Monday, December 03, 2018

You can't debate a belch

I don't debate postmodernists. I can't because there's nothing to debate. They are content-free. It's like arguing with a worm. Or debating a sour belch from a bloated stomach.

Recently some guy didn't like my assertion that something was a natural human right. So I nicely explained it to him again, more carefully, and he didn't like that either.

He then demanded I prove that natural human rights exist, along with a whole laundry list of other demands.

Nope. Not gonna do that. If a person is too dumb to actually debate, why try?

I know-- that's not very nice of me.


Reminder: I could really use some help.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. People like that are who I refer to when I say "kill 'em all".

    He insists on systematic violence and cannot be reasoned with. This makes him a threat with no possibility of peaceful resolution. The only thing left to do is neutralize him and his co-conspirators by any means necessary. Because their terms are deadly force, deadly force is appropriate.

    Kill 'em all. ....and their gods.

    1. If and when (but not before) some archist poses a direct threat, deadly force is justified in self-defense. Anything more than that is itself aggression, and violates the core of libertarian ethics.

    2. A bunch of people organize to hire someone to say magic special words at a religious ceremony, then write on paper what everyone in a claimed geographical territory is to pay do and be, then hire an army/armies of people in superhero costumes to hunt everyone and make them do what the paper says or have more stolen from them, be abducted and caged, assaulted or even murdered.

      That's a religious terrorist organization, a violent cult, a big gang, definition. The threat is 24/7/365 as per geography.

      That is a direct threat to everyone, all of the time. The terms are obey or die.

  2. Without endorsing the background theology, I suggest there's a valid principle to be found in the New Testament. In Matthew 7:6 Jesus said "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

    Such folk won't pay attention until their world collapses around them. I struck that theme in "The Fix" at

    1. Complete abolition of government is indeed the answer. Simply remove the element of forced edicts and it must ask permission, must function as a service and compete on the open free market. Then all of those great ideas that libertarians everywhere have been thinking of can be implemented. Viola' - Liberty!

      But you have one tiny obstacle; Billions of idiots demanding slavery for everyone. They can't be reasoned with. Their terms are obey or die and they refuse anything else. Undermining support isn't gonna happen. You have to kill them all first, then build Libertopia.

    2. I don't want to kill anyone. I understand your point about the omnipresent threat of "the system" (cult) too, but I hope that you reconsider killing everyone and maybe work on spreading ideas. Maybe you're different but every other time I've heard the "kill them all" b.S. from an angry person, it invariably ends with them, muttering to themselves and going off to polish their gun and then opening another beer followed by them kicking their cat. Please for pussy's sake, don't kick the cat.

    3. Who wants to kill anything? I certainly don't.

      Peace love and happiness is always the goal. Simple reasoning would be nice. But there are billions who, for various reasons, demand systematic violence and refuse peaceful coexistence. Ideas don't work on such brainwashed idiots.

      And I don't have a nuclear arsenal to correct it. So, it's whatever.

    4. Thank you for your clarification. I should not have assumed. My error. Glad your cat is safe.

    5. Part of the "kill 'em all" thing is about forcing recognition of the evils of the state, demonstrating that it is nothing but violence, a big gang.

      In order for you to argue against genocide, you have to demonstrate how it is unjust, not rightful. You have to argue how the state is not a threat. You can't because it is a threat, because it is just a big gang.

      Use violence as an answer to everything and watch how people respond, particularly statists. Their system is exactly that; responding to everything with violence, ..and they will defend it. But when you apply the same principles to other things, to other contexts, it's horrible and crazy to do those things.

      (Libertarians don't fall for it. They say "That's what the state does.")

      Don't like the neighbor taking muscle relaxers for her back problems?, just steal her money, beat her down, throw her in a cage or kill her. Maybe raid her home in the middle of the night and throw grenades at her baby.

      Your neighbors tried to get out of passing around a hat for your annual "Whatever I Want Expense Account"?, ...kick in their doors, abduct them and throw them in a dungeon, sell their home and all of their belongings. If they don't cooperate, just kill them.

      Don't like reality?, ..just say magic words at a ceremony and write what you want it to be, then hire an army to force everyone to abide by a noncompliant universe.