Category Archives: Debates

Does Refusal of Corrupt State Control of Gigantic, Nationwide, Compulsory-Based Systems of Retirement, Disability and Medical Insurance Automatically Indicate Lack of Desire for Free-Market Version of These Services?

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place upon the Facebook wall of my friend, Brooke N…

Brooke N.:

“So you want the government to ‘stop giving poor people free stuff’? Funny how you don’t care about the $70 billion a year we spend on subsidizing Wall St. Banks, the $38 billion in subsidies given to oil companies, the $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 corporations are stashing abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and the $153 billion a year we spend to subsidize McDonald’s and Walmart’s low-wage workers?”

Gene K.: And another thing….. some of the “Reddest” states receive the greatest amounts of welfare…… and HATE that people get “handouts” from the government…. I need somebody to explain that logic to me….

Brooke N.: Not logic, greed and blindness. I know Libertarian people who are on Disability and want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. I don’t think there’s any to accuse this of being logic.

Gene K.: Yes, I know a lot of people of many persuasions that hate anything that smacks of socialized medicine. It is like they think that medical bills are paid by the Medical Bill Fairy and are not subsidized by all of the people using the medical care system.

Folks, there ain’t no free ride. Sorry. There. Just. Isn’t.

Brooke N.: But it’s possible to make life a little easier for 99% of the people instead of utterly effortless for the 1% 🙂

Rayn:

“We disapprove of State education. Then, the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a State religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a State-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality.
It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the State to raise grain.” – Frederic Bastiat, The Law

(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →

Debating About Democracy

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by the page, “People for Anarchy, Voluntaryism, Non-Aggression, and Liberty“…

Rayn:

"Democracy is the means by which those who adore authority and crave security of servitude can use their superior numbers to enslave those who wish to be free"

“Democracy is the means by which those who adore authority and crave security of servitude can use their superior numbers to enslave those who wish to be free”

Daniel Sv.: Democracy is stable until a politician discovers they can stay in office by promising free goodies from the treasury.

Daniel F.: There is a reason why we have a Constitution and a judicial branch. On more than a few occasions a law that was passed by a majority-elected legislative body (federal or state) that reflected the desires of a majority of that body’s constituency was nonetheless struck down as unconstitutional, often for infringing upon the rights of a minority.

And it is for this reason that federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) are appointed and not elected, so as to not be subject to the whims of an often prejudiced electorate. Cases like Brown v. Board of Ed. could have gone down very differently if the justices rendering the decision had to worry about being reelected and how their decision would affect their reelection chances.

Rayn: Daniel Sv., democracy is merely mob rule, as a political system. It is inherently flawed because it does not adequately acknowledge and protect all of the rights of the Individual. Mises said it best: “All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.”

The “common good” that Democracy claims to protect is just an ever-elusive, ever-evolving myth that inevitably signifies the slow-march towards pathocracy, and eventually, full democide.

Rayn: Not at all impressed by the US government, I agree with Lysander Spooner, Daniel F. “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

The US government certainly was designed with a Constitution and three branches of “checks and balances” for VERY GOOD, HISTORICALLY-ESTABLISHED reason: GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY, NOR POWER, NOR HUMAN LIVES!!!

While real human beings demanded the acknowledgement and respect of their rights, the US government was busy institutionalized slavery, committing genocide, and denying their MAJORITY (women) the right to even directly participate in said system. The Truth isn’t nearly so romantic….

Daniel F.: Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. There will always be someone in power, someone who will be able to wield enough force in order to coerce the masses to obey. When there is more than one faction competing for power within a given area, you end up with civil war as each faction attempts to exert its rule. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →

Unfazed by Horizontal Enforcement When Speaking Against Statism

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Statism, 2016! Four More Wars!“…

Rayn: Statism, 2016! Four more wars! 😉

"How can you separate Church and State when the State is your church?"

“How can you separate Church and State when the State is your church?”

Anke M.: Really? You kids need to grow up!

Rayn: Statists gonna state!

Rayn: Warmongers for peace! 😉

Anke M.: To the barricades Rayn!

Apologist for War Crimes, or Advocate for Peace?

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Bombing Civilians For Peace!“…

Rayn: War-Criminal-in-Chief Obama is a regular trend-setter!

Doctors Without Borders Awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1999:
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/about-us/history-principles/nobel-peace-prize

"The first Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize Winner"

“The first Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner”

Anke M.: Jeez Rayn, what’s wrong with you? You and Genaire have fairly gone of the tracks!
I know neither one of you are stupid, but posting this nonsense really pisses me of!

Rayn: What’s wrong with me!? Sorry, but I’m right on track! War is a racket and murder is wrong! It’s not “collateral damage,” as the professional liar, O-bomb-a, claims. Belief in such a morally-bankrupt concept requires a huge leap of faith in the religion of “government.” However, I’m not a Statist, but rather, a “political atheist,” so I DO NOT “bow to political gods”!

And, far from stupid, I’m actually very knowledgeable about US foreign policy, and world politics. My writing and art records speak for themselves! Meanwhile, a few days ago, America’s president authorized the bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan, killing an estimated 22 civilians, including members of “Doctors Without Borders,” which happened to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999.

That Awkward Moment When One Nobel Peace Prize Winner Bombs Another:
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/that-awkward-moment-when-one-nobel-peace-prize-winner-bombs-another.html

Doctors Without Borders Awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1999:
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/about-us/history-principles/nobel-peace-prize

So, you’re willing to dismiss PURE FACT as “nonsense,” while being pissed off that I posted the truth!? That’s your prerogative, but rest assured that I’m pissed off, too – pissed off that America’s War-Criminal-In-Chief, much like his bloodthirsty predecessor, continues to engage in yet another illegal, immoral War of aggression, while committing Crimes against humanity in his authorization of the maiming and murdering of civilians with drone bombs, as a matter of policy.

America’s Favorite War Criminal

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by the page, “Free Talk Live“…

Rayn:

"Trying to be cool and relatable... so people will forget about how many children your drones have killed in Pakistan and Yemen."

“Trying to be cool and relatable… so people will forget about how many children your drones have killed in Pakistan and Yemen.”

Robert C.: A man can be cool and relatable and kill children in Pakistan. Binary oppositions of good and evil are largely fantasies His intentions is not to kill children in Pakistan. He is not Hitler. Maybe his enemies when engaging in warfare should not have their families in the mix.

Rayn: The man appears cool and relatable only to those who accept him murdering innocent children. Labeling the man’s war crimes as “warfare” and calling innocent children as “enemies” perfectly illustrates George Orwell‘s point that “political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

Obama certainly isn’t Hitler… but, Hitler is not my litmus test for whether or not evil is taking place.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was a US citizen and an innocent child. Specifically, he was born in Denver, Colorado, and lived in American until he was 7 years old. He was murdered by a US drone strike while peacefully eating dinner at a restaurant in Yemen with his teenage cousin, who was also killed in the attack, along with at least five other civilians…

al-Awlaki was not even with his father the day he was murdered because he was still in the process of searching for him and he had not seen him in years. Sadly for him, it was during this very quest that he soon unwittingly entered a lawless, war *criminal* zone, where the CIA had been regularly terrorizing civilians for years in the name of “fighting terror.”

Such flimsy excuses for al-Awlaki’s murder are nothing new, though….

Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on US Drone Murder of 16-Year-Old al-Awlaki:
[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4″]

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they’re truly concerned about the well-being of their children.” – Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

Genaire: Question: Can the same be said about Truman’s nuclear bombing of two civilians cities in Japan? Did the punishment fit the crime? Considering the fact they bombed military targets our retaliation of bombing civilian cities in my rational opinion doesn’t fit the crime.

We are fighting “terror”. Terror is not organized into strategically placed military facilities. These “terror” groups reside amongst innocent people special considerations must be made to stop the killing of these innocent people. Even greater effort must be made when considering we armed, trained and radicalized most of them through our imperialist foreign policies.

I equate it to Canada trying to kill the K.K.K. which is also a terrorist group. How can they kill a K.K.K. chapter without killing the innocent people surrounding these chapters? Does the killing of our innocent civilians justify the bombing of this terrorist group? When their are no clear cut lines of battle as is the case when fighting “terror” the whole world becomes an open target.