Political discussions are often a war of competing studies. One side has a study showing one thing, while the other side has one showing the opposite. But ask yourself…
Could a study make you favor state aggression? Or does the moral cost of aggression always exceed the alleged benefits?
If your true bottom-line is moral opposition to aggression, then why not just say that? After all, the tactic of fighting one study with another assumes that…
- Evidence can establish or overturn moral principles
- We can subject society to scientific testing
- We can become experts on how other people should live
In reality, no study can turn murder or theft into moral actions. And the moment you make your stand on that kind of moral reasoning, things become easier. You no longer need to…
- Master every subject or pretend to an expertise that no human could possibly have.
- Be intimidated when someone else poses as an expert.
You can retire from the war of competing studies.
Instead, your case rests on rules that everyone already follows in their personal lives. It’s just that you apply those rules consistently, to both individuals and groups, including The State.
Jim Babka
About the Author
Perry Willis
About the Author
Does this way of thinking intrigue you? Want to learn more or participate in creating such a society? Then join the Zero Aggression Project using this subscription form…