Top 10 Moronic Political Debates

Political debate is everywhere. There’s no escaping it. Whether it’s in the media, at work, in social settings, on social media, at church, or in the home, you’re never far away from people engaged in political discussion. Which is not a bad thing, people should be interested in politics. Paraphrasing Trotsky, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.” It’s natural and good for people to be aware of what’s going on in the world around them, and for people to be engaged in intellectual debate. Oftentimes though, many of us witnessing the debates around us can’t help but shake our heads. Most of the debates we observe lack in intellectuality, and many have a tendency to miss the point entirely.

The following are the “Top 10 Moronic Political Debates”:

(10) Gay Cakes & Arby’s Cops

Many on the left became enraged when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Similarly, those on the right became enraged when an Arby’s employee refused to serve a cop. Both sides advocated boycotts, and both lobbied for fines to be placed on the businesses as well as for those businesses to be forced to serve their respective beloved groups.

Both sides miss the point. The quick leap to the desired use of governmental force by both is appalling. Boycott is fine, but use of force because something upset you? These businesses are private property, and even though it might upset some people, private businesses have the right to serve or not serve whoever they want. If one bakery wants to forgo the income from making a cake for a gay wedding, there are any number of other bakeries who would be happy to have the additional income. If Arby’s doesn’t want to serve cops and forgo that income, there are other restaurants who will gladly trade their food for cops’ dollars.

(9) Vaccines

On the one side, you have those who say that all vaccines are not only good but necessary. On the other hand, you have those who say that many vaccines are potentially dangerous and might even be a prime cause of all kinds of diseases including Alzheimer’s and autism. The one side will call the other “science deniers” while other side will liken vaccine pushers to the mafia. Both sides have studies, facts, and statistics that they will hold up in defense of their respective position.

Yet both sides miss the point. The real question to be debated from a political standpoint is the use of government as a means to achieve either side’s ends. It is improper and immoral for a government to force a particular chemical into a person’s body. Just the same, it is improper and immoral for a government to restrict access to a chemical that a person may desire. If both sides would agree that government must be left out of the debate, then a real scientific debate about the benefits or detriments of vaccines can replace the existing emotional argument that currently exists.

(8) Women in Combat

Radical feminists searching for inequality wherever it can possibly be found are quick to espouse that “women can do anything a man can do” and thus should be serving in front line military units alongside their male counterparts. Those on the other side including the men on the front lines and their (male and female) superiors argue back either that women in fact cannot do all the same things a man can do physically and thus shouldn’t be placed alongside men in combat roles because they’ll “slow the team down”, or that their presence in infantry forces would be a dangerous distraction that would make a bad situation worse.

Both sides miss the point. Instead of asking whether or not women should be fighting in wars alongside men, the question that must be asked is whether the US should be sending anyone (regardless of sex) overseas to fight in offensive, fruitless, unwinnable, illegal wars.

(7) Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a right, and anyone who opposes it – for any reason – is a bigot. Gay marriage is an abomination, those who support it are going to burn in Hell, and institutionalizing gay marriage will lead to bestiality. Goodness gracious. It’s hard to find another political debate that contains more bloviation from either side.

Both sides miss the point. Instead of arguing as to whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong, whether it is disgusting or courageous, the question that must be asked is why in the world does government need to be involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is simply a contract between two consenting individuals. There’s no need for free people to need to beg permission to marry from a government in the form of a marriage license. Supporters of gay marriage shouldn’t use the force of government to make private churches perform gay wedding ceremonies, and opponents of gay marriage shouldn’t use the force of government to prevent free consenting adults from entering into a voluntary contract.

(6) Refugees & Immigrants

One side says that immigrants are coming to “steal our jobs” and be lazy welfare recipients, and that refugees are at worst coming to “kill us all” as undercover agents of terrorism or at best are coming to be lazy welfare recipients like the immigrants. The other side applauds the arrival of both groups of people and in some cases encourage the government to bring in or allow greater numbers of these people to the US. One side is called bigots for their views, while the other side is called stupid and economically ignorant.

Both sides fail to see or point out the bigger picture. The immigration argument leaves out the role that the war on drugs has played in making their home countries unfit to live in and often ignores the fact that to immigrate legally is oftentimes financially impossible and bureaucratically arduous. The refugee argument ignores the pretext of how refugees have come to be in the first place – that western militaristic intervention in the region along with western infusion of arms, weapons, training, and equipment has been the primary cause of the chaos that the refugees are desperately fleeing. Those who want less immigration should focus on ending the war on drugs. Those who welcome immigration should focus on streamlining the process associated with legal immigration. Both sides of the refugee debate need to focus on ending the western interventions throughout the world and especially the Middle East.

(5) Black Lives Matter (BLM) v. All Lives Matter (ALM)

After a series of high profile, highly publicized instances of black men being murdered by police officers, the slogan “Black Lives Matter” has risen to such prominence that it has developed into an international movement, and rightly so. BLM’s problem is marketing. By choosing a slogan that focuses on race, they’ve redirected the narrative away from the issue of police brutality and toward the issue of racism in general. There are people out there who miss the point of BLM’s message, and instead focus on the slogan itself, unable to determine if the slogan means “black lives matter too” or “only black lives matter.” The sad fact that some interpret the slogan to mean the latter has spawned the counter ALM movement. Now the two are becoming diametrically opposed, and the debate is shifting from BLM’s original message.

Both sides are missing the point. Of course black lives matter. Of course all lives matter. Virtually no one would reply in the negative when asked, “Do black lives matter?” Or, “Do all lives matter?” Darren Wilson could be asked the former question, and would likely respond in the affirmative. Both sides need to move beyond the moronic racial argument, and return to the original issue of police brutality. It’s fine to say that black lives matter or all lives matter, but ok – we all agree with both statements, now what? Demanding accountability for killer cops must be the focus of this very real problem.

(4) Healthcare

Maintain the status quo or move to a fully socialized single-payer system. The status quo is awful as most already know; costs continue to rise, quality continues to decline, and anyone who deals with the medical field knows that something is very wrong. The problems with the status quo are continually getting worse as additional state interventions into the field compile. A single payer system would compound these problems and create new ones. One need not look further than the military’s VA medical system to see the problems of single-payer. Looking at countries that have implemented single payer systems we see the same problems that plague the VA; long wait times, rationing of care, limited availability of doctors, etc.

Both sides have blinders on. There is a clear third way that has been proven to work historically, and still is finding ways to work today even in spite of all the associated government regulation and control. This third way is freedom. All barriers between the patient and the care provider must be eliminated. The market’s price and profit/loss systems must be allowed to perform the tasks that they perform best – directing resources to where they are most desired in the way that is most efficient and satisfactory to the end user, the patient.

(3) Climate Change & Environmental Issues

Global warming is real, man-made, and government intervention through regulation is the only way to solve the problem. That’s one extreme of this argument. The other extreme are those who have zero concern for the environment, and who characterize the global warming narrative as a big conspiracy. Like the vaccine argument, both sides have facts, statistics and reports that they’ll use to bolster their position. Similarly, both sides are quick to dismiss the numbers presented by the other side. Both sides throw out ridiculous “facts” that shouldn’t be taken seriously by any rational person. 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is man-made, and government regulations is the answer? Please. The climate is not changing at all? Please.

Both sides miss the point. Whichever side you fall on, this is simply a property rights issue. Environmental pollution and smog causing emissions is best dealt with by a strict adherence to property rights. No person or company has a right to pollute another person’s land including the air above that land. If property rights were respected, property owners could sue the polluters for damage of property. With so much of the world’s land, water, and air being owned by governments, there is a tragedy of the commons problem that doesn’t allow the principals of property rights to protect those spaces. Growing up near Onondaga Lake in Syracuse, NY provided a first-hand view of this type of tragedy. Tons upon tons of chemicals were dumped into the lake by a nearby company, and there was no protection against this as governments are always either slow to react or receiving handouts from the polluting companies to look the other way. Had a homeowners association, fisherman’s association, or some other group been able to have ownership of the lake, they would have reacted immediately to protect their property.

(2) Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life

Far and away the most heated of the political debates. Both sides are unwavering in their belief of being correct, and are just as unwavering in their belief that the other side contains nothing but hate. A woman should have the right to choose at all times what takes place within her body. The termination of an unborn life is murder. We’ve all heard both sides countless times, and it never ends. This issue is so intense that the term ‘single-issue voter’ stems directly from it.

Both sides fail to see the simple facts. This is a debate that will never be won by either side so long as both believe that the only solution is a one size fits all solution. Instead of this type of issue being decided on a national level such that all 330 million Americans must abide by it, the issue should be left to states or (better yet) local jurisdiction. Neither side would be fully content, but both sides would have won. Pro-Life advocates would surely carve out states and localities where their beliefs would reign, and Pro-Choice advocates would do the same. At that point, people could vote with their feet – the most effective form of voting.

(1) Republicans vs. Democrats

Liberal or conservative? Left or right? Red or blue? The primary debate that is had within America is far and away the most moronic. Both sides believe that if only their guy was in charge then everything would be better. All that is needed is the right people wielding power. Name-calling and demonization of opponents of either side is rampant. Those stuck in this two sided box are unwilling or unable to see the possibilities awaiting outside of the box.

Both sides fail to see the bigger picture. History shows that one political party is exactly the same as the other political party, and only differ in rhetoric while remaining identical in deed. Both take for granted the idea that a person or group of people have some kind of legitimate moral right to rule over and control the lives of others. What right does 51% have to boss around 49%? How does winning a popularity contest grant the moral authority to act in ways that a normal person would be convicted of criminal activity for? Taxation is no different than theft. Conscription is no different than kidnapping. War is no different than mass murder. Quantitative easing is no different than counterfeiting. The sooner that civilization realizes that ultimate sovereignty must reside with the individual and not the state, the better off all of humanity will be.

This article “Top 10 Moronic Political Debates” is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jared Wall and emancipatedhuman.com.