Freedom Do we have freedom by the definition?

• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1423502 wrote:Did you not see where I stated that my future plan is to opt out as much as possible? I get it, you enjoy your servitude. I don't. I'm setting up a framework to limit it as much as possible in the near future.
  
  Also, what does this mean? IMNSHOIYAMFWIW.

  Or maybe, like all contracts, I enjoy my mutually-benefical relationship with my fellow citizens and actually enjoy the multitude of services my agents in government provide....like and effective and efficient payment system....as one example.
  
  Surely that's how libertarians evaluate other contracts...as not a zero-sum game involving hostile servitude but mutually beneficial relationships.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BoatShoes;1423526 wrote:Or maybe, like all contracts, I enjoy my mutually-benefical relationship with my fellow citizens and actually enjoy the multitude of services my agents in government provide....like and effective and efficient payment system....as one example.
  
  Surely that's how libertarians evaluate other contracts...as not a zero-sum game involving hostile servitude but mutually beneficial relationships.

  I'm sure libertarians, like most people, know they aren't bound by contracts they never agreed to.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1423524 wrote:Of course they do not constitute "proof" as you are using the term.

  I'm using the term in the only possible way it can accurately be used.
  

  What is your standard of proof any way? Is it proof by a preponderance of the evidence...beyond doubt???

  Doesn't matter. What's important is that a majority of experts sharing an opinion is not evidence. Even if everyone agreed with the authors of the book you cited (they don't), it doesn't constitute proof.
  

  Who knows? It is one attempt at finding what the truth is.

  One of many, which would pretty much by definition make it "not proof".
  

  It is evidence that is reasonably trustworthy from experts

  It's discredited, in part or in whole, by some pretty smart people. Do you simply stop looking once you've found someone who has "confirmed" your world view?
  

  So as it relates to this topic, it is a hypothesis as to causation...in direct response to your post. Perhaps you might offer a returning volley?

  A hypothesis is the starting point of an attempt to discover truth, and is neither true nor untrue.
• Heretic

  

  justincredible;1423502 wrote:Also, what does this mean? IMNSHOIYAMFWIW.

  He had a seizure while typing?
• O-Trap

  

  justincredible;1423502 wrote:Also, what does this mean? IMNSHOIYAMFWIW.

  In My Not So Honest Opinion If You Ask Me For What It's Worth
• Zombaypirate

  queencitybuckeye;1423534 wrote:I'm using the term in the only possible way it can accurately be used.
  
  
  
  Doesn't matter. What's important is that a majority of experts sharing an opinion is not evidence. Even if everyone agreed with the authors of the book you cited (they don't), it doesn't constitute proof.
  
  
  
  One of many, which would pretty much by definition make it "not proof".
  
  
  
  It's discredited, in part or in whole, by some pretty smart people. Do you simply stop looking once you've found someone who has "confirmed" your world view?
  
  
  
  A hypothesis is the starting point of an attempt to discover truth, and is neither true nor untrue.

  Correct proofs are for mathematics.
• O-Trap

  

  Zombaypirate;1423632 wrote:Correct proofs are for mathematics.

  
  Or epistemology. Or logic.