6 votes

I Invite You Know Who To Debate

I Propose The Topic: Law And Order Derived From Just Or Unjust Exercises Of Power.

I Propose The Following Definition For Government: An entity which can operate as a person, place, or thing depending on official functions performed, possessing or pursuing a majority of force over a given geographic territory, exercises authority not possessed by ordaining constituents who constitute its source of power, uses property it does not own without regard to rights of property owners, asserts it is not a moral agent capable of liability, and asserts it's official actors enjoy limited or unlimited liability for official wrongdoing.

Limited statists are going to have to step up to the plate here because it is not so much about how many entities provide protection services over a given geographic territory. If there is just one in a free market because it does such a dam fine job, great. It is about the source of power and authority because this is what trespasses against a man. Is it a justifiable trespass? What is the remedy for an unjustifiable trespass?

Clearly Jan argues a position which asserts if it is an exercise of power by a government, that in itself justifies it. One of the points Jan was very concise about in a recent debate is that there must be one body of law which applies to all people. How does Jan justify one body of law applying to all people? Not even god is a good enough justification for many people so I really look forward to a wise response. He must have one. He is wise enough to recognize a principle must have an end by asserting that precise point recently.

I will vehemently rebut any argument based on fear that civilization would go to hell and a hand basket without government. That is not reason. It is predicting the impossible, the future. It is fear mongering. There are already enough people living in fear which is a reason things are the way they presently are.

I am not all that picky about format and have no problem remaining quiet when it is not my turn to speak. I prefer a format which allows for a point to be asserted and rebuttal made. I prefer each side an opportunity to assert points. I prefer each side an opportunity to pose direct questions to the other. I prefer each side an opportunity for an opening and closing statement.

I await Jan's acceptance or rejection of my informal proposal.

Comment viewing options

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

Where and when...

...and shouldn't you volunteer to pay Jan's expenses or adequately compensate him for his time?


can be paid from any monetary fruits I have received for taking time to post conveying information others have benefited from or found useful in some way. Currently, that figure is zero. Is Jan's time more valuable to me than mine? No. Why 'should' 'I' offer to compensate him for that which I receive no compensation? Are expenses for internet debate via Skype ver. NSA unusually burdensome?

Do I possess any reputation valuable in a society which could possibly benefit from any debate with Jan? No. One can only obtain such a benefit in this society with a valid form of government identification which I do not possess. I live in a society where there is no law making anyone liable for obtaining a government identification or government permission to live, work, marry, travel, own property, or pursue happiness yet try to do any of those things without government identification or permission. I will not offer to compensate anyone who advocates rule of law yet obtains all manner of government identification, permits, or licenses because they are afraid to live as free people and hold their own government accountable for its trespasses by any means necessary stipulated in the very Constitution they proselytize.

I have been motivated to spread ideas by pursuit of truth not profit. My costs to pursue truth are high and profits non-existent. I have no moral dilemma clearly articulating if Jan expects any monetary gain he can obtain that from posting video to his YouTube channel or asking supporters to visit his web site http://janhelfeld.com/ and click the donate button.

One thing I am not doing is putting a gun to Jan's head and compelling him to debate. He is free to accept, decline, or ignore for his own reasons which I question not. Nor do you see me making comments to egg him on or throw mud in his face by whether he responds or not. I have no feelings to be hurt by his acceptance or rejection.

Jan determines what his time

Jan determines what his time is worth. Not you.


determine what services or goods I will purchase and what price I am willing to pay. Not you or Jan. Do you have some agency for Jan or speak on his behalf? What good or service is Jan offering that is of benefit or value to me? I do not recall you mentioning one in the comment I ought to pay.

Not to be rude, but are you

Not to be rude, but are you out of your mind?

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy.

The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough. -Neils Bohr

Dont bother

I have been trying to get Jan to answer my question for weeks now...


He's not obligated to respond

He's not obligated to respond to anyone, is he? Are you presenting your questions as a nuisance or a business opportunity?

You can see for yourself:


I have been chasing him around since his first julie borowski anarchy interview. He humored me after the kinsella debate only because i promised to deliver an pvote(which i did)

Read the comments and you tell me whether or not he is running away.


OK, but what is your point?

OK, but what is your point? Are you trying to lay out a semantic trap to make him look foolish or inconsistent? Are you competing with him?


Not semantics though. I really want to know what type of government he believes is necessary to protect out rights, whether or not violence is inherent in its existence and if he sees any contradiction with the ethical premise that he holds.


Personally, I think you

Personally, I think you should stop bothering him.

Right so...

This is an online forum. I'm not stalking him. I responding to his own comments that he makes in an online forum. But yeah, I probably will, just because he refuses to answer the question and expose himself to his own hypocrisy.


I've never seen Jan articulate his position

If you have that please point me to it?

I could be wrong but I infer he's a rule of law guy. Whatever the law is it should apply to everyone once made. A law which respects who a person is, is the antithesis of the rule of law. The rule of law doesn't exist if enforcement doesn't happen to certain people, which is what we have today and is the worst case scenario. Even if it was, if laws explicitly referenced certain people or groups for special protection/punishment then it's not the rule of law. IE affirmative action.

Rule of Law is a step in the right direction, and if we had that it would be better. But it is a bit of an intellectually and morally truncated position to hold as the final goal.

If the king makes a law that public nose picking is a capital offense and the king is seen picking his nose in public and tried and executed. The rule of law obtains. But was that justice? Would the other people killed for picking their nose think they received justice, if they could be asked? I don't think so. The king received the same injustice, although he deserved it most of all.

The fact that a lawmaker is subject to the same law will tend to make most laws more fair, but it is not a guarantee.

Still I would love it if there was an amendment to say anyone in government may neither be excused from any law, and punishment for breaking the law will be trebled for anyone in government.

The rule of law would be preferable to what we have now.

An interview with me would be very short.

"Do you believe the government should protect the people from theft?"


"What about taxes?"

"Taxes are theft."

"Do you believe the government should redistribute wealth?"


"What about foreign aid? Social Security? Making the world safe for democracy?"

"No, no, no."

"subject to the same law will tend to make most laws more fair"

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


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

And this is rarely enforced

Except occasionally by the feds against a state entity. Never enforced on feds.

The law can't make the law abide the rule of law. This is a perfect example. The ninth and tenth amendments are another. They are on completely ignored. Quoting the law at the law is an exercise in futility.

It is however useful to point out however that the law only applies to us and not to them, so that people will lose their religious reverence of threats written down on paper just because they are threats written down on paper.


You stated my point precisely.

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

Starting with falsehood?

"An entity with a monopoly of force..."

Is that a definition or is that an obvious effort to deceive people?

Legal Fiction?


He just debated Larken

He just debated Larken Rose, and lost horribly, although he didn't seem to know it... Larken got him to admit that he would kill Larken if they both were in a boat and it was sinking and only one of them could live... Larken even got him to admit that Jan would kill Larken even if the boat had the threat of sinking... and Helfeld was proud of it!

Larken's position was that he would do everything possible to survive but would not violate the non-agresssion principle, and certainly would not even think of killing Jan to save his own life.

From what I see there really isn't much to debate with Helfeld because he doesn't listen and just makes stuff up when he starts losing... To quote someone else: "Fifteen minutes in and Helfeld seems like a pretentious, disrespectful, holier-than-thou, armchair philosophy douche"

You would do better to just have a debate with the wall.

Aggression in order to save

Aggression in order to save one's own life in the face of imminent death? An interesting question. I guess if such an unlikely scenario were to present itself, all bets would be off and survival of the fittest would come into play. This is not an argument the state can make.

Jan won in SPITE of that

Jan won in SPITE of that tactical error. All Rose could do is start whining about how Jan "wants to aggress all over him" lol.

Ventura 2012

Wow that's so opposite of

Wow that's so opposite of what happened. It was Jan who got Rosey to pretend he wouldn't fight for a spot in a sinking boat, but Rosey couldn't stay consistent on the point and it was clear he hadn't even thought about the proper context of adhering to his ethics, and he wasn't even sure what his ultimate end was, whether Humanity or his own self ownership, which he couldn't define. It was a devastating second half dominated by team Jan.

Why debate?

How about consult and listen offensively.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

No need for offense

The defense is awesome.

But seriously, why not debate?

I understand the OP's frustration

as I've challenged 2 "3rd Party" Chairs to debate Platforms on DP Radio while being the Chair of another Party myself
and neither have gotten back to me.

The names are less relevant, however I can't help but think that the premise I was arguing perhaps already clinched the principal point.

Is "His American Majesty" the

Is "His American Majesty" the jerk-off I just witnessed debating with Jan, and making a complete fool of himself with constant insults, interruptions and a condescending attitude? Stephen something-or-other?

If that's you, I hate you. You just made me look like a dumb-ass by association because I am also a volunteerist. Jan deserved better than to have to put up with you. What a black mark this debate was on volunteerism.


that was Stephan Kinsella.


You are making yourself look like a dumbass by your comment.

Say what you will, that

Say what you will, that debate was a travesty. I was embarrassed watching Jan have to put up with that guy. I get annoyed at people who represent volunteerism making such fools of themselves, and by contrast, the concepts we represent. Absolutely no excuse for his disrespectful attitude and childish behavior.

I propose the first round

of the debate to be about whose arguments (anarchist or minarchist) will convert/bring more people to the side of wanting less government (zero or minimal). 3, 2, 1: START!

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

Haha, excellent

Haha, excellent

Ventura 2012