Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dogma vs Knowledge

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dogma vs Knowledge

    Dear Subscriber,

    The earth revolves around the sun, and did so even when the accepted
    official doctrine of various self-proclaimed "authorities" said otherwise.
    Even when all of the "learned minds" agreed that the sun goes around the
    earth, all of them--every last one--was wrong. When people were being
    ridiculed, or even imprisoned (or worse) for disagreeing with the official
    dogma, the dogma was still wrong.

    Now comes the bad news: most people STILL base their beliefs on "dogma"
    rather than on knowledge. Most people decide what to believe, not based
    upon the actual validity of claims, but on the SOURCE of the claims. WHO
    says something matters more to the general public than whether WHAT they
    said makes any sense. If you're a Ph.D., or an M.D., or a lawyer, or a
    "judge," ANYTHING you say will automatically carry weight with a lot of
    people.

    Case in point: "The courts have ruled that your position is frivolous!"
    That about sums up the attitude of dogma-believers. Notice that the
    statement doesn't try to say WHY something is "frivolous"; it merely says
    that "the courts" SAY that something is frivolous. The implication is
    obvious: the fact that "the courts" say something, all by itself, without
    a SHRED of substance or reason backing up what they say, is supposed to
    impress us. This is precisely the same attitude, and precisely as silly,
    as: "the Church says that the earth is the center of the universe!" Good
    for it. But REALITY says otherwise.

    I believe our system of "law" has been intentionally molded over time into
    a sort of "dogma," foreign and mysterious to the common man, only to be
    delved into by the high priests of the "legal" cult: lawyers. And it's so
    complex and magical (they'd like you to think), that you can't possibly
    know anything about it, so your only hope is to accept as UNQUESTIONABLE
    GOSPEL whatever the self-proclaimed "experts" say about it. Heck, they
    even do the silly thing of speaking of MERE MORTALS as some strange,
    unidentifiable, superhuman entity. It used to be "the Church," and now
    it's "the courts."

    Can someone please point out "the courts" to me? I've seen some mere
    mortals wearing black robes, and some big buildings. Where are "the
    courts" that have "ruled" all these things? If you tell me "Bob Smith has
    ruled that your position is frivolous," it doesn't sound very impressive.
    But if you give Bob a black robe, a wooden hammer, and make people call
    him "your honor," then when Bob says something, you can say "THE COURTS
    HAVE SPOKEN." But of course, they haven't. Courts don't speak. Bob
    spoke.

    So why should I value Bob's opinion above my own? Does Bob know something
    I don't? Maybe. But if so, let's see what it IS. If Bob can show I'm
    wrong with evidence and logic, then I'll be impressed (and persuaded).
    But if Bob's supposed authority is based upon "because I said so," I'm not
    impressed. In fact, I would start to have serious doubts about Bob's
    sanity, if that's the extent of his argument.

    If a "judge"--or a janitor, for that matter--can show me EVIDENCE and/or
    LOGIC that refutes what I believed before, great. (Oddly, I have found
    that most people who have changed my mind about something did NOT have any
    fancy credentials... they just had a piece of the truth that I didn't
    yet.) But if all a "judge" has to persuade me is his "judgeness," then I
    couldn't care less what his opinion is, even if dogma-believers consider
    it unquestionable doctrine.

    People in the IRS and DOJ, as well as private tax professionals, love to
    use the dogma card, because it's all they have. It seems clear that the
    government, when prosecuting me, intends to argue that a Tax Court judge
    said the 861 evidence (or some variation on it) is "frivolous," and
    therefore, I KNEW I was wrong.

    The "legal" point to make in response to that is that Tax Court rulings
    aren't legally binding on me. But the more important response is to note
    how strange it is that some people seem to think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
    disagree with someone who is wearing a black robe. (Hmmm... maybe I
    should wear one to trial.) The implication is clear: if some Tax Court
    "judge" SAID that I am wrong, I can't possibly STILL think I'm right.
    Consider the absurdity of that.

    The Supreme Court was nice enough to help me make my point, by recently
    giving the Kelo decision, which a whole lot of people from all different
    political perspectives recognize was ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC. (Actually, it
    was a lot worse than merely idiotic, but I'm tryying to be nice.) You
    see, even people at the "highest court" in the land are still just people.
    They don't know everything. They aren't always right. And they aren't
    always honest, or truthful.

    Here comes the punchline. Brace yourself, because some will consider this
    heresy. In this country, we're still allowed to think that a "judge" is
    WRONG about something... though I'm sure the dogma-believers are working
    on changing that.

    Sincerely,


    Larken Rose
    [email protected]
    http://www.861.info
    http://www.theft-by-deception.com

    Past messages to this list can be found here:
    http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ul...ubb=forum;f=16

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe, send a blank message to [email protected]



  • #2
    Dogma vs Knowledge


    Here comes the punchline. Brace yourself, because some will consider this heresy. In this country, we're still allowed to think that a "judge" is WRONG about something... though I'm sure the dogma-believers are working on changing that. Sincerely, Larken Rose
    hehehe...
    As long as larken continues to say the judge is wrong or anyone is wrong
    and he continues to claim his interpretation of the law in the correct
    one, it will be a slam dunk for the govt to convict him.

    A disagreement with the law is not a good faith defense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dogma vs Knowledge


      Here comes the punchline. Brace yourself, because some will consider this heresy. In this country, we're still allowed to think that a "judge" is WRONG about something... though I'm sure the dogma-believers are working on changing that. Sincerely, Larken Rose
      hehehe...
      As long as larken continues to say the judge is wrong or anyone is wrong
      and he continues to claim his interpretation of the law in the correct
      one, it will be a slam dunk for the govt to convict him.

      A disagreement with the law is not a good faith defense.

      Comment

      The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
      Working...
      X