Taxation is aggressive and will fail

We want to know the truth because it gives us information about the world and informs our decisions. If we are unable to falsify a fact, we must either resign to it, or demonstrate the contradiction. We may be suspicious of the fact if it offends us, but this will resolve itself either as acceptance or growing certainty of an an error, which, perhaps over centuries, will be resolved one way or another.

If we cannot falsify a claim made by another (not if they merely assert, only if they actually make a truth statement which has the possibility of falsification) then we will allow them the benefit of their continued ascendancy until we can show them otherwise. For example, many people are resigned to freedom of speech even though they would greatly like to stop some people from making utterances.

Why do people care about truth, because it provides utility in making decisions and allowing for life. No, truth assumes life as its starting point and ends up at claims. But, rather than find what is good for life, we must instead find what is not bad. We then assume freedom. If your enemy cannot do something, then neither can I, which (restriction) I don't want. If we do not yet understand the virtue of free trade, we might want to end it as a result of the mental anguish caused by the apparent contradiction of its nature. We have an instinct to ban that which confuses us.

We only care (about) what is said by our rulers, or at least we only seek to contradict them. Why contradict a salesperson when, if you are not convinced, you may refuse peacefully, with no consequences.

To make a truth claim is similar to an aspiration to become a ruler, or at least for the fact to stand, unchallenged. It is when we have idiots (those with prejudice, untested, false assumptions) in charge that we suffer. We can expose the false assumptions with a riddle which requires their negation to contradict. For example, if we assume (unknown to the ignorant person) red apples are more nutritious than green apples, then ask which apple is more nutritious and if they claim red (or green!) then we can ask for a justification of this view. More pertinently, when something is punished, not chosen, we find prejudice to be more important to expose; why is there a restriction on the sale of red apples, and not green?

What if the prejudice is more general, so not particular types of apples, but all apples, how is this prejudice exposed then, do we make reference to fruit, food, organic material? Why ban something if there is no harm? What is the harm of free trade, or the exchange of labour? Why punish something that has done no harm?