Support Better Sensemakin
What you’re about to listen to is an unmoderated debate between myself and @LiquidZulu (YouTube).
Our basic resolution read:
Resolved: "The executive orders passed by Gov Abbot in TX banning vaccine mandates for any entity is equally as oppressive as the executive orders issued by President Biden requiring vaccine mandates for business with more than 100 workers"
I took the negative, he took the positive.
We also agreed to use the following definition for the non-aggression principle
The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.
This debate should be of interest to all libertarians, and while we didn't part in agreement, I thank @LiquidZulu for taking the time to come on my show.
THIS WEEK @ BEENAWAKE.COM
What else..?
follow.beenawake.com to find me on all social media
Check me out on other shows at beenawake.com/appearances
Support
Go to beenawake.com/subscribe to become a recurring subscriber
Visit Buymeacoffee.com/beenawake for one time donations!
Share this post