Forced seizure of property is morally reprehensible

Forced seizure of property is morally reprehensible.
Forcing other people to obey arbitrary dictates that they never agreed to be bound by is morally reprehensible.
Government does not own property unless all it takes to own property is to claim you own it, in which case you open yourself up to philosophical absurdities and the term "property" becomes meaningless. Therefore government attempting to forcibly seize people's property or force people into compliance with arbitrary dictates is not an exercise of domain over property.

This is true but the problem is the world ain't fair enough to let people be.

Divine Right of Kings disagrees

Yep

Fairness has nothing to do with it.
People don't think they have to morally justify their behavior because they take it as a given that carrying on what's been done in the past doesn't need justification, when in fact that's not the case.

It is morally wrong to use violence against people who have violated no one.

That's just "might makes right", which neither you nor anyone else actually believes. It's why when innocent people are slaughtered and tortured you think "that isn't right".

Strength is the only morality.

We have evolved beyond the need for physical strength.

You lack the strength of will to enforce your world view.

You are immoral.

Evolve or die.

That's a pitiful view that you don't actually hold.

Jim is at a business meeting at his associate's home, when - while he is walking through the hallway on the first floor - a pot falls from the stairwell on the third floor, killing him.
>"well I guess Jim was just 2 weak survival of the fittest amiright xD"
You have an absolutely infantile worldview.

>even if John claims that because he and his friends are in the majority you must obey or be punished, that would still be wrong

Wrong faggot that's called democracy, the majority get what the majority wants. If john had millions of people agreeing with him and your by yourself you are in the wrong here. Your welcome to move to somewhere without democracy though

Wrong
The majority of voters who voted so you can't live like a filthy fucking anarchist prove might makes right.

The might of the voters backed by a loyal army to them. shit on your little fuck hutt

>That's a pitiful view that you don't actually hold.

Create all the justifications, treatises, scenarios and prose you want.

The world is shaped by those strong enough to shape it, the world is not shaped the way you want it to be because you, and people like you, are not strong enough to enforce your worldview upon others.

> You have an absolutely infantile worldview.

Says the one throwing a temper tantrum on Sup Forums.

Fuck democracy, this is a Republic

Who wrote this, a child ?
>BAAAW IT'S WRONG STOP IT
Jesus so what ?
People with power rule over those who don't have it, welcome to the real world.

You're on on island with Bruno and Tony.
Bruno and tony agree that they're going to torture you by dismembering your limbs, castrating you, and incredibly slowly causing as much pain as they possibly can to you over the course of months and potentially years if they can keep you alive. You disagree and don't want that done, but since you're in the minority, you must be wrong by your own reasoning.
Brilliant.

Democracy is also fascism.

If a majority decides to kill u for entertainment

Thats ok

According to u

Cuz ure a degenerate

Prolly a leftist.

The world isn't shaped by anything.
People exist and do things.
Trying to make grandiose wanton and arbitrary violence is absolutely silly - there's nothing interesting about it other than that it's reprehensible.

>The world isn't shaped by anything.
>People exist and do things.

And the world exists around them.

And the world isn't the same world it was 2000 years ago.

Because the people in the world have shaped and changed it.

Do something about it or be an apathetic spineless bootlicker. I nor anyone else but God actually really cares about anything you do in the first place.

Democracy is a compromise and effect of the open contract amongst the majority, so that the minority doesn't have a firm grasp against the overwhelming populace.

So here's a fuck you to:
Ancaps, get hit by a train
Bootlickers, get gassed.

Your fault for being in the minority.

Do something about what ? The natural course of the world ?
An entirely free society with no establishment or government is as much of an unicorn as a working communist system.
Even if you somehow managed to create one a state/government would still form on its own, just wait for someone with enough charisma to pop out and start leading others.

Yeah exactly your army protects you from people like OP who want no taxes and no government.

If they want no taxes they either need to
A: Get the majority of voters on their side, since votes = might
B: Defeat the army and people then institute their own law

If there is no one to stop Bruno and Tony then they still torture you regardless of whenever you have feelings about it or not.
More like Bruno and Tony kidnap you then they get into a shoot out with the police (On the majority's behalf in the interest of public security) and since the police are stronger they kill them both and free you.

Democracy is not fascism in the slightest

The majority of people decide to execute killers and child rapists. If your a killer and scream muh evil big government you still die. Might makes right

Votes = might
Armies = might
Money = might

Not if you're part of it. What's stopping you from getting your own friends? Where is your tribe that you belong to? The government is made of people. If you are not a part of those people then finds some friends to work together. But in order to work together some rules must be in place otherwise there would be no point. Guess what you just form. A social system, i.e. a government.

The world is barely effected by humans. The universe is so vast that anything and everything anyone does is so absolutely objectively tiny on a scale of causation and change as to be *utterly* worthless to even note on a scare of physical change effected in the world.

Fault?
Fault and blame are moral terms, premised on moral agents actually doing things. In that situation, nothing was said about how that circumstance on the island came to be. You can't even begin to speak about fault or blame.

...

> The world is barely effected by humans.
> Proceeds to talk about the universe.

Wow you sure showed me. You sound like you're in babbies first existential crisis.

> lmao the universe is big so nothing matters!

Convince enough people or enough strong people and make it so. Sadly those are the rules of the game. Being morally right may be an asset when it comes to persuasion. However, those in the wrong don't need to play by your rules.

>The world is barely effected by humans.
Very wrong we were all one lost cold war away from all being communist.

Sure in the grand scheme of the entire universe it's worthless but in the grandscheme of the Earth humans make a fucking huge difference, we could shoot all our nukes and kill all life on earth that's a lot of power

What's natural about people using violence to force people to do what they want them to do? Because obviously most people in the first world don't do that. And even if it *WERE* natural to do that, the question would be why do you care what's natural? A mosquito trying to suck your blood is natural yet you object to that, but you won't object to sociopaths fucking with you because you think sociopaths fucking with you is natural? That's doublethink and you're insane.

>If there is no one to stop Bruno and Tony then they still torture you regardless of whenever you have feelings about it or not
So?
Them being able to do something has no impact on the moral status of their actions. You'd still think Bruno and Tony torturing you was wrong.

>Forced seizure of property by people is morally reprehensible.

>People forcing other people to obey arbitrary dictates that they never agreed to be bound by is morally reprehensible.

FTFY

Who will protect us from getting killed on the streets?

I think a whole bunch of things matter - I just don't think humans running around committing atrocities against one another constitutes anything praiseworthy at all. Yet you seem to think along the dullard lines of "ooo, Alexander name known - killed many people, went many places - Alexander meaningful!"
It's hilariously childish.

Yourself.

I don't really care what rules they play by if they're wrong. I'm just obligated to tell them and everyone else who's wrong.

Neat. Why do I care?

You stop mexicans from crossing the border by thread of violence and imprisoned. Without that they cross the border.

If you don't pay taxes you get imprisoned
If you kill someone you get imprisoned
If you wish to not pay taxes you have to be stronger then the police who will try to make you pay.

Well so what?
You can cry all you want it's morally wrong their doing it. But they still did their might made it right you were weak and they were strong.

In-fact they could start a whole cult around killing slaves and if they are strong they can do whatever the fuck they want. That doesn't mean I want that but that's the truth of life on Earth.

Life goes around Might (Money,arms,votes) not "natural rights" of a man

I do believe that "might makes right". It is the ultimate law of the universe, and we need man-made laws to counter that, but outside the laws of man, that is the divine law.

Also I don't care about innocent people, if I don't like them, I don't value them as good people. I don't think American Natives should have just kept all of the land, just because they were living there first. They lost the land by being inferior, and the same thing is happening in Europe right now.

If we don't make children, we ourselves don't fight for our land, don't pay for our ancestral home with semen, sweat and blood, no one will care about our rights. Certainly not the invaders. If you aren't fit to defend yourself, you lose.

People who don't want to see other people killed in the streets. Probably most of your neighbors unless you live in some unholy urban or immoral cesspit.

>reddit spacing
I literally can't read these posts. It strains my eyes with it's abberant faggotry.

-Anarchist Society
-I torture and dismember you in a bunker dug deep in the woods
What was your argument with this one, that the government is necessary to prevent sick minded people from preying on those weaker than them? Couldn't agree more, you sweet little bitch. I would really like to shred your veins into ribbons slowly and weave them into a shirt over the course of 7 long years... Alas, however, the government maintains moral order in this land and we cannot be together my dear.

there are already private roads.

ever go to a grocery store or mall?

they had to privately hire pavers to make the parking lot and the roads connecting those lots to the government roads.

not only will people voluntarily find ways to build and monetize ways to get from point a to point b, the fact that the costs are more directly paid by the parties involved means we will systematically determine the correct amount of roads.

eisenhower's interstate freeways had a huge impact on how we organize our society. it was a byproduct of nuclear fears during the cold war. there is a good chance that private roads will determine our whole system is wrong, and it could lead to a mass reurbanization of the country. or not.

the point is, decisions will be made based on the realities of our situations. if radically changing our roads gives us some other huge benefit, then we should make that change.

>What's natural about people using violence to force people to do what they want them to do?
Everything, human beings are civilized beasts, nothing more and nothing less.

>Because obviously most people in the first world don't do that.
Law enforcement.

>And even if it *WERE* natural to do that, the question would be why do you care what's natural?
Because if it's part of human nature then it doesn't matter how much you fight against it, eventually it'll still resurface.

>A mosquito trying to suck your blood is natural yet you object to that, but you won't object to sociopaths fucking with you because you think sociopaths fucking with you is natural? That's doublethink and you're insane.
Guess what ? We've been exterminating mosquitoes for centuries and that didn't stop them from following their nature.
And you can try to exterminate the ruling class from society for generations, but that won't stop leaders from being born and people from following them, because that is human nature.
The only way to ever have a free society is to force it, and I don't need to point out the problem with that.

>Morals

You limp dicked little faggot.

If freedom causes suffering, then it is bad. If authoritarian government can make things better, then it is good.

"morals" are the kind of shit kikes and subversive governments use to keep you down.

>t. ancap faggot
What stops me in your little ancap fantasy from hiding around a corner, smashing your skull with a rock, and dragging you off to my bunker? Who's paying the police? Or do you hire private security continuously?

I don't believe in nations, so why would you think I believe in national borders?
I believe in private property, which means that people can practice exclusivity in regard to their own property, but a national border is not the practice of private property exclusivity.

>Well so what?
So they're wrong. Which is my point. Whether they actually do said wrong thing or not is irrelevant to the fact that if they did they'd be wrong.
Morality is the supreme value. If you don't cling to it you'll get Bruno and Tony fucking with you and your loved ones for all eternity.

If you think the beginning and end of strength is in the toll of lives taken you are a fool. As our race has expanded, so too have the impact and projection of strength.

First Strength was Physical. Man and Club.

Second Strength was Martial. Country and Army.

Now Strength is intellectual. World and Idea.

If you do not have the strength to propagate your idea you can either find it, or wallow in self pity beneath the cushion of self reflexive moral posturing and positioning.

Strength is the only true morality.

2bh i've been doing it more blatantly.

Just to bait faggots like you

Been posting like this since 2008.

Sup Forums will agree with this then unironically call for a wall to be built on the southern border using eminent domain

>Morality is the supreme value

Predicated on what exactly? Would the ideal outcome based on any individuals worldview not be supreme, and would their morality not be different from yours even assuming that your world view is the same?

Your post is pointless. Why did you even post in this thread. We're talking about the morality of initiating force- not whether or not its inevitable, you useless idiot.

The only reason you're dodging the moral question is because you know it's wrong.

Like 90% of this thread are disagreeing calling him a faggot so i don't know why you think Sup Forums would agree with him.

Sup Forums aren't autistic ancap retards. When these fuckers can't weasel around on a text based forum they get nailed and then raped.

a gun

I don't care about your suffering, roofucker

No - it's an absurd notion.
When a hailstone falls out of clear skies and randomly kills someone, you don't say of that person "they were weak survival of the fittest xD".
It's because outcomes have nothing to do with morality. Morality is about human activity, and human activity is not justified by sheer virtue of anyone being able to do any given thing, which is what you believing that would imply.
You could murder your whole family in their sleep - that wouldn't make it right. You could steal a person's crop duster and fly it into a mountain - you being able to do that has nothing to do with the moral status of your activity.

The fact that you and your kind can't do anything when people come together for a common interest - aka government - means your system is already inferior to any organized authoritarian one. You people can't even agree on anything, like the exact terms of the NAP for example, and are too naive. A strong Fascist system will always beat a strong Libertarian one, and a Libertarian system will always be susceptible to corruption and subversion because of the emphasis on loosely defined and conflicting ideas of "freedom" in society. While corruption can also be the case in a Fascist system, the fact that Fascism puts self preservation over "freedom" gives it a large advantage when standing against hostile and harmful ideologies and corruption. Fascism deals with facts - groups are more effective than individuals - while in contrast, a Libertarian deals with feelings, mainly of selfishness - my freedom is worth more than anything else.

Remember to sage.

You missed the context and point of that post entirely.

I know this is a bait thread but I'll post this for any dummies out there believing this: the social contract

Morality changes
Aztecs had a whole cult around killing slaves. They thought they were doing right
Spartans throw babies off cliffs they thought that was right
Arabs stone women to death for cheating they think that is right
Europeans genocided blacks in Africa because they think that was right
The Prussians declared war on France and Austria and united Germany under the banner of blood and iron. Nothing to do with the natural rights of a Bavarian German

Morality is not set in stone.

Indeed. You don't. You're bellow an egoist in terms of your empathy. However even then you aren't on the same level of self service.

You speak of freedom, private property, and "morality" a lot, but really all you are after is an excuse to do degenerate shit. Well guess what? You don't have a leg to stand on. "I DON'T LIKE IT" isn't going to fly.

I'm hiding behind a corner and blind side you. Or I dart you. Or I sneak in through a window and masturbate furiously while I wait until you're asleep, then I brain you with said rock.

I'm not just going to walk up to you and say, "Oh hello, I am a serial killer who would like to take you to my dungeon in the depths of the wilderness."

Think before you post reddit-kun.

Answer my question, who is going to stop me, or who is going to look for you after I take you to my lair? No FBI, no SVU, no detectives? Sounds fabulous. Or are we back to the whole free market finds a way thing where you have to pay a private security force 24/7.

Big difference is that "government" has legalised the use of violence to enforce it's will as an end-game.

If I told John he had to obey me and John tells me to fuck off, pulls out a gun and shoots me, he would go to jail. It's different when the government does it.

The only way this will ever change is with Sovereign Individuals who have the means to exercise violent retribution against the government if they refuse to recognise their sovereignty. So we're basically talking warfare.

He who controls the violence, wins.

exactly might makes right the government and people agree the government can shoot you in the head if it wishes.

The government has the might and you do not.

>Law enforcement
Law enforcement hardly does anything.
Upwards of 99% of crimes that even become known to law enforcement - which is a tiny FRACTION of the number of crimes which are committed in the first place - become known and are sought to be punished AFTER HAVING ALREADY OCCURRED. Law enforcement does next to nothing.

You seem to have a problem with being treated like a slave. The only thing I'm saying is that you should make that known, and not pretend you and everyone else doesn't have a problem. It really doesn't matter if you think the problem will repeat itself. Just like you kill the mosquitos even though they come back, you should protest and object to a ruling class even though you expect them to come back again.

Or we could just not violate the law and live happily and safely. Only morons deal in absolutes. If we can live more comfortably and safely under a government with all of the spiritual boons an instrument of unity can provide, then why not? The natural state of humanity is not anarchic. Why would we presume this is best for us, and not just those who are good with capital?

>suffering is bad
There's nothing immoral about suffering.
Suffering is psychological state. A psychological state is not an activity by a moral agent, which are the objects of moral reasoning.

I'd contest that the working class has the real power. They are just subverted. Workers have literally all the leverage.

>inb4 gommunism

You'll be praying there was law enforcement to come find you after the fact as I play your nerves and sinews like a violin with my buck knife. Ancap is a fallacy, and limp wristed cucks like you would literally die out without the constant threat the government imposes on predators like me. I don't like it anymore than you do, but let's both agree, the alternatives don't look very good for you.

....and here come the commies

This is pretty spot on

The government and its laws exist not for justice but for predictability in conflict management,

in the jungle a conflict of interests leads to warfare and violence, cumulatively destructive to society

in civilization the kings court meets out predictable outcome to common conflicts of interests

surprise 90% of conflicts have to do with property or resources.

SO we invent the social contract, a series of legal fictions not to create justice or to decide right and wrong, but to have a predictable orderly outcome to conflicts that dont involve people dying.

They are simulated warfare, just like elections are simulated revolution so do we dont have to do it for real.

You're babbling something pretty philosophically uninteresting.
"Strength" as you're using it is a buzzword. The capability or incapability of people to do or not do things has no moral relevance whatsoever. I could kill your or you could kill me. I could build a house or you could build a campfire. So what? Capabilities have nothing to do with morality.

Predicated on God., and thereby objective.
>I don't believe in God
I don't care what you believe. What you believe isn't relevant to moral truth.

No, morality doesn't change. It's immutable and God-given. That people have violated it isn't relevant to that fact.

>AFTER HAVING ALREADY OCCURRED
Indeed. A disincentive to commit the crime. Implement the castle doctrine and suddenly you make crimes harder to commit AND very hard to get away with in a state system.
>There's nothing immoral about suffering.
I don't care. Morals are a spook. Suffering displeases me, so I am, as a normal human being, inclined to stop it. I would contest that egoism is a much better world than yours. However ancap retards have no idea about philosophy whatsoever. You wouldn't have a fucking clue about virtue. State coercion is only immoral under the proviso that individualism is the absolute good.

>A psychological state is not an activity by a moral agent, which are the objects of moral reasoning.
If suffering doesn't play a part in what is an isn't moral, then no one is going to care about your system of morality. It's an anti-human sentiment. I'm so glad you fuckers are this stupid. People opposing you are simply acting in their own interest.

might does make right

but if you ARE trying to reach a society where things turn out good, you accept the axiom that "might makes right" and allow individuals to attain as much might as possible.

if all individuals possess deadly force, then the NAP ceases being a hypothetical principle, and spontaneously becomes the optimal strategy for survival. aggressive people end up with bullet holes. peaceful-but-prepared people could always get ambushed, but they fare much better than the ambushees on average.

"Degenerate" according to what morals? :^)

You shouldn't pretend it's anything legitimate then, which is the point.

Yes the government has no power at all what so ever it is just a a few thousand people pulling the strings. The government is not a evil jack the bean stalk tier giant. it is simply people telling people to do things.

If 90% of the voters for some unknown reason wanted to paint all the roads red the government would otherwise the people would rise up.

Power and control is Money/Arms/voters.

I really couldn't care less what you do. You're the one judged for your own actions; I'm not judged for yours.

I'm not a communist you knee jerking retard.
You're presuming a moral truth is truth because god. Unless you can prove god then you don't have ground with which to state your morality. Therefore your morality is pretty much a spook. It's predicated on your presumption.

You should probably study ethics so you can argue for virtue without "muh god".

Get on my level you fucking Christfag.

>Law enforcement hardly does anything.
Why don't you go breaking the law right now and see what happens.

>Upwards of 99% of crimes that even become known to law enforcement - which is a tiny FRACTION of the number of crimes which are committed in the first place - become known and are sought to be punished AFTER HAVING ALREADY OCCURRED. Law enforcement does next to nothing.
So what ? You were saying that there's no right by might in the first world and I pointed out the basics of law enforcement which is exactly that.

>You seem to have a problem with being treated like a slave. The only thing I'm saying is that you should make that known, and not pretend you and everyone else doesn't have a problem. It really doesn't matter if you think the problem will repeat itself. Just like you kill the mosquitos even though they come back, you should protest and object to a ruling class even though you expect them to come back again.
But I don't have a problem with governments, I consider the trade of my freedom for security to be a reasonable one.
Of course I know I'm being a self-centered asshole and if I wasn't living a good life I'd be rioting in the streets, but again if most people find the current government to be shit they'll revolt and overthrow it.
Right by might still applies even in established states.

No morality does change Aztecs kill people for a sun god that's a big change in morality to Christians who would rather be killed then kill

Show me some evidence morality is 100% set in stone and everyone who doesn't follow along my very specific choice of morality has just tricked themselves into false morals

>t's anything legitimate then

legitimate is whatever the majority of people decide it is

I find your ancap rhetoric philosophically uninteresting. Get your John Locke bullshit out of here thinking in a world without limits we would all just get along and hug each other. No threat of violence from the government means you become my prey.

Humans aren't inherently good, child, and without the boogey man of the spooks to keep our murderous impulses contained, you and your limp wristed beta cuck kind would become like sheep to us. Be a good goy.

So you don't have any argument? You're just going with the "God will judge you" thing? Sounds like your ideology is flawed reddit-kun.

>State coercion is only immoral under the proviso that individualism is the absolute good
It seems like it's you who doesn't know a lick about philosophy, making utterly intellectually pathetic and false claims like this.

Mine. I don't like them.
The fact that the workers don't rise up is indicative of either subversion or contentment. In this case, it is actually a mixture of both. We don't have it that bad. The last thing we need, however, is more of the dialectic monstrosity that is capitalism.

>You're presuming a moral truth is truth because God
Yep.

>Unless you can prove
Nope. Being able to prove something is irrelevant to truth. 2+2=4 is true regardless of anyone's ability to prove it. If the sun is warm, it's warm whether you can prove it's warm or not.

there is never any "guarantee" of safety

a government cannot provide it. a gun cannot provide it.

police and armed citizens can make the odds better.

if you rely solely on the police to guard against individual rights being infringed, you are inviting a flood of other infringements of rights by those police.

citizens owning guns is the best way to prevent this kind of violence.

you could absolutely come up with an unstoppable way of committing a murder in our world or in a voluntarist world. we cannot stop that. so let's fix a ton of other problems instead.

And my Aztec sun god tells me to sacrifice you.
I am morally correct because the Aztec god is real and yours is not.

Prove me wrong

And your whining about the government and complaining that amounts to 'ugh why wont the fucking sheeple agree with me! I'M RIGHT, they're just too stupid to see it!' is both philosophically and literally uninteresting.

Where you, through crybaby tears see a buzzword, i see the literal sole unifying factor of every great nation, political philosophy, man or woman ever to grace this earth.

To enforce your will onto someone else isn't an inherent evil according to any of the great books, and certainly not according to modern philosophy. Indeed, in some cases, coercion is virtuous. The coercion would need to be to an unvirtuous end. But in the end, even those things are a spook. You'd be better of using them as an argument as opposed to the essence of heaven, which has no bearing on someone who's read, say, Feuerbach, and has interlarded heavenly essence, or an egoist, who supposes himself it's master, with God being his property.

You are an essential who believes essence precedes things, and thus consider your interpretation objective. God is a tool used by existentialists. Existentialism is a far more solid ideology asserting the opposite.

I do break the law constantly. I jaywalk and I run stop signs and stoplights at my convenience. I pirate videos and software.

>You were saying that there's no right by might in the first world
That's not what I've been arguing. I'm arguing that might does not equal right period. People doing things =/= "might equals right" being instantiated as the moral truth of reality. Your language barrier is getting in the way of your understanding here.

>But I don't have a problem with governments, I consider the trade of my freedom for security to be a reasonable one
Do you believe most people think this way? If you did, you'd be in favor of taxes being optional, wouldn't you?

2+2=4 is technically accepted as fact because it can be proven. You need to prove it for it to be true. Take trigonometry or something mor eplex than addition for examples of this.

Basically you can use your defense to defend any claim, placing yourself above dialectic, which you aren't.

>the sun is still warm
Have you read Hegel?

Here we go with the circular loggit. So if you can't prove the sun is warm it's cold. Prove me wrong.
>b- but anon5 the sun is warm we can feel it
So feeling it's warmth proves it's warm?

Interesting. So how can you prove your morals are correct, if proof is irrelevant to truth? Protip: proof is truth.

You still don't get it do you, who pays those police? Taxes. Free market equivalent is a privatized security force you're paying anyway. No difference. Go ahead and own your gun. As soon as there isn't the threat of highly trained government officials using state of the art technology to track me down, I'll take you to my secret lair where you'll live a long, terrible life. Plenty of time to regret your ideologies and repent.

This.

>Aztecs kill people for a sun god that's a big change in morality
Did you even read what I said?

>That people have violated it isn't relevant to that fact

>dude fuck laws n sheeit
Absolutely barbaric

No, legitimate is what's actually morally justified, which is based on Divine Law.
Tony and Bruno deciding you should be tortured for as long as they can keep you alive is not justified by virtue of them being a majority among the three of you.

Again, you assume the essence "truth" precedes the actual thing. Truth is actually a spook. It is the "spirit" of things which you consider true. You must perceive the thing in order to understand it's essence.

Again, you should read what Hegel said about the three steps if Dialectic.

You type like an autist.
I wonder if you'll ever recover from that?

I don't care what you believe. It's not relevant to truth.