Interesting to see @janhelfeld's comments ignored and marked as "spam", while Stefan waffles on about non-essentials, without once caring to respond to any of Jan's questions.
@jonathanaconway WORSE, he broke his word on compling with the agreed debate format and refused to answer my questions. Ask him if he willing to debate me in a neutral venue were he can't cut and run.
Personally, if a DRO uses lethal force, I wouldn't be willing to pay for that. Alternatively, if technology advanced a weapon that puts a aggressor in a psychedelic state, I'd be willing to pay for that.
Right off the bat you complain about scare stories, but I remember you incessantly resorting to the idea that minarchism inevitably grows into uncontrollable bullying. I'm not disagreeing with what you say about scare stories, I think the debate should be a purely philosophical one not based on strawmen, but it doesn't take away the fact that both sides were doing this. Will return in like an hour to watch the rest of this >_>
these were scare facts about minarchism. he said the minarchism experiment failed and jan couldnt give a real reason how to prevent it to happen again.
every time jan described the rogue dro wich overtakes teh society, he described the state that we have now!
not having a solution to something doesn't mean there isn't one. For example, evolutionists don't know exactly how life began, but that doesn't discredit evolution. It is the classic fallacy of incredulity; just because we don't know, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I realize that governments are for stupit people who can get it right without a fear authority...and this is the mayority!!
The develop super human is the one who can know the basic plrinciples with out a fear state, without a "if you kill someone you go to hell".. Well men is basic: Dont kill because the probability that someone would kill you would be bigger!! If you are able to be the killer you are able to be killed.....If there is no killers there is no risk to be killed.. I find it basic
Ill tell you how many weapons there would be, there would be just enough for people to think that they are safe against the bad guys and obviously their accuracy on their needs on weapons would become more accurate.
Z0mg at the beginning and at the end of the video!! You have a little remote control you use to turn the camera on and off. Oh gosh your sneaky, I always wondered how you did that.
Stef, Thank you for applying a consistent philosophical defense of liberty in a scientific way. I have never read or heard it defended so eloquently and consistently. I think people who do not understand how free markets work can not understand some of your arguments.
@8:55 --No, arguments from effect are extensions of moral arguments. The argument to drive north are taken from LEGITIMATE goals. Arguments toward optimization are legitimate, even if wrong and unprincipled. Principles lead toward optimization.
No, there is a reason to take scare stories as being in good faith. They are uninformed, but they are in good faith, and there is evidence for them. The evidence is not good, but that's what debates are for. Very true that scare stories ignore principles, but that is irrelevant.
It is possible to be a voluntaryist minarchist. Call me at 907-250-5503 if you want the full argument. -Jake (Tuatha could be called "governments"). Thresholds are important to both arguments, but they are unknown.
Jan tried to claim that States exist to protect people's freedom. That's just bullshit. In philosophy of law class, not even the liberal/socialist professor would make sense claims. The only thing that defines a State as such is that it is the only agency which people believe should have a monopoly to use violence. If it does not have this ability, IT IS NOT A STATE. Any organized group of people can offer protection to other people. Any organized group of people can build roads or deliver mail.
The functionality of a more free society allows for FASTER feedback for both good and bad behavior, which is, I think, the most critical trait. There may be rare instances of exceptional problems, but the free market system allows for a FASTER correction of those problems than currently exists.
Any objection to anarchism is IMHO, a reactionary, uneducated one of the exact sort to be expected from a mammalian species used to coercion and scared shitless of the personal responsibilities it entails.
Did you know that under the agreed rules you could get a one minute extension of remarks? That is what the judge was supposed to do. I guess you didn't know the rules. Do you know that Stephan agreed to do a complete debate and then chickened out? He is unwilling to even answer my remaining three questions and or resume the debate. Ask him yourself, if he's willing to finish the debate. I am still willing to finish the debate. He is unwilling.
I was generous and flexible and let him go over time assuming he would show me the same courtesy. However, he was unwilling to let me ask him even 10 questions much less 13. He was unwilling, to continue the debate with the rebuttals and summaries by both parties as agreed. Instead he preferred to produce a one-sided postmortem. If you are unwilling to respect the even most elemental principles of fairness you have to wonder what can be expected in a anarchist society.
It is easy to win a debate if you don't give the other fellow equal time to defend his position and don't follow the rules you agreed to in the beginning of the debate. Stephan agreed to a particular format and he was unwilling to complete the debate as agreed to. We ran out of time because he exceeded the time allotted for answering questions and asked 13 questions instead of the 10 that he was allotted.
Jan, You could have had twice as much time to dabate Stefan, and you would still have failed in the debate. You forgot your Socratic principles, you forgot 1st principles, you went off into a self serving nightmare future wherein NO principles are held dear. You might as well have been debating what forms of TERMINATOR robots would be best for subjicating mankind in a future society.
You were the one ranting on past the time limits, not acknowledging his position. You already had a pre-determined position of the anarchist, but when Stef's model came to you into perspective. You keep referring back to your cue card of scripted lines and doom days scenarios. Maybe you are not very good at social interaction on the live screen, but please certainty don't blame your faults on Stef. In fact, he was losing patience with you, and that has to due with your knowledge on markets.
*And your ability to acknowledge his position, because most of your claims against was either an already answered question, or a straw-man that isn't historically true or has nothing to do with Anarchism and involves a Collapsed State. Maybe your ability with technology and the sound issues hampered the debate, but it just wasn't much of a debate when one side (you) could not contain a thought. Sorry, I wish it was more than that.
So sorry, my lack of sleep and short patience for stupidity made me come off as an asshole. Well no actually I am an asshole but you sir are nothing but stupid.
Does your "quest" consist of a logical argument to refute "bullshit"? Do you speak of being refuted by a logical argument than rather what you said, "thwarted by your superior logic!"?
New to anarchistic debates so forgive my ignorance . I like your ideals but capitalistic moralities cant solve everything. ATM im more socio anarchistic in my views. If we are going to have an anarchististic point of view2 I ask this question.
A child is born, what will allow them to achieve their best abilities without being disadvantaged in any way?
The society, which by all means may consist of anything, interdependence and intersubjective consensus will decide, in the grounds of what they value as "best" abilities and a semi-clear prospect of what would be considered a "disadvantage",what is the "best" system to operate-this goes in the assumption that humans through markets are able to solve special scenerios. Again we start with principles-W/e they may be.
This is a surmise to predicting how a society would conduct; it may difer(alot)
Peaceful interactions can solve problems, but Jans point was, what if there wasn't peaceful interactions. In anarcho capatilistic society each citizen would have to make sure they had a backup to their original defence provider. Either Citizens On patrol (cop) or another contracter. BTW who upholds contract law. Employees are just that paid slaves.
If there is a demand for contract dispute arbitration and rectification of contract failures, what evidence can you bring up against arbitration agencies springing up in the free marketplace?
Also, I hate that the "employees are just paid slaves" argument is still used as though it were anything but vapid, state-sanctioning garbage. Let me ask you something, are slaves free to choose for whom they work?
Essentially what it sounds like is your plan is going back to the city-state or communes but the reality of the situation is that we are social primates. The whole reason people form governments is to delegate responsibilities so that they are free to carry on with their daily affairs. Now, I believe there are more good people than bad people but like nationalism from nation-states will the same thing will simply occur on a smaller scale - tribalism and we're back to square one w/better tech
I'm not convinced about the tanks though. Because they already exist and how are you going to transition to no gov't without the military hardware being taken over? Don't you have to support a minimal gov't first in order to get to no gov't? Also doesn't the militrary hardware have to exist to protect from other countries which are still statist?
In the debate it seemed to me that both sides missed the points of the other side to some extent.
Stef, you didn't realize that Jan's transitional zone had nothing to do with force. I think he was saying there would be some initally empty land wihich people would be free to migrate to to set up their own system. And on Jan's part, he really didn't consider your point about tanks not being produced in a free market. because of market checks and balances.
There are a few unanswered questions in my mind. In an anarcho-capitalist society, a security company is responsible to its customers and shareholders but not to people who are not customers. What is to stop one group of people from conquering and enslaving another? What is to stop insurance companies from denying care as they do now? And what will keep labor contracts unbiased toward the rich?
If people can't be aware of a danger, there is no way to protect against it in a statist society either. Voluntary societies aren't magically capable of defending against all possible evils - they are just more rationally, economically prepared to deal with it when they become aware of it.
See? This just doesn't explain how you get from point A to point B. How does a stateless society carry a military? Is every individual within the society required to be fully aware of the dangers posed by neighboring states, and thus, voluntarily willing to pool resources? What if they don't want to? Wouldn't you wind up with a rather meager police force?
What is the purpose of a miliary in a statist society?
(Defense against military invasion)
Are the free individuals aware of these evils?
(Indeed)
And if they are aware of it - they can provide for it.
This issue is covered a whole lot of times in An-cap literature - in many different ways. I invite you to review them if you want a detailed understanding. Suffice to say that in a free society people would be much safer than a statist society from the dangers you cite.
I suppose I shouldn't expect better, on Youtube, where a character count is imposed. I, sincerely, thought you'd be able to do better than that, though.
How do you expect to convince people that anarchism is the way to go, if the best argument you can come up with is, "do some research?"
Youtube is preventing me from giving you specific websites - but get on stefan's site, go through his site - and you can ask for help there on the forums. It has a wide range of anarchists there - so you will have exposure to various philosophical arguments there. I recommend evaluating all of them. I myself consider the An-cap, voluntaryist argument - although I argue a bit more for an armed society than Stefan does. Not that it is in contradiction with anything Stefan has said...yet.
Very good debate, that answered my question about violence though i had a vague idea the points you offer would be. I have one question though, a company works for profit. It's profit can be cumulated into savings, which could then be used to purchase weapons years later. If i get this right, the weapon's seller would have no incentive to supply the weapons as it could lead to a gang war, and the clients would certainly not embrace it? Mmmm, i think i get how anarchy works!
- How many rich people do you see investing their own money (not that of tax payers) risking it in violent enterprises?
- The defense company is already making profit, right? Besides, it is not the only one. If it engages in violence, it will have to fight other companies as well as armed free people. The gains derived through such violent engagement is hardly as profitable as to risk the already profitable defense enterprise.
I'll play devil's advocate. What if they secretly contemplate to form a monopoly of violence? And put it in effect once all directors mutually agree? - this is the last thing that bothers me. :P
1. Indeed this collusion and monopoly of violence already is feasible in a statist society as well. Some people have theories about the NWO already. So things can only get better.
2. free societies = heavily armed compared to minarchist societies
3. Absence of nationalistic loyalties = impossible to sway peaceful people into supporting violence. (Soldier = job, not duty, honor, blah blah...)
4. Smaller, loose and fundamentally defensive nature of military infrastructure because of #3.
@stefbot not to mention the fact that if a company was able to amass such a large savings by running a legitimate company then its actors and owners have all the more incentive to continue to be legitimate. why risk existing proven success with movie line world domination pipe dreams? and of course thats just one logical check, obviously there would be hundreds of other objective checks that are not in the control of the would be tank buyers.
One cannot argue for(and achieve) anarchism on reason alone. Most people aren't rational, but emotional. There is no other way but to be pragmatic and gradual even if logic dictates against it. Logic dictates that Bush and Obama are evil but the majority still votes for these guys. They're not going to make the leap from irrational Obamaism to rational Anarchism. To get across a river one needs to build a bridge or hop across stones in the water.
Yeah, this is too bad. I wish I had listened to the whole thing. But I was shocked at how someone who uses razor sharp socratic logic against politicians would start talking about (private) tanks in the streets if governments would disappear. It's a scare story indeed, plus, the free market would never produce such useless and wasteful 60 tons pieces of crap. Tell me of one tank that hasn't ever been produced with taxpayers money.
I would argue that we are already in a stateless society: the state only exists to the extent that individuals choose to fill the roles of and acknowledge the existence of the state. Like any other social construction, it has no physical existence. So, if we see 'the government' as a game played in the arena of existent anarchy, the potential to quit the game and play another game becomes obvious.
That's why this argument about "lack of imagination" is not a useful argument either. Most people have a lack of imagination especially when it comes to something as radical as anarchism.
How will you convince people without specifics and complaining about their own lack of imagination?
I might say that maybe i indeed lack imagination to see the solutions to the things that trouble me about anarchism, but telling me so is hardly convincing me to embrace the unknown regardless, is it?
You can't expect a single man to engineer an entire society. If he could, he might as well be our dictator. Did the government know there would be a PC revolution in the 80's? No, entrepreneurs came out of garages and innovated. As such, the people who will be designing methods for, say, health-care or roads, will be the doctors and construction companies, not Stef. Stef's goal is to spread the philosophy, and perhaps light a spark in the mind of someone who can solve the low level problems.
I'm not expecting him to engineer anything. I don't think others would either. But as i said the majority simply lack the "imagination" Stef speaks of to think of solutions to problems in Anarchist society. All they see is chaos. You won't convince these people by claiming that they have a lack of imagination.
When it comes to safety in society people aren't going to play games. If you have an alternative you better be willing to answer questions rather than saying "use your imagination".
You can repeat "scare stories" thousand times, but the fact is that certain things under anarchy would be worse for certain individuals than in the current system.
Second thing that Stef never wants to talk about is highly problematic transition from current system to anarchy in real circumstances.
Also where is the video with "Post Debate Review" of the other debater?
I think the problem with Stef is that he thinks people are like switches that you can just flick. There is logic in flicking a switch to change something, but people aren't switches and they don't often function rationally. You will need to argue from human nature to convince people of the feasibility of anarchism. Most people may be willing to go from A to B finally to Z, but Stef wants to go from A to Z at once and he will lose his potential audience. This is the problem with most anarchists.
That's because a lot of poor people want other people's money.
Personally, i find there to be nothing "beautiful and sweet" about a society where person A is enslaved to the wants and need of person B. It's a society of mass-parasitism.
In that sense it is irrelevant what a majority of people think is beautiful and sweet.
Of course the power of numbers decides who is the victor but for the majority to then use words like "morality" is a sick joke.
I can understand WHY you choose to resist specifics, but this a huge stumbling block for convincing others of your ideas. Refusal of gradualism is your worst enemy, IMO
Ever heard of Fabian Socialism? Sorry, but smart anarchists are not going to argue gradualism - because gradualism in theory is perpetual in practice.
I am not giving you a solution - because the solution is too obvious to be told. It is one of those things that you have to work to reach on your own. Your demand is like that of a young student demanding to know the result of a multiplication, rather than actually learning to multiply.
You have to learn to multiply - there is no other way out. And every GOOD voluntaryist would rather help you understand the mathematics than to tell you the result.
Also, you should understand the basic premise/reasoning behind the gradualism of the Fabians. Once you understand it, you will realize that gradualism indeed is very dangerous.
I conclude that if you are exemplary of anarchists, you have nothing to offer to achieve anything other than talk.
Of course it was to be expected that you didn't have an answer about how to bring about this alternative to gradualism. This is the cop out all theorizers have. Rejecting what doesn't fit their logic, and yet not knowing how to deal with a real world with real people to achieve their ideals.
Why do you think i asked? So that people could see you have NO alternative to gradualism.
If one (or a few hundred) human being's responses on a website can decide for your "No alternative to gradualism" position - then maybe you should believe what you already do.
I don't know if this is out of despair or impatience - but clearly you got issues to solve of your own.
Buddy, trust me. I'm a philosophical anarchist. I'm about 98% there. You don't have to convince me of the hows of the anarchist society itself.
I am judging you by what you have to offer the collectivist statists as a way not only of the hows of anarchists society itself, but how to get there in the face of collectivist politics.
You're not getting away with your non-answers with me. Why would you get away with them with an actual collectivist?
So I was being judged this whole time? Let me go put on my chicken suit so you can judge me better.
As for "getting away" with actual collectivists. I wouldn't try.. let them have their utopia. If they cannot be swayed by the logical arguments already put on the table - why bother?
I'm a bit disappointed that it didn't really go past "what if defense agencies go to war against each other?" but it was still interesting. Does Jan Helfeld have a youtube account or some place to hear his comments on the debate?
btw. Stefan reminds me of Gorbachev with the mark on his forhead.
I admire both Jan and Stefan in there reasoning, and it appears that there is actually quite a bit of agreement between them based on their principles. However, It did not appear to me that Jan used "scare stories" in responding to Stefan-he was simply testing the logic of his principles with extreme cases, which is legitimate. Jan also conceded that if anarchists had a space to test anarchism in practice and it worked, he would gladly join them-he just couldn't reach that logical conclusion.
I agree with you force is something to be avoided but it still needs to be on the table. I think prison and the police should really only be for violent people. People who refuse to pay tax should be barred from the use of public amenities forever. If you lose your money and you want back into the NHS to get some surgery! Tough luck you opted out. If you want the bin men to collect your rubbish, unlucky, want street lights outside your house, need the nasty coercive police to help. Oh dear
The point is removing the option of force against criminals emboldens them. Force is what bullies understand. Remove the threat of force you end up creating more bullies and they just take over. In the 80's there was a social experiment carried out in the school system where corporal punishment was done away with and teachers were told that any coercion through punishment was to be avoided at all costs because bad behavior was due to bad parenting, racism, poverty and the oppressive society.
Taking away the option of force and blaming bad behavior on society has actually turned out to be the worst kind of child abuse because we now have a generation of lost selfish and aggressive kids who use intimidation and bullying on their peers and the adult population because they know that there will be no retaliation.
Well done in the last view minutes. You are correct, everyone in the world has their idea of a "perfect" world in order to coincide with their values and what they want.
It is completely true what you say, I think the argument needs to be what is the most benefical to society as a whole, not just you or what you value.
I wish the debate had centred on Jan's concession to statists that his minarchism would have to carve out a space under statism ... where there is no space or air for it to survive. Just as he rightly points out that there is no space for anarchism in minarchism.
Jans concession can only work in the reverse of what he was proposing. i.e. Minarchism, communes, etc. can all exist within anarchism with voluntary freedom reductions by association. But the reverse is not true.
I think Stef is over stating the obvious in this review, but I guess if there is a person willing to debate Stef there must still be people who don't get it.
i think the point that jan wanted to make is being missed, even thought he was wrong in his methods, the question is how do we get there from here? stefan's position and anarcho-capitalism is solid but what was being asked is how do we get there from here?
He can offer plenty of theories and explanations, but the people who should be developing them are experts at group psychology and social issues. Stefan is simply getting the fundamental framework out there.
If you have 100 different DROs each representing clients scattered across the entire island, because of the common interest each has for the clients in the area, they will all cooperate with each other to defend from China.
But within the area of a DRO there are also people who do not pay for the services of protection of invasion of other countries. Those who do not pay also gain the benefit of being protected by this invading country. So it's better to not pay for this service, thus no one pays for it, and no such DRO exists.
Or am I completely missing something important here?
Yeah, you missing that fact that defense is so crucially important when there is an invasion that there are other incentives at work other than the incentive to free load.
Plus, why would you use the threat of statism to prove that you need it?
"You missing that fact that defense is so crucially important when there is an invasion that there are other incentives at work other than the incentive to free load."
You forget, people don't like to pay, if you have two products, exactly the same, but one of them costs more because they add to safety, many will buy the cheaper one.
"Plus, why would you use the threat of statism to prove that you need it?"
It doesn't need to be a state, it can also be a band of rogues invading a territory.
The people that don't pay for a DRO also miss out on many interactions that require a DRO. the selection of banks may become quite limited, as some banks may make a DRO subscription as a requirement for their services. Many car dealerships may refuse to sell to anyone without a DRO subscription, for their own integrity. Indeed, not subscribing to a DRO may be seen as inconvenient.
But isn't a DRO then not virtually the same as a government? (Though it is voluntary, you're practically forced to have it, since you'll miss out on a lot if you don't.)
A DRO doesn't have a monopoly on the legitamate use of force therefore it is not a state. I think what you have is a misunderstand of anarchist philosophy and that misunderstanding the assumption that anarchists are against the rule of law. They are not. They favor polycentric law.
Government is defined by its monopoly and its use of violence to maintain that monopoly.
Also, I must say that not all DROs will require payment, contrary to what I implied in my last post. Indeed, pay based DRO subscriptions may offer certain benefits, but part of the DRO model involved compensation. They request compensation from you if you infringe on another individuals rights, and compensate you if your rights have been infringed. Some of the compensation may be used to sustain themselves.
Then how is protection of the country regulated, isn't that based on required payment beforehand?
Since they can only have the tanks and airplanes when they are paid for it.
But then, wouldn't you get that problem that no one will pay for that protection, because the people think "someone else will do it".
Just when one person sees a burning house, he will call the fire department, but when a group of people sees a burning house, no one calls them, because they think someone else will do it.
"But then, wouldn't you get that problem that no one will pay for that protection, because the people think "someone else will do it"."
But the incentive to free load is not the only incentive at work here! If an invasion is in the near future it would be stupid to free load. Do you really think most people care more about obtaining profit than surviving? You're arguement implies that there is only one relevant incentive to take into account when there are other far more relevant ones.
Are you so sure the invasion must be repelled or one must pay?
There are all sorts of reasons, methods, and degrees to which free people can resist a state invasion. And there are all sorts of reasons, methods and degrees to which free people should avoid conflict (e.g. A pedophile may slip into anarchic territory and theoretically - a state follows him to apprehend him.) It is up to the individuals to decide whether they want to resist or not, and not all invasions are to be repelled.
"Just when one person sees a burning house, he will call the fire department, but when a group of people sees a burning house, no one calls them, because they think someone else will do it."
1)Again, the profit motive is not the only incentive at work there.
2)Even if this scenario accurately replicates real life it doesn't really apply to defense. Personal survival is more important than personal profit.
Yes, but when it is a time of peace, how many will pay for defence, only when it's probably too late, they want to pay for the defence.
People in general are short sighted, it is in our nature. The now of having more money is more important than the later with trouble because of that same money issue.
This is why for example in the Netherlands many people have loans they do not need, and should just save the money to get it later.
Quetimus, do like Stef says. Think like an entrepreneur. How would you solve this problem? What possible solutions for protecting from invasion might occur from merely selling the idea of individualized defense?
Like Stef said, I'd be afraid that the DRO was going to take over me. Therefore, I'd ask for reassurance that this couldn't happen. And maybe that reassurance would come in by always having a competitor with an equal ability to destroy it if it attempted to attack.
How I see defense in a stateless society: Guerilla warfare. If a nation does not project legitimacy onto states, then a foreign state would have no capacity to invade, and take over, because there would be nothing to take over. An example of this would be Anarchic Ireland in which England took centuries to conquer it. The effectiveness of guerilla warefare can be seen in Afghanistan, both modern and Soviet invasion era.
Describing socialised health care as "using the government gun to rob other people" is yet more hysterics.
I come from the UK and the police don't use guns or any type of extreme violence to enforce the law. You will find that the NHS is supported by the majority of us from both sides of the political spectrum. There isn't a country in the world where in the absence of health care the rich have volunteered their riches to help the poor. Human nature gets in the way of your theories again.
The fact the the majority of humanity thinks that anarchy is untenable means you should have some restraint and a bit less certainty. Any way what kind of witty retort do you think that is. Your pretty weak at debating you lot. So far most of you have ended up being insane conspiracy nuts, juvenile revolutionaries or idiots who say think saying "Your a tool" makes them look good.
Steff seems to be the only sane and grown up anarchist in the room.
It seems to me that Stef is moved to creative solutions because he's committed to his principles (non-aggression being at the top) If that is ones foundation it's not so easy to just go with what the majority of humanity thinks.
I'm sorry but you are so far below the spectrum of intelligence, that debating with a person such as your self would be a waste of time. In my eyes you are nothing but some tool to be used.
Yea I do act immature when dealing with people such as your self, I see no reason in conversing in a mature and "intelligent" manner around someone who is undeveloped. All ive seen you do is yap bullshit for the passed day and people keep feeding you like the troll you are, im not defending them either.
Noam Chomsky? That is the only person I can possibly imagine could debate him. Chomsky might actually win, too, and we all might become socialists! Wouldn't that be great? I'm due for another radical shift in perspective.
But seriously, Chomsky. That's the only person I can possibly think of, unless Stef wants to debate religion, and in that case, Dinesh D'Souza.
ForOrAgainstUs you talk as if my honest acceptance that a certain amount of force is acceptable has handed you some sort of moral victory. You guys need to get off your high horses.
Force is a fact of human existence, no amount of political theorising can change that. Even your anarchist utopia would require the use of force against those who oppose your system.
So far from you having the moral high ground you are hoisted on your own theoretical petard.
Do you understand the difference between self-defense and the initiation of force?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using force if it is to defend against aggression. So what is your problem with me? Do you have an actual complaint? My argument has always been against the initiation of force, and you conflate that to mean all force. You're either being deliberately obtuse (which I doubt) or you're simply not expending the energy to try to understand me.
What if a group of people peacefully decide that free market anarchy is bollocks and set up a state within your utopian society. What do you do then. What if they have a commodity like oil that your utopia needs so you are forced to trade with them? If you cannot penalize them through trade you must have an alternative. Force or allowing people to opt out of your anarchist society are your only options.
Anarchist society would need force and the threat of force for more than just self defense.
I know the difference between coercive force and defensive force but your dream of a world without coercive force is untenable. You could not stop crime or violent or peaceful rebellion through free market penalties. Nice idea but your utopia being free of coercive force is just a pipe dream.
just like communism your system involves unanimous agreement in the absence of that force will have to fill the gap
You really don't see the contradictions you're putting forth?
Peacefully decide to set up a state.
Could not stop crime without coercive force.
Peaceful rebellion (of statists).
These are contradictions. I'm not going to condescend. I'm just certain you don't realize this. These arguments you're putting forth are self-detonating. I don't even have to argue against them, merely point them out.
This is why principles are important. You need a coherent method of debating.
Violent crime would warrant self defense, which could be delegated to a DRO. Think police, minus enforcement of victimless crimes. Plus, you voluntarily choose the DRO, but government police are paid for using violent taxation.
I actually would really like to see Stefan go head to head with a socialist leaning anarchist. A debate between Molyneux and Chomsky? That would be freaking epic.
The thing is your founding argument is the use of force is wrong and the fact that the government uses force (no matter how conservatively) this makes government morally bankrupt. So you have the dilemma of how to remain true to your ideas and to implement an idea that requires human solidarity and unanimous agreement on a divided and politically diverse world without the use of force.
Your hands are black with hypocrite ink my friend. " this makes government morally bankrupt" No one said that.
The point was the use of force IS wrong - period. And just using a little force opens the door for more - corruption is inevitable - as historical fact.
All tyrannical empires start out small. Our own government started out small with little violence and hardly any taxes. Now its the biggest, most corrupt, corp. on the planet.
And what aren't you taxed on? Your unborn are in debt.
The pumped up pomposity tinged with teenage angst and rebellion that you guys display is astounding. Can't you debate me without the hyperbole and aggressive rhetoric. Your as bad as a bunch of Trotskyites on steroids.
PS: I'm not American but even if I was I have to say your hysterical description of America and liberal democracy is enough to dismiss you as potentially unhinged.
Interesting to see @janhelfeld's comments ignored and marked as "spam", while Stefan waffles on about non-essentials, without once caring to respond to any of Jan's questions.
jonathanaconway 2 weeks ago
@jonathanaconway WORSE, he broke his word on compling with the agreed debate format and refused to answer my questions. Ask him if he willing to debate me in a neutral venue were he can't cut and run.
janhelfeld 2 weeks ago
Very helpful, as always. Thanks Stef.
1717jbs 5 months ago
So name one and even just ONE time in history that anarchism actually worked.
survivalpodcasting 7 months ago
@survivalpodcasting I don't that much about it, but somewhere in Spain in a very short period between 1936-1939.
BearWindAppleyard 7 months ago
@survivalpodcasting any interaction which is voluntary is an example of anarchy.
travis0629 1 week ago
Personally, if a DRO uses lethal force, I wouldn't be willing to pay for that. Alternatively, if technology advanced a weapon that puts a aggressor in a psychedelic state, I'd be willing to pay for that.
silentthriller 9 months ago
Right off the bat you complain about scare stories, but I remember you incessantly resorting to the idea that minarchism inevitably grows into uncontrollable bullying. I'm not disagreeing with what you say about scare stories, I think the debate should be a purely philosophical one not based on strawmen, but it doesn't take away the fact that both sides were doing this. Will return in like an hour to watch the rest of this >_>
Oyaji291 10 months ago
@Oyaji291
these were scare facts about minarchism. he said the minarchism experiment failed and jan couldnt give a real reason how to prevent it to happen again.
every time jan described the rogue dro wich overtakes teh society, he described the state that we have now!
FreiwilligFrei 4 days ago in playlist Weitere Videos von stefbot
not having a solution to something doesn't mean there isn't one. For example, evolutionists don't know exactly how life began, but that doesn't discredit evolution. It is the classic fallacy of incredulity; just because we don't know, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
jk148706 1 year ago
I realize that governments are for stupit people who can get it right without a fear authority...and this is the mayority!!
The develop super human is the one who can know the basic plrinciples with out a fear state, without a "if you kill someone you go to hell".. Well men is basic: Dont kill because the probability that someone would kill you would be bigger!! If you are able to be the killer you are able to be killed.....If there is no killers there is no risk to be killed.. I find it basic
shiru82 1 year ago
Ill tell you how many weapons there would be, there would be just enough for people to think that they are safe against the bad guys and obviously their accuracy on their needs on weapons would become more accurate.
MirageScience 1 year ago
Z0mg at the beginning and at the end of the video!! You have a little remote control you use to turn the camera on and off. Oh gosh your sneaky, I always wondered how you did that.
drew335533 1 year ago
I was equally disappointed in Jan's performance, and would like to debate you on minarchism.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
Stef, Thank you for applying a consistent philosophical defense of liberty in a scientific way. I have never read or heard it defended so eloquently and consistently. I think people who do not understand how free markets work can not understand some of your arguments.
mladenik 1 year ago
great explanations...totally agree with u, god is in the details. cheers !
I1R8A7Q 1 year ago
Atkins on your ass
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@8:55 --No, arguments from effect are extensions of moral arguments. The argument to drive north are taken from LEGITIMATE goals. Arguments toward optimization are legitimate, even if wrong and unprincipled. Principles lead toward optimization.
libertarianjury 1 year ago
No, there is a reason to take scare stories as being in good faith. They are uninformed, but they are in good faith, and there is evidence for them. The evidence is not good, but that's what debates are for. Very true that scare stories ignore principles, but that is irrelevant.
It is possible to be a voluntaryist minarchist. Call me at 907-250-5503 if you want the full argument. -Jake (Tuatha could be called "governments"). Thresholds are important to both arguments, but they are unknown.
libertarianjury 1 year ago
Jan tried to claim that States exist to protect people's freedom. That's just bullshit. In philosophy of law class, not even the liberal/socialist professor would make sense claims. The only thing that defines a State as such is that it is the only agency which people believe should have a monopoly to use violence. If it does not have this ability, IT IS NOT A STATE. Any organized group of people can offer protection to other people. Any organized group of people can build roads or deliver mail.
alique087 1 year ago
Comment removed
alique087 1 year ago
The functionality of a more free society allows for FASTER feedback for both good and bad behavior, which is, I think, the most critical trait. There may be rare instances of exceptional problems, but the free market system allows for a FASTER correction of those problems than currently exists.
hughtub 1 year ago
Any objection to anarchism is IMHO, a reactionary, uneducated one of the exact sort to be expected from a mammalian species used to coercion and scared shitless of the personal responsibilities it entails.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you know that under the agreed rules you could get a one minute extension of remarks? That is what the judge was supposed to do. I guess you didn't know the rules. Do you know that Stephan agreed to do a complete debate and then chickened out? He is unwilling to even answer my remaining three questions and or resume the debate. Ask him yourself, if he's willing to finish the debate. I am still willing to finish the debate. He is unwilling.
janhelfeld 1 year ago 2
I was generous and flexible and let him go over time assuming he would show me the same courtesy. However, he was unwilling to let me ask him even 10 questions much less 13. He was unwilling, to continue the debate with the rebuttals and summaries by both parties as agreed. Instead he preferred to produce a one-sided postmortem. If you are unwilling to respect the even most elemental principles of fairness you have to wonder what can be expected in a anarchist society.
janhelfeld 2 years ago
@janhelfeld In a sense, it reveals the non-objectivity on which the whole anarchist position is based.
jonathanaconway 2 weeks ago
It is easy to win a debate if you don't give the other fellow equal time to defend his position and don't follow the rules you agreed to in the beginning of the debate. Stephan agreed to a particular format and he was unwilling to complete the debate as agreed to. We ran out of time because he exceeded the time allotted for answering questions and asked 13 questions instead of the 10 that he was allotted.
janhelfeld 2 years ago
Jan, You could have had twice as much time to dabate Stefan, and you would still have failed in the debate. You forgot your Socratic principles, you forgot 1st principles, you went off into a self serving nightmare future wherein NO principles are held dear. You might as well have been debating what forms of TERMINATOR robots would be best for subjicating mankind in a future society.
DecassyJake 2 years ago 20
Are you or any anarchist willing to debate in Washington DC?
janhelfeld 2 years ago
@DecassyJake T1000 off course
Incrue 1 year ago
@Incrue T1001, would be better!! :-P
DecassyJake 1 year ago
You were the one ranting on past the time limits, not acknowledging his position. You already had a pre-determined position of the anarchist, but when Stef's model came to you into perspective. You keep referring back to your cue card of scripted lines and doom days scenarios. Maybe you are not very good at social interaction on the live screen, but please certainty don't blame your faults on Stef. In fact, he was losing patience with you, and that has to due with your knowledge on markets.
BIackOp 2 years ago 3
*And your ability to acknowledge his position, because most of your claims against was either an already answered question, or a straw-man that isn't historically true or has nothing to do with Anarchism and involves a Collapsed State. Maybe your ability with technology and the sound issues hampered the debate, but it just wasn't much of a debate when one side (you) could not contain a thought. Sorry, I wish it was more than that.
BIackOp 2 years ago 12
I can't freaking stand this guy any more. Before he was funny in a quirky kind of way and now he just pisses me off with his arrogance.
Just cuz you call it a "dispute resolution organization" doesn't hide the fact that once it has a monopoly it's just the State draped in new clothing.
Tuppington 2 years ago
go fuck yourself!
Ingl0ri0usBastard 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh noez! My quest for calling this guy on bullshit is thwarted by your superior logic!
Tuppington 2 years ago
So sorry, my lack of sleep and short patience for stupidity made me come off as an asshole. Well no actually I am an asshole but you sir are nothing but stupid.
Ingl0ri0usBastard 2 years ago
Does your "quest" consist of a logical argument to refute "bullshit"? Do you speak of being refuted by a logical argument than rather what you said, "thwarted by your superior logic!"?
fireman12888 2 years ago
Comment removed
bdrake529 2 years ago
New to anarchistic debates so forgive my ignorance . I like your ideals but capitalistic moralities cant solve everything. ATM im more socio anarchistic in my views. If we are going to have an anarchististic point of view2 I ask this question.
A child is born, what will allow them to achieve their best abilities without being disadvantaged in any way?
magottyk 2 years ago
You might get better discussion if you join the FDR forum and pose questions there instead of here. Hope that helps
imyourgod2 2 years ago
The society, which by all means may consist of anything, interdependence and intersubjective consensus will decide, in the grounds of what they value as "best" abilities and a semi-clear prospect of what would be considered a "disadvantage",what is the "best" system to operate-this goes in the assumption that humans through markets are able to solve special scenerios. Again we start with principles-W/e they may be.
This is a surmise to predicting how a society would conduct; it may difer(alot)
fireman12888 2 years ago
Peaceful interactions can solve problems, but Jans point was, what if there wasn't peaceful interactions. In anarcho capatilistic society each citizen would have to make sure they had a backup to their original defence provider. Either Citizens On patrol (cop) or another contracter. BTW who upholds contract law. Employees are just that paid slaves.
magottyk 2 years ago
If there is a demand for contract dispute arbitration and rectification of contract failures, what evidence can you bring up against arbitration agencies springing up in the free marketplace?
Also, I hate that the "employees are just paid slaves" argument is still used as though it were anything but vapid, state-sanctioning garbage. Let me ask you something, are slaves free to choose for whom they work?
prisburning 2 years ago
Essentially what it sounds like is your plan is going back to the city-state or communes but the reality of the situation is that we are social primates. The whole reason people form governments is to delegate responsibilities so that they are free to carry on with their daily affairs. Now, I believe there are more good people than bad people but like nationalism from nation-states will the same thing will simply occur on a smaller scale - tribalism and we're back to square one w/better tech
Humanist555 2 years ago
I'm not convinced about the tanks though. Because they already exist and how are you going to transition to no gov't without the military hardware being taken over? Don't you have to support a minimal gov't first in order to get to no gov't? Also doesn't the militrary hardware have to exist to protect from other countries which are still statist?
zardozcs 2 years ago
In the debate it seemed to me that both sides missed the points of the other side to some extent.
Stef, you didn't realize that Jan's transitional zone had nothing to do with force. I think he was saying there would be some initally empty land wihich people would be free to migrate to to set up their own system. And on Jan's part, he really didn't consider your point about tanks not being produced in a free market. because of market checks and balances.
zardozcs 2 years ago
There are a few unanswered questions in my mind. In an anarcho-capitalist society, a security company is responsible to its customers and shareholders but not to people who are not customers. What is to stop one group of people from conquering and enslaving another? What is to stop insurance companies from denying care as they do now? And what will keep labor contracts unbiased toward the rich?
Tuppington 2 years ago
Technical difficulties aside, I wasn't satisfied by your response to the objective fact of tribalism.
How do people voluntarily protect themselves from evils they can't be aware of?
caltrop69 2 years ago
If people can't be aware of a danger, there is no way to protect against it in a statist society either. Voluntary societies aren't magically capable of defending against all possible evils - they are just more rationally, economically prepared to deal with it when they become aware of it.
utubehayter 2 years ago
See? This just doesn't explain how you get from point A to point B. How does a stateless society carry a military? Is every individual within the society required to be fully aware of the dangers posed by neighboring states, and thus, voluntarily willing to pool resources? What if they don't want to? Wouldn't you wind up with a rather meager police force?
caltrop69 2 years ago
Ask yourself -
What is the purpose of a miliary in a statist society?
(Defense against military invasion)
Are the free individuals aware of these evils?
(Indeed)
And if they are aware of it - they can provide for it.
This issue is covered a whole lot of times in An-cap literature - in many different ways. I invite you to review them if you want a detailed understanding. Suffice to say that in a free society people would be much safer than a statist society from the dangers you cite.
utubehayter 2 years ago
If you don't mind my summary of your response...
"read a book."
I suppose I shouldn't expect better, on Youtube, where a character count is imposed. I, sincerely, thought you'd be able to do better than that, though.
How do you expect to convince people that anarchism is the way to go, if the best argument you can come up with is, "do some research?"
caltrop69 2 years ago
Youtube is preventing me from giving you specific websites - but get on stefan's site, go through his site - and you can ask for help there on the forums. It has a wide range of anarchists there - so you will have exposure to various philosophical arguments there. I recommend evaluating all of them. I myself consider the An-cap, voluntaryist argument - although I argue a bit more for an armed society than Stefan does. Not that it is in contradiction with anything Stefan has said...yet.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Very good debate, that answered my question about violence though i had a vague idea the points you offer would be. I have one question though, a company works for profit. It's profit can be cumulated into savings, which could then be used to purchase weapons years later. If i get this right, the weapon's seller would have no incentive to supply the weapons as it could lead to a gang war, and the clients would certainly not embrace it? Mmmm, i think i get how anarchy works!
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Think about this
- How many rich people do you see investing their own money (not that of tax payers) risking it in violent enterprises?
- The defense company is already making profit, right? Besides, it is not the only one. If it engages in violence, it will have to fight other companies as well as armed free people. The gains derived through such violent engagement is hardly as profitable as to risk the already profitable defense enterprise.
utubehayter 2 years ago
I'll play devil's advocate. What if they secretly contemplate to form a monopoly of violence? And put it in effect once all directors mutually agree? - this is the last thing that bothers me. :P
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
1. Indeed this collusion and monopoly of violence already is feasible in a statist society as well. Some people have theories about the NWO already. So things can only get better.
2. free societies = heavily armed compared to minarchist societies
3. Absence of nationalistic loyalties = impossible to sway peaceful people into supporting violence. (Soldier = job, not duty, honor, blah blah...)
4. Smaller, loose and fundamentally defensive nature of military infrastructure because of #3.
utubehayter 2 years ago
...such a company would have to charge customers more, to cover the extra money it would have to save, and so would go out of business... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I think exquisite is arguing about collusion between defense organizations.. not competition between them.
5. Defense companies won't have big-bad-collusion-enforcer-Daddy in a state (as it does in a minarchist state).
6. Given that covert collusions are incredibly hard to maintain and even worse - in a free society, the possibility is heavily reduced.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Very good point, thank you, you can consider me converted into anarchism.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Agreed. Appreciate the reply. Hopefully i'm being more reasonable than Jan here has been haha. :) Time to subscribe!
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
@stefbot if microsoft wants to do that, would they need to charge more?
Incrue 1 year ago
@stefbot if it was as big as Microsoft, it would not
Incrue 1 year ago
@stefbot not to mention the fact that if a company was able to amass such a large savings by running a legitimate company then its actors and owners have all the more incentive to continue to be legitimate. why risk existing proven success with movie line world domination pipe dreams? and of course thats just one logical check, obviously there would be hundreds of other objective checks that are not in the control of the would be tank buyers.
slickbtk 2 months ago
I felt Jan was not fully comprehending and/or listening to Stef's arguments. This was frustrating.
dingerness 2 years ago
I don think statism can work because far too many people want to govern over me!
yuberries 2 years ago
Then we work to change this mindset of authority.
ufee 2 years ago
Same thing can be said about any form of government. Should we just resign to tyranny of your favorite form?
utubehayter 2 years ago
My summarized opinion:
One cannot argue for(and achieve) anarchism on reason alone. Most people aren't rational, but emotional. There is no other way but to be pragmatic and gradual even if logic dictates against it. Logic dictates that Bush and Obama are evil but the majority still votes for these guys. They're not going to make the leap from irrational Obamaism to rational Anarchism. To get across a river one needs to build a bridge or hop across stones in the water.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
True.
The concept of a stateless society implies that people wouldn't be able watch the football World Championships anymore.
E.g. go to Amsterdam Arena when the Netherlands are playing and tell the people that the state is an immoral cult... :)
ks100001 2 years ago
Yeah, this is too bad. I wish I had listened to the whole thing. But I was shocked at how someone who uses razor sharp socratic logic against politicians would start talking about (private) tanks in the streets if governments would disappear. It's a scare story indeed, plus, the free market would never produce such useless and wasteful 60 tons pieces of crap. Tell me of one tank that hasn't ever been produced with taxpayers money.
StrafingMoose 2 years ago
I would argue that we are already in a stateless society: the state only exists to the extent that individuals choose to fill the roles of and acknowledge the existence of the state. Like any other social construction, it has no physical existence. So, if we see 'the government' as a game played in the arena of existent anarchy, the potential to quit the game and play another game becomes obvious.
hakware 2 years ago
You wanna a scare story? I just t farted and it smells like a dead rotting carcuss!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
That's why this argument about "lack of imagination" is not a useful argument either. Most people have a lack of imagination especially when it comes to something as radical as anarchism.
How will you convince people without specifics and complaining about their own lack of imagination?
I might say that maybe i indeed lack imagination to see the solutions to the things that trouble me about anarchism, but telling me so is hardly convincing me to embrace the unknown regardless, is it?
tridentmovies 2 years ago
You can't expect a single man to engineer an entire society. If he could, he might as well be our dictator. Did the government know there would be a PC revolution in the 80's? No, entrepreneurs came out of garages and innovated. As such, the people who will be designing methods for, say, health-care or roads, will be the doctors and construction companies, not Stef. Stef's goal is to spread the philosophy, and perhaps light a spark in the mind of someone who can solve the low level problems.
ufee 2 years ago
I'm not expecting him to engineer anything. I don't think others would either. But as i said the majority simply lack the "imagination" Stef speaks of to think of solutions to problems in Anarchist society. All they see is chaos. You won't convince these people by claiming that they have a lack of imagination.
When it comes to safety in society people aren't going to play games. If you have an alternative you better be willing to answer questions rather than saying "use your imagination".
tridentmovies 2 years ago
You can repeat "scare stories" thousand times, but the fact is that certain things under anarchy would be worse for certain individuals than in the current system.
Second thing that Stef never wants to talk about is highly problematic transition from current system to anarchy in real circumstances.
Also where is the video with "Post Debate Review" of the other debater?
marjan15 2 years ago
I think the problem with Stef is that he thinks people are like switches that you can just flick. There is logic in flicking a switch to change something, but people aren't switches and they don't often function rationally. You will need to argue from human nature to convince people of the feasibility of anarchism. Most people may be willing to go from A to B finally to Z, but Stef wants to go from A to Z at once and he will lose his potential audience. This is the problem with most anarchists.
tridentmovies 2 years ago 2
Are there anymore channel's similar to this guy's? I love his videos. If so, please send me a message with links.
thinkrevolution 2 years ago
We already tried the laissez-faire government. And it wasn't beautiful and sweet for the majority of people.
Remember you'll never see a poor libertarian.
vivEnergy 2 years ago
uh....i'm poor and libertarian?
twentyonepyramids 2 years ago
it means you are not doing it right
vivEnergy 2 years ago
It means that even when you're poor you can have both intelligence and integrity.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
That's because a lot of poor people want other people's money.
Personally, i find there to be nothing "beautiful and sweet" about a society where person A is enslaved to the wants and need of person B. It's a society of mass-parasitism.
In that sense it is irrelevant what a majority of people think is beautiful and sweet.
Of course the power of numbers decides who is the victor but for the majority to then use words like "morality" is a sick joke.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
I AM poor and a libertarian. You want to see my bank accounts?
utubehayter 2 years ago
Same lol
tra789 2 years ago
I can understand WHY you choose to resist specifics, but this a huge stumbling block for convincing others of your ideas. Refusal of gradualism is your worst enemy, IMO
TheNeolibertarian 2 years ago
Ever heard of Fabian Socialism? Sorry, but smart anarchists are not going to argue gradualism - because gradualism in theory is perpetual in practice.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Yes, i've heard of it. And it's working, isn't it?
Socialism in through the back door by slow process of indoctrination over generations.
But never mind that: tell me about your wonderful suggestion for a complete and immediate switch from Obama statism to Anarchism.
After all, smart anarchists that are against gradualism must have a brilliant method for radical change, correct?
Or are we just theorizing uselessly here about a Utopia?
tridentmovies 2 years ago
I have no suggestion for you.. My solutions are for me - not you. Find your own way
utubehayter 2 years ago
You have no solution. The state is still here.
You can't WISH it away. Turn on the TV. Obama is still president and you're still paying taxes.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
I am not giving you a solution - because the solution is too obvious to be told. It is one of those things that you have to work to reach on your own. Your demand is like that of a young student demanding to know the result of a multiplication, rather than actually learning to multiply.
You have to learn to multiply - there is no other way out. And every GOOD voluntaryist would rather help you understand the mathematics than to tell you the result.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Here i am being the devil's advocate for an Obamaist statist rather than the philosophical anarchist that i am.
"why should i care about your fairy tale anarchy nonsense? How would you achieve it?"
Now tell me that i have to "learn" for myself, watch me shake my head and move on.
Get it? Stop acting like a cult member offering mystical what-ifs? while demanding they see for themselves to join their little group of insiders.
Ron Paul achieves more than you ever will this way.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Also, you should understand the basic premise/reasoning behind the gradualism of the Fabians. Once you understand it, you will realize that gradualism indeed is very dangerous.
utubehayter 2 years ago
I conclude that if you are exemplary of anarchists, you have nothing to offer to achieve anything other than talk.
Of course it was to be expected that you didn't have an answer about how to bring about this alternative to gradualism. This is the cop out all theorizers have. Rejecting what doesn't fit their logic, and yet not knowing how to deal with a real world with real people to achieve their ideals.
Why do you think i asked? So that people could see you have NO alternative to gradualism.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
If one (or a few hundred) human being's responses on a website can decide for your "No alternative to gradualism" position - then maybe you should believe what you already do.
I don't know if this is out of despair or impatience - but clearly you got issues to solve of your own.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Buddy, trust me. I'm a philosophical anarchist. I'm about 98% there. You don't have to convince me of the hows of the anarchist society itself.
I am judging you by what you have to offer the collectivist statists as a way not only of the hows of anarchists society itself, but how to get there in the face of collectivist politics.
You're not getting away with your non-answers with me. Why would you get away with them with an actual collectivist?
Now you'll tell me you don't care?
Happy changing
tridentmovies 2 years ago
So I was being judged this whole time? Let me go put on my chicken suit so you can judge me better.
As for "getting away" with actual collectivists. I wouldn't try.. let them have their utopia. If they cannot be swayed by the logical arguments already put on the table - why bother?
utubehayter 2 years ago
You weren't being judged. You were being asked. I am aware of the logical inconsistencies of the state.
My question is not: how, once we're there. I've read "Practical Anarchy".
My question was: How to *get* there. I have yet to hear an argument for an alternative to politics that is not a pipedream of one kind or another.
If the expectation is that the state will fall on its own, so what? When has a peaceful anarchism arisen from that? This isn't "Atlas Shrugged".
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Maybe next time I met a statist I should ask him about all those apocalypse scenarios I can come up with. I'm so sick of those hypocrites..arrgh!
Baabaloux 2 years ago
I'm a bit disappointed that it didn't really go past "what if defense agencies go to war against each other?" but it was still interesting. Does Jan Helfeld have a youtube account or some place to hear his comments on the debate?
btw. Stefan reminds me of Gorbachev with the mark on his forhead.
GaramRee 2 years ago 3
Jan Helfeld arguments at times were so fallacious I couldn't even watch it fully.
alique087 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
CHRISTIAN SURVIVAL GUIDE TO 2012 AND BEYOND, CONSPIRACY AGAINST HUMANITY, and TRUTH AND THE GREAT LIE. find these books and read them
libertyordeath2009 2 years ago
I admire both Jan and Stefan in there reasoning, and it appears that there is actually quite a bit of agreement between them based on their principles. However, It did not appear to me that Jan used "scare stories" in responding to Stefan-he was simply testing the logic of his principles with extreme cases, which is legitimate. Jan also conceded that if anarchists had a space to test anarchism in practice and it worked, he would gladly join them-he just couldn't reach that logical conclusion.
jupiterjason 2 years ago 3
I agree with you force is something to be avoided but it still needs to be on the table. I think prison and the police should really only be for violent people. People who refuse to pay tax should be barred from the use of public amenities forever. If you lose your money and you want back into the NHS to get some surgery! Tough luck you opted out. If you want the bin men to collect your rubbish, unlucky, want street lights outside your house, need the nasty coercive police to help. Oh dear
brucepig 2 years ago
I am ready for that. Now get me a guarantee that I will not be assaulted by the state for not paying taxes.
utubehayter 2 years ago
The point is removing the option of force against criminals emboldens them. Force is what bullies understand. Remove the threat of force you end up creating more bullies and they just take over. In the 80's there was a social experiment carried out in the school system where corporal punishment was done away with and teachers were told that any coercion through punishment was to be avoided at all costs because bad behavior was due to bad parenting, racism, poverty and the oppressive society.
brucepig 2 years ago
Taking away the option of force and blaming bad behavior on society has actually turned out to be the worst kind of child abuse because we now have a generation of lost selfish and aggressive kids who use intimidation and bullying on their peers and the adult population because they know that there will be no retaliation.
brucepig 2 years ago
Comment removed
brucepig 2 years ago
Well done in the last view minutes. You are correct, everyone in the world has their idea of a "perfect" world in order to coincide with their values and what they want.
It is completely true what you say, I think the argument needs to be what is the most benefical to society as a whole, not just you or what you value.
drew335533 2 years ago
It was a painful debate to watch. Jan is a fucking moron.
DeeperBlueX16 2 years ago
where can I watch the debate?
JahLoveOnline 2 years ago
@JahLoveOnline
If you haven't already found it just search Youtube for:
Anarchism Versus Minarchism - Stefan Molyneux & Jan Helfeld
It's about 1 and half hours.
Ralajer 2 years ago
I wish the debate had centred on Jan's concession to statists that his minarchism would have to carve out a space under statism ... where there is no space or air for it to survive. Just as he rightly points out that there is no space for anarchism in minarchism.
Jans concession can only work in the reverse of what he was proposing. i.e. Minarchism, communes, etc. can all exist within anarchism with voluntary freedom reductions by association. But the reverse is not true.
stratvic 2 years ago
What happened to your head? Someone tried to knock some clouded jugement into you.
goodagofilms 2 years ago
Meditation is the key..
It offers us each to ourselves the platform for extension.
If you are into winning games like Civilization, you will be causing losers.
No answers for others, suggestion is the limit. Ones answers are found through that persons meditation..
;)
wreckerpecker 2 years ago
Stef is genius.
qkholster 2 years ago
I think Stef is over stating the obvious in this review, but I guess if there is a person willing to debate Stef there must still be people who don't get it.
walkerindarkness 2 years ago
i think the point that jan wanted to make is being missed, even thought he was wrong in his methods, the question is how do we get there from here? stefan's position and anarcho-capitalism is solid but what was being asked is how do we get there from here?
pelucas716 2 years ago
He can offer plenty of theories and explanations, but the people who should be developing them are experts at group psychology and social issues. Stefan is simply getting the fundamental framework out there.
ufee 2 years ago
It was still fallacious. You don't use the problems caused by your philosophy as a reason to denounce other people's philosophies.
"If you made a mistake it's our responsibility to correct the mistake! Not continue the mistake!" -Ron Paul
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I don't understand how anarchism would solve a problem like this:
What if a country like Japan becomes an anarchy, what prevents China with invading Japan now that Japan does not have a unified army?
Could someone explain this for me.
Quertimus 2 years ago
If you have 100 different DROs each representing clients scattered across the entire island, because of the common interest each has for the clients in the area, they will all cooperate with each other to defend from China.
ufee 2 years ago
But within the area of a DRO there are also people who do not pay for the services of protection of invasion of other countries. Those who do not pay also gain the benefit of being protected by this invading country. So it's better to not pay for this service, thus no one pays for it, and no such DRO exists.
Or am I completely missing something important here?
Quertimus 2 years ago
Yeah, you missing that fact that defense is so crucially important when there is an invasion that there are other incentives at work other than the incentive to free load.
Plus, why would you use the threat of statism to prove that you need it?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"You missing that fact that defense is so crucially important when there is an invasion that there are other incentives at work other than the incentive to free load."
You forget, people don't like to pay, if you have two products, exactly the same, but one of them costs more because they add to safety, many will buy the cheaper one.
"Plus, why would you use the threat of statism to prove that you need it?"
It doesn't need to be a state, it can also be a band of rogues invading a territory.
Quertimus 2 years ago
"You forget, people don't like to pay"
They also don't like to die.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
The people that don't pay for a DRO also miss out on many interactions that require a DRO. the selection of banks may become quite limited, as some banks may make a DRO subscription as a requirement for their services. Many car dealerships may refuse to sell to anyone without a DRO subscription, for their own integrity. Indeed, not subscribing to a DRO may be seen as inconvenient.
ufee 2 years ago
But isn't a DRO then not virtually the same as a government? (Though it is voluntary, you're practically forced to have it, since you'll miss out on a lot if you don't.)
Quertimus 2 years ago
but your not forced, and the ability to take your money out of it if you so wish is the reason that it is effective
fps0chris 2 years ago
A DRO doesn't have a monopoly on the legitamate use of force therefore it is not a state. I think what you have is a misunderstand of anarchist philosophy and that misunderstanding the assumption that anarchists are against the rule of law. They are not. They favor polycentric law.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Government is defined by its monopoly and its use of violence to maintain that monopoly.
Also, I must say that not all DROs will require payment, contrary to what I implied in my last post. Indeed, pay based DRO subscriptions may offer certain benefits, but part of the DRO model involved compensation. They request compensation from you if you infringe on another individuals rights, and compensate you if your rights have been infringed. Some of the compensation may be used to sustain themselves.
ufee 2 years ago
Then how is protection of the country regulated, isn't that based on required payment beforehand?
Since they can only have the tanks and airplanes when they are paid for it.
But then, wouldn't you get that problem that no one will pay for that protection, because the people think "someone else will do it".
Just when one person sees a burning house, he will call the fire department, but when a group of people sees a burning house, no one calls them, because they think someone else will do it.
Quertimus 2 years ago
"But then, wouldn't you get that problem that no one will pay for that protection, because the people think "someone else will do it"."
But the incentive to free load is not the only incentive at work here! If an invasion is in the near future it would be stupid to free load. Do you really think most people care more about obtaining profit than surviving? You're arguement implies that there is only one relevant incentive to take into account when there are other far more relevant ones.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
If the invasion is known to come beforehand, of course, everyone will pay. But when it's not, how many would pay?
Quertimus 2 years ago
Are you so sure the invasion must be repelled or one must pay?
There are all sorts of reasons, methods, and degrees to which free people can resist a state invasion. And there are all sorts of reasons, methods and degrees to which free people should avoid conflict (e.g. A pedophile may slip into anarchic territory and theoretically - a state follows him to apprehend him.) It is up to the individuals to decide whether they want to resist or not, and not all invasions are to be repelled.
utubehayter 2 years ago
"Just when one person sees a burning house, he will call the fire department, but when a group of people sees a burning house, no one calls them, because they think someone else will do it."
1)Again, the profit motive is not the only incentive at work there.
2)Even if this scenario accurately replicates real life it doesn't really apply to defense. Personal survival is more important than personal profit.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Yes, but when it is a time of peace, how many will pay for defence, only when it's probably too late, they want to pay for the defence.
People in general are short sighted, it is in our nature. The now of having more money is more important than the later with trouble because of that same money issue.
This is why for example in the Netherlands many people have loans they do not need, and should just save the money to get it later.
Quertimus 2 years ago
I really try to understand this all.
The best thing would be to have it tested in practice, that way we can really see if such a system would work effenciently.
I wish it would be possible in the near future, that way people can really learn how it would work.
Quertimus 2 years ago
Quetimus, do like Stef says. Think like an entrepreneur. How would you solve this problem? What possible solutions for protecting from invasion might occur from merely selling the idea of individualized defense?
Like Stef said, I'd be afraid that the DRO was going to take over me. Therefore, I'd ask for reassurance that this couldn't happen. And maybe that reassurance would come in by always having a competitor with an equal ability to destroy it if it attempted to attack.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
no cause you can choose from one of them out of thousand
ukkonoa 2 years ago
How I see defense in a stateless society: Guerilla warfare. If a nation does not project legitimacy onto states, then a foreign state would have no capacity to invade, and take over, because there would be nothing to take over. An example of this would be Anarchic Ireland in which England took centuries to conquer it. The effectiveness of guerilla warefare can be seen in Afghanistan, both modern and Soviet invasion era.
hydralisk125 2 years ago
The debate video was great,even though you spent ages to finally post it......
joshv89 2 years ago
Brilliant. I loved the debate too.
AAAV92 2 years ago 2
What a terrible debate.
Individualism101 2 years ago 4
Describing socialised health care as "using the government gun to rob other people" is yet more hysterics.
I come from the UK and the police don't use guns or any type of extreme violence to enforce the law. You will find that the NHS is supported by the majority of us from both sides of the political spectrum. There isn't a country in the world where in the absence of health care the rich have volunteered their riches to help the poor. Human nature gets in the way of your theories again.
brucepig 2 years ago
dude youre are a tool.
imind 2 years ago
Nice bit of intelligent debate imind.
The fact the the majority of humanity thinks that anarchy is untenable means you should have some restraint and a bit less certainty. Any way what kind of witty retort do you think that is. Your pretty weak at debating you lot. So far most of you have ended up being insane conspiracy nuts, juvenile revolutionaries or idiots who say think saying "Your a tool" makes them look good.
Steff seems to be the only sane and grown up anarchist in the room.
Grow up
brucepig 2 years ago
It seems to me that Stef is moved to creative solutions because he's committed to his principles (non-aggression being at the top) If that is ones foundation it's not so easy to just go with what the majority of humanity thinks.
DCLugi 2 years ago
I'm sorry but you are so far below the spectrum of intelligence, that debating with a person such as your self would be a waste of time. In my eyes you are nothing but some tool to be used.
Yea I do act immature when dealing with people such as your self, I see no reason in conversing in a mature and "intelligent" manner around someone who is undeveloped. All ive seen you do is yap bullshit for the passed day and people keep feeding you like the troll you are, im not defending them either.
imind 2 years ago
HM Revenue and Customs.
ufee 2 years ago
If you are sure that there is no violence in taxation, stop paying your taxes.
hydralisk125 2 years ago 2
There's a transcript of the debate on the FDR boards, in a thread called 'All Your Guns Are Belong To Us'.
TheAtheistRising 2 years ago 2
The only government I am for is the one the U.S. founding fathers created. No income tax. Very few laws.
radon1234567 2 years ago 2
Is there nobody who can competently debate Stefan? I am still waiting for a good debate.
ufee 2 years ago
Noam Chomsky? That is the only person I can possibly imagine could debate him. Chomsky might actually win, too, and we all might become socialists! Wouldn't that be great? I'm due for another radical shift in perspective.
But seriously, Chomsky. That's the only person I can possibly think of, unless Stef wants to debate religion, and in that case, Dinesh D'Souza.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 2
ForOrAgainstUs you talk as if my honest acceptance that a certain amount of force is acceptable has handed you some sort of moral victory. You guys need to get off your high horses.
Force is a fact of human existence, no amount of political theorising can change that. Even your anarchist utopia would require the use of force against those who oppose your system.
So far from you having the moral high ground you are hoisted on your own theoretical petard.
It's been bizarre
brucepig 2 years ago
I'll try just one more time:
Do you understand the difference between self-defense and the initiation of force?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using force if it is to defend against aggression. So what is your problem with me? Do you have an actual complaint? My argument has always been against the initiation of force, and you conflate that to mean all force. You're either being deliberately obtuse (which I doubt) or you're simply not expending the energy to try to understand me.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 3
What if a group of people peacefully decide that free market anarchy is bollocks and set up a state within your utopian society. What do you do then. What if they have a commodity like oil that your utopia needs so you are forced to trade with them? If you cannot penalize them through trade you must have an alternative. Force or allowing people to opt out of your anarchist society are your only options.
Anarchist society would need force and the threat of force for more than just self defense.
brucepig 2 years ago
I know the difference between coercive force and defensive force but your dream of a world without coercive force is untenable. You could not stop crime or violent or peaceful rebellion through free market penalties. Nice idea but your utopia being free of coercive force is just a pipe dream.
just like communism your system involves unanimous agreement in the absence of that force will have to fill the gap
brucepig 2 years ago
You really don't see the contradictions you're putting forth?
Peacefully decide to set up a state.
Could not stop crime without coercive force.
Peaceful rebellion (of statists).
These are contradictions. I'm not going to condescend. I'm just certain you don't realize this. These arguments you're putting forth are self-detonating. I don't even have to argue against them, merely point them out.
This is why principles are important. You need a coherent method of debating.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 2
Violent crime would warrant self defense, which could be delegated to a DRO. Think police, minus enforcement of victimless crimes. Plus, you voluntarily choose the DRO, but government police are paid for using violent taxation.
ufee 2 years ago
neiher YOU can stop crime through State, police and army :) NOONE can stop crime. So deal with it.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
"allowing people to opt out of your anarchist society"
You are very, very confused. Reread what you wrote. Think about it for a minute. Do you see a massive logic fail?
odigity 2 years ago 2
"What if a group of people peacefully......set up a state within your utopian society. What do you do then"
Nothing.
"Force or allowing people to opt out of your anarchist society are your only options."
Anarchism is all about voluntary association, so of course people can "opt out".
"What if they have a commodity like oil that your utopia needs so you are forced to trade with them?"
They have ALL the oil?
RPFS2008 2 years ago
I actually would really like to see Stefan go head to head with a socialist leaning anarchist. A debate between Molyneux and Chomsky? That would be freaking epic.
ufee 2 years ago 2
Yeah Stef, I was hoping for a great debate like when you debated Badnarik.
Jan left me a bit disappointed.
RLore18 2 years ago
The thing is your founding argument is the use of force is wrong and the fact that the government uses force (no matter how conservatively) this makes government morally bankrupt. So you have the dilemma of how to remain true to your ideas and to implement an idea that requires human solidarity and unanimous agreement on a divided and politically diverse world without the use of force.
brucepig 2 years ago
Your hands are black with hypocrite ink my friend. " this makes government morally bankrupt" No one said that.
The point was the use of force IS wrong - period. And just using a little force opens the door for more - corruption is inevitable - as historical fact.
All tyrannical empires start out small. Our own government started out small with little violence and hardly any taxes. Now its the biggest, most corrupt, corp. on the planet.
And what aren't you taxed on? Your unborn are in debt.
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago 3
My hands are black with hypocrite ink!
Wow it's like debating anti capitalist rabble.
The pumped up pomposity tinged with teenage angst and rebellion that you guys display is astounding. Can't you debate me without the hyperbole and aggressive rhetoric. Your as bad as a bunch of Trotskyites on steroids.
PS: I'm not American but even if I was I have to say your hysterical description of America and liberal democracy is enough to dismiss you as potentially unhinged.
brucepig 2 years ago