Police and Terrorism: One and the Same by Bill Buppert

“I said to (Haynes) that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process.”

“At which point, his eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? . . . We’ve got to have convictions.'”

– Morris Davis to William J. Haynes II (Former General Counsel for Department of Defense) on Guantanamo trials of detainees during the War on Terror.

The current War on Terror inaugurated in 2001 by Bush II ushered in an era when the US government made torture its official policy as I wrote here.  It also started a broad fusillade against every basic liberty of every human living within the borders of the American tax jurisdiction.  While ostensibly a full scale assault on “terrorists”, it has provided an object lesson in how one becomes what one hunts.

I will state my desire up front:  I don’t want the police to be reformed, watched, video-recorded, monitored, disarmed, watch-dogged, controlled, quality checked, investigated, punished, prosecuted or anything else.  I simply want them gone.  I want their current employment  to cease and desist.  From the FLEAs (Federal Law Enforcement Agents) all the way to the local constabulary, all must be permanently furloughed and asked to find more productive work like mowing lawns, bagging groceries or playing video-games.  It could be somewhat cathartic to have apology tours across the nation by every cop employed or retired through the communities they “served”.  We could provide them with a by-name list of anyone they have harassed, fined, kidnapped, caged or maimed to map out their respective apology tours.  Those murdered by departments could have their graves identified for the appropriate visit by the acknowledged killer (who most likely served nothing more than a paid administrative “leave”) in the thin “black and blue” line.

I have made a comprehensive case for the reduction and elimination of police forces already and will not make the case here.

All department buildings, vehicles, uniforms and the miscellany of appropriated goods can be sold at auction to include all asset forfeiture and seizure “property”.  The proceeds would be disbursed to all the arrested and caged victims of consensual and non-violent crime enforcement.

A free society would not require the tattooing or branding of these former officers to readily identify them as a threat to polite society but a shunning campaign could be instituted for the more egregious bullies in their ranks.

Before the 20th century, cops were few and far between in these united States, yet today most of the populace mewl in fear when one proposes the cops simply go away…forever.

What are they afraid of?  The police have no duty to protect individuals from harm in society.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled numerous times since 1856 that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual, despite the motto “protect and serve”. Their duty is to enforce the law in general. The first such case was in 1856 (South v. Maryland) and the most recent in 2005 (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales).[69]

Their charter is clear and always has been:  they enforce the laws of our rulers no matter how unjust, silly, murderous or just plain stupid.

They constantly and insipidly insist that they are simply doing their jobs, much like the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg.  Their behavior is much more like an occupation force than a community peace officer operation.  From the Drug War to the Raw Food raids, they are the enablers of all the bad laws people constantly and incessantly bellyache about yet the government-media complex has done an extraordinary job of hanging bunting and patriotic gore on the image of the armed tax-eater as a hero and pillar of the community; such a worthy protector that his safety will always trump that of a mundane citizen.

If the object of policing is creating a safe and stable community for people to work and play in, then that is certainly not the effect.  Cops are historians when it comes to real crimes, especially those perpetrated against individuals, for they respond to crimes in progress or well after the fact and rarely seem to resolve violent situations without leaving a trail of blood and tears behind them.

I would love to find the documented evidence of how many innocents are run down or petty criminals shot by cops annually.  As a matter of fact, when the bagpipes are playing at a funeral for a cop, there is a greater than fifty percent chance they died in a traffic accident and the numbers are minuscule per capita (56 died by gunfire in 2010 and no percentage identified of how many were the result of fratricide):  nearly one million sworn “officers” and on average approximately 125 die every year in the line of duty.  Nearly three times that number perish annually by their own hand.  There are 17,000 police departments in these united States and zero reliable data available on the number of people maimed and killed by the police but simply from the news and anecdotal reports, the numbers are certainly higher than cop fatalities.

I am going to make a banal but obvious correlation between police forces and terrorism.  They are one and the same.  I have a natural Rothbardian revulsion toward any initiated violence and find that in the lion’s share of police confrontations in America, the police inevitably draw first blood and participate, under color of law and authority, in the most sadistic and vicious behavior humans can outside of the CIA “Black Sites” although the behavior inside police stations may rival that.  Caleb Carr has stated in his brilliant tome, The Lessons of Terror, that terrorism is simply “politically motivated violence against non-combatants and innocents”.

What political component?  By their own admission, police officers are law enforcers and the political process  is how laws are divined; so, cops are by their very nature the Praetorian Guard for the ruling class at all levels.  How many times has one heard the tired old saw by police that they are simply “upholding the law”?  One can dither about the employment of the term unlawful but in America that has as much definitional weight as unconstitutional.  If you suppose this is making too fine a point then why would America turn its back so abruptly on the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture to quite literally bureaucratize and institutionalize torture and cruelty in the global military campaign  to eradicate a tactic e.g., terrorism?  Can one adduce that the American police culture increasingly mimics the military in dress and behavior?  Can you think of a more natural seedbed for cruelty and torture than the video evidence that piles up day after day of police abuse of the citizenry?  These are not isolated incidents.  The modern police demand instant obedience or they will beat, electrocute or shoot you for the mere act of resistance or defiance.  Let that sink in:  the government sanctions the initiated savaging of innocent civilians (presumption of innocence) who don’t grovel and scrape and obsequiously comply with the orders of the armed agents of big government.  America, indeed.

Let’s use the government’s own definitions to make the case for a healthy petard hoisting.  One finds that the straightforward and simple US National Counterterrorism Center definition dovetails nicely with Carr.

US National Counterterrorism Center

The US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as: “…premeditated; perpetrated by a sub national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target.” [57]

Other agencies propose the following variations:

United States Code (U.S.C.)

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

“Definitions … the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents;”[53]

US Code of Federal Regulations

The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

US national security strategy

In September 2002 the US national security strategy defined terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents”.[55] This definition did not exclude actions by the United States government and it was qualified some months later with “premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents”.[56]

United States Department of Defense

The United States Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010) the Department of Defense defines it as “the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.”

The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism (“usually political”). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.  The sly use of the term lawful and unlawful allows the DoD to give soldiers a “get out of jail free” card for what appears to be terroristic behavior; a standard that has been suborned into the corpus of the American constabulary.


The USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism activities as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”

Quite simply, no War on Terror is complete without a total dismantling and salting of the earth of all government sponsored police organizations and their concomitant support apparatus.  One could make a robust case that our various “police actions” around the world and especially in the Middle East prompted the attack on America in the first place.  One can make an even more convincing case that none of our freedoms would be extinct or disappearing absent the presence of police.

The War on Terror truly begins at home.  The terror mindset emulates the TSA’s mantra of “Dominate. Intimidate. Control” which saturates police training across the fruited plain and is the sine qua non of cop behavior in the most benign encounters.  This nicely complements the illogical and cowardly “officer safety” mantra that literally gives them a license to initiate violence and get away with it. Until Americans finally realize that police are not their friends but their masters, no freedom is possible.  They are not there to protect the citizenry; they are the armed bulwark for big and small government, the tip of the spear thrust into every notion of decency, liberty and freedom. Most likely, few of the crimes policed are malum in se such as crimes against property or person and most are crimes the government created out of whole cloth such as drug use, DUI, prostitution and the myriad  federal regulations that ensnare unwitting citizens.  Essentially, crimes with no victims except the unfortunates fined and caged by the police.

We have all seen and read the horrific accounts of the police savaging and mauling of women and children.  This is not only what they are capable of, this is what they do.  Every day.

The police are just as legitimate as the rulers and masters who walk their leashes.  The odd political tensions between alleged Left and Right differences mean that, quite literally, you agree to the rightness and moral superiority of every law.  Good luck with that.

The next time you watch one of the legions of police brutality videos on the internet, ask yourself: who really hates you for your freedoms (what few are left)?

–  On June 8, 1978, Solzhenitzyn, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature in 1970 for his book “The Gulag Archipelago,” was addressing an audience at Harvard University:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .”

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium


17 thoughts on “Police and Terrorism: One and the Same by Bill Buppert”

  1. Powerfully true. There are no good cops. Not one. Otherwise that one good cop would not stand by while his “brothers” committed their abominable acts. He would do whatever it took to stop them, and he would be fired or killed for his honorable actions, thus removing him from the ranks of cops. Therefore … No good cops.

  2. I caught myself saying in public, “The only good cop is a dead one.” That caught even ME by surprise – and most certainly the people who heard me say that. Without meaning, I hurt the feelings of a couple of parents who told me their son was a cop. To that I exclaimed, “Then if he’s a decent person, he needs to get a decent job.”

    Does it mean I have an urge to harm anyone? Absolutely not! It means I’m fed up with being treated like a slave by the people whose salary I pay, with watching my son get brow beaten by a cop that didn’t appreciate his “attitude” when he exerted his rights. (Rights, which btw, are non existent!) And I’m sick to death of the cop-loving enablers that keep justifying cops’ existence.

    My sentiments must have come through loud and clear when I had my day in court. I know this because the prosecutor accused me of being an “anarchist.” My charge? Obstructing a public official when – at 300 FEET AWAY I videotaped my son’s arrest. (which btw was ERASED). His offense? Dark, tinted windows. Worse, though, was his “attitude” when he questioned the UNLAWFUL order to lower his BACK window ALL the way down so the cop could snoop. Did they find any contraband? No. But they did manage to injure an arm that had a plate, and skin graft on it.

    Any good cops out there? No – or they’d leave the profession the instant they witnessed the tyranny we all KNOW they see.

    The prosecutor stated in her closing argument that “people need to OBEY law enforcers when they ORDER citizens to leave.”

    I retorted in my closing comment with, “I wonder how many people believed that Rosa Parks should have just OBEYED the LAWFUL ORDERS of HER day. In my case, I did not DISOBEY any LAWFUL ORDER – because no LAWFUL ORDER WAS GIVEN.”

    The prosecutor took great offense as she stated that she was a descendant of Rosa Parks. It’s shameful that a descendant of Rosa Parks now indulges in bringing to “justice” the MISjustice felt by her activist ancestor.

    I never thought I could find a profession to dislike more than the medical profession. But I did.

  3. No, Jesse, there are no “good” soldiers, government employees or contractors either because all are paid in stolen goods and eagerly participate in that theft.

    They have a choice, and choose theft, coercion and often murder. How are they to be excused?

    1. ML,

      I have to respectfully disagree because we are ALL government employees even if you work in the “private sector” (whatever the hell that is in the above-ground economy). if you pay taxes and comply with the regulations imposed from above, you are an accessory because you are feeding the system and giving it legitimacy through collaboration. 50-60% of our incomes at minimum are returned to the government machine at some level whether through direct taxes, the gas pump or your use of the roadways. So you are saying it is fine to feed the monster as long as you are not employed by it?The only free people in America are outlaws. All the rest of us are serfs, pure and simple.

      I get your point but until we know the Spartacus moment has arrived, no one wants to be the sacrificial whack-a-mole.

  4. And Jesse, way back when I supported The State (as limited as that support may have been), I was dead wrong. I was not being good, but was aiding evil. I am sorry I ever supported The State in any small way, and I hope I never make that error in judgment again. A good person may also have a job as a cop, but when he is acting in his “official capacity” he is supporting and committing evil- and he is still not a “good cop”.

  5. Bill- Huh? A victim of a mugging (and that’s what “taxpayers” and those who attempt to obey counterfeit “laws” are equivalent to) are not to be blamed for the acts committed upon their property. Just because a burglar breaks into your house it doesn’t mean you are that burglar’s accomplice, does it?

  6. Today I went to get a burn permit. The firehouse, that I pay for, was locked. You have to get “buzzed in” to enter, When I asked why the station was locked he said it was for security reasons! (We live in the middle of nowhere and I’m sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people waiting to do serious harm to our fire station or our fire personnel, but I digress.) And believe me, he was dead serious and happy to make sure that I knew he meant business. The man at the firehouse told me that I had to follow all these regulations to burn my brush piles, or I could be fined or possibly jailed. THEN on top of that, I have to report to the state at the end of the year, because I got a burn permit, on what I used to make sure that I am not contributing to bad air quality. Then, because I am a moron, to them at least, I was told my pile could be no bigger than 4 x 4. I dare anyone to cut up mesquite trees and keep the branches less than 4 x4. Sigh. Where does it end? Furthermore, I have to call the fire station and a certified fireman has to come out and eyeball my pile to make sure it is not over the limit. I can burn from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.. But not later than 2 hours before sunset and only one hour after sunrise. GOOD GOD!! When will it end? I am sure that I would be arrested on the spot, possibly harassed or beaten by the police, if I didn’t comply exactly to their requirements and one of my neighbors would be happy to turn me in anytime they thought I was not in compliance. The only solution I see is to stop supporting the U.S. by living somewhere else, and even then you have to pay taxes or you’ll end up back supporting the U.S. by supporting the penal system.

  7. Kent,

    What happens to the mugging victim who fights back? In the case of a resistance fighter, they live as long as they are able. For those not made of that timber (all of us), as collaborators in not resisting, we become the enablers of the system itself. So, yes, I believe we are accomplices and accessories in the system. This is part of the moral cowardice that informs all of our behaviors in the face of the great evil that is the State.

    BTW, voting and trying to change this fetid system politically is not the answer. The imminent currency collapse will reveal many opportunities for change.

  8. Reverend Draco

    The bad cops tarnish the reputation of the other 5%.

    I hate to advocate violence, but it has gotten to the point where we’re pretty much going to have to resort to it. . . back even the most meek of prey animals into a corner, and it will turn at bay – are we any less than they?

  9. >> “because we are ALL government employees even if you work in the “private sector” (whatever the hell that is in the above-ground economy). if you pay taxes and comply with the regulations imposed from above, you are an accessory because you are feeding the system and giving it legitimacy through collaboration. 50-60% of our incomes at minimum are returned to the government machine at some level whether through direct taxes, the gas pump or your use of the roadways”

    Bill, I’ve gotta disagree here.

    Would a chattel slave be considered an “employee”? You say 50-60% of our income gets sucked up by some form of government. That means I am 100% slave. There are no partial slaves. If I can’t tell my boss to shove it, it’s slavery. Not employment.

    There is a private sector out here. Those of us who are not in the business of death and destruction try to build it daily. Maybe we should label it the non-destructive slave sector.

    One more big thing. There is a huge difference in those who sign up for the ruling class and those who are ruled by it. Actually, it’s the difference between employees and slaves.

    1. Chris, I see the gist of your argument but the problem remains: collaboration whether through willingness or under duress enables the entire system. If fhe Helots merely said and acted on the power of No, none of the freedoms and liberties we have would be in the hazard.

  10. Pingback: Interesting Stuff for a Rainy Sunday » ReasonAndJest.com

  11. Personally I see a difference between collaboration and being entwined. We’re all entwined.

    As far as the good cop/bad cop thing, “I see nothing but individuals out there.” I don’t see how one could even begin to rate such a thing without knowing the personal values and intents of the participants. I think there’s an argument that knowingly standing by while some of the BS happens is plenty evil, but it’s also the case that many cops/firemen/soldiers/even bureaucrats are themselves entwined without lots of realistic options. That’s not intended to be an excuse, but without knowing a particular person’s intent and actions, I don’t see how he could be labeled good or bad in the first place.

    It’s like lawyers and bankers—there’s gotta be a decent one of those too!

  12. Jesse,
    I’m actually writing many essays right now. Many on the subject of government slavery. I have several essays about 3/4 of the way done, but have been slacking lately. I would like to try and deliver Bill about one essay a week, but right now there’s fish to catch!! My son and I have been fishing the river almost every day for about three weeks. What can I say, I’m a Smallmouth addict! I’ll get back into it in the fall, it’ll give me something to do in the treestand. It’s almost bow season, and I’m starting to get the itch(bad!).

    You are right! The problem remains, and we all share some level of responsibility in this. Perhaps some more than others. I’ve got a real problem with slave on slave violence, especially when one slave thinks he has “authority”.

    >It’s like lawyers and bankers—there’s gotta be a decent one of those too!
    I too see nothing but individuals out there my friend, but this ones got me thinkin’ I might have been wrong!(LOL!).

  13. ASSUMPTION: By the fact that people are taxed, this must mean that it is held that taxation is legal..?

    Q: If a person victimizes another person by committing a crime, are they allowed to argue:
    ‘ignorance of the law is an excuse’?

    If not, then everyone who votes for a tax is guilty of aiding and abetting, and taking part, in the mala in se crime of theft; what makes “theft” a “crime” is because… there are victims!

    Facts [secular] That Prove
    T A X A T I O N I S T H E F T* (i.e., a criminal act)

    For anyone to say “T A X A T I O N I S T H E F T” is to make a statement.

    “Statements” can be either true or false.

    “Facts” are what make any statement either ‘true’ or ‘false’

    The following are five [5] secular facts that make the statement “Taxation is Theft”, true…

    1.) Taxation is not voluntary

    2.) Both FORCE and fraud are used in the collection of taxes

    3.) Taxing someone is forcing someone to labor without compensation, that is,
    slavery* – another mala in se crime* – just as are theft, rape, and murder.

    4.) Victims* are produced when a material good is taken/stolen from someone
    without permission.

    5.) One may not give another permission to do something [such as steal or enslave
    or murder] that one has no right to do – especially not a mala in se crime*…

    …this is articulated in our legal system as:

    Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet.
    (i.e., “No one may transfer a greater right than he himself has.”)

    One may disagree that “taxation is theft which is a mala in se crime” but, can one challenge it with their own facts that show the statement to be false?!

    * “Theft”: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person’s consent. It is a mala in se crime – just as is slavery, arson and murder – which means… there is a victim.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    For those who say they love God and hold the bible as God’s Word…
    …voting for a tax makes them a hypocrite who breaks three of the 10 Commandments of the OT!

    8th Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.

    If God says it’s wrong to steal, but…
    …Gov’t says it’s okay to steal – IF – you call it a “tax”,

    then, voting for a tax places Gov’t
    above God.

    1st Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods over Me.”

    10th Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet…” A vote to tax covets your
    neighbor’s property.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    In the NT…
    …a Christian, voting for a tax, breaks both of the two commandments Jesus gave:

    Jesus was asked: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

    “Jesus (at Matthew 22:37-40), said unto him,

    Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”

    “This is the first and greatest commandment…” (it reflects back to the breaking of the first of the ten commandments of the OT) “…and the second is like unto it,

    Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

    One does not (cannot) steal from one’s self, therefore a Christ-like Christian would not steal from their neighbors.

    “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    Jesus said (at John 14:15), “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

    – Ipso facto! –
    – – – – – – – – – –

    NOTICE: If one does not agree with the facts that prove to the whole world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that taxation is theft then one is obligated to rebut them with one’s own facts. If one can offer nothing in rebuttal then it is taken in law that one agrees, and the facts, as stated, stand in testimony of the truth.

    {Many of the men who wrote the following were slave-owners.] [slavery is now treated as a crime!)

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness/Property.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

    …all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    The history of the present…is a history of repeated injuries [force] and usurpations [fraud]…to prove this, let [verifiable] Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    …a multitude of New Offices…have been erected…and…swarms of Officers…have been…sent hither to harass our people, and eat out their substance…by the…taxes…imposed upon us.

    In every stage of these Oppressions…[I]…have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms…[my]…repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury… marked by every act which may define a Tyrant.
    …for the support of…these facts…with a firm reliance on the protection of…Providence…(I)…mutually pledge …(my)…Life…(my)…Fortune and…[my]…Honor.
    – – – – – – – – – –
    “Human Slavery” is anathema to the “equals” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
    “Taxation Slavery” is anathema to the “equals” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
    – – – – – – – – – –
    I seek a redress of these grievances so that ‘taxation-slavery’ may be ended and all “equals” may live free.
    – – – – – – – – – –

    “T A X A T I O N I S T H E F T!” is a statement; five [5] secular facts are listed which make the statement true. (Five [5] religious facts are also listed that show taxation to be sinful.)

    Definition of Fact

    A fact is something that has actually taken place or known to have existed, which can be validated with pieces of evidence. They are strictly defined, and can be measured, observed and proven. It refers to something that makes statements true and are used in connection with research and study.

    A fact can be an event or information, based on real occurrences which can be tested through verifiability, i.e. they are supported by proofs, statistics, documentation, etc. Therefore, a fact is nothing but a verifiable truth or reality which are agreed upon by a consensus of people.

    “Some people talk about ‘facts being true’. ‘Facts’ are not the same as ‘truth’.

    ‘Facts’ make ‘statements’ true.

    “True” and “truth” refer to ‘statements’ that describe ‘facts’. It is appropriate to say, ‘facts exist, and, statements are [either] true or false’.

    “Facts” exist outside the realm of ‘true or false’; “facts” just ‘are’ – statements are either true or false!”

    Facts are always one step ahead of opinions because facts can be proved to be right or accurate, whereas “opinion” may also be right but they canNOT be proved as true.

    Generally speaking, a fact is something that has actually happened or that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence. An opinion is a belief; it is normally subjective, meaning that it can vary based on a person’s perspective, emotions, or individual understanding of something. For example, biological differences between males and females are a fact, while a preference for one gender over the other is opinion.

    Subjective and Objective

    According to most definitions, something is a fact if it matches objective reality. For something to be objective, it must be outside of the mind and not be based on feelings or biases. This is the opposite of an opinion, which is what an individual thinks or feels about a subject.

    Although the differences between facts and opinions usually rest on whether they are objective or subjective, a true statement can in some cases be subjective. If a person says he is feeling sad, for example, that is a subjective fact about his emotional state — it is subjective because it is only that person’s individual experience. On the other hand, if the first person tells the second person that the second person feels sad, this statement is an opinion or guess, regardless of whether it is true.

    Fact vs. Theory

    In scientific reasoning, something can only be called a fact when it can be observed as it occurs or as a state of being, or when it can be proven through experimentation. Experiments must be repeatable and return the same result no matter who the observer is. Things that were once thought of as facts, however, have been shown to be incorrect. For example, the world was once thought to be flat by many people. This is now known to be incorrect, as objective evidence was introduced showing that it is actually a flattened sphere.

    Many things that people think of as science facts are, technically, theories. Gravity, for example, is a fact; the explanation of how gravity works, on the other hand, is a theory — and there are several different theories on how it actually does work. This does not mean that a theory is only speculation. Scientific theories are thoroughly tested and applied to known facts, observations, and hypotheses, and to survive, a theory must explain a wide range of observations that would be otherwise unconnected.
    – – – – – – – – – –

    One may disagree that “taxation is theft which is a mala in se crime” but, can they challenge it with facts of their own that show the statement is false?!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top