1. Principle of noncontradiction


This principle points out controdictions in logic.

X can not be A and not A at the same time.

if X is A,then it can not be B if A and B are Z.

it may be possable for X that is A to later turn into B but once it does it, it cannot be A anymore

Now that the first principle has given us the concept of an in consistency in logic it now must expand to counter its own flaw which would be how do you address a chain of logic with an consistency or inconsistencies in it.

2. Principle of consistency

This principle points out inconsistency it's in any consistency is a chain of logic with a contradiction in it.


• A and B can not both be true if the reasoning behind both A and B violate the first and second principles(infomation and logic controdict each other.)

• both A and B can only be true if the reasoning behind both A and B is formulated with principle 1 and 2, thus making the debate a clear inconsistency in of itself.

• one of A or B is true if the reasoning behind one of the two claims does no contradicts itself thus is consistent

Another II principle has given us the concept of a contradiction in the chain of logic and now must expand to counter it's flaw which would be how do you figure out which argument in the debate has an inconsistency.

3. Burden of proof

We solve the problem that arises from principle by creating the concept of the burden of proof; those who Advocate a claim against an opponent or otherwise must provide the proof of their claim .


• if A makes a claim that B is wrong and B's claim is full of contradictions and inconsistencies then the burden of proof Falls to A

• if A addresses the burden of proof then B must either agree to the proof that A has provided or B must make a claim against A's proof transferring the burden of proof to B and back again until the inconsistent claim is debunked

• both A and B's claim can be true if neither side finds any in consistencies but the debate itself is a clear inconsistency and that's a contradiction violating the first and second principle.

4. Those advocating Force have the B.O.P.

If those in debate have the burden of proof when they make a claim then so should a physical action or a avocation for a physical action otherwise that would be a contradiction thus a inconsistency and obviously it would have violated the third Principle as well because it would fail and be proven to contain an inconsistency.

• if B is doing nothing,and A desides to rob B at gunpoint,infront of C ,then the burden of proof fall to A ,the argument must in adhear principles 1 through 4

• if B is doing nothing,and A desides to rob B at gunpoint,infront of C, then C Kills A,then burden of proof falls to C,the argument must in adhear principles 1 through 4

•if B is doing nothing,and A desides to rob B at gunpoint,infront of C, then B kills A,the burden of proof falls to B,the argument must in adhear principles 1 through 4

no problem arises if we put the act of aggression or the use of force through the first five principles then we discover that it comes out within inconsistency after all how can you use Force when there are alternatives to using Force, of course it is logical to defend oneself when you are the one being attacked so the initiation of force aka the start of an act of force is inconsistent.

5. The initiation of force cannot be defended

The act of starting a force against another person or people is inconsistent for one has the alternative to do something other than attack one can bargain one can make deals one can even form Partnerships, but if someone is attack and defense themselves then obviously that is and an initiation of force therefore it is not in inconsistency.

* what if A then points a gun back at C because he doesn't want to be forced to do something that he doesn't want to do? What's C going to do say that person doesn't get to use Force? Even though C is doing what he's doing through Force? How does person see have any legitimacy here at that point?(by Shane Killian)

* let's say that D disagrees with C's interference, and points a gun at him, if the initiation of force is defensible then who is acting in the wrong here?(by Shane Killian)

•after C makes A do X for B, and E point a gun at C and makes him do something he thinks he should do like give up his collection of pornography. how does C have any logical defense if he wants to complain about it? Under the consistency principle if one is valid the other must be too. (by Shane Killian)

6.Self ownership

If the initiation of force is a direct violation of logic then obviously there are some questions that need to be addressed what prevents us from being attacked and a logical sense? Well we own ourselves and if we own ourselves then we have the right to protect ourselves and if we protect ourselves then we own ourselves.

• B owns B,s self;B owns B's body,B's mind m,B's time and the fruits of B's labors.why?well, what would it mean if B didn't?who else would own B? If someone else can own B that would make B their slave. But slavery completely violates the consistency principle; who gets to own slaves and who is subject to being enslaved? you would be making different rules for different people which you do not get to do.

*even if B' answer is that no one would B you B still have a problem. if B is not owned then no one can stop A from doing whatever they wants to B. if no one owns a B there's nothing stopping A from picking it up and using B for whatever purpose A wants. So if no one owns B then anyone can do whatever they want to B including raping and murdering in B. So you run into a problem with the consistency principle again. since ownership of X means having control over what happens to X the only consistent principle is self ownership which means that B get to make the decisions that affect only B and B get to defend B's self against others who would impose their will on B,.

*giving anyone else the legitimacy to do so runs into fundamental inconsistency problems; that would mean you B defend B's self,that would mean that no one else has any legitimacy and stopping others and what happens if A else wants to rape you instead? How do you determine which of them has the right to rape B? Get the picture? so self ownership is the only consistent way.

7.Private property

how can one claim ownership over private property? only if it's an extension of one's right of self ownership. So someone can own something one of two ways; 1)the individual can do it their self or make it their self, so long as they don't intrude on anyone else's property rights to do so whatever is the product of their own actions their own mind their own labor rightly belongs to them and no one else.2) a individual can trade for it otherwise convince the proper owner of something to transfer ownership to the individual. if a individual makes in Acts the individual can trade it for its all and then the saw is that individuals saw. likewise the other individual gives up the saw and takes ownership of the axe. Or the individual can trade the individuals labor. The individual can agree to work a certain number of hours and receive property in return. For example, the individual might do some work for the individuals landlord in exchange for letting him stay there.

in fact the individual can engage in any kind of voluntary contract the individual wants except one, there's one piece of property the individual owns that the individual can never give up; himself. you can trade an axe because the axe can be separated from you, you can donate your kidney because your kidney can be separated from you, but there's no way you can be separated from yourself. no matter where you go there you are!

8.Taking of legitimately owned property cannot be defended.

Owning property is passive. Taking that property is that property is active at the very least as we discussed earlier the burden of proof is on the side of the active, in this case the property-taker.

This is why a plaintiff in court must prove his case before the court will pass a judgement for compensation. the only time this is legitimate is when the person has taken or damaged his property, or otherwise not lived up to his end of the contract,

if person A has stolen property from person B,person A can be made to give it back or give the equivalent amount of money for damages to the property or the theft of the property. or if person A borrows money from person B to buy a house and then doesn't pay it back; person B can then foreclose on person A's house. but when there has been no contract, no taken or damaged property, when no such obligation can never be shown you run into big problems with the consistency principle. by the very effect we talked about before the self ownership likewise private property cannot be usurped by others. so burden of proof in this context means only that you can prove that the person has an obligation based on a positive action he himself has taken to agree with it.thats it. And that positive action cannot be the result of duress, dress is an initiation of force in so any contracts made under that force (or the threat of it) are automatically invalid.

so from first principles taxation is theft. using Force to take a portion of someone's wages denies the very concept of self ownership, and therefore denies the principle of noncontradiction and all science and reason go with it.

That also makes the so-called "social contract" a failure right on the face of it; even without having to go into what the courts have said about tacit consent and the rest, the social contract contravenes these very basic property rights and since these rights are based on nothing.


1. If you make a claim you must provide the evidence for that claim.

2. If you feel a claim is wrong present evidence to suggest such and debate over it

Wait while more posts are being loaded