Ron Paul, Yey or Nay?

[belligerent]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:

It’s a red herring used by liberals to distract people from the intellectual debate about the proper role of government.[/quote]

No, it isn’t - it’s an independent question hoping to get an accurate accounting of a man’s character.

Can you answer it? Seems like when we cut past the smokescreen and direct questions about Paul’s unseemly connections get raised, the thread goes awfully quiet.[/quote]

Ron Paul has already answered it himself. The only thing that people on the left know how do when confronted with an intellectual argument of any kind is to hurl accusations of racism. Leftists are a gang of ruthlessly stupid infants and their goal is not to end racism, but only to accuse their political opponents of it.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]belligerent wrote:

Ron Paul has already answered it himself.[/quote]

Yes, Paul said he had no idea who wrote letters that were written under his name and that generated $940,000 income for an entity named “Ron Paul & Associates” - and the tax form listed Ron Paul, his family members, and Lew Rockwell.

The only thing that people on the left know how do when confronted with an intellectual argument of any kind is to hurl accusations of racism. Leftists are a gang of ruthlessly stupid infants and their goal is not to end racism, but only to accuse their political opponents of it.

Superb - take it up with leftists, as I am not one. As for me, just hunker down and just focus on the topic and hand and let go of the red herrings.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.[/quote]

As a libertarian how does his religion affect you?

I think the point about federalism that RP tries to get across is that it’s better to leave everything not contained in the constitution reserved for the Federal Gov’t to the states because federalism tends to promote more choices and people are then free to vote with their feet when popular elections do not go their way.

I also think you confuse Paul’s argmuent that he thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He doesn’t want anyone to have them but understands why Iran might want one. He believes it is not the US’s role to be the policemen of the world to stop nations from getting weapons. Everyone else around them are armed to the teeth and they are mostly undefended (not even a real Air Force). Why should they not want nuclear weapons, too. The notion that they would use one single weapon once they acquire it is asinine. The Iranian people would be annihilated immediately by the Israeli military.

[belligerent]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.[/quote]

As a libertarian how does his religion affect you?

I think the point about federalism that RP tries to get across is that it’s better to leave everything not contained in the constitution reserved for the Federal Gov’t to the states because federalism tends to promote more choices and people are then free to vote with their feet when popular elections do not go their way.

I also think you confuse Paul’s argmuent that he thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He doesn’t want anyone to have them but understands why Iran might want one. He believes it is not the US’s role to be the policemen of the world to stop nations from getting weapons. Everyone else around them are armed to the teeth and they are mostly undefended (not even a real Air Force). Why should they not want nuclear weapons, too. The notion that they would use one single weapon once they acquire it is asinine. The Iranian people would be annihilated immediately by the Israeli military.[/quote]

This post illustrates the danger of libertarianism - it is politics without the moral base.

Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon does not justify us allowing them to have one. Iran is an aggressive Islamic dictatorship and a major sponsor of terrorism - it cannot claim the right to self-defense. Rather than allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb, we should use our own nuclear bombs to leave a giant crater where Iran is now.

As for Ron Paul’s religiosity, the following is a quote from a 2003 article:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. "

His denial of a woman’s right to an abortion also shows that he is ultimately loyal to religion.

Ron Paul upholds the Constitution only. He does NOT uphold the philosophy of individual rights.

[pittbulll]

I think Paul is the Republican’s best hope to win the election, Republicans wont vote for black man nor will they vote for some one (THEIR) Jesus does not like

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.[/quote]

As a libertarian how does his religion affect you?

I think the point about federalism that RP tries to get across is that it’s better to leave everything not contained in the constitution reserved for the Federal Gov’t to the states because federalism tends to promote more choices and people are then free to vote with their feet when popular elections do not go their way.

I also think you confuse Paul’s argmuent that he thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He doesn’t want anyone to have them but understands why Iran might want one. He believes it is not the US’s role to be the policemen of the world to stop nations from getting weapons. Everyone else around them are armed to the teeth and they are mostly undefended (not even a real Air Force). Why should they not want nuclear weapons, too. The notion that they would use one single weapon once they acquire it is asinine. The Iranian people would be annihilated immediately by the Israeli military.[/quote]

This post illustrates the danger of libertarianism - it is politics without the moral base.

Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon does not justify us allowing them to have one. Iran is an aggressive Islamic dictatorship and a major sponsor of terrorism - it cannot claim the right to self-defense. Rather than allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb, we should use our own nuclear bombs to leave a giant crater where Iran is now.

As for Ron Paul’s religiosity, the following is a quote from a 2003 article:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. "

His denial of a woman’s right to an abortion also shows that he is ultimately loyal to religion.

Ron Paul upholds the Constitution only. He does NOT uphold the philosophy of individual rights.
[/quote]

What justifies the US to have a nuclear weapon considering this is the only country to have ever used one against real living people? Why do you think it is the US government’s role to police the world and where does this authority supposedly come from? Quite frankly, you (or as you would say, “we”) have no say in what the Iranian government does or doesn’t do.

I think you don’t know what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is ethics applied to politics – i.e., the nonaggression axiom. It is immoral to initiate aggression – violence, theft or coercion.

Ron Paul believes the constitution was written to protect individual rights with respect to government. The bill of rights are negative rights that cannot be denied to any individual that even the state governments cannot do away with.

His denial to woman for abortion is really affirmation to the unborn. A person can be pro-life and it has nothing to do with religion if one is consistent with the idea of natural rights.

[belligerent]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.[/quote]

As a libertarian how does his religion affect you?

I think the point about federalism that RP tries to get across is that it’s better to leave everything not contained in the constitution reserved for the Federal Gov’t to the states because federalism tends to promote more choices and people are then free to vote with their feet when popular elections do not go their way.

I also think you confuse Paul’s argmuent that he thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He doesn’t want anyone to have them but understands why Iran might want one. He believes it is not the US’s role to be the policemen of the world to stop nations from getting weapons. Everyone else around them are armed to the teeth and they are mostly undefended (not even a real Air Force). Why should they not want nuclear weapons, too. The notion that they would use one single weapon once they acquire it is asinine. The Iranian people would be annihilated immediately by the Israeli military.[/quote]

This post illustrates the danger of libertarianism - it is politics without the moral base.

Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon does not justify us allowing them to have one. Iran is an aggressive Islamic dictatorship and a major sponsor of terrorism - it cannot claim the right to self-defense. Rather than allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb, we should use our own nuclear bombs to leave a giant crater where Iran is now.

As for Ron Paul’s religiosity, the following is a quote from a 2003 article:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. "

His denial of a woman’s right to an abortion also shows that he is ultimately loyal to religion.

Ron Paul upholds the Constitution only. He does NOT uphold the philosophy of individual rights.
[/quote]

What justifies the US to have a nuclear weapon considering this is the only country to have ever used one against real living people? Why do you think it is the US government’s role to police the world and where does this authority supposedly come from? Quite frankly, you (or as you would say, “we”) have no say in what the Iranian government does or doesn’t do.

I think you don’t know what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is ethics applied to politics – i.e., the nonaggression axiom. It is immoral to initiate aggression – violence, theft or coercion.

Ron Paul believes the constitution was written to protect individual rights with respect to government. The bill of rights are negative rights that cannot be denied to any individual that even the state governments cannot do away with.

His denial to woman for abortion is really affirmation to the unborn. A person can be pro-life and it has nothing to do with religion if one is consistent with the idea of natural rights.[/quote]

“Nonaggression” isn’t an axiom. An axiom is something that’s irreducible, and the idea that it’s immoral to initate aggresion, though correct, is not irreducible. The “principle” of nonagression is a derivative of a more fundamental (though still not axiomatic) principle, which is the right to one’s life.

Notice that you described ethics in terms of a negative - you only told me what is UNethical. But do you know what IS ethical?

“Libertarianism” is Ayn Rand’s political philosophy divorced from its foundations in metaphysics, epitemology and ethics. It’s an attempt to treat as an axiom something that isn’t one, and it leads to dangerous errors, such as Ron Paul’s badly flawed foreign policy.

America acted righteously when it employed nuclear weapons against Japan during WW2 because it did so in retaliation against an act of aggression committed by Japan. To ignore the distinction between aggression and self-defense and vilify America just for using nuclear weapons regardless of the reason is pacifism, the lowest of all moral philosophies.

And just as America had the right to bomb Japan during WW2, it now has the right to do the same to Iran today. This isn’t “policing the world,” it’s a ligitimate use of retaliatory force in defense of America’s legitimate interests against an evil regime.

[SexMachine]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What justifies the US to have a nuclear weapon considering this is the only country to have ever used one against real living people? Why do you think it is the US government’s role to police the world and where does this authority supposedly come from? Quite frankly, you (or as you would say, “we”) have no say in what the Iranian government does or doesn’t do.

I think you don’t know what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is ethics applied to politics – i.e., the nonaggression axiom. It is immoral to initiate aggression – violence, theft or coercion.

[/quote]

Anarcho-wonderworld! Where nothing bad ever happens because everyone is so free.

[florelius]

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.[/quote]

As a libertarian how does his religion affect you?

I think the point about federalism that RP tries to get across is that it’s better to leave everything not contained in the constitution reserved for the Federal Gov’t to the states because federalism tends to promote more choices and people are then free to vote with their feet when popular elections do not go their way.

I also think you confuse Paul’s argmuent that he thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He doesn’t want anyone to have them but understands why Iran might want one. He believes it is not the US’s role to be the policemen of the world to stop nations from getting weapons. Everyone else around them are armed to the teeth and they are mostly undefended (not even a real Air Force). Why should they not want nuclear weapons, too. The notion that they would use one single weapon once they acquire it is asinine. The Iranian people would be annihilated immediately by the Israeli military.[/quote]

This post illustrates the danger of libertarianism - it is politics without the moral base.

Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon does not justify us allowing them to have one. Iran is an aggressive Islamic dictatorship and a major sponsor of terrorism - it cannot claim the right to self-defense. Rather than allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb, we should use our own nuclear bombs to leave a giant crater where Iran is now.

As for Ron Paul’s religiosity, the following is a quote from a 2003 article:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. "

His denial of a woman’s right to an abortion also shows that he is ultimately loyal to religion.

Ron Paul upholds the Constitution only. He does NOT uphold the philosophy of individual rights.
[/quote]

What justifies the US to have a nuclear weapon considering this is the only country to have ever used one against real living people? Why do you think it is the US government’s role to police the world and where does this authority supposedly come from? Quite frankly, you (or as you would say, “we”) have no say in what the Iranian government does or doesn’t do.

I think you don’t know what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is ethics applied to politics – i.e., the nonaggression axiom. It is immoral to initiate aggression – violence, theft or coercion.

Ron Paul believes the constitution was written to protect individual rights with respect to government. The bill of rights are negative rights that cannot be denied to any individual that even the state governments cannot do away with.

His denial to woman for abortion is really affirmation to the unborn. A person can be pro-life and it has nothing to do with religion if one is consistent with the idea of natural rights.[/quote]

“Nonaggression” isn’t an axiom. An axiom is something that’s irreducible, and the idea that it’s immoral to initate aggresion, though correct, is not irreducible. The “principle” of nonagression is a derivative of a more fundamental (though still not axiomatic) principle, which is the right to one’s life.

Notice that you described ethics in terms of a negative - you only told me what is UNethical. But do you know what IS ethical?

“Libertarianism” is Ayn Rand’s political philosophy divorced from its foundations in metaphysics, epitemology and ethics. It’s an attempt to treat as an axiom something that isn’t one, and it leads to dangerous errors, such as Ron Paul’s badly flawed foreign policy.

America acted righteously when it employed nuclear weapons against Japan during WW2 because it did so in retaliation against an act of aggression committed by Japan. To ignore the distinction between aggression and self-defense and vilify America just for using nuclear weapons regardless of the reason is pacifism, the lowest of all moral philosophies.

And just as America had the right to bomb Japan during WW2, it now has the right to do the same to Iran today. This isn’t “policing the world,” it’s a ligitimate use of retaliatory force in defense of America’s legitimate interests against an evil regime. [/quote]

The idea that an nuclear attack against other humans is legit in some situations, are probably some of the most dangerous shit I have read on this forum.

When it comes to politics its sometimes usefull to think in terms of what you want or dont want people to do against/for you. I will bet you dont want anyone to nuke you, if so you are opperating with some rather big dobbelstandards for other people( like japanese and iranians ).

[SexMachine]

[quote]florelius wrote:

The idea that an nuclear attack against other humans is legit in some situations, are probably some of the most dangerous shit I have read on this forum.

[/quote]

Absolutely. Even though you can save millions of lives by ending the war quickly, a nuclear bomb should NEVER be used because…well just because.

When it comes to politics its sometimes usefull to think in terms of what you want or dont want people to do against/for you. I will bet you dont want anyone to nuke you, if so you are opperating with some rather big dobbelstandards for other people( like japanese and iranians ).

Exactly. I am operating with big double standards because I don’t want to be annihilated with a hydrogen bomb and neither do the Japanese and Iranians. So true.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:

Ron Paul has already answered it himself.[/quote]

Yes, Paul said he had no idea who wrote letters that were written under his name and that generated $940,000 income for an entity named “Ron Paul & Associates” - and the tax form listed Ron Paul, his family members, and Lew Rockwell.

The only thing that people on the left know how do when confronted with an intellectual argument of any kind is to hurl accusations of racism. Leftists are a gang of ruthlessly stupid infants and their goal is not to end racism, but only to accuse their political opponents of it.

Superb - take it up with leftists, as I am not one. As for me, just hunker down and just focus on the topic and hand and let go of the red herrings.[/quote]

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for someone to answer/explain this, although I don’t expect anyone to do so.

[belligerent]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Absolutely. Even though you can save millions of lives by ending the war quickly, a nuclear bomb should NEVER be used because…well just because.
[/quote]

I’m convinced that, before we can end violence in the world, we’re first going to have to kill all the pacifists. Pacifists are the world’s biggest enablers of violence. They enable the aggressors and throw the victims into the furnace to preserve the dignity of criminals.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for someone to answer/explain this, although I don’t expect anyone to do so.[/quote]

You and me both. I mean, Paul is a non-event as far as national politics, but I remain puzzled how this question can’t be answered by his most loyal fans.

It’s also a bit ironic - Paul’s troops are quite often conspiracy-types who refuse to believe the facts in front of their face and are always seeking out “the truth” - and yet, with facts like these, all the Paul supporters need is a statement from their messiah that “naw, I ain’t no racist” and that’s good enough to whistle past the evidence.

Character matters.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.[/quote]

As a libertarian how does his religion affect you?

I think the point about federalism that RP tries to get across is that it’s better to leave everything not contained in the constitution reserved for the Federal Gov’t to the states because federalism tends to promote more choices and people are then free to vote with their feet when popular elections do not go their way.

I also think you confuse Paul’s argmuent that he thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He doesn’t want anyone to have them but understands why Iran might want one. He believes it is not the US’s role to be the policemen of the world to stop nations from getting weapons. Everyone else around them are armed to the teeth and they are mostly undefended (not even a real Air Force). Why should they not want nuclear weapons, too. The notion that they would use one single weapon once they acquire it is asinine. The Iranian people would be annihilated immediately by the Israeli military.[/quote]

This post illustrates the danger of libertarianism - it is politics without the moral base.

Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon does not justify us allowing them to have one. Iran is an aggressive Islamic dictatorship and a major sponsor of terrorism - it cannot claim the right to self-defense. Rather than allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb, we should use our own nuclear bombs to leave a giant crater where Iran is now.

As for Ron Paul’s religiosity, the following is a quote from a 2003 article:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. "

His denial of a woman’s right to an abortion also shows that he is ultimately loyal to religion.

Ron Paul upholds the Constitution only. He does NOT uphold the philosophy of individual rights.
[/quote]

What justifies the US to have a nuclear weapon considering this is the only country to have ever used one against real living people? Why do you think it is the US government’s role to police the world and where does this authority supposedly come from? Quite frankly, you (or as you would say, “we”) have no say in what the Iranian government does or doesn’t do.

I think you don’t know what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is ethics applied to politics – i.e., the nonaggression axiom. It is immoral to initiate aggression – violence, theft or coercion.

Ron Paul believes the constitution was written to protect individual rights with respect to government. The bill of rights are negative rights that cannot be denied to any individual that even the state governments cannot do away with.

His denial to woman for abortion is really affirmation to the unborn. A person can be pro-life and it has nothing to do with religion if one is consistent with the idea of natural rights.[/quote]

“Nonaggression” isn’t an axiom. An axiom is something that’s irreducible, and the idea that it’s immoral to initate aggresion, though correct, is not irreducible. The “principle” of nonagression is a derivative of a more fundamental (though still not axiomatic) principle, which is the right to one’s life.

Notice that you described ethics in terms of a negative - you only told me what is UNethical. But do you know what IS ethical?

“Libertarianism” is Ayn Rand’s political philosophy divorced from its foundations in metaphysics, epitemology and ethics. It’s an attempt to treat as an axiom something that isn’t one, and it leads to dangerous errors, such as Ron Paul’s badly flawed foreign policy.

America acted righteously when it employed nuclear weapons against Japan during WW2 because it did so in retaliation against an act of aggression committed by Japan. To ignore the distinction between aggression and self-defense and vilify America just for using nuclear weapons regardless of the reason is pacifism, the lowest of all moral philosophies.

And just as America had the right to bomb Japan during WW2, it now has the right to do the same to Iran today. This isn’t “policing the world,” it’s a ligitimate use of retaliatory force in defense of America’s legitimate interests against an evil regime. [/quote]

The axiom is “the initiation of aggression is always wrong.”

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

“In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”

Axiom

[belligerent]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom[/quote]

This definition of axiom is acceptable, but your proposed “axiom” doesn’t meet the stated criteria. “Blue” is an axiomatic concept because you can’t describe it in terms of anything else; blue is just blue. The statement, “it is always unethical to initiate aggression” is NOT self-evident. Its truth is dependent on a certain concept of rights, which you assume to be true, but fail to acknolwedge, and which in turn is dependent on chain of metaphysical and epistemological assertions. Without those fundamentals, libertarian politics cannot stand, which is why statists apparently find it so easy to attack.

Again: rather than telling me what is UNethical, tell me what IS ethical, and then tell me how you know it to be true.

[belligerent]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The axiom is “the initiation of aggression is always wrong.”[/quote]

To understand why this is not self-evident, notice that you’re describing ethics in terms of a negative, i.e. you’re stating that the initiation of force by one person against another is an infringment on some unstated moral principle. In order to justify your claim, you must identify that principle and provide it as the reason why the initiation of aggression is wrong. Having done this, you’ve demonstrated that the original statement is not self-evident.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom[/quote]

This definition of axiom is acceptable, but your proposed “axiom” doesn’t meet the stated criteria. [/quote]

It is a logical statement that is assumed to be true.

The difference between a logical statement and the word “blue” is what?

You need to form a concept into a logical statement to make an axiom.

For example: The sky is blue.

[Gaius_Octavius]

An axiom doesn’t have to be self evident. That’s not what makes it an axiom. An axiom is a statement that you assume to be true. That’s all. Just like Euclid’s parallel lines postulate isn’t self evident(or necessarily true for that matter).

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
An axiom doesn’t have to be self evident. That’s not what makes it an axiom. An axiom is a statement that you assume to be true. That’s all. Just like Euclid’s parallel lines postulate isn’t self evident(or necessarily true for that matter).[/quote]

Exactly. An axiom is a logical construct which defines a foundation from which a body of knowledge can be logically deduced.