7 votes

No Government vs Limited Government - Debate

No Government vs Limited Government, which is better? Debate


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Question on this...

I noticed that at the very start of the video, there seems to already be a bit of animosity and annoyance between you two. I also noticed that you were basically starting over after a false start due to some technical issues. Was there anything that happened prior to the start of the video that might explain some of the hostility, etc.? Seems like we're missing something there maybe that would explain the general tone.

I just listened to an interview of Stefan elsewhere, and it was like night and day compared to this.

Just to stir the pot


I am putting this here because I would like to see such a fruitful debate happen.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Jan Helfeld's picture

Looking for high profile debaters

Looking for high profile debaters and was told Kinsela was one in the anarchist camp. We need more debates to give truth a better chance.

Jan Helfeld

Kinsela was absolutely terrible. I wasted my life watching it.

Sorry you had to go through that.

I endorse His American Majesty to debate anyone on issues of law and liberty. I only know him from conversations we've had here at DP so I really can't know if he has a high profile or not. I can say that H.A.M. is always respectful on DP and I don't believe would ever do what Kinsela did. H.A.M. seems to know the law so well that the lines between Anarchy and limited Government get blurred into one in the same.

I am sure H.A.M. doesn't take the same position as I do, but it is my understanding from my own extensive review of law is that if the law is followed exactly as it is on the books within proper application of common law then the only conclusion can be is that the US is indeed a lawfully and legally organized Anarchy. H.A.M.'s conclusions always seem to be never conflicting with my own understanding and he has taught me some clarifications to the logic I have come to. I do know from H.A.M.'s comments one conclusion we both independently share is that I really don't care what structure or entity takes form as (or not), as long as liberty is maintained and protected. I totally agree with H.A.M. on this point and I think H.A.M. would introduce everyone to another perspective they have never thought of before in such a debate which is why I strongly endorse a debate with him.

I have never endorsed anyone, ever, but at this point I do endorse H.A.M..

From my own understanding of law I honestly can't see how anyone could win such a debate because as I said our form of government is anarchy within law. All of the true sovereigns I see out there doing battles in the 'courts' are absolutely destroying the Judges' and Prosecuting Attorneys' fallacies currently within their understanding of law and I really don't think any people who do not understand their own true sovereignty are even worth debating at all because the sovereigns are at the tip of the spear of liberty. They win on every case all the time and I have witnessed complete Earth shattering mental and emotional break downs by State Prosecuting Attorneys (more than once) in the face of sovereigns speaking truth to power in the courtroom all while they walk away every time even in the face of active conspiracies by individuals in the system against them. From the conversations I have had with H.A.M I believe he has attained the enlightenment of his own sovereign status in law. I can't say that about anyone else here on DP from what I have seen to date.

The sovereigns have transcended both Anarchy and Government because it is actually totally irrelevant within real law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Jan Helfeld's picture

How many times did Kinsela contradict himself?

How many times did Kinsela contradict himself? First he said he would never under any circumstances initiate force but later he said he did not know if he would under certain circumstances. Any more contradictions?

Jan Helfeld

initiating force

An anarchist who believes in the non-aggression principle and property rights does not contradict himself when he says that he may initiate force against an innocent person.

Believing in the NAP means that you accept the consequences of retaliatory force whenever you violate the NAP. You have to compensate the person whom you harmed for the losses you caused them and you agree to this as a proponent of the NAP.

Our founders were not stupid

It is Liberty and Justice for all, or Liberty and Justice for those who can understand and afford it.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

No government would be nice

but I don't think it would last long. Too many evil bastards among us. At that will never change.

circular logic

Too many evil bastards among us.

If there are too many evil people, then it would be dangerous to create an institution where some people have the legal right to rule over others because the evil people will want to be part of that ruling institution.

People are bad so we need a government made up of people, to protect us from people who are bad...

you misunderstand

the evil ones would be the creators of the government and force it upon the rest of us. Honest, moral people don't need government.

Only if they can fool a majority of the populace into

believing they need to rule. And that is the case right now. Only the spreading of the ideas of the true nature of government can change that.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Disappointing debate.

Stephan Kinsela is an interruptive, condescending ass and a very poor representative for anarchy. There are many far better spokesmen for anarchy such as Molyneux, Rose, Block. I hope someday Jan will be challenged with defending the state in a debate with a polite, knowledgeable anarchist.

He has debated Molyneux and Rose.



Thank you for the info.

I watched both debates last night. Rose was very good. Molyneux was excellent, but plagued by sound problems throughout.

Time 7:13

I stopped at that time so as to comment.

"Justify aggression"

A room full of children.

Some thing, looks like a man, but acts like a beast.

The beast goes into the room full of children, takes one out, and devours the child.

I justify my aggression upon that beast, and I can go even further, if a false anarchist (yes there are frauds in that group too) prevents me from justifying my aggression on the beast, then I may justify my aggression on that false anarchist too, as the beast moves to the next child, and the false anarchist effectively prevents me from justifying my aggression.

I can listen further to hear what other false anarchist offers of words spew forth.


"The State is a criminal organization."

That is a confession of duplicity. If there is a crime in progress,then it is a crime in progress, so adding to the crime in progress is the crime of covering up the crime in progress. Why call a criminal organization anything other than a criminal organization? What is the purpose of claiming that a criminal organization is a state?

If the criminal organization is a criminal organization then the obvious criminal cover up includes the invention and use of false front language, in the effort to hide the criminal organization behind those false front words like: The State. So who aids and abets those criminals by helping them cover up their criminal organizations with those false words, those false fronts, such as: The State?

In this case it is the supposed Austrian Anarchist doing the covering up work.

9:00 or so

"We have anarchy between the states..."

That is meaningless unless the author of those words confesses a few obvious lies.

1. The so called anarchist aids and abets the criminals as the so called anarchist helps cover up the criminals with false fronts that include the false front called The State.

2. Those criminal organizations that the so called anarchist helps with their cover-ups, are bound by the Money Monopoly Crime Syndicate, as those criminal organizations are anything but competitors against each other, they are co-conspirators engaged in the same crime, in each criminal organization, which can be called "States" by people who choose to help cover up the crimes perpetrated by those organized criminals.

3. If anarchy exists, or if a free market of government exists, it does so in the form of insurance. Those examples of free market government anarchy existing in the past, or now, or in the future can be accurately accounted for as such, if anyone cares to know, including anyone in that "debate," or anyone reading this Forum Topic.


The supposed anarchist publicly exemplifies libel upon his intended victim. In the anarchy I know such behavior can inspire a justified punch in the nose. I don't defend our common Liberty by punching people in the nose when libel spews forth from libelous people, but some people do, as a natural fact that can be easily proven in many cases.

It is not a good idea to spew forth libel in anarchy (Liberty), as the libeler is often informed of the error in no uncertain terms.

I do not justify a punch in the nose by the intended victim of the libel, but I'm not my brother's keeper. My choice of defensive effort is to expose the libeler as a libeler in fact. Libel is powerless when the falsehoods are accounted for accurately.


Person A claims that person B has been eating rooms full of kids. Person B has done no such thing; yet there is a pile of bones, no more kids in the room, and someone is still busy eating one of the kids. Person B is not the one doing the eating, as Person A claimed. Person C is the one doing the eating. So the libeler, in that case, happens to be covering up for the actual eater of kids, in that case, as the libeler perpetrates that libel upon Person B. Person B easily defeats the lie by producing the actual facts of the case for anyone to see in case they care to know the facts of that case; perhaps after that then Person B punches Person A in the nose.


The so called anarchist speaks about rights as the so called anarchist commits an ad hominem attack upon his targeted victim?

Double speaking, deceptive, duplicitous, lies are matters of record, whereby the lies can be traced back to the source of the lies, in point of fact. Why are people inspired to perjure themselves in this way? What is the point, what is the interest, for someone to document their duplicity in public in this manner? Are they so convinced in their minds that they are right, while they exemplify wrong, that there is no way that they can see, on their own, their own duplicity?

Time 11:09 or so:

"Weather the State commits aggression? A very simple question..."

This is an extremely powerful fabrication of legal fiction. Those people caught up in this falsehood are apt to attach blame, responsibility, and accountability, onto things, such as a STATE, or a Limited Liability Corporation, while those people who actually do perpetrate crimes are thereby ignored, unaccounted for, and helped in their need to cover up their crimes so that they can perpetrate crimes perpetually, because effective defense against crime is thereby neutralized through that cover-up, by that device known as Legal Fiction.

That lie is so pervasive that my guess is that Jan Helfeld will not catch it. I can listen to see if Jan Helfeld does catch that falsehood, and hopefully Jan Helfeld can expose it.

"Can aggression be justified?"

Joe Kelley here, I can offer a competitive answer in what remains of our Liberty, while our common defense remains powerful enough for me to do so, as a free market offer of ideas.

a. I will defend those children in that room as the criminal takes them out to eat them, and I will also act aggressively upon those who may get in my way at that point in that example case.

b. I see no problem in justifying Jan Helfeld punching this so called anarchist squarely in the nose for the libel being spewed for from this guys mouth.

"Do you think the State commits aggression?"

No. A thing does not "commit," because a thing has no power to decide to "commit," or not "commit" anything. The question is an example of a mind that is either infected by a very serious falsehood or the one offering the question in this case knows that the lie is a lie, and the one offering this question willfully gives power to the lie for reasons that can be uncovered in time and place. Perhaps the speaker has a vested interest in perpetuating the lie that a thing can be held accountable for crimes perpetrated by people.


"anarchy will necessarily result in..."

Here is the same problem of failing to agree upon the definitions of words.

The so called anarchist is no such thing if the meaning of anarchism can be elucidated precisely as exemplified by two of America's Anarchists in American History.

This first example is the First American Anarchist Josiah Warren, who explains Anarchy in his work titled Equitable Commerce:


"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all."

And next is Benjamin Tucker:


"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

So the argument between the so called anarchist and Jan Helfeld is merely a result of failing to agree upon the meaning of two words?



Those are easily defined as:

Government = effective defense against crime

Anarchism = do no harm

The obvious agreement to do no harm is the obvious solution to the crime problem, so anarchism is, by that definition, the highest quality and lowest cost government, whereby government is reduced down to the absolute minimum that is possible.

So why are these people arguing?

Are they paid to argue for the sake of arguing, and if so, what is the rate of pay, and who is paying these people to argue?


"...a monopoly..."

Jan Helfeld appears to be constructing a THING that is then held accountable for actions done by people. The THING being constructed, apparently, is an all powerful STATE, to be held responsible, and to be held accountable, for something, such as protection of people, or defense of people.

In point of fact the best working governments are strictly voluntary, such as the examples in England around the time of Magna Carte, the example provided by the Icelandic Commonwealth, the American version of a Federation between 1776 and 1787, the Swiss example, and perhaps even Holland.

The solution to the crime problem is anarchy so long as anarchy is understood to be a voluntary association, so long as government is understood to be an investment into the common defense of people, by people, and for people, so that people remain connected to people voluntarily instead of people being connected to people criminally.


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

The voluntary nature of the association remains to be the POWER of free market forces applied to government, so that is anarchy (Liberty) working for the people, by the people, and of the people as a means of effecting the common defense of those people.

Why argue?

Why not listen to the facts that are easily available, and easy to understand, if someone cares enough to listen?


Jan is pressing upon a vital point at that time concerning how much defensive power is required as an effective, peaceful, deterrent against an accurately measurable criminal power.

The case of our American history provides sufficient evidence to exemplify this power struggle. Defenders of Liberty included those people working in America at the time of The Declaration of Independence, as some people were working for an effective defense against organized criminals. The same word games were working at that time to confuse people. Instead of accurate identifying "The British" as criminals, nothing but criminals, there were many people known as Tories, or Loyalists, who could not see clearly the demarcation line crossed over by criminals when criminals become criminals as criminals perpetrate crimes, such as was being done to people by criminals in those places at that time.

At that time, in those places, there were the crimes of money fraud and false government, or organized crime, exemplified by the so called Bank of England and the so called British Crown, as those organize criminals were perpetrating the crime of fraud (money monopoly fraud) and extortion (hidden by the false label of "tax") and here is where the debate could actually be focused on in a very specific way. With one question:

Do you think that taxes are voluntary investments made by investors or do you think taxes are involuntary transfers of purchasing power taken, involuntarily, from earners to those who then have that power to purchase?

If the later is the answer, then in my opinion the individual who shares that lie, is either victim or criminal, because an involuntary payment is the definition of the crime of extortion or the crime of fraud.

In Liberty a tax is a voluntary investment into a common defense fund, and as soon as the people who are hired to manage the fund start financing their monopoly control of the fund, is the moment that the investors stop paying into the fund, or at that moment when they fail to realize that their voluntary association has been made into an involuntary one, by criminals, their failure to stop the payments becomes a crime in progress whereby the victims grow weaker and the criminals grow stronger each payment that is transferred involuntarily.

Summed up this way:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

If someone like a Jan Helfeld claims that taxes must be involuntary then such a claim goes against historical fact, and is, in fact, a confession of a falsehood. If someone like a Stephan Kinsela claims that every government is involuntary then such a claim goes against historical fact, and is, in fact, a confession of a falsehood.

If these people who confess these falsehood do not see the error, then they are not willfully giving power to the lie, but they are giving power to the lie, so it may be a good idea to know better, if that is the case.


Jan Helfeld appears to fail to accurately account for the usurpation of police powers in specific places whereby the so called "police" are the dominant criminal gangs, and those criminal gangs are financing the criminal drug pushers, the criminal extortion rackets hidden behind false "tax" extortion payment "plans," and criminal armies of criminal mercenaries hired to "destabilize" areas where valuable resources are then captured by the dominant criminal gang - World Bank, International Monetary FUND, World Reserve Currency, Dollar Hegemony, whichever false front works in any case.


Jan Helfeld speaks about the time period between 1776 and 1787 when voluntary government did work in America well enough to drive off the criminal army of aggression hidden behind the false front of The British. Jan Helfeld also describes what happens when criminals take over that voluntary association, but perhaps Jan Helfeld is unaware of the Usurpation that occurred in 1787, whereby the criminals did take over America with their Con Con Con Job, and their Monopolization, or Consolidation, of the working Federation under The Articles of Confederation, a voluntary association (anarchy or Liberty), and then putting in place a false front hiding a crime in progress, which was then called The Constitution.

That so called Constitution made slavery legal, according to the criminals, and it made piracy legal, according to the criminals, and it made extortion legal, fraud legal, and the "suppression of insurrection" legal, according to the criminals, so in effect The Constitution made The Declaration of Independence illegal, according to the criminals.

Those who were working for a voluntary government power, such as a federation, worked to add The Bill of Rights to that so called Constitution.

Perhaps Jan Helfeld and Stephan Kinsela are unaware of those facts, but why would they be unaware of those facts? Those facts are easy to find, easy to know, and anyone claiming to know anything about government or anarchy, by our American example, ought to know what they are talking about, should they not?


"...receive an extortion note..."

The criminals hidden behind the false front of The British exemplified said extortionists. The answer to that demand to pay the extortion payments was formulated within The Declaration of Independence.

Then, after that war, the same extortion and fraud scam was tried on ex-Revolutionary War veterans in the criminal organization known as The State of Massachusetts. The answer to that demand for those extortion payments was the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion or the last battle of the American Revolution, depending upon who tells the story.

The criminals won, and the criminals continued to extract their extortion payments in Massachusetts, but Daniel Shays, and others, fled that criminal State, voting with their feet, to Vermont. Those events inspired the criminals to create the Con Con Con Job of 1787, to hatch the plan to Consolidate (criminalize) the American federation (voluntary/anarchy/Liberty) into one Monopoly Crime Organization.

You guys didn't know that? Why do people listen to these guys?


"...you don't have a U.S. Army to protect you..."

The volunteer army defending the Federation of competitive, free market, States, between 1776 and 1787 worked despite criminals infiltrating the rank and file volunteer army.

Example 1: (during actual free market government)

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces."

Example 2: (after the criminal take over of America)

"...the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit..." Meaning: crush the spirit of Liberty, voluntary association, volunteerism, which is anarchy when defined by anarchists such as Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker, not libelers like Stephen what's his name.


"...under anarchism...bla, bla, bla,"

Failure to define the meanings of words whereby those who agree to discuss ideas, and actions, agree to the meanings of those words, is the cause of disagreement on the outset of the effort to discuss ideas and actions. Why proceed from disagreement at the start?

What is the point of claiming to enforce a word definition in cases where the definition of the word is not agreed upon in teh first place?

If anarchism is defined precisely as Liberty, no additions, no subtractions, the Liberty can be used instead of anarchism. If anarchism is defined in any other way, then that other way must be agreed upon as the useable definition of the word used during a voluntary discussion of ideas, or, the discussion will be confusing because of the failure to agree upon the meanings of the words used in the discussion.

Another of America's first anarchists, so called, warned about the use of the word anarchism. The label anarchism stuck, despite that warning. Here is the warning:


Stephen Pearl Andrews:

"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek Arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix anhas meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it."

Josiah Warren offered a similar warning concerning an unjust dependence upon the practice of dictatorial definitions of words:


"496. Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it."

Liars, on the other hand, make a living out of twisting the meanings of words:



It's as if Stephan was

It's as if Stephan was attempting to act as an anarchist caricature, not someone who was trying to have a debate.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.
-Patrick Henry

Stephan is an example

of why anarchism is not practical. Stephan, imo, has a lot of soul-searching to do.

Though I do not oppose anarchism, there are always others who will take advantage no matter what system is in place. Anarchy is not synonymous with voluntarism and/or non-aggression principle, both of which I do support.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Government is a passive word for dictatorship

I do not consent will not consent, except under duress with my fingers crossed hence dictatorship.

Is dictatorship better than freedom that is the true question here.

Slaves need masters as much as masters need slaves.

Government is just a form of slavery.


Jan, do we have have the right

And therefore the legal justification to respond with force if our rights are being violated by force?


Jan, let me answer your drowning question,

since Kinsella was too busy insulting you, being a douche, and avoiding the question.

If I was in that situation, I would climb into the boat and violate the boat owner's property rights to save my life. However, I would be willing to face the consequences. Thus, if the boat owner decides to be an ass and to sue me for trespassing afterwards, I would face him in court. The judge may award some nominal damages against me, which I would happily pay rather than having drowned, and everyone will know the boat owner is a total asshole. The news will spread and the boat owner's reputation will suffer. Since most people would not think twice about saving a drowning person's life, I can't ever imagine this situation arising, but there is your answer. I don't see a conflict with the non-aggression principle.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Jan Helfeld's picture

Kinsela contradicts himself

First he said he would never under any circumstances initiate force but later he said he did not know if he would under certain circumstances.

Jan Helfeld


Kinsella(and anarchists) are the ones that adopt rigid religious dogmas and disguise them as functional, real-world political science

Ventura 2012


...had to bail on watching that so-called debate. The disrespect and ad hominems on the part of Stefan derailed the whole thing.

Would be interested in you having a more civilized debate with someone like a Tom Woods or a Michael Huemer on this topic, if you're able -- would probably be a much more insightful and enjoyable experience.

holy crap

Is there a more condescending person on this planet that Stefan Kinsella? That was incredibly rude.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

I couldn't watch past each opening statement

This was poorly moderated and the "no government" side was very obnoxious and rude. I agree with the other commenter that neither side won and there was one loser.

I must vehemently disagree with Jan on his statement:

"If you think things are bad now just wait until you have anarchy. If you want to see what it would be like, just go to any city ghetto where the police refuse to give protection and you'll see a neighborhood divided in territorial gangs, where everybody's life and property are at peril."

Ghettos are not the product of anarchism or a lack of government. Quite the opposite. Ghettos usually start when politicians and Wall Street cut shady deals that bring in big industry, that later closed down or move away over more shady deals. With the town devastated, government justice starts unfairly targeting the poor and minorities. Next, the family unit is broken because Dad's in jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. There's still no jobs and because Mom has no job skills (thanks to public education), she desperately turns to prostitution. Meanwhile the children, without parents and any hope for the future turn to gangs for survival and support.

EDIT: Let's not forget the flood of government assistance (e.g. low-income housing and welfare programs etc.) to "fix" the problem, that never seem to accomplish anything but require a constant flow of taxpayer dollars.

"Thanks government!" --TheLorax

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Jan Helfeld's picture

I didn't say Ghettos are the product of anarchism

I didn't say Ghettos are the product of anarchism or a lack of government. I said ghettos, where the police will not enter, resemble the anarchy .

Jan Helfeld

Hey Jan, want to modify your statement again?


If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

C'mon, you're being disingenuous

Of course you didn't say that -- you just implied it. You want the benefit of associating spooky language with anarchism without having to defend your statement. You and I both know how this goes:

If I were to ask if you thought ghettos are the result from a lack of GOVERNMENT POLICE protection (since anarchists do not oppose private police), I'm sure you'd accuse me again of misrepresenting you. But if this has nothing to do with police protection than why did you bring it up? Because. Spooky language.

Plus, you've already weaseled out of saying "ghettos are the product of anarchism or a lack of government". No doubt because you realize anarchists never claimed ghettos could not exist under an anarchist society, but we already know they do under government.

So then, if I were to put on my Jan Helfeld hat my first question would be... Do you think ghettos are more likely or less likely under an anarchist society, as opposed to our current form of government?

Can you give me a direct answer or will you clarify your original statement on exactly what point you are declaring?

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Ghettos are the result of our

Ghettos are the result of our particular kind of government preventing order from being imposed or restored by property owners in a specific territory.

In that sense, it resembles the kicking off point of anarchy, before order is imposed by the winning gang, i.e., coercive government. Only by preventing this from happening is it possible for a political vacuum of low level gang violence and near anarchy to be maintained indefinitely.

Without enforced anarchy, anarchy would just end in the winning side which would ameliorate the disordered violence with more ordered violence, allowing some kind of markets and profitable trade to develop.

Also the drug war the 'government' levies against them


The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...