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.

I completely agree

and understand the principle of a true laisezz faire capitalist environment. I do see how the state is used to monopolize the illegitimate power of these corporations.

What I'm not totally clear on is when you say how they won't be able to control things or me. Sure I'd have far more freedom in an-capitalistic society, and their coercive power over me would at least be greatly diminished but only if EVERYONE else adopted the same understanding and principles of a true laisezz faire system. This is where I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than a pipe dream. One of the very principles of a voluntarist society is to let people live there lives to their own standards, and not interfere with that. The problem I see is that unless you have some entity restricting abuses in power, what's to stop power hungry people from creating their own mini-governments with henchmen to rule over you?

My biggest beef can be explained here:

I would add that it's detrimental to human nature that people hold different ideas as to how best to live there lives. While we can all agree that this is why collectivism doesn't work (because it forces one mode of thought on everyone, while undermining the basic concept that we are individuals with different interests), Can't the same be said for total voluntarism?

In order for Voluntarism to work it would mean that everyone has to adopt this as the inherent system, but didn't we just go over that one of the fatal flaws of Collectivism is that is forces one mode of thought on everyone? Isn't suggesting the idea that everyone will adopt the principle of voluntaryism falling into this same problem of assuming everyone will come to understand and agree on one inherent valuable principle?

To me the flaw seems to be that there are absolutely terrible ideologies out there that many people would subscribe to under any conditions (Socialism, Fascism, etc.) just as an apparent part of human nature. I don't see how even if you allow in a voluntarist society these ideologies to persist , that they won't eventually manifest and get what they ultimately want which is more power and control. I guess this is why I tend to side right now more with the Min-archist in that while force is something I see as inherently bad, is it a necessity in order to at least keep at bay the roots of tyranny from growing.

I guess I'm trying to say won't voluntarism be overcome eventually through the efforts of those who oppose it. It's lack of wanting any coercive power may be it's downfall, as it only leaves room for those who want coercive power to be able to manifest without any restrictions.

"what's to stop power hungry

"what's to stop power hungry people from creating their own mini-governments with henchmen to rule over you?"

You and people around you with guns. Same way you don't let someone come into your house and steal your things.

"Isn't suggesting the idea that everyone will adopt the principle of voluntaryism falling into this same problem of assuming everyone will come to understand and agree on one inherent valuable principle?"

These are natural rights. Having a total "agreement" to live life the way you want is not the same as having an agreement to force things on people, especially babies that can't speak for themselves. Once you mix force into the equation it is no longer choice, obviously. Now, if someone wants to be governed that is their choice, but I highly doubt any will.

"I guess this is why I tend to side right now more with the Min-archist in that while force is something I see as inherently bad, is it a necessity in order to at least keep at bay the roots of tyranny from growing."

I know you mean well, but some may not and giving someone else the power to govern over another individual is just immorally wrong. If you really look at the concept of government you will see that IT is the roots of tyranny. The beginning of authoritative haves and have nots, 'I have more power than you'. Cut the weed out completely by pulling the root.

Sure there is

some validity to your arguments, but they lack soundness.

1.) "You and people around you with guns. Same way you don't let someone come into your house and steal your things."

sure, on a micro level this seems most effective and rather plausible. But whose to say that those with an excess of power won't outweigh you and those in defense of you? Your assuming that more people will stand in defense of an individuals rights, but really that's nothing more than speculation. This point I'm making here is a valid one, and I don't feel I have heard a good response yet in opposition to this. To simply say that people will just voluntarily bind together to repel oppressive forces assumes far to many factors to refute this point.

2.) "These are natural rights. Having a total "agreement" to live life the way you want is not the same as having an agreement to force things on people, especially babies that can't speak for themselves. Once you mix force into the equation it is no longer choice, obviously. Now, if someone wants to be governed that is their choice, but I highly doubt any will."

My point here was that the very notion that your claiming that everyone will adopt the view of natural rights/ or voluntary society falls under the same logic as the collectivist dogma. Your assuming again that everyone will for the better, assume that this voluntaristic notion is universally true. The very premise of "Total agreement" is one that I object to as being a fundamental contradiction to human nature. "Total agreement" in ANY sense I feel falls under this contradiction to human nature; Human beings will always contain different motives for how they want to and will agree to rule their own lives by.

Secondly, You can't just assume that people will not be in advocacy of government, when it favors their interests and motives they undoubtedly will be in support of it (I think looking at history of civilizations is a good indicator of this). If history has shown us anything it's that Force will always come to fruition in some form or another.

3.) "I know you mean well, but some may not and giving someone else the power to govern over another individual is just immorally wrong. If you really look at the concept of government you will see that IT is the roots of tyranny. The beginning of authoritative haves and have nots, 'I have more power than you'. Cut the weed out completely by pulling the root."

Yes, I agree government's nature is monopolistic force. I think where I disagree is that the root of power/ coercion doesn't stem from government, but rather from people. By de-rooting Government you aren't getting rid of Coercion and Tyranny, these have long existed even before government was ever established. It's a mistake to think that by merely getting rid of one tool used to authorize power that you have eliminated it from existing. I see this concept in sum as having the fatal flaw of undermining Human nature, a voluntary society while it would perhaps be an improvement in many regards still shares some of the central problems that will be found in a state.

I apologize if i'm not

I apologize if i'm not explaining my views all that well. I'm definitely not a wordsmith lol.

"To simply say that people will just voluntarily bind together to repel oppressive forces assumes far to many factors to refute this point".

So, where do they get these people that will "outweigh" the voluntarysit? I think you're assuming that a majority will voluntarily give their rights away to join this 'new government'. But, let's just say somehow bad people do trick people into being slaves, the ones that have no way to defend their rights against this group could always just hire a defense. Free market militias if you will lol.

"Your assuming again that everyone will for the better, assume that this voluntaristic notion is universally true."

No, that's not the case. There will most likely be a small amount of people, like yourself? that want no part of the voluntaryist lifestyle, but they cannot hurt others. They can do whatever they like, with their own property as long as they don't force themselves onto people. Like I said before, there will always be some bad in every society, but getting rid of the old logic of 'I have more rights than you because I have a shiny hat' is first on the list to making everyone feel equal and bringing about peace. Will there be some violence? sure, but not as much as a Government would bring.

"It's a mistake to think that by merely getting rid of one tool used to authorize power that you have eliminated it from existing."

Well, yeah of course. It's the people behind the government that are the problem. Without the people, government is just a word. Your actually making my argument for me by saying this because you're basically saying any and every type of government, including your own (mini-anarchist), you put into place will be corrupted by man. Yes, you're right. That's why you get rid of it entirely and let the individuals decide for THEMSELVES what they want. No group should be able to dictate rules onto another group of persons.

matt

I am in no way against a voluntary society, I think it's a beautiful idea. I also am not trying to attack you personally, I'm truly trying to just get to the core of this argument which I see has some detrimental flaws in it (a socratic elenchus if you will). Bare with me.

Isn't our society now and in just about every case throughout history an example of my point that numbers don't play a significant role? By this I mean we are ruled by a minority, and a small minority of elites have always had the most power and control and look what they can do. This is what I mean by there being far more components than just outweighing them in number.

You say: "There will most likely be a small amount of people, like yourself? that want no part of the voluntaryist lifestyle, but they cannot hurt others."

First I want every part of the voluntary life style, it's the essence of true freedom and true liberty, don't think I'm advocating anything counter that.

Second, who say's people who don't want part of a voluntary society can't hurt others? By what authority is going to enforce that they don't abuse power and hurt others? Whose going to say that they can't plunder their neighbors property, what's to stop them? If your advocating some sort of Justice system how will it be constructed and how will it have any binding authority if there is no state at all? These are some tough questions that I haven't heard the anarchist give a legitimate answer too, maybe you can answer them.

As for your last point again I don't think it's clear that getting rid of Government entirely will solve your problem of coercive power. Individuals will be left to decide for themselves and this won't always lead to something positive (I hate how this sounds, because it comes of as elitist), but I fear that collective agents will take advantage of the individual; and again history has been an good indicator of this. Humans for the most part while are individualistic, are also group animals. There will always be those that follow the herd instead of blaze their own way, and there will also always be those who want to control others above all else and they will take advantage of this.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, thanks for keeping it going.

Oh, no. I didn't think or

Oh, no. I didn't think or take it as an attack. I guess I was just thinking out loud lol

Well, they could hurt others, but why would they? That would go back to the conversation about human nature I guess. What causes people to get violent and hurt people?
I'd say it has a lot to do with the way a person/s were raised. In a monopolized society like ours where everybody is fighting for the same things(paper currency, wealth, power etc), violence is bred or expected and is passed down from generation to generation, but in a society where there is no restraint or need for any of that and nothing but open choice, like a voluntaryist society, you'd expect a lot less violence. To say there wouldn't be any at all would be a bit much, but it definitely would be way less than now.

How would you enforce not being hurt by others? Learning to be polite, learning how to defend yourself, learning how to use a weapon, learning how to respect others. It won't be over night, but people can actually learn these tactics lol.

As for a set justice system. It would all be up to the individual because everyone is different. If you want a system then you could make one and whoever wants in to that system joins it voluntarily. I personally like to look at some of the Native tribes when I think of justice. For example, some villages had rules, but they weren't violently enforced. If someone didn't follow the rules then you just didn't deal with that person anymore, no trading, no interaction etc. If they got violent then you defend yourself and your community and maybe banish them from your property. Who would stop a person from getting on your property? You. The same way you do it now.

"Individuals will be left to decide for themselves and this won't always lead to something positive (I hate how this sounds, because it comes of as elitist), but I fear that collective agents will take advantage of the individual; and again history has been an good indicator of this"

Well, I agree. The way society is right NOW is problematic. Civilization was turned into what it is now. It's definitely bad.
But..
The same way violence was passed down through society from past generations is the same way society can pass down peace to future generations. You can unlearn violence and learn voluntary interaction. It's the same thing as taking a kid from the ghettos and moving him into a billionaires home, where in one life he would most likely turn into a thug and the other he could turn into a Senator. People adapt and grow in their environment.

I think it'll be hard. I mean look at how some people still see Libertarianism as being "ridiculous" or "utopianistic" lol, but the way I see it.. the same way people advocate Socialism and Fascism is the same way people can advocate Voluntaryism. Which is more extreme? It'll take a long time, but it can work. The world needs it.

And yeah, I'm enjoying the convo as well :)

What I believe your argument

What I believe your argument is,is that there will always be people who join-up to try and extort people; and therefore to prevent these people from prevailing we must institute government to protect us.

How many Hawiians would bow to the rule of a NY based Mob?

How many Hawiians bow to the rule of a Washington D.C. based Mob?

The difference being is that one Mob is able to use the term 'Government,' which gives that particular Mob a sense of authority and legitimacy. If you take away the Mob in DC, then at most we would have a whole bunch -thousands- of smaller Mobs all over the US -for lack of a better defining term.

What are the reasons and purposes of a Mob and how do they operate?

Every Mob has to have a reason and purpose, or it cannot truly operate; so why don't we list some?

To make money, to accumulate power and influence, to supply that which is illegal.

Well, the Mob operates by paying a lot of money to people who join it _the management and the enforcers. Where does this money come from? Most of it comes from providing to the public that which Government doesn't allow on the White Market. The money they collect through violence is very small; it is a tool, to control the area -similar to taxes, but not quite the same.

If the White Market was able to supply to the customers that which the Mobs/Gangs currently supply, then where would the Mob/Gang get the money to pay the people to belong to such and organization?

Lets not forget that the cost-benefit risk analysis for comiting illegal acts favours the criminal in many regards -under our current system: (1) it is easier to make money comiting criminal activities then to work in the White Market -especially to those with not much to lose. (2) The likelyhood of getting caught in most instances is very low, and in our current system the likelyhood that the police will automatically kill an actual criminal is low -don't forget that criminals justify the existence of law enforcers, with out the law breakers there would be no need for law enforcers, right? Well, that is the conventional wisdom.

These two reasons create criminals; without either or both of these reasons, then the only possible criminals would be those who just want to hurt people with no actual gain for themselves -these are an extremely low number of actual criminals.

So, in a Voluntaryist system: drugs in most places wouldn't be illegal, neither would prostitution or gambling. Without these black market enterprises, the ability for a Mob or Gang to have the kind of resources available to it to operate are severly hampered. The Mob or Gang would need a legitimate business venture to generate the revenue it would need. The problem is that in the Open or Free Market no matter what business the Mob/Gang would want to partake in, there would be countless others competeing with them -an a potential for even more; and if the Mob or Gang tried to "take out" the competition, word would spread -this already happens, both when pertaining to Mob/Gangs and in the White Market. The more violence the Mob/Gang utilized to try and corner a market the less legitimacy they would have and therefore the less business and the less revenue they would have. Their Mob/Gang would literally fall apart.

Also, besides the revenue problems that a Mob/Gang would have, would be the problem of having their men getting shot trying to force people to pay them. As it is now, Mob and gang members get paid ok, to -potentially- get shot at. individual Private contractors(Blackwater employees) get paid $100k and up. In a Free Market, these prices would come down significantly, because of the lack of need for that type of service. Then the 'enforcers' would have to -as they do now- utilize a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. In so doing, they would notice that in a Free Market it is easier to obtain capital, so the allure of comiting crimes is deminished by that fact alone. The propensity for criminals to get shot would -in most places- increase; this would also deminish the allure of criminal activity. The capital gain itself in commiting crime would be significatly less then it currently is -they would b epaid less by an employeer; this would also deminish the allure of comiting crimes. In a Free Market -a Voluntaryist- system the motivation -which currently exists- for individuals to commit crime, doesn't exist.

The only crime which would still exist, would be the crimes which are not about gain, but about power. A person rapes, mainly because of the power. A person kills, mainly because of the power. A person beats another person sensless, mainly because of the power. These people are necessarily incabable of working together in a structure.

For every Mobster and Gangster which does it for the power, are ten or twelve or more which do it for the easy money, first and foremost. Without these easy money people, the structure of the Mobs and Gangs which people are so afraid of, disapears.

Also, don't take what I stated to mean that Private Defense Contractors wouldn't exist at all, but they would not be so willing to join the Mob/Gang because doing policing duties these guys might get payed less but the likely-hood of getting killed is far less. If someone would want a Private Defense Contractor to initiate force and violence on others then the price would sky-rocket due to the likely-hood that they will be shot or killed; and considering that the Mob/Gang which tried this would in no way be able to take an entire industry in one instant would mean that they would never last long enough to do it again. This is how a Voluntaryist -Free Market- would handle this situation.

There might be some instances of violence, however, it can not in any way be sustained without outside help. However, even with outside help it would be possible through the Markets to bankrupt those who might try.

The US is not Somalia; with or without a government, we have a huge impact on the global market. In a Free Market -in what we call the US- we would take over nearly complete control of the Global Market in almost no time. The governments of the other counrties of the world would be shrinking trying to compete; and if they tried to utilize force agaisnt us to preserve their power, they would loose even more of the Market, thereby accelerating their demise.

If you want to see how well

If you want to see how well anarchists can defend themselves vs states, look at world history. Didn't do so well. Zulus throwing spears at Mussolinis bombers comes to mind

Ventura 2012

So, we won't have the same

So, we won't have the same weapons everybody else has because... why again??

Free rider problem

Free rider problem

Ventura 2012

Nice, succinct answer, Bmore *Updated

but not necessarily correct. Recall a few months back, I pointed out to you that David Friedman's book, The Machinery of Freedom, is now free to read online? And you planned to read it? If you haven't yet, then this would be an appropriate time, because Friedman is one of the very few anarchist writers to deal seriously with the problem of national defense under anarchy. Read it here, Page 71 of the pdf.

Another good essay on the subject, by a fellow named Keith Preston, can be found here. One good point that Preston makes: an anarchist society is likely to be much more productive and prosperous than one handicapped by a government, and higher personal disposable income means greater ability to donate money to "national" defense . . . something people would likely be willing to do to guard their own freedom. Would people actually do it? Won't know that till we try it, I guess, but both Friedman and Preston have a bunch of different ideas how it could work. Would it be less efficient than national defense provided by a government? Now there is a question worth pondering, ya think? Could anything be LESS efficient than the services provided by government?

(*Update*) Furthermore, it occurs to me that an anarchist "national" defense might look very different, and be much less expensive, than a traditional military. Anarchists are unlikely to favor nuclear weaponry, because we aren't into mass murder. We wouldn't be fighting wars to conquer territory or enrich a military-industrial complex, so we wouldn't need massive armies to invade foreign lands. We would be fighting simply to defend ourselves, and we would do that as efficiently as possible. To kill a snake, cut off its head. The thrust of our military efforts would most likely be to hunt down and kill the head of any state that attacked us -- or even better, his financial backers, the banksters and war profiteers who really initiate most wars. Drone warfare could be developed and refined toward that end, I suspect, with exceptional and relatively inexpensive results.

Might some prospective invader turn the tables on us, and use drones to take out OUR political leaders? Oh, wait. Anarchists don't have those.

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

Applicable to government as well...

Two points from my perspective.

1. There is no logical reason to believe that another organizational body wouldn't arise in place of an official government and that they would not use force against The People.

2. We can also use our guns to stop the government. The People don't.

I think a lot of this debate stems from the belief in the true nature of individuals. I tend to be pessimistic. History and experience has influenced me in this direction.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

I think I'm with you TJ

This is the central claim I'm trying to make, that this voluntary societal notion doesn't necessarily eliminate the tendency of tyranny and coercion.

They are looking at it as if Government is the root of the problem, where I might argue that I think the problem stems more from Human Nature. Again with you, history has shown this. Look at the Ancient Eastern History, along the timelines of Lao Tzu where you have an anarchic society on the verge of forming governments. The very thing Government were thought to do was limit tyranny from War Lords/ Gangs running the country, and all it did was turn the oligopoly power into an monopolistic one. Again not any better.

I think we need to address the real question which is that isn't this just part of Human Nature?

We're talking about right

We're talking about right after we get rid of government, right?

1. You can join whatever organizational body you want, but you CAN'T force others to obey your groups rules if they don't want to. If there is force there will be retaliation.

2. We didn't just lose our rights over night. We have been conditioned and indoctrinated into the system we are in now, not forced.

We can just as well opt out when enough people realize what's really going on and what government really does. It's pretty simple if you think about it, moving from a ruled system to doing the exact same things just without force.

I don't intend this to

I don't intend this to necessarily be directed at the Lawyer here.

I think the question coming from government advocates regarding "propose to me a model for how that system would work" demonstrates that someone not only doesn't understand voluntaryism but also doesn't understand how markets function.

There is really no way to pin-down exactly how such a "system" would evolve to meet the varying demands.

Explain to me the next big personal electronic device, or social media application, or what will replace cars in 2100, or... If anyone could do that we wouldn't even need markets, we would just have one guy who decided everything.

To be fair...

The same could be said about Larken trying to pin down Tom by repeatedly asking him to describe his perfect government. "There is really no way to pin-down exactly how such a "system" would evolve to meet the varying demands." Everyone agrees that we don't have that government. Using the fact that Tom doesn't have the perfect government planned out doesn't prove Larken's argument like he think it does.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Like Philosopher said, it is

Like Philosopher said, it is a huge difference. But I don't think Larken was trying prove his point by suggesting that the Lawyer explain every detail. Only the Lawyer brought up that objection. What he was wanting to know was whether his government would force Larken to comply against his will.

essentially though what that Lawyer is describing is a completely voluntary social contract within an anarcho-capitalist "society". He basically is agreeing that people should be allowed to live in such as he states that his government wouldn't force anyone to participate. Well, shit, that is exactly what we are wanting to do - so he is on-board and doesn't know it.

There is a huge difference

There is a huge difference between the two. Tom's position is that there should be some kind of structure(government) to do what he thinks should be done. Larken's postition is let the market decide. Tom wants a structure, with bounderies and limits, and Larken doesn't want any structure. It is therefore obviously incumbent on the individual who desires a structure to -at least in a general sense- flesh-out what that structure would do, could do, and can't do. Nobody asked him(Tom) to get into the minutia of how it(his ideal government) would do it; which is exactly what he(Tom and every other suporter of government) was asking Larken -and every other Voluntaryist- to do, by asking how Volunaty interations between individuals would solve certain problems.

Agreed to a point...

I was speaking more towards the debate in general and not to the specific debate points in the video. I should have been more clear as I melded the two in my comment.

Just as the market would decide in a voluntary society, moving towards the more preferred or desirable outcomes of those involved, so could government if actively directed by the people. Either way, the inability of either side to predict the future (whether it is the structure of a perfect government or how a completely voluntary society would work) does not disprove the points made by their counterpart.

There will always be structure in society. In my opinion, "let the market decide" is a copout. It can be argued that government is the product of the free market. (I know I'll catch flack for that one. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about the idea of government and not the tyrannical maniacs that currently run our government. Groups of hunters and gatherers formed governmental structures in various forms and those ideas and structures have evolved.)

My point is that regarding government, the inability of a constitutional minarchist to predetermine how the market can or will alter government to better function as the people wish is just as moot a point as not being able to describe the workings of Larken's society.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

The government 'market' only

The government 'market' only molds or modifies government to be even worse than it was when it(government) was created. There has never been a government which gave it's people more freedom, then they had when the government was created. Why; because rulers learn the tolerance of the subjects, and push their rule to the extremes of those tolerances. Every generation grows up with less and less freedom as natural course of the ruler(s) pushing the tolerances of the subjects -until one day people realize that they are slaves on the very continent their fathers conquered. This is the natural progression of rulers and governments. There will never be such a mechanism to withstand the natural bombardmant of attacks which rulers and lawmakers wage against freedom.

Rulers and Lawmakers are created to create Stability. Even if the ruler and lawmaker are not evil tyrants by there very nature, trying to create a stable society will lead to tyranny; because stability only really occures with control, and control must by its very nature limit freedom. The problem is that when rulers exert control -put pressure on- a certain area, the 'market' by natural association destabilizes another area, then the rulers control that area -or try to at least, and then nature destabilizes another area. Eventually there is no place left for the rulers to control, and no individual area for the natural forces to express themselves -to destabilize- and the entire system destroys itself, in a most violent display.

That being said, if an individual decides that government is necessary, then they must have a reason why; and if they know that government has always resulted in severe tyranny, and yet they still push for government, then they must also have a reason why. Meaning that the individual would have to have a reason why they think government is plausible even though every government in the history of the world has been shown to turn into a tyrannical entity.

If a person has a reason why, then they must therefore also have -or have thought of at least- ways which to prevent the government from turning into the tyrannical tyrant it has always been shown to become. If someone advocates for government -which they know throughout history eventually kills its own people- and they have no idea how to prevent government from becoming the tyrant it always becomes; then that tells a whole hell of a lot about that particular person.

So, either those who advocate that government will work this time have an idea of a mechanism to prevent government from becoming the totalitarian dictatorial tyrant it has been shown to become; or they are advocating for government -which has been shown to kill its own people- and they have no idea how to stop government from doing that, but they still believe government is controllable, even though history would suggest otherwise -and government advocates have called Voluntaryists wishful thinkers.

I suppose it is my desire to see compassion, understanding, and intelligence in people that I would expect someone who advocates for government to have actually thought out a possible mechanism to control it; I suppose I was wrong.

You are missing Larken's

You are missing Larken's point. See above.

Amazing debate! Just finished

Amazing debate!

Just finished watching it. What great dialogue. This needs to happen A LOT more, especially on sites like this one. I've come to notice voluntaryist never lose an ideology debate LOL

this is awesome (and long!)

Thanks for posting. I love anything that helps our brothers and sisters on here evolve toward voluntaryism. It's a long process and we were all minarchists at some point, struggling to let go of those comfortable, yet self-contradictory, beliefs.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

That Was Painful To Listen To

Sorry. The lawyer was so uneducated on Larken's arguments... I've heard better arguments on call in shows. And the lawyer was so arrogant, scattered, repetitive, referencing movies, asking questions before answering one, kept saying "ya know" and "to answer your question," and he never did answer a question.

Sorry guys. This was a waste of time. Unless you are as shallow as Tom Willcuts... Then you easily have much to learn.

to be fair,

I can see where Tom is coming from.

from the uneasiness of his bodylanguage to his repeated structuring of his arguments never ceasing to assume the mandatory binary existence for 'necessity' of a govt and his inability to distinguish voluntary governmental structure vs. tax-mandated-rule-at-point-of-gun govt, you're simply observing someone who's literally arguing with his own internal philosophy outside: he's struggling to reconcile, IMO.

I've seen it before, many times, because I've done it to others, many times.o)

But to me, the sign of struggle is more important than him either 'winning' or 'losing' the argument, because he's struggling, meaning his mind is trying to sort out his own internal obstacles.

That's a man on an upward trajectory. Besides, considering Grove is more Larken leaning, Tom as Richard Grove's attorney, he kinda 'has no choice' as long as he's on retainer, but TO listen to AnCaps hammering away at his ears. LOL.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I agree. At times it seemed

I agree. At times it seemed like Larken gave him ideas that he had never even thought of before. The reason he didn't have any good rebuttals to any of the voluntaryist ideals was because there isn't any. It's a pretty solid way of being/thinking.

only half an hour into it but....

I just couldn't wait to comment. Isn't it amazing to see that when two intelligent people are debating something so huge like this that nobody is insulting the other and everything stays bang on the point of the subject. Why can't the presidential debates be even half this intelligent? I think I know why. Because this is real as opposed to mainstream media, propaganda, entertainment money hungry bull$hit.
Sooooo refreshing. Perhaps once one removes themselves from the onslaught of BS that is the corporate machine there really is a glint of light way down that dark tunnel after-all. Turn off the TV

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Archons', we are taking our planet back and there's nothing you can do about it!

First principles

simple

Thanks for putting this on

Thanks for putting this on the front page.

Larken is something else.

Larken is something else. What a great mind.