Essay:Statism is fundamentally incompatible with rationalism
|
This essay is an original work by LogicMaster777. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
Statism is fundamentally incompatible with rationalism.
The proposition: Rationalist worldview[edit]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Worldview
- "See main article: Rationalism
The rationalist or scientific worldview "assumes that there are no transcendent, immaterial forces and that all forces which do exist within the universe behave in an ultimately objective or random fashion."
The contradictory proposition: Non physical entities called "Sovereign states"[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state
"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area."
Rationalism: An emphasis on evidence[edit]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Worldview
"With its emphasis on evidence, a set of processes, the advancing of knowledge, and testable and useful explanations and predictions, rationalism is the basis for the scientific method. The Halls point out, "The nature of [existing] forces, and all other scientific knowledge, is revealed only through human effort in a dynamic process of inquiry."
Statism: Its dogmas are faith-based arbitrary presumptions; evidence doesn't matter[edit]
Here is a video where anarchist journalist Marc Stevens confronts a federal judge as to whether there is any evidence to prove the statist dogma that constitutions and statutes are legally applicable or that governments have jurisdiction. The judge says it is an arbitrary presumption, and then invokes the non-overlapping magisterium, insisting that it is "not a question of evidence". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJVE5dDFfEg
[[1]]
The non-overlapping magisterium of Statist dogma: deriving conclusions from Hermeneutics and Exegesis of dogma; disregard for evidence in forming conclusions[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_law
"Question of law
In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts."