Essay—Obstruction of Argument (55)

Summary—This essay identifies and describes a fundamental moral error of the government for not answering arguments. For instance, the government has failed to answer my argument regarding the obstruction of argument charges.

The Cardassians are a humanoid species in the Star Trek science fiction franchise.  They have an unusual legal system as the plaintiff is always declared guilty before the trial.  The trial itself is just to confirm guilt.  In Canada we treat arguments in a similar manner.  The government implicitly declares the outcome of arguments and the purpose of making arguments is then to simply conform to authoritarian dogma.  They do not recognize arguments that do not meet with dogma.  The government has not acknowledged my theory of one argument because it conflicts with the practiced dogma of modern physics—including string theory.  My theory of one is essentially complete while it is projected that string theory will occupy academic physicists for decades.  They have made career plans based on string theory.  But like the emperor, they have no clothes.  String theory is normal science while my theory of one is paradigm-shifting science.  Most physicists eat up normal science with a big spoon but flee in abject terror from paradigm-shifting science.

The Supremacy of God.  Consider the following argument.  The Canadian Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God.  Albert Einstein said that God is the sum total of the laws of nature.  Einstein’s claim is simple, beautiful and reasonable, and therefore mathematically true.  Accordingly, the laws of nature are supreme to everything including the laws of government.  In other words, the laws of nature trump the laws of government.  Relativity theory, quantum theory and my theory of one are all laws of nature.  If the laws of nature do not trump the laws of government, then the government will just go on ignoring the laws of nature.  After I lost my house I sent material to the Canadian government claiming they had no legal right to let the bank take my house in that it violates the Constitution.  I would argue the government is behaving treacherously by refusing to state its position on arguments.  By government I mean anyone who receives funding from the government.

The Laws of Nature.  According to John Locke (1632-1704)—The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth—and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man but to only have the laws of nature for his rule.  Locke inspired President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and the United States Constitution.  In fact, the United States is commonly considered to be a Lockean experiment.  In addition to Einstein’s claim above, Sir James Jeans said something similar in stating that God is a mathematician.  The laws of nature are mathematical and mathematics is the foundation of all science.  They are a universal decree determined by nature starting at the moment of the big bang sixteen billion years ago.  In comparison, the laws of government have only existed for four millennia.  My theory of one proves mathematically that the universe is bounded, that God exists at this boundary outside of spacetime and is therefore eternal.

Inalienable Rights and Duties.  Locke also said—We are compelled by reason to acknowledge the existence of natural, inalienable rights and duties independent of convention, agreement or contract.  It is a reasonable to have arguments answered by the government.  There is no point in making an argument if the government does not respond to it.  The government simply ignores arguments it does not like in order to maintain control over citizens.  For example, hundreds of government physicists across Canada could be put out of business by my theory of one argument.  My theory of one is the final theory of everything.  The conduct of government physicists is a classic case of the agency problem—meaning that government agents have put their own interests above the wellbeing of mankind.  The physicists are building their careers on outdated ideas.  By ignoring arguments they continue to be out of touch with innate reality.

Bringing Down the Government.  Locke also said—If the government violates the rights of individual citizens, then the people have the right to get rid of the government.  Unfortunately, Locke did not tell us how to get rid of the government.  The government has violated my rights and needs to be removed.  I am saying that to symbolically bring down the government we should impeach the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for obstruction of argument that violates my inalienable rights and neglects his inalienable duties.  This may seem radical but we must do what Spike Lee said and do the right thing.  It would set the tone for the world to respond to arguments.  We have a very good quality of life in Canada and would have something great to offer the world by impeaching the prime minister of Canada for obstructing arguments and violating the Constitution.

Living in Truth.  The former president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel, once said that corruption begins when people start saying one thing and thinking another.  In his essay The Power of the Powerless Havel asserts that people can bring down a totalitarian government nonviolently by simply living in truth.  While most people do not see Canada as totalitarian, I would argue that it is totalitarian because it refuses to answer arguments.  Arguments pertaining to problems like behaviorism allow people to affect change in government.  Behaviorism is the psychological model that tells us our only responsibility is to behave normally.  Conversely, existentialism is the philosophical model that tells us we have total freedom and total responsibility.  One way we can exercise this freedom and responsibility is by constructing arguments that lead us to the realization of truth.

Telling the Truth.  Most people want to be told the truth rather than figure it out for themselves.  If the government were to tell us that X = 8, our responsibility would be to make it true.  Our authoritarian government blocks arguments so that it may maintain control over the behavior of people.  The government currently answers legal arguments.  I would argue that it should answer all arguments.  Plato said that a just society would only be possible once philosophers become kings and kings become philosophers.  In a previous essay I declared myself to be the philosopher-king of Canada based on The Divine Right of Kings argument.  Essentially it says that one can declare themselves king if he can establish a divine connection between himself and God.  My theory of one proves mathematically that the universe is bounded, that there is only one photon (ie. a being of light) and that one photon is God.  As king, I am saying that the Canadian government and the prime minister specifically are committing fundamental moral errors in failing to respond to my arguments including the argument that the laws of nature trump the laws of government.

Closing the Liars Loophole.  The government is denying arguments because they are inconvenient and also usurp their power.  They refuse to acknowledge arguments because doing so would force them to act on the arguments.  If the government were to recognize the truth that the laws of nature trump the laws of government, it would compel them to give my house back to me.  The government should not have been able to let the bank take my house because it must first answer my theory of one argument.  A lie of omission is still a lie—which is the liar’s loophole I am closing here.  Individuals with arguments should first go to government agents (eg. educators and doctors).  If government agents fail to satisfactorily respond to arguments then I propose that individuals could go to the police.

The Police.  Judge Oliver Wendell Homes Jr said—Every opinion tends to become a law.  The method of argument is not an opinion, it is an argument.  Martin Luther King Jr said—There is nothing in the world more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.  The police call themselves courageous but do not have the courage to think for themselves.  All the many laws of government control people to the point that they cannot bother with the laws of nature.  I would argue that the police should support all arguments and the laws of nature as well.  If a professor were to ignore an argument, then the police could charge him with obstruction of argument.  Monitoring itself like this would make the government self-aware.  Because they do not hold the laws of nature above the laws of government, the everyman is totally out of touch with himself and is thusly argument-impaired.

Obstruction of Argument.  The government keeps its head in the sand regarding arguments it does not like.  I am saying that the only way the government can be compelled to answer arguments is if they cannot enforce any government law until they have first answered arguments pertaining to the laws of nature.  The path I took in trying to get the government to answer my arguments is to first present my arguments to educators, doctors, the chief justice and then to the prime minister.  My approach should be the standard model for having the government respond to arguments.  I would propose that we use the sixteen-hundred word essays that I have developed with Philosophymagazine as the standard approach for making and answering arguments.

Conclusion.  Recognizing the method of argument is a monumental shift equivalent to nothing less than landing on the moon.  It would be a great gift that Canada could give the world—and all it would cost is one house.  If the Canadian prime minister fails to respond to this essay, which says that we must hold the laws of nature above the laws of government, I believe we should impeach him.  The arguments presented here are winning arguments and the government is obstructing them and violating the Constitution.