, that’s the mind of a psychopath.
We have no proof to support our claim, what can we do?
Just say it’s philosophical and requires no proof.
This “philosophy” says basic principles of right and wrong don’t apply to a certain group of people. The principle of “Do no harm” does not apply to those called government and no rational basis exists for the double standard.
Just saying it’s “philosophical” does not relieve one of their burden of showing a rational basis for their argument or opinion. Maybe those making this claim think saying it is “philosophical” relieves them of the burden of having a rational investigation and explanation? Forcing people to pay you means never having to have proof of your assertions.
What they are putting forth is a bogus claim of a so-called “philosophy” without a rational basis. As we say, under all that paperwork is a gun. And that is what it comes down to; those called “government” are a criminal organization with apologists putting forth claims with no evidence and no rational support. It’s effectively:
Do as we say or we will kill you if you resist.
We can even eliminate the use of the word jurisdiction because it doesn’t make a difference. We’ll just stick to a rational investigation into why and how a written instrument from 1910 would apply to me in 2016 just because I’m physically in Arizona.
What is the rational basis to prove that such a written instrument applies to anyone just because they’re physically in Arizona? My position is no rational basis exists. I have lots of examples on the website confronting politicians and bureaucrats where I ask for the rational basis proving their laws apply to me. None have been able to provide anything of any merit.
No less an authority on the law than Scott Bales, chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, didn’t make the pretended “philosophy” claim when I confronted him at Arizona State University last year. He appealed to consequences, he knows it’s an issue of evidence, but falsely claimed that the people he puts in prison proves the laws apply to me. Even in the rotunda after this confrontation Scott never claimed it was a philosophical issue that couldn’t be proven true, he insisted it was proven true with evidence.
Could Scott be wrong though? Just because he’s the chief justice and a Harvard Law School grad doesn’t mean he’s right. On the issue of law not being philosophical he is. He’s wrong the people in prison are evidence the laws apply to me, but not wrong the laws applying is an evidentiary issue.
Why didn’t Scott just say the laws apply as a matter of philosophy? Why didn’t Scott tell his audience of lawyers the laws cannot be proven to apply, that it was just a matter of philosophy? The entire ASU law school staff of professors refused to discuss the matter with me; why do that if you can just say, “Because philosophy”? Why didn’t law professor Robert Diab make such a claim? Because that claim is as valid as:
The laws apply as a matter of law. Lon Seal, New Hampshire state attorney.
In my experience in court, not one judge or prosecutor has ever made the claim that jurisdiction/applicability of the laws, was a philosophical issue and couldn’t be proven. They have adamantly insisted there was evidence or that the prosecutor didn’t have to prove it because it was a commonly accepted fact. Some have taken judicial notice of this over our objections that there wasn’t supporting evidence given by the prosecution.
This is why we play the song Do You Believe in Magic on the show. There’s no logical, rational nor evidentiary basis; it applies because it just does. Magic, groovy magic man.
Those called the Mafia have their own “philosophy” and it’s real simple: “F**k you! Pay me!” Not any different than those called “government.” Ordering me to pay you or you’ll throw me on prison is not a real philosophy, it’s just a threat by a criminal.
Why does a one-hundred year old written instrument apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?
Because, uh, philosophy?
Most critics depart from the philosophy claim and try to show a rational basis. They argue “the people agreed to have government”, that through a social construct, such as property rights, people are agreeing.
First of all, no. Property rights, while a social construct, are based on actual agreement, not a pretended “social contract theory.” Depending on where you are, we accept that when one puts his labor into something, then they are entitled to the product; that we can enter into agreements to trade things. This is not arbitrary as some claim. You may not accept the reasoning, there may be a flaw in the logic, but it’s not arbitrary.
Second, with “government” there is no agreement, you pay or you go to jail. That’s the “philosophy” of the criminal.
If you can’t prove you have jurisdiction, then you’re just a violent criminal and we are morally justified in using self-defensive force against you, even if just for a so-called “routine traffic” stop.
If this is a “philosophy” then it’s a very poor and irrational one. And it doesn’t provide any rational basis proving political rules apply to us. So if you hear this particular claim, then don’t let them get away with it; put them on the spot and ask a question that guts their silly “philosophy”:
Are you saying there’s no rational basis for your claim?
Because if they say no, then the fact it’s pay or go to jail defeats their claims we “agreed.” And if yes, then they’re admitting their claim cannot be proven. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt a rule was violated if you cannot prove it applies in the first place?
Last, if claiming the laws apply to me requires no evidence to be true, then it logically follows that claiming the laws don’t apply also requires no evidence. Why not? Because, philosophy. But, as shown, the facts prove that the claim the laws apply is false.
Anarchy is a real philosophy whose merits don’t require guns, terror and prisons to persuade those who haven’t given up their ability to think rationally. It’s based on the simple premise of “Do no harm.” It’s consistent with that, unlike political “philosophy” or the silly claim the laws apply to us.