Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 19, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

10:30

The 4 Pillars of ALL Political Arguments

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Mike Adams.
	You know, it's like 700,000 people have been killed by SSRI drugs alone since the year 2000.
	It's unreal.
	The Health Ranger Report.
	The drug industry has declared war on humanity, and the prostitutes in Washington are just going right along with it.
	They don't give a damn.
	It's time for the Health Ranger Report.
	And now, from NaturalNews.com, here's Mike Adams.
	It's fascinating to me that almost every political argument breaks down into really just four areas of argument.
	And three of them are temporal.
	In other words, based on time.
	So there are arguments about what has been, what the past, what happened in the past, what is history.
	And political arguments will attempt to distort history or rewrite history.
	Then there's what is now, the present, and of course the arguments will try to say, oh, well, gun violence is up or gun violence is down or unemployment is up or unemployment is down, whatever.
	There are arguments about what is, and then there are arguments about the desired future, what.
	What should society look like?
	How should society be structured?
	So it's looking forward, you know, Democrats will tend to say, well, everyone should be equal.
	Okay.
	Although that violates, you know, actual, the fourth principle here, which is cause and effect.
	So let me just focus on the fourth one then, which is about what causes what.
	And this is actually the primary focus of a lot of political argumentation, especially when debating new legislation, you know, potential laws.
	Lawmakers will try to say, well, X causes Y, or X causes a decrease of Y. For example, they'll say, well, increased funding for, let's say, the War on Drugs, They might say decreases the number of people hooked on drugs.
	Now, that's their assertion.
	It's It's not a true assertion, of course.
	We can break that apart.
	That's not the point of this, but that's an assertion that they would say.
	Or they would say, increasing the number of people on food stamps will result in a more compassionate society.
	So X causes Y. Whatever they want to pass or push, they say, they claim that it causes some good outcome that they want everybody to support.
	Usually these cause and effect kinds of arguments are completely illogical.
	In almost every case, it's an oversimplification.
	You know, economics is a complex subject.
	Human behavior is highly complex.
	And if you just take the food stamp example, Having more and more people on food stamps does not make a society where more and more people are, let's say, eating better, have better nutrition or are eating healthier foods.
	In fact, in many ways, it's quite the opposite.
	So there are all kinds of cause and effect arguments that fall apart at just even a slight scrutiny.
	But now if you step back and look at all of these arguments, this is what politicians argue.
	This is what the media argues.
	Every media narrative is rooted in something like this.
	It's either an argument about what has been the past, what is now the present, what should be in the future, or what causes what.
	It's these four key arguments.
	And this is something that I just came to This was a self-realized structure here.
	This isn't something I read somewhere.
	This isn't something that someone else taught me.
	I just was thinking about it, and every political argument can break down into these four things.
	Like, let's take taxation.
	Republicans tend to say taxes should be lower, and Democrats tend to say taxes should be higher.
	But what's their reasoning?
	Well, Democrats will say taxes should be higher because higher taxation creates a more equal society, and that's the outcome they want.
	Republicans will say that lower taxation creates a more abundant society in which more people have opportunities to move up, so it's more free, and that's what they want.
	Well, both of these arguments have faults.
	For example, on the Democrat side, the fault, of course, is that the more you tax, the more businesses are put out of business, reducing the job opportunities for those of lower economic status and thereby suppressing their ability to have upward economic mobility.
	So that's the problem with their argument.
	In fact, Democrats, their arguments tend to focus on things that are magical thinking, where they want an outcome such as, let's say, equality.
	The term itself is so loaded with falsehoods and self-deception that I can barely say the term without laughing.
	But the term equality is used typically by progressives and Democrats to assert that they want everyone in society to earn exactly the same amount.
	So that's their dream, but it's not rooted in reality, and that's why it falls apart very quickly.
	And why is it not rooted in reality?
	Because, well, people are individuals.
	We like a society with diversity, right?
	So diversity means people are free to behave in their own personal way.
	Some people like to work more.
	Some people like to work less.
	Some people are more capable.
	Some people are less capable.
	Some people choose careers that don't pay very well, and other people choose careers that pay a lot better.
	So of course there's going to be a distribution of of economic wealth across society if it's a free society.
	If you create, if you mandate equality, economic equality, that's called communism.
	That's called government centralized planning where the government hands out money to everybody but doesn't require people to earn it.
	And so that society actually leads to a totalitarian hell.
	Which is not the outcome that Democrats say they want, but the cause and effect reality means that that's what they will create.
	And if you don't believe me, look at Venezuela.
	Venezuela is a socialist society supposed to stand for equality.
	Venezuela as a nation has enormous resources of petroleum.
	They're an oil-rich nation, one of the richest oil nations in the world, and yet people there are still starving to death, literally starving to death, fighting in the streets for their freedom to try to overthrow their government because their government pushed equality for everyone, socialism for everyone, and then everyone became enslaved under the totalitarian regime of Maduro.
	So, cause and effect usually breaks down Especially on Democrats, because what they want, the utopian society that they want, isn't achievable no matter what you do.
	You're never going to have an equal society if it's a free society.
	So they resort to things like trying to create equality by bringing down people who are achievers.
	And that's where the taxation philosophy comes from.
	But they want to punish people who earn more to bring them down to the poverty level of everybody who isn't working but getting a government handout.
	But it's interesting to look at any political argument, whether it's, oh, guns cause crime or guns reduce crime, right?
	You hear both sides of that argument.
	You can look at the history and the present and the future and cause and effect.
	And what you actually find, by the way, on that topic is that the more law-abiding citizens have guns, the lower crime rates become because criminals don't like an armed citizenry.
	But the more guns are restricted from law-abiding citizens and put into the hands or retained in the hands of criminals, the murder rates skyrocket.
	That's Chicago.
	Why is the murder rate so high in Chicago?
	Because law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns.
	But you see, that's just an example.
	Any argument, you can break it down and really look at it and see that a lot of the arguments that politicians make on both sides of the aisle totally, totally break down.
	And anyway, I just encourage you to apply this thinking.
	Anytime you hear a politician make a claim or say, this law is going to have this effect, Ask yourself, is that true?
	Does X really cause Y? Would this law have any unintended consequences?
	Could it cause something that they don't want to happen?
	Such as raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour, for example.
	What are the effects that are unintended?
	Could it cause mass unemployment among the nation's youth?
	Yes, because it puts a lot of restaurants out of business.
	Is a minimum wage of $10 an hour maybe a better compromise?
	That's for you to decide and analyze.
	But definitely analyze it.
	Don't believe someone claiming A causes B just because they want it to.
	A lot of what you're told, especially from bureaucrats and politicians, is pie-in-the-sky, pipe dream fantasy.
	And it won't be true in the real world.
	It just doesn't work the way they want it to work.
	That's the truth you won't hear from very many people, but thank you for listening.
	This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
	You're listening to HealthRangerReport.com.
	Learn more at HealthRangerReport.com.
	Thank you for watching.
	If you want to support our mission, visit us at healthrangersstore.com for the world's largest selection of lab-verified superfood and nutritional products for healthy living.

▲