Chapter 1 How to Think

Over the years, after having spoken to and argued with many, many people, I
have arrived
at the conclusion that most people don�t know how to think. This is certainly not
taught in
school. Students are taught WHAT to think, but not HOW to think. There is a big
difference. Leading
directly from this, I have observed that most people have no philosophy of their
own from which
they can make consistent decisions. Lacking a foundation of basic truths, they are
easily led by
their emotions. One of the things I learned in school, which has helped me learn
how to think,
was in analytic geometry. This class taught how to do theorems or mathematical
proofs. A proof is
a systematic series of arguments, which starts with axioms. Axioms are self-
evident truths that
cannot be argued. They must be agreed upon first because they are not arguable. An
example is the
identity principle, which states that 1=1 and only 1. This is self evident and not
arguable. In
the course of your proof, if you find you have violated an axiom, then your proof
is wrong. If we
don�t agree that our axioms are true, then we can go no further. However if we do
agree that our
axioms are true, and then if we disagree about some other higher knowledge, we can
reduce those
arguments back to the axioms and find out which one of us is correct and which one
is not. I have
had two occasions when people have told me they could prove 99=100. I told them
that they could
not do so because they are axiomatically wrong and we could stop right there. If
you end a proof
and you violate an axiom, then the proof is wrong. There are only two choices here.
Either the
proof is wrong or the axiom is wrong. We have already agreed that the axiom is
correct and not up
for debate. Therefore, the only other choice is that the proof is wrong. Another
example of why
they were wrong is if 99=100, then 98=99 and so on. Then all numbers are equal and
the whole
science of mathematics is meaningless. One good side to this is all answers on math
tests would
be correct. Just kidding, but you see how you end up in a mess if you start out
with a violation
of an axiom and continue your thoughts with this wrong premise. By the way, for
those of you,
like me, who would lose sleep about this proof, it went something like this:

100=100
100/3=100/3
33=100/3
33 x 3=100/3 x 3
99=100

The correct way to think is to start with axiomatic knowledge and build
logically from
there with no axiomatic inconsistencies. One reason people end up with wrong
thoughts and ideas
is that they start their thinking in the middle and have no solid base from which
to make
decisions. An example is when asked if the government should take money from those
who have too
much and give it to those who don�t have enough, there will be some people who feel
(not think)
one way, and other people who feel (not think) another way. I find that
fascinating. Not that
there are two different incompatible answers, but that they are both right and
there is nothing
more to say. The reason that I say both are right is that they are telling the
truth. That IS how
they feel. One feels one way and the other feels the other way. We cannot argue
with them about
this. What the tricksy hobbitses did was to not answer the question at all and give
us a
completely useless statement about their feelings. They could just as easily told
us how they
felt about kids playing soccer and given us the same information as relates to the
question of
whether the government should redistribute wealth. As far as the question itself
goes, there is a
correct answer and we will get to it a little later. First we need some axioms, and
then we may
proceed with some solid ground under us from which we can take a stand.

AXIOM # 1

Man is Born Free

This can be considered the Prime axiom because it is the one from which all
others flow.
There are only two choices. Either man is born free or he is born a slave. That is
it. Choose,
and choose carefully, because everything else follows from this. If you choose that
man is born a
slave to others will, then stop here because none of the rest of this will fit into
your
philosophy of life. And we want you to know that you�re wrong. However if you agree
with this,
please keep in mind that this is our axiom. If one of your conclusions argues
against this or any
of the axioms that follow from this, then you have made an error in your thinking
and your
conclusion is false. You would be arguing with yourself and that is just silly.
They have rooms
for people who do that. Just don�t. Either man is free or he is not. Are you still
with us? Good,
then let us continue.

AXIOM # 2

I Own Myself

Once we consciously acknowledge that man is free, then it necessarily follows

that he
owns himself. It would be axiomatically incorrect to hold the belief that he is
free and that
some other entity owns him. It would violate axiom # 1. If someone else owns him,
then he is by
definition that person�s slave.

AXIOM # 3

I Own the Fruits of My Labor

If I am free, then it follows also that I own myself, and therefore I also
own whatever I
produce. If I make a thing myself, then I put myself in it. Since I own myself,
then I own the
thing I made. The alternative is that if I make a thing and someone else gets to
own it, then he
has stolen my labor, which is the same as stealing me. If he now owns me, then we
are back to
violating axioms.

3(A) as a corollary, it also follows that if I trade my labor for something, then
I now own
that thing.
3(B) if I trade a thing that I own for something else, then I now own that thing.

That should be enough to get the conversational ball rolling.