Stefan Molyneux debating Michael Badnarik, Opening Rebuttal

few comments

he is particularly admonishing of just a "piece of paper" used as a social contract. but, how, other than social contract does he imagine people will adhere to his utopian body and land rights?

in other words, if contracts have demonstrated that they won't work, then they have demonstrated that it won't work. he can't have it both ways. it is not as if in a totally anarchy, people will suddenly respect social contracts more than we did in the past.

i did not watch the rest of the debate, but in the end, my message to anarchists is this:

Anarchy cannot be the goal. Do not advocate anarchy. Rather, let enlightenment be the goal, and anarchy the consequence.

Funny!!

Comments:

1.You cant criticize the Constitution like anarchists do and still say that it is the perfect minarchist experiment.

2. He makes the case that the supply of taxable income necessitates a growth in the size/scope of government. It in no way necessitates a growth in the scope of government. Neither does it necessitate a growth in the size of government . Molyneux is focusing 100% on supply and ignoring demand.

3. His words regarding the Constitution as "just a piece of paper" apply to any contract(no, I'm not saying that the Constitution is a contract). Of course you need the threat of force to back up any agreement.

I wont bother watching the Badnark part, assuming it is online. I listened to one of their debates and Badnarik was uninformed on the issue. Honestly, the only two minarchists that have read enough anarchist material to give a coherent critique seem to be myself and Octobox. Until one of us gets the status or confidence to end up in such a debate, there will probably never be a good one between minarchists/anarchists.

where/when was this and how can I watch the rest of the conference?
You Judge A Tree By It's Fruit, NOT its Flower