"How Much Government Is Necessary?" - Part 1 of the Debate

An epic debate between Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio and Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate on the question 'How Much Government is Necessary?' at Drexel University, Philadelphia, July 5, 2009 Full audio of the debate available at http://fdrurl.com/phillydebate

• Category

  News & Politics

[SwissProsperity]

Adding the Prime Law (Amendment) to the Constitution would eliminate initiatory force from gov't with:

Article 1

No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, coercion or fraud against any individual’s self, property, or contract.

Article 2

Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.

Article 3

No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

[zonsb]

There's over thirty years of research and writing underpinning the Prime Law. The more recent writing is here tvpnc.org -- Read the TVP Platform, it abolishes taxes and relies on voluntary funding.

[SwissProsperity]

The suggestion I mentioned here from this guy Mark Hamilton would only be a transitory one. Until we actually do have a " healthy community " where what you just suggested should then be able to come into existence.

[ligitpoker]

Who would or could enforce these laws in anarchy? This is the main argument minarchists bring up.

I see security as something that only a healthy community can mutually assure.

This is how security would evolve. Community based local enforcement. Authorized by the community.

[Keeban3]

Really? "The Machinery of Freedom" and "For a New Liberty" both self describe as libertarian manifestos; Tom Woods, Jeffery Tucker, and Robert Murphy describe themselves as libertarians. Some of the founders of the Libertarian Party were anarchists. Hell, Michael Badnarik seems to be an anarchist even if he doesn't admit it (he doesn't know what a government is, but philosophical seems to be with us). Anarchy is about government and libertarian is about the type of laws that exist.

[chronotriggerfan]

As one of those people who you might qualify as a "Libertarian" anarchist (anarchocapitalist, voluntarist, whatever term you might use) I completely reject this premise. You're one or the other. Libertarians are minarchists, anarchists are anarchists.

[capoman1]

1:28:30 "Most people don't enjoy thinking and debating..."

Yeah MOST PEOPLE are shallow minded and are not interested in the truth, or discussing the truth.

For these SHALLOW PEOPLE, watching some equivalent to "American Idol or Dancing With the Stars" is far more enjoyable than learning about the true nature of their family, parental relationship, rulers, society, country, government, cultural history...

THIS SHALLOWNESS IS THE PROBLEM; NOT SOME PART OF THE SOLUTION.

[capoman1]

Wow, I know this debate took place some time ago...

But Michael Badnarik NEEDS TO LISTEN TO STEFAN'S PODCASTS!!!

Stefan outlines concisely EACH TOPIC PRESENTED by Badnarik.

Before I listened to this debate, I had spent at least 30 minutes (usually way more) exploring each of these topics with Stefan.

[lemmyh2]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”-Lysander Spooner

I think it's the latter, therefore amendments are pointless.

[Keeban3]

Libertarians are not necessarily statists, as many of them are anarchists.

[Keeban3]

Both of these people are too much politicians. How can you have a 'debate' on government where only after 3 hours do you define the word 'government'; and even then the two sides don't understand what the other side is saying? This whole thing didn't even address the incentives of voters; how to keep government small when special interest is more motivated than general interest; or how the Constitution has authority over me. There were no sides. This was no debate.

[brokor1]

You wish to debate philosophy, and all of your rhetoric is based upon the extremities of a corrupt modern society like we have today, not a true minarchy similar to the republic we once had. Strictly on a philosophical level, Anarchy always wins. But, it is rooted in utopian beliefs which are simply not applicable to the "real world", as I mentioned for the reasons stated earlier. This is why it becomes so attractive for online folks, because on the internet there are no consequences.