 Hello, how's everyone doing today? I'm here with special guest, Jen Helfeld. And Stefan Kinsella, we're going to debate limited government versus anarchy. Jen Helfeld, as you know, is a interviews people using the Socratic method, and he is going to argue for limited government. And Stefan Kinsella is an IP lawyer, and he's going to argue for anarchy. My position is the anarchist position. I think I should just make that clear. Anyway, I think Kinsella is going to go first for Tenman's opening. I'm happy to start. Jen, are you okay with this format? Are we ready to go? Yeah. Okay, so I would like to just see how this proceeds, but let me just give my basic viewpoint here. First of all, the title of the debate I want to take a little bit of an issue with, because I am opposed as an anarchist and as a libertarian to the state, but not to government, depending upon what you mean by that. So I want to make that clear. I do believe from what I've seen in emails forwarded by Daniel earlier that your definition of the government would be similar to what I would define the state as, which means I don't think we have a problem, but let's just be clear. So the state is what libertarians oppose. In fact, what libertarians oppose is aggression. Okay? Libertarians oppose aggression private and public. That is, private ad hoc and also in an institutionalized fashion. So we are opposed to aggression. Now what I do not want to hear from you, which I suspect I will, is some kind of conflation of aggression with coercion or with violence or with self-defense because I hear this all the time from defenders of the minimal state or the classical liberal state or the state itself. They will say, well, you say you're against aggression, but you want to use force to defend yourself against aggression. So you're in favor of aggression in some cases. Well, no, we're not. Aggression is the initiation of force. So that's what we're opposed to as libertarians. The fundamental case against the state is not a case for a system. And I realize that you, Jan, are used to defending and arguing against people that argue for a system. They argue for an anarchist system just like you argue for a system and just like socialists and conservatives argue for a system. And so then the question becomes which system is better, et cetera. Anarchists don't argue for a system. What anarchists observe is that we civilized human beings opposed is the initiation of force against other people. This is actually very simple. Even people like Jan should be able to understand this. So we oppose aggression. We think it is immoral, wrong, unjustified, and illegitimate. I don't really know how much more simple I can make that, but I will try. So we oppose aggression. We think aggression is wrong. And no, we don't mean that self-defense is wrong. We're not talking about violence or force. We're talking about the initiation of force, which means the invasion of the property borders of someone else's property. If that's not clear, I can repeat it ten times to anyone who is unable to grasp this very simple fact, which even a dog can understand when they growl when you approach their dog food bowl. So this is not difficult whatsoever to understand. It's even on Rand understood in Atlas Shrug when she talked about the initiation of force. So that is what libertarians oppose. And because we think that aggression is unjustified, we recognize that every act of aggression is unjustified, and that includes private acts of aggression, which normal people call crime, robbery, theft, rape, murder, etc. And in an institutionalized fashion, we call that what the government does. So the state is the institutionalized agency that commits aggression on a widespread scale. Therefore, we libertarians oppose that as well as private aggression. We also tend to recognize that the state commits aggression on a much more wider scale than any private aggressor could, like the mafia or some kind of ad hoc gang of criminals. So the state is a much worse or much more offensive violator of rights than any private criminal would be. So my defense of anarchy is simply the argument that aggression is unjustified. Now, if Jan wants to argue that aggression is justified in some cases, he needs to come up with, guess what, a justification for aggression. Now, my simplistic Louisiana Boy framework is that Mr. Jan Hellfield can't come up with a reason that aggression is justified. I think he can come up with all kinds of evasions. He can ask me evading questions like how would my system work, what the purpose of rights is. He can come up with all kinds of distracting questions, but he cannot justify aggression, and he will not attempt to do so. He might attempt to conflate it with violence or force, which is what the simple-minded, typical, statist opponent of ours does, and I hope he doesn't do that. But if he doesn't do that, he won't have any defense of the state. So in my point of view, I'm not defending a system. I am simply observing that aggression is unjustified and unjustifiable, and that the state, by its nature of necessity, commits aggression. The state either taxes or the state monopolizes the field of justice, and that means it outlaws, by force, competing agencies, which is an act of aggression and which is unjustified under libertarian principles. Now, JAN will have to either defend the state, and I don't want to hear the word government, because the word government is used by people like JAN in an equivocating way. What they will say is, if you're against the state, you're against the government, and that means you're against the governing institutions of society, which means that you're for chaos and disorder, and you're not in favor of law. Now, this is a loaded question. It's a question-begging question. It's circular reasoning. It's dishonest. It's illegitimate, and it's equivocating. So I don't want to hear the word government from JAN. I want to hear JAN defend the state. And the state has certain characteristics, which I have defined, and which thinkers like Hapa, the Yase, others have defined very carefully, very clearly. The state is an institution which has a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic region, and that necessarily requires taxation or some kind of aggression. So the question for the anarchist is simply, is aggression justified and does the state commit it? And the answer is yes and yes. Sorry, no and yes. Aggression is never justified, cannot be justified, and if you're a libertarian and you do not base your theory on the opposition to aggression, I would like to know what it is. And I would like JAN to tell me what it is instead of asking me socratic questions. And by the way, I went to law school too, JAN, and I've taught law classes, and you're not going to trip me up with your evasive socratic questioning technique. JAN, I will tell you something, I admire your approach to Nancy Pelosi and the other status, but when you're compared to them, you look like a libertarian, because compared to them, you are a libertarian, okay? But when you're talking to someone like me, you look like the status, because you're defending the state, and you are on the firing line, son, okay? So I don't want to hear this socratic nonsense. I want you to be clear in your definitions, I'm not going to fall for your socratic reasoning or your equivocation, and you can define the state, you can tell me whether you're for or against aggression, and what your justification for it is, and I will tell you something, you can't defend the state, you can't defend aggression, and you can't defend liberty unless you oppose all aggression in all forms, both private and institutionalized, which is what the state does. So how much time do I have, Daniel? You have a minute, but I'm actually looking at the video, and for some reason your face is just in a small box, and it sort of looks weird. Well, there's nothing that can be done about this at this point. So here's what I would say. The anarchist position is not a defense of a system. The anarchist position is the recognition that aggression is not justifiable, which is the basic libertarian position, and it's combined with the recognition that the state necessarily commits aggression. So in my mind, if Mr. Jan Hellfeld is going to oppose anarchy, which means to my mind he's going to defend the state, he needs to do one of two things. He needs to explain to me, Stefan Kinsella, on this Sunday in this podcast, why aggression is justified, in which case I will keep my eyes on this guy and watch him when he comes around my kids or my family, if he's in favor of aggression, or he needs to explain why the state doesn't necessarily engage in aggression. That's it. I don't want to hear his questions about how is anarchy going to work, what's my prediction about the world, etc. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the institutionalized use of force is justified or not. And Jan, that is the question I ask you, and that is the question that I doubt you will try to answer. Go ahead. Sorry, if I could just interrupt for a sec. I think we have to redo it on my channel. It's not really what I- Fucking Christ, are you kidding me? What? What happened? I mean, Jan, I know how to do these settings. That's why I suggested that we do it on my channel. I ask you if you said that whoever was talking would come up on the screen, but that didn't happen. It didn't. So let me just redo it. It was only 10 minutes so far. I hope it's not a problem. Let me just do it on my channel and you can repost it. Okay? I thought it was working. It's not. So let me just redo it. But he already gave his opening statement. Yeah, so we'll just do it again. I'm sorry about that, guys. It doesn't look very good, so we have to redo it. And I'll give my opening statement. Let me just redo it on another channel. I don't want to waste any more time. Continue, because he already gave his statement. I listened to it patiently. It's not fair for him to have a video that doesn't look very good. So I'm sorry people watching this. We're going to redo it on my channel and then we'll post it back on this channel. Okay? I'm sorry. Jen, can you exit and I'll just redo it? Sorry, I'll send you the video. Well, why don't you just tell me what has to be done to... I'm not really sure. It's on your end. So let's just do it. Did you send me the link? Yeah. Hello. How's everyone doing? I'm here with special guest, Jen Helfeld and Stefan Kinsella. Jen Helfeld is an interviewer interviewing people with a Socratic method and he is going to argue for limited government. And Stefan Kinsella is an IP lawyer and he is going to argue for anarchy. Just for intellectual honesty, I should say what position I am in and that is the position of anarchy. Anyway, we're going to give Kinsella the round to argue for anarchy for the first 10 minutes. So go ahead. Okay. So, hey, Jen. Hi. Good to meet you in person. You and I just had a little round. This is the second attempt, right? So that's fine. I'm a big admirer of yours. I admire your work to fight statism among congresspeople, et cetera. So please keep that in mind and what I'm going to say. It's going to be very blunt and very clear, unlike a lot of your opponents and unlike some of your – the people that are on your side. I think we should be clear. So I just want to be clear. Are we clear right now? Can everyone hear everybody? Are we online? Daniel? Yeah. I'm looking at it. It still looks somewhat bad for some reason. I don't know what – I can see you. When I talk, can you see me? I see you right now, Jen. Yeah, but do you see me in the little box or in the big box? The big box. The little box is blocked out. Wow. Okay. How do you go from one picture to the other? It doesn't automatically, but if you go – Okay. If you go on the YouTube link that I just sent you, it looks sort of weird for some reason, but hopefully – Okay, okay. Stefan. Okay, so just to let people know what happened just now, because it will probably affect what I say, I just talked for 10 minutes and we had a technical glitch and so I'm redoing this right now. So, Jan has already heard my spiel and I will try to recapitulate my presentation, my perspective on this issue, which is the following. Number one, what's our debate? Our debate is about government – limited government, right, whether we're in favor of that or not. Now, I would just say quickly, I have a disagreement with the way the debate is framed. Because people like Jan – I won't accuse Jan of this, but people on his side will equivocate. Equivocate means to use words in two different ways in a dishonest way. So, if I say I am against government, then these people will say you're against the governing institutions of society. In other words, you're against law and order. And if I say, well, no, I'm an anarchist, but I'm for law and order, then they say, well, you're for government, so you're contradicting yourself. So, what they do is they have a loaded term called government, and they equate it with the state when it's convenient for them. So, I don't want to go there, and I think Jan has actually been pretty clear about this and his definition of the state. So, I think Jan's definition of the government is similar to what I would define the state as. As an anarchist, I oppose the state because the state is the monopolized institution or agency of force in a given geographic region. And I think that's what Jan is in favor of. Now, I don't think Jan can justify this because if you are opposed to aggression as a general matter, which libertarians do. No, aggression means, and let me note, it does not mean coercion. It does not mean force. It doesn't mean violence because defensive force and force used in restitution can be justified according to libertarians. So, we're not against force, we're against aggression, or as Iran called it, the initiation of force. Right? Or as libertarians explain, we are against the uninvited or unconsented to use of someone else's physical property that is invading the boundaries of their property. That is what we mean by opposing aggression. That's what we're against. So, I don't want to hear that I oppose aggression, but I'm in favor of self-defense, so there's a contradiction. I think Jan knows better than that, and I expect him not to raise that baseless accusation. Okay. So, when we favor aggression, I'm sorry, when we favor anarchy, we're not in favor of a system. Now, Jan and conservatives and liberals and socialists and environmentalists and Democrats of all types are in favor of a system. They have in mind a vision of a system that they want to implement, and they're in favor of that for certain reasons. From the anarchist perspective, from the libertarian perspective, that viewpoint is bankrupt because they are all similar and that they all favor a regime in which private property rights are violated. Now, the anarchist doesn't say, I predict the following system will emerge, and so Jan's not going to confront me with a Socratic method, and I'm a law student. I'm a lawyer, so I know the Socratic method. He's not going to confront me with, well, tell me what your system will be like. I can't predict the future. In fact, as an Austrian, I know that I can't predict the future. But what I can say as an Austrian and as a libertarian, that is someone who respects individual property rights, I can say that I'm opposed to aggression. I want to be very simple and clear about this. I'm opposed to aggression. I can say it a hundred times if I need to. What that means is Mr. Jan Hellfeld cannot in this conversation come up with an argument that will tell me, tell the viewers why aggression is justified. He can't justify aggression. And I challenge him to do that, and he needs to do that if he's going to justify the state. The reason is the state necessarily employs aggression. I don't want to hear from Mr. Hellfeld that we need the state. I don't care if we need the state. I want him to tell me why aggression is justified, or that he doesn't care about aggression, in which case he's no better than the status that he pretends and claims to condemn when he interviews Mrs. Nancy Pelosi and other congress critters like her. So to me, it's one or the other. Mr. Hellfeld will tell me what aggression is, and please don't complete it with self-defense. And he will tell me why it's okay that we can justify committing aggression in an institutionalized way. In some cases. I want to hear this justification. Because if Jan Hellfeld can't come up with a reason for that, he's admitting that the state is inherently unjustified. The state is a criminal organization, much like the mafia. And I'll add one more thing here. People like Jan Hellfeld use Ayn Rand's type of arguments, which are completely ridiculous and bankrupt, to argue for individual rights and against anarchy. And they argue that we can't have competing agencies for rights, that you can't have a free market for defense services. And yet, they will never explicitly argue for the ultimate result of their reasoning, which is a one-world government. Now, on occasion, I have gotten people like Jan Hellfeld to agree that the ultimate result of their reasoning is that we need to have a one-world government. But they come up with ad hoc reasons why we can't have it right now. Furthermore, we have anarchy today between the states. We have 200 states in the world. There's anarchy between the states. We have anarchy historically in the world. One, two, 300, 400 years of anarchy, 800 years of anarchy in different societies. Anarchy of a certain fashion has worked. We have anarchy inside the state. That is, there is no super state above the United States or any other state that makes the actors of the state comply with the rules of that state. So we have some kind of anarchy even right now. And furthermore, we have widespread recognition of rights among regular people, private law people, Daniel, Jan, presumably you. Presumably you, Jan, wouldn't sneak into my house tonight if you could and steal my Rolex watch or whatever. I don't know. I'll give you an opportunity to rebut that if you want to admit that you're a thief. But I'm giving you the benefit of doubt even though you're a statist, basically. So I'm giving you the benefit of doubt. You're welcome. You're welcome, Jan. Let me remind you that we got to stay away from ad hominems. It's not an ad hominem. It's a question about whether you are in a state or not. And you are welcome to respond to that in full in your time. But my point is that I'm assuming that most of us are well-meaning decent people and that we respect each other's rights voluntarily without your goddamn Durandian state telling us what to do. So we have a certain degree of anarchy already. So what I want to know is whether you think aggression is justified and whether you think the state commits aggression. It's a very simple question. And I would like you to not evade the question and to answer the question. Do you think aggression is justified and do you think the state commits aggression? Very simple questions. I will turn it over to you and go ahead and feel free to justify this horrible thing called the state which you guys are in bed with and we are not. Go ahead. My turn. Yeah. First of all, the title of this debate is No Government Versus Limited Government. You agreed to do this debate with this title and apparently there shouldn't be any problems because you agreed with the definition of government and when I define government, you hear state. But this is the name of this debate. The issue is what's better, which is better? No government or limited government. So you are arguing for a system. I'm going to tell you which system you are arguing for. One that doesn't have a government. In other words, there's really only three possibilities in political theory. Either you have a government or you don't. That's the first decision. And if you have one, is it unlimited or is it limited? And if it's limited, what is the basis for the limitation? So you're arguing for a system. When you claim that you're not arguing for a system, you're just trying to avoid having to defend any position. Then there's nothing to debate because every political discussion is about what is better. What is a better social organization? You're claiming that a better social organization is no government and I'm claiming that it's limited government. You're also arguing that you're against law because a law is a rule that is enacted and enforced on everybody in a given territory. And you don't want that. You don't want the law of the land. You want one security agency to make its rule, a different security agency to make a different rule. So that is not accepting the concept of a law which is applicable to all the people in a given community, in a given territory. That's what law means. Now that's different than a rule by the Kiwanis Club or a church or whatever. That's not applicable to everyone. So you are against law. And you say that the state is a criminal organization. I don't think so. But anyway, let me say this. I sympathize with the anarchist anger at the state for the abuses of power and violations of our individual rights. I too am angry and have been doing battle to stop these violations and get rid of the welfare state. However, I caution you that in your haste to get rid of the welfare state, you don't choose something even worse, which is no government at all. I will attempt to prove that anarchy will necessarily result in gang warfare, many more violations of your individual rights, making a long, happy life less likely. Now, you cannot shirk the responsibility of considering the natural consequences of not having a government by saying that this is a consequentialist argument and you are operating from first principles. Proper ethical principles are moral and correct because they integrate the long-term consequences of following the principle. There is no need to choose between the moral on the one hand. Are you reading something? I.e. the practical on the other. Following a true moral principle will produce good consequences in terms of optimizing the possibility of a long, happy life. Following a mistaken principle or not knowing the exceptions will produce bad consequences and that is one way we know it is flawed. All valid principles are a means to achieving a proper ultimate end, which you have not identified, which I have said is a long, happy life. This applies to the non-aggression principle as well. If you don't know the context, purpose, and long-term consequences that are integrated in the non-aggression principle, you will not be able to apply it properly and you will erroneously conclude that it is in conflict with a limited government. If you want to live well and optimize your possibility of a happy life, you need to protect your life, bodily integrity, liberty, and property. This debate is about how your life, liberty, and property are more protected with a limited government or without any government and in your words a state. In my view, a government that is created to protect your right to life, liberty, and property and is constitutionally limited to this function offers more protection than no government at all. Let's see why a society with no governmental monopoly of major force will degenerate into gang warfare. There will always be some human beings that choose predation as a means to survive. Presently these domestic and foreign criminals are held in check by the fact that they have no possibility of overcoming the police power of the state in a direct confrontation. However, once the state is removed, they can and will have enough weapons to destroy individuals and weak security agencies that refuse to surrender their property. Thus, every life and property will be less safe. Please do not interrupt me, I didn't interrupt you. What are you reading? Excuse me, that moderator, will you tell the other debater to be quiet? He has two minutes, you'll ask. No, no, you cannot interrupt. Jesus Christ. Go ahead, keep reading your text. Moreover, criminals and foreign tyrants will be incentivized to obtain more destructive weapons to increase their pool of victims creating a mini arms race. Criminal gangs we have today, like the mafia, will get military weapons so they can extort and plunder their fellow citizens. They will attack individuals and weak security agencies as well as each other. You don't need too many of them to miscalculate and attack organizations of relatively equal strength to have gang warfare in every city. If you think things are bad now, just wait until you have anarchy. If you want to see what it would be like, just go to any city ghetto where the police refuse to give protection and you'll see a neighborhood divided in territorial gangs where everybody's life and property are at peril. Or go to any place in the world where the state police power is nonexistent, such as Columbia jungles or the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and you'll see the same phenomenon. Furthermore, foreign tyrants and criminal organizations from other countries will attempt predatory strategies against us. Predators love relatively unprotected wealth to plunder. We would be a magnet for all such criminals and tyrants. Only a government with modern military forces can effectively deter their invasions and extortions. Security services simply can't do the job. For instance, what do you propose a small town to do when they receive an extortion note from some criminal saying if you don't pay us a billion dollars we will attack you with a guided missile. You don't have the U.S. Army to protect you and to retaliate and to stop them. You have to deal with yourself with your security agencies. Secondly, this agreement and this is the most important thing between rational citizens will also lead to gang warfare. Most people will naturally act to form groups or alliances in an attempt to enforce agreements, protect themselves and punish aggressors or swindlers. There will necessarily be differences of opinion regarding who is right and who is wrong in various conflicts between members of opposing alliances. Some of these alliances will try to use physical force to make the member of the other alliance comply. The other alliance may resist with force. So, and you will have a little war with thousands of alliances and millions of disagreements. You only need a small percentage of people to decide to use physical force to end up with the bloody hell of war everywhere. Under anarchism, every kind of disagreement has the potential of becoming a mini-war. Disagreements like whether somebody is a murderer or not, whether they have hired a contractor or not, whether they stole the money or not, whether the action should be a crime or not, whether the punishment is appropriate or not. Because there is no law. You don't agree that there should be one law that everybody has to follow in the whole territory. One neighborhood has one law. The next neighbor has a different law. With millions of disagreements and some people's decision to try to impose their view by force, you will have mini-wars everywhere. These mini-wars will have collateral damage in the form of innocent victims as well as drawing other people's time. Will you stop interrupting me? Well, I think your time is up. Let him do his job. He has another minute. Let the moderator do his job. I didn't interrupt you. Did I? No, you just want to take my money from me by taxes. You want to just attack and whatever, but you don't want to follow the rules. That's one of the big problems I have with anarchists. They never want to follow the rules. They agree to. Under anarchist situation, there's no way of making them follow the rules because you can't have a government to enforce the rules. That's probably why you like it so much. Yeah, that's a really good argument for anarchy. It's my turn to talk. I don't know if it is your turn. It's your format. It's just a Rothschild. It's your format and you should take it. It's the fun. Come on. You have to be respectful. He has another minute. I don't think you should... Go ahead, Jan. Finish your minute. These mini wars will have collateral damage in the form of innocent victims as well as drawing other people into the fight. Some of these fights will become feuds and vendettas like the Hatfield and the McCorries passed on from generation to generation. In contrast, under a limited government, these agreements are limited to the parties and they have finality. Under anarchy, we would not reap the benefits of free markets we now take for granted. Free markets do not work optimally if they can't count on the enforcement of contracts and agreements. This is evidenced by all of history and a visit to any third world country where the legal system does not work well. If you cannot trust the contract will be enforced, you will be very reluctant to invest or contract. In conclusion, our life, liberty and property would be less safe under anarchism as a result of a proliferation of gang warfare extortion by domestic and foreign criminals and a loss of the benefits of the free market. That is why I am against it because there will be more initiation of physical force under anarchism where there is no government rather than less and that is why everybody panics, why the word is anathema, why they hate it and fear it because everybody knows that the state of nature is hell and brutish just like Hobbes said, short and brutish and people run from it like a monster. That is the truth that more people's individual rights will be violated under an anarchist scenario where there is no government is why they hate it so much and why you have so much difficulty even using the word. Time. I'm sure you have questions that you want to ask. Who? It's your turn to ask them questions. We're going to do a question and answer now. Well, okay, a couple of questions. I asked a question earlier which Jan didn't answer which I predicted he would not answer. It's a very simple question. The question is, do you believe aggression is justified and do you believe the state commits aggression? It's very extremely simple which I know really freaks out your status because you want to support the state. Can I answer the question or do you want to make a statement? I would like you to answer the question. Do you think aggression is a problem? State commits aggression. That's what I would like you to answer. Go ahead. When human beings organize like our founding fathers did to create a government that is limited to protecting the individual rights of the citizens, when they organize and they request a social institution to protect their individual rights, they are not being being aggressed. There is no initiation of force against them. It's a service that they want and know they need. So all the people that want a government and are paying for it are not being aggressed and there's no initiation of force even remotely conceivable with them. Except for the slaves. What? Do you want to ask a second question or my answer? I don't know. What are you going to do? Except for the slaves. I'll follow the format. You agree to follow the format and I'm following it. You're having trouble following it. I'm answering your question. There is no aggression when people agree to form a government to protect their individual rights like the United States did in its constitution so this limited government has created tremendous benefits for people since it occurred. I don't see any initiation of physical force there. Of course you don't. That's right. They are doing what they consider to be optimal in order to have their rights optimally defended like I said in my statement in order to optimize your happy life. You need to have your rights protected and the consequences of not having a monopoly of force in the government to enact and also to enforce laws results in more initiation of force rather than less. The optimum possibility is to have a limited government where you will have initiation of physical force in the society. That's what certain people believe. You and I were born in a society that had that implied view that implied consent which you have agreed that there is an implied consent there and in your writings you have said that there is implied consent of the government. Have you said that or not? I'll quote it to you the article that you requested that I read about your position on anarchism says exactly that. You forgot what you wrote and that's not my problem. Anyway. Everybody is born into a system that either has a government or it doesn't. It's either limited or it's not. When you are in the state of the government I'm just asking you. Why there is no initiation of force what the situation is people think that under the government a limited government they will have the rights protected they agree to it so the government is performing a service to them when the government taxes them for this protection then the government is only taking the money that is necessary to pay for the service that was asked for. Is that what you think happens nowadays in 2014? I think we have a mixed economy, a mixed system now which has deviated substantially from a limited government that's why I'm totally unhappy with it and that's why I do battle with the status that you keep calling me a status I'm not a status, I believe you are. As the debate says in limited government you apparently can't distinguish between limited government and unlimited government but I can and it makes a whole lot of difference in everybody's life and if you don't know that difference I can give you a lot of historical examples of what the difference is and what the consequences are. I just want to make sure the audience knows that a limited government he has a right to ask me a second question I'm ready to listen to it. We're not going back and forth? I'm okay with Daniel asking Jan. I'm not asking Jan to any question I'm just making sure. I'm not going to debate two Atticus at once I'm just going to debate one Atticus at a time. I'm not asking Jan any questions. I'm saying we agreed to a format and it's your turn to ask another question if you want to. That's your job. Daniel, that's his name. That's right. So let me just quickly say something You want to say something is not part of the format you're supposed to ask a second question. I'm ready to hear a second question. That's what I meant by say something. Are you ready for a question or not? Mm-hmm. So Jan you've usually avoided my questions which I predicted you would. You have never explained why aggression is justified. You just talk about the problems of anarchy and the problems of competing jurisdictions. Okay. So my question for you is this you seem to have some notion in mind that a limited government is both a conceivable and possible thing and a good thing. Now I dispute all three of those assertions, but I would ask you what makes you think that we can have a limited government? What is a limited government? Keeping in mind that every government is limited because... You're asking a lot of different questions. I know it can be confusing. One question at a time. So I'm happy to answer them. What makes you think... The first question that you want to answer that whether limited government is possible is possible You said it wasn't possible. Is that one of the things you wanted me to answer or not? What makes you think that it's a good thing and justifiable Okay, those three things in one question. Whether it's possible, a good thing and justifiable. The answer is of course it's possible. We came pretty close to it when we had the Constitution of the United States Except for the slaves. That was a contextual error that was made But listen, are you going to let me answer or are you going to interrupt every time I'm answering? I don't know. Let's have a meta-conversation. This is the problem I have with Atticus. You agreed to a format but then you won't follow it. You have a problem with rules. Well that means that aggression... You don't want any law because you have a problem with rules and every time I debate with Atticus they won't follow the rules. Well Jan, you're a liar because I'm not against law. I'm a lawyer unlike you. I don't pretend to be a lawyer. I'm actually a real lawyer. I'm not against law. Don't tell the judge that you don't want a government or a state. I'm going to answer your question. Yes, I think it's possible and you can have more or less of a limited government. Unfortunately, we have straight to less. We have a lot of redistribution of well. We have a lot of victimless crimes that should not be crimes. I try to fight against these things because they depart from the model that I think optimizes my possibility of a happy life and everybody else's with optimum protection of your individual rights which is that the government is limited to protecting the individual rights of the citizens. And so is it justified? Yes, and it has produced the best quality of life so far. The history of anarchism before any governments in Africa was total misery tribal warfare. It produced nothing. It took a state to get us out of there. Unfortunately, a status, tyrannical state like the Pharaohs in Egypt or the Mesopotamian civilization to even get us started. And the world has never known more prosperity and welfare since the creation of modern states and specifically since the experiment of the United States with limited government which showed to the whole world the enormous amount of benefits that you can have when you have a government that is limited to the protection of the individual rights of the citizens with those defects and mistakes that they made and that we both agree should be removed. Next question. Next question. You don't want to him ask you or you ask him or you just want him to ask you all the ones first? He's supposed to ask me 12 he has a right to ask me 12 questions and I'm following the format. That's what we agree to. So I'm waiting for him to ask me another question. So you actually expect me to ask you 12 questions in a row and then you ask me 12 in a row? Is that the format? That was the format that 12 me 12 you you got to be kidding. What? You have to be kidding Jan. About what? This is ridiculous. You can ask me a question now. Go ahead. Ask me a question. You don't want to follow the format. I think what he's saying is it'll be back and forth just one person doing all the ones. The format is he has to ask 12 questions and then I get to ask 12 questions. That was the format. 12 in a row for me? Absolutely. Well, as an anarchist, that's bullshit. What's bullshit that you agree to this format or you want to deviate from it? Oh my god. This is a you want like a free-for-all with no rules. I think what he wants is we can still have the same amount of questions. What? I think we can still have the same amount of questions where everyone asks no one is short-sighted and no one gets to talk no one gets to ask less questions but I think he wants it more debate where he asks a question you respond If he wanted that he should have said listen this format I would like to change and I don't want to agree to it to changing it. I was flexible but he said he was fine with the format so I'm assuming that he's going to comply with his agreement. Seriously, it's irrelevant what you think. What? It's irrelevant what you think. The question is what do we do now? Make your mind up. Be a big boy. Make your mind up. Let's have a civilized debate. Let's have a civilized debate. Let's have a civilized debate. Really? You've been interrupting him a lot. He hasn't really been interrupting you. Interrupting is less than taxing. So, Jan Hellfeld wants to tax you and me, Daniel. How do you want to make a statement? You want to argue when you're supposed to be asking questions? I know that you've got to like the rules. You don't want your positions to be made clear. I understand that. One of my positions, we sent you a format. You agreed to it. It's just like Molly Nukes who in the middle of the interview wants to follow the format and said I don't care what the format is I'm not going to let you ask me any more questions. This isn't fair to the viewers. I don't think it's fair to either of you. I think it's up to you. We should either follow the format or we can do a back and forth. I want to ask you a question. I'm not going to ask him 12 questions in a row with 5 minute, 2 minute responses. That's ridiculous. I will not do that. So let's do a back and forth. Is that okay with you? Something that Jan agrees with. But I will not do 12 questions in a row to Jan and have him ask me 12 questions. It's ridiculous. Jan, is it okay if we do you ask one, he asks one, he asks one, he asks one? You can ask 3 or 4. So you can ask 3 or 4 now. I'm going to give you the spot. Oh wow. I want to be generous to both of you. I want to make both. I'm trying to make everyone happy. You want to please everyone. You can ask 3 or 4 in a row. Okay. No interruption. Just for the benefit of the viewers, you don't want to follow the format and say you won't do it so they can hear something. I'm going to be flexible and change the agreement so that it suits you more. Thank you. Is it ever justified to initiate physical force against someone who has not violated anybody's rights? I'm sorry to give you a clear answer because I know you don't want these but the answer is no, Jan. Go on to do them too. Okay. If you were dying of thirst, would you steal some water if the only person that had some refused to give or sell you any? I don't know. What's the relevance, Jan? Tell us what the relevance is. You don't know the answer to that question. You don't know whether you would steal it or not. Is that your answer? My answer is you're asking and it has no relevance to what we're talking about. Okay. Moderator, I want you to admonish Stefan for adhanomums. Stefan, I think what Jan is trying to say and you can correct me if I'm wrong is he's trying to say look, there are certain scenarios where if you feel in danger you would violate other people's rights and he's trying to give one and say, well, if you think it's okay in this scenario then why is it not okay in other scenarios? Is that a fair? Am I being fair in interpreting your question that way? Yeah, but this is not the point. The point is that he has to answer the questions. He can't just say that's a bullshit question I don't want to answer. He did answer. He said it's not justified. You're supposed to enforce the rules, which is... Wait a second. Go ahead. Ask a question again. Go ahead. Let's try. Would you try to steal some water if the only person that had some refused to give or sell you any? I don't know. Right. So, if you were drowning and there was a boat that wasn't your property and you tried to grab onto it and the guy said, hey, that's my boat and you're violating my property of rights, would you let go of the boat and drown to hang on and try to save your life? I don't know. Well, you know, I'm really glad that I'm having this debate with you because I'm going to save your life, Stephanie. And so the gratitude that you're going to give me is so much that it will be worth this debate. Because apparently you don't realize that under duress you should not hesitate to violate somebody's rights. So if you're dying of thirst or you're going to drown and your choice is to violate somebody's property rights or not, and on the one hand and save your life or drown on the other is such an easy choice but you haven't thought it through, have you? So I suggest that you think it through so when you reach an extreme duress situation like that you won't lose your life thinking, oh my gosh, should I violate the rights or not? And by that time you drown. Okay, so my response is, Jan, I suggest that someone like you, a washed up lawyer should not challenge a legal career. Now that's an ad hominem. By the way, it's not ad hominem. It is an ad hominem. You're saying that I'm a washed up lawyer. You're actually mispronouncing it. You have no idea about a career or what I want to do. Basically you have no body or loser. Okay, so basically you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even pronounce ad hominem properly. Okay? Well, that's fine, but you're the one who makes the ad hominems and the moderator is supposed to prevent them and cause you to be untaxed. Come on, come on. Let's just answer the question without cornering it. No, because it's a loaded question. I'm not going to answer that question just like that. It's a loaded question. Basically, you're trying to you're trying to argue for the state. I'm saving your life, buddy. And you don't appreciate it. The price of it, the price is... I don't know what to do when you're under extreme duress whether you should violate somebody's rights. You haven't even considered that. My goodness, this is the most elementary thing. If you haven't thought about it before you should certainly think about it now for your family and your children that you think I was abused before. Just let me know when I can speak. I'm saying that... If you're dying of thirst, would you try to steal some water if the only person that had some refused to give or sell you any? And I like that one. I can ask you any number of scenarios which imply extreme duress. And you simply apparently don't know what you would do. Can I answer? Go ahead. So my answer is that you are doing what statists always do. You come up with situations you're trying to justify aggression and you won't do it directly because you can't do it. Because you are a craven, coward, defender of states. Come on. No, no, no, no. I mean that directly and explicitly. And I will... But you are... those are at Harlem homes. It's not... I imagine... to stop you from doing that because you don't want to... But you don't care about the rules. You are happy to use that out of them arguments and to insult people in a debate. And that's basically because you don't respect any rules. Nevertheless, you cannot justify aggression against people or property and you try to do it as some kind of neo-Randian sycophant and you're wrong. You can't do it. You can't do it. You can't justify the state. You haven't tried to do it. You haven't even tried to explain why the state is justified. Let me ask you a question. No, no, no, no, no. A simple question. This is a double standard I see in you. I'm going to... You expect me to answer your questions? Yes. If you don't answer this question. Really? That's the problem with anarchists. It's all one way. My goodness. That shows that the state is justified. At least when I debated Larkin Rose, he said he would die. He would go ahead and die rather than violate other people's rights. Now I am in a very nice way and he's a very respectful person and I'm afraid maybe he would die. But most people that say they would die would not. But I think he might have been one of the few that would. I'm not going to let you... I'm not going to let you pontificate. Hey, Jan, you're going to... I'm not going to let you do this. You do this all the time. I know your technique. You're not going to pontificate. You're not going to grab the mic. So answer the question or I'm done. That's it. You're already running just like Mollie Nooks. You can't take the heat. It's not Mollie Nooks. I mean, you don't know how to pronounce words. I agree to format. But here's the thing. You say you won't answer my... I'm not going to let you pontificate. That's it. You're done. Are you going to answer my question or not? Come on. Let's be respectful. Give me your question. Daniel, fuck no. Jan, give me your question in 10 seconds and I'll answer it. If you give me a coherent question in 10 seconds. That's it. I gave you a question. If you're dying of thirst... If you were dying of thirst, would you try to steal some water if the only person that had some refused to give it or sell you any? It's a stupid question and you're reading it. I don't know the answer because you haven't specified the context. I just told you it's a context. No, you didn't. And you want a broad category if it makes it any easier? You're not a lawyer. If you were a real lawyer, you would know that this is not a real context. Are you going to permit this at Hanuman? It's not at Hanuman. Do you even know how to read? Come on. Read the word. It's at Hanuman. All you can do is insult. And that's the problem with anarchists. Unfortunately, it's easy to do. If anarchists can insult people, that means anarchism is wrong, right? I don't know. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it makes it disagreeable to debate. Yeah, it's disagreeable to be taxed by you motherfuckers. So let me ask you a question. Oh my goodness. Now you want to start with obscenities. No. I start with obscenities. How about that? What? Let me ask you a question. This is really interesting to me. So you expect me to answer your question. I don't expect anything except statism from people like you. I don't expect anything from people like you. You are nothing. You are nothing. Any more insults? Nothing. Bullshit. Well, you know, when people start with insults like this, it just means that they're back. Or maybe they're right. How about that? Please, let me say something. Let me say something. Because I don't feel this debate is being very fair. Look, people have the position that they have, and I think the goal in a debate is not insulting people. Come on, Kinsella. You itself told me that you were a minarchist before, and that you were a randian. Did you believe aggression was justified then? No. You changed your view based on reason and evidence. So you respond based on reason and evidence and not insults, please. I asked you the question for the third time. You said you were going to answer it, and then you didn't. What's the question? What? I've said it three times. You don't remember the question? No wonder you can't answer it. Go ahead. If you were dying of thirst, would you try to steal some water? If the only person that had some refused to give or sell you any? Maybe. I don't know. I'm saying that it's a good thing for you to consider these things because you might end up in a situation where you're in extreme duress and you might have to decide should I violate this person's property rights or not. So are you saying that in the meantime you're going to die of thirst or drown as the other example that I gave you. You better think it through. And if you did... Well, you better think it through, mother fucker. Are you saying that the state is justified? Are you going to let this guy continue to... You don't talk to me like this. You don't talk to me like this. That's one of the rules. You're not supposed to insult the opponent. Did you know that? You tried to take my property away from me. What property have I tried to take away from you? Oh, I don't know. My money from taxes? Well, that would be a feat. If I could do that through the Internet, I would really... You're a support of the state, aren't you? What should you do? How could I even attempt to take your property when obviously I'm an honest, straightforward guy even if you can't recognize it and all the money that I've made I've made honestly I never stole anything from anyone. No, you're not honest if you support the federal government. But you can't recognize that. That's right. You cannot recognize that. Yeah, because I'm a real libertarian unlike you, Jane. Come on, this is not a macho fest. All right, let's... No, it's not Daniel, but it's about principles. If you continue this debate and answer my questions, this question you will not answer. First you say you won't answer, then you say you don't know, then you say you won't answer, then you say you don't know. Well, if you don't know, this is important thing to figure out. I'm trying to be fair, I'm trying to give people a chance to talk. I'm going to ask you another question since you won't answer that one or you don't know one. Here we go. There's two possibilities. Either these dispute resolution organizations have nuclear weapons or they don't. Let's analyze them separately because they didn't have any nuclear weapons. What would happen or what would you do or what would you suggest we do when Putin or Kim Jong-il or whatever other tyrant threatened to nuke your city if you don't pay $10 billion? Well, you say these dispute resolution organizations which ones are you talking about? I never... What I assume are going to exist in your anarchist scenario since there is no... I never said that. You don't think people will organize to have alliances and to try to protect themselves and get security somehow? What I said was that aggression is unjustified and the state commits aggression. I'm waiting for you to rebut one of those two claims and you... We're in the middle of a debate. No, we're not. But I asked you a question so in other words, you... No, no, no, no, no. You said... Will there be any security alliances that have... Are you asking me for a prediction? I'm asking the anarchist society. Are you asking me for a prediction? Is that what you're saying? I'm asking you... Take either one. Let's assume that there are... Since apparently you don't know whether there will be any. Is that your answer? Do you know? No, I don't and since I'm a rational person I analyze both possibilities so I cover the whole range of possibilities. The first possibility that I'm asking you to consider... I know you're used to doing this but you're not going to do it with me. You're used to knowing all over people but let me tell you something. You were assuming that there's going to be a limited government and we're going to have a way to limit the government. I'm not assuming that. I'm asking you a question about under your scenario... I did not give you a scenario. I did not give you a scenario. Yes, you did. That's your... I said aggression is wrong. You are arguing the position whether you know it or not that no government is better than limited government. That's what the debate... That's the title of the debate. That was the debate proposition that I sent to you and you agreed the debate. In the beginning of this so-called debate I specifically said I'm not going to defend or argue against government because people like you will debate about the word government. I said my opposition is against aggression and the state which is the... The state is the same thing as the way government so there's no real difference. Now you're doing the opposite of what I said. What is the problem? The point is, is there going to be what I call a government and what you call a state that has a monopoly, a major force and that has a function to enact and enforce rules that apply to the whole territory that is in question the whole country or the whole society. Let me ask you a simple question. I will clarify my question. I don't think your question is clear. There would be no such social institution. Is that correct? Jan, I'm going to end this discussion if you won't discuss with me and that's fine with me because I have really nothing to gain by this because you're basically... You have a lot of surprises left. My question is... You can learn a lot. You can figure out whether you should enforce if you're under extreme duress or not. I'm pretty sure already that I shouldn't initiate force unlike you apparently. I'm telling you upfront if my life's at stake and I have to choose between drowning and violating the guy's property rights, I will hang onto his boat if I can. You're going to drown because you're going to just think about it and wonder what to do. Is that even considered? How does that determine what rules we should have in society? What it determines is that you don't understand the principle of... I'm going to tell you... I can answer the question. You don't know the context in which... That's not an answer to the question. The thing is you don't know how this principle was formed. You don't know the context. It's a contextual absolute. It is absolutely true that you should not initiate force against other people under normal circumstances outside one scenario like extreme duress. But you and apparently... I know you've got that from law school. This principle has an irreducible... Let me ask you a question. Do you believe... that you can answer my question? You don't have a coherent question. My questions are not coherent so you don't have to answer them. Your's are coherent so I have to answer that. Do you think that the government has the right to... You really expect me to answer any question that you ask? I expect of status that they're going to be in favor of the state which is what you're doing. The question is do you think you can come up with a reason for the right to take property from people which they call taxes? Yes or no? Cancella refuses to follow the format, even the amended format that you suggested we follow? I think he's answering your question but I think his answer is correct me if I'm wrong. I think his answer is correct me if I'm wrong. Wait a second. I accepted in view of the fact that certain people are listening to this that we would change the format right in the middle to suit Cancella because he's not willing to comply with the agreement and he isn't willing to comply with the amended agreement either. So are you going to ask him to follow the rules or not? I think he answered your question. He did. I asked him. I think his answer was what does that have to do with anything because whether you have a government or not people can still commit those actions so how is the government going to what does that have to do with anything? Is that pretty much your response? I should have debated you, you're clear. I'm willing to go with whatever Daniel says. No questions in a row, go ahead. Go ahead. So the answer is that what would you do would you without a government when a foreign tyrant threatens like Putin or Kim Jong-il that have nuclear weapons they send you an extortion note what you propose the society of the United States now with no longer a military or a government to defend themselves what should they do? Well what do you mean what would I do? There's two scenarios they either don't have nuclear weapons or they do. I'm saying what do you propose that the society, the people who are receiving this extortion note do when they don't have any nuclear weapons to defend themselves? Well let me ask you something. A person can extort and bully them because they cannot retaliate. Well what's the relevance of that question or is it a loaded question? I mean what's the relevance? What are you trying to ask? Are you... What is your positive argument? Hold on a second. You are supposed to be arguing for the state. Well I'm arguing for limited government you keep saying that I'm the state but I don't... Isn't that a state? What? Isn't that a state? Yes I believe in limited government and that is a kind of government and so you think that that's the same as the Nazis No I don't say that they're all the same I don't say they're all the same I know There are many different views about what a kind of state is optimum I believe in limited government and you are advocating a position of it's preferable better not to have a government which is anarchist position That's not right You cannot shirk the responsibility of the consequences of the social organization that you are recommending by saying you don't have a position if you don't have a position what are you debating? My position is that aggression is unjustifiable You said you don't even know if you would commit aggression if your life depended on it But that's because you are against yourself Well my answer is you're equating morality with public normative laws It's a contradiction in your thinking and I'm bringing it out clearly for everyone to see You say that this is a principle I never said that Look under all context every context you should not initiate force no matter what if you're going to die go ahead and die I never said that That's dishonest But you say you don't know Maybe Maybe you would I think you haven't specified the context enough for me to answer the question I'm giving you I'm giving you a few scenarios they're all the same category Ask him for instance if a person is starving and he can't afford to buy an apple from the supermarket is it justified to take it so it doesn't starve Right And I don't know because that's not the domain of political ethics Political ethics is about what the laws should be Should there be a law against theft Should there be a law against rape Should there be a law against murder even though in some cases you, Jan, Helfeld or Daniel or me might find ourselves in a case where we want to commit murder or rape or robbery We're talking about the morality of the issue Is it wrong for him to do that Should he steal the apple or not We're talking about whether the law You said You would like him not to steal the apple and follow the moral principle that you view as an absolute under every I never said that What is it that you're suggesting that you don't have an answer for him whether it's right or wrong you should adhere to the non-aggression principle I never said that either You don't adhere to the non-aggression principle I didn't say that either so you're putting words in my mouth You either do adhere to it or you don't I think the non-aggression principle should be a model for what laws should be enacted in a society But you Well, guess what That doesn't mean That's not the question Guess what, we agree In a limited government that it is a model Let me ask you a question But the point is Is it morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle under extreme duress I don't know You better figure it out because your life might depend on it You better figure it out I already figured it out and I was up front and told you When I'm starving I'm going to steal the apple and I'm going to make the case to the jury Look, I was starving if you want to put me in jail fine but my choices were to die What do you want me to do Any reasonable person would know the answer to that question but apparently you haven't thought through your ethics That's why you don't know the context in which the non-aggression principle was formed You don't know that it's a contextual absolute not an absolute in every circumstance So whenever somebody is going to deviate from the principle of non-aggression you think, oh, this is a horrible person he might harm my children or steal my stuff That's exactly what you said about me No, it's not That's a great question You said you had to worry about me stealing stuff from your kids, don't you remember Well, I think that people like you are in the public Oh, you've come to the anonyms I'm not hearing any more anonyms Again, you're mispronouncing It's not an anonyms It's not an anonyms It's ad hominem I mean, you're just Oh, great It's an insult You like that word better? It's not an insult You brought it up not me, I'm just saying you're in between a mainstream person and a radical pro-property rights individualist like me and Daniel and like most libertarians nowadays and you guys are basically the old wave to be honest Well, I can't wait for you guys to die out and for the next one or two or three generations to come up For 99% of the population to die out that disagree with you and hate anarchy because it clearly for the reasons I stated will make the initiation of force more prevalent will make your life more risky and put your life and property at risk You don't want to refute those reasons You just want to say, I don't have a position I don't know what will happen That's totally irresponsible Your little state has not secured my life, liberty and property No, it was the founding fathers that gave you the chance and we are you The founding fathers who were racists You don't feel any gratitude towards them either Yeah, the founding fathers That's right, they created a society where there was more freedom and opportunity and prosperity What are you talking about? Are you just some stupid objectivist who believes all this crap? Can you talk without insulting people? Not people that don't deserve being insulted No So, Daniel I thought you said this guy was laid back He only does his insult and he doesn't like the way I say it You're supporting the founding fathers Of course I am Of course I am I'm grateful to them not like you I guess you're not black You're not black children They're courageous defense of a new experiment in political theory which was a great success and you're getting the benefit from it Anyway Are you willing to answer any of my questions or not? You don't have any questions I think I'm going to help you think through your ethics if you want me to I'll do it for you I think you're good against Nancy Pelosi but against real libertarians I don't care whether I'm good or not It's not about who's good or not I know you don't care because you're just Are you going to answer my questions? Because I have more questions for you I don't want to answer what will happen and neither did the moderator You don't want to answer my questions You don't want to answer my questions I'm not going to do that I know, next time I'll do the debate too because you're willing to answer questions and you don't use that on them Stefan will not answer questions and he only likes to do his insult I don't want to bring the news I won't answer these questions but I would if you want me to to answer them Are you going to answer any of my questions? Should I ask another one? You don't want to answer about the nuclear weapons if they don't have any nuclear weapons what they would do when they receive an extortion threat, right? Well, I'm going to ask you what's the point of the question So, you ask that's how you answer questions with the question I don't give a really question Depending on what you're leading you answer Do you want to answer the question straightforwardly? I don't respond to loaded questions No You reserve the right to answer questions that you want or others that you don't want That's against the rule That's against the rule Apparently, Daniel will not insist that you answer the question which is his job I've said it a few times I think you should answer the question I'm not sure what the point of the question is That's irrelevant It's going to be a big surprise for both anarchists But I've answered the question I think a respectful debate is where people answer questions even if your personal view is that it's an irrelevant question and if you don't think it's a necessary question maybe explain why That's fine I refuse to engage in equivocation into answer loaded questions which have the answer already built into the question which is I think what Jan's doing because that's all his type has to do How are they equivocations or loaded questions Maybe you can answer that Because he's setting up a system where we have to imagine a world governed by states and what's the right policy and he's imagining a world where private societies are threatened by states which he supports how they would respond The only question in my view is is aggression justified and does the state commit aggression and he has not yet tried to answer those questions and no, if he won't answer those very simple questions or his loaded questions You didn't say what was equivocation You don't even know what an equivocation is You do know because I heard you say before and what is the word that I use in two different senses There was nothing there equivocating Jan, is aggression justified or not It's a simple question You asked me that question and I answered it before What's the answer? They're under extreme duress I think that's your answer Under situations of extreme duress it's justified to use aggression Is that your answer? Under extreme duress I answered his question but he won't answer mine I didn't answer the second part but he did answer the first The second part is Do you think the state necessarily commits aggression? In other words I'm going to answer his question I can't control what other people do I'm doing the best that I can I want to have a forum where we can debate ideas You know I can't control That depends on a person following the rules that he agreed to If a people aren't willing to do what they agreed to and then when you amend the format to their suiting they still don't agree then what can you do? So a stepping console doesn't agree to the debates with a statist faux anarchist libertarian That means that the state is justified So that's your argument We could find out We could find out if a limited government is better than an old government If you would follow the format and answer the questions responsibly not answer a question with a question and the court the court the court the court you can answer So the the limited government I have a lot of interesting questions here If you want me to ask it to you and if you want to answer any of them I've got a couple more minutes Go ahead, I'm willing to listen to your honest questions We'll pick and choose which ones we want to answer I will pick and choose Wow It always stands me the sense of a bear Here's a question Do you think criminals can act with individuals that are not organized? As well as What does this echo on your end, Jan? Okay, here's a question Under the under the government's the one you are defending Do you think criminal gangs will attack individuals that are not organized? Okay, I think I heard most of that First of all, as I said earlier I'm not opposed to government but opposed to the state Are we clear about that? In the scenario where there is no state what I call criminal state will criminal attack individuals that are not organized that are weaker than themselves There's some kind of echo here going on there's a technical issue I think it's only when I speak when I speak so I finish and speaking or not Yes I think that in a future private law society where the state has been abolished because most people realize that it's illegitimate that you will still have private crime but not public crime and therefore any type of crime you can imagine would be possible so yes, it's possible that private crime can occur in a free society but that's not a good thing that's actually the reason that we libertarians which is people like me and Daniel but apparently not like you actually oppose what we call aggression crime accepting there's extreme duress or whatever you're going to call it now so we actually oppose the private crime that you're setting up as the boogeyman and you apparently don't because maybe you need to rape and kill people because maybe there's duress so go ahead make sure that I understood your answer you think that some criminal gangs will sometimes get weaker than themselves no I said it's possible crime is possible that's possible justice is possible I didn't say they will do that so you think they won't I didn't say that either the answer is there's no such thing as everyone is going to behave and everyone's going to misbehave hold on hold on okay do you think somebody wait Jan hold on I would just say that in your ideal society of 200 or 1000 or one government in the world whatever you think is ideal there's still going to be private crime that occurs on occasion so even in your ideal society and by the way I would ask you that there's not going to be one world government so go ahead look I'm trying to ask you a question and see if I got the answer do you think the criminal gangs will attack individuals that are not as well as they consider weaker than themselves what criminal gangs you say these criminal gangs which ones any criminal gangs any one that agrees that there would be a criminal gang so you think there would be a criminal gang so you have no idea where there would be I can't predict the future in other words you don't know in an anarchist scenario where there will be there will be criminals criminals or anything else anything else I know it really bugs you objective is that we can't figure out exactly what the hell life is going to be like I can tell you I will tell you this if we have no rape and no robbery guess what that means there's no rape and robbery what would a society look like with no rape and robbery I don't know Jan maybe you can predict it but I can't why don't you tell me predict them what's it going to look like in 30 years I never said that there was a society with no rape and robbery of course you didn't because you support the state which is going to rape and rob people no boy anyway follow the format of me answering you answering I don't want to follow the format of a status you want to trap me into doing what you're doing trapping you again and you agree to the format yeah well I agree with a status you agree to this format yeah why don't you agree not to tax me and rob me I will agree I will ask you questions and that is a good insight into your character well that's a good insight into your contract I couldn't count on you doing what you say you were going to do that's the real problem tell us a fake word even though you are being obnoxious and insulting me and obnoxious I will try that I've told you five times I'll tell you one more time there will be security agencies there will be a tag bite and my question is some of them hey Jan let me tell you something one congratulations because you have won you and your fellow status have won you guys have control of the planet so congratulations I congratulate you I've never advocated the world government and I don't have the control of any planet and the governments are quite different and I have very no interest in continuing talking with you because you basically have nothing positive to say whatsoever you're defending the state no okay so that was the I see so you don't want the questions and we'll spend one hour and forty three minutes so I think that's been enough of you okay well if you don't want to file a format you won't file a revise and just stop insulting and that on yeah yeah yeah well that means Jan that's a good job just fine it just means that you're not willing to discuss the reasoning and you're not willing to examine the consequence or it could mean that I'm part of being no government and that's why the people don't want it or it could mean that I'm tired of being the obvious consequences of not having a government are gang warfare leading you through oh yeah Jan we're all against gang warfare yeah that's a really strong way to start with this that's why taxation is justified that's why your little Hamiltonian Jeffersonian government of bike races is justified because you think gang warfare is not justified you're just a little stupid gang warfare is worse scenario which is a mixed economy that's what I'm trying to tell you this is what you're in favor of even with all its faults it's better than gang warfare how do you know how do you know that honest question that's what I'm explaining to you but you won't even understand I'm asking you a question you can't foresee the natural consequences of not having how do you know that's my question and you say you don't know so because Stefan and Stella won't answer questions you know so you've been you've been a statist for 30 years because I won't answer questions in 2014 what? I'm asking you a question how do you know that this gang warfare you're talking about is this huge bugabare that is a threat to human civilization how do you know that's what's real and we don't have to state I told you that people will naturally form part of security alliances check their individual rights can you just answer a question about reading something do you agree with that or not why is there an echo I don't know I think it's only on your end yes I think people will form alliances go ahead well before about five minutes ago you didn't know okay great that's bullshit I didn't say that that's a lie that's totally dishonest and a lie very precise I am not going into loaded questions and I don't answer questions because you had a loaded question with a bunch of somethings and that's completely wrong what you said just answer the questions there's no way in the future can you stop advocating taxation of me how about that we have a deal why does it stop advocating taxation do we have a deal yes or no I'm going to answer will you condemn taxation right now yes or no will I condemn taxation I will condemn redistributive taxation no I won't condemn taxation okay you don't want to hear the answer I already told you the answer is my money is taken from me every April 16th mother fucker do you understand that's the answer can he continue with obscenities and if you can take my money I can you agree that insults and obscenities you're not important what about advocating coercion against the other guy in the debate is that permitted it's really funny that I paid more in taxes than you probably made in your life oh boy that's really funny engage in a civilized debate that we should not have named calling I don't know how many times I don't know well no I'm giving an answer anyway so okay Cancelo won't answer he's not at all calling me calling me a murderer Cancelo is totally irrational he doesn't want to be stolen from and he wants to take it off of me, I was crazy the IRS is out against me only guy that's helping him. You're not against the IRS. You want to post taxation. He's under control. He's not doing anything to do that. You want to post taxation. Anyway, so... Why don't you post taxation? If you're on fraud, you're not in the video. Why don't you post taxation, you liar? Not even the amended format, we do what you want still. Oppose the IRS. How about that? Who's the federal government? Anyway, I guess you better schedule a debate with somebody who's willing to answer questions that won't, and there's the rules in there when you're supposed to answer the questions and I said he didn't answer them. And he's supposed to tell me he wasn't. No one, he wouldn't. He won't answer, he won't answer. Why don't you just say you're against taxing me by the IRS? Why don't you just say that? You think the IRS should be taxing me? What are you talking about, man? You just said you think the federal government should tax people. You interrupted me in the middle of my statement. Well, that's not uncommon. That's what you've been doing the whole debate. I explained to you that people that think that they need a government in order to have a section of their individual role. Have a right and do what you do. Form a that is dedicated to protecting the lives of their citizens. And when that social institution performs that function, and taxes them only for that purpose, they are not being aggrieved. The people are right in doing it. And they will have a better and happier life. They give you anarchy. Anarchy will explode. All the things that you don't want to consider, that's why you won't answer them. We've had enough of your status, Mel. No, I am not going to be civilized with a guy like that. Thank you for admitting that you're in favor of taxation. Thank you for meeting that, Jan. You at least admitted that you're in favor of the government taking people's money from them by force. At least you admitted that. And if you can pretend to be a libertarian, despite this, congratulations, I pity any libertarian who falls for your bullshit and nonsense, you are no worse, in fact you are worse than any statist advocate of the state, and I am, that's my opinion, I'm welcome to my opinion, so you can shut the fuck up for a second, and then that I was, and that I wasn't, it goes back and forth. Well, you're a favor of taxation, no, no, I told you, I'm in favor of what taxation? Whatever, whatever, whatever, I don't care, you are my enemy, you are my enemy, and if we ever have a war, I will. I'm your enemy, wow, you don't know the difference between your enemies and your friends, I'm the one who's at the front line fighting for the future. Yes I do, most of my enemies are not as confused as you are. I'm trying to prevent all the redistribution of wealth that's going on, so you won't get the fuck out of my business. Yeah, you're a statist, you pretend you're like an libertarian, you pretend you're not a libertarian, you're a statist. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, What do you are? No, Daniel, he is, he's in favor of taxation. Okay, well, I'm not justifying any positions. What I am saying is that people have a view that they have, and the point of the debate- I don't care about people's views, okay? If they leave me the fuck alone, that's fine. He wants to take my money from me. Was there ever a point of your life? it's not funny. If I was a loser like you, I would think it was a joke, okay? But if you make a lot of money, it actually makes a difference. Stefan, was there ever a point in your life where you support a taxation? Never. Ever. Nobody can trust you, Cancelo, because you do not comply with this agreement. Ever. You are a welcher. You agree with your agreement. You don't, an agreement with you is worthless because you won't follow it. You agree with your agreement and you won't do that. You won't do that. Jan, do you even know what Rockards title content is? And then you don't have any integrity. And you don't even realize that you displayed that to everyone here on this video. So I'm willing to comply with your argument. I'm not advocating taxation. I'm not going to keep you. So you think that all you can think about is taxation and you can't... Jan, Jan, you understand that your days are numbered. No one cares about you. Oh, dear. Are you a hit man? You are just the status. No one cares about old washed out losers like you. You understand that? Oh, more at Haramamsa. Come on. It's not at Haramamsa. You can't even pronounce the word right. Haramamsa is willing to follow the format that they agreed, okay? Because this guy will not and he, you said he was laid back. Well, laid back, laid back. So people like me, we hang out with people that are actually successful, real people, or we hang out with principle people, not people like you. Anyway, I'm ready with the disappoint list at this point. Since a person will not comply with it. Yeah, fuck off. Bye. Oh, more at Haramamsa. Wow. Fuck off. You see, that gave you an insight. Did you know that he was like that? You didn't know, did you? You didn't know, because now I hope that you at least gained an insight into his soul, what kind of person he is. And that's the only benefit that I see in this truncated thing. I'm upset that he did that. I wish we could have a civilized discussion. I guess. Get a better candidate. Yeah, get a better candidate, somebody who will adhere to the format that won't involve, won't engage in at Haramamsa. And it doesn't get so angry at somebody who isn't even doing anything to him. My God, it's got an anger problem. Well, I apologize to the people watching this. I feel like we could have a civilized discussion. Sorry. Okay.