The Ultimate Logical Fallacy

[Socio-Economics For the Majority]

Every democracy in the history of the world has failed over a prolonged period of time. They fail for very obvious reasons once one considers what happens and why in any political arena. See goo.gl/gnvhe | Why are we facing the exact same problems today, as we did in 1960, but they’re even worse now. And why are the major candidates saying the same things they have been saying for 50 years? Why do the majority of candidates continuously promise the world, yet fail to deliver on just about every important issue. As Lester Thoreau said, “there are thousands striking at the branches of evil for every ‘one’ striking at the root” and you will later see what I think he mean by this.      

We are taught from the time we are able to understand the concept of government rule that democracy is the best form of government. The problem is that democracy has failed every time it has ever been attempted. Once the Citizens understand in a democracy that there is money available from the public treasury, to those that are willing to do what is necessary to get it, the fight for that money creates a political and highly adversarial conflict that actually ends up destroying the country rather than benefiting the majority. Instead, the majority of people end up voting or doing what is in the best interest of their political party, their company, their union or their profession. This is just one of several fatal flaws, a very important one I might add, why all democracies fail sooner or later. 

The logical fallacy is based on this question. How can democracy be the best form of government, when it has never worked and more importantly can be shown logically, from every scholastic genre to have fatal flaws that will cause it to fail? Interestingly, the elected representation of a democratic Republic has the same fatal flaws as a democracy but you must add in the issue of political compromise by the elected officials, as one of the mechanism that adds to its eventual destruction. The logical fallacy itself is, “Since Democracy does not work, it cannot be the best form of government. The truthful and logical statement would be, No government yet devised by humankind, has ever worked and even what we thought was the best fails.” All governments attempted so far have failed and for the same basic reasons.

There must be a balance between a person’s self interest and their contribution to society and not only does this self interest differ for each person, some people are just better able to give a lot more back to society than others and in different ways.  Look what George Washington or Nikola Tesla did for society in totally different capacities. It is impossible to socially determine what is fair for one individual and unfair for others in these two areas of human existence. People don’t even know what is in their own bet interests many times, much less knowing what’s in others or the majorities. This is another logical fallacy; that people collectively can determine what is in the best interest of the majority. Do you think that I can know what is in your best interest? If we can’t know what is in another person’s best interest, we surely can’t know what in the majorities. Add in the politicians, colluding with their special interest groups, and you can start to understand another portion of the fatal flaws of a democracy.      

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".

There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so you can point them out in discussions, thereby focusing the issues where they belong while exposing errors.

It is true that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the goal: truth is. Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful. Go here for a list of some of the generally recognized Logical Fallacies. goo.gl/7M3RK

I can say unequivocally, with plenty of available empirical evidence, our democratic republic, the first of its kind, enhanced with a Bill of Rights, created some 230 years ago, has failed in its original intent. I can show you legislation and case law that provides this evidence. Most of the bill of rights enumerated and those not enumerated, but protected under Article IX have been usurped.   Other than the abolition of slavery and gaining suffrage for those without property ownership, the protection of unalienable property rights, our primary Constitutional intent and the predominate feature within the Bill of Rights are no longer being protected by our government run courts. Only the elemental rights such as freedom of religious, speech and the press, are the few rights remaining “So Far” but there are surely elements of religious and speech rights such as the right for gays to marry or swearing in a court room that are being abridged.      

The United States of America, I believe, is our greatest example of the failure of government. We of course have hundreds perhaps thousands of other examples of government failure, but the U.S., in most people’s opinion, made the greatest effort to make a government work.

The intent of our Constitution is quite simple in principle. It was to protect the individual and property rights of its Citizens. The Colonists paid very little in taxation, often times none and everything was working quite well under this limited level of taxation and regulation, as compared to the extensive levels of taxation and regulation under the Monarchs; hence, the idea of how limited government came about. When the nation was founded, the entire Federal Government ran off of only a luxury import tax. So when I say most of our property rights have been usurped, you can understand that now, with over 115 forms of taxation, they right to keep our money and property and do with it as each individual see fit, has been transformed (usurped) into a huge confiscatory machine, leaving no form of human action or business untaxed or regulated, except for perhaps the black markets. This is what is referred to in economics as fascism.               

As a couple of recent examples of usurpations of individual rights, let me give you two very important one that now give rise to additional usurpations. Remember that the various encroachment against our rights have been done almost over the entire two hundred and thirty year period, slowly yet almost in a step by step manner.

The “Right” of Redress of Grievances” under Article 1, was denied in 2007 by a Federal three (3) panel Appeals Court and then was refused a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, that same year. They Appeals Court ruled that the Government does not have to answer questions related to the laws they are enforcing even if requested by a formal Redress of Grievance. That means, let’s say you’re on trial and the issue of what is the intent and application of a specific law is necessary to show your innocence, the government no longer is required to answer any specific questions pertaining to that law, even though they are the ones enforcing it. Sadly the judiciary works in a fairly discrete manner, as most Citizens do not understand the various complexities of the rule of law, nor follow it. We are not taught much about the legal system and therefore few understand its complexities, which is one of the other fatal flaws of a democracy or a democratic Republic. Half of our elected Officials and Judges don’t appear to take the time to read and fully understand the laws of our nation. The other is recent usurpation is Habeas Corpus which was enacted through the NDAA on Dec. 31, 2011 which fosters indefinite detentions without a grand jury or criminal complaint. Government can basically arrest someone without providing cause, detain them as long as they like and investigate them until they die, if they like. It is your guess, as to mine, why government at this juncture in our history, has now just recently usurped these rights.      

Remember that governments are in a reality sense, Power Brokerage Cartels that use the laws of a society to gain privileges and controls (power). Government contracts are the best example, but there are other less obvious such as high ranking jobs, lobbying, favorable legislation and political access.

How can people really believe that government is necessary, when the facts show it to be a power brokerage cartel that corrupts many of the men and women that join its ranks and ojn top of that it has never worked well for the majority? That it is used as a weapon against those that rebel against the power and corruption created by the cartel. That government as it now exists has destroyed every culture, no matter how it is set up or what its original intent was, they always fail and for the same basic reasons.  

Is it true that if you tell people something over and over again, even if it false, and they will eventually believe it. “We have to have government”, who is going to enforce the laws? 

Is it true that many people do not really understand how Free Enterprise really works and therefore blame Corporations and free markets for many of the things that corporate welfare and government contracts really foster and the reason behind why many corporations go astray? That government actually gives certain corporations privileges in exchange for campaign contributions so let’s blame the problems on the poor regulation of the Corporations instead of the power brokerage Cartel that give out the privileges in the first place. It can’t be the government, who is going to enforce the laws?   

You can even go down the list of its most powerful and prominent participants in government over the last 100 years and read the horrid details of their corruption, why they did what they did during their tenure and what benefits they received because of their corruptive exploits; money and power?

There are but a few like President Jimmy Carter, who was so naïve as to think that what he was saying and doing would actually make an effect on our society.  His own party even ostracized him for many of the positions he took because it was contrary to the power of the cartel. 

I think the ultimate example of how government really works is the attempted selling of the Illinois Senatorial seat by then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.  We even have evidence that President Obama was aware of the situation and that his administration lied to cover it up. Of course the prosecution of the most power men seldom comes about, unless it is so blatant a crime such as Blagojevich. Government is also a protection racket for the rich and powerful.   

So let me ask you, are you really convinced “now” that government is a necessity or are you going to continue to believe another age old logical fallacy? It’s the Corporations Fault.     

The corporation is but a contract amongst Citizens to engage in commerce. I do not have to be engaged in that contract unless government grants that group special privilege or monopoly power in which I am therefore forced to endure a commercial relationship.  That is the problem and it can only be curtailed by severing government ability to render such privileges. As our history has shown, man can live under minimal government, but it cannot live without free enterprise.  We have a choice, either no government, very minimal government or some level of fascism and we now have they history to show why fascism always fails. We now also have the evidence that a democratic republic with the intent to restrain government and maximize individual rights has failed.  Thinking that two entities can co-exist, free enterprise and government, that are antithetic to one another, with one given legalized force to feed off the other is, in my belief, delusional and the Ultimate Logical Fallacy.