One thing statists constantly do in any discussion is destroy their own argument- and not realize they've done so. Not even when shown what they did. You can hold their hand in some cases, but they'll see nothing that doesn't agree with their preferred superstition.
I encountered one who didn't like what I had to say about "just following orders". I said it didn't work, and he said it worked as long as you were on the winning side. I had to give him that one, but I said it doesn't cut it for me.
His comeback argument was that you have to use the power of government because your enemies will use it against you. I said that, yes, evil works, but you don't need to be evil because you can ethically shoot the bad guys in self-defense.
His rebuttal was, "Power is not evil, it’s just the ability to decide. If you don’t win, you don’t get to decide on anything. 'self defense isn’t evil' is 'I was just following order' in that it’s decided by those in power. A leftist judge and jury will give you 40 years for 'pew-pew' no matter how justified you feel." (He kind of lost me there, with the grammar problems or dropped words, but I think I got the gist of it.)
The sad thing was, he didn't realize what he had just done to his own argument.
I pointed out that such a judge, and his power to harm someone for engaging in self-defense, are evil. This confused him. I don't expect him to ever get it figured out. I know he believes he's being pragmatic- which is another problem, but such is life.
So much discussion with statists is like trying to discuss the color green with someone who insists it's orange, and calls you the problem for not going along.
-
Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time
Donations would be appreciated at this time