Oct 29, 2021 • 1HR 15M

Ep 65 - Unmoderated NAP debate with @LiquidZulu

Conflicting epistemic frames

Open in playerListen on);
Welcome to the show where we talk about news, philosophy, mindset, and what comes next in politics.
Episode details

Support Better Sensemakin

Get 50% off for 1 year

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.


What else..?

follow.beenawake.com to find me on all social media

Check me out on other shows at beenawake.com/appearances


Cash App $beenawake

Go to beenawake.com/subscribe to become a recurring subscriber

Visit Buymeacoffee.com/beenawake for one time donations!

America needs a software update, share this patch