11 votes

Friedman vs. Helfeld: Debate whether no government is better than limited government

Friedman vs. Helfeld: Debate, whether no government is better than limited government


http://youtu.be/jVixPsp5Mzg

Comment viewing options

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

Thought you'd like to see how our friend was doing

Since you caught so much flack for dodging questions.

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

You're being insulting again

Please stop. BTW - I (a.k.a. TheLorax) did answer your question above and I look forward to YOUR ANSWER.

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

Why should I watch this?

I have no expectation this will be any different from the last four or five of these.

- Has the "format" changed?
- Does Jan present new arguments, or is he still reading (literally!) from the same script?
- "Better" in what specific way? All these debates have been very broad in their scope for something with a lot of factors at play.
- Does the moderator actually moderate (e.g. strictly enforce time limits, no double-standard on follow-up questions, no interruptions, & less time debating the rules etc.)?
- Does this debate come to a logical conclusion, or is it cut short with an addendum from Jan?

Personally, I'm done.

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 identify the premises in the statement.

I identify the premises in the statement, which do you disagree with?

1.David said that the defence agencies would normally not fight, implying sometimes they would.

2. If two defence agencies fight that is a mini war here in the United States.

3.Some of these wars will draw in other defence agencies , increasing the scope of the war and have collateral damage that would make life miserable in your city. You don't need too many of them for things to be horrible.

The premises for my conclusion that there would be an increase in criminality are:1. there will always be people that choose predation, they prefer to pick on the weakest links- victims, there are individuals not protected by a defense agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims. Thus, more crime.

Premises for the conclusion that criminal gangs would be incentivized to buy military hardware.
1. With a central government there is no incentive for criminal gangs to acquire tanks, guided missiles, or drones, because that just makes it easier for them to be caught and they do not increase their pool of victims.

2. However, once the state is removed every investment in military hardware increases the amount of potential victims.

3. David thinks that this investment would be unwise on their part. How does he know? Does he know cost-benefit analysis of criminality ?

4. On the face of it, a small investment in guided missiles would increase the potential for extortion enormously. More and more people would just have to give in to the demand of extortion.
5.The same logic applies to foreign tyrants and criminals. David's answer is, he would depend on charity to pay for a professional army that could deter these threats of extortion

6. I think this is imprudent and I would never rely on charity to protect my freedom, and all my property. It is too flimsy a reed on which to support your whole life.

7. I think your chances protecting your liberty and property are greater by socially organizing with people that are willing to pay for such an important service and commit to this legally in the form of a limited government.

Jan Helfeld

Hey Jan

Haha. Thanks for the response. My point was in how you use peoples' own comments to show them their hypocrisy and then they get mad at you for it. Keep doing what you do!

Jan Helfeld's picture

Which premises leading to my conclusions do you disagree wi

Which premises leading to my conclusions do you disagree with?

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Anarchism

1. First of all, I am not saying that all these negative consequences I ascribe to anarchism are only possible, I think they are probable. The probable consequences: increasing crime because there are individuals not protected by a defence agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims; incentivizing the acquisition of military hardware by criminal gangs to increase their pool of potential victims( something they do not do it now because it makes no sense for them now) , an arms race between criminal gangs and defence agencies, as well as foreign tyrants that would attempt to rob and extort the weakest of us , i.e., those that could not deter their aggression; an increase in the possibility of civil war inside United States because all conflicts between defensive agencies with armies have this potential outcome - something that is not true today, even under our mixed system.
I have explained the premises that lead me to these conclusions, I would like to know which ones David disputes. David said that the defense agencies would normally not fight, implying sometimes they would. If two defence agencies fight that is a mini war here in the United States. Some of these wars will draw in other defence agencies , increasing the scope of the war and have collateral damage that would make life miserable in your city. You don't need too many of them for things to be horrible.
The premises for my conclusion that there would be an increase in criminality are: there will always be people that choose predation, they prefer to pick on the weakest links- victims, there are individuals not protected by a defence agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims. Thus, more crime.
Premises for the conclusion that criminal gangs would be incentivized to buy military hardware.
With a central government there is no incentive for criminal gangs to acquire tanks, guided missiles, or drones, because that just makes it easier for them to be caught and they do not increase their pool of victims. However, once the state is removed every investment in military hardware increases the amount of potential victims. David thinks that this investment would be unwise on their part. How does he know? Does he know cost-benefit analysis of criminality ? On the face of it, a small investment in guided missiles would increase the potential for extortion enormously. More and more people would just have to give in to the demand of extortion.
The same logic applies to foreign tyrants and criminals. David's answer is, he would depend on charity to pay for a professional army that could deter these threats of extortion. I think this is imprudent and I would never rely on charity to protect my freedom, and all my property. It is too flimsy a reed on which to support your whole life. I think your chances protecting your liberty and property are greater by socially organizing with people that are willing to pay for such an important service and commit to this legally in the form of a limited government.
In the debate, each of us has a right to define what we consider optimal social organization, David argued that no government was the optimum, I argued that limited government was the optimum. Each of us has to live with the likely consequences of setting up that structure, including the possibilities of deviating from it to some degree. The deviations from limited government I criticize and try to change, but by and large I consider the American experiment a great success (compared to any previously existing anarchist model), providing a great life for me, most Americans and I suspect for David as well. Contrary to anarchists , I don't consider it a failure because we have strayed from the model to some degree.

The deviations from David's model, we didn't even get into!

Our horrible civil war, was one such case of a deviation from the principles of limited government, which depend on the consent of the governed and the recognition that if there is a fundamental difference regarding social organization there should be a procedure to secede peacefully, like I have suggested and offered the anarchists and none of them seem to be interested in it. They appear to have no interest to move to an anarchist zone within the United States and then secede.

2. The more security agencies there are , the more probability there will be more conflicts; and one of the parties will resort to physical force to enforce their view of what is right. If there is no law of the land that applies to everyone, then on top of all disputes we now have we will also have disputes about what the law should be on every issue , criminal law, civil law,, criminal procedure, civil procedure , inheritance law , tort law , penalties , etc. This will also increase the amount of disputes and conflicts, regardless of whether many agencies refer conflicts to arbitration. It also increases the uncertainty of what the law is, which makes business and investment, less likely.
I describe those hunter gatherer societies of the first million years that had no government as anarchy because I view the lack of government as the essential characteristic for anarchism. The point was that there was very little progress during that period, nor was there much progress or a great civilization in the Icelandic anarchist experiment or the Somali anarchist experiment. In fact, all of these had very high levels of predation and poverty. Compare that with the American limited government experiment. It is night and day.

I explained why the government was instrumental in the increased progress; for example, irrigation canals, generals laws like the Roman law and reduction of internal military conflicts, because there was a monopoly of major force in the government.

3. It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of defence agencies there would be under anarchy and how they would operate, and what plans they would offer to their customers , but it is probable that there will be a variety of plans and kinds of defence agencies, some of which would not refer all matters to arbitration, some would be simply alliances of people that feel close and share values, even bad values like white power groups, black power groups, Muslims that believe in sharia law and want to apply it, paedophiles that want to protect each and form alliances, security agencies that advertise better judges and their outcomes in home judicial practice/better than the arbitration, criminal gangs that just want to protect each other and practice predation etc. If they have sufficient military power, nobody will mess with them.
Which ones would go broke and how long it would take them to go broke is difficult to predict, but David seems to think he knows.

4. Voters do not have to be ignorant of political issues or candidates. Nor is necessarily irrational for them to spend some time in making these decisions that effect their freedom, property and every aspect of their life. In fact it is quite rational to do so and responsible citizens within the context of their lives should allocate some time to this value. Not only to vote correctly, but to influence how other people vote and think, and thus affect the social organization in which they live, i.e., their society. One of the reasons we do the correct thing is to serve as an example to others, and thus influence their actions as well. This is one such case when assuming some social responsibility helps improve your chances of having your individual rights respected. It is not just the issues and candidates, it's also the principles.
I spent time discussing political issues, including whether anarchism is the optimal system to affect the out come. If I didn't think I could affect the outcome I would not do it. I act with purpose. Some of these purposes are indirect like I mentioned above.
The anarchist movement is draining the energy of the people that are fighting for freedom and limited government today in this country. It is the logical consequence of accepting anarchism. Don't run for office, don't vote, don't discuss any public policy because they're all wrong because they are all enacted by government and government is '
"ëvil". They are shirking their social responsibility, and if the government becomes even more unlimited, with more infringements on our individual rights, they will have to take their part of the blame. I on the other hand, can rest with a good conscience because I'm doing everything I can to prevent more infringements of our rights. I expose the flaws and contradictions in the flawed public policies, politicians and journalists. You can see my interviews on YouTube/Jan Helfeld and make up your own mind about my contribution.

Jan Helfeld

I have to agree with Jan here

Government is good to have as long as it is kept in check. The biggest problem is when the wrong people gets elected whether its a CEO for a private security company or a government position if its run by the wrong people problems are bound to happen. Corruption is the problem, people in power that only seeks to further their own power for their own personal gains. Corporation come and buy laws for their own benefit.

Politics has been turned on its head because people are stupid, they vote for the most good looking man promising unlimited wealth and no taxes or they vote out of tradition. They expect politicians to lie and don't hold them responsible for their broken promises. Our current system is not viable we all agree on that. IMO though Anarchy is not the solution.

History shows us that anarchy will create warlords(Security companies) that keeps order(rule) over big chunks of land. It is ideal for a security company to achieve monopoly and if someone gets enough power they will likely try to obtain it, because then in their mind they can charge what ever they want for their services if they do so, this creates a war followed by dictatorship followed by a revolution by the people followed by the creation of a state, state grows into an empire followed by its fall when it reaches for world domination and another revolution.

Anarchy is an Utopia, just like Communism a wonderful idea if everyone just acted as intended, problem is people are very different and have very different ideas that is the reason the absolutes never can be achieved on a larger scale. People have very different viewpoints, there will always be those who seek power, who seek to obtain wealth at the expense of others the ultimate goal in my point of view should be to limit the peoples ability to do this.

This is why I see the optimal system for governing is the one that has the lowest potential threat from corruption or has some way of dealing with it. Limited government is the one that so far seems to be the most viable as long as politicians are kept in check by the people and are held accountable for their actions. By making sure that there is a limit to the governments influence and prevent its growth for example making laws easier to repeal than to create, also making sure that no single person is allowed to have too much power.

This is my point of view, people should be allowed believe in what they want but they should not lock themselves into thinking a single way is the only solution, If somehow someone could prove that Anarchy would work in practice (case study and not theory) I would not shun the idea.

Anarchy is an Utopia

There is a quote:

"Anarchy is an Utopia,..."

I think a confession is often as well hidden as the big lie.

The big lie is this:

We are here to help, so pay us (criminals) all we demand (from the victims) and our version of government will save you from yourself, honest.

So those who parrot that lie, or those who know it is a lie, either way, they are one and the same as far as their messages offered to anyone having an interest in their message.

Pay.

Obey.

Obey, and pay, and don't question the payments.

As old as sin.

A big lie.

What about the quote?

"Anarchy is an Utopia,..."

A Freudian slip?

Joe

I love the idea of anarchy

It's a beautiful idea, everyone minds their own business and only trades with others. However it is only viable as long as there is more to gain from trades than from acquisition of wealth by other means.

If an honest trader doesn't have enough force behind him to make his trade worth more than it would be to take his product by force, there will always be the opportunists with no conscience who only look to make a quick buck at the cost of others. Weather he or she is a thug or the CEO of a major security company, if an opportunity rises to get a quick personal gain at the expense of other there are always those who take it.

The anarchy as many describes it in these forums becomes an utopia since in my mind it is not sustainable, because there is no real way to deal with the power seekers. A state is the better alternative to Anarchy, where people agree on a set of laws that they are to follow and with an appointed force to deal with those who don't. While I really wish Anarchy would work I can't see it as viable, pretty much all the models I have seen does not take into account the opportunists in different roles in a society and what happens when one makes a play for power. When I say Utopia I mean it in the sense that it's a perfect society in theory but impossible or next to impossible for it to work in practice.

This is why I am for a limited government, not because I don't like the principles of anarchy but because I can't see it as viable. In a limited government you must set guidelines or rules that prevent power grabbers, if the people doesn't keep it in check it turns into what we have today. That is what we need to work on, keeping elected officials accountable for their action work to reduce the power of the government but not remove it all together. Get the people to act make them understand free government stuff isn't free but we do need a little of it else we end up with something much worse. What we need to work on is how we should make it work and make people understand what the underlying problems are.

TL:DR Anarchy too easily turn into a dictatorship and is much harder to sustain (if not impossible) than a state. If it weren't for how easily it can turn into a dictatorship I would support it.

Words

If words are not understood as a common meaning then words are misunderstood because the meaning is not common among those who intend to use the words.

"The anarchy as many describes it in these forums becomes an utopia since in my mind it is not sustainable, because there is no real way to deal with the power seekers."

Which anarchy are you intending to convey with words?

1.
Any voluntary association in the strictest of sense; meaning there are no criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent people in time and place and that, as it exists, when it exists, where it exists, constitutes anarchy in that time, in that place, because no criminals are currently creating victims in anarchy.

2.
A pie in the sky idea that cannot ever happen anywhere ever.

3.
Chaos, rampant lacrimal behavior, whereby everyone does anything they want whenever they want, and everyone is a criminal, everyone is cutting every other one's throat all the time.

Your words speak to me in the context of 2 above, and so your acknowledgement of your intention to ignore both 1 and 3 above could work well if the idea we share is to communicate to each other accurately, to share what we know about serious problems and vital solutions to those problems, for example.

"A state is the better alternative to Anarchy, where people agree on a set of laws that they are to follow and with an appointed force to deal with those who don't."

What do you, an individual living being, you, what do you mean when you use the word state?

1.
Any voluntary association in the strictest of sense; meaning there are no criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent people in time and place and that, as it exists, when it exists, where it exists, constitutes anarchy in that time, in that place, because no criminals are currently creating victims in anarchy.

2.
A pie in the sky idea that cannot ever happen anywhere ever.

3.
Chaos, rampant lacrimal behavior, whereby everyone does anything they want whenever they want, and everyone is a criminal, everyone is cutting every other one's throat all the time.

In the context of your words my guess (and you can affirm or reject my guess) that you mean number 1 above.

"A state is the better alternative to Anarchy, where people agree on a set of laws that they are to follow and with an appointed force to deal with those who don't."

Criminals agree on a set of laws that they follow and criminals appoint a force to deal with those who don't follow those criminal laws.

Criminals can call what they do whatever they decide to call what they do something.

What do criminals call what they do?

Do criminals call what they do Crime Central?

Hi, the criminals say, we are the criminals, and we will make our victims believe that we are the good guys, so the best of us, the best criminals that stolen money can buy, declare ourselves, with our big signs, our labels, our advertizement campaigns, as The Criminals working down at Crime Central, because that works best for us as we take everything that can be stolen from anyone.

I think not.

I think that the criminals call themselves any name that hides the fact that the criminals are the criminals.

If the word State once meant a voluntary association among defenders of the innocent from criminals, then that is an opportunity for the criminals to use the word State to hide their criminal organization from the victims.

If you are speaking about a voluntary association of defenders who combine their individual powers of defense to effectively defend the innocent from crimes perpetrated by criminals, and you use the word State to describe that process, then we can both agree that you mean what you mean with that word choice.

If on the other hand you are claiming that the volunteers are forced to pay into the State FUND, or be punished for failing to do so, then you can confess that that is in fact what you are claiming.

1. Voluntary association of volunteers volunteering to defend the innocent from the criminals.

2. The criminals volunteering to make victims out of the targets.

Many people claim that involuntary association is required in order to someday get to voluntary association; also known as Might makes Right, and also known as The Ends Justify the Means, also known as the State, also known by many other false names, when behind the false names the same facts are the same facts.

"While I really wish Anarchy would work I can't see it as viable, pretty much all the models I have seen does not take into account the opportunists in different roles in a society and what happens when one makes a play for power."

So, I suppose, the blame for failure to effectively defend against the criminals is blame firmly affixed unto...?

Help me out here.

Blame is, or accurately accountability is, firmly affixed to who, when, where, and why, in any case anywhere?

I have to get going, but this is on my list of things to do, in reading the rest of your welcome words, and offering return comments.

Joe

I often get misunderstood,

I often get misunderstood, I'm used to it by now, I see myself as different from most people in more ways than one, I'm usually the lurker only listening and then make up my mind. I choose to voice out here because I have a great respect and some admiration of Jan. Anyway I'll try to make myself more clear on my definitions on these words Anarchy and State.

Anarchy as it is often described here it's the solution having "no ruler" no one to rule over another. I do not believe that this is viable on a larger scale. It may very well work on a smaller scale but since people are so different there will always be those who choose to follow. In my view it's very common, most people choose to have other make decisions for them they only want to believe that they are the ones making the decision affecting their own life. I really wish this wasn't the case the world would have been a better place if more people questioned the way of things more.

When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in. You elect an official to represent you and so on. The difference from today's system is how you limit it, you should throw in a trigger to start a reboot, like putting in writing something along these lines "the day that these X rules are over written or amended this country is no longer has a limited government, it's now a fascist state and it is your duty as a citizen to stand up to your elected officials hold them accountable and demand all laws to be stripped down to the essentials, remove all amendments and start once again from following only the rules written on this constitution."

I have come to realize that the world works in cycles for pretty much everything. You cannot stop these cycles you can only prolong them but if you do the cycle will get bigger and the bigger the cycles gets the bigger the events of that cycle will be. The world is constantly changing yet keep repeating it self. Different governing systems will please different kinds of people and people are different, very different.

If we look at people as if some were dogs and some cats. Dogs become loyal to whom ever is their master but if they don't have one they become very rude and aggressive in order to become master themselves. Cats don't really care about anything other than themselves they want no ruler nor are they very interested in ruling themselves they just take what ever they want whenever they feel like it. Which type of governing system is most suited for both? One wants to rule or to be ruled the other doesn't. No governing system is without flaws and you can never satisfy all people. Limited government will lead to bigger government just as I believe anarchy eventually will lead to tyranny.

This is what I believe some may see it as flawed, I don't mind that. The only real thing I do dislike is when someone tries to tell me what to think, what is right and what is wrong since right and wrong is completely depending on perspective and in a colorful world such as ours there are many perspectives. I don't mind if someone see the world from a single perspective, they may share it with others but I can't stand people that force it.

Same

TL;DNR

I often get misunderstood too, and I am also used to it by now.

"Anarchy as it is often described here it's the solution having "no ruler" no one to rule over another. I do not believe that this is viable on a larger scale."

If that is your working definition of "anarchy," then we agree with that definition is "not" "viable," but my viewpoint does not add "on a large scale," since "no ruler" is meaningless to me without further explanation.

So the working definition of Anarchy does not work for me, at all.

If that working definition of Anarchy works for someone, then someone can explain how it works, not me.

"It may very well work on a smaller scale but since people are so different there will always be those who choose to follow."

So the working definition of Anarchy that you offer does not work for you either, and that makes perfect sense to me, in that way precisely.

"In my view it's very common, most people choose to have other make decisions for them they only want to believe that they are the ones making the decision affecting their own life."

In my view it is as common to find someone who has chosen to follow as they then choose not to follow anymore, and then they choose to follow, and then not, in time and place - a common occurrence in my very limited experience.

"I really wish this wasn't the case the world would have been a better place if more people questioned the way of things more."

My wishes are such that people are led by falsehood less, that people do not choose to invent new lies, or parrot old ones as much as people do now.

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

Well a solution to that "legal crime" problem you describe above has been offered by people, of people, and for people, again, and again, and again, in the history of people; but it is very good in my opinion for you to make your viewpoint very clear to me.

What you mean, and I can try very hard to remove any doubt at all, what you mean is that the State is a group of people who force another group of people to pay the people doing the forcing.

You mean:

1. A group of people force other people to pay.

2. A group of people forced by the first group above to pay the first group accurately identified above as a separate group.

So your words, and you can correct any errors I may have created as I misunderstand your words, if that has happened in this case, your words describe 2 groups of people.

1. Those who command obedience without question and the order they issue is an order to pay something to this group.

2. Those who obey without question or failing to obey without question the other group will make people in this group pay, one way or the other, these people in this group will be made to pay, like it or not.

If I misunderstood your words, or if I misunderstand you, then the English language may help convey from you to me where I misunderstood you, or where I misunderstood your words here:

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

To me, beyond any reasonable doubt, you are describing a crime in progress.

"You elect an official to represent you and so on."

I will never elect a criminal to represent me. I have no problem voting for Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul understands how free market government works.

You wrote________________________________________
The difference from today's system is how you limit it, you should throw in a trigger to start a reboot, like putting in writing something along these lines "the day that these X rules are over written or amended this country is no longer has a limited government, it's now a fascist state and it is your duty as a citizen to stand up to your elected officials hold them accountable and demand all laws to be stripped down to the essentials, remove all amendments and start once again from following only the rules written on this constitution."
___________________________________________________

Which Constitution? If you are speaking about the crime in progress started in 1787 then it may be a good idea to realize that that constitution supposedly made slavery legal, piracy legal, extortion legal...

Like this:
"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

Call that whatever you want, a State, whatever, that is a description of extortion - unless I am not capable of understanding English words arranged in a sentence.

"I have come to realize that the world works in cycles for pretty much everything. You cannot stop these cycles you can only prolong them but if you do the cycle will get bigger and the bigger the cycles gets the bigger the events of that cycle will be. The world is constantly changing yet keep repeating it self. Different governing systems will please different kinds of people and people are different, very different."

I agree with that general viewpoint so long as I reserve the qualifications required concerning the specifics of each cycle as yet to be accurately identified and understood based upon the observable facts.

Example:
Cycle of defender power more powerful that criminal power:
England during the time of trial by jury working as trial by jury was designed to work which can be exemplified around the time of Magna Carte

Cycle of criminal power more powerful than defender power:
People leave England to find freedom in America; up to 1776

Cycle of defender power more powerful than criminal power:
Time period between 1776 and 1787

Cycle of criminal power retaking control over defenders:
1787 up to recent events

Cycle of defender power regaining Liberty:
Recent events that include universal information anarchy or information free market anarchy in fact

That is a specific cycle, not a general cycle, as the defenders gain Liberty, then the criminals regain control over people, then defenders retain Liberty, then criminals regain control over people, and now the cycle is moving decidedly toward Liberty, or free markets, or anarchy so called.

"No governing system is without flaws and you can never satisfy all people. Limited government will lead to bigger government just as I believe anarchy eventually will lead to tyranny."

I don't equate people with dogs and cats. I equate people as people; some are like rats.

Rats claim that extortion is legal and when all that is left are those rats, then those rats eat each other as the ship they sink takes on water.

The rats eat the people, some eat them literally, some merely eat everything of value that is produced by honest people working in free markets, or liberty, or anarchy so called.

The problem, of course, is the infestation of rats, and the solutions are free market solutions, so the rats prefer not to acknowledge the free market solutions, while regular old people prefer to see the solution, acknowledge the solution, and then utilize the solutions as the solutions are known by the regular old people, the regular old people who are not rats.

Rats = criminals.

"No governing system is without flaws..."

Some systems are designed to be criminal systems, and from a criminal mind (rat mind) the system is not at all flawed.

Like this:

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

That is fraud combined with extortion, as designed, so as to afford the rats the power to take at will from anyone who produces anything worth taking.

Rats love it.

The actual people who make anything worth stealing are targeted victims in that system of crime.

"No governing system is without flaws..."

A fool and his money are soon parted?

Who ever said that any governing system is without flaws?

The idea in free market government systems is the idea that improvement is designed into the system.

Like this: (TL:DNR)

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

Quote________________________
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.
___________________________________________

My thinking, and I can be wrong, my system can be wrong, but my thinking is that Ron Paul understands the meaning of the English words offered in the above quote from the above work linked.

If there is a better free market government system than the one described above, then it will gain market share when regular old people are no longer believing in the lies like this one:

"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

When fraud and extortion forced upon victims is no longer the ONLY GAME IN TOWN, then regular old people invest in something better.

I am going to quote twice as an offer of a demonstrable, obvious, accurately measurable, contradiction.

A.
"I don't mind if someone see the world from a single perspective, they may share it with others but I can't stand people that force it."

B.
"When I said state I meant a government in the traditional sense you are forced to pay taxes to pay for the basic services of the land you live in."

Is my viewpoint of an accurately measurable contradiction flawed; and if so then how so?

Joe

Wow, great reply,loved the

Wow, great reply,

loved the rats part, made me chuckle a bit, the rats would be the dogs in power if we were to compare it to the dogs and cats.

The constitution bit is something I think should be added I should not have used quotation marks, my bad. TBH I read far less literature than I should, but I love to think of problem and possible solutions to them. My ideal is make a repeating cycle that manages to give as many different people a place to live in their ideal.

The example of the 50 united states using different states as experiments of legislation is actually one of the best if not the way to manage the governing system that way you can choose to live in a state that has your preferred way of governing. It has gone wrong is exactly as you described that legislation is added globally thus its effects can is much harder to measure. As I see US (I don't live there but I have some family there) It seems to be too easy to add new legislation and too hard to remove bad laws this is very wrong. It should be the other way around, Hard to add easy to remove.

I live in the socialist society of Sweden in our country we have a great stagnation, we have way too high taxes, and one of the only countries that has taxation on a tax really crazy stuff :P. Some things I like about our society some I don't, for instance we have Allmansright(allemansrätten), that says person can make camp one night anywhere even on privately owned forests, however they must respect nature and not pollute it/destroy it this is a great freedom. The worst is our stupid income tax, it costs ~32% employers tax then of what we pay our employed they have to pay ~32% of what they get, so government takes ~50% of money employers pay the work force, then they add additional protection so you cant fire an employee if they join a union.

The effect of this ends up with employers hiring only the most skilled workers they seldom make gambles, but no worries if you are unemployed you can get a free education to get a diploma that would be good except the employers only take in highly educated 20 years old with 10 years experience work experience since they cant afford to gamble on an employee they cant fire. Genius right?

Regarding the contradiction, I see it as a necessary evil, I don't like it but I see it as necessary else the rats will rise to power using fouler ways. The people needs to hold their elected officials over the fire to a much greater extent than what is done today. I personally prefer my rats well done charred if possible.

Fantastic

Not often do I read words that inspire me to read to the finish before responding in mid stream.

The part of the system in America that may have been very helpful in keeping the rats out of government (voluntary defense association) was an improved version of trial by jury.

When you write this:

"It seems to be too easy to add new legislation and too hard to remove bad laws this is very wrong. It should be the other way around, Hard to add easy to remove."

The answer is this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

In particular there is the following process by which it is easy to remove bad laws:

____________________________________________________
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AND

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
_____________________________________

The idea is very old, having been traced back through many cycles.

Any single reasonable (cats) individual can say no to any unreasonable individual (dogs) as far as any Law Power is concerned.

Bad laws cannot be enforced lawfully so long as the people know about and then utilize the solution.

That is why so much of the stolen power is used to make sure that the victims remain ignorant about the competitive solutions.

Joe

Dictators are all alike

They are criminals. They are liars. They threaten innocent people with violence. They either are aggressively violent themselves or they pool their individual resources into a large pool of resources and then they pay violent people to aggressively injure innocent people for fun and profit.

The criminals prefer to be called anything other than criminals so the criminals invent lies that intend to fool the victims into thinking the criminals are perpetrating lies, threats, and aggressive violence because the innocent victims asked for it, deserve it, or the really unbelievable lie is that the lies, threats, and aggressive violence perpetrated by these criminals is for the good of the innocent victims, to save them, by lying to them, by threatening them, and by aggressively injuring them, to save them.

No lie is too bold, so long as the lie gains currency and the innocent victims are thereby injured by the lie as the innocent victims are led to believe in the lie.

The base lie is this:

Aggressive violence by us (the criminals) saves the innocent victims form the criminals.

Example:
"The probable consequences: increasing crime because there are individuals not protected by a defence agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims;..."

So there is an example of the lie being told by one of the liars. I don't know if this lie is being believed by this liar, but I do know that this liar is a liar, because this liar's lies are documented right here in this Topic as this liar lied about me.

If this lie being told by this liar is believed by this liar, then that is pathetic; as in pathological weak to a point of near criminality. How criminal are the criminals? How criminal are the pathological sycophants who believe the criminal liars?

I don't know the accurate account unless there is a standard measure to go by, such as a body count.

An example of accurately measuring the body count is offered here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Note:
Evidence A:
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FD...
Evidence B:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/
Evidence C:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

The really sick people, those who believe their lies may be helped, but those other really sick people who know that their lies are lies, well, they help themselves.

So this present liar who is helping the really costly liars listed in those sources, may be helped with some accurate accounting, or not, it is not up to me.

I'm not one of the criminal dictators who uses the lie that criminal dictators can dictate my thoughts for me.

Like this:
"Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government. I know you disagree, but make an attempt to see it from my perspective and stop the name calling."

I know what I advocate despite this liar claiming these false claims about me. That is published on this forum, it is demonstrated as a lie in fact.

So the liar also makes the follow claim:

"The probable consequences: increasing crime because there are individuals not protected by a defence agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims;..."

The liar does not state what is the state because if the liar did state what is the state then the liar would describe organized crime and then the liar would confess his guilty mind.

What does the liar claim to be the state if the liar were to describe precisely what is the state?

The liar, if the liar had a fit of honesty, would describe the state as an involuntary association, but waiting for a fit of honesty is not a good idea, like holding your breath trying to out last the liar, to see if the liar might offer an honest description of this state thing.

So, the state, is an involuntary association, or it is a voluntary association, and failing to actually report the facts leaves the facts unreported.

How about an example of what the so called state does?

"Save the children."

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/...

Burn them alive.

Burn them alive after torturing them, experimenting on them, and generally "save" them ever so well, because that is what the state does.

The state cannot do anything.

There are people. People do things.

Here again:

"The probable consequences: increasing crime because there are individuals not protected by a defence agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e. more easy victims;..."

I have work to do but I do want to return to this present effort to defend against the lies told by people, not the lies told by the state.

People tell lies.

Joe

The primary failure with our government is a lack

The primary failure with our government is a lack of Subsidiarity, or the practice of having matters handled at the most local level of government that can be handled with efficacy. The most local level of Governance being the Self or Household.

Defending our borders from invasion cannot be handled at the household level. Establishing and maintaining courts cannot be handled at the household level. There are a dozen or so more things that can't be handled at the household level.

That said, almost all matters that a person or household faces every day, week, and year can be planned and handled at the Household level.

While this is not Anarchy, I doubt you'd find too many anarchists who'd be calling for Revolution if the State/County/Fed only handled matters that could not be handled or planned at the most local level of Gov't, most local being the Household.

In any event, I think you have some very valid concerns about competition where I believe monopolies are better, Defense, Police, Courts, etc, but my main issue would be the transition. I don't believe that Anarchy could ever be created without transitioning to Minarchy first, which has it own set of obstacles that will be challenging.

For the Anarchists

What would the transition from our current system, (not on paper, but in practice) to Anarchy look like.

How long?

Who initiates it?

What are the milestones?

What gets delivered?

Who will pick the cotton?

Clearly chattel slavery was ended prematurely and with little thought! There was no plan. No deliverables! Just because it's evil doesn't mean we should rush into things.

Similarly ending pro-rata slavery shouldn't be rushed into.

Statism will end, if it does, when enough people understand the truth, that no man or women has any different rights or morality than they do. Theft and murder aren't made right because the men doing them wears a uniform, and aren't made right because a majority voted for it, or a king decreed it.

When that starts to happen everyone providing an actual service in a state monopoly will have to learn market discipline. Many will. They have the capital goods and infrastructure to keep their business if they want to and are willing to compete. Metro has the buses and rolling stock. Why would they not use it to profit? Road construction maintenance contractors have graders and bulldozers and business relationships with asphalt manufacturers and concrete makers, why would they not continue to do so for profit? They just need to figure out a business model.

If they don't, someone will. So they have a lot of incentive to do it while they still have a market advantage.

Capitalism always provides, when it is allowed to do so. People in USSR didn't starve when the government stop providing food. A whole lot did starve when they tried to provide it.

The state is simply not going to end

The state is simply not going to end when enough people recognize rights in the same manner. Nor will the change be smooth and painless.

This same fantasy is brought up again and again by Anarchists, that's why I asked.

What is the process to get 'enough' people to understand Rights in the same manner that you do?

How many is enough?

Who is going to take care of the millions of Americans who are dependent upon the State until they can care for themselves?

There are many more questions/problems that require solutions, because if you do not have an organized transition that takes into account all the pain and resistance that massive change creates, then you will have a great deal of chaos and the People will DEMAND whatever it takes to restore a semblance of order. The Central Planners will have plans that sound familiar and 'doable' and the Anarchists will be chided and ignored.

I think Anarchy is a great fantasy to weigh ideologies against, however, being a Systems Architect that specialized in Organized Change Management to a great degree, I can say with some experience that moving from a very Centralized Planning and Dependent society to Anarchy is not unlike convincing Israel convincing the Middle East to convert to Judaism.

You've got deep belief systems in place that the typical Anarchist 'We're smarter and more moral than you' attitude and delivery won't even dent. So whine bitch & complain as much as you like, Anarchy has decades or even centuries of evolution and education before it will become reality.

Minarchy is a reality that can be reached in a decade or perhaps a couple.

If the state doesn't simply end

and does not go gentle into that good night, whose fault is the harm it does in the process?

And how should we count that harm against the cessation of slavery henceforth?

The fantasy is that the Ten Commandments do not apply to men with uniforms. That's the fantasy. The utopian thinks theft isn't theft when condoned by a vote. The utopian thinks murder isn't murder when a flag is waving over the murderers.

That's ignoring reality.

Who is going to take care of the millions of Americans who are dependent upon the State until they can care for themselves?

And they are being taken care of now? What keeps them from having jobs now? What keeps them from employing people? What put the poor in that place? How do you think they will ever get out with socialized education system and fascist everything else?

You do know poverty was in decline until the war on poverty? You do know health care was affordable without insurance until government started subsidizing health care insurance?

Minarchy is a reality that can be reached in a decade or perhaps a couple.

By voting for Rand Paul? Seriously?

Now that is a science fiction mind at work:)

That said I sure hope you are right. Nothing in history demonstrates this can happen, but I hope you are right.

Your fault, for being an

Your fault, for being an incompetent liberty advocate and a thorn in the side of true thinkers and fighters like Jan.

Ventura 2012

Jan is a thinker

which is why it's difficult to watch him try so hard not to do it here.

With you however I have no such disappointment.

Jan is trying to sort out what I suspect is intrinsically antithetical to his nature.

His position here is A does not equal A.

This is not a position a man of logic likes to find himself in.

Theft is wrong, except for some people, when it is right.

When it is right is a purely utilitarian judgment which is why progressives have no qualm with the question, but a man of principle like I think Jan is, must have a qualm.

He says, well without a state things would be worse, ok fine. But worse by what principle?

Bad men can threaten bad things if they are not obeyed. This is essentially what the state is, but minarchists believe occasionally there will be good men running things, although this remains to be proven true.

Regardless surely he wouldn't say that since the result of failing to obey any orders by men with guns will be them shooting someone, that we must always obey men with guns because the results will be worse.

But that is the case being made here. If we stand for our principles, eg that theft and murder are wrong, it will have have bad results.

The problem is if that is the argument, he has capitulated his argument against anything he has previously argued against.

He dominates those arguments because he is on solid principled grounds.

Not only is his argument from effect weak here, it undermines all of his other arguments.

Harry Reid can just say, well taxes at whatever level we set are ok because you'd be worse off without them. Nancy Pelosi can just say minimum wage is good because they make things better.

How can he argue?

He can't. He's ceded his best weapons, logic and principle, for the vagaries of hypothetical counter factuals.

Which by the way he's ill equipped to do in the case of economics, no insult to him, not everyone is expert at everything. But it could be remedied.

whose fault is the harm it

whose fault is the harm it does in the process?

It is ours, but ending the State is not necessary to stop the harm it is doing. Almost eliminating the State down to a Minarchist (Absolute fewest # of laws necessary) will get us to that goal.

The utopian thinks theft isn't theft when condoned by a vote. The utopian thinks murder isn't murder when a flag is waving over the murderers.

That's by far most of America. That's why I asked about a plan for transition. So far the plan seems to name call and belittle non- Anarchists. Reading 'How to influence people and make friends' may be another avenue worth considering.

And they are being taken care of now? What keeps them from having jobs now? What keeps them from employing people? What put the poor in that place? How do you think they will ever get out with socialized education system and fascist everything else?

Certainly, some much better than others. Almost all the government agencies will be quite useless in an Anarchist society. They are so inefficient and produce so much fluff that a free market would create massive unemployment for those no longer needed. Yes the public education system needs to be replaced with private institutions. Almost all gov't needs to be eliminated completely or replaced by private orgs.

Are you not getting the point that Minarchy and Statism are not the same? In fact they are nearly opposite.

You do know poverty was in decline until the war on poverty? You do know health care was affordable without insurance until government started subsidizing health care insurance?

Yep, and energy was cheaper before the Dept of Energy, drugs were not associate with gangs and violence before the war on drugs, and the list goes on. There are 500+ Federal Agencies, there should probably be 2.

By voting for Rand Paul? Seriously?

Your words, not mine.

Jan has had some quality guests

Jan has had some quality guests to debate. I am impressed. Stefan Molyneux, Larken Rose, Walter Block, now David Friedman? This is an all-star list!

It saddens me that Jan has been rude to almost every single one of them, perhaps this debate will be different.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Stefan Molyneux would not finish the debate

Stefan Molyneux invited me and would not finish the debate he asked for.

Jan Helfeld

In every single debate Jan

In every single debate Jan spends a lot of time arguing that the other person is violating the pre-agreed terms of the debate or that the moderator is not being fair to him.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Did you see the debate with David Friedman?

Did you see the debate with David Friedman? No arguing that the other person is violating the pre-agreed terms of the debate or that the moderator is not being fair. That was the format Molyneux agreed to.

Jan Helfeld

Helfeld Interviews

Has Jan Helfeld ever interviewed anyone who didn't want to strangle him by the end of it?

Interview

I interviewed Jan for last week's Lions of Liberty Podcast. No strangling desires sprang up on either side.

http://lionsofliberty.com/2014/06/12/lions-of-liberty-podcas...

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*