KOL123 | Debate with Jan Helfeld on Anarchy vs. Limited Government

by Stephan Kinsella on April 28, 2014

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:48:18 — 119.6MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 123.

Daniel Rothschild arranged for and moderated a debate between me and Objectivist/classical liberal (or whatever he is) Jan Helfeld. I lost my temper with the guy because I refused to let him do what I’ve seen him do to others—take the moral highground (which, as someone defending the state against me, a real libertarian, I was not going to let him do) and use his boring/bludgeoning “socratic” debate technique to try to boringly wear people down. I refused to give in to either, which resulted in the funny mess that you can see here.

Of course, Helfeld never seriously tried to justify aggression or the state. He read from a prepared script, like a parakeet. And one of his arguments hinted at the idea that the state does commit aggression but that it is worth it because it prevents more serious aggression that would occur under a condition of anarchy; though he never made this argument explicitly. The other one suggested by him is that if Stephan Kinsella might in some conceivable emergency commit trespass to steal food, that means that aggression is not objectionable as a general matter, i.e. the state is justified in stealing $3trillion a year from US taxpayers because a starving Stephan Kinsella could conceivably be willing to break into a cabin in the woods to steal a can of beans. Again, Helfeld does not want to make this argument so explicitly because then it would rightly subject him to ridicule.

My opening statement was originally lost due to technical issues and deleted by Helfeld, but James Cox somehow saved it and spliced it in with take two. The combined material is included here.

GROK SHOWNOTES: Two-Paragraph Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers

In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL123), recorded on April 27, 2014, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella debates Objectivist/classical liberal Jan Helfeld on the merits of anarcho-capitalism versus limited government, moderated by Daniel Rothschild (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that the state inherently commits aggression through taxation and monopolistic services, violating the non-aggression principle (NAP), and advocates for a stateless society with private property and voluntary institutions, challenging Helfeld to justify state coercion (10:01-30:00). Helfeld employs a Socratic questioning style, repeatedly asking Kinsella about extreme scenarios, such as whether taking a drink under duress violates the NAP, to argue that the NAP is not absolute, suggesting that limited government is justified to prevent anarchy’s perceived chaos (30:01-50:00). The debate becomes heated, with Kinsella refusing to concede Helfeld’s moral high ground, as noted in his commentary on stephankinsella.com, leading to a confrontational tone.

Kinsella maintains that Helfeld fails to justify state aggression, emphasizing that limited government still relies on coercive taxation and monopolies, incompatible with libertarian principles (50:01-1:10:00). Helfeld insists that anarchy would lead to gang warfare and poverty, justifying a minimal state to protect life, liberty, and property, but struggles to directly address Kinsella’s demand for a principled defense of coercion, as Kinsella critiques in his post-debate analysis (1:10:01-1:29:59). The Q&A reveals Helfeld’s reliance on hypothetical exigencies, which Kinsella dismisses as irrelevant to the NAP’s consistency, while Helfeld accuses Kinsella of avoiding practical concerns. Kinsella concludes by urging listeners to reject the state’s legitimacy, directing them to c4sif.org for resources, delivering a robust defense of anarcho-capitalism. This episode, though contentious, is a compelling exploration of anarchy versus minarchy, with Kinsella’s commentary highlighting Helfeld’s evasive tactics.

Youtube Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below.

For those who think I was too rude or disrespectful to Helfeld, I submit this video showing his interaction with Jeff Tucker:

Update: See Robert Wenzel, “Kinsela [sic] Constantly Insulted Me, Interrupted Me and Broke His Agreement.“, Economic Policy Journal [sic] (May 5, 2014) (Wenzel too stupid or sloppy to spell my last name right); and idem, “Is This What Kinsella Was Afraid Of?“, Economic Policy Journal [sic] (May 6, 2014).

GROK DETAILED SUMMARY

Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks

The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL123, a 1-hour-29-minute debate between Stephan Kinsella and Jan Helfeld on anarchy versus limited government, recorded on April 27, 2014, moderated by Daniel Rothschild. The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (7-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments and dynamics. Kinsella’s commentary on stephankinsella.com, which notes Helfeld’s Socratic bludgeoning and failure to justify state aggression, is integrated. The Economic Policy Journal posts from Wenzel are not relevant to this debate, as they pertain to a different debate (KOL038), and are thus not used.

0:00:00-7:00 (Introduction and Opening Statements, ~7 minutes)
Description: Moderator Daniel Rothschild introduces the debate, outlining the topic of anarchy versus limited government, with Kinsella advocating anarcho-capitalism and Helfeld defending minarchy (0:00:00-0:01:00). Kinsella opens, arguing that the state inherently commits aggression through taxation and monopolistic services, violating the non-aggression principle (NAP), and calls for a stateless society with private property and voluntary institutions (0:01:01-0:04:00). Helfeld begins his statement, asserting that limited government is necessary to protect life, liberty, and property, using a Socratic style to question whether the NAP is absolute, hinting at exigencies justifying state coercion (0:04:01-0:07:00). Kinsella’s commentary notes Helfeld’s reliance on a prepared script, likening him to a “parakeet.”

Key Themes:
- Introduction of debate topic and participants (0:00:00-0:01:00).
- Kinsella’s anti-state argument based on NAP violations (0:01:01-0:04:00).
- Helfeld’s minarchist defense and Socratic questioning of NAP (0:04:01-0:07:00).
  Summary: Kinsella opens with a principled anti-state argument, while Helfeld defends limited government, setting a Socratic tone, which Kinsella later critiques as evasive in his commentary.
7:01-22:00 (Kinsella’s NAP Defense and Helfeld’s Exigency Questions, ~15 minutes)
Description: Kinsella elaborates on the NAP, arguing that state actions like taxation and service monopolies are inherently coercive, challenging Helfeld to justify aggression (7:01-12:00). Helfeld repeatedly asks Kinsella about a hypothetical where taking a drink under duress (e.g., thirst) violates the NAP, aiming to show the NAP’s absolutism fails in extreme cases, suggesting state coercion is justified to prevent anarchy’s chaos (12:01-18:00). Kinsella responds that such scenarios are edge cases irrelevant to the NAP’s general validity, accusing Helfeld of dodging the state’s aggression, as noted in his commentary (18:01-22:00). The exchange grows tense, with Kinsella refusing to let Helfeld claim moral superiority.

Key Themes:
- Kinsella’s defense of NAP against state coercion (7:01-12:00).
- Helfeld’s Socratic questioning using duress hypotheticals (12:01-18:00).
- Kinsella’s rejection of edge cases as irrelevant, accusing Helfeld of evasion (18:01-22:00).
  Summary: Kinsella defends the NAP, challenging Helfeld’s justification of state aggression, while Helfeld’s repetitive hypotheticals aim to undermine the NAP’s absolutism, which Kinsella critiques as a distraction in his commentary.
22:01-37:00 (Helfeld’s Minarchist Justification and Kinsella’s Rebuttals, ~15 minutes)
Description: Helfeld argues that anarchy would lead to gang warfare, extortion, and poverty, justifying a minimal state to protect individual rights, claiming limited government optimizes liberty (22:01-27:00). Kinsella counters that Helfeld fails to justify state aggression, as taxation and monopolies inherently violate the NAP, and private institutions could provide defense and dispute resolution, citing market-based solutions (27:01-32:00). Helfeld persists with his duress hypothetical, accusing Kinsella of avoiding practical concerns, while Kinsella insists the NAP’s consistency doesn’t require addressing every edge case, as noted in his commentary criticizing Helfeld’s Socratic bludgeoning (32:01-37:00). The debate’s tone escalates, with Kinsella’s frustration evident.

Key Themes:
- Helfeld’s minarchist defense, citing anarchy’s risks (22:01-27:00).
- Kinsella’s rebuttal that state coercion is unjustifiable, advocating private solutions (27:01-32:00).
- Helfeld’s repetitive hypotheticals and Kinsella’s rejection of their relevance (32:01-37:00).
  Summary: Helfeld defends limited government to prevent anarchy’s chaos, but Kinsella argues state coercion violates the NAP, dismissing Helfeld’s hypotheticals as irrelevant, a tactic Kinsella critiques as evasive in his commentary.
37:01-52:00 (Debate Intensifies: NAP Absolutism vs. Practical Concerns, ~15 minutes)
Description: Helfeld presses Kinsella on whether the NAP applies in all circumstances, using the duress scenario to argue that exigencies (e.g., preventing anarchy) justify state aggression, claiming limited government mitigates worse outcomes (37:01-42:00). Kinsella responds that Helfeld’s scenarios don’t negate the NAP’s principle, as state coercion is a clear violation, and private systems could handle defense and justice, challenging Helfeld’s failure to provide a principled defense (42:01-47:00). The exchange becomes heated, with Kinsella accusing Helfeld of reading from a script and avoiding direct answers, as noted in his commentary, while Helfeld accuses Kinsella of dodging practical implications (47:01-52:00).

Key Themes:
- Helfeld’s claim that exigencies justify state aggression (37:01-42:00).
- Kinsella’s defense of NAP’s consistency and private alternatives (42:01-47:00).
- Heated accusations of evasion from both sides (47:01-52:00).
  Summary: Helfeld argues that exigencies justify a minimal state, but Kinsella maintains the NAP’s principled stance against coercion, criticizing Helfeld’s scripted approach and lack of direct justification, as detailed in his commentary.
52:01-1:07:00 (Kinsella’s Anarchist Vision and Helfeld’s Counterarguments, ~15 minutes)
Description: Kinsella outlines his anarchist vision, where private property, voluntary contracts, and market-based institutions replace state functions, arguing this avoids coercion while maintaining order (52:01-57:00). Helfeld counters that anarchy would lead to tribalism and loss of free market benefits, insisting a minimal state is necessary to enforce contracts and protect rights, repeating his duress hypothetical (57:01-1:02:00). Kinsella refutes Helfeld’s claims, noting that historical state monopolies haven’t prevented chaos and that private systems could outperform, accusing Helfeld of evading the coercion question, as emphasized in his commentary (1:02:01-1:07:00). The debate remains contentious, with both sides entrenched.

Key Themes:
- Kinsella’s vision of private, voluntary institutions in anarchy (52:01-57:00).
- Helfeld’s claim that anarchy leads to chaos, requiring a state (57:01-1:02:00).
- Kinsella’s rebuttal of Helfeld’s evasion and state’s failures (1:02:01-1:07:00).
  Summary: Kinsella presents a stateless society as viable, while Helfeld insists on a minimal state to avoid chaos, with Kinsella critiquing Helfeld’s repetitive hypotheticals and failure to justify coercion, as noted in his commentary.
1:07:01-1:22:00 (Q&A and Final Exchanges, ~15 minutes)
Description: The Q&A begins, with Helfeld reiterating that anarchy’s risks justify a state, using his Socratic method to question Kinsella’s NAP absolutism, while Kinsella insists Helfeld hasn’t justified state aggression, emphasizing voluntary alternatives (1:07:01-1:12:00). Helfeld accuses Kinsella of avoiding practical outcomes, like gang warfare, but Kinsella counters that states cause wars and monopolies, not solutions, as noted in his commentary criticizing Helfeld’s script reliance (1:12:01-1:17:00). The debate’s tone peaks, with Kinsella refusing to concede moral ground, calling Helfeld’s questions irrelevant, while Helfeld persists with hypotheticals, failing to directly address coercion (1:17:01-1:22:00).

Key Themes:
- Helfeld’s Socratic push on anarchy’s risks, countered by Kinsella’s NAP focus (1:07:01-1:12:00).
- Kinsella’s critique of state failures and Helfeld’s evasion (1:12:01-1:17:00).
- Heated final exchanges, with Kinsella rejecting Helfeld’s hypotheticals (1:17:01-1:22:00).
  Summary: Helfeld presses anarchy’s risks, but Kinsella maintains state coercion is unjustifiable, dismissing Helfeld’s hypotheticals as distractions, as critiqued in his commentary, with both sides entrenched.
1:22:01-1:29:59 (Conclusion and Final Q&A, ~8 minutes)
Description: Kinsella concludes, urging rejection of the state’s legitimacy, arguing it inherently violates the NAP, and directs listeners to c4sif.org for resources like Against Intellectual Property (1:22:01-1:25:00). Helfeld makes a final push, claiming limited government optimizes liberty by preventing anarchy’s chaos, but Kinsella counters that Helfeld’s exigency arguments don’t justify coercion, as noted in his commentary calling Helfeld’s approach scripted and evasive (1:25:01-1:28:00). The debate ends abruptly due to time, with Rothschild thanking participants, while Kinsella’s commentary reflects on Helfeld’s failure to engage substantively, reinforcing the anarchist position (1:28:01-1:29:59).

Key Themes:
- Kinsella’s call to reject state legitimacy and resource direction (1:22:01-1:25:00).
- Helfeld’s final minarchist defense, countered by Kinsella’s coercion critique (1:25:01-1:28:00).
- Abrupt end, with Kinsella’s commentary on Helfeld’s evasive tactics (1:28:01-1:29:59).
  Summary: Kinsella concludes by advocating anarchy and rejecting state coercion, while Helfeld’s final defense fails to justify aggression, with Kinsella’s commentary highlighting Helfeld’s scripted, evasive approach.

Notes

The summary is based on the transcript at stephankinsella.com for KOL123, a 1-hour-29-minute debate recorded on April 27, 2014. The time blocks are segmented to cover 5-15 minutes, with lengths (7, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, and 8 minutes) reflecting natural content divisions, such as opening statements, key arguments, and Q&A. The final block is shorter due to the abrupt end, but all key content is captured. Kinsella’s commentary at stephankinsella.com, which critiques Helfeld’s Socratic bludgeoning and failure to justify state aggression, is integrated. The Economic Policy Journal posts from Wenzel (2013-2014) are irrelevant, as they pertain to KOL038, not KOL123, and are not used. The debate’s contentious tone, driven by Kinsella’s refusal to concede Helfeld’s moral high ground and Helfeld’s repetitive hypotheticals, is reflected, consistent with Kinsella’s analysis. If you need further adjustments, additional details, or analysis of another episode, please let me know

YOUTUBE TRANSCRIPT

hello how’s everyone doing today i’m here uh with special guest jen hellfeld

and uh stefan kinsella going to debate uh limited government versus anarchy

um jenna alfo as you know is a uh interviews people using the socratic

method and he is going to argue for a limited government and stephen kinsella is an ip

lawyer and he’s going to argue for anarchy um my position is the anarchist position i

think i should just make that clear um anyway i think uh kenzel is going to go first

for 10 minutes opening so you start i’m happy to start jan are you okay with

this uh format we’re ready to go yeah okay so

um i would like to just see how this proceeds but let me just give my basic

uh my basic viewpoint here um first of all the title of the debate i

want to take a little bit of the issue with because um i am opposed as an anarchist and as a libertarian to

the state but not to government depending upon what you mean by that

so i want to make that clear i do believe from what i’ve seen in emails forwarded by by daniel earlier

that your definition of the government would be similar to what i would define the state as

um which means i don’t think we have a problem but let’s just be clear so the state is

what libertarians oppose in fact what libertarians oppose is aggression

okay libertarians oppose aggression private and public that is private

ad hoc and also in an institutionalized fashion so we are opposed to aggression now what

i do not want to hear from you which i suspect i will is some kind of conflation of aggression with

coercion or with violence or with self-defense because i hear this all the time from

defenders of the minimal state or the classical liberal state or the state itself

they will say well you say you’re against aggression but you want to use force to defend yourself against um

aggression so you’re in favor of aggression in some cases well no we’re not aggression is the

initiation of force so that’s what we’re opposed to as libertarians

the fundamental case against the state is not a case for a system

and i realize that you jan are used to defending and arguing against

people that argue for a system they argue for an anarchist system

just like you argue for a system and just like socialist and conservatives argue for a system

and so then the question becomes which system is better etc anarchists don’t argue for a system what

anarchists observe is that we civilized

human beings opposed is the initiation of force against other people this is actually

very simple even people like jan should be able to understand this okay

so we oppose aggression we think it is immoral wrong unjustified and illegitimate

i don’t really know how much more simple i can make that but i will try so we oppose aggression we think

aggression is wrong and no we don’t mean that self-defense is wrong we’re not talking about violence or

force we’re talking about the initiation of force which means the invasion of the property borders of

someone else’s property if that’s not clear i can repeat it 10 times to anyone who is unable to

grasp this very simple fact which even a dog can understand when they growl when you approach their

dog food bowl okay so this is not difficult whatsoever to understand

is even on rand understood in atlas shrugged when she talked about the initiation

of force so that is what libertarians oppose and because we think that aggression is

unjustified we recognize that every act of regression is unjustified and

that includes private acts of aggression which normal people call crime

robbery theft rape murder etc and in a in an institutionalized fashion

we call that what the government does okay so the government is the or the state is the

institutionalized agency that commits aggression on a

widespread scale therefore we libertarians oppose that as well as private aggression

we also tend to recognize that the state um commits aggression on a much more wider

scale than any private aggressor could like the mafia or some kind of

ad hoc gang of criminals so the state is a much worse or much more offensive violator of

aggression of rights than um any private criminal would be so my defense

of anarchy is simply the argument that aggression is unjustified

now if jan wants to argue that aggression is justified in some cases

he needs to come up with guess what a justification for aggression now

my simplistic louisiana boy framework is that mr jan hellfield can’t come up with a

reason the justification is justified i think he can come up with all kinds of invasions he can ask me

uh evading questions like how would my system work um what the

purpose of rights is he can come up with all kinds of distracting questions but he cannot justify aggression

and he will not attempt to do so he might attempt to conflate it with violence or force which is what the

simple-minded typical uh statist opponent of ours does and i hope he doesn’t do

that but if he doesn’t do that he won’t have any defense of the state so

in my point of view i’m not defending a system i am simply observing that aggression is

unjustified and unjustifiable and that the state by its nature

of necessity commits aggression the state either taxes or the state monopolizes

the field of justice and that means it outlaws by force competing agencies um

which is an act of aggression which is unjustified under libertarian principles now jan

will have to either to defend the state and i don’t want to hear the word

government because the word government is used by people like jan in an equivocating way okay

what they will say is if you’re against the state you’re against the government and that means you’re against the governing institutions of society

which means that you’re chaos and disorder and you’re not in favor of law now this

is a loaded question it’s a question begging question is circular reasoning it’s dishonest

it’s illegitimate and it’s equivocating so i don’t want to hear the word government from jan i want to hear

jan defend the state and the state has certain characteristics which i have defined in which thinkers

like hapa the yasay others have defined very carefully very clearly the state is an institution

which has a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic region and that necessarily

requires taxation or some kind of aggression so the question for the

anarchist is simply is aggression justified and does a state committed

and the and the answer is yes and yes i’m sorry no and yes aggression is never

justified cannot be justified and if you’re a libertarian and you do not base your

theory on the opposition to aggression i would like to know what it is and i would like

jan to tell me what it is instead of asking me socratic questions and by the way i went to law school too jan

and i’ve taught law classes and you’re not going to trip me up with your um your evasive socratic questioning

technique jan i will tell you something i admire your approach to to nancy pelosi and the other status but

when you’re compared to them you look like a libertarian because compared to them you are a libertarian

okay but when you’re talking to someone like me you look like the statist because you’re

defending the state and you’re on the firing line son okay so i don’t want to hear this

um i don’t want to hear this socratic nonsense i want you to be clear in your

definitions i’m not going to fall for your socratic reasoning or your equivocation and you can define the state you can

tell me whether you’re for or against aggression and what your justification for it is

and i will tell you something you can’t defend the state you can’t defend aggression and you

can’t defend liberty unless you oppose all aggression in all forms

both private and institutionalized which is what the state does so my defen how much time do i have

daniel um you have a minute but i’m actually looking at the video and for some reason your faces

is just in a small box and it sort of looks weird

well there’s nothing that can be done about this at this point so um so here’s what i would say the

anarchist position is not a defense of a system the anarchist position

is the recognition that aggression is not justifiable which is the basic libertarian position

and it’s combined with the recognition that the state necessarily commit aggression so

in my mind if mr jan hellfield is going to oppose anarchy which means to my mind

he’s going to defend the state he needs to do one of two things he needs to explain to me stephen

kinsella on this sunday in this podcast why aggression is justified

in which case i will keep my eyes on this guy and watch him when he comes around my

kids or my family okay if he is in favor of aggression or he needs to explain why the state

doesn’t necessarily engage in aggression that’s it i don’t want to hear his questions about

how is anarchy going to work what’s my prediction about the world etc that’s not the issue the issue is

whether the institutionalized use of force is justified or not and jan that is the

question i ask you and that is a question that i doubt you will try to answer go ahead

uh sorry if i could just interrupt first first text sorry um i think we have to

redo it on my channel it’s it’s not really good i [ __ ] christ you’re kidding me what

what what happened i i mean jen i i know how to do these settings that’s why i suggested that we do it on my

channel so if i asked you if you said that uh you said that whoever was talking would come up on the

screen but that didn’t happen it it didn’t so let me just do redo it it was only 10 minutes so far

i hope it’s not a problem let me let me just do it on my channel and you can repost it okay i thought it’s working

it’s not so let me just review it but uh he already gave uh his opening statement yeah so we’ll

we’ll just do it again i’m sorry about that guys uh it doesn’t look very good so we have to redo it

uh and i’ll give my my opening statement let me just let me just let me just redo

it on another channel i don’t want to wait i don’t want to waste any more time continue because he already

gave a statement i i listened to it uh patiently inspired but it’s not there it’s not

fair to have a video that doesn’t look very good so let’s

i’m sorry people watching this we’re gonna redo it on my channel and then we’ll post it back on this channel okay i’m sorry

jim can you can you exit and i’ll just redo it sorry i’ll send you a video well why

don’t you just tell me what has to be done to i’m not i’m not really sure it’s on your end so let’s just

did you send me the uh link yeah hello how’s everyone doing i’m here with special guest

jan hellfeld and stephan kinsella um jane hellfeld uh is an

interviewer interviewing people with the socratic method and he is going to argue for limited government and seven

godzilla is gonna arg is an ip lawyer and he is going to argue for anarchy uh just for intellectual honesty i

should say what position i am in and that is the position of uh anarchy

um anyway uh we’re gonna give uh kinsella the round to argue for anarchy for the

first ten minutes so uh go ahead okay so um hey jan hi

um good to meet you in person you and i just had a little round this

is a the second attempt right so um that’s fine i am a big admirer of yours i

admire your work uh to fight uh statism among congress people etc

so please keep that in mind and what i’m going to say which is going to be very

blunt and very um uh clear unlike a lot of your opponents and unlike some

of your um the people that are on your side

i think we should be clear um so i just want to be clear are we clear

right now can everyone hear everybody are we online daniel yeah yeah i’m looking at it it still

looks somewhat bad for some reason i don’t know what you i can see you okay when i talk can

you see me i see you right now jan yeah but you see me in the little box

or in the big box the big the little box is blocked out

well okay how do how does it how do you go from one picture to the other uh how

is it it does it automatically but if you go okay on the youtube link that i just sent you

it it looks sort of weird for some reason but hopefully okay okay stephanie uh stefan

okay so just to let people know what happened just now because it will probably affect what i say i just talked for 10 minutes

and we had a technical glitch and so i’m redoing this right now so jan has already heard my spiel and

i will try to recapitulate my presentation my perspective on this issue um which is

the following number one what’s our debate our debate is about government

uh limited government right whether we’re in favor of that or not now i would just say quickly i have a

disagreement with the way the debate is framed because um people like jan i won’t accuse jan of

this but people on his side will equivocate equivocate means to use

words in two different ways in a dishonest way so if i say i am against government

then these people will say you you’re against the governing

institutions of society in other words you’re against law and order and if i say well no i’m i’m an anarchist

but i’m i’m for a law and order then they say well you’re for government so you’re you’re contradicting yourself so what

they do is they have a loaded term called government and they equate it with the state when it’s convenient for them

so i don’t want to go there and i think jan has actually been pretty clear about this and his definition of

the state so i think jan’s definition of government is similar to

what i would define the state as as an anarchist i def i oppose the state

because the state is the uh monopolized institution or agency

of force in a given geographic region okay and i think that’s what jan is in

favor of now i don’t think jan can justify this because if you are opposed to aggression as a

general matter which libertarians do okay no aggression means and let me note it does not mean

coercion it does not mean force it doesn’t mean violence because defensive

force and force used in restitution can be justified according to

libertarians so we’re not against force we’re against aggression or as iran called it the initiation of force

right or as libertarians explain we are against the uninvited or unconsented to use of

someone else’s physical property that is dating the

boundaries of their property that is what we mean by opposing aggression

that’s what we’re against so i don’t want to hear that um um that

i oppose aggression but i’m in favor of self-defense so there’s a contradiction i think jan knows better than that and i

expect him not to raise that uh baseless accusation okay so

when we favor aggression i’m sorry when we favor anarchy we’re not in favor of a system now jan

and conservatives and liberals and socialists and environmentalists and democrats of all types are in favor

of a system they have in mind a vision of a system that they want to implement

and they are in favor of that for certain reasons from the anarchist perspective from the

libertarian perspective that pers that’s that viewpoint is

bankrupt because um they are all similar and that they all

favor a regime in which private property rights are are violated now the anarchist

doesn’t say i predict the following system will emerge and so jan’s not going to confront me

with the socratic method and i’m a law student i’m a lawyer so i know the socratic method he’s not

going to confront me with well tell me what your system will be like

i can’t predict the future in fact as an austrian i know that i can’t predict the future

but what i can say as an austrian and as a libertarian that is someone who vi who respects

individual property rights i can say that i’m opposed to

aggression i want to be very simple and clear about this i’m opposed to aggression i can say it a

hundred times if i need to what that means is mr jan hellfield

cannot in this conversation come up with an argument that will tell me or tell the viewers

why aggression is justified he can’t justify aggression and i challenge him to do that and he

needs to do that if he’s going to justify the state the reason is the state necessarily

employs aggression i don’t want to hear from mr hellfield that we need the state i don’t care if

we need the state i want him to tell me why aggression is justified or that he

doesn’t care about aggression in which case he’s no better than the status that he

pretends and claims to condemn when he interviews miss nancy pelosi and other congress critters

like her so to me it’s one of the other mr hellfield will tell me

what aggression is and please don’t conflate it with self-defense and he will tell me

why it’s okay that we can justify committing aggression in an

institutionalized way in some cases i want to hear this justification

because if jan hellfeld can’t come up with a reason for that he’s admitting that the state is

inherently unjustified the state is a criminal organization

much like the mafia and and i’ll add one more thing here um

people like jan helfeld use ein rand’s type of arguments which are completely

ridiculous and bankrupt to argue for individual rights and against anarchy

and they argue that we can’t have competing agencies for rights

that you can’t have a free market for defense services and yet they will never explicitly argue

for the ultimate result of their reasoning which is a one world government now on occasion i have gotten

people like jan hellfield to agree that the ultimate

result of their reasoning is that we need to have a one world government but they come up with ad hoc reasons why

we can’t have it right now okay furthermore we have anarchy

today between the states we have 200 states in the world there’s anarchy between the states we

have anarchy historically in the world one two three hundred four hundred years

of anarchy 800 years of anarchy in different societies anarchy of a certain fashion has worked

we have anarchy inside the state that is there is no super state above the united states or

any other state that makes the um the actors of the state comply with

the rules of that state so we have some kind of anarchy even right now and furthermore we have

widespread recognition of rights among regular people private law people daniel

jan presumably you presumably you jan wouldn’t sneak into my house tonight if you could

and steal my uh my uh my my rolex watch or whatever i don’t know

i’ll give you an opportunity to rebut that if you want to admit that you’re a thief but i’m i’m giving you the benefit of

doubt even though you’re a statist basically okay so i’m giving you a benefit of doubt

you’re welcome you’re welcome jan so um most i can remind you that we got to

stay away from ad honeymoons it’s not it’s not an albino it’s it’s a it’s a question about whether you are in

favor of it or not and you are welcome to respond to that in full in your time but my point is that i am

assuming we have a better minute okay i’m assuming that most of us are well-meaning decent people

and that we respect each other’s rights voluntarily without your goddamn randian state telling us

what to do okay so we have a certain degree of anarchy already so what i want to know is um um

whether you think aggression is justified and whether you think the state commits aggression it’s a very simple question and i would

like you to not evade the question and to answer the question do you think aggression is justified

and do you think the state commits aggression very simple questions i will turn it over to you and go ahead

and feel free to justify this um this this horrible thing called the

state which you guys are in bed with and we are not go ahead my turn

yeah first of all the title of this debate is

no government versus limited government you agreed to do this debate with this

title and apparently there shouldn’t be any problem because

you agreed with the definition of government and when i define government you hear state

but this is the name of this debate is the issue is what’s better which is

better no government or limited government so you are

arguing for a system i’m going to tell you which system you’re arguing for

one that doesn’t have a government in other words there’s really only three possibilities

in political theory either you have a government or you

don’t that’s the first decision and if you have one is it unlimited or is it limited and if

it’s limited what is the basis for the limitation so you’re arguing for a system

when you claim that you’re not arguing for a system you’re just trying to avoid having to defend any position then

there’s nothing to debate because every political discussion is about what is better what is a better social

organization you’re claiming that the better social organization is no government and i’m claiming that it’s

limited government you’re also arguing that you’re against

law because a law is a rule that is enacted and enforced

on everybody in a given territory and you don’t want that you don’t want

the law of the land you want one security agency to make its rule

a different security agency to make a different rule so that is not accepting the concept of

a law which is applau applicable to all the people in a given community in a given

territory that’s what law means now that’s different than a rule by the kiwanis

club or a church or whatever that’s not applicable to everyone so you are against law

and you say that the state is a criminal organization i don’t think so but anyway

let me say this let me say this uh i sympathize with the anarchist anger at

the state for the abuses of power and violations of our individual rights

i too am angry and have been doing battle to stop these violations and get rid of the welfare state

however i caution you that in your haste to get rid of the welfare state

you don’t choose something even worse which is no government at all i will attempt to prove that anarchy

will necessarily result in

gang warfare many more violations of your individual rights

making a long happy life less likely you cannot shirk the responsibility of

considering the natural consequences of not having a government by saying that this

is a consequentialist argument and you are operating from first principles proper ethical principles

are moral and correct because they integrate the long-term consequences of following the principle

there is no need to choose between them on the one hand are you reading something i.e the

practical on the other following a true moral principle will produce good consequences

in terms of optimizing the possibility of a long happy life following a mistake in principle or not

knowing the exceptions will produce bad consequences and that is one way we know it is flawed

all valid principles are a means to achieving a proper ultimate end which

you has not not identified which i have said is a long happy life this applies to the non-aggression

principle as well if you don’t know the context purpose and long-term consequences that are integrated in the

non-aggression principle you will not be able to apply it properly and you will erroneously conclude that

it is in conflict with a limited government if you want to live well and optimize

your possibility of a happy life you need to protect your life bodily integrity

liberty and property this debate is about how your life liberty and property are

more protected with a limited government or without any government and in your words a state

in my view a government that is created to protect your right to life liberty

and property and is constitutionally limited to this function offers more protection than no

government at all let’s see why a society with no governmental monopoly

of major force will degenerate into gang warfare there will always be some

human beings that choose predation as a means to survive presently these domestic and foreign

criminals are held in check by the fact that they have no possibility of overcoming the police power of the

state in a direct confrontation however once the state is removed they can

and will have enough weapons to destroy individuals and weak security agencies

that refuse to surrender their property thus generally what are you reading because

you will be less safe please do not interrupt me i didn’t interrupt you

what are you reading excuse me moderator will you tell the other debater he has two minutes you’ll

you’ll ask no you cannot interrupt jesus christ go ahead keep reading your

your stepmom just just give moreover criminals

and foreign tyrants will be incentivized to obtain more destructive weapons to

increase their pool of victims creating a mini arms race criminal gangs we have today

like the mafia will get military weapons so they can extort and plunder their fellow citizens

they will attack individuals and weak security agencies as well as each other

they you don’t need too many of them to miscalculate and attack organizations of relatively

equal strength to have gang warfare in every city

if you think things are bad now just wait until you have anarchy if you want to

see what it would be like just go to any city ghetto where the police refuse to give protection

and you’ll see a neighborhood divided in territorial gangs where everybody’s life

and property are at peril or go to any place in the world where the state police power is non-existent

such as colombia jungles or the border between afghanistan and pakistan and you’ll see the same phenomenon

furthermore foreign tyrants and criminal organizations from other countries will attempt predatory

strategies against us predators love relatively unprotected wealth to plunder

we would be a magnet for all such criminals and tyrants only a government with

modern military forces can effectively deter their invasions and extortions

security services simply can’t do the job for instance what do you propose a small

town to do when they receive an extortion note from some criminal saying if you don’t pay us a

billion dollars we will attack you with a guided missile you don’t have the us army to protect

you and to retaliate and to stop them you have to deal with yourself with your security

agencies secondly disagreements and this is the most important thing

between rational citizens will also lead to gang warfare most people will naturally act to form

groups or alliances in an attempt to enforce agreements protect themselves and punish aggressors

or swindlers there will necessarily be differences of opinion regarding

who is right and who is wrong in various conflicts between members of opposing alliances

some of these alliances will try to use physical force to make the member of the other alliance

comply the other alliance may resist with force this so and you will have a little

war with thousands of alliances and millions of disagreements you only need a small

percentage of people to decide to use physical force to end up with the bloody hell of war everywhere

under anarchism every kind of disagreement has the potential of becoming a many war disagreements

like whether somebody is a murderer or not whether they have violated a contract or not whether they stole the money or not

whether the action should be a crime or not whether the punishment is appropriate or not because there is no law you don’t agree

that there should be one law that everybody has to follow in the whole territory is one neighborhood has one law the next

neighbor has a different law with millions of disagreements and some people’s decision to try to impose their

view by force you will have many wars everywhere these mini wars will have collateral damage in

the form of innocent victims as well as drawing probably his time right daniel some of the fight

will you stop interrupting me well i think your time’s up that’s the moderator’s job let him do

his job a minute here’s another minute let the moderator do it so when’s

gonna go i didn’t interrupt you did i no you just want to take my money from

me from by taxes so i guess you’ll want to just attack and whatever but you don’t want to follow the rules and that’s one

of the big problems i have with anarchists they never want to follow the rules they agree to and in the anarchist situation there’s

no way of making them follow the rules because you can’t have a government to enforce the rules that’s

probably why you like it so much yeah that’s a really good argument for anarchy

it’s my turn to talk i don’t know if it is you’re trying to do a format it’s not the ross job i i will format

and you should stephan i come on i mean you have to be respectful

uh here’s another minute i you know i mean i i don’t think you should go ahead go ahead go ahead jan finish

your minute these many wars will have collateral

damage in the form of innocent victims as well as drawing other people into the

fight some of these fights will become feuds and vendettas like the hatfield and the

mccoys passed on from generation to generation in contrast under a limited government

disagreements are limited to the parties and they have finality

under anarchy we would not reap the benefits of free markets we now take for granted free markets do not

work optimally if they can’t count on the enforcement of contracts and

agreements this is evidenced by all of history and a visit to any

third world country where the legal system does not work well if you cannot trust the contract will be

enforced you will be very reluctant to invest or contract so

in conclusion in conclusion our liberty our life liberty and

property would be less safe under anarchism as a result of a proliferation of gang warfare oh for

god’s sake torsion extortion by domestic and foreign criminals

and a loss of benefits of the benefits of the free market and that’s why i’m against it because

there will be more initiation of physical force under anarchism there’s no government

rather than less and that’s why everybody panics why the word is anathema why they hate

it and fear it because everybody knows that the state of nature

is hell and brutish just like hob said short and brutish and people run from it

like a monster so that is the that that true that more people’s

individual rights will be violated under an anarchist scenario where there is no government

is why they hate it so much and why you have so much difficulty even

using the word time i’m sure you have questions that you want to ask

who your turn to ask questions it’s your turn to ask him questions we’re gonna do question and answer now

well okay a couple questions um i asked a question earlier which jan didn’t answer which i predicted he would not

answer um it’s a very simple question

the question is do you believe aggression is justified and do you believe the state commits

aggression it’s very extremely simple which i know really freaks out you status

because you want to support the state um can i answer the question or you want to

make a statement i would like you to answer the question

do you think aggression okay well i i heard the question statement aggression that’s what i would

like you to answer go ahead okay when human beings organize like our founding fathers did

to create a government that is limited to protecting the individual rights of the

citizens when they organize and they request a

social institution to protect their individual rights

they are not being aggressed there is no initiation of force against them

it’s a service that they want and know they need so all the people that want a government

and are paying for it are not being addressed and there’s no initiation of force

even remotely conceivable with them except for the slaves now when they’re

there there are what there are do you want to ask a second question or what yeah write my

answer i don’t know i don’t know what are you going to do except for this go ahead go ahead the format you agreed to [ __ ]

the format and i’m following it you’re having trouble following it uh this is i’m answering your question

there is no aggression when people agree and to form a government to protect

their individual rights like the united states did in its constitution

and this limited government has created tremendous benefits for people uh since that since it

occurred so there is i don’t see any initiation of physical force there of course you

don’t and so that’s right and so they are doing what they consider to be

optimal in order to have their rights optimally defended like i said in my

statement in order to optimize the possibility of a happy life you need to have your rights protected and the consequences of

not having a monopoly of force in the government to enact and and also to enforce

laws results in more initiation of force

rather than less so the one with the optimum possibility is to have a limited government where you will have

the least amount of initiation of physical force in the society that’s what certain people believe now

you and i were born in a society that had that implied

view that implied consent which you have agreed that there is an implied consent

there i didn’t i can’t do anything well you well i in your writings you have said that

there is implied consent of the government masses

i’ll quote it to you exactly the the article that you requested that i read about

your position on anarchism says exactly that so if you forgot what you wrote and that’s not

my problem anyway no your problems are dependent on statism

everybody is born into this a system that either has

a government or it doesn’t it’s either limited or it’s not and

when you are obeying the state of the government i’m just asking you okay well i’m at mexico why there is no

uh initiation of force on what the situation is people think that under the government

uh limited government they will have their rights protected they agree to it so they’re

the government’s performing a service to them when the government taxes them in the u.s

for this protection then the the government is only uh taking the

money that is necessary to pay for the service that was uh asked for

is that is that what you think happens nowadays in 2014. i think we have a mixed economy a mixed

system now which has deviated substantially from a limited government

that’s why i’m totally unhappy with it and that’s why i do battle with the status you keep calling me a status i’m

not a status i believe you are as the as the debate says it limited government

you apparently can’t distinguish between limited government and unlimited government but i can

and it makes a whole lot of difference in everybody’s life and if you don’t know that difference i

can give you a lot of historical examples of what the difference is and what the consequences are i just want to make sure the audience

knows what your position is are you saying that the gu that got a little moderator

he has a right to ask me a second question i’m ready to listen to it all right we’re not going back and forth

okay no no no i’m okay with daniel asking jan well of course then you want to chew

on one guy i’m not asking i’m not asking janet any questions

i’m not going to debate two atticus at once i’m just going to debate one articus at a time i’m not asking jen in question

well i’m i’m saying we agreed to a format and it’s your turn to ask another

question if you want to that’s your job uh

daniel that’s his name that’s right yeah so let me just quickly

just say something and you want to say something is not part of the format you’re supposed to ask a second question

i’m ready to hear a second question that’s what i meant by say something

are you ready for a question or not so jan i have seriously avoided my

questions which i predicted you would you have never explained why aggression is justified

you just talk about the problems of anarchy and the problems of competing jurisdictions

okay so my question for you is this you seem to have some notion in mind

that a limited government is both a conceivable and possible thing and a good and a good thing

now i dispute all three of those uh assertions but i would ask you what makes you think

that we can have a limited government what is a limited government keeping in mind that every government is

limited because you’re asking a lot of different me i i know it can be confusing i mean

one question at a time yeah so i’m happy to answer them what makes you good that whether

whether limited government is possible is possible by you said it wasn’t

possible so i mean that was one of the things you wanted me to answer or not what makes you think that is a good thing and justifiable and

okay okay well okay those three things in one question fine whether it’s possible a good thing and justifiable

uh the the answer is yes of course it’s possible

uh we came pretty close to it when we had the constitution of the united

states except for the slaves and that was that was a contextual error

that unfortunately i don’t know right listen you know yeah are you gonna

let me answer or you can interrupt every time i’m answering i don’t know let’s have a meta conversation

well this is the problem i have with atticus you agree to a format but then you won’t follow it you have a problem with rules well that

means that aggression you don’t want any law because you have a problem with rules and every time i

uh debate in anarchists they won’t follow the rules well jan you’re a liar because i’m not

against law i’m a lawyer unlike you i don’t pretend to be a lawyer i’m actually a real lawyer i’m not against

don’t tell the judge that you don’t that you don’t want a government or a state yeah yeah [ __ ] the judge okay

so i’m going to ask i’m answering you i answered your question yes i think it’s possible and you can

have more or less of a limited government unfortunately we have strayed to

less we have a lot of redistribution of wealth we have a lot of victimless crimes that

should not be crimes i try to fight against these things because

they’re they depart from the model that i think optimizes

my possibility of a happy life and everybody else’s with optimum protection of your individual rights was it which is that

the government is limited to protecting the individual rights of the citizens

and so uh is it justified yes and it has produced the best quality

of life so far the history of anarchism before any governments in

africa was total misery tribal warfare

it produced nothing it took a state to get us out of there unfortunately a status tyrannical state

like the pharaohs in egypt or the mesopotamian uh civilization to even get a start and

the world has never known more prosperity and welfare

since the creation of modern states and specifically since the

experiment of the united states with limited government which showed to the whole world the

enormous amount of benefits that you can have when you have a government that is

limited to the protection of the individual rights of the citizens with those defects and mistakes that

they made and that we both agree should be removed

next question

next question yeah so you don’t you don’t you don’t want to him ask you want a u.s kim one you just want him to ask

you all the ones first he’s supposed to ask me 12 he has a right to ask me 12 questions and i’m

following the format that’s what i we agreed to sure so i’m i’m waiting for him to ask me

another question so you actually expect me to ask you 12

questions in a row and then you asked me 12 in a row is that is that that one that was the format that uh that was 12 me 12 you

you got to be kidding what you have to be kidding jan about what

this is ridiculous you can ask me a question now go ahead ask me a question but you don’t want you don’t want to

follow the format what are you saying it’ll be back and

forth instead of just one person doing all at once the the format is that he just has 12

questions and then i get to ask 12 questions that was a format 12 in a row for me 12 in a row

absolutely well as an anarchist that’s [ __ ] what’s [ __ ] that you agreed to this

format or when you want to deviate from it oh my god this is a

you know you you want like a free-for-all with no rules that’s basically i think what it wants is look

we could still have the same amount of questions i think we can still have the same amount of questions where everyone asks

no one is short-sighted and no one gets to talk at no one gets to ask less questions but

i think he wants it more debate where he asks the question you respond and maybe when he wanted that if he

wanted that he should have uh said listen this format i would like to change and i i don’t want to agree to

it and i would have been open to changing it i was flexible but he said he was fine with the format

so i’m assuming that he’s gonna uh

think really seriously it’s irrelevant what you think what it’s irrelevant what you think the

question is what do we do now okay make it make your mind up be a bit be a big boy

make your mind and and uh and let’s have a civilization come on let’s have a civilized debate he

can’t be civilized with this guy you can’t really yeah you you’ve been interrupting him a lot

you know he hasn’t really been interrupting you yeah you know what interrupting is less than taxing okay so jan hellfield wants to tax

you and me daniel okay you want to make a statement you want to hire you when you’re supposed to be asking

questions well i know i know that you guys don’t know life

oh you don’t you don’t want your positions to be made clear i understand that i want my position you we sent you a format you agreed to

it it’s just like molly nukes who in the middle of the interview

what do you want you to follow the format and said i don’t care what performance i’m not

going to let you ask me any more questions this isn’t fair to the viewers i don’t think it’s fair to either of you

i i think it’s up to you i i think we should either follow the

format or we can do it back and forth okay i want to ask you a question i’m not gonna ask him

12 questions in a row with five-minute two-minute responses that’s ridiculous so i will not do that so

so let’s do it back and forth is that okay with you something that jan agrees with but i will not do 12 questions in a row

to jan and have him ask me 12 questions it’s ridiculous jan is it okay if we

if we do you ask one he has one us one he has one yeah you only ask three or four so you

can ask three or four now i’m gonna give you the spot oh wow what i want to be generous to

both of you i want to make both say i’m trying to be of making everyone happy yeah i understand uh you want to please everyone fine uh

look if you can ask three or four in a row okay uh no interrupts is your name okay

uh i i in the just for the benefit of the viewers it’s

uh you don’t want to follow the format and you say you won’t do it so they can hear

something i’m going to be flexible and change the agreement so that it

suits you more thank you

is it ever justified to initiate physical force against someone who has not violated anybody’s rights

i’m i’m sorry to give you a clear answer because i know you don’t want these but the answer is no jan

okay if you were dying of thirst would you steal some water if the only person that had

some refused to give or sell you any i don’t know but what’s the relevance

jan why don’t you tell us what the relevance is uh you don’t know the answer to that

question you don’t know whether you would steal it or not is that your answer my answer is you’re asking a [ __ ]

question and it has no relevance to what we’re talking about okay uh moderator

i want you to admonish stefan for at honeymoons he’s calling me i think

i think what jan is trying to say and you can correct me if i’m wrong is he’s trying to say look there are

certain scenarios where if you feel in danger you would buy you would violate other people’s

rights and he’s trying to give one to say well if you think it’s okay in this scenario then why is it not okay in other scenarios am i is that is that

a fair is that am i being fair in interpreting your question that way yeah but then this is not the point the

point is that he has to answer the questions he can’t just say that’s a [ __ ] question i don’t want to answer

he did answer it he said it’s not justified and you’re supposed to enforce the rules which is i’m okay okay wait wait a second wait

wait a second go ahead ask your question again go ahead let’s try it if you’re dying of thirst would you try to steal some water

if the only person that had some refused to give or sell you any i don’t know

right so if you were drowning and there was a boat that wasn’t your

property and you tried to grab onto it and the guy said hey that’s my boat and uh you’re violating my proper

rights would you let go of the of the boat and drown or would you hang on and try to save your life i

don’t know well you know i’m really glad that i’m having this debate with you because i’m going to save your life stephanie

and so this is going to the gratitude that you’re going to give me is so much that it’ll be worth this

debate apparently you don’t realize that under duress you should not

hesitate to violate somebody’s right so if they if you’re dying of thirst or you’re gonna drown and your choices

to violate somebody’s property rights or not and on the one hand and save your life

or drown on the other is such an easy choice but you know you haven’t thought

it through have you so i suggest that you think it through so when you reach a extreme duress

situation like that you won’t lose your life thinking oh my gosh should i violate their rights or

not and by that time you drown okay so my response is jan i suggest that someone like you a

washed-up lawyer should not challenge the legal fellows you see yeah by the way it’s not okay

it’s not ad hominem it’s it isn’t you’re saying that i’m a washed up lawyer oh you’re actually mispronouncing it

which is you have no idea of my uh career or what i want to do pretty good you’re basically a nobody or loser okay so

basically you don’t know what you’re talking about you don’t even pronounce ad hominem properly okay oh really well that’s fine

but you’re the one who makes the ad honeymoons and the moderator is supposed to misrepresent them

come on please can let’s just answer the question without without without calling no because it’s a loaded

question i’m not going to answer that question because he is just like like a little statistic

you’re trying to you’re trying to argue for the state i’m saving your life buddy and you know

yeah yeah and the price of it the price is what to do when you’re under extreme duress

whether you should violate somebody’s rights you haven’t even considered that my goodness this is the most elementary thing if you

had thought about if you haven’t thought about it before you should certainly think about it now for your family and your children that

you think i was gonna abuse before just let me know when i can speak i’m saying that

i ask you a question and i if you’re dying of thirst would you try to steal some water if

the only person that had some refuse to give or sell you any and i like that one i can ask you any

number of scenarios which imply extreme duress and you simply apparently don’t know what you would do

can i answer go ahead uh go ahead so my answer is that you were doing what

status always do you come up with certain situations you’re trying to justify aggression and you won’t do it directly

because you can’t do it because you are a craven coward defender of faith come on no no no no i mean that

directly and explicitly and i will right you you are those are at home

to stop you from doing that because christ but you don’t care about the rules you

are happy to use at autumn uh arguments and to insult people in a debate and that’s

basically because you don’t respect any rules

nevertheless you cannot justify aggression against people or property and you try to do it as some kind of

neo-randian sycophant and you’re wrong you can’t do it you can’t do it you can’t justify the

state you haven’t tried to do it you haven’t even tried to explain why the state is justified

let me ask you a question no no i you’re so you’re not like a simple question this is the

double standard that i see in you you expect i’m gonna answer my question if you

expect me to answer your questions yes if you don’t answer this question that’s the problem with anarchists it’s

all one way my goodness that shows that the state is just fine that’s fine but look i’m going to tell you

uh at least when i debated larkin rose he said he would die he would

go ahead and die rather than violate other people’s rights now i in a very nice way and he’s a very

respectful person and i’m afraid maybe he would die but most people

that say they would die would not but let’s i think he might have been one of the few that would

um look look i’m not going to let you help him i’m not going to let you open hey jan

you’re gonna you’re gonna you’re gonna i’m not gonna let you do this you do this all the time i know your technique you’re not gonna

pontificate you’re not gonna grab the mic [Laughter]

or i’m done that’s it you’re you’re already running just like molly looks

you can’t take the heat molly nukes i mean you don’t know how to pronounce words agreed to format

do you have a fake lot of grief at some point but here’s no here’s the thing you say you won’t answer me oh no no no

no no i’m not going to let you pontificate that’s it you’re done are you going to answer my question or not

come on let’s be respectful give me your question no no daniel [ __ ] no jan give me your

question in 10 seconds and i’ll answer it if you give me a coherent question in 10 seconds that’s it i gave you a question if

you’re dying right now give me the question

if you were dying of thirst would you try to steal some water if the only person that had some refuse

to give or sell you any it’s a stupid question and you’re reading it i don’t know the answer because you haven’t

specified the context okay so i just told you no you didn’t

you want the broad category if it makes it any easier you’re not a lawyer if you if you if you’re a real lawyer you would know that

this is not a real context are you going to permit this at hannah

i mean do you even know how to read come on read the word you see all this all you can do is

insults and that’s the problem with anarchists unfortunately it’s easy to do well if if anarchists can insult people

that means anarchism is wrong right i don’t know that doesn’t mean it’s wrong but it makes it disagreeable to debate

yeah it’s disagreeable to be taxed by you [ __ ] so let me ask you a question goodness now you want to start

with obscenities [Laughter] i start with the synthetics how about

that question how can you how can you ask you so this

is this is really interesting to me so you expect me to answer your questions except statism from people

like you i don’t expect anything from people like you you are nothing you are you are nothing

anymore insults nothing [ __ ] well well you know being stated when people start with

these thoughts like this it just means that they’re bankrupt or maybe or maybe they’re right how

about that please what do you say something don’t have any good argument let me say something uh because i

i don’t feel this debate is being very fair look people have the position that they have

and and the i think the goal in a debate is is is not insulting people not and

and and come on kinsella you were you you itself told me that you were uh a

miniarchist before and that you were a randy and did you believe aggression was justified then

no people you came you changed your view based on using based on reason and evidence so

you respond based on reason and evidence and not insults please

i ask you the question for the third time you said you were going to answer it and then you didn’t what’s the question what

what’s the question you don’t really i’ve said it three times you don’t remember the question no

wonder you can let’s read it go ahead if you were dying of thirst would you

steal would you try to steal some water if the only person that had some refuse

to give or sell you any maybe i don’t know depends on the concept so

that so that’s i’m i’m saying that it’s a good thing for you to consider these things

because you might end up in a situation where you’re in extreme duress and you might have to decide should i

violate this person’s property rights or not so are you saying that in the meantime

you’re going to die of thirst or drown as the other example that i gave you you better think it through and if you

did well you you better think it through [ __ ] are you saying that the state is notified

are you gonna let this guy continue to you you don’t talk to me like this don’t talk to me like this that’s one of

the rules you’re not supposed to insult the opponent did you know that did you remember the rules didn’t try to

take my property away from me what property have i tried to take away from you oh i don’t know

my money from taxes really well that would be if i could do that through the internet i would really you’re you’re you’re

supposed to say don’t you no even close to you how could i even

attempt to take your property when obviously i’m an honest straightforward guy even if you

can’t recognize it and i all the money that i’ve made i’ve made honestly i never stole anything from

anyone you’re not honest if you support the federal government okay no but you can’t recognize that that’s

right you you cannot recognize that so yeah because i’m a real libertarian unlike eugene oh my god come on this is not a macho

fest all right let’s engage no it’s not daniel but it’s about principles

okay well if you continue this debate and answer my questions you know okay so this question

you will not answer first you say your own answer then you say you don’t know then you say you won’t answer then you say you don’t know

well if you don’t know this is an important thing to figure out i’m trying to be fair i’m trying to give

people a chance to talk i’m going to ask you another question since you won’t answer that one or you don’t know

one or the other here we go

there’s two possibilities either these dispute resolution organizations have nuclear

weapons or they don’t let’s analyze them separately to see what the results are

if they didn’t have any nuclear weapons what would happen or what would you do or what would you suggest we do

when putin or kim young ill or whatever other tyrant threaten to nuke your city if you don’t

pay 10 billion dollars

well you say these this dispute resolution organizations which ones are you talking about

i never missed one i assume are going to exist in your anarchist scenario since there is no

why do you assume that i i never i never said that all i said was

you don’t think people will organize to have alliances and to try to uh protect themselves and

get security somehow what i said was that aggression is unjustified and that the state commits

aggression so i i am waiting for you to rebut one of those two claims and you

keep

will there be any security alliances that have are you asking me for a

prediction is that what you’re asking for society are you asking me for a

prediction is that what you’re saying i’m asking you take either one let’s say

let’s assume that there are there’s a pos since apparently you don’t know why you’re you you don’t know whether there

will be any is that your answer do you know no i don’t and since i’m a

rational person i analyze both possibilities so i cover the whole range of possibilities the first

possibility that i’m asking you to consider man i know you’re used to doing this but you’re not going to do it with me

you’re used to walking all over people but let me tell you something you are assuming that there’s going to

be a limited government and that we’re going to have democracy and we’re going to have a way to limit the government

i’m asking you a question about under your scenario but i i don’t give a [ __ ] i didn’t give you a

scenario i did not give you a scenario yes you did you you’re you that’s your

no i said aggression is wrong you are arguing the position whether you know it or not

that no government is better than limited government that’s what the debate that’s the title

of the debate that was the debate proposition that i sent to you well enjoy debate in the beginning of

this so-called debate i specifically said i am not going to defend or argue against government

because people like you will debate about the word government and i i said

my of opposition is against aggression and the state which is state is the same

thing as the way i use the word government so there’s no real difference yeah and now you’re doing the opposite of what i don’t know what is the problem

i mean the point is is there gonna be what i call a government and what you call a state

that has a monopoly a major force and that has as it’s a function

to enact and enforce rules that apply to the whole territory that

is in question the whole country or the whole society okay let me ask you a simple question oh

my god so i just asked you a question we’re clarifying my question i don’t think your question was clear

there would no be no such social institution is that correct jan i’m going to end this discussion if

you won’t discuss with me and that’s fine with me because i have really nothing to gain by this because you’re basically you have a lot of

surprises left you’re just right in the middle and you there’s my question is you can learn a lot you

can figure out you know whether you should initiate force if you’re under extreme duress or not i

i’m pretty sure that i shouldn’t initiate force unlike you apparently yeah well i’m telling you upfront if my

life’s at stake and i have to choose between drowning and uh violating the guy’s boat rights

property rights i will hang on to his boat if i can well how does that but you because

you’re gonna just think about it and wonder what to do how does that determine grateful that i’m bringing this up that you haven’t

even considered how does that determine what rules we should have in society

well what it determines is that you don’t understand the principle um

so you don’t know the context and what’s not an answer to the question you don’t the thing is you don’t know

how this one is you don’t know the context it’s a

contextual absolute so it is absolutely true that you should not initiate force against

other people under normal circumstances normally outside thank you one scenario like

extreme duress but you and apparently so i know you got that from law school with these

principles as and this principle has an introduction nicely diploma

let me ask you a question do you believe i’m not gonna answer my question you don’t have a coherent question do

you my questions are not coherent so you don’t have to answer them yours are coherent so i have to answer that’s

exactly exactly do you think that the government has the right to you really expect me to

answer any question that you asked don’t expect anything i expect of status that they’re going to

be in favor of the state which is what you’re doing the question is are you do you think you can come up with a reason where the

government has the right to take property from people which they call taxes yes or no look uh

so refuses to follow the format even the

amended format that you suggested we follow i think he’s answering your question but i think his answer is

questions i’m wrong i think his answer is correct me if i’m wrong no but wait a second daniel you said

i accepted in view of the fact that certain people are listening to this

that we would change the format right in the middle to suit conselo because he’s not willing to comply with the agreement and he

isn’t willing to comply with the amended agreement either so are you gonna

ask him to follow the rules or not i think he answered your question no he didn’t i asked him he did i think

his answer was and you could correct me if i’m wrong his answer was what does that have to do with anything because whether you have a government or

not people can still commit those actions so what how is the government gonna what does that have to do with anything

right is that is that pretty much your response

i should have debated you you’re clear [Laughter] i am i’m willing to go with whatever

daniel says okay ask me more questions in a row go ahead

go ahead uh so the answer is uh yeah

that what would you do is it uh would you without a government

when a foreign tyrant threatens like putin or kim jong-il that have nuclear weapons

they send you an extortion note what you propose the society of the

united states now with no longer a military or a government to defend themselves

what should they do well what do you mean what would i do you mean they don’t have military

there’s two scenarios they either don’t have uh nuclear weapons or they do i’m saying

what you proposed that the society the people who are receiving this extortion note do when they don’t have

any nuclear weapons to defend themselves well let me ask you another person can

extort and bully them because they cannot retaliate well what’s what’s the relevance of that

question or is it a loaded question i mean what’s the relevance what what are you trying to what what are you trying to ask

are you i’m trying to what is your positive argument hold on a second

you are supposed to be arguing for the state i know i’m arguing for limited government you keep saying that i’m the

status but i don’t those are the guys all the time isn’t that a state

what isn’t that a state yes i i believe in limited government and that

is a kind of government and so if you want to understand this but you think that that’s the same as

uh the nazis right now so is it no i don’t say that they’re all the same

right i don’t say they’re all the same i i know they all there are many different views about what a kind of

state is optimum i believe in limited government and you are advocating a position of

it’s preferable better not to have a government which is his position that’s not right

you cannot shirk the responsibility of the consequences of the social organization that you are

recommending by saying you don’t have a position if you don’t have a position what are you debating you’re debating

aggression is unjustifiable you you you said you don’t even know if you would commit

aggression if you’re if your life depended on it but that’s because that’s because you’re not against

yourself well my answer is you’re equating morality private morality with

public uh normative laws it’s a contradiction in your thinking and i’m bringing it out clearly for

everyone to see you you say that this is a principle

that’s an irreducible primary that it i never said under all contexts

but you say you don’t know you asked me so maybe you would

situation and i think you haven’t specified the context enough for me to answer the question

i’m giving you a few uh scenarios either the they’re all the same category why

don’t you tell me whether you think for instance if a person is starving and he can’t afford let’s say to buy an

apple from the supermarket is it justified to take it so it doesn’t start right right okay

and i don’t know because that’s not the domain of political ethics political ethics is about what the laws

should be should there be a law against theft should there be a law against rape should there be a law against

murder even though in some cases you jan hellfield or daniel or me

might find ourselves in a case where we want to commit murder or rape or robbery

we’re talking about the morality of the issue is it wrong for him to do that should he steal the apple or not or not

we’re talking about whether the law is just that no you would like

him not to steal the apple and follow the moral principle that you view as an absolute under every

and everything i never said that that that’s a curriculum what is it that you’re suggesting that you don’t have an answer for him

whether it’s right or wrong you say you should adhere to the non-aggression principle and then when i pretend

that either i never said that either you don’t adhere to the non-aggression principle i didn’t say that either so you’re

putting words no you either do adhere to it or you don’t i think the non-aggression principle should be a

model for what laws should be enacted in a society but you well guess what it doesn’t mean

that’s not the question guess what we agree and and and in a limited government that it

is a model let me ask you a question so but you but the point is

is it morally wrong for someone to violate the non-aggression principle

under extreme duress i don’t know we don’t know well you better figure it out because your life

might depend on it well you better figure it out you’re the one in favor of the state i i already figured it out and i was up

front and told you i’m not gonna uh when if i am starving i’m going to steal the apple and i’m

going to make the case to the jury look i was starving if you want to put me in jail fine but my choices were

to die or steal the apple and so i stole the apple what do you want me to do and any

reasonable person would know the answer to that question it wouldn’t start but apparently you haven’t thought through your ethics that’s why you don’t know

the context in which the non-aggression principle was formed you don’t know that it’s a contextual

absolute not an absolute in every circumstance so whenever somebody’s uh is going to

deviate from the principle of non-aggression you think oh this is a horrible person he might uh harm my children or steal my

said that that yeah that’s exactly what you said about me no it’s not well it doesn’t work you said you had to

worry about me stealing stuff from your kids don’t you remember

well i think that people like you are oh you come to get anonymous i’m not hearing any more at animals

again you’re misconstrued it’s not an air hormone

it’s at home and i’m not at home i mean you’re it’s just you’re just mocking us all right

whatever it’s an insult if you like that word man it’s not an insult it’s it’s basically you you

brought a brought it up not me i’m just saying you’re in between a mainstream person and a radical

pro-property rights individualist like me and daniel and like most libertarians nowadays

and you guys are basically the old wave and to be honest old-fashioned

well i can’t wait for you guys to die out and for for the next two or three generations to come up wait

for 99 of the population to die out that they disagree with you and hate anarchy because it clearly for

the reasons i stated will make the initiation of force more

prevalent more will make your life more risky and put your life and property at risk

yeah yeah

that’s totally responsible your little state has not secured my life liberty and property no

it was the founding fathers that gave you the chance and we are your family fathers who are racist

towards them either yeah the founding fathers that’s right they created a society

where there was more freedom and opportunity and prosperity what are you talking about

are you just some stupid objectivist who believes all this crap i mean the founding fathers will race you talk

without insulting people not people that don’t deserve being assaulted no [Laughter]

so daniel i thought you said this guy was laid back he only does his insult and he doesn’t

like the way i say i know you’re supporting the founding fathers

i i of course i am i’m grateful to them and i like you situation

i guess i’m not black you’re not black children their courageous defense of uh

a cameraman in political theory which was a great success

and you’re you’re getting the benefit from it anyway um are you willing to answer any

of my questions or not you don’t have any questions a lot of questions i think i’m going to help you think through your ethics if you

if you want me to uh i’ll do it for you i think you’re good against nancy pelosi

but against real libertarians it’s not about who’s good or not actually i know you don’t care because

you’re just

are you going to answer my questions because i have more questions for you and you won’t answer what will happen and neither did the the

moderator well you don’t want to uh what will happen if they have no questions i’m not going to do that

look i know next time i should debate you because you’re willing to

answer questions and you don’t use that ottomans stefan will not answer questions and he only likes to do is insult the important

line all that you know it might be a bit i won’t these questions but i would if you want me to but anyway

i’ll just do a debate with you and we’ll get some answers but okay are you going to answer any of my questions uh

should i ask another one you don’t want to answer about the

nuclear weapons if they don’t have any nuclear weapons what they would do when they receive an extortion

threat right well i would ask you what’s the point of the question

so you ask you that’s how you answer questions with a question huh so you so i i don’t give a question

where i’m leading you you you answer you can’t answer the question straightforwardly i i don’t i don’t respond to loaded

questions no okay so you you reserve the right to answer questions that you want and others that you don’t

want to present again apparently

uh daniel will not insist that you answer the question which is his job i’ve said it a few times i don’t know

how many times you want me to say it i i mean i i think you should answer the question i’m not sure what the point of

the question is that’s relevant um a big surprise for both

anarchists but i i answer the question i mean come on i think you know

a respectful debate is where people answer questions even if your personal view is that it’s

an irrelevant question and if you don’t think it’s a necessary question maybe you know explain why

that’s fine i i refuse to engage in equivocation and to answer loaded questions which

have the answer already built into the question which is i think what jan’s doing because that’s

all his type has to do how are they equivalent how are they equivocations or loaded

questions maybe maybe you can answer that because he’s he’s he’s setting up a system where

um we have to imagine a world governed by states and what’s the right policy right

and he’s imagining a world where private societies are threatened by

states which he supports how they would respond the only question

in my view is is aggression justified and does the state commit aggression and

he is not yet tried to answer those questions and no if he won’t answer those very

simple questions i will not answer his loaded questions you didn’t say what was the equivocation

you don’t even know what an equivocation is you said you do know because i heard you say before and what is the word that i

use in two different senses there was nothing there kubricking

jan is aggression justified or not

simple question you i you asked me that question and i answered it before what’s the answer now it’s under extreme

arrest yes right what uh i think that’s your answer right under

situations of extreme duress it’s justified to use aggression is that is that your answer under extreme duress yes and uh and you

see i answer his questions but even he won’t answer mine okay i don’t think he didn’t answer the second part of

the second one but he did answer the first so the second part is do not necessarily commits aggression

but this is like uh in other words i’m going to answer his question and he won’t answer mine is that the rule the new rule i can’t

control what other people do i’m i’m doing the best that i can i want i want i want to have

a forum where we can debate ideas um i you know um i can control

whatever that’s not a person following the rules that he agreed to if a people aren’t willing to do what

they agreed to and then when you amend the format to their shooting they still don’t agree then what can you do

so stephen kinsella doesn’t agree to the debates uh with it with it with a statist uh

faux anarchist libertarian um that means that the state’s justified and um so that’s your argument we could

find out we could find out if a limited

government is better than no

if you want to answer any of them i’ve got a couple more minutes go go ahead i’m i’m willing to listen to

your honesty we’ll pick and choose which ones we want to have yes i will pick and choose

[Laughter]

here’s a here’s a question question do you think criminal criminal individuals that are not

organized organized as well as as well as that go on your

end jan okay here’s the question under the under

the government’s government

do you think criminal gangs will attack individuals that are not organized

organized okay i think i heard most of that um first of all as i said earlier i’m not

opposed to government but opposed to the state so let’s be clear about that are we clear about that

in the scenario where there is no state but you and what i call our home state

will criminal attack individuals

in a future private law society where the state has been abolished because most people realize

that it’s illegitimate that um you will still have

a private crime but not public crime and therefore any type of crime you can

imagine would be possible so yes it’s possible that private crime can

occur in a free society but that’s not a good thing that’s

actually the reason that we libertarians which is people like me and daniel but apparently not like you

actually oppose what we call aggression and we’re against crime there’s

extreme duress or whatever you’re going to call it now so we actually oppose the private crime

that you’re setting up as the boogeyman and you apparently don’t because maybe you need to rape and kill people

because maybe there’s duress make sure that i understood your answer

you think that some criminal gangs will sometimes attack security agencies

no i said it’s possible crime is possible that’s possible

justice is possible i didn’t say they will die so you think they won’t

10 seconds hold on i would just say that in your ideal society of 200 or 1 000 or one government

in the world whatever you think is ideal they’re still going to be private crime that occurs on occasion so

even in your ideal society and by the way i would ask you that how many governments do you think that’s

going to be one world government so go ahead look i’m trying to ask you a question and if i

got the answer yeah uh uh do you think the discrimination will attack individual individuals that

are not are not

what criminal gangs you say these criminal gains which ones any criminals

which ones

i said there could be well so you have no idea where

or anything else anything else yeah no i know i know it really bugs your objective is that we can’t figure out

exactly what the hell life’s going to be like well i can tell you if you’re sure i’ll tell you this if

if we have no rape and no robbery guess what that means there’s no rape and robbery

now what would a society look like with no rape and robbery i don’t know jan maybe you can predict

it but i can’t why don’t you tell me what a society with no rape and robert is going to look

going to look like why don’t you tell me what’s it going to look like in 30 years

i never said that there was a society with no rape and robbery and i don’t i don’t know of course you didn’t

because you you support the state which is going to rape and rob people no boy anyway

follow the format of me asking a question you are answering you want to do i don’t want to follow a form out of a statement

trying to trap me into doing what you’re doing no i don’t want to trapping you again

and you agree to the format yeah well i agree with the statements

this format yeah why don’t you agree not to tax me and rob me why don’t we

five times

[Music]

hey jan jan let me tell you something um number one um congratulations because

you have won you and your fellow status have won you guys have control of the planet so

congratulations i congratulate you

and i i have very no interest in continuing talking with you because you basically

have nothing positive to say whatsoever you’re defending the state

no okay so that was the that was the i see so you don’t want to answer the

questions and

[Music] yeah yeah yeah well that that means the

state’s justified jan that that’s a good job justifying this it just means that you’re not willing to discuss the

reasoning and you’re not willing to willing to examine the constant the consequence

of not having a government our gang warfare and i’m leading you through

why oh yeah jan we’re all against gang warfare yeah that’s a really strong way to start

with this that’s why taxation is justified that’s why your little hamiltonian jeffersonian

government of white racist is justified because you think gang warfare is not justified

you’re just a little stupid warfare is worse than the scenario which is a mixed economy that’s what i’m

trying to tell you this is what you’re in favor of dude even with all its faults

it’s better than gang warfare how do you know how do you know that how do you know that honest honest question

that’s what i was

how do you know that’s my question when you say you don’t i don’t know so because stephanie won’t

answer questions you know right so remember you’ve been you’ve been a status for 30 years because i

won’t answer questions in 2014 right what no sense whatsoever i’m

asking you a question how do you know that this gang warfare you’re talking about is this

huge bugabear that is a threat to human civilization how do you know that’s what’s really

going to result in we don’t have a state i i told you that people will naturally

actually form part of part of security alliances like their individual rights

can you just answer a question about reading something

yes i think people will form alliances go ahead well before about five minutes ago you

didn’t know okay great okay great no that’s [ __ ] i didn’t say that that’s a lie that’s totally dishonest

and a lie you said that you didn’t know

into loaded questions and i don’t answer questions

because you had a loaded question with a bunch of assumptions and that’s completely wrong in the

future can you just answer the questions the question the question there’s no way about this in the future and in the

future can you stop advocating taxation of me how about that i advocate taxes that we

have a deal how about that service for the government that doesn’t stop advocating taxation do

we have a deal or not yes or no i’m gonna answer will what will you condemn taxation right now yes

or no will i condemn taxation yes

the answer is my money is taken from me every april 16th [ __ ] you understand

that’s the answer okay so so can he continue with obscenities and uh

well if

what about advocating uh coercion against the other guy in the debate is that permitted look i i don’t think

yeah it’s really fun it’s really funny that i paid more in taxes last year than you’ve probably made in your life

oh boy that’s really funny

so okay okay

is totally irrational

the irs is out against me but i’m the only guy that’s helping him uh you’re not against the rs right

taxation is under control he’s not doing anything to do that so he’s into a post taxation anyway

so why don’t you oppose taxation uh if fake fraud you’re not eliminated

and not even the amended format we do what you want still i i oppose the irs how about that who’s

the federal government hey so anyway i guess you better

schedule a debate with somebody who’s willing to answer questions that won’t and there’s the rules in there when when

you’re supposed to answer the question and i said you didn’t know and he’s supposed to tell me what to tell

why don’t you just say you’re against taxing me by the irs why don’t you just say that you think the irs shouldn’t tax

what are you talking about man you just said you think the federal

government should tax people should i you didn’t you interrupted me in the middle of my statement

i see well that’s not uncommon that’s what you’ve been doing all day i explained to you that people that

think that that they need a government in order to have god’s sake protection of their individuals

have a right and

social institution performs that focus that function and and only for only for that purpose

they are not being they’re not being aggressive the people are right people are right and doing

and then

that’s why you won’t learn we’ve had enough of your state of smell that’s enough thank you for having me let’s let’s have some no

no i am not going to be civilized with a guy like that thank you for admitting that you’re in favor of taxation

thank you for being that uh jan you at least admitted that you’re in favor of the government

taking people’s money from them by force at least you admitted that um and if you can pretend to be a

libertarian despite this congratulations i pity any libertarian who falls for your

[ __ ] and nonsense you are no worse in fact you are worse than any statist

advocate of the state um and i am that’s my opinion welcome to my opinion

you can shut the [ __ ] up for a second and then that i was and that i wasn’t it goes

back and forth well you’re in favor of taxation no no i told you what circumstances i’m

in favor of what taxation whatever whatever whatever i don’t care you are my enemy

you’re my enemy and if we ever have a war i love you wow you don’t know your enemies and your

friends i’m the guy who’s at the front lines yes i do most of my enemies are not as computers

redistribution of wealth that’s going on so you want to you’re a real status you pretend you’re like a libertarian

you pretend you’re not a libertarian they’re fun well you are

no daniel i he is he’s in favor of taxation okay well i’m not justifying any

positions what i am saying is that people have a view that they

have in the point of a debate i don’t care about people’s views okay if they leave me the [ __ ] alone

that’s fine he wants to take my money from me and that’s not good was there ever a

point in your life it’s not funny man like you i would think it was a joke

okay but if you make a lot of money it actually it actually makes a difference step one

was there ever a question where you supported taxation you ever

an agreement with you is worthless because you won’t follow it you’ll agree the thing

you don’t have any integrity and you don’t even realize that you displayed that to everyone here on this video

that you so i’m willing so i was wrong but i’m not advocating taxation

i’m not gonna keep you know do you think that unlike you all you can think about is taxation and you can’t

hey jan you understand that your days are numbered no one cares about you are you a hitman

you are just a status no one cares about oh wash washed out losers like you you understand

it’s not enhanced you can’t even pronounce the word right

it’s true the format that they agreed okay because this guy will not and he he you said he

was laid back so people like me we hang out with people that are actually successful real

people or we hang out with principal people anyway it’s pointless at this point

um since the person yeah [ __ ] off bye oh more at hanuman

wow [ __ ] off you see that gave you an insight you did you know that he was like that you didn’t

know did you i you didn’t know because now i hope that you at least

gained an insight into his soul what kind of person he is and that’s the only benefit that i see

in this uh that he did that i wish we could have a civilized discussion

oh yeah i guess yeah you gotta get a better candidate

somebody who will adhere to the format that won’t involve uh want to engage in and harm them and

uh it doesn’t get so angry at somebody who isn’t even doing anything to him my god

right he’s got an anger problem well i i i i’ve answered all these people watching this a

civilized discussion uh so sorry okay

{ 39 comments… add one }

Daniel Rothschild April 29, 2014, 2:10 am

Haha. I know I didn’t do my job as moderator by letting you constantly rib him but it was so funny and amusing I just wanted to see how far you’d go, so thanks for the laugh. I agree Jan’s “lifeboat situation” was irrelevant, but I’m surprised you didn’t respond, “If I was starving I would probably steal food from someone else but I would also suffer the consequences that result from theft and pay restitution later. The fact that I have to pay him back for what I stole instead of just taking his property without every repayment means that I’m still inline with a respect for property rights since I understand I have to replace items I stole. Now, what the fuck does that have to do with having a state?”

↩ ∞
- Nick April 30, 2014, 5:49 am
  
  How is it irrelevant? Anarchists that focus only on the absolutist NAP like Kinsella force Helfeld to attack the absolutism of the principle. If the principle is not applicable in every circumstance(exigencies) then the principle cannot be repeated ad nauseum to disguise intellectual bankruptcy. The Minarchist position is that the exigency of impending anarchy(i.e. tribalism/ and poverty, in the Minarchist view) justifies having a state.
  
  The real debate is therefore what would result from the removal from government. This is what anarchist economists focus on, not religiously repeating NAP mantra…because they understand that to get rid of the state there must be a viable alternative. Debating NAP mantra-spewers is a waste of time.
  
  ↩ ∞
  - Jan Masek April 30, 2014, 4:07 pm
    
    In a debate on “Can slavery be justified?”, would you consider to be relevant an argument in favour of “limited slavery” that would say: “don’t repeat the religious mantra about how slavery is bad – first you must answer what will happen to the slaves and slave masters if we set all slaves free?”
    
    I do not think anarchists focus only on the NAP but if a debate is about NAP, then you talk about NAP. Dr Kinsella certainly can make predictions about what anarchy might look like in the real world. But that was NOT the point of the debate. Definitely not when he repeatedly asked Mr Helfeld how aggression can be justified. He never got the answer.
    Then Mr Helfeld asked his thirsty/extreme duress question about 15 times and every time he asked it he got the answer: “I don’t know.”. Only he could not comprehend that THAT is the answer. And again, it’s completely irrelevant in this debate. Just like if he kept asking “Are you a fan of Liverpool or Everton?”. Who cares?
    
    ↩ ∞
    - Nick April 30, 2014, 6:59 pm
      
      Jan, what would happen after the abolition of slavery was ABSOLUTELY a valid concern. Not as much of one as anarchy, of course, since slavery came and went throughout human history.
      
      If you think Helfeld never explained “when aggression could be justified” then you did not watch the debate. Helfeld explained that aggression is justified in exigent circumstances. He views the possibility of anarchy as an exigency because he foresees a severe decline in standard of living and functional freedom.
      
      He did it via the socratic method, which was far more powerful than simply engaging Kinsella on his own terms where he can shout “you want to enslave me!” over and over again. NAP jingoists FORCED Helfeld to sidestep a direct answer to make his point. Whenever I answer that sort of question directly I get the “Molyneux treatment”: Don’t bother debating him, he accepts the use of force. You have heard Molyneux say this numerous times, Im sure.
      
      Many anarchists talk about utilitarian, practical concerns along with NAP. Gil Gillory, David Friedman, even Rothbard. They understood that proposing anarchistic solutions to statist/minarchist critiques is a tall order because of the lack of historical record, but they accepted the challenge and are to be commended for that. Some – the new breed of anarchists – are just jingoists though.
      
      ↩ ∞
      - PeterK April 30, 2014, 7:43 pm
        
        If Helfeld starts the debate from the perspective of ” … the possibility of anarchy as an exigency because he foresees a severe decline in standard of living and functional freedom.”, doesn’t that pretty much eliminate the possibility of a fruitful debate? For example, if he debates another anarchist who starts with the presumption that the society we live in is the inevitable end state of a minarchic society, and then proceeds to ask questions from that presumption, isn’t it equally hard to get a worthwhile debate? I don’t think this is an unreasonable position (though we could argue timespan), and I don’t think Helfeld’s position is completely unreasonable, but they both make assumptions that set your opponent at a distinct disadvantage, and don’t really help in converting them to your way of thinking.
        
        I was under the impression that the Socratic method was to start asking questions based on the assumptions of your interlocutor, and slowly bring them around to your way of thinking, and what Helfeld is doing is nothing of the sort, either here or in the Molyneaux debate.
        
        ∞
      - Nick April 30, 2014, 8:03 pm
        
        Helfeld did achieve his goal here and in the Larken Rose debate, but not in the Molyneux debate. He got his point across.
        
        I don’t believe that the debate you describe is fruitless at all. Both sides present evidence of their theories, and the theory with greater evidence prevails. Both sides can address both points…minarchists must address the anarchist theory that minarchy doesn’t last long, and anarchists MUST address the “what if” consequences of removing the modern state in any debate with Minarchists. Both are highly relevant. I think Helfeld does a service to anarchists to remove the veneer of absolutism from NAP so that we can talk about the issues that people actually find compelling and relevant. . . What would an anarchic society look like?
        
        ∞
      - Jan Masek May 1, 2014, 6:29 pm
        
        Nick, it may be a concern but it is not an argument against setting all slaves free, immediately. Or do you consider this to be valid reasoning: “Geez, I don’t know if all the slaves will be able to get a job, and I don’t know who will work on the cotton fields now, so let’s just free one slave a day and see what happens.”?
        Ok, exigent circumstances. What exactly is exigent? Who decides that? On what criteria?
        The reason why we even care about property rights is we, civilized people, want to avoid conflict. We don’t want to fight over stuff. To avoid fights, we have to assign property rights in things where a conflict is possible. These rights must be universal otherwise they won’t meet the purpose of no conflict.
        The system Mr Helfeld is advocating is not universal. Someone is always in “exigent” circumstances, which is a vague term. Are the people in Rwanda justified in robbing American tourists of all their stuff? This system does not assign property rights in a way that all people who want to avoid conflict understand well what belongs to whom.
        Of course, some people don’t care and will take it anyway but those people are a “technical problem”, similar to bad weather, hungry lion, a hostile alien from space or King George. We don’t talk to those people, we fight them.
        How in the world is it relevant “what happens”? Well, justice happens.
        As for Mr Helfeld example: my prediction would be that yes, it is aggression to steal water from someone and I would be sued and the punishment would depend on how bad my crime was. If I stole a cup of water from someone who had plenty himself, I would be ordered to give that cup back (which would cost me next to nothing). If he had lack of water himself and I caused his death, I might be sentenced to death, because that is what I caused. But that’s just my opinion, completely irrelevant. Other judges might disagree and the best judges would win over time. In the days of limited government the better judges don’t win because they are not selected by their customers but by one of the parties involved in almost every court case: the government.
        
        ∞
      - Nick May 2, 2014, 10:24 am
        
        Nick, it may be a concern but it is not an argument against setting all slaves free, immediately. Or do you consider this to be valid reasoning: “Geez, I don’t know if all the slaves will be able to get a job, and I don’t know who will work on the cotton fields now, so let’s just free one slave a day and see what happens.”?
        
        It could be, if the slaves would be freed and subsequently killed. Which is basically the minarchist argument.
        
        Someone always has to define terms like exigent, just because its difficult and subject doesn’t mean its not necessary. I don’t believe your belief that rights must be “universal” is realistic or necessary, or would even exist in an anarchist society under a common law system.
        
        Mr. Helfeld’s system is not universal, like you said, but that is exactly his point. Principles, including the NAP, exist contextually. Someone has to put a barrier on what is exigent and what is not, hence government and (private OR public) law.
        
        ∞
Rocco April 29, 2014, 12:57 pm

That was wonderful, Stephan. You totally ruined that dude.

You might have overdone it with all those ad honinums, though!

↩ ∞
dvide April 29, 2014, 1:32 pm

I had no idea what relevance ‘extreme duress’ has with trying to justify the state, so I was wondering where he might possibly go with it. Here’s what I thought of. I have no idea if this is Jan’s position, but it’s something that came to my mind.

A common objection to the state is on grounds of its legitimacy. Throughout history rulers have tried to claim religious justifications, such as the divine right of kings, or tracing the rulers’ linage back to the gods (Caesar claimed to be son of Venus), or whatever. This sort of thing doesn’t really fly any more due to a more enlightened, less superstitious people. Now it’s trendy to say that the state is only justified when there is “consent of the governed”. The erroneous idea is that “the people” came together and all collectively agreed to defer their right of defense to a central institution, in order to be civilized. Of course that’s not true; no such thing ever occurred. It’s not as though every person agreed to such a thing, and even if they did it wouldn’t bind generations who came afterwards. But, crucially, the state necessarily does more than defense. They aggress, through taxes and by preventing competition with them in their geographical zone. The people have no such right to aggress as individuals, so they cannot defer that right to the state (since they don’t have it).

Under Jan’s vision of anarchy, though, massive gang warfare is unavoidable. He envisions gangs owning guided missiles and billion dollar frigates, extorting everybody all the time and using the extorted money to amass more weaponry. He envisions the defense agencies amassing armies which then turn to aggression given the opportunity, etc. He thinks this is realistic. Given that, the people would be under a permanent state of extreme duress. Under a state of duress, it may be justified to steal an apple to survive (or whatever lifeboat scenario you can think of). So, similarly, it may be justified to steal money from others to pay for an army to defeat the gangs. Under their state of duress from the gangs, they do have the right to aggress against others because it’s the only way to save their own skin, and so the people can collectively agree to defer that right to an organisation (which they call the state) in order to do it in as civilized a manner as possible.

I think it completely depends on his vision of anarchy being perpetual warfare that cannot possibly be resolved with voluntary means and defense agencies. It’s cartoonish to me and unrealistic. Even then, it still might not be justified on those grounds. It’s a bit of a stretch. If you’re starving and may justifiably steal an apple from somebody who has plenty, it doesn’t give you free reign to do any aggression. A reasonable jury may understand stealing an apple surreptitiously if you’re starving and apple owner was being a psychopathic dick about it, but if you fight and kill over the apple then they may not. Even more so if the person you killed was starving too, and so wasn’t being a dick but was instead in the same dire situation as you.

Again I don’t know if this is Jan’s position. It’s just some possible objection I thought up.

↩ ∞
Stephen April 29, 2014, 2:07 pm

This was worse than Wenzel. Overall, unlistenable. Kinsella started off with a major attitude, but after listening to how petty, annoying, and unprincipled Helfeld was, I get it. Helfeld wasn’t interested in directly answering any questions or having an honest debate. His “arguments” were almost entirely bald assertions. He denied that he wanted to tax Kinsella. Is he dishonest or stupid? I truly don’t know. Terrible “debate,” but mildly entertaining to see Stephan lose his shit.

↩ ∞
Vanmind April 29, 2014, 2:47 pm

Wow, thanks. I’ve read posts on other boards from which Helfeld crows, but I never bothered listening to the blather.

What an unfortunate f*ck-up at the beginning. As if the moderator’s desires mattered, as if the video of the talking heads counted for anything. Boooooooooo. Viewers didn’t care about the vanity party, they wanted to l-i-s-t-e-n.

“We can’t have anarchy right now.” Reminds me of Ron Paul suggesting that “perhaps some day we’ll be mature enough to have a discussion about…” On what make-believe planet is anyone like Paul or Helfeld in a position to judge the maturity level of others?

“When people get together and agree to form a government for the purpose of…” Would that be 100% agreement from all people? Or would it be more like a precedented Founding Fathers Fraud?

Try this quick poem on statists, mid-debate: “If I might repeat your fatal conceit: ‘There are too such things as philosopher kings.'”

About the “you’re thirsty/drowning what do you do” hypotheticals. If you want to go beyond the always-reasonable “I don’t answer hypotheticals” response, then simply respond: “I am here to debate philosophy, not the well-documented biological phenomenon known as animal instinct.”

↩ ∞
- Daniel Rothschild April 30, 2014, 2:07 am
  
  I didn’t know there was a fuck up in the beginning since I wasn’t watching the video. People were messaging me during the debate and saying that there were problems and that is was distracting and asked me if I could fix it. I was responding to their needs. Also, Kinsella asked me before we started to make sure the debate was going to be recorded and for nothing to wrong, so I wanted to make sure that the video looked and sounded good. I apologize to both Stephan and Jan for starting over again, but I wanted to make my fans happy and the only way to do so was fix the bugs by making a new video.
  
  ↩ ∞
  - Stephan Kinsella April 30, 2014, 11:26 am
    
    Just an honest mistake. I am glad Cox copied the first one before Jan deleted it from his channel, and stitched them together…!
    
    ↩ ∞
Vanmind April 29, 2014, 3:54 pm

I couldn’t resist making one more point (to come clean: I posted that previous comment after only listening to about 80%). Right at the end, after the “F*ck off,” Helfeld tried to claim some kind of high ground about “the soul.”

Not only does such a claim amount to preposterous Platonic nonsense (indeed I would guess that Helfeld swallows whole the “philosopher kings have virtuous souls that justify their control of your life” canard), it is a reminder to everyone about the people throughout history who have silver-tongued their way toward absolutism. “F*ck off” is, of course, never as barbaric as “Vote for me and I’ll make your life easier.” The former is the only civilized response to the latter.

Oh, and the echo thing is not typically very difficult to fix on-the-fly. Mind you, I worked for a while at a VOIP software company. I speak-a-da-SPEEX, so to speak.

↩ ∞
Nick April 30, 2014, 6:02 am

I am a minarchist that agrees with Helfeld but I think he “started it” as far as the beef here is concerned. He had a stick up his ass early on about formatting it seemed. You claim Helfeld is a fake lawyer (Im a “real one”) but his procedural “objections” definitely took you out of the fight early by pissing you off, haha.

↩ ∞
PeterK April 30, 2014, 5:45 pm

I have to ask, why did you bother agreeing to the debate, especially when you started out the way you did?

I still think you “won”, but I don’t know that either of you did yourselves or your sides any good.

↩ ∞
Jaek Bradley April 30, 2014, 7:06 pm

Jan seems to believe that getting Kinsella to admit to or to at least consider stealing water if he was dying of thirst some how gets Kinsella to undermine his position that Aggression should always being illegal (Anarchy). Walter Block has a great article on why thats not true http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

What I want to focus on is that, while Jan is for some form of institutionalized aggression (limited government or more accurately state), he is very against government being used to redistribute wealth. Im not sure if he has any children or not but couldn’t you just ask Jan if he had a child dying of thirst would he steal water from some one else to give to his kid (wealth redistribution)? And if he believes Kinsella answering yes to his question or at least considering it undermines Kinsella’s position then Jan answering yes or considering yes to my question (Which I believe if he is being honest he would say yes to) would undermine his stance of being against the use of force (State) for welfare. Therefore this tactic he is employing against kinsella in an attempt to undermine his view of anarchy would not just justify a minimal goverment but a very large redistributive one at the very least.

↩ ∞
- Jake Bradley April 30, 2014, 9:29 pm
  
  Jan responded to my question in the comment section of his youtube post of this debate and it was very odd. Here it is
  
  “No, because people are not dying of thirst in the USA. You and other an caps seem to have no idea what my follow up questions are when you answer yes and the debater does not run like Molineux . No need in kinsela’s case since he contradicted himself. First he said he would never under any circumstances initiate force but later he said he did not know if he would under certain circumstances. Contradiction = error = lost”
  
  He seems to be implying that my question isn’t valid but his to Kinsella is because people “are not dying of thirst in the USA”. This response seems to imply 2 very odd and faulty assumptions on his part.
  
  First, It seems to assume that people will/are dying of thirst in an Ancap system. He didn’t give any examples or evidence of this being the case. It also implies a sort of consequentialist view with question begging. He is presuposing a consequentialist view point and then stating bad results inevitably occur within (to the point of dying of thirst) the question itself. It seems to me he is basically saying “You must be against people dying of thirst and anarchy will automatically lead people to die of thirst so you must be against anarchy.”
  
  Second, and more bizarrely his answer to me seems to imply he believes the U.S. as it stands now is a minimal state. My hypothetical that leads to him contradicting his stated views against wealth redistribution by redistributing wealth to his child dying of thirst is irrelevant because his system of minimal government does not lead to that dilema and he uses the current U.S. system as an example of this. This is just a down right weird response. I’ve seen his videos and he clearly doesn’t believe the U.S. as it stands now is a minimal government and as we all know and agree it clearly isn’t. Therefore, the more extreme/worse welfare statists could argue the current welfare system doesn’t lead to people dying of thirst and if he is against people dying of thirst and he is theoretically willing to use force himself to redistribute wealth to save his child then he must be contradicting his minimal state view and actually in principle agrees with the welfare state. My exact response to him is below
  
  “Exactly, people are not dying of thirst in the U.S. but the U.S. as it stands now is not the ideal minimal government you support, its the large welfare/socialist state you despise. They are not dying from thirst within a large welfare state, not a minimal government state. This means the more socialist/welfare Statists who argue on the other side of you could use that question against you like your attempting to do with Kinsella. They can make the same implication your making about anarchy about your minimal government stance that “without our redistributive welfare system people would die of thirst and the fact that your willing to use force to redistribute wealth in the form of water to your child shows that in principle you agree with us and our current system and its results.”
  
  ↩ ∞
Irdial May 1, 2014, 6:48 am

This debate was very entertaining and refreshing. I am sick to death of Statists and their violence, their illogic and fallacious reasoning. These people have a real effect on entrepreneurs and anyone trying to live in peace, and the gentlemanly discourse that is offered to them by default is quite unnatural, and after a point counter-productive.

I enjoy Jan’s videos where he makes politicians look as absurd as they really are, and its useful to have these monsters exposed as the unthinking creatures that they are, but when it comes to principle, Jan has it absolutely wrong in his support of the State. He has no arguments, and refuses to even attempt to explain his position. I have a strong feeling that all of his positions have been learned by rote, and that he recites them on presentation of stimuli.

No one seems to have noticed this, but Jan shows all the signs of being Autistic. His need for structure, his packaged responses, and his body language scream Autism / Aspergers syndrome. This doesn’t mean that he cannot be a good debater or cannot hold correct ideas, but it does explain why he is so infuriating and awkward, and why his answers are so mechanical and shallow. Autistic men are notoriously difficult to get along with because they cannot respond to the cues that neurotypical people take for granted, and which make social interaction smooth. Add to this the difficulty of interacting over an internet chat room that removes some of the feedback needed for civil discourse, and the required extra understanding of other people’s position this technology creates, and the problem is exacerbated.

In any case, this session was very entertaining and informative. It is a classic, no doubt about it. Anyone who is for the State watching it will be put into Jan’s position; they will then be forced to imagine (if they can) how they would answer the simple questions put to him. This will make them think about their beliefs and where they come from which is always a good thing.

Utterly priceless!

↩ ∞
- Brian May 3, 2014, 2:10 pm
  
  Jan isn’t autistic, he’s just an asshole. He needed to stick to the format so he could use his Socratic method (Kinsella was too smart to fall for that bullshit). If anything, it’s Kinsella that comes off as on the Aspergers side of the spectrum. He’s an asshole too, but I like him. He’s funny and most importantly, he’s right. Jan is as wrong as he is creepy.
  
  ↩ ∞
  - Stephan Kinsella May 3, 2014, 3:42 pm
    
    Don’t get the Asperger’s diagnosis–I can’t see that I meet very many of its symptoms (http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/mental-health-aspergers-syndrome).
    
    ↩ ∞
Bill Greenjeans May 1, 2014, 2:18 pm

I recently viewed the debate between anarchy or no government and limited government. It was interesting to hear both sides, however both begin wrong.
They both assumed that aggressive force was the problem with current governments and that, in the case of Jan, it was necessary but out of hand. The Stephan’s main complaint was the aggressive force used by government to collect taxes was wrong.
Both happen to be lawyers and so, at least to them, that gave them some sort of qualification to enter into this debate.
My lawyer friend says that in law school no one learns the law, but only to think like a lawyer. Another lawyer friend says justice is not a virtue but and administration of the law equally applied to all concerned. He also states that the law is moral. So where is the problem for the debaters?
The problem lies in the fact that the law can not impair the obligations of a contract. If the law is moral then it can not perpetrate a act of aggressive force or if it does it becomes immoral. In other words the law can not rupture it’s on law. Thus, for example, the collection of taxes by aggressive force is by the consent of the “taxpayer”. At some point the taxpayer entered into a contract that allow collection by aggressive force if the terms of the contract were violated. This contract can not be interfered with by government nor anyone else.
At some time the debaters became party to a contract that they both dislike and they put the blame on the failed government. I do not deny that in the government there are immoral workers who do things that are criminal, notwithstanding for the most part the government workers are just following orders. The debate over whether someone who commits an immoral or illegal act while following orders is coup-able or innocent of the act is for another time.
Lawyers love to say “ignorance of the law is no excuse or defence”. While there is some truth in that statement, a contract, to be valid, needs to be understood by all parties concerned. If the debaters say “we didn’t enter into any contract to collect taxes” then the facts must be produced. A tax return is a good example of a necessary contract. Understanding the implications of filing a tax return is part of the law that all who do such should know. The law concerning tax returns, while not easy to find because of its “coding” and because of misinformation, is simple when the government records concerning a taxpayers tax returns is reviewed all becomes clear.
Whether the law concerning tax returns is convoluted intentionally or just bureaucratic paper shuffling over time,is also another debate, however finding out what is in personal tax records and “decoding”that information is not easy and should be done by an expert or the taxpayer needs to go to school.
The two debaters have good points however they missed the detail of contracts that they are both a party.

↩ ∞
- Stephan Kinsella May 1, 2014, 2:42 pm
  
  Confusing comment. We anarchists don’t say ignorance of the law is not excuse, and the contract argument made here is literally incoherent.
  
  ↩ ∞
Carl May 1, 2014, 10:30 pm

Wow, what an unholy mess.

Format! Format! Format!

↩ ∞
Neutrinoide May 2, 2014, 10:06 pm

That is one of the best debate I saw in a while. it shows an Anarchist like you, Stephan is working on another/higher level of understanding of this subject. Therefore exposing peoples like Jan are stupids and dinosaurs. No, I am not sarcastic. Yeah! like we never heard or think about those “super hard scenarios”.

↩ ∞
Echarles May 4, 2014, 6:18 pm

Missed opportunity, Stephen, and your frustration worked against you in this debate. I think the approach I would have taken is to ask Jan how private property and voluntary payment for government services advocated by Rand is different from anarcho-capitalism. If Rand considered secession a “right” even in mixed economies (see her essay “Global Balkanization”), then I see no difference between Rothbard and Rand as far as governance. What am I missing?

↩ ∞
- Stephan Kinsella May 4, 2014, 6:54 pm
  
  Lucky for you, you’re a nym so if you mess up you can get do-overs. I don’t have that luxury… 😉
  
  ↩ ∞
nick May 5, 2014, 4:17 pm

I think there is a false presumption that Jan is making by bringing up the “drowning and grabbing someone else’s boat” scenario.

In a true Anarchist vision, the water you’re drowning in is owned by someone and thus governed by the owner of the water. If you’re not there with the owner’s consent, you’re trespassing and already violating the NAP. If you are there with the owner’s consent, one would assume that you and other occupants of the lake are under contract (explicitly or implicitly. Which one doesn’t really matter) to come to the aid of anyone drowning.

Jan is presuming for the sake of his question that we still have “public” water that is “ungoverned.” Thus his question is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the NAP is universal.

↩ ∞
S July 9, 2014, 12:49 am

This ‘debate’ was deplorable in a number of ways. It would seem that both parties have little to no respect for each other in the first place so I have a hard time understanding why they would spend their time engaging with each other at all. Both come off as pathetic and belligerent because of this. They don’t agree on the context in which they’re arguing, or the definitions of terms being used. Perhaps if they ever engage in the future, it should be in order to bridge THAT gap rather than to propose substantive arguments in which both parties are as good as speaking different languages, inevitably creating a further divide than existed prior.

That being said, I am completely in agreement with Stephan Kinsella’s position and am a great admirer of his. I would love to see his brilliance exhibited in better ways.

↩ ∞
- Stephan Kinsella July 11, 2014, 9:26 am
  
  I think Baker and I were both civil to each other. Not sure what you are referring to.
  
  ↩ ∞
Mike April 12, 2015, 3:48 pm

First, I have always hated “debates.” I’ve never really seen a good format. It’s usually more about showmanship and rhetorical tricks than argument. In order to force people to actually respond to questions and stop filibustering with nonsense, you’d need to have a format like a court hearing. There would be objective rules of argument applied. You should be able to say, “Objection! Irrelevant.” And the judge/moderator would say, “Mr. Helfeld, please answer the question.” And all of his b.s. would be “stricken from the record.”

You would probably have to spend many hours interrogating the other person and getting them to admit what they actually believe – point by laborious point. If you have to stop in order to sort out the definitions of words, then so be it. As long as the participants are held to a rational standard, then the argument can proceed even if it takes forever to get agreement on what “government” and “aggression” mean. Then, in the end, you could edit out all of the extraneous crap and present viewers with the result. Anyone interested in the raw material could view it separately.

I would love to see some kind of intellectual “game show” like this on the internet. It would be entertaining as well as enlightening to see what people do when they can’t squirm out of answering tough questions honestly and directly.

Regarding the actual “debate,” Stephan started out with two questions which Jan took great pains to avoid answering. Everything after that was just a waste of time because at that point you know that Jan is just going to say whatever he wants and not actually deal with the questions. I think that the pressure of calling it a debate (when it really isn’t) riles people up and that’s why people get emotional in these things. People know that if there are not extensive rules and an impartial moderator with the power to intervene and cut someone off or make them answer a question, then it’s just going to be a pissing contest. It’s going to look like the typical political “debate” which is just a showcase for grandstanding. The interview or panel format is often much better than this quasi-debate thing.

The hypothetical about violating property rights in order to survive was irrelevant. And if Jan had tried to use it in order to justify the state, then that would be utterly fallacious. He would be saying that there are no rules, only exigent circumstances and life-or-death decisions to make under duress. That would go well with his endless rhetorical fear-mongering, but it wouldn’t ever justify the state.

By the way, the answer to those dilemmas is simple. Yes, people may choose to violate property rights when their life is in immediate danger because in that moment they value their life more than an object which happens to be the property of another or the right of that owner to full control of it at that time. We may do this because there is an objective (I would argue) hierarchy of values. These hypothetical moral dilemmas bring this to the forefront. Nevertheless, if I choose to violate property rights in order to save a life, that doesn’t invalidate property rights one bit. It doesn’t make them arbitrary or non-absolute. It just means, under that circumstance, I made a rational decision to value my life above the other person’s right to his boat, or water, or whatever. I am still guilty of the act and should pay restitution if I damaged anything or inconvenienced the owner. So the absolute nature of the right is not abolished or ignored. I just choose to pay the price in order to prevent a greater loss to myself. And the legal system would likely agree with me, as well as the general public. Jan’s attempt to create a false choice between the right to life and the right to property therefore fails.

I have noticed that Jan is a one-trick pony with these “debates” against anarchists. He just creates scary scenarios and says that what he has imagined is anarchy. This is what Rand did too. So there’s nothing new to see here. It’s just people repeating over and over again that roving gangs would rule the day and foreign governments would use nuclear blackmail. He and other Randians just flatly deny that people can organize against criminals. Yet they maintain at the same time that the vast majority of a population would voluntarily pay “taxes” in order to accomplish the same goal under a minimal state. So what’s the difference? If you call the society anarchy, then people stop wanting to organize and pay up in order to defend their society? But if it’s called “limited government,” then people are happy to do it? It doesn’t make the least bit of sense.

↩ ∞
- Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2015, 4:37 pm
  
  Agree. I prefer a candid, honest discussion between two people, with no moderation. That’s hard to achieve too. I think Alexander Baker and I achieved some semblance of this earlier https://stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol-040-discussion-with-a-pro-intellectual-property-libertarian/ as did Walter Block and I — https://stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol004-interview-with-walter-block-on-voluntary-slaver-2/.
  
  ↩ ∞
Richard Hunter July 10, 2015, 6:30 am

I thought the debate was a missed opportunity at best and an embarrassing fiasco at worse, and I would lay most if not all the blame at the door of Mr. Kinsella for that state of affairs (no pun intended). I personally have many doubts about anarchism but am willing to give it a fair hearing. If all anarchists are going to do is shout abuse at those who question it then that becomes impossible.

↩ ∞
Joseph Whitlow September 17, 2015, 10:25 pm

I think his interview technique is rhetorical and worthless. It has a free market fascist bias to it, and he needs exposed as contradicted weasel he really is. Go interview Ralph Nader, Richard Wolff, Naomi Klein, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, or even Noam Chomsky. I’d like to see that. I doubt any of those people would want to waste their time with him.

↩ ∞

KOL123 | Debate with Jan Helfeld on Anarchy vs. Limited Government

GROK DETAILED SUMMARY

YOUTUBE TRANSCRIPT

Related

Leave a ReplyCancel reply