For those who still think there’s evidence proving the laws apply to us or that I cherry pick the calls I post, I present Scott Bales, Harvard law grad and chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. And he fails to provide a single fact to support his argument the laws of the state of Arizona apply to me because I’m physically in Arizona.
He agrees that is his argument, but then relies on a logical fallacy instead of evidence to support it. Scott uses the common appeal to consequences as did Bill Montgomery:
Scott thinks his argumentum ad baculum is “appropriate” though. He’s a highly educated man and knows there is a non-fallacious appeal to consequences. But that is only when there is a rational, evidentiary basis to support the argument, not when the consequences presuppose the validity of the argument.
If Scott could explain that it was not a logical fallacy, then the associate dean (who also refuses to speak to me) would not have ran interference, he would have let Scott explain. I did speak with Scott after the lecture, but he refused to be recorded and he could not support his argument other than to claim people are prosecuted and sent to prison.
Scott was unable to provide any facts to support his argument. It’s important to keep in mind that the argument is that the laws apply just because you’re physically in Arizona, not because you’re allegedly violating the laws and are being prosecuted. The laws must be proven to be applicable before there can be valid consequences, such as violation and prosecution. Scott and other statists believe the laws apply just because we’re physically in Arizona, it’s a non-sequitur to anyone paying attention.
It’s simple logic, the laws must apply before they can be violated. But as we’ve seen before, the applicability is assumed and statists skip that to get to the accusation the laws were violated. If not, then, by Scott’s logic, the laws only apply when someone “violates” them and are prosecuted.
An analogy to demonstrate why Scott’s argumentum ad baculum is fallacious is: I say to Scott, “You owe me $1000, pay me.” Scott asks, “What facts do you rely on proving I owe you $1000?” Marc: “Well, you must pay me $1000 because those who don’t get put in my basement prison.”
Imagine being in court and you challenge the prosecutor’s argument:
What facts do you rely on proving the laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?
The judge coerced your participation in this prosecution.
Does that make sense to you? Doesn’t look like support for the argument does it? It doesn’t take a Harvard education to see it clearly doesn’t.
Regardless of education and high political office, Scott cannot provide evidence that doesn’t exist. It’s that easy to discredit the argument and his credibility; it only takes a few questions that he cannot or will not answer. I did ask Scott:
If I did things like your organization, and I forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?
He laughed and ignored me and started talking to other people. Of course, the evidence that really discredits Scott is the fact we are all forced to give his people money.
So there is no cherry picking, I don’t just post calls/confrontations with low-level agents and hide my calls with really smart politicians. Scott is probably at the top of the heap as far as being smart, he’s a highly educated man with two advanced degrees. So there are really only two main criticisms regarding this confrontation to counter my position Scott could not support his argument: 1. The question is stupid; and 2. He did answer and it was not a fallacious argumentum ad baculum.
Asking for facts to support an argument is not stupid, the facts may be obvious, but the question is not stupid. Scott did not provide facts supporting his argument though, he only provided consequential facts. As shown above, it is the fallacious appeal to consequences.
There are no facts proving the laws apply to us just because we’re physically in Arizona. We should be challenging these predators constantly and discrediting them. And if someone thinks it’s crazy that there is no evidence the laws apply, then ask them to tell you what those facts are. And if they mock you, then let them watch/listen to Scott Bales, chief justice and Harvard law grad, fail to do so.
And if they are still not convinced, and think they can do better than Scott, then have them call into the No State Project.