There is a principle in the laws of logic that one cannot argue against something that is true by definition.  We can argue whether or not a definition applies, or it has been applied correctly, but we cannot argue with a conclusion based on definition.  This is because anything based on definition is true by its very nature. For example: by definition, something either exists or it does not exist.  It is impossible for something to exist and not exist at the same exact time and point in space.  This is because of the definition of exist.  Therefore, anyone who argues against the fact that  thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time is being irrational.  Or, put another way, they are ‘not all there.’  Now, let’s take this and apply it to a commonly occurring theme in our modern political arena: the claim that we cannot apply ‘labels’ to other people based on what they say and do.

Now, let me start by saying that I agree with the idea that we should not use ‘labels’ as ad hominem attacks.  In other words, we should not call people names or try to slap a name on them so as to shame them or otherwise influence the exercise of their free will for fear of the repercussions generated by that label: no name calling, if you will.  However, at the same time, I reject the tendency to equivocate: the practice of redefining the proper and appropriate application of a definition by calling it ‘labeling,’ then proceeding to act as though the definition and the label are factually the same.  Let me provide a real-world example:

I frequently encounter people on line who, after a short conversation, invariably fall in to a predictable pattern of thinking.  They will claim they are seeking a reasoned discussion, but they soon steer the discussion into an ‘Either/Or’ situation: either you agree with them and their position, or…. (fill in whatever they call you, it doesn’t matter — they will throw a label on you).  When I encounter one of these folks, I will usually tell them they are ‘Liberal/Progressive’ in their thinking and, almost all the time, they will reject this and attack me for ‘labeling’ them.  This is equivocation, and it is almost useless to try and discuss anything with such a person.  Once you get to this point, you can be all but certain that you are dealing with a person who has renounced the use of reason in favor of their own reality.  But why is this equivocation and not ad hominem?

The answer is simple, and it is found in the definition of ‘Liberal/Progressive.’

In this case, when I use the term, ‘Liberal/Progressive,’ I am using a lose definition.  Essentially, it is a person who thinks in terms of the collective, ‘my-way-or-the-highaway,’ do not apply my words against me, etc..  They are also blind to their own guilt.  They will say you are labeling them when you call them a Liberal/Progressive, then accuse you of being whatever they decide is the best derogatory comment at the moment.  In other words, they label you, whereas, you actually applied a definition to them.  They are the ones committing a fallacy.  They are the ones who are labeling.  They are actually doing what they accuse you of doing, and they absolutely cannot see their own guilt — ever!

So, here is the deal.  If the definition fits, then the definition fits — wear it!  This applies to all of us, no matter what our political persuasion.  Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the proper and accurate application of a definition.  So long as the definition is properly and accurately applied, it does not matter how bad it makes someone feel, it is still true — by definition!

Therefore, the next time you properly and accurately apply a definition to someone based on what they say and do, stand your ground.  No matter how much they complain, or how loudly, or how viciously they attack you, do not budge.  Just tell them that, if it bothers them sooo much, then, maybe — just maybe — they should re-evaluate what they believe.  Because, if the definition fits, that is what they are!

I frequently draw the motivation for my posts from encounters I have had with other people.  This is one such post.  In this case, I had a series of discussions with an individual who eventually told me — with certainty — that I am part of our social problem because I am rigid in my thinking.  This person told me that I am stuck in the thinking that people either had to agree with me or they were wrong — period.  Strangely enough, reality was the other way around: it was this person who held that form of thinking.  But the truly sad part — at least to me — was that they do not see it.

I think a little back ground is in order here.  This person reached out to me.  They started our correspondence.  From the very start, and in every conversation we had, this person worded things in a way that made it clear that they would only consider what I had to say if I agreed with them.  For example: this person told me they needed to know my answer to a certain question before they could take me seriously.  When I answered their question, they said they agreed with me, so they could now take me seriously.  This was the way things went between us — until the first time I disagreed with them!  The moment I disagreed with this person, they start telling me that I was stuck in the way I think.  That I was close-minded and only saw the world in terms of black and white.  They said they were trying to have an ‘honest’ discussion with me, but that they couldn’t because of my rigid and wrong thinking.  Then they told me there is something wrong with me (implying a mental disorder or instability of some type).  So, needless to say, we are no longer having any form of discussion.

Now, here’s the thing between this person and myself.  First, I had qualified everything I said to them.  I specifically told them that I was speaking in terms of ‘Left and Right,’ ‘Democrat and Republican’ for the sake of common convention.  I also told them that I no longer think in such terms.  I explained that I see the divide as Lawful vs Lawless, Tyranny vs Liberty, God vs Rebellion.  I also repeatedly told this person they were free to reject anything I said.  I made it very clear that I was not demanding they accept my arguments.  But none of that seems to have registered.  In fact, it was as if this person never heard any of my words.  They just told me that I was thinking wrong by trying to force my views on them and by trying to put them in an ‘Either/Or’ box and then they broke off our chats.

So, what are we to make of such people?  Especially when, if we are honest and take an objective look at things, we tend to see such people are the ones with a rigid, ‘Either/Or’ pattern of thinking?  And worse yet, these are the same people who seem to feel they are entitled to force others to agree with them.  They will either shout you down, insult you or seek to use the force of government to impose their will on you.  Yet, for some reason, they also believe they hold the moral high ground.  In their minds, anyone who disagrees is ‘The Problem,’ and their moral superiority justifies them in trying to ‘Solve the Problem.  This is the thinking of tyrants, but they cannot see that.  They are impervious to reason — even to the plain meaning of a simple definition.  So, again, what do we do with such people?  How do we treat them?  Or do we respond to them?

Well, this page is devoted to Natural Law, so I will turn to Natural Law for my solution.  Unfortunately, the only solution seems to be to leave them alone in their delusion — until such time as they become a threat to my Rights or the Rights of others.  At that point — under Natural Law — they must be restrained.  You see, they are free to think and believe however they wish.  But, at the moment they seek to use force against the will of another person, they enter in to a state of war with that person.

Natural Law dictates that we defend ourselves from attacks by external forces that seek to control our will or harm our body and property.  But we live under a Social Contract (i.e. rule of law) that has been put in place to help us defend ourselves.  We restrict some of our Natural Rights with the understanding that the Law will execute them for us.  So, in the case where a person or group of people seek to force their will on others, the Law has a duty to stop them. At the very least, this is how our system of government is supposed to work.  However, we have allowed too many of these delusional people to seize control of our system.  They have turned it into a weapon that they are now using to further their will; to force their will on all those who resist them.

My dear reader, this is the very definition of tyranny!

Now, when we reach the point where these tyrants have seized so much of the law that the law can and will no longer protect us, then the government ceases to be legitimate and we are all thrown back into a state of war with everyone else in society — as well as with the government.  Therefore, the question before us today is this:

Where is that point?

For those who might be interested:

I am fortunate enough that, for whatever reason, people find value in what I have to say.  A couple weeks ago, this lead to my receiving an invitation to be a guest on a regional talk radio program, The Morning Drive with Steve Nichols.  My first appearance can be found here (please fast forward to the 15:09 mark as the FB audio was off until that point).  I am posting this today to let those who may be interested know that I will be on Mr. Nichols’ show again tomorrow morning, August 2, 2019.  The show will air live on Face Book from 6 – 9 AM EST.  If you cannot watch the show live, Mr. Nichols posts the re-play on his program’s FB page so that you can go back and watch it at your convenience.

Unless I mess up or bomb, I have a standing invitation to be on Mr. Nichols’ show the first Friday of every month.  So, until that changes, you will be able to hear me live or on video re-play — if you are interested, that is.

NOTE TO THE READER: In the interest of full disclosure, I want to make it known beforehand that I am openly hostile to the idea of the dialectic, and for reasons which I hope I will soon make perfectly clear.

Karl Marx developed a political theory he called ‘dialectic materialism.’  A ‘dialectic‘ is basically the inversion of opposites.  In other words, a ‘dialectic’ is when a concept or process finds its reality in its opposite.  For example: something becomes hot by becoming cold; or a thing ceases to exist by coming in to existence.  But George Orwell may have explained it better with his term, ‘double-think,’ which is: ‘a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.’

Now, before I go any further, let me say that I am fully aware that dedicated Marxists are going to vehemently disagree with my definitions of the dialectic.  That’s fine: they are free to disagree all they like, but that does not make my definitions wrong.  It just means they do not see or understand their error for reasons I am about to explain.

In my post about ‘Contradictions,’ I explain that a contradiction is an absurdity.  An absurdity is something that is not real, something that does not and cannot exist in the objective or ‘real’ world.  By definition, this means that anyone who sincerely believes in and embraces an absurdity is out of touch with the real world.  Well, as impolitic as this may be to say, the common term for someone who is out of touch with the ‘real’ world is ‘insanity.’  So let me say this clearly:

Yes!  I am saying that I believe Marxists are insane.

Now, let me prove my claim.  We start with the foundation of Marxist theory: the notion of ‘material dialectic.’  Marx believed that nothing is permanent.  Everything changes; everything is in a constant process of becoming and ceasing to be.

OK, stop right there.  If you have read my post on the applied logic in reference to contradiction, then you may already recognize that this assertion is self-contradicting.  And, if it is self-contradicting, then it is absurd, which means — in the terms we are currently using — ‘insane.’  So, how is it self-contradicting?  Simple:

Marx says nothing is permanent.

Then he says everything is in a constant state of change.

That constant state of change is permanent, which cannot be according to his first claim.

Therefore, Marx’s idea of the material dialectic is base on a self-defeating contradiction and, therefore, is an absurdity — as is everything which flows from it.

Now, as I stated earlier: anyone who sincerely believes in and embraces an absurdity is ‘insane.’  Ergo, Marxists are insane.  But then, so are all those who believe in the ideas which flowed from it.  Ideas such as Communism and Socialism…

These ideas — Marxism, Communism and Socialism — do not exist or function in the real world.  This is because they violate the principles of Natural Law.  Now, it is true, they can be given the appearance of existing, but only for a short time.  It is much like sweeping water up hill with a broom: it can be done, but only for so long.  Eventually, the weight and volume of the water overcomes your ability to hold back the force of gravity and the water floods past your broom.  Well, this is what happens in all Communes and Socialist economies/Nations.  They can be made to work for a short time but, eventually, the Natural Las governing human nature and economics eventually take over and they fail.  Venezuela is the most recent example of this fact: and I say ‘fact’ because this has ever been the result of all Communist/Socialist systems.  They have all failed in the span of one lifetime — or less (keep in mind that this does not mean a nation has to cease to exist. The ‘resetting’ of a government indicates the failure of the previous government).

Other illustrations of the point I am trying to make would be:

Flying: just because you manage to get up in a balloon, plane, helicopter or other device, this does not mean you can now fly.  As soon as the power allowing you to fly runs out, gravity will prove to you that you cannot fly, you can only ride in a machine that flies, and even then, only so long as it has the power to defy gravity.

One cannot spend forever without producing.  Even if you borrow the money, someone else is still producing the money you borrow.  Therefore, you are just passing off the production to another person, but you are still dependent upon production.  Nor can one just ‘print’ money.  This is because that money has no value behind it because there is no production behind it.  Therefore, it soon becomes useless — like it has in Venezuela.  Sooner or later, the laws of economics will assert themselves.

One cannot change the nature of a thing by changing the word we use to discuss that thing.  For example: if it is believed that the word ‘handicapped’ carries a bad connotation, one cannot change that image in the mind of other people simply by forcing them to use the word, ‘challenged.’  The word may change, but the image or the nature of the issue does not.  This is because words do not create the nature of a thing, instead, words are used to describe or discuss that nature.  The thing is not created by the word, the word is created to discuss or describe the thing.  The laws of language and logic do not bend to the whim of the ‘insane.’

So, hopefully the reader can see that, while we may be able to convince ourselves that an absurdity is true, this does not make it true.  However, if we believe that something is true simply because we believe it, that does makes us insane.  Hence, the Marxist is insane because he or she believes in something that is not true, and it is not true by definition.  In this case, that would be the definition of ‘contradiction.’