46 votes

DEBATE: Larken Rose vs Atty. Tom Willcutts, Moderated by Richard Grove, TragedyAndHope.com

An actual debate! Voluntaryism vs. Constitutional Minarchism. The Illegitimacy of the very concept of "autho-ra-teh!"

Larken Rose vs. Tom Willcutts (History... Debate on "Authority" and "Government")

http://youtu.be/cvo-yEymNuQ

YouTube Channel: TragedyandHopeMag

Published on Mar 7, 2013

History... So It Doesn't Repeat: A debate on the concepts of "authority", "government", and the "state", featuring author Larken Rose vs. Tom Willcutts (attorney for www.TragedyAndHope.com).

After the debate, visit www.LarkenRose.com to learn more about "The Most Dangerous Superstition".

Would you like to Know More?

http://www.TragedyandHope...
http://www.PeaceRevolutio...

Watch our films, download and listen to our podcasts, grow in the light direction!

** For those who may not be familiar with TragedyAndHope.com & its proprietor Richard Grove, please check it out.

For those of you who may have guessed, indeed the eponymous site is named after Carroll Quigley's magnum opus insider expose on the 'shadow govt'/'Deep State'/'New World Order': Tragedy & Hope.

While Quigley was in fact FOR 'The Order,' Richard named his site to bring attention to their con:
https://www.tragedyandhop...

Plus, he has THE most in depth series of interviews with John Taylor Gatto!
https://www.tragedyandhop...
http://www.youtube.com/us...

Also visit T&H contributor Jan Irvin's Trivium websites:

http://www.triviumeducati...
https://www.tragedyandhop...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The debate served no one.

I felt the debate was so poorly thought out that it was a waste of time. The attorney was not prepared and bumbling much of the time. As much as I love Larken Rose's philosophy, this was not the best format for him to show his wit. The moderator didn't help by being biased. But, most who understand Rose's stance on government are usually biased toward him. Regardless, it detracted from the debate.

I feel Larken Rose can hold his own with anyone and pitting him against a better debater serves both sides. Larken's view would have more credibility vs. a serious opponent and the opposition would have a more solid footing.

What Larken and other Volunteerists are trying to point out is that our indoctrination that governments may have some bad components, they are predominantly good is a hard conditioning to break. To most who have heard the term anarchy, it brings up images of confusion, violence and chaos. Once you realize this dogma is intentional, then one can entertain a world without big brother there to "help" us.

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

A fascinating debate, and one

A fascinating debate, and one I watched with interest as I've been recently trying to understand anarchists' ideas.

Here's what I don't get.

I don't get this notion of natural rights in terms of what Rose means. Rose seem to champion some little force, which he never calls government, and he makes pains to describe as some group of friend he gets together, but which he asserts are good and true and dedicated to evidence and ferreting out truth. He doesn't claim any authority other than that this group passes his good-guy metric. His judge and jury is self-referential. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to depend on that. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to depend a gang of Rose's friends to be fair.

I've tried to delve into the first inklings of the rights nature gives us -- the Hobbsian ideas. And I guess I'm kind of left thinking like Hobbes: We all have rights that extend as far as we can wield them. My right to life extends are far as I can defend it. My right to property/resources extends are far as I can defend it.

Supercool if you're 6'4" and 22O. Supercool if you're gifted at getting such folks on your side.

Um...but most of us aren't and can't. I'm not excited by such a social contract and I'm going to work toward something that serves me -- and most of humanity. I'm into right ameliorates might.

We are all living under might makes right. In the Hobbsian sense. It's just true. If you can overpower me and get my purse, you get my purse. If you can overpower the locks on my doors and get to my valuables before I get to my gun, you get my valuables. If I've got no Rose-group of tough guys to go knocking at your door and "asking" for my valuables back, I'm out of luck.

Rose seems to be just replacing the authority of the group with the authority is his friends (which I should feel all comfy with because he vouches for them.)

I'm at a loss to see how Rose and his gang of friends is any less an authority/government than the sort of authority/government I get to at least vote for or against. Rose is calling for authority based on friendship. Not rule of law agreed to by the people. He fails to understand the whole evolution of the term and ideal of government. His friend-brigade is just feudalism. We swept his sort into the dust bin three centuries ago.

I don't pretend to know much about anarchism, but I'm pretty dead set against Mr. Rose's group of "rational friends" knocking at my door and demanding whatever their group-think has decided I've taken.

Might makes right; that's natural law. People conspire to place themselves above the laws of nature We've done that through family structure, through clan structure, through tribal structure, then on to regional and state. The state -- the collusion of the people against the Rose-and-friends brigades.

Shiver-me-timbers. I just don't get how I shouldn't be arming myself against Rose his little anarchist friend posse more so than the government I've participated in.

Larken Rose - I'm Allowed to Rob You!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

After watching this, I almost feel sorry for anarchists

Almost, but not quite, because anyone who buys Larken's simplistic rhetoric has earned the right to be a weak link in human evolution. And we know what that means, bye bye anarchists, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Larken suggests that stealing property didn't exist before gov't, and will not exist in a stateless society. This is of course not true. History is full of Non-Governmental Organizations (barbarians) for whom raping and pillaging was a way of life. Four thousand years ago, the Hammurabic Code was based on the principle that "the strong shall not injure the weak". The code of Hammurabi was a response to the raping and pillaging of barbarians. But Larken suggests the absense of government will not lead to anarcho-barbarism because people will voluntarily subscribe to the fabled Non-Aggression Principle. And like I said, anyone who believes that nonsense has earned the right to become extinct. Goodbye anarcho-barbarians.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Please, keep your pity.

Yes, because Lysander Spooner and Frédéric Bastiat were SUCH barbarians, huh? :?

The non-aggression principle applies in our daily existence to the vast majority of the population on the basis of sheer human morality; hence the reason you don't fear getting blown away the second you step out your front door in modern Western society.

But that by no means implies that anarchism has no contingency plan for the minority of society who are, psychologically, sociologically, or otherwise, too damaged to apply the non-aggression principle universally. Anarchy doesn't mean no police, nor insurers, nor any modern entity currently controlled by the State. It simply means that their authority over your life would be voluntary and based on the needs of the market (at least, in market anarchism.)

Babylonian law was never applied in a stateless society, so I see no comparison to the barbarism it spurred and the theory of voluntarism.

Based on your generally dismissive attitude towards anarchists, I highly doubt you will ever get around to this, but should you ever feel the need to learn more about that which you seem to hate so much, I highly recommend you read For A New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard. If your mind is open, you may just discover the hypocrisy of modern American Libertarianism, in the political sense.

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

"Larken suggests that stealing property didn't exist before gov"

Clearly, you have some form of learning disability.

You didn't comprehend anything from the video, and instead imagined it was about something completely unrelated.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

What a pathetic debate, for

What a pathetic debate, for all parties involved. The moderator was obviously biased to Larken's view and blatantly poisoned the well numerous times towards the lawyer. The lawyer did a poor job of challenging Larken's presuppositions. Larken came across as a disrespectful punk.

Gateway Drug

Ron Paul and Richard Maybury's Uncle Eric series were my gateway drugs. I read them before RP's 07 run while on active duty in the Marines. The DP has been a daily routine since its inception. After the 07 lesson learned from the Paul run, I fully embraced the vonluntaryist philosophy. I would not want the boat to go down with RP at the helm and liberty to take the blame.

All that being said I am a huge fan of Richard and Larken. I think Richard offered great points but wish he would have stayed more neutral. It is important to human liberty/consciousness that his work continues and production quality continues to rise.

Larken Rose described himself as...

an anarchist/voluntaryist, he did not make a distinction between the two. Don't members of the military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? If so, how can you be an anarchist and uphold the Constitution, which is the legal basis for the government that anarchists love to hate.

DP is based on the ideas of Ron Paul, and at the top of every DP page it says, "DEDICATED TO RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." Note the words "Constitutional Government". And yet you seem to think that DP and Ron Paul support your anarchist ideology.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Good points!

I agree.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Brilliant and simple

Larken is brilliant... the lawyer is slow and boring, although sometimes interesting, but mostly annoying to hear his feeble attempts. The host was great too.

Basically, people forming a group cannot grant rights to individuals to do things that they don't have themselves... very easy to get, but difficult to get too, when you have been brain washed your whole life to believe otherwise.

Also, these people writing in that Larken is a "looser"? ROFL.
I guess they mean loser. Either that or they mean his idea of government is loose? Either way, hilarious!

Larken is a Looser!

Is this what the Daily Paul supports?
I guess I have been supporting the wrong people.

Kent A Davis

I like!

Good exercise... the debate was good, but it would have been better for Richard to remain more neutral. I agree with he and Larkin on the anarchist philosophy, but as a moderator it seemed to much like it was two vs one.

I think Tom did a good job, although it's often difficult to wrap the mind around the philosophy of anarchy/voluntaryism so I could see why he hesitates so often and doesn't directly answer questions.

One point Tom had been cornered to and what he settled with is the idea of a implied Hobbesian social contract. I reject that notion morally and in practice, but this point of debate should be elaborated on. Overall this was a very good debate.

Thanks Larkin for the conviction and clarity of arguments because it will help others refine their communication about the very nature of government. Thanks Richard for moderating and putting this together. Thanks Tom for very good points and providing color to English law. Cheers!

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

You said it would've been better...

if the moderator, Richard Grove, had been more neutral. That's quite an understatement. At the beginning of the debate Richard said, we're going to "have a logical reasonable conversation about irrational unreasonable things like authority and government." So before the debate began, the moderator had already concluded there was no debate because gov't and authority are irrational and unreasonable, and anarchism is not. For a moderator, this seems a bit illogical and unreasonable.

I'm glad you liked the debate because in his opening statement, anarchist Larken Rose said anarchism is a "weird strange fringe postion", and couldn't agree more.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I'm about half way through the debate. I have a question...

is the attorney drunk? Because his argument makes no sense. Is it just me?

Bump

for a great debate!

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Ron Paul is a Voluntarist.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Absolutely excellent

But there's one great clip it's missing: from Paul's speech at CPAC in 2011, saying, "Government should NEVER be able to do anything YOU can't do!" That nails it, in one sentence.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Ron Paul's statement...

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do", describes the concept of equality before the law within a limited government. This is not an endorsement of anarchism/voluntaryism, just the opposite.

Anarchists are desperately trying to attach their ideology to Ron Paul because his ideas of limited government and the rule of law have public appeal, and anarchism does not. Larken admitted this in his opening statement when he said anarchism is a "weird strange fringe position"

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Speaking of desperation,

how desperate does one have to be to try to cram Dr. Paul's very clear pro-liberty statement into a tight little statist box precisely opposite to its obvious meaning? Listen to the speech yourself or read the transcript (given below the video at that link). Check out the context in which he made the statement. In the transcript, you'll find the statement four paragraphs up from the bottom. He follows it with this: "If you can’t steal from your neighbor, you can’t send the government to your neighbor to steal for you." Watching the speech rather than reading the transcript makes his meaning even clearer, with the huge emphasis on "never" and "you."

You, sir, are full of crap.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Your position is based on a falsehood

Ron Paul believes in a limited government that has a limited, but legal, power to tax. He does not categorically define all taxation as stealing. So once again, your desperate attempt to equate Ron Paul's ideas with anarchism have failed.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

So you're telepathic?

You know intuitively what Ron Paul believes, and the words that come out of his mouth aren't what he really believes? Watch that speech again. Watch his passion speaking that particular sentence.

Anyone who wonders which of us is right should watch that clip, and judge for themselves.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Ron Paul has unequivocally stated...

that he supports a limited Constitutional government, and limited gov't requires some taxation. DP is based on Ron Paul's ideas, and at the top of every DP page it says, "DEDICATED TO RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA". So if you want to use a few of Ron Paul's sentences to claim he's an anarchist, that's your prerogative, but your position doesn't reflect the facts.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Do you think you live in your own alternate reality...

where you can invent your own facts?

Ron Paul has said numerous times that taxation is theft.

He categorically rejects taxation as theft.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Are you saying Ron Paul has...

been lying when he tells people he supports limited Constitutional government? Because as you know, even limited gov't cannot exist without some taxation. If Ron Paul is lying, what's the reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that even anarchist Larken Rose admits anarchism is a "weird strange fringe position"? And if Ron Paul is lying, what does that say about the character of anarchists who condone his lying? Anarchists claim their ideology is based on the Non-Aggression Principle, but if they believe lying is a legitimate means to an end, maybe they're lying about the NAP too.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

So are you well-versed with everything Ron Paul has ever said?

Because if you were, you'd have heard what he has to say about the anarchistic ideals of Lysander Spooner. Dr. Paul clearly states that he holds anarchism as the IDEAL system for liberty, following that statement by saying he is working with "the best he has" in our current state-based paradigm.

"I don't criticize Lysander" doesn't sound like a statement that's hostile to the anarchism his ideals spawned.

"I hope that someday, we'll mature enough to have that argument." That being the argument of a stateless society. So clearly, the Good Doctor views anarchy as the ideal, with limited Constitutional government being more pragmatic to implement in our given schema.

So, care to eat your words?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

It's time, Mark,

for an intervention. Watch it as least three times daily until your symptoms subside. Then read Larken Rose's book:

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

That's a good one

I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

It is, and I do,

and thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. But most good jokes are funny because they say something true in an unexpected way.

Stefan Molyneux is a professional philosopher -- and an anarchist. One of them -- those crazy, violent "anarcho-barbarians," you refer to. Only he isn't violent -- he detests violence. He isn't crazy. And he's enormously civilized. So is Larken Rose, for that matter. "Anarchy" isn't a philosophy of violence at all.

Unlike "Statism."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Why would anyone believe...

what anarchists say? They believe Ron Paul is an anarchist even though he never admits this to the vast majority of his supporters who want limited gov't, not anarchy. So anarchists believe that their leaders should lie about who they are because it's a legitimate means to an end. And of course they have to lie because the vast majority of people reject the notion of anarchism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)