Framing the Argument

Ben Shapiro talks about ‘framing the argument’ in this video while instructing the audience on how to debate ‘the left’. What’s amusing to me is that right after he tells them not to let ‘the left’ frame the argument in certain ways, he then uses the classic ‘framed’ argument of, “Why is it okay for you to steal other people’s money?”

This is an attempt to derail the debate and put the opponent on the offense trying to come up with ways to defend theft when the actual underlying issue is one of private property, and in particular, the use of private property to maintain exclusivity and artificial scarcity of access to things like education, merely for one’s own personal profit.

It is telling (and insidiously maddening) that according to Shapiro et al., any debate regarding what is and isn’t a right is immediately ‘off the table’, when in fact that is the essence of the debate. He—in his typical capitalist arrogance—gets to declare what is and isn’t a human right (on what basis I have no idea), and then any objection to that is framed as deviant crimes against the ‘rights’ of the capitalist.

The actual deviant behavior is telling people that they have no basic rights of access to anything of opportunity like education, then charging exorbitant rates and interest for the ‘privilege’ of ‘buying back’ these opportunities that should never have been placed so unattainably high in the first place, merely for others to enrich themselves immensely. But no, that’s all ‘off the table’ with Shapiro. He’s only interested in framing his opponent as a thief, then getting a kick out of watching the accused try to defend themselves from an accusation that has no real basis besides Shapiro’s groundless declaration of lack of rights.

Of course, the one right that capitalists will fanatically insist exists, defend, and force you to accept without negotiation is the right for them to own the means of production and resources on which others rely, to do with as they please.