| No amount of redefining your way out of the terms used in a question can compensate for an absence of facts and evidence to support your claims, but lets listen to a statist try anyway, here is a sample of some of the logical excrement:

  • “Anarchy is the problem, not the solution.” <- So abolishing institutionalized violence and slavery is not the solution to the problem of institutionalized violence and slavery?
  • “Government is in a state of anarchy.” <- So an institution-of-rulers is in a state of having no rulers?
  • “My questions weren’t being answered.” <- Why don’t you review the record and listen to who wasn’t answering who’s questions. Hint: its really obvious.
  • After Marc explains that “comply-or-die” is a phrase used to describe the force continuum, Clint and Jan dismiss this fact no less than 5 times throughout the recording!
  • Because a bear can kill a bear in the animal kingdom, that does not equate to humans cannot live without institutionalized coercive hierarchies, or in a state of anarchy if you will.
  • Because we are talking about criminal men and women who call themselves “government,” when we occasionally refer to them under their chosen nomenclature; that does not mean we accept the non-sequitur that “government exists.”
  • Clint claims Marc isn’t providing any facts right after he just laid the facts out. <- Suggestion: try listening, its there.
  • “The Federal Reserve is not federal; total BS.” <- not my area of expertise, but for some reason I think that’s wrong….
  • “Just because you say there is no government [which we aren’t, we are asking what facts and evidence is there to prove government does exist: his argument], that does not mean there is no government.” <- So much for the fallacy of proving a negative, Clint is [again] demanding Marc to prove something that doesn’t exist.
  • Clint condescendingly talks down to Marc many times, such as when describing his language as a catchphrase.

As I mentioned during the podcast, there are a myriad of mental disorders, like schizophrenia, where sufferers actually believe in things that are not there and that defy objective reality. It is not useful, nay; counterproductive and unhealthy, to continue to debate someone who does not accept empirical evidence and objective reality; that’s how we got to statism in the first place. If we are to object to and reject statism because of the obvious violence and schizophrenic beliefs that come with it, we must proceed with caution against its most fringe enablers to avoid such distasteful discourse.

Podcast: [audio:]

Also See: