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")


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?


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:

Plus, he has THE most in depth series of interviews with John Taylor Gatto!

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


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

A great mind... ROFL

He's an Anarchist punk. I went to find out for myself, and he shut up real fast. He has no answers. You'll find no truth there. What you WILL find is somebody to stroke an Anarchists ego and to enlist useful followers.

Do tell.

Let's hear the story of how you shut down Larken Rose. Please include the date and location, as well as the details of your encounter. This should be interesting. I know Larken, and plan to ask him for his version of the events. If he knows your name, you may want to send me a private email giving it, to help identify you to Larken. As a point of honor, I will NOT reveal your name on the Daily Paul; Larken is the only one I will share it with.

Put up or shut up.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Tell him I'm here waiting.

His "so you wanna be a king" video.

How about you tell him to come post here at the DP. I'll do it again right in front of all of you. He knows me.

Put up or shut up.

Over 4000 comments on that video,

and you're screaming mad that he didn't respond to YOURS? Oh my Dog. Get a grip. If your comment, whatever it was, was as snide and b!tchy as those you post here, I don't blame him a bit for not responding. Here's a thought: if you believe you've found a logical flaw in Larken's ideas, try presenting it without a lot of gratuitous insults. He DOES respond to polite and serious questions.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Neither do I. Put up or shut up.

"I don't blame him a bit for not responding."

Neither do I. Put up or shut up.

What I do to an Anarchist has NOTHING to do with insulting them. What I do is define them and expose their enormous blind spots.

"Not responding" is how a Anarchist responds to the failings of their BS politics. We had a good long discussion on Youtube, until he realized he has no answers and was getting exposed and embarrassed. NONE of you Anarchists have any answers. All you have to do to expose an Anarchist as a fraud is try to get them to respond to evil. Play devils advocate. My system, a Constitutional Republic is designed to deal with the devils advocates, with justice. Anarchy is a playground for evil.

Go get your "great mind" and tell him to come here. I'll show you what fraud he is.


I won't invite Larken here to debate you. You haven't demonstrated either civility or insight, and I won't ask him to mud-wrestle. I'll shut up now. You win.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Anarchist civility? That's a laugh.

You Anarchists operate with civility? That's a laugh.

What you're afraid of is that Larkin Rose will be exposed as the uncivil fraud he is. An Anarchists bread and butter move is to call people retards, sheep, and imbeciles.

How many times have you had to watch Anarchists betraying civility and destroying any chance you had at masquerading as advocates for liberty and a just civilization. Their hope is to DESTROY civilization and let loose evil on all the "sheep retards and imbeciles".

There's a VERY good reason Larkin Rose can't come here and debate, because he fears justice, and it's coming for all of you Anarchist frauds.

Whats the difference between

Whats the difference between the mafia and government? The mafia doesnt have a 15,000 hour indoctrination system. :)

and... the Mafia have

no nuke-y fooseball
no useless 'secret 'distracted at a mere panty-drop from a $45 Colombian whore' service who work for UK Royals under Treasury Dept, not DoJ
no air-craft carrier
no trident ICBM armed subs

just to name a few...

but unless you cross them, they do actually provide an actual service, to those willing to pay the price. LOL


Predictions in due Time...

"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

Well, their major point was

Well, their major point was that the only reason why government is so powerful is because of the belief in them. They wouldnt really exist without their 12 year indoctrination centers. The mafia would gain the same public acceptance if they had the same schools.

Without public schools, the government wouldnt be so onerous and people would laugh at their demands. They have power because we grant it to them. We grant it to them because of the Prussian school system.


Great watch.

Epic Summary of every minarchist verses anarchist debate in 8 seconds:



Larken Opening up the Whoop Ass

I am about 30 minutes into it so far and Larken is just destroying this guy it's like shooting fish in barrel...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!


I would go the other way.

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 weird thing is, the attorney is

Richard Grove, the TragedyAndHope.com proprietor and the moderator's own personal lawyer! well... at least for his business.

he can out argue his own lawyer? lol. hope they're on great terms.

okay, so to be fair, lawyers are more about procedural jiujutsu than philosophy, so suppose that's a moot point.

I loved this though.

I'd love to see more such debates where minarchists and ancaps truly flesh out the few areas of disagreements: roads (mainly access to private roads for those traveling through), to IP or not IP, private law/arbitration (there are only so many places one can exile for failure to comply to private contracts; and for mfrs, liability civil cases the breadth and depth of indirect tertiary user liabilities/tort, etc), private security (extent of applicable deadly force, and compensation for 3rd party non-participant liabilities in the original contract terms/binding guidelines, etc), and neo-homesteading, land 'rights', etc.

This is where Stefan Molyneux, as well meaning as he is, always falls short. On specific arenas especially in areas where if one's actual intent is to convince and convert others to their way of thinking, it's not just enough to repeatedly invoke 'well, who'll pick the cotton?'-rebuttal canard, as they are at that instant looking at the presenter (ie. Molyneux) for an applicable practical alternative to a proposed philosophical derivative, not just 'well, someone will figure it out, in the future.'

Well, that maybe true and certainly better than the current alternative reality, but those who are on the cusp of 'converting,' want to hear the alternative, there then and now.

I would love to see more of those debates.

Predictions in due Time...

"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

All that needs to be

All that needs to be established to justify an AnCap system is already established. People have a right to enter into voluntary contract and not be forced into social contract. Therefore, whoever wants to secede from this government along with their property has every right to at any time they choose without the threat of violence for doing so. And those individuals may then begin a voluntary system operating in conjunction with or not with the current "US republic".

bump for Larkin

The other guy lost me, within a minute of opening his mouth. He thinks we HAVE to have a government, because if we don't the Mafia will step into the void. And, he says that like it is a bad thing. Seriously, I would rather deal with the Mafia than the IRS. The Mafia has more honor.
And Willcuts entirely misses that we would have the Mafia, the Bloods, the Cryps, and the Oathkeepers, and the Sons of the Republic, and I could contract with whatever agency I wanted. As it stands, I am a victim of a "law enforcement" monopoly, and they have been proven to be drug runners and assassins. How can he tell the difference between the government and the Mafia? The Italian accent?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.


"How can he tell the difference between the government and the Mafia? The Italian accent?"

Exactly. Whatever fills the role of "the government" would come with all of the same problems. Why trade apples for apples? With time, all of the same issues that arise with "government" would arise with any organization. This is the point that Tom was trying to make with his examples of corporations and criminal organizations. To me, much of Larkens' specific debate points are arguing semantics and not pragmatics.

The problem is The People not holding their predominant "organization" accountable to them.

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 people have no avenue for accountability.

If it was the Mafia, I could try to arrange a hit on the dirty bird who done me wrong... all is fair. Under government, any attempt to hold them accountable is foiled by their total control of the justice system.
"We The People" has been trying for decades to bring the authorities to account in the courts, and keep being told they (WE) have no standing. By calling them a "government" we give them the trappings of legitimacy they use to engage in crimes against humanity. I have never seen the Mafia call in a drone strike on anyone. I have no fear that the Mafia will sexually assault me in an airport, and if by chance the Mafia DID assault me in an airport, I would be EXPECTED to defend myself. Only "government authority" makes this society DEMAND that people submit to tyranny. It is a LOT more than semantics.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Evolution of organization...

Without people holding the mafia accountable, through our government to a certain extent, I fully believe that the mafia would also evolve to that level. I agree that the two are very similar, the only difference is that our/the "government" has had the monopoly on many powers for a long time and the longer they go unchecked the stronger they become. Without that monopoly, all of the "bad" things that the government has the power to do would revert to anyone who has the will or ability to do it.

"Under government, any attempt to hold them accountable is foiled by their total control of the justice system." That is only a critique of our current government and is not a prerequisite or necessarily true of every possible government.

People are the problem. I believe that whatever body is the most powerful will have a monopoly on all of those same "bad" things unless they are held to the fire by The People. Whether we call that body a government, a company, a militia, township, collective, the mafia etc. is irrelevant. In my opinion, all of the same problems would eventually arise.

We need to arrange a hit on the government, metaphorically of course. The founding fathers knew all of this which is why they emphasized the diligence of citizens in keeping their government in check by any means necessary.

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.

While I'm not going to show

While I'm not going to show the flawed logic in your argument about the Mob taking over, because I have shown it before; I will say that in a Free Market the motives for violence decrease, and the possiblity for the 'criminal' to get shot or killed increases; thereby reversing the cost-benefit analysis which currently points in favour of criminal activities.

Also, I have asked these questions to illustrate my point of the inability for the Mob to become the Government.

How many Hawians bow to the NY Mob?

How many Hawians bow to the DC Mob?

The difference is that the one in DC is called government; and therefore they get the support of everybody. If the DC mob dissappeared, the Hawians wouldn't all of a sudden support the NY Mob. Therefore, it shows the in-ability for one organization to ever have the blanketed support and control that the entity called Government has.

You say that government is necessary. You say that citizen vigilence is necessary to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical. However, since you cannot guarantee that the citizen will be vigilant you guarantee that the government will become tyrannical. So, by advocating for government you are advocating for tyranny; does it really matter if the tyrany were to come today or tomorrow, you would still know that sooner or later it would be coming, and yet you still advocate for it.

I kept thinking of Common Sense, Thomas Paine

"...and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated."


Tyranny worse now then in Colonial Time?

I would say yes but not because the short comings in the Constitution caused the tyranny. Government is part of the problem but the people are the biggest part of the problem. Had the people listened to the words of Jefferson and remained eternally vigilant we would not be where we are today. Complacency of the people to protect their freedom is the big culprit! As Larkin said if we all stand up and say no the power we are fighting goes away.

I assume your writing this

in context to Larkens and the Mod's question pushing that "Is the end result of our Government more tyrannical than of British Monarchy?". I felt this question was rather fallacious for his point. He is weighing two different extreme's in both time and process/stages. Yes, absolutely our Founding here escaped totalitarianism, has that eroded over time yes, but to say that Government alway's leads to totalitarianism I think undermines and doesn't give fair credence to the other side of the argument. I'm led to side a bit more with the Min-archist I suppose for now.

yes you are correct

I do not believe that government always leads to tyranny.It certainly will if the people are not vigilant in protecting their creator given rights. Government is by its nature controlling of people but it can only control people if the people allow it to happen.

What a pleasure.

Intelligent, honest people debating important issues and ideas. Contrast this to anything that has EVER happened in a Presidential debate.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Michael Nystrom's picture

Bump - Thanks AnCap

This is interesting. I'd like to see more of this kind of civilized debate.

Thanks for posting.

welcome sir!

I too would love to see more civil, cordial, intellectual debates based on merits between... actual intellectuals;o)

T&H & Jan Irvin's Trivium websites are soooo chock full of good stuff; kinda like Mises.org. Unfortunately with the latter, I often never leave the site, for 10's of consecutive hrs! Like cerebral crack... must stay away... well, at least in between baths. lol.

thanks Michael!

Predictions in due Time...

"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

Good debate

I agree about the moderator needing to be a little more neutral, but they bring up some good arguments for each side. The moderator is hard to get through as he clearly is biased towards Larken's side, it gets annoying after awhile and I wish he's just shut his mouth and let the to debater's speak for their represented cases.

There is also a video with Tom Woods and Doug Casey called "Is Limited Government an Oxymoron", someone posted around here; highly recommend that one, and it's only 28 minutes as opposed to 2 hours.


yeah that's it

thanks, for linking it here.