7 votes

No Government vs Limited Government - Debate

No Government vs Limited Government, which is better? Debate


http://youtu.be/j008XRdL23M

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jan Helfeld's picture

debating is the truth's best chance

I will be scheduling more debates because debating is the truth's best chance. I will go a few more rounds.

Jan Helfeld

Robert Wenzel

Debate him.

Surprise!


http://youtu.be/xMoPBDz5ycA

Larken saw your argument coming. Too predictable.

How is large scale war

How is large scale war between governments which may involve weapons of mass destruction and genocide preferable to gang warfare on smaller scale?

What is the difference between a government violating rights via consent of some of its members and a gang violating rights via consent of some of its members?

Is it somehow preferable to be forced into a cage filled with violent thugs at gun point for refusing to give up your private property as opposed to being beat up by those thugs outside the cage for refusing to give up your private property?

Looked out my window today YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT I SAW!

This stuff is crazy, take it all, you can have all the panties in my panty drawer as well.

I don't get it

It's a picture of a home in a suburban neighborhood under normal law juxtaposed with a wrestler. Weird, but not informative.

Politicians = "would be tank drivers"

What if the government is just a group of crafty "would be tank drivers" Jan?

And Jan you give them the ultimate pass, you are nearly their ally!

These "would be tank drivers" got a degree, a nice suit and tie, and Jan said "As long as you don't roll the tanks out... you can steal my kids for 8 hours or more a day to serve in indoctrination camp, and you can steal 50% or more of all my productive efforts; oh and you can do it to all of my neighbors too!.... Just please, no tanks and mohawks."

----

So these "would be tank drivers" never got to roll up their sleeves and show off their tattoes, waste a whole bottle of gel forming their mohawk or spiked hair style, and strut their stuff behind the cannon of a tank; their rightful blaze of glory, their shining moment, their destiny.

Thanks Jan.

----

Jan, now I realize you are on the anarchist's side. See, you're so sneaky, so clever, you even fooled the politicians.

Secretly, you are grinning deeply. Because you know it just burns their bum, the politicians, that you DENY THEM, you are their master Jan, you so punked them, you pwned them, you denied them of their dream TANK RIDE Jan.

You had me going. That was clever. Good eye Jan. Way to see that clever angle. I didn't even notice we were WINNING so spectacularly. Yes. High five bro. Rock on. Cue the Queen soundtrack, cause we are winning haha, yeppers.

I will feel a small sense of pride the next time I look at some of these 6 figure "would be tank drivers," stuck driving in Limos and Mercedes instead of tanks, forced to cut their hair instead of mohawk it, forced to wear Rolexes instead of of spiky wristbands, and stuck wearing Armani double-breasted suits instead of their glorious tank top uniform decorated with studs and leather tassels.

Feel that burn you politicians, you "would be tank drivers." Nanni Nanni Poo Poo, Jan denied you, denied you of your tank ride, and my dad can beat up your dad.

When the govt rolls tanks down your street, what will Jan say?

When the ONE AND ONLY example of the shining "limited government" concept, the United States has led us to tanks on your streets, I wonder how Jan will spin or backpedal...

Since Jan's argument that "it is highly cautionable and dangerous because I fear it will end in... tanks and oppression."

And that will have played itself out in front of Jan's eyes.

Jan Helfeld's picture

I explained in the debates why anarchism ends in gang warfare

It is not that I fear maybe gang warfare will happen, I explained in the debates how and why anarchism NECESSARILY ends up in gang warfare. Which premise of mine do you disagree with?

Jan Helfeld

Government warfare also

Government warfare also happens/happened/happening. We have had a century of almost constant war between governments, and it may end in nuclear holocaust. How is this preferable to smaller gangs fighting, but without access to printing press money, mandatory funding from people who pay taxes and weapons of mass destruction?

Is it not true that all of the scary drawbacks people fear about a stateless society are already experienced in this age of governments? Indeed, how are governments "not" just gangs that got big and stopped raiding villages, but rather just moved into them?

A stateless society is only possible when the vast majority of people decide they do not wish to violate other people's natural rights, and also have the means and technology to defend themselves and their communities. That day may never come, however lets not pretend that we are not living in an age of gang warfare today. We are.

In the end, there are only two possible outcomes to this contest between freedom and coersion, and it all boils down to two things, information and weapons techology:

1) One gang, because of superior technological means rises above all others without any possibility of competition so that they can rule unopposed over their dominion. Tyrannical society rules into the foreseeable future.

2) The human race develops the technological means to overpower criminal gangs and governments and reject that anyone has the right to deprive others of their rights. Voluntary society emerges until criminals find a way to overpower peaceful people again.

Its hard to say what will happen, but what is clear is that we are on the path of option 1, and there has been and will be catastrophic loss of human life until one of the super-gangs currently battling manages to become the one-world-government. Then things will get really bad.

The minarchist view is naive because it denies what governments actually are, and feels that the force of government can be contained. A laughable notion when one considers that small government requires a vigilant population who understand rights and are educated on political and economical issues.

The anarchist view isn't naive because we hold no illusions that it is a dream that can be realized currently. We understand that massive societal and technological advancements must first occur.

In my opinion, the only way that voluntary society can exist is when everyone is more-or-less equally armed and deadly. As Jefferson said: When governments fear their people, there is liberty. When people fear their governments, there is tyranny. I would expand and say that when some people have superior force over others, there will be governments. When people fear committing crimes against other people, there will be freedom.

I guess I just don't see how

I guess I just don't see how an acknowledgement that one is willing to violate the law in an extreme case somehow invalidates the law? If the lives of my daughters were at stake, I would commit nearly any crime under the sun to save them. Unlike Mr. Rose, I don't pretend altruism when push comes to shove. I look to my own, long-term self interests. While adhering to NAP is almost always in alignment with those interests, it is contrary to those interests for my family to starve to death. While its almost impossible for me to believe id ever be in a situation where my only avenue to feed my family would be crime, I don't doubt for even 1 second that if it was, I would become a criminal in the minimum amount necessary. Every human places their own self interests highest, its the same reason I might also club and devour the other guy in the boat with me before id starve to death (a big maybe there).

For example. If I was utterly unable to get food for my children for some inexplicable reason, and I had to trespass and steal apples from a tree someone owned to feed them, I'd do so. Under no circumstance would I believe I hadn't committed a crime however. Someone who follows NAP has no excuses. They may feel their crime was justified, but they still know it was a criminal act and would therefore understand when the owner demanded restitution for damages.

The problem with governments is that they commit the crimes, but pretend they are legal, and convince their citizenry that these crimes are their right to my property. Governments are crime, institutionalized and stamped "legal." Governments are a lie we use to sanction theft and murder to satisfy our criminal impulses, greed and intellectual dishonesty. they are the ultimate abortion of law. There is no such thing as a society without crime, but at least in a voluntary NAP society, we don't pretend a violation of someone's right to life, liberty & property is anything other than what it is; a crime.

I have more respect for the Mafia, because at least they own up to what they are.

Jan Helfeld's picture

It does not invalidate the law

your question: I guess I just don't see how an acknowledgement that one is willing to violate the law in an extreme case somehow invalidates the law? - It does not. The law is correct but it is not about the law, it is about the moral principle NAP and the fact that it is a contextual absolute so you need to know the context in which is formed i.e. the purpose and the facts integrated by NAP.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

So many comments and so few votes.

So many comments and so few votes.

Jan Helfeld

I think comments matter more

than votes.

Votes don't really do much other than make the poster feel good but comments actually get the back and forth conversation flowin'

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

i will upvote if you answer these questions:

Do you believe we have a right to respond with force if our rights are being violated with force?

and

Do you believe that we need public police to protect us from the use of force?

Séamusín

Jan Helfeld's picture

Generally, but it depends on the context.

Generally, but it depends on the context.

Jan Helfeld

letz start with the use of force?

Do you believe that it is legally and morally acceptable to hire a protection agency as long as they limit their business to protect your rights with out violating the rights of others, unless in response to the use of force or threat of force to them or their customers.

Séamusín

Jan Helfeld's picture

Yes, within the law and hopefully a limited gov

Yes, within the law and hopefully a limited gov.

Jan Helfeld

Great!

Do you believe that the the government should have the right to break the law?

For example, do you believe that a policeman or politician or soldier has the right to use force to infringe on your rights?

Séamusín

Can we please

separate ourselves from this Jan Helfeld guy?

Who is he? Just a pariah. Certainly not a person who has any intellectual standing.

He's just a guy with a dubious degree who has done some good work confronting obvious dickwad politicians. Good on him for that. But please, he is certainly not fit for serious intellectual debates, as this case certainly shows.

Cut The Cord.

Jan Helfeld's picture

More than 2 million libertarians have seen my Sen. Reid interv

More than 2 million libertarians or others have seen my Harry Reid interview on you tube. What have you done to confront statists?

Jan Helfeld

Let's define terms...

You're a statist, clearly. Almost a raging statist as the above video clearly demonstrates.

So, in the final analysis, I really needn't have accomplished much to have outdone you.

I used to like Jan Helfeld...

Before I watched his debate with Stefan Molyneux and this "debate."

I don't like how rude this guy acted, and I don't like how childish Jan acted about "the debate format." Are you here on camera to spread some ideas, or look like a little effing kid crying about "you said the rules would be...."

And Jan's questions were silly. THE ANNOYING extreme examples that libertarians give. Drowning, falling from a building, you are in a burning building, you are dying of thirst in the desert...

None of these examples are going to happen, so they are not relevant, it is like wasting time with the argument of "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin."

There are real over-arching issues that are REALLY HURTING us. We are not bogged down by extreme examples that are PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Jan Helfeld's picture

You missed the point

You missed the point that anarchy NECESSARILY leads to gang warfare. I spelled out the premises one by one in the debate that make it so. Which premise do you disagree with?

Jan Helfeld

All offense...

You turned into a real jerk in all 3 of these debates that I listened to, and I listened to every minute. I think Kinsella realized what a jerk you were to Larken, and the low-class tactics you CHOSE to use, shouting over people, presuming your conclusion (gangs with tanks) rather than arguing from principles, using examples like "you're dying of thirst, one man holds a gun to your head and tells you to steal, you are in a sinking boat..."

And you dislike Kinsella's use of ad-hom, BUT YOU are dropping ad-hom left and right. Saying "that's the difference between you and me, you would...." That is ad-hom, it brings the ARGUER into the ARGUMENT. When the arguments just stand alone.

But you have lost all my respect and earned an un-subscribe.

Jan Helfeld's picture

To all the anarchists I did the debates for

To all the anarchists I did the debates for - (that's you): Anarchism NECESSARILY leads to Gang warfare which leads to civil war. It is not just the individuals being victimized, it is one gang against another gang, criminal or otherwise, creating a civil war. No war has ever been as bad for us as the civil war. Good luck defending yourself against criminal gangs with tanks, tomahawk missiles etc. not to mention predatory tyrant nations.

Jan Helfeld

Government leads to

Government leads to warfare.

Anarchy leads to gang warfare.

Of the two, governmental warfare is vastly more dangerous and even has the capability of extinguishing life on Earth.

I'd say anarchy is the safer route any day.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Gang warfare leads to civil war

Gang warfare leads to civil war. It is not just the individuals being victimized it is one gang against another gang, criminal or otherwise, creating a civil war. No war has ever been as bad for us as the civil war. Good luck defending yourself against criminal gangs with tanks, tomahawk missiles etc. not to mention predatory tyrant nations. Did you watch the debate?

Jan Helfeld

No war has been as bad for us as the civil war?

What is that assumption based on?
What was the cost of war as far as lives and debt compared to our modern day wars?

At least back then there were people fighting on THEIR LAND for reasons that were their own. We now send our military force to any country who opposes us and destroy them for 10+ years.

I would rather have ZERO government personally. The government is the largest criminal gang there is and I see nothing wrong with average citizens owning tanks whether they are looked at as criminal gangs or otherwise. We will always be demonized however unlike our government we would only use them IF the need arises.

Will there be some who try and take over towns and cities and do evil? Yes but at least it is localized and can be dealt with. Neighboring cities and states could come in and help IF they feel the need is there.

Good people are everywhere even those who own crazy weapons. I see the scary anarchist criminal gangs getting wiped out by the good in no time flat.

Local law could be very powerful and with that, each locality can decide what their laws can be. If you don't like an area, you move and if you don't they will odds are move you out by force if need be.

As far as other nations. If we STOPPED going around the world fucking with people they wouldn't have a reason to attack us especially if we stopped printing FRN and lived WITHIN our means. We are not meant to be the most prosperous nation in the world but just another piece of land in this world with a ton of people on it.

Most governments are building up their military and force because of what WE do. If there was a crazy nation doing what we are doing everywhere, why wouldn't another country do the same?

Everyone is so scared of the big bad boogie man coming to get us from russia, china or some other world power but I think that just means you watched WAY TO MUCH t.v. growing up and falling for all this b.s.

Why is it that other countries are not in war, many haven't been in a war and others were simply in one because they were occupied or ran through.

Oh no some scary country is going to nuke us!!!! Without a government who has no capability of protecting anything what will we do LOL.

You are a funny funny guy

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

But we already have all those

But we already have all those things under this system of government's Jan, including the American Civil War which was a larger government conquering several smaller ones. We already have predatory tyrant nations praying on smaller weaker ones. I live in America, the king of predatory nations who picks on smaller nations. The world is rampant with criminal gangs armed with tanks & tomahawk missiles etc.. its just we call them governments and pretend they have legitimacy just because those on their particular gang's turf, for the most part, approve of them. Guess what, member's of the Mafia approve of the Mafia, and may even vote or have political influence on which members hold power within their structure. It doesn't change what they are, and at least criminal gangs admit it.

How can you have a civil war in a stateless society? What kind of gang warfare could compare in the scale of horror to what Hitler did, or the nuking of Japan? Or even the battle of Stalingrad? For one, without the state, they wouldn't be able to print money which would vastly inhibit their ability to wage mass-scale war or develop weapons of mass destruction.

I should note, I think that a stateless society based on NAP "currently" is impossible because governments exist, and the first to give up the notion would fall victim to those who still employed governments. A stateless society would be unable to stand against a government gang in this current age.

But then there's the argument that we are already living in an age of anarchy without governments, but its not based on NAP. We live in a world controlled and dominated by banks and mega-corporations. Is there anyone who honestly believes that the president of any country still controls anything? Governments have been reduced to an enforcement class of thugs for these banks and corps. It IS the mafia, only it has the "perceived" authority to use force because people still seem to think that their gang has legitimate authority as they can participate in rigged elections.

It's important to note that anarcho-capitalism based on NAP is a vision of the future, not a workable model for the present. However I believe its inevitable in the not-to-distant future because of technology and mass communication. As trade and information begin to flow freely, as drone technology becomes more accessible to average people and begins to make traditional weapons of war obsolete, and as governments loose control and begin to crack down harder and harder with brute force, I think the paradigm of this brutal age of government will begin to close.

The shape a stateless society could take is anyone's guess, though it will almost certainly need to based on companies who trade over vast distances making a net of trade routes where any given company may have a profit margin to meet in multiple "countries" across the world. Why would McDonalds want to use its contractor to bomb a place where it has business interests?

All I can say for sure is that all the things people fear about anarchy, the warfare, the chaos, the destruction etc. is it's already here today. Governments are what gangs become when they acquire the sanction of their victims. Their destructive capability and ability to commit all manner of crime and get away with it skyrockets when a gang becomes a government.

There is a reason that democide, to this day, remains the #1 cause of unnatural human death.