-3 votes

Analysis of the Anarchy debate with Block

Analysis of the Anarchy debate with Block


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

How many contradictions did anarchist Block have?

How many contradictions did anarchist Block have? Why so many?

Jan Helfeld

In your exchange around 50:00

I have a question. What if it's a service that was at one time something I wanted, but now, I no longer see that service as worthwhile? How do I stop paying for it?

What if a whole city gets tired of paying for a service? For example, an out of control police force? Enforcing laws that most people don't want at all, in violent, brutish ways? Can they get a refund somewhere?

Just open the box and see

That was a hypothetical

But, I do have a real world, happening now example.

The state of Colorado has used the states own democratic process to clearly say "no more war on pot", if not a glimmering of wanting out of the overall "war on drugs".

The federal government in the form of the DEA, continues to enforce laws in Colorado that Coloradans clearly don't want.

You suggested that if someone doesn't like what the state does, they can leave. What option does an entire state of people have?

Just open the box and see

You have not been able to reconcile the contradiction between

Your position and your own ethical premise.

You believe that we should have a state whose purpose is to protect our rights and property, and the state would then fund itself through forcefully exacting revenue in the form of compulsory taxation from its subjects. Your state regards the very law that it is supposed to enforce with impunity!

You have said that someone would be within the law if he defended his property with force, and if he relied on someone else to protect his property with force, whether it be voluntarily or due to a business arrangement, so long as his actions were within the law.

You have not answered the question of whether or not your state would have the authority to break the law without any repercussions. Even if we assume that there is a different set of laws for your state than for the rest of us(which is what you have outlined for us), how do you expect the people to hold the government accountable to restraining itself to the confines of the law that it sets for itself?

Especially when said government is the ultimate arbiter of justice, and wielder of supreme power.

Why must a government have full territorial control, huh? Ever thought of that? No, of course you haven't. Here is the answer Jan, because it is not about law, and its not about dispute resolution. Its about revenue. You say that people should be allowed to opt out, but they can't take their property. They can't say, "you know what, this government isn't good to me anymore, I don't belong to it. I am not going to require their services, I will contract for them" That is not legal in your society. They would have to leave. Or the troopers would come in and arrest them, and take their things, and throw them in jail.

Public police didn't come about in this country until the middle 1800's Jan. There is plenty of private dispute resolution. There are also many tiny countries that have no military to speak of, who have no fear about being overwhelmed by a foreign super power. Do you think they should pay taxes to the united states because the us provides their protection? And when people tried to leave this country, they were forced to stay by men holding guns, and continue paying taxes.

Let me ask you this.

What is it about a state(by which i define as an institution who depends on compulsory taxation to fund its enterprise) that protects us from any of the potential issues that you present to us in your debates, better than the alternative?






I can't deal with these logical contradictions to my ultimate values because the Socratic method demands eliminating my state hypothesis. I have faith my state gods are not the biggest murderers and largest threat to a long and happy life in human history.


I pray to my state gods every day and render unto them. They will not let me down.


I have faith my state gods can do a better job than any supernatural god designing a real check on power that is superior to competition


I refuse to believe my state gods are anything but holy, divine, and good.


Analysis by falsehood challenged

The false authorities are authorities of falsehood.

There is a competitive, free market, alternative; but the free market, competitive, alternative to false authorities who are authorities of falsehood is not higher quality and lower cost falsehood.

The competitive alternative to false authorities who have authority over their falsehood is accurate accounting.

So the accurate account of the competition is:

Analysis by falsehood challenged, in free markets of ideas, by analysis by accurate accounting.

Watching the video and stopping at

Time: 0:50 or so

Note: The false authorities run like roaches, rats, and vampires from the light of accurate accounting.

Quote from the false authority (authority of their own falsehoods)

Time: 0:50 or so
"Mr. Block said that under anarchism..."

Stop right there.

I met Walter Block in 1996 at a Financial Markets Conference in Las Vegas Nevada where Ron Paul was speaking. I paid to go to that Conference. I signed in, I saw a solicitation for the audience to submit questions to the speakers. My questions were possibly viewed by those who ran the show as questions that would be asked by an anarchist. In fact my questions were ignored, other than, perhaps, someone telling Ron Paul that there were 2 anarchists in the audience, and that is recorded on the Mises Web Page.

Mr. Block, if he now is an anarchist, was not one. When I spoke to him, he was unable to understand simple questions concerning simple free market situations occurring in the world in 1996, having to do with the anarchistic World Wide Web and how that effects trade with China. Walter Block took my question as some twisted version of my question and he looked at my shoes, which were tennis shoes, or sneakers, and he made some odd claim about the price of my shoes having a lower price due to the wonders of free market trade with China.

I could have discussed further, how China was at that time being subsidized through false "free" trade "agreements," as earnings were being stolen from people in American, through the FED and the IRS and those earnings were then being dumped into China to Boom the Chinese economy in preparation for World War III and a new World Reserve Currency Power collecting War Debts out of China, but Walter Block, in my opinion, was, probably is, and probably will be just another stooge hired to parrot the lies that keep the criminals in power.

Walther Block may know that he is just another prostitute, or he may be suffering abject belief in falsehood without question. It was obvious to me that Walter Block looked down on me as cost to him, in time and place, so that conversation ended; by mutual agreement in the free market of ideas.

As to the use of the word anarchism, the following discovery ought to settle any further questions as to the viability of the word anarchism as a useable word used by people who either choose to convey accurate accounts or false accounts.

Obviously the word anarchism is not a competitive word to be used by people seeking accurate transfers of information.

Obviously the word anarchism is a good word to be used by people who seek to confuse, obscure, and falsify the data stream.

Source, and then quote:

The source from which I first found the quote is broken at this time, so that is a competitive source above.

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 an has 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.

From as early as 1876 there has been a battle of words whereby word choices, such as the choice to use the word anarchism, is discussed, and held to an accurate accounting; while defenders of those word choices stand their ground for reasons that they offer in their defense.

Clearly, the accurate account in 1786 is accurate today, as the choice to use the word anarchism as a synonym for free markets and Liberty is a poor choice since the word conveys another meaning at the same time, therefore the word is duplicitous.

The word anarchism causes more trouble than it is worth in conveying an accurate meaning.

If the intention is to convey free market Liberty, and the word choice is anarchism, then the message is often failing to accurately transfer to the intended recipient of the message, as the intended recipient of the message receives the message of chaos, bedlam, rampant, ungoverned, crime running wild everywhere, where everyone is at everyone's throat, like rats on a sinking ship.

So the messenger intends to convey the meaning of free markets, of Liberty, as a governing principle, and the messenger uses the word anarchism as the MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE, the product, the word, the label, the term to use in transferring that intended meaning of free markets governing our Liberty in peace, and instead of that meaning being transferred the opposite meaning is transferred instead, and yet those stupid people still use that duplicitous words, even after the word fails time and again, time and again, or they are not stupid people, they pick that word because that word accomplishes the intention of false accounting.

Stupid people expect a different result from the same choices if only stupid people repeat the same choices enough times, this time, for sure, this time the same word choice will result in something other than MISS-communication.

The word is chosen because the words accomplishes the goal of MISS-communication.

So the authority of falsehood A, this Jan Helfeld authority of falsehood guy, on that video, is challenging this other authority of falsehood, this Walter Block authority of falsehood, and their challenge of each other is to see who spreads falsehood better, and who are the intended victims of their falsehood spreading spree?

In the case of Walter Block, I can't say for sure, not having the accurate accounts before me, in official text, official deals, whereby payments are transferred, but my guess is that Walter Block has invested in the Chinese Boom, so his efforts to MISS-communicate may be geared toward protecting (protectionism) his investments into that benefit for himself, at the expense of anyone who may be paying those bills as World War III goes off on schedule.

Returning back to the battle of liars or dupes, and I can't know which is which without an accurate accounting from them:

Time: 0:50 or so
"...people had the right to secede..."

The accurate account, without the additions of falsehood added to the accurate account, can be found right here:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note: That is not a right, that is a duty, and resistance against criminals includes resistance against criminal frauds, for those who may not know that yet, you ought to see your duties along those lines yesterday, so you are late.

That is the accurate account exposing the beginning LIES told by these two people in their challenge to each other over who has more authority over which is the more powerful falsehoods.

Note again, please, these people WILL not, can not, allow their authority over their falsehoods to be exposed to any facts, such as those facts offered in The Declaration of Independence.

Their falsehoods wither under the light of accurate accounting, and they know it.


Hope you have...

...a chance to debate Michael Huemer on this topic sometime. His Problem of Political Authority is the book I've so far found most compelling in dismantling the notion of the authority of a state.

Or if you could perhaps debate Tom Woods, that would be great as well!

I think these debates so far have helped push me a little more into the anarchist column; although, I haven't let go completely of the anarchist/minarchist fence yet.

I do wish the format of these was a bit more conversational back and forth. Not a huge fan of the one person asking twelve questions in a row, and then the other asking twelve in a row.

For those who can read English

These offers from these imposters are demonstrably false.

The claim of "debate" is false.

The claim of "anarchist" is false.

If these imposters claim that they are imposters, then they may be speaking the truth for once?


Jan Helfeld's picture

Master analysis, watch it.

Master analysis, watch it, especially if you disagree.

Jan Helfeld


If you do another debate in this Q&A format again, here are some questions I think are pertinent. They are tested by anarchist posters in the following link. I would use them along with your great line of questioning that refutes the universality of the NAP:


#1 Explain why Europe suffered under feudalism, which is close to anarchy, and only began to prosper and develop capital markets when the nation state emerged.

#2.Explain why every advanced market economy, from the Phoenicians and Babylonians forward, had a government.

#3. Explain why the children of Israel felt that a government was necessary to protect them from their enemies, and consciously formed a government for that explicit reason. In other words, why was it obvious to them that barring divine intervention, anarchy was insufficient?

#4. Explain why anarchist societies are tribal/feudal/anarcho-communist in practice and not capitalist.

#5. Explain why the breakdown of the military stability of the Roman Empire led to a breakdown of the economic system as feudalism and decentralization increased, rather than exponential wealth creation policed by free market defense agencies.

#6. Explain why he thinks a critical mass of people are smart enough to understand free market economics and institute a stable anarcho-capitalism? Why isn't this a biological impossibility? As a counterpoint, the United States was able to secure liberty for a significant period of time in SPITE of how ignorant the masses were.

#7. Explain why the market produces more political and legal stability, a necessary prerequisite for capitalism, than government.

#8. Explain why the new breed of unlearned anarchist refuses to debate on utilitarian grounds in preference of NAP repetition, when it is clear as day that Minarchists believe that a government secures more liberty and less aggression than anarchy does IN PRACTICE, making the argument ENTIRELY a utilitarian one since there is agreement on moral principles.

#9. Explain why Hoppe's anarchist communities, bound together with a complex web of contractual agreements and necessarily exclusive to anyone that does not agree to be bound, is so much better than a limited government so as to risk returning to feudal devastation.

#10. Explain why anarchists, in their rush to invoke the strawman of "well then you must want world government" against minarchist critiques of anarchist balkanization of social and legal systems, completely ignore the law of diminishing returns?

Ventura 2012

Jan Helfeld's picture

Historical context

Next time I will include more Historical context if I have time.

Jan Helfeld

scawarren's picture

Thomas Paine already gave you

Thomas Paine already gave you some sound answers so why are you asking again?

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

You make no sense

I want Jan to ask the anarchist leaders these questions so he can trounce them like I trounced Thomas Paine

Ventura 2012

scawarren's picture

LOL... okay.

LOL... okay.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

"lol like whatevs"

More anarchist limp wristed girly man-speak

Ventura 2012


You are a moron. Try not to think to hard, it might hurt you.

Are you the

Beta Male moderator?

Ventura 2012

Watched it

I agree with you already though. I don't think the "anarchy = roving gangs with modern weapons" tactic is effective though. It makes them too defensive.

The best debate format on this issue would be to have each side give an opening statement and each side give a rebuttal statement. The strength of the minarchist argument is that the great and overwhelming weight of the evidence is on our side.

Ventura 2012

The overwhelming weight of the evidence is

nowhere near on your side.

Your side is utterly destroyed by two facts:

1. Democide is the leading cause of death. Not ought. Not should be. Not could be, might be, maybe, or possibly. Is.

2. Competition is the only real check against power which is acknowledged every single time your side points out the distribution of current nation states, feudal systems, or other geopolitical social structures formed in a nature of anarchy. Every human devised check against power is artificial.

Jan pontificates about the importance of ethics. Ethics this ethics that. The fact Jan touts the Socratic method is almost laughable:

"The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions"

By Jan's own Socratic method any hypothesis of government is eliminated by the fact democide is the leading cause of death. Death and it's leading causes are the greatest threat to a long and happy life which is Jan's ultimate value. Does Jan apply the Socratic method to democide? Are you telling me there is no contradiction? This is the level of dishonesty the anarchist has to deal with in any discourse.

By Jan's own Socratic method the fact the United States government was not able to prevent civil war eliminates any hypothesis government can prevent a civil war which should be prevented at all costs according to Jan. Are you telling me there is no contradiction for risk of civil war when the most limited government on earth wages a civil war?

Jan mentioning any starting point in ethics is also nearly laughable. Jan's starting point is an end, a conclusion. What manner of philosophy puts conclusions before premises? Is Jan able to provide any premises for his ultimate ends of a long happy life?

In this video Jan goes on at length to make a point if you go to Harlem one accepts the risk. Did NASA astronauts who died in the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion accept the risk? To accept such a risk can it be said their ultimate end was a long happy life? When faced with this logical contradiction does Jan pony up his premises or eliminate the contradiction? No.

Jan complains of not answering questions. Jan, I conclude based on your own statement there must be something wrong with your position because you do not answer my questions.

Since you and I seem to have a different brain structure

I think the best method for our future discourse is to focus exclusively on factual claims and avoid all discussion of opinion or reason-inferences from facts.

Fact claim:

Democide is the leading cause of death.

False. Everyone dies, and most people don't die from democide. Democide is not the leading cause of death. Even homicide + democide is not the leading cause of death. Old age, disease, accidents, I think all surpass democide. How did you not know that? Do you even think about the things you say, or do your facts just consist of whatever justifies your beliefs?

Rummel is the one who re-coined the phrase democide and did the research, and he's not an anarchist.

He concluded that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other[3] (see Democratic peace theory). -wiki

These democide deaths are from totalitarian regimes. There is no way to compare them to the death toll from the endless wars that would result from dismantling all government, a vacuum which we argue would result in lots of little totalitarian structured private gangs and states at war with other totalitarian structured gangs and states. Insecurity leads to state structures that don't put a high value on liberty, because security comes first for pretty much everyone, and then ordered liberty once security obtains.

It is arguable that the death toll was much higher than present democide, even in the totalitarian regimes, as a % of deaths, back when tribes and feudal organizations warred before there were large central states.

There is no comparison of democide to stable anarchy because there has never been stable anarchy, a state of affairs where no political power exists and people don't use political violence. You guys just use make up a definition of anarchy "a state in which no political violence occurs" and then say "no political violence occurs under anarchy" without explaining or justifying why there would be no political violence, after a starting point of anarchy. You haven't shown how anarchical power distribution would be stable.

Jan Helfeld's picture

thank for the explanation

thank for the explanation AND HISTORICAL FACTS.

Jan Helfeld


See, the above commenter doesn't understand the concept of a COUNTER-FACTUAL.

He thinks because no one died under anarchism, that anarchism is a death-free system. He doesn't realize that there are no examples of anarchism because it's an unstable condition, not a system. Every anarchy becomes a government through political violence, and because of the insecurity and instability of the condition, the governments that form from the cooling of such a hot explosion are not concerned with liberty, and the people embrace whatever thugs or totalitarian regime will provide security.

The power vacuum that followed from destroying the German state and replacing it with 50 parties fighting for power, some willing to use paramilitary violence, is the condition akin to anarchy that brought Hitler to power to prevent complete civil war.

The commenter will counter that those are all crimes of the State because anyone who grabs for power and uses violence isn't acting anarchistically but Statistically. Anarchy is not defined as a condition or as system of political power, but is used as synonym to non violence. They are trying to have a tautological definition that can't be criticized because it actually means non violence, so they will claim violence on anarchy is impossible, because any anarchist security agency that uses violence is actin like a State or is a Bandit, and the Good agencies will always win the civil war, because good people always win civil wars or something like that.

By defining anarchy this way, they can equivocally use the term, switching between this tautological definition and the other senses of the word like the condition of no government and a particular arrangement of divided, autonomous force-agencies balancing each other in a proposed stable condition. When asked to justify why such a condition or such an arrangement would be stable, they switch to the tautological definition and say anarchism is by definition peaceful and non coercive, so anyone not acting peacefully and non coercive is a State.

Exactly. This tactic is

Exactly. This tactic is exactly the method used by modern day communists to dismiss the historical record of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not communism because it wasn't a stateless utopia without poverty.

Ventura 2012

I am not even going to respond to

all that because most of it doesn't make sense. Let us apply a a little concept substitution to one of your statements just to see if it passes any muster of making sense.


"He thinks because no one died under anarchism, that anarchism is a death-free system. He doesn't realize that there are no examples of anarchism because it's an unstable condition ... "


He thinks because no one has proven the world is flat, that the world is not flat and is possibly round. He doesn't realize that there are no examples of proving a world is flat because it's an unprovable condition whereas no one who sails off the edge of the world can testify to first hand knowledge of something seen or heard when they are dead.

Pseudointellectual goo

Pseudointellectual goo

Ventura 2012

If the goo sticks, bear it.


Just ignore them

This is where all the people who think they are smart come to rub lotions on each other.


Lol, nice analogy. Have any lotion recommendations?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

made no sense