I like Jan's interviews a lot, but everything he said in this debate, after his opening statement, was lacking substance. No arguing from first principles, no concept, nohing. It was the old "Anarchy is chaos and destruction" line, the same thing people are telling Jan about limited government when they haven't studied Minarchism before. The only cliche he forgot to mention was "what about the roads". Sadly, Stef took the bait and let the debate start at such a low level.
A more purposeful conclusion from this debate MIGHT have been..that Minarchy is only possible from an educated population..and that Functional Anarchy can also only be a reality once the Gov shrinks and the people are ready....
Sorry, I tried to get through this but Jan's first speech was just a litany of baseless fear mongering assertions about what he thinks would happen without the state. I'm sure Stefan's responses would have been good but I can't watch this any further without wanting to strangle Jan.
Please, by all means, if you can see a way anarchy could survive the ensuing onslaught from all the world's ruling elites, then enlighten me, coz i would dearly love to be truly free. It just seems to me to be a utopian pipe dream that has zero chance of success.
even if the country to turn anarchist first was a large one (unlikely) such as USA, then the other 2 would work together to destroy it. The ruling elites of the other 2 would stop at nothing, they would probably even just nuke it, not to take over the tax structure,but to destroy anarchy as a concept,. otherwise, if they didnt they would be encouraging their own destruction. they would never ever allow that.
...ONLY interested in destroying anarchy as a proposition, they would fund the DROs with their stolen tax money and destroy the anarchist society from within. I dont really see any way for the anarchists to stop this from happening. Remember the foreign capital would not necessarily be interested in profits they would be interested in destroying anarchy to safeguard their future profits. I dont think the DRO model has chance of working unless all world turns anarchist at once..unlikely
i would add to your comment "in theory". There has never been an anarchist society so no one really knows. I do agree that an anarchist society would likely be smarter and wealthier, but say in todays world - if any country you choose turned anarchist, one or all of the big 3, USA, Russia, China, would stop at nothing to destroy it. They would first take over the DROs and corrupt them. They would not be interested in making a paltry profit they would be ONLY interested in destroying
Jan's vision, of sections of the population divorcing themselves from government control, is perfectly plausible. Historically, governments have always happily accommodated this type of action with warm farewells, Belgian chocolates, and "Call me" hand gestures.
The fact that Jan is staying calm the entire time and Stefan gets angry at several points says a lot .
I had more respect for Stefan before watching this, he uses several emotional charged responses instead of intellectual ones which are in effect strawmen (for example: the wars and the treatment of the native americans, neither of which Jan or minarchist libertarians support).
I hate to say it, as i dream anarchist dreams every nite, but once the DROs were taken over by foreign capital, as is inevitable, then there would be no way to ever minimise their power. I think the only hope anarchy ever has of succeeding would be if all the world turned anarchist at the same time. Otherwise foreign concentrations of wealth will work to destroy it, and would succeed as the anarchists would have no way to defend selves, even with limited DROs or arbitration organisations.
Whats the deal with the unnecessary fascist moderator?
Its a real pity this debate turned into a farce...I think (even tho he is not a good orator) that Jans his examples were valid. Wouldnt DROs be bought up by foreign capital, corrupted, and then turned against the people they purport to represent. The tanks would be built overseas with overseas money, there would be no way for the anarchist society to be able to defend itself. Once the tanks came ashore the dream would be over.
@sidvidkid Although my gut agrees with you, I still don't fully understand Stef's argument for why this wouldn't happen. However, if you add Stef's other ingredient—peaceful parenting; a multi-generational change—then you have a population that wasn't raised on violence and coercion and doesn't look to "great leaders" (insanely violent sociopaths) to obtain what they need by any means. Jan seems to imagine himself a courageous pragmatist, but perhaps he's just hopeless and brutalised.
@sidvidkid remember that an anarchist society would be ridiculously wealthier and smarter than a statist society. Even the most powerful foreign government would be like a retarded rodent compared to an anarchist society. But even if as you say foreign governments fund dro's that just means that it is all the more profitable for now dro's to protect its customers from corrupted dro's. The wealth and advancements of all governments combined would pail in comparison, so they would not be a threat
Stefan... you are too smart for this crap. Seriously. Your intelligence and quality is too high for this. From the poor transmission, to the lousy moderating, to the absent-minded opponent. Painful to watch this, brother.
Limited government. You can steal that much this way just don't steal more the other way. When you hear the phrase limited government what it means is a limited plunder.
They can't drive the tank up to your house. How about this. Every neighbor hood could pool money on an anti-tank neighborhood watch. There. What a stupid f*cking question. No wonder Stef didn't want to keep this going.
Jan Helfeld makes lots of claims. He's just a claim-makin' machine. Not argument, no reason, but lots of claims. I guess this is why Stef doesn't debate so much now.
I've heard it said that people get the government that they deserve. Is it possible that we'll have a government (and a corrupt one) until the people of our society change and can live without one. So corrupt people = corrupt government?
The moderator should use common sense and listen to the debate to know when to call time up. You don't interrupt before an answer is given to an important question such as "what went wrong with the US experiment with limited govt." which wasn't even answered.
I agree with Jan. That's why I'm a minarchist. It's human nature - when you don't have, you take what someone else has. With no law enforcement, the thugs would become the law enforcement. Do you get it? In south america the busses stop, the thugs get on, collect the 'tax' from the buss driver (protection money), and the bus drives off. The thugs become the new gov't, taking over property and collecting tax. Right now the thugs is our gov't. If you just LIMIT them, it's' all good.
The institution of government is state-sponsored thuggery. If you're worried about thugs violating rights, the worst thing you could do is have a government with a monopoly of violence to use against people. Thugs don't become the new gov't when they are funded by their customers. In order to maintain customers, there must be assurances that there is no predation against people, which means cooperating with dozens of other entities which provide checks and balances.
It's nice to have debates like this about ideologies who are pretty close in the spectrum,and have small specific differences ,instead of those standard polarizing liberal vs conservative,atheist vs theist etc.
Stefan seems to think everyone is as smart as him in society. But if you look at our society, people are scammed out of their jocks all the time. They do not do due dilligence on things. His ideas do not match human nature. The telephone is full of people trying to sell scams. His idea of how society will check and balance is pure fantasy. Humans come in all types. They are not all like him. If they were, we would not be in this mess. But we are. Was he ever scammed?
It makes no difference whether people are as smart as Stefan in society or not. It becomes a system based on reason and incentives. In the scenario of using violence or predation for "justice" that wasn't done, you have to look at the possible outcomes. If you acquire military weapons to blow someone away, you are doing so against your customer's wishes, your shareholder wishes (possibly), the negative press you would get, and all of the marketplace who would refuse you.
The common problem you both recognize but fail to address is: The criminals have and do migrate to the government. AS NOw! Solution: DO NOT HAVE ELECTIONS! Rather, randomly select people from the population, and often, so criminals cannot rule. Also, limit wealth. If you want happiness, the flatter the wealth profile, the more happy everyone is. This is fact. Say max 25 million. That should satisfy most, I think.
Randomly select people to populate the government? You want to randomly select handicapped people? Children? The elderly? What if someone doesn't want to be elected?
$25 million for everyone? If everyone has $25 million, then the cost of everything just gets inflated. What solution is that? Also, just having money is not synonymous with happiness. Finally, majority happiness should NEVER be the goal even if everyone COULD be all made happy with abundant wealth.
Stefan Molyneux is a master at bombarding his opposition with words in an attempt to win an argument. And the loud alarm beeping to signal when time was up? Seriously? The moderator was an amateur.
I would like to see an example of how, even in our current system, anyone who was not a political ally to the government powers has committed a crime and ran off to join the military or something comparable. Despite some of the dumbest laws, I think they've been somewhat consistent in at least attempting to prosecute these kinds of people.
Anarchists and socialists share the same metaphysical view on man, then diverge from there. They agree on fundamentals, but disagree on the solution as to how men should deal with other men. Statism views, that man is a beast that needs to be locked in a cage for his own good. Anarchists view, that man is beast incapable of constructing a proper cage to place himself within. The intellectual heart of Libertarianism calls for a social state of: anarchy. Both are wrong.
@pulsatingremedy They share the same metaphysical view on the nature of man. If you are a student of philosophy, then you will grasp the significance of my comments. Anarchism comes in many variations. There really are socialist-anarchists. One group uses anarchy as a tactic to destroy the existing government. The other really is socialist-anarchist, example being Noam Chomsky (as illogical as it may seem). Anyway, I am simply pointing to the root of anarchism.
@pulsatingremedy Socialists often define themselves as state management of economic resources. In contrast to communism which is state ownership of economic resources. This is a lie. State management vs. state ownership is meaningless. If you cannot dispose of your property as you see fit you do not own it.
There's our problem. I define communism as a classless and stateless society, just like Marx. I also use socialism more or less as a synonym, just like Marx.
@pulsatingremedy There is a word for the concept "stateless society", it is called anarchy. You definition is non-essential, nor a conceptual differentiation.
Humans are not robots, where you can just program their behaviors and have them function perfectly, thus the state will just fall away.
Yes and Marx defined communism as a classless and stateless society and I take Marx as a decent authority on communism. So to define communism as state ownership is to disagree with Marx his definition.
Please notice that anarchists from Marx his time, the classical anarchists, differ from the anarchists today, the anarchists of today being mainly anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist.
@pulsatingremedy You can define anarchism is some particular sub-context, or hyphenate it endlessly, it does not matter. Reality first. Anarchy is anarchy, period.
There is no making sense out of Marx. Marx is one long bazaar chain of rationalist deductions. Marx called humans “biological robots” that could be “programmed” to function in a “stateless socialist utopia”. Except for Marx and his friends, they were exceptions, and part of the “detached intellectual” class. Utter nonsense.
Yes anarchy is anarchy. However Marx his definition of communism meant breaking with anarchists in his time. Anarchists were not so bend on destroying the foundation of capitalism, rather they just wanted to get rid of the state and the monopoly on banks. Proudhon's mutualist banking is a good example of this. Marx talks about it in Kapital somewhere around the beginning.
I would agree that humans are like robots. I'll link you some videos tomorrow that support my claim.
Marx had the time to do research. Lenin also had the time and money to do research. The average worker of their time did not have the money to do research. Marx and Lenin were class-traitors, nothing more and nothing less.
What if the son of the USMC Commandant takes the daughter of the Naval Commander on a date and she comes home and says he raped her. Then the Naval Commander demands that the Commandant turn over his son but he refuses. Isn't it plausible that the Marines will go to war with the Navy? And the Navy will totally get their ass kicked of course, lol.
An interesting talk mostly ruined because of the inability of Jan to remember a single very simple instruction, the result being an often unlistenable mess.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
@RichVehicle In his defense, it is a statist computer. Most likely, the opposing party had control of the mute button and was mired in debate about how to manage the unfunded button-management program. Equally possible, the mute-button central planner might have been sick that day. Damn anarchist mute button, it just does what you want it to.
Jan tries to have it two ways. 11:11 "Presently domestic and foreign criminals are held in check by the fact that they have no possibility of overcoming the police power if the state in a direct confrontation." Later he tries to say that there is no threat of the government "parking a tank" in front of your house to control you, which he takes literally. There are other sources of violence/threat of violence (like the police he mentions) to control you. Either there is violence or not. Choose.
I hope that neither one of these "debaters" are doing is pretending that "good" and "evil" are anything more than subjectively (or perhaps intersubjectively) determined value-judgments. It doesn't seem that they are superstitious or absolutists, but those terms good & evil make me suspect right from the start. It makes them sound like they are warped by some religious (or other) ideology.
@DerangedRanger1 I am coming over to rape and murder your family while you watch. Now don't start saying I am wrong, bad, or evil. Raping your wife is simply something I want to do, and please do not inject your subjective evaluations on my activities. I find child rape to be very good, to me, and that is all that matters. [See what you have created.] Subjectivism and skepticism obliterates ethics, thus a retreat into popular opinion as a morality. You do not need god to know wrong from right.
@hsfbunny That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and put in a way that could easily be construed as a threat of violence. I would rethink the way you state things. Are you stupid?
You are making so many assumptions that people resort to "popular opinion" (say one of a religion, a nation, or some other social structure) as a source of morality. Can't people some up with morality themselves by taking others into account? Second, where so I mention god? I don't believe in tyrants.
@DerangedRanger1 For someone that says ""good" and "evil" are anything more than subjectively determined value-judgments", you seem to get awful upset over nothing.
A subjectivist finds their ethical system very intellectual, until their ethics are turned on them personally. Then they become enraged, facing the reality of ethical system they have created.
"subjectively determined value-judgments" puts your choice to live peacefully, on the same level as a rapist. And I am stupid?
@hsfbunny You are stupid because of the way you worded it. Use your head. You are also stupid because you think I am upset. What do I care what you think? It means absolutely nothing to me. I am not enraged at all. I am more amused.
Stef makes far too much out of the theft of taxation, and far too little out of the private theft he claims would not be a problem for us with no State.
What incentive does a bully have to not take everything that you have? At least there are checks on govt (especially one so limited to minarchal functions that there isn't a giant bloated infrastructure of government agents that is trying to oversee absolutely every aspect of our existence).
@JSAJL 1. If a government has force available (police, armies), what incentive do they have for not taking everything you have? Answer: they would no longer be able to use you as a resource to gain more wealth. The story of about the king who killed the goose that lays the golden egg seems a good model here. (Bullies=Govt.) 2. What we have now is anarchy between sovereign nations that report to no higher authority. Do you suggest world government to solve the problem? That isn't minarchism.
I'm simply pointing out the difference between a truly minarchist government and private bullies who have no incentive to limit their take. A minarchist govt would be more analogous to an HOA, for example, and essentially function as a big collective. That's the true Federalist ideal, in my opinion. I think there is a reasonable fear that in a total governmental vacuum, strong actors, ie, bullies, would spring into existence to abuse weaker and defenseless people.
@JSAJL Point noted. The point I am making is that you seem to think that governments aren't bullies. I believe that is a naive opinion, and one that does not consider the damage that the US has done to the world with its wars, and internally with various forms of slavery and discrimination. Whether you know it or not, you are on the other end of the stick. Perhaps we need to turn it up a notch for you to understand that?
I'm simply pointing out the difference between a truly minarchist government and private bullies who have no incentive to limit their take. A minarchist govt would be more analogous to an HOA, for example, and essentially function as a big collective. That's the true Federalist ideal, in my opinion. I think there is a reasonable fear that in a total governmental vacuum, strong actors, ie, bullies, would spring into existence to abuse weaker and defenseless people.
I'm simply pointing out the difference between a truly minarchist government and private bullies who have no incentive to limit their take. A minarchist govt would be more analogous to an HOA, for example, and essentially function as a big collective. That's the true Federalist ideal, in my opinion. I think there is a reasonable fear that in a total governmental vacuum, strong actors, ie, bullies, would spring into existence to abuse weaker and defenseless people.
I think that Stef makes far too much out of the theft of taxation, and far too little out of the private theft he claims would not be a problem for us with no State.
What incentive does a bully have to not take everything that you have? At least there are checks on govt (especially one so limited to minarchal functions that there isn't a giant bloated infrastructure of government agents that is trying to oversee absolutely every aspect of our existence).
All jan helfeld has to say to the customer debate that Stefan Molyneux proposes is that, people don't always use logic, they use emotions, and companies don't always use logic they use emotion and self interest.
jan heifeld, killed Stefan Molyneux on this debate. Stefan Molyneux is great in his debates and makes lots of sense, but limited government has already proven itself, and anarchy has never proven itself. They way to vindicate Stefan Molyneux is defending him and saying that limited government is kind of like anarchy but with the enforecementthe principles that he refers and that we live by, life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
jan heifeld, killed Stefan Molyneux on this debate. Stefan Molyneux is great in his debates and makes lots of sense, but limited governmetn has already proven itself, and anarchy has never proven himself. They way to vindicate Stefan Molyneux is defending him and saying that limited government is kind of like anarchy but with the enforecementthe principles that he refers and that we live by, life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
@RDpapichulo Really? Limited government has proven itsself? It seems to me that it proved that it is logically impossible. It created the biggest governments in the world!
@Hashishin13 Limited government didn't create anything, the people created it. That is what they wanted, so that is what they got. The people got greedy. TThe founding fathers said it best, "we give you a republic, if you can keep it" and also " a limited free government, needs constant vigilance". Unfortunately the attitudes have changed in America and we have taken our freedoms for granted. Bu once people wake up, they will go back to their roots again.
What went wrong with the U.S in getting to become the biggest government, is it's lack of competition. Like google, when you have no competitors you will grow. They produced everything.
Its a shame that Jan Helfeld does not have a mac and a descent internet suplier...... Good ideas Stefan, GREAT! I am from Colombia, and Jan says that in the jungle where there is no police is crap...In this zone, the indigenous live with their custumes and with their coca plants for their medicine. First the GOV wants to take them down, not good for mistical tribes. The guerrilla has grown to in this place for prasmatism porpose..i mean money, material shit that is killing us. Thank schools!!
@yourboycal Apparently you know nothing about anarchy. There is much more order than we have today with your violent rule. And chaos is what people want. They want to make their own decisions.
Good grief, Jan Helfeld just keeps shooting himself right in the face here. It seems there is no one who understand any basic degree of logic who support the idea of minarchism.
Wow I'm amazed. My intuition makes me think that the more extreme view (anarchism) would seem less rational than the more moderate view (minarchism), but stef made a much more logical and rational case.
Stef, I would have given up on him at 49:44. He did not listen to a word you said. Aside from the lousy audio (Jan's refusal to mute) ,the constant video problems, the rude interruptions by the moderator and the repetitious nonsense I actually learned a little something. You have the same frustrations I have getting people to see things logically instead of focusing on unfounded fears. In an odd sense it is very comforting to know I am not alone. Thank you for going through that for us
@AndyWright68 Re: the moderator - in my experience, James tends to power-trip. If you've ever spent some time in the FDR chat rooms or the forums when he's moderating you'll know what I mean.
"If the daughter of the only Director of one Security agency has a date with the son of a guy who's the only Director of another Security agency says she gets raped by the son of the director of the second security agency and the son of the second Security agency says he didn't rape her, but the dad of the first security agency wants to have the son of the director of the second security agency..."Jesus Christ...Can we get anymore hypothetical?? I lost all respect for the man.
@TheLibertas2 Apparently he believes that the children of the directors of security agencies tend to rape each other, a clearly recognized property of voluntarist systems.
Stef is such a powerful and convincing speaker that I was surprised to see him lose his focus at the end of this video, and get sucked into Jan's scenarios. Good to see that he is only human. :)
Stef wins on moral arguments, but Jan is more convincing as to how such a decentralized implementation might result.
Kind of a clownish thing to suggest that human kind lived in abject poverty in Africa for a million years because there were no states. I mean really? Really Jan? And I suppose the San people of the Kalahari or the Amazonian natives who still live like theyve lived for pre state Milenia are just super miserable and only wish they lived in states so they could get out of their horrific situations...Oh wait they DO technically live within states and yet shun the so called prosperity of it? Hmmm...
@nijaexhile3 What "America" salesmen like this always conveniently ignore are the peoples that still exist today living essentially anarchic lives while being prosperous(in the most important way of family etc) healthy and happy, free from crime sprees and "criminal gangs" in their midst's. the threats they face are usually from outside entities like "America". America showed the world alright, it showed the world that no matter how hard you try, States are doomed to fail.
Even if the free market prevented startups within a stateless society from building tanks, etc, how would it stop outside threats from doing this? If some imperialistic external threat decided to launch a blitzkrieg into our stateless society, and no one in our society had tanks or panzerfaust to stop them because of the checks and balances mentioned, wouldn't we still be easy pickin's? In other words, there is still a realistic chance for organized force to pose a major threat to the peace
Seems that Helfeld's argument is from a pragmatic perspective, i.e. he is saying that the ideal (an anarchistic society in which no participants seek to gain power or wealth through use of force) is impossible, so the next best thing is a minarchy with limited powers. But who limits the powers? Obviously the US experiment shows that no one limits them, they take more and more as time progresses. At any rate, one issue is what is right, the other is what is possible to sustain given human nature
couldn't these anarcho-capitalist checks & balances be a check against the State? It seems these checks & balances would work just as well under a minarchist system.
Jan didn't understand the point of the debate. It was a philosophical debate about Minarchism and Anarchism, and he wanted to end it early by stating that Anarchists should have their own territory...not the point, Jan. I'd like a coherent minarchist/philosophical "republican" to debate Stefan, because I fall somewhere in the middle. Heck, I'd be willing to do it Stefan. Check out my channel if that interests you
Jan Helfeld did some good interviews with politicians but here he was the most irritating person I've seen in a long time. He is not debating but trying to win.
The answer to his question 'but what will happen when a defense company starts a war with another defense company?' was made by stepfan: 'all customers will cease to pay those companies fro defense services as obviously they are a danger to the customer and the society'.
@Marcdemesel what happens when a defensive company decides it can run things better than those within it's jurisdiction? What if they disallow the transactions to OTHER defense companies to defend them and seize assets and control? The problem that I see without a gov't is that no one will truly be to blame.. It's like having a government, but then ridiculously compartmentalizing everything controlled by a majority controlled profit.
Your example is actually the situation we have today. One monopolistic defense company, the state, not allowing any competition on his territory and abusing his powers by stealing half of peoples incomes at gunpoint everyday.
With that stolen money they subsidize and dictate major industries like roads, education, medical care, police, justice, energy and even banks so that without subsidies competition becomes very difficult and we have terrible quality as a result.
@Marcdemesel The difference is, our monopolistic defense company, came about out of another monopolistic defense company (unsuccessful monopoly obviously), by the will of the people who fought it. You have to convince people to scrap government, and government is not set up to disappear, so what do you intend to DO about it? Educate people until we get rid of the government? Not likely. The monopoly of force is not a bad thing all the time.. It's only bad when we lack limits of force
@Marcdemesel You make it sound SOOO dramatic... We don't steal half of people's incomes everyday, only the rich do we take THAT much (sometimes more)... REGARDLESS, you never answered my question besides assuming the lack of profit will immediately stop any force that a PMC might have. It wouldn't necessarily, they already have the arms... At any rate, it would take a very BAD PMC to do this type of activity, but I have no doubt that SOMEWHERE, some pirate/gov't organizations would form.
Molyneux sees an anarcho capitalistic society possible - only - if the morals of people go up concerning the initiation of force. He thinks we can only get a true anarchy without any ruler if people live by the morals that anyone that initiates violence is an offender and is banned, just like today anyone that introduces true slavery again would not expand but be banned by most because morals of people do not accept it anymore.
@Marcdemesel I C... Interesting stuff.. So, basically it's not really possible with current culture. I like the non aggression principle and all.. I think there are too many crazies out there that would never accept these morals for their own. Who deals with domestic abuse for instance? The public would create some sort of use of aggression to deal with these problems, so you are back to square 1. If people were angels, we'd need no government and no enforceable laws or structure.
@Marcdemesel Basically, I don't believe enough people would care about being ostracized to deter their actions of greed or lust or murder. I really think anarcho-cap sounds like a way to compartmentalize would we would otherwise call government... Basically, I think it would create thousands of mini governments, or hundreds of thousands, instead of one that's accountable for the lot. Government ARE made up of people, so people doing the acts of government in a different way is little dif.
Do you remember when you were an Objectivist and statists would come up with incredibly absurd counterexamples (the endless "what if"s?) Ring a bell? Sigh. Stef really opened my eyes.
A STATIST is to a MINARCHIST as a MINARCHIST TO an ANARCHIST.
Do you remember when you were an Objectivist and statists would come up with incredibly absurd counterexamples (the endless "what if"s?) Ring a bell? Sigh. Stef really opened my eyes.
Anarchy leads inevitably to government. And the government it leads to can be anything. Very likely that it will sprout many dictatorships as people use their relative wealth and power to gain absolute power over others.
And your response is just "everyone will know about every possibility and take actions to prevent it"
Well actually no. In fact many people will relish the opportunity to gain power and join in an alliance that will conquer others. States have not committed horrible crimes because they are states, they have committed horrible crimes because some have been run by horrible people. Horrible people will exist in equal numbers in anarchy and the evil version of an entrepreneur will have a field day.
Some area decides to use its wealth and comparative power in your anarchic society to create an army that is superior to its neighbors. Then it starts doing all the things you whine about and claim are only things states can do.
Well you are right that only states can do crimes of such huge magnitudes as you mention. Its just that anarchy leads inexorably to states.
If there is a vast difference in power in one area they can use that power to create an empire over their neighbors obviously.
Christ on a crutch - trying to have a philosophical and intellectual discussion with a guy who's so obsessed with tanks he can't understand how fucking oovoo works---GGGAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
@evan13579b so if someone is out to create an empire, why give them minarchy? they would take that small patch of gov and exploit it and make it grow.
if evil people are evil them having a government of any size is too dangerous.
It is a lot harder for an area to create a large enough army to topple a minarchy. To topple some small private security forces would just require a larger security force that is its neighbor and happens to have the support of those it supposedly protected.
And with any area possibly having that slight advantage in power, there is a fine chance that one of those empire-builders will not desire a constitutional republic in any way. It may, actually, end up being a slave state where all it conquers becomes its slaves.
If you build a minarchy with a constitution you don't have to worry that much about it being overthrown and replaced by something abhorrent.
In anarchy any area can grow off slightly smaller areas until it becomes big
The constitution acts to prevent abhorrent government. It has taken a while to get around that (except of course there is slavery which had always been ignored). What has occured is much better then what will be created by anarchy.
@evan13579b the constitution doesnt prevent anything! it hasnt either.
the constitution allowed the cancer that is the government to grow. you need to cut the whole thing out and instead of relying on outside forces (government) people need to depends on themselves and help the people. people not government.
The constitution is selectively enforced but I seem to recall that I still have the right to speak freely and the right to own arms (should also be "bear" arms but the right has been diminished). The constitution obviously has prevented many attempts to expand government however obviously people have IN SPITE OF, not BECAUSE OF it's existance managed to enlarge government anyway.
Having a good constitution is certainly better than having no constitution.
Your alternative to a government with a constitution cannot be that we just rely on ourselves. People cannot all be security experts. This is why molynuts talks about security companies. People in a free market come to rely on the services of others and that would, in molynuts world, lead to people buying the services of security companies. Now, to pretend that no one would ever hire a security company that has ill-will and will cheat them is basically hilarious.
Well, I'm at a disadvantage arguing against someone whose beliefs I don't know when trying to defend minarchism.
I don't defend minarchism because I think its perfect, I defend it because I think nothing is better so I'll have a hard time proving its better than what you prefer if I don't know what that is.
Maybe I'll find I'm wrong about your preference, but I assume that fundamentally it is impossible to avoid the creation of a government regardless of how bad they might be.
@nomoreyou1212 People GENERALLY DO depend on themselves, even in our current system, MOST people aren't on welfare, and are only truly depending on government when it matters. If you called 911 in an anarcho-capitalist society, there is NO WAY you will get a response as quick as what you can generally expect from police/fire/etc.. In the end, we have to rely on something or someone than ourselves, government is a sure way to do that with accountable masters of it's scheme.
whoever moderates the debate... get a headset, severely impaired the audio-quality of the video with the softwares inability to optimize bandwidth due to echoes.
It's a shame that in what should be a polite debate, Jan is usually always listening, but Stefan is drinking, rearranging things on his desk, even reading stuff, talking to himself sometimes, making an expression of somebody who is thinking about something else... i thought that was really not a polite attitute...
@erickpas I'M having a hard time listening to him. Are you aware of the audio distortions caused at least in part by Jan's inability to understand how to the audio devices work & leaving his microphone open the entire time? Besides the audio issues he clearly doesn't know how to have an adult conversation let alone a professional debate. Laughing, interrupting, talking over Stef's time. What about his general inability to make a clear & articulate point that is enjoyable to listen to? Really...
I can understand him laughing actually when stefans responses are basically that everyone would know everything, always be extremely careful and entrepreneurs would show up that would do amazing things yet none of those entrepreneurs would be trying to invent new ways of taking control of others.
If everyone knew everything and could calculate it all perfectly there would never be corruption in government and we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism or anything else anyway
@evan13579b That's not what Stefan's responses are but since you completely don't & probably won't get why having a government creates corruption I'll just stop here & spend my time doing more productive things.
And anarchy leads to government. By his admission it is one that is created voluntarily, but you cannot say that because it was created voluntarily there would be no corruption.
All the enforcement measures he brings up would be just as easily corrupted. You cannot say "go to the newspapers" if the newspapers are in fact corrupt and have skin in the game. You cannot go to an arbitrator if the arbitrator in the contract was
Yes Jan, ask the question...and then mute. What a dick.
Victorprossart1 3 hours ago
I like Jan's interviews a lot, but everything he said in this debate, after his opening statement, was lacking substance. No arguing from first principles, no concept, nohing. It was the old "Anarchy is chaos and destruction" line, the same thing people are telling Jan about limited government when they haven't studied Minarchism before. The only cliche he forgot to mention was "what about the roads". Sadly, Stef took the bait and let the debate start at such a low level.
jeffmoppi 6 hours ago
A more purposeful conclusion from this debate MIGHT have been..that Minarchy is only possible from an educated population..and that Functional Anarchy can also only be a reality once the Gov shrinks and the people are ready....
DecassyJake 2 days ago
Sorry, I tried to get through this but Jan's first speech was just a litany of baseless fear mongering assertions about what he thinks would happen without the state. I'm sure Stefan's responses would have been good but I can't watch this any further without wanting to strangle Jan.
Textra1 2 weeks ago 2
I don't know how Stefan is keeping his cool, this Jan guy is a complete moron.
Sovietborne855 1 month ago
Wow this Jan fella is pretty effin' dumb
Sovietborne855 1 month ago
Comment removed
Sovietborne855 1 month ago
@slickbtk
Please, by all means, if you can see a way anarchy could survive the ensuing onslaught from all the world's ruling elites, then enlighten me, coz i would dearly love to be truly free. It just seems to me to be a utopian pipe dream that has zero chance of success.
sidvidkid 2 months ago
@slickbtk
even if the country to turn anarchist first was a large one (unlikely) such as USA, then the other 2 would work together to destroy it. The ruling elites of the other 2 would stop at nothing, they would probably even just nuke it, not to take over the tax structure,but to destroy anarchy as a concept,. otherwise, if they didnt they would be encouraging their own destruction. they would never ever allow that.
sidvidkid 2 months ago
@slickbtk
...ONLY interested in destroying anarchy as a proposition, they would fund the DROs with their stolen tax money and destroy the anarchist society from within. I dont really see any way for the anarchists to stop this from happening. Remember the foreign capital would not necessarily be interested in profits they would be interested in destroying anarchy to safeguard their future profits. I dont think the DRO model has chance of working unless all world turns anarchist at once..unlikely
sidvidkid 2 months ago
@slickbtk
i would add to your comment "in theory". There has never been an anarchist society so no one really knows. I do agree that an anarchist society would likely be smarter and wealthier, but say in todays world - if any country you choose turned anarchist, one or all of the big 3, USA, Russia, China, would stop at nothing to destroy it. They would first take over the DROs and corrupt them. They would not be interested in making a paltry profit they would be ONLY interested in destroying
sidvidkid 2 months ago
1:00:00
Dude... How can you possibly assume that people or investors will think for themselves?
People including investors, are sheep and will fall for the propaganda, false mission statements, and full fledged lies,
What was it Roosevelt said?
"You can fool all the people some of the time,
and some of the people all of the time..."
As long as that's true your hypotheticals aren't going to be even close to matching a realistic model.
MegatronAngel 2 months ago
0:30:00 Africa was NOT in abject poverty. They were the wealthiest on the planet! Read history please.
Africa only went bad (generally speaking) when the dutch and other foreign interests set about their deliberate destruction and dismantling.
MegatronAngel 2 months ago
Jan's vision, of sections of the population divorcing themselves from government control, is perfectly plausible. Historically, governments have always happily accommodated this type of action with warm farewells, Belgian chocolates, and "Call me" hand gestures.
Valelacerte 2 months ago
The fact that Jan is staying calm the entire time and Stefan gets angry at several points says a lot .
I had more respect for Stefan before watching this, he uses several emotional charged responses instead of intellectual ones which are in effect strawmen (for example: the wars and the treatment of the native americans, neither of which Jan or minarchist libertarians support).
xJoshArizonax 2 months ago 6
@xJoshArizonax its not about support for the result its about support for the system that provably and inevitably causes the result.
slickbtk 2 months ago
@xJoshArizonax
I would also get angry if I kept on debating someone like Jan.
teawead 3 weeks ago
I hate to say it, as i dream anarchist dreams every nite, but once the DROs were taken over by foreign capital, as is inevitable, then there would be no way to ever minimise their power. I think the only hope anarchy ever has of succeeding would be if all the world turned anarchist at the same time. Otherwise foreign concentrations of wealth will work to destroy it, and would succeed as the anarchists would have no way to defend selves, even with limited DROs or arbitration organisations.
sidvidkid 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sidvidkid you do not understand anarchism
slickbtk 2 months ago
Whats the deal with the unnecessary fascist moderator?
Its a real pity this debate turned into a farce...I think (even tho he is not a good orator) that Jans his examples were valid. Wouldnt DROs be bought up by foreign capital, corrupted, and then turned against the people they purport to represent. The tanks would be built overseas with overseas money, there would be no way for the anarchist society to be able to defend itself. Once the tanks came ashore the dream would be over.
sidvidkid 3 months ago
@sidvidkid Although my gut agrees with you, I still don't fully understand Stef's argument for why this wouldn't happen. However, if you add Stef's other ingredient—peaceful parenting; a multi-generational change—then you have a population that wasn't raised on violence and coercion and doesn't look to "great leaders" (insanely violent sociopaths) to obtain what they need by any means. Jan seems to imagine himself a courageous pragmatist, but perhaps he's just hopeless and brutalised.
Valelacerte 2 months ago
@sidvidkid remember that an anarchist society would be ridiculously wealthier and smarter than a statist society. Even the most powerful foreign government would be like a retarded rodent compared to an anarchist society. But even if as you say foreign governments fund dro's that just means that it is all the more profitable for now dro's to protect its customers from corrupted dro's. The wealth and advancements of all governments combined would pail in comparison, so they would not be a threat
slickbtk 2 months ago
Stefan, what is your view on ''Anarcho-Syndicalism'' ?
Incognitoification1 4 months ago
Stefan... you are too smart for this crap. Seriously. Your intelligence and quality is too high for this. From the poor transmission, to the lousy moderating, to the absent-minded opponent. Painful to watch this, brother.
TimothyADonaghue 4 months ago
LOL - Jan - He was more entertainment than anything else. LOL
TimothyADonaghue 4 months ago
hey jan can u click on the mute button please...?? ( 15 times later he still doesnt understand)....
i think the tank theory jan kept repeating was hilarious... unmute.. hahaha
erichvrundstedt 4 months ago
What happened in the end? is there a continuation of the debate?
waksibra 5 months ago
Limited government. You can steal that much this way just don't steal more the other way. When you hear the phrase limited government what it means is a limited plunder.
GompCelticPL 6 months ago
They can't drive the tank up to your house. How about this. Every neighbor hood could pool money on an anti-tank neighborhood watch. There. What a stupid f*cking question. No wonder Stef didn't want to keep this going.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
Tank, House. Waco, Texas. It happens all the time. How about Afghanistan? I see tanks going through houses all the time.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
Jan Helfeld makes lots of claims. He's just a claim-makin' machine. Not argument, no reason, but lots of claims. I guess this is why Stef doesn't debate so much now.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
Born into a political system? SO, because slaves are born into slavery, they should just deal with it? Insert Ad Hom Bomb Here.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
Protect life-liberty-happiness, own a gun. Why does that require a state?
ariuszarim 6 months ago
Why did Stef even bother to talk to this guy?
mikedurland 6 months ago
You could tell stefan was getting a little exasperated when he said "nuclear mushrooms" lol :)
paullie6719 6 months ago
Jesus can the guy mute his freaking microphone???
paullie6719 6 months ago
I've heard it said that people get the government that they deserve. Is it possible that we'll have a government (and a corrupt one) until the people of our society change and can live without one. So corrupt people = corrupt government?
paullie6719 6 months ago
@paullie6719 I would say ignorant people = corrupt government.
thebest3526 6 months ago
The moderator should use common sense and listen to the debate to know when to call time up. You don't interrupt before an answer is given to an important question such as "what went wrong with the US experiment with limited govt." which wasn't even answered.
paullie6719 6 months ago
Man, it's really hard to hear Stef.
ignorantswede 7 months ago
I agree with Jan. That's why I'm a minarchist. It's human nature - when you don't have, you take what someone else has. With no law enforcement, the thugs would become the law enforcement. Do you get it? In south america the busses stop, the thugs get on, collect the 'tax' from the buss driver (protection money), and the bus drives off. The thugs become the new gov't, taking over property and collecting tax. Right now the thugs is our gov't. If you just LIMIT them, it's' all good.
HypeTingStudio 8 months ago
@HypeTingStudio
The institution of government is state-sponsored thuggery. If you're worried about thugs violating rights, the worst thing you could do is have a government with a monopoly of violence to use against people. Thugs don't become the new gov't when they are funded by their customers. In order to maintain customers, there must be assurances that there is no predation against people, which means cooperating with dozens of other entities which provide checks and balances.
passerby26 8 months ago
@HypeTingStudio Right because, the "limiting" we've done here in the U.S. definitely worked out as planned....
TSMPimpDaddyPain 7 months ago
It would take way more effort to get a tank and try to force someone out of their house and wealth than to live outside of the criminal element.
silentthriller 9 months ago
It's nice to have debates like this about ideologies who are pretty close in the spectrum,and have small specific differences ,instead of those standard polarizing liberal vs conservative,atheist vs theist etc.
KladionicaCity 9 months ago
Why is Jan's audio louder than Stef's?
kihjin 9 months ago
A MILLION years? HAHA
kihjin 9 months ago
Stefan seems to think everyone is as smart as him in society. But if you look at our society, people are scammed out of their jocks all the time. They do not do due dilligence on things. His ideas do not match human nature. The telephone is full of people trying to sell scams. His idea of how society will check and balance is pure fantasy. Humans come in all types. They are not all like him. If they were, we would not be in this mess. But we are. Was he ever scammed?
jonahbert111 9 months ago
@jonahbert111 Some of the biggest scam artists are politicians and bureaucrats, and they have the power of government backing them up.
PrudenceWright 9 months ago
@jonahbert111
It makes no difference whether people are as smart as Stefan in society or not. It becomes a system based on reason and incentives. In the scenario of using violence or predation for "justice" that wasn't done, you have to look at the possible outcomes. If you acquire military weapons to blow someone away, you are doing so against your customer's wishes, your shareholder wishes (possibly), the negative press you would get, and all of the marketplace who would refuse you.
passerby26 8 months ago
The common problem you both recognize but fail to address is: The criminals have and do migrate to the government. AS NOw! Solution: DO NOT HAVE ELECTIONS! Rather, randomly select people from the population, and often, so criminals cannot rule. Also, limit wealth. If you want happiness, the flatter the wealth profile, the more happy everyone is. This is fact. Say max 25 million. That should satisfy most, I think.
jonahbert111 9 months ago
@jonahbert111
Randomly select people to populate the government? You want to randomly select handicapped people? Children? The elderly? What if someone doesn't want to be elected?
$25 million for everyone? If everyone has $25 million, then the cost of everything just gets inflated. What solution is that? Also, just having money is not synonymous with happiness. Finally, majority happiness should NEVER be the goal even if everyone COULD be all made happy with abundant wealth.
passerby26 8 months ago
Stefan Molyneux is a master at bombarding his opposition with words in an attempt to win an argument. And the loud alarm beeping to signal when time was up? Seriously? The moderator was an amateur.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
Hahaha, jesus James, they lost track of the rules almost five minutes into the damn debate :D
Oyaji291 10 months ago
I would like to see an example of how, even in our current system, anyone who was not a political ally to the government powers has committed a crime and ran off to join the military or something comparable. Despite some of the dumbest laws, I think they've been somewhat consistent in at least attempting to prosecute these kinds of people.
Oyaji291 10 months ago
24:40 lol it's like a psychedelic minarchist/anarchist debate with echo and delay
TortoiseDream 10 months ago
Anarchists and socialists share the same metaphysical view on man, then diverge from there. They agree on fundamentals, but disagree on the solution as to how men should deal with other men. Statism views, that man is a beast that needs to be locked in a cage for his own good. Anarchists view, that man is beast incapable of constructing a proper cage to place himself within. The intellectual heart of Libertarianism calls for a social state of: anarchy. Both are wrong.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
@hsfbunny
Bad analysis, as anarchism is a branch of socialism.
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
@pulsatingremedy They share the same metaphysical view on the nature of man. If you are a student of philosophy, then you will grasp the significance of my comments. Anarchism comes in many variations. There really are socialist-anarchists. One group uses anarchy as a tactic to destroy the existing government. The other really is socialist-anarchist, example being Noam Chomsky (as illogical as it may seem). Anyway, I am simply pointing to the root of anarchism.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
@hsfbunny
Re-reading your comments I think we may be dealing with a semantics issue rather than a theoretical one.
What's your definition of socialism?
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
@pulsatingremedy Socialists often define themselves as state management of economic resources. In contrast to communism which is state ownership of economic resources. This is a lie. State management vs. state ownership is meaningless. If you cannot dispose of your property as you see fit you do not own it.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
@hsfbunny
There's our problem. I define communism as a classless and stateless society, just like Marx. I also use socialism more or less as a synonym, just like Marx.
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
@pulsatingremedy There is a word for the concept "stateless society", it is called anarchy. You definition is non-essential, nor a conceptual differentiation.
Humans are not robots, where you can just program their behaviors and have them function perfectly, thus the state will just fall away.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
@hsfbunny
Yes and Marx defined communism as a classless and stateless society and I take Marx as a decent authority on communism. So to define communism as state ownership is to disagree with Marx his definition.
Please notice that anarchists from Marx his time, the classical anarchists, differ from the anarchists today, the anarchists of today being mainly anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist.
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
@pulsatingremedy You can define anarchism is some particular sub-context, or hyphenate it endlessly, it does not matter. Reality first. Anarchy is anarchy, period.
There is no making sense out of Marx. Marx is one long bazaar chain of rationalist deductions. Marx called humans “biological robots” that could be “programmed” to function in a “stateless socialist utopia”. Except for Marx and his friends, they were exceptions, and part of the “detached intellectual” class. Utter nonsense.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
@hsfbunny
Yes anarchy is anarchy. However Marx his definition of communism meant breaking with anarchists in his time. Anarchists were not so bend on destroying the foundation of capitalism, rather they just wanted to get rid of the state and the monopoly on banks. Proudhon's mutualist banking is a good example of this. Marx talks about it in Kapital somewhere around the beginning.
I would agree that humans are like robots. I'll link you some videos tomorrow that support my claim.
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
@hsfbunny
About Marx being any different.
Marx had the time to do research. Lenin also had the time and money to do research. The average worker of their time did not have the money to do research. Marx and Lenin were class-traitors, nothing more and nothing less.
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
anarcho capitalism =/= anarchism
:D
otacon451 11 months ago
@otacon451
true
pulsatingremedy 10 months ago
Comment removed
otacon451 11 months ago
"He's running on a statist computer" :)
rumco 11 months ago
What if the son of the USMC Commandant takes the daughter of the Naval Commander on a date and she comes home and says he raped her. Then the Naval Commander demands that the Commandant turn over his son but he refuses. Isn't it plausible that the Marines will go to war with the Navy? And the Navy will totally get their ass kicked of course, lol.
TxTankGunner 11 months ago
An interesting talk mostly ruined because of the inability of Jan to remember a single very simple instruction, the result being an often unlistenable mess.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
Jan press the fucking mute button after you have spoken.
RichVehicle 11 months ago 10
@RichVehicle In his defense, it is a statist computer. Most likely, the opposing party had control of the mute button and was mired in debate about how to manage the unfunded button-management program. Equally possible, the mute-button central planner might have been sick that day. Damn anarchist mute button, it just does what you want it to.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
@ariuszarim LOL
centerrightpunk 4 months ago
Comment removed
RichVehicle 11 months ago
Jan tries to have it two ways. 11:11 "Presently domestic and foreign criminals are held in check by the fact that they have no possibility of overcoming the police power if the state in a direct confrontation." Later he tries to say that there is no threat of the government "parking a tank" in front of your house to control you, which he takes literally. There are other sources of violence/threat of violence (like the police he mentions) to control you. Either there is violence or not. Choose.
DerangedRanger1 11 months ago
I hope that neither one of these "debaters" are doing is pretending that "good" and "evil" are anything more than subjectively (or perhaps intersubjectively) determined value-judgments. It doesn't seem that they are superstitious or absolutists, but those terms good & evil make me suspect right from the start. It makes them sound like they are warped by some religious (or other) ideology.
DerangedRanger1 11 months ago
@DerangedRanger1 I am coming over to rape and murder your family while you watch. Now don't start saying I am wrong, bad, or evil. Raping your wife is simply something I want to do, and please do not inject your subjective evaluations on my activities. I find child rape to be very good, to me, and that is all that matters. [See what you have created.] Subjectivism and skepticism obliterates ethics, thus a retreat into popular opinion as a morality. You do not need god to know wrong from right.
hsfbunny 10 months ago
@hsfbunny That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and put in a way that could easily be construed as a threat of violence. I would rethink the way you state things. Are you stupid?
You are making so many assumptions that people resort to "popular opinion" (say one of a religion, a nation, or some other social structure) as a source of morality. Can't people some up with morality themselves by taking others into account? Second, where so I mention god? I don't believe in tyrants.
DerangedRanger1 10 months ago
@DerangedRanger1 For someone that says ""good" and "evil" are anything more than subjectively determined value-judgments", you seem to get awful upset over nothing.
A subjectivist finds their ethical system very intellectual, until their ethics are turned on them personally. Then they become enraged, facing the reality of ethical system they have created.
"subjectively determined value-judgments" puts your choice to live peacefully, on the same level as a rapist. And I am stupid?
hsfbunny 10 months ago
Comment removed
DerangedRanger1 10 months ago
@hsfbunny You are stupid because of the way you worded it. Use your head. You are also stupid because you think I am upset. What do I care what you think? It means absolutely nothing to me. I am not enraged at all. I am more amused.
DerangedRanger1 10 months ago
@hsfbunny What makes you think I am "awful upset?" I am quite content to see the whole thing burn.
DerangedRanger1 9 months ago
@hsfbunny Also, you would have to read what I said carefully. Clearly, you didn't understand. Go back and try again.
DerangedRanger1 9 months ago
Could you edit out the parts with technical difficulty?
DerangedRanger1 11 months ago
Wow, I didn't know Jan was such a fuckin' idiot.
reapfreak 11 months ago
Stef makes far too much out of the theft of taxation, and far too little out of the private theft he claims would not be a problem for us with no State.
What incentive does a bully have to not take everything that you have? At least there are checks on govt (especially one so limited to minarchal functions that there isn't a giant bloated infrastructure of government agents that is trying to oversee absolutely every aspect of our existence).
Security agencies = bullies/mafia.
JSAJL 1 year ago
@JSAJL 1. If a government has force available (police, armies), what incentive do they have for not taking everything you have? Answer: they would no longer be able to use you as a resource to gain more wealth. The story of about the king who killed the goose that lays the golden egg seems a good model here. (Bullies=Govt.) 2. What we have now is anarchy between sovereign nations that report to no higher authority. Do you suggest world government to solve the problem? That isn't minarchism.
DerangedRanger1 11 months ago
@DerangedRanger1
I'm simply pointing out the difference between a truly minarchist government and private bullies who have no incentive to limit their take. A minarchist govt would be more analogous to an HOA, for example, and essentially function as a big collective. That's the true Federalist ideal, in my opinion. I think there is a reasonable fear that in a total governmental vacuum, strong actors, ie, bullies, would spring into existence to abuse weaker and defenseless people.
JSAJL 11 months ago
@JSAJL Point noted. The point I am making is that you seem to think that governments aren't bullies. I believe that is a naive opinion, and one that does not consider the damage that the US has done to the world with its wars, and internally with various forms of slavery and discrimination. Whether you know it or not, you are on the other end of the stick. Perhaps we need to turn it up a notch for you to understand that?
DerangedRanger1 11 months ago
@DerangedRanger1 Oh please... what has the US done to the rest of the world?
UrbyKris 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DerangedRanger1
I'm simply pointing out the difference between a truly minarchist government and private bullies who have no incentive to limit their take. A minarchist govt would be more analogous to an HOA, for example, and essentially function as a big collective. That's the true Federalist ideal, in my opinion. I think there is a reasonable fear that in a total governmental vacuum, strong actors, ie, bullies, would spring into existence to abuse weaker and defenseless people.
JSAJL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DerangedRanger1
I'm simply pointing out the difference between a truly minarchist government and private bullies who have no incentive to limit their take. A minarchist govt would be more analogous to an HOA, for example, and essentially function as a big collective. That's the true Federalist ideal, in my opinion. I think there is a reasonable fear that in a total governmental vacuum, strong actors, ie, bullies, would spring into existence to abuse weaker and defenseless people.
JSAJL 11 months ago
I think that Stef makes far too much out of the theft of taxation, and far too little out of the private theft he claims would not be a problem for us with no State.
What incentive does a bully have to not take everything that you have? At least there are checks on govt (especially one so limited to minarchal functions that there isn't a giant bloated infrastructure of government agents that is trying to oversee absolutely every aspect of our existence).
Security agencies = bullies/mafia.
JSAJL 1 year ago
Comment removed
DerangedRanger1 11 months ago
I was really looking forward to this.
Speaker noise, 56K modem feed, made this painful to try and follow.
meuandthelot 1 year ago
seriously?? that's like the dumbest minarchist I've ever seen!
PrimateDynasty 1 year ago
All jan helfeld has to say to the customer debate that Stefan Molyneux proposes is that, people don't always use logic, they use emotions, and companies don't always use logic they use emotion and self interest.
RDpapichulo 1 year ago
jan heifeld, killed Stefan Molyneux on this debate. Stefan Molyneux is great in his debates and makes lots of sense, but limited government has already proven itself, and anarchy has never proven itself. They way to vindicate Stefan Molyneux is defending him and saying that limited government is kind of like anarchy but with the enforecementthe principles that he refers and that we live by, life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
RDpapichulo 1 year ago
jan heifeld, killed Stefan Molyneux on this debate. Stefan Molyneux is great in his debates and makes lots of sense, but limited governmetn has already proven itself, and anarchy has never proven himself. They way to vindicate Stefan Molyneux is defending him and saying that limited government is kind of like anarchy but with the enforecementthe principles that he refers and that we live by, life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
RDpapichulo 1 year ago
@RDpapichulo Really? Limited government has proven itsself? It seems to me that it proved that it is logically impossible. It created the biggest governments in the world!
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 Limited government didn't create anything, the people created it. That is what they wanted, so that is what they got. The people got greedy. TThe founding fathers said it best, "we give you a republic, if you can keep it" and also " a limited free government, needs constant vigilance". Unfortunately the attitudes have changed in America and we have taken our freedoms for granted. Bu once people wake up, they will go back to their roots again.
RDpapichulo 1 year ago
What went wrong with the U.S in getting to become the biggest government, is it's lack of competition. Like google, when you have no competitors you will grow. They produced everything.
RDpapichulo 1 year ago
there are places with no government, (or too little or weak government) it's called Haiti and Mexico.
RDpapichulo 1 year ago
You guys really should have used someone who isn't such a dunce to represent the minarchist side. Complete buffoonery.
cjrsoccer1 1 year ago
Its a shame that Jan Helfeld does not have a mac and a descent internet suplier...... Good ideas Stefan, GREAT! I am from Colombia, and Jan says that in the jungle where there is no police is crap...In this zone, the indigenous live with their custumes and with their coca plants for their medicine. First the GOV wants to take them down, not good for mistical tribes. The guerrilla has grown to in this place for prasmatism porpose..i mean money, material shit that is killing us. Thank schools!!
shiru82 1 year ago
@yourboycal Apparently you know nothing about anarchy. There is much more order than we have today with your violent rule. And chaos is what people want. They want to make their own decisions.
AndyWright68 1 year ago
Where can I find the transcribed version of this debate?
I've seen it on the forum before, but I can't find it. :(
vspqbd 1 year ago
What if an agency colonises the moon and then fires a high energy ion beam back at the earth ? hey,hey,bet ya didn't think about that did you Jan.
leonski35 1 year ago 2
Good grief, Jan Helfeld just keeps shooting himself right in the face here. It seems there is no one who understand any basic degree of logic who support the idea of minarchism.
dingobabystealer 1 year ago
jesus christ mike tyson v. special ed
BroBroDude 1 year ago
Stefan, you destroyed this guy. I honestly was hoping for a decent debate, but this wasn't it.
sstearns34 1 year ago
Wow I'm amazed. My intuition makes me think that the more extreme view (anarchism) would seem less rational than the more moderate view (minarchism), but stef made a much more logical and rational case.
thegillotine09 1 year ago
@thegillotine09 Exact same thing I was expecting to happen, and I was also surprised.
alistairproductions 1 year ago
Stefan crushed this guy Jan. He uses the oldest trick of the statist over and over--FEAR MONGERING
Anarchy all the way !
PikSokolit 1 year ago
Stef, I would have given up on him at 49:44. He did not listen to a word you said. Aside from the lousy audio (Jan's refusal to mute) ,the constant video problems, the rude interruptions by the moderator and the repetitious nonsense I actually learned a little something. You have the same frustrations I have getting people to see things logically instead of focusing on unfounded fears. In an odd sense it is very comforting to know I am not alone. Thank you for going through that for us
AndyWright68 1 year ago 15
@AndyWright68 Re: the moderator - in my experience, James tends to power-trip. If you've ever spent some time in the FDR chat rooms or the forums when he's moderating you'll know what I mean.
iamacyborg 1 year ago
Everything should be voluntary, Period.
All goods and services in society should be provided voluntarily, Period.
Either Coercion/Enslavement is right or wrong, Period.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Really Jan?
"If the daughter of the only Director of one Security agency has a date with the son of a guy who's the only Director of another Security agency says she gets raped by the son of the director of the second security agency and the son of the second Security agency says he didn't rape her, but the dad of the first security agency wants to have the son of the director of the second security agency..."Jesus Christ...Can we get anymore hypothetical?? I lost all respect for the man.
TheLibertas2 1 year ago
@TheLibertas2 Apparently he believes that the children of the directors of security agencies tend to rape each other, a clearly recognized property of voluntarist systems.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
Stef is such a powerful and convincing speaker that I was surprised to see him lose his focus at the end of this video, and get sucked into Jan's scenarios. Good to see that he is only human. :)
Stef wins on moral arguments, but Jan is more convincing as to how such a decentralized implementation might result.
SnowDog2003 1 year ago
Kind of a clownish thing to suggest that human kind lived in abject poverty in Africa for a million years because there were no states. I mean really? Really Jan? And I suppose the San people of the Kalahari or the Amazonian natives who still live like theyve lived for pre state Milenia are just super miserable and only wish they lived in states so they could get out of their horrific situations...Oh wait they DO technically live within states and yet shun the so called prosperity of it? Hmmm...
nijaexhile3 1 year ago
@nijaexhile3 What "America" salesmen like this always conveniently ignore are the peoples that still exist today living essentially anarchic lives while being prosperous(in the most important way of family etc) healthy and happy, free from crime sprees and "criminal gangs" in their midst's. the threats they face are usually from outside entities like "America". America showed the world alright, it showed the world that no matter how hard you try, States are doomed to fail.
nijaexhile3 1 year ago
@nijaexhile3 Gun, Germs, and Steel for the win. Jan needs to read a bit.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
1 in 25 people a sociopaths.
eatadicc 1 year ago
Even if the free market prevented startups within a stateless society from building tanks, etc, how would it stop outside threats from doing this? If some imperialistic external threat decided to launch a blitzkrieg into our stateless society, and no one in our society had tanks or panzerfaust to stop them because of the checks and balances mentioned, wouldn't we still be easy pickin's? In other words, there is still a realistic chance for organized force to pose a major threat to the peace
toluca56 1 year ago
Seems that Helfeld's argument is from a pragmatic perspective, i.e. he is saying that the ideal (an anarchistic society in which no participants seek to gain power or wealth through use of force) is impossible, so the next best thing is a minarchy with limited powers. But who limits the powers? Obviously the US experiment shows that no one limits them, they take more and more as time progresses. At any rate, one issue is what is right, the other is what is possible to sustain given human nature
toluca56 1 year ago
wow stef ripped jan a new hole right at the end
t2491tom 1 year ago
couldn't these anarcho-capitalist checks & balances be a check against the State? It seems these checks & balances would work just as well under a minarchist system.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
Jan didn't understand the point of the debate. It was a philosophical debate about Minarchism and Anarchism, and he wanted to end it early by stating that Anarchists should have their own territory...not the point, Jan. I'd like a coherent minarchist/philosophical "republican" to debate Stefan, because I fall somewhere in the middle. Heck, I'd be willing to do it Stefan. Check out my channel if that interests you
LordAgonis 1 year ago
Jan Helfeld did some good interviews with politicians but here he was the most irritating person I've seen in a long time. He is not debating but trying to win.
The answer to his question 'but what will happen when a defense company starts a war with another defense company?' was made by stepfan: 'all customers will cease to pay those companies fro defense services as obviously they are a danger to the customer and the society'.
Marcdemesel 1 year ago
@Marcdemesel what happens when a defensive company decides it can run things better than those within it's jurisdiction? What if they disallow the transactions to OTHER defense companies to defend them and seize assets and control? The problem that I see without a gov't is that no one will truly be to blame.. It's like having a government, but then ridiculously compartmentalizing everything controlled by a majority controlled profit.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton
Your example is actually the situation we have today. One monopolistic defense company, the state, not allowing any competition on his territory and abusing his powers by stealing half of peoples incomes at gunpoint everyday.
With that stolen money they subsidize and dictate major industries like roads, education, medical care, police, justice, energy and even banks so that without subsidies competition becomes very difficult and we have terrible quality as a result.
Marcdemesel 1 year ago
@Marcdemesel The difference is, our monopolistic defense company, came about out of another monopolistic defense company (unsuccessful monopoly obviously), by the will of the people who fought it. You have to convince people to scrap government, and government is not set up to disappear, so what do you intend to DO about it? Educate people until we get rid of the government? Not likely. The monopoly of force is not a bad thing all the time.. It's only bad when we lack limits of force
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Marcdemesel You make it sound SOOO dramatic... We don't steal half of people's incomes everyday, only the rich do we take THAT much (sometimes more)... REGARDLESS, you never answered my question besides assuming the lack of profit will immediately stop any force that a PMC might have. It wouldn't necessarily, they already have the arms... At any rate, it would take a very BAD PMC to do this type of activity, but I have no doubt that SOMEWHERE, some pirate/gov't organizations would form.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton
Molyneux sees an anarcho capitalistic society possible - only - if the morals of people go up concerning the initiation of force. He thinks we can only get a true anarchy without any ruler if people live by the morals that anyone that initiates violence is an offender and is banned, just like today anyone that introduces true slavery again would not expand but be banned by most because morals of people do not accept it anymore.
Marcdemesel 1 year ago
@Marcdemesel I C... Interesting stuff.. So, basically it's not really possible with current culture. I like the non aggression principle and all.. I think there are too many crazies out there that would never accept these morals for their own. Who deals with domestic abuse for instance? The public would create some sort of use of aggression to deal with these problems, so you are back to square 1. If people were angels, we'd need no government and no enforceable laws or structure.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Marcdemesel Basically, I don't believe enough people would care about being ostracized to deter their actions of greed or lust or murder. I really think anarcho-cap sounds like a way to compartmentalize would we would otherwise call government... Basically, I think it would create thousands of mini governments, or hundreds of thousands, instead of one that's accountable for the lot. Government ARE made up of people, so people doing the acts of government in a different way is little dif.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Marcdemesel The whole idea is interesting, I think it might work for many people, but it might fail for just as many more.....
Clyaton 1 year ago
Do you remember when you were an Objectivist and statists would come up with incredibly absurd counterexamples (the endless "what if"s?) Ring a bell? Sigh. Stef really opened my eyes.
amaone 1 year ago
A STATIST is to a MINARCHIST as a MINARCHIST TO an ANARCHIST.
Do you remember when you were an Objectivist and statists would come up with incredibly absurd counterexamples (the endless "what if"s?) Ring a bell? Sigh. Stef really opened my eyes.
amaone 1 year ago
@amaone
Anarchy leads inevitably to government. And the government it leads to can be anything. Very likely that it will sprout many dictatorships as people use their relative wealth and power to gain absolute power over others.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b Agreed... But it's very hard to convince an anarcho of this.. History isn't exactly filled with good examples of any type of anarchism.
Clyaton 1 year ago
And your response is just "everyone will know about every possibility and take actions to prevent it"
Well actually no. In fact many people will relish the opportunity to gain power and join in an alliance that will conquer others. States have not committed horrible crimes because they are states, they have committed horrible crimes because some have been run by horrible people. Horrible people will exist in equal numbers in anarchy and the evil version of an entrepreneur will have a field day.
evan13579b 1 year ago
Some area decides to use its wealth and comparative power in your anarchic society to create an army that is superior to its neighbors. Then it starts doing all the things you whine about and claim are only things states can do.
Well you are right that only states can do crimes of such huge magnitudes as you mention. Its just that anarchy leads inexorably to states.
If there is a vast difference in power in one area they can use that power to create an empire over their neighbors obviously.
evan13579b 1 year ago
I'm sorry Jan. I have never met an anarchist that wants "government services".
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
MUTE YOUR GOD DAMN MICROPHONE JAN!!!!
Christ on a crutch - trying to have a philosophical and intellectual discussion with a guy who's so obsessed with tanks he can't understand how fucking oovoo works---GGGAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zen5012 1 year ago
I still dont understand how anyone could support Minarchism, unless they are addicted to the state and could not give up their addiction completely.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
Because they don't want to be killed by some evil version of an entrepreneur who is creating an empire.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b so if someone is out to create an empire, why give them minarchy? they would take that small patch of gov and exploit it and make it grow.
if evil people are evil them having a government of any size is too dangerous.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
It is a lot harder for an area to create a large enough army to topple a minarchy. To topple some small private security forces would just require a larger security force that is its neighbor and happens to have the support of those it supposedly protected.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
And with any area possibly having that slight advantage in power, there is a fine chance that one of those empire-builders will not desire a constitutional republic in any way. It may, actually, end up being a slave state where all it conquers becomes its slaves.
If you build a minarchy with a constitution you don't have to worry that much about it being overthrown and replaced by something abhorrent.
In anarchy any area can grow off slightly smaller areas until it becomes big
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b what? constitutions prevent abhorrent government :O
in that case you have no room to complain about america huh? since it sure worked out there.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
The constitution acts to prevent abhorrent government. It has taken a while to get around that (except of course there is slavery which had always been ignored). What has occured is much better then what will be created by anarchy.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b the constitution doesnt prevent anything! it hasnt either.
the constitution allowed the cancer that is the government to grow. you need to cut the whole thing out and instead of relying on outside forces (government) people need to depends on themselves and help the people. people not government.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
The constitution is selectively enforced but I seem to recall that I still have the right to speak freely and the right to own arms (should also be "bear" arms but the right has been diminished). The constitution obviously has prevented many attempts to expand government however obviously people have IN SPITE OF, not BECAUSE OF it's existance managed to enlarge government anyway.
Having a good constitution is certainly better than having no constitution.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
Your alternative to a government with a constitution cannot be that we just rely on ourselves. People cannot all be security experts. This is why molynuts talks about security companies. People in a free market come to rely on the services of others and that would, in molynuts world, lead to people buying the services of security companies. Now, to pretend that no one would ever hire a security company that has ill-will and will cheat them is basically hilarious.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b well even though I find stef a genious, I personally am not a Market Anarchist. Thank you very much.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212
Well, I'm at a disadvantage arguing against someone whose beliefs I don't know when trying to defend minarchism.
I don't defend minarchism because I think its perfect, I defend it because I think nothing is better so I'll have a hard time proving its better than what you prefer if I don't know what that is.
Maybe I'll find I'm wrong about your preference, but I assume that fundamentally it is impossible to avoid the creation of a government regardless of how bad they might be.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b well apparently my economic theory is "panarchist synthesis". but i believe that various economics and such could co exist.
but as for politics I'm anarchist.
I guess if I had to pick a particular "Anarcho" group I would choose mutualist or syndicalist.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@evan13579b Well, that's because then, they can hire an offensive 'security' company to be the judge and jury.... I'm kidding of course.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@nomoreyou1212 People GENERALLY DO depend on themselves, even in our current system, MOST people aren't on welfare, and are only truly depending on government when it matters. If you called 911 in an anarcho-capitalist society, there is NO WAY you will get a response as quick as what you can generally expect from police/fire/etc.. In the end, we have to rely on something or someone than ourselves, government is a sure way to do that with accountable masters of it's scheme.
Clyaton 1 year ago
whoever moderates the debate... get a headset, severely impaired the audio-quality of the video with the softwares inability to optimize bandwidth due to echoes.
Iamfatbrain 1 year ago
i feel bad for stef. it's like he was debating a drone.
its funny watching this though. i can see what is going whats stef's head as he's beig asked these ridiculous questions..
rmcc0002 1 year ago 5
i feel bad for stef. it's like he was debating a drone.
rmcc0002 1 year ago
It's a shame that in what should be a polite debate, Jan is usually always listening, but Stefan is drinking, rearranging things on his desk, even reading stuff, talking to himself sometimes, making an expression of somebody who is thinking about something else... i thought that was really not a polite attitute...
erickpas 1 year ago
@erickpas I'M having a hard time listening to him. Are you aware of the audio distortions caused at least in part by Jan's inability to understand how to the audio devices work & leaving his microphone open the entire time? Besides the audio issues he clearly doesn't know how to have an adult conversation let alone a professional debate. Laughing, interrupting, talking over Stef's time. What about his general inability to make a clear & articulate point that is enjoyable to listen to? Really...
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@rockstarofredondo
I can understand him laughing actually when stefans responses are basically that everyone would know everything, always be extremely careful and entrepreneurs would show up that would do amazing things yet none of those entrepreneurs would be trying to invent new ways of taking control of others.
If everyone knew everything and could calculate it all perfectly there would never be corruption in government and we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism or anything else anyway
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b That's not what Stefan's responses are but since you completely don't & probably won't get why having a government creates corruption I'll just stop here & spend my time doing more productive things.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@rockstarofredondo
And anarchy leads to government. By his admission it is one that is created voluntarily, but you cannot say that because it was created voluntarily there would be no corruption.
All the enforcement measures he brings up would be just as easily corrupted. You cannot say "go to the newspapers" if the newspapers are in fact corrupt and have skin in the game. You cannot go to an arbitrator if the arbitrator in the contract was