Stefan Molyneux debating Michael Badnarik, Opening Rebuttal

[fabianstraregy]

I love this guys concepts and ideas and his fearlessness and him . And I ain't gay either .

[Oyaji291]

Almost all of these principles against human propensity for power and corruption and the danger of failure applies as easily to anarchy as it does to minarchism. I cannot believe you honestly expect me to buy this notion against scare tactics and scare stories, but then launch immediately into this same idea that you so often do. Why not take the utopian ideal of minarchy and pit it against the utopian ideal of minarchy, and not judge them based on the potential deviations?

[RDpapichulo]

TO become an anarchist you would have to give up the idea of property, because you will always have to keep moving their home because a government will always be on their tale stealing their land kicking them out.

[termsofusepolice]

When we look at the level of peace and prosperity currently being enjoyed by anarchist societies, and compare that to the poor performance of statist societies, I think the superior social choice is clear.

Oh, wait...

Stefan Molyneux: He knows the exact length and biological composition of the adult unicorn's horn. (And he has yet to be proven wrong - though many have tried!)

[tridentmovies]

@termsofusepolice

That's like being in the age of slavery, and making a sarcastic argument against abolition that someone has no reason to assume that people would be happier if they were free to live their lives as they pleased. Hey, let's use the unknown of a morally superior situation to mock it, while pretending it is a good argument for the immoral situation. Sure, the slaves get whipped ten times on occasion, but they're not getting whipped hundreds of times so they must be happy.

[toluca56]

Anarchism means different things to different self-labeled anarchists. The nonviolent purely libertarian types are who Stephan is talking about in this argument. Unfortunately, the very reasons he gives for why minarchism degenerates into growing statism, also applies to any system of government or lack thereof. The biggest and most powerful gang/mafia will emerge and start to grow, and enforce its will by violence on non-cooperants. This is the problem I see, human nature itself is tribal.

[toluca56]

@toluca56 To be clear, I fully agree with Stephan's position on moral grounds. What I cannot see is how to make it work. (Doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a try, only that I do not have high hopes.) Tribalistic nature is programmed by evolution into our species, meaning followers naturally gravitate to others they seek for protection, which eventually leads to coersion on non-cooperants when they stand in the way of the goals of the tribes/gangs that emerge.

[toluca56]

@toluca56 As a thought experiment, say a group of us nonviolent libertarian anarchocapitalists got together and started a Galt's Gulch society of anarchists somewhere (I'm not sure where that would be; maybe at the bottom of the ocean...). Eventually, someone from the outside who did not share our beliefs would find us and bring conquistadors to invade and plunder, or some less scrupulous types among us would scheme/plot to form a group which tried to enhance its power at the expense of others.

[tridentmovies]

@toluca56

You mean, like the Iraqi people have experienced in the last 7 years?

So what you're saying is that we should be in favor of the very thing that you are warning us about, i.e. the formation of the state, or as you describe it: "less scrupulous types (such as yourself) that would scheme/plot to form a group (the majority) that tried to enhance its power (through the vote) at the expense of others (such as liberty minded people)?"

[tridentmovies]

@toluca56

I apologize. I read your hypothetical and assumed you were a statist because you made such a wonderfully irrational pro-statist argument. But if you agreed with Stef, then i assume you now realize how your hypothetical argument against anarchism is by warning of the kind of formation of people that we are against in the first place, and we should therefor not see it as a legit reason to at least try, since we've already got that hypothetical in real life anyway.

[tridentmovies]

@toluca56

Then, you agree there is no reason to not try, since even if things happen the way you predict, we'd simply end up with what we already have NOW anyway. That is to say, if things went your way. But your objections are rudimentary objections that have long since been dealt with. Including by Stef.

[toluca56]

@tridentmovies I am not objecting by any stretch. I agree in principle with self-determination, and nonviolent anarchism, i.e. maximized individual freedom. I am simply expressing my doubt in humans ( to overcome their tribal and violent nature). I simply predict that there will always be some power-mongering thugs that will try to gain and retain their power through violence, both implied and in practice. So I am presenting probabilities only.

[toluca56]

@tridentmovies It's difficult to respond and make oneself clear with Youtube's 500-character limitations. At any rate, thanks for the reply. I believe we are fundamentally in agreement.

[PkSage89]

Most definetly post the whole thing. I'd love to see the ebb and flow of it.

[Seaileanu]

" . . . . tumors respect constitutions." LOL!

[Malthus0]

Whoops the truth slips out at 00:15. LOL

[toluca56]

@Malthus0 Sure, and the profit motive is moral, so long as it is by *mutual agreement* and *no coercion* is imposed on any party in the transaction, and no harm is done. (Profit = trading something you value less for something someone else values less, like money for time.) A lot of people link profit with evil intent, but that's true only if someone is harmed or ends up with what they do not want because they were forced into the transaction.

[qadison]

off topic: Did he say double plus good?

[toluca56]

@qadison It's an allusion to George Orwell's *1984* & "NewSpeak"

[qadison]

@toluca56 I'm aware. I was just making sure I heard him correctly.

[Rjackman84]

If this guy wants to get trough to people he needs to speak normal and stop walking around all over the stage.

[Shezmu]

Not to sound manipulative, but it really pulled the "this could convince people" cord when you "if magic pieces of paper.... then we don't need governments". Not to be intellectually dishonest, but I'll be sure to "use" that line of reasoning in future discussions with statists.

[razoorsharp]

Stef uses a slippery slope argument with the mohawks. the people should controle the government no t the other way around this is only done in democracy. monopolies will grow in a non state world. no job no work no life you die! there is no law to protect property because there would be no one to uphold it. there are no more laws for patents or plagiarism or anything. now not the government can violate you... everyone can!

[stefbot]

That is an ignorant argument, and shows no knowledge of how a stateless society will actually work - It is just an argument from paranoia, like saying that if the government does not force children into state schools, nobody will end up being educated...

[razoorsharp]

not ignorant.. again a fallacy.

Thats why you have laws that could even homeschool your children or found your own schools which hold no relation to the state what so ever.. we have them here by the way.

Also we are all ignorant to statelessness because tribalism was it's predecessor and we have never known a stateless civilisation... only before civilisation.

though governing is needed... governments functions and rights must be limited severely icompared to what we now have

[andersoncouncil1968]

I don't think your words really hold any real evidence. When a neighbor buys a new big screen TV that you like, the thought of stealing it would probably not even enter your mind, law enforcement or not. There will always be bad people in society, however it seems to me you are just using a 'scare tactic' argument.

[razoorsharp]

seems you are oblivious about the people, even if i wont steal it someone else would.

Hey why should i start working? i'll just get a crew together and sansack the neighbourhoods houses and who's gonna stop me..

Historical evidence for it, without law enforcement from the state thats how it goes.

Good example is the roman caligium, and gangs. Before emperor justitianus.

that it will work is no evidence for however,

[andersoncouncil1968]

OK you've won the argument. The bad evil people will steal so I have to give money to the people in the blue costumes, or else the people in the blue costumes will lock me up. I completely understand, thanks for clearing it up.

I can't help but be sarcastic when all you do is throw scare tactics at me. I'm not going to spend the time explaining the multiple deterrents of theft only to have you come back with more scare tactic arguments.

[razoorsharp]

Human POsychy is indeed pretty scary.

I am not deploying scare tactcs i just gave you a perfectly relevant example. Ancient rome. Before there was justice you have a good situation there.

Also intellectual property will be at risk.

Who will protect you from plagiarism? intelectual theft? patents theft? Courts.. ow noo they do not exist without a state or constitution. Stef's a smart man and good speaker just his box of aranchist goodies have some screws loose, a little rattling breaks it

[andersoncouncil1968]

The only thing that scares me about human psychology is how easily some people(like me) can go into debate mode.

For plagiarism, IP, etc. let's use stefs DRO model. Why not just have a EULA stating that by using this product you agree to the terms set within said EULA. If you break them then you agree to arbitration through a DRO. In 3 minutes I came up with that as a solution. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot-- however imagine what a bright person with some more time could come up with.

[razoorsharp]

debate mode? your solution?

You parroted someone else their solution and expect credit for it?

DRO is full of wholes, apart from it beeing another organisation that is easily corruptable because who will watch the DRO not becomming utterly corrupted? it cant.

Us and me have a totally different democracy sure we have a coalition form and you have the 2 party structure. which sucks.. but DRO is not an option.. watch my next post

[razoorsharp]

it's another organisation with the authority to use force, other than that it's a company with no controle that keeps track of other people and documents them.

It almost looks like the same statism within coorperatism that stefan is so against.

Giving companies government like service to trade with is damn corruptable. instead a coalition democracy is punished by the voter.. can you vote the DRO out? it it starts using too much violence? contracts sure.. but DRO no way

[andersoncouncil1968]

But the DRO would have absolutely no power over you unless you use the companies product! You have a choice to use a product. The keyword here is choice, voluntary choice.

And of course this is going on something that I just thought up off the top of my head, of course there are going to be many problems.

[razoorsharp]

you give a company instead of an elected government organ the authority over someone else. no person would be willing to even go into such a contract. ow.. hhe who decides weatherthe contract is violated? the employer? employee or the DRO itself? Who will prosecute and who will defend ? fair trail? or easily won burocractic corruptiopn with a eye for profit (since it's a company)

It's flawed on almost every point

[andersoncouncil1968]

Elected or not makes no difference, all government is force. Like it or not you are in a binding contract every day of your life. One you did not sign, one you did not see, one you were not able to even comprehend when you were entered into it.

You are FORCED to be ruled the government. You are free to not use a product if you feel that you do not want entered into such a contract.

[timHYPERLITE]

@razoorsharp THATS WRONG,im no way a stefbot convert but,the point is commercal monopolies grow only when there is a need for them,if people want to all get theyre bread from one company then they will,if people dont want that then another company will start and be successful,BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERMENT TO STOP OR REGULATE THE NEW COMPANY!.your fear of no goverment is the thing that has been fed to you by goverment,so it can grow more and get to its now bloated state.

[ashane77]

@razoorsharp

What a ridiculous non-argument!

[razoorsharp]

Addendum:

Here they do not meddle that much in the free market apart from staggering taxes.. thats because they became too big an too powerfull because of ignorant voters. it should be seen the other way around. the candidate should not attract the voters... the voters should attract the candidate. though intelligent voting alone. no emotion politics. and government should be restricted aswell to infrastructure, social services.. and uphold a constitution... Thats all they should do.

[razoorsharp]

governments are indeed powerfull organs that use force and can take a lot from the people...

But thats because of humans themselves.. in a true democracy even (if there were one) people re too stupid to vote the right way... people react to emotion politics and not everyone is capable of critical thinking. therefore alone stef's vision fails. because some form of government is needed... or rather governing.. government should be small and not all encompassing as now.

[andersoncouncil1968]

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. If people are too stupid to make choose the 'right' candidate or decision, then why give them the power to, even in the smallest possible government?

I hope that conveyed my message, that's the best way I can put it at the time being.

[razoorsharp]

than how are these people goig to make it in the business world?

They should vote and majority rules on a smaller state and all is just fine, the grievence stef has and you is that the state became to dominant in every day life.

That should be fixed, throwing it out the window and going back 3000 years isn't an option.

[grevantime]

Interesting concept with the tumor analogy: it approaches Simple 101, which is an almost ideal policy.

[kurtu5]

Umm we are interested. Its like asking a prepubescent boy if hes interested in seeing more or the Turk's harem. I would like to hear the entire context to inform my judgment.

[ashane77]

working out the mechanics of transitioning to a stateless society. Govt abolishing itself seems unlikely. Does it happen after the current govt system(s) collapse? Revolution? Individual secession? Are people evolutionarily capable of functioning in such a way? If people have an inate tendency to desire "leaders" and to want to dominate others in order to maximize gain w/minimal exertion, how likely is it that we'll ever get to the top of the mountain?

[ashane77]

The advantage minarchism holds, from a practical standpoint, is a more understandable, acceptable, and tangible means through which the masses can hope to reduce govt in their lives. It is far easier for most to imagine electing folks who will reduce govt through legislation (or the people themselves through referendum) than it is to figure out how we're going to get from "Here" (tyrannical govt) to "There" (stateless society). As big a believer as I am becoming in anarchy, I'm having trouble

[ashane77]

I used to be a minarchist until seriously looking into ararchy...just can't argue w/the reasoning, logic, and history.

Hope more of the debate is added here on YouTube.

[stefbot]

it's up, i'll post it as a video response here...

[ashane77]

I saw that header but the different name "Anarchism Versus the State" vs. "Stefan Molyneux debating Michael Badnarik" threw me off...duh, wake up ashane77!

Thanks for the guidance Mr. Molyneux.

[1717jbs]

@ashane77- Me too. This is an extremely powerful argument. I have to agree with Stefan. I too was a libertarian. Not so much any more. Mike's argument for minarchism just adds to the argument for anarchism. This wa an eye opener for me. I think a lot of people equate anarchism with chaos, lawlessness and debauchery, etc. I am convinced that true freedom can only be achieved through anarchism.

[enotdetcelfer]

Small Government vs No Government... at a Freakin University! Love it. You guys need to hit up every one on the continent. Get people looking into the issues themselves.

[phootie]

Rule #1 of a formal debate:

Don't attempt to disguise your obvious anxiety and show that you are 'down with the kids' by walking around the podium.

[stefbot]

That is very interesting, I was actually having a very enjoyable time, but perhaps you can send me a message showing me videos of you doing a much better job, and I can hope to learn by your example... :)

[JohnBabiuk]

@stefbot lol. So what he just said is "When debating about Anarchist Philosophy always follow a specific predetermined set of rules. Creativity in your presentation method is unacceptable. Confirm or be dismissed."

Maybe I'm off, but I found that comment hilarious.

[AustereAustrian]

@stefbot Don't worry about phootie Stef, he doesn't know what he's talking about! I have to say, Murray Rothbard may have brought me over to the anarchist way of thinking, but you definitely removed all doubts for me!

[ashane77]

@phootie

What a douchebag reply...

[offBeatRock777]

Please post the rest of the debate if you can!

[hughtub]

Those who vote for politicians who don't uphold the non-violence principle can be viewed as aggressors and subject to the penalty of initiating violence by the very act of voting for politicians who will do their violence by proxy. Decreasing the voter turnout is important to show widespread discontent with the current big-govt system, which I assume is why they push commercials to "get out the vote" and "vote or die". Voting is little more than reluctant slavery in this system.

[RoyvanKeulen]

*Sigh* Another debater comparing his opposition to deceases, tumors and maffiosi...

[cchessmaster]

Where is the rest of the debate?

[FlailingJunk]

The audio is linked in the side bar, this is the only video i have seen.

[cchessmaster]

Thank you I missed it.

[RLore18]

Of all the philosophers and speakers of politics, I believe Stephan Molyneux has the most-correct view on how society should solve its problems.

What we need to do is have Steaphan Molyneux, Michael Badnarik, and Alex Jones all sit down together and debate with each other.

[oiuoiu988]

wow. alex jones is an ape compared to these 2 guys... and i like the guy. but dont kid yourself.

[pelucas716]

Amen, id like to see the rest of that debate

[lukeev]

An absolutely astonishing performance!

[MigDanskeren]

This debate was the reason that I heard about Badnarik and eventually heard to his constitution class, posted on Youtube, which is one of the most fascinating things I have ever heard.

I have a completely OT question though: Have you, Steph, ever taken the Political Compass test?

Personally I find it hard to answer all the questions as they often imply a certain basic agreement on the subjects which are sometimes not in line with anarchist political theory.

[tpsisokayiguess]

While that is surely true, it's not difficult to imagine what Stef, and most his viewers for that matter, will have as results.

Obviously he'll be way down on the libertarian side, as opposed to authoritarianism. Then he'll also be on the right side, as opposed to the left, which basically just means that he's socially, as well as economically, a proponent of freedom. I'd say most of the questions asked in that test would be answered exactly the same by most friends of anarcho capitalism.

[MigDanskeren]

Sure. The thing is that many of the questions imply that you accept a certain statist world view to actually be able to answer the questions.

E.g. "those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . ". If you agree it probably is interpreted as economic socialism, but what if you agree on a moral basis but don't believe that government should intervene on the matter?

[MigDanskeren]

Sorry, I meant "disagree" with the statement.

[ks100001]

Quite an interesting test. I agree that many questions were pretty loaded, though.

What was your score?

I got 2,88 on the economic scale and -9,08 on the libertarian scale. =)

[MigDanskeren]

6.00 on the economic scale, -2.56 on the libertarian/authoritarian, which I think indicates bad methodology.

Questions like the one about whether economic globalisation should serve humanity or trans-national corporations, seem to imply a measurement of economic socialism. I believe that it _should_ serve humanity but I also believe that this could only happen in a free market.

Or a question like the savage peoples/different cultures, do I have to love backwards cultures to be a libertarian?

[ks100001]

"The rich are too highly taxed. Do you agree?"

Arrgh! =D

[MigDanskeren]

Well, some are more clear than others ;-)

[VALsacount2]

All taxes for all are too expensive.

[Paddis92]

There's one thing I'm not quite sure what to think about. If there was no government, wouldn't there be a risk that the stronger will take from the weaker? The stronger will use their strenght to rule over the weaker and we're back at square one.

Could someone please clarify this for me?

[tpsisokayiguess]

Police protection in an anarchist society:

watch?v=cPCR_SNjd6w

[Paddis92]

I'm sorry, but the video does not really answer my question. The biggest problem I found with it however is that the guy who made it tells me that the state can't fight crime but he doesn't seem to put forth a solution to the problem.

Sure, I don't really like the police, but I would never want them to go away.

[Hatesfury08]

He provides possible solutions in his books. They are available for free on his website.

[Stargazer5781]

I suggest going to his website, you can find it via the link in the description. He has a book called Practical Anarchy available for free download as well as hundreds of podcasts, half a dozen or so which deal with exactly what you're worried about.

[MigDanskeren]

The stronger already are taking from, and ruling over, the weaker. It's called taxation and law :)

[fergus247]

If you dont mind me asking, who did you have in mind when youre thinking of "the stronger"? Did you mean people with lots of money, or people who are actually willing to run around with guns, stealing from people?

[Shezmu]

Seconded, because I don't see bill gates by himself being a threat to the general public. Payed-off cops however.....

[ks100001]

I think you should post Badnarik's opening as well, for the sake of fair play and comparison. =)

[Stargazer5781]

It didn't get recorded I don't think, there were technical difficulties :-( The audio's available at FDR though.

[galikazoid]

thanks for sharing

very entertaining and englightening as usual

[reljimal1]

You can see what Badnarik had to say just download the 4 hour podcast, He spent the whole debate agreeing with Stefan:)

[myusernameisluc]

That was good. I would like to see more. I would also like to see what Badnarik has to say, especially to this rebuttal.

[Mathannix]

Great debate Stefan, but I wanted to see what the other guy had to say..........for the lulz(is that wrong?)

[JahLoveOnline]

very interested

[Deathinmusic]

I'd like to see more of this.

[chitchcott]

MOAR!

[godseyeview]

Post More Videos from the Debate

[MaikUniversum]

I feel pity for minarchists...

[throwntomato]

i wouldn't mind seeing more of this! : ]

[throwntomato]

nice argument, Stefan!

[captainyoinksac]

I'm interested :)

[undefinedego]

lulz that was the strangest metaphor yet, but well done!

[nitarna]

The link in the sidebar.. Is this opening Rebuttal baked in that?

[tpsisokayiguess]

If by baked you mean cut out, then no, Stef's opening starts at around minute 10.

[nitarna]

No, by baked I mean baked as in "baked potatoe" .. That is; Is the opening also in the audiothing..

And yes it is.

[EsotericThrone]

People are interested (1)