 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. 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 Congress people, et cetera. So please keep that in mind in what I'm going to say, which is going to be very blunt and very clear, unlike a lot of your opponents, and unlike some of 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. OK, how do you go from one picture to the other? How is the person? It does it automatically. But if you go on the YouTube link that I just sent you, it looks sort of weird for some reason. But hopefully. OK, OK, Steph, I'm ready. Steph Ann. OK, 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 Jen 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, 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 Jen, I won't accuse Jen 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 Jen has actually been pretty clear about this and his definition of the state. So I think Jen'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 Jen is in favor of. Now, I don't think Jen 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. Or as libertarians explain, we are against the uninvited or unconsented to use of someone else's physical property that is dating 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 Jen knows better than that, and I expect him not to raise that baseless accusation. OK, so when we favor aggression, I'm sorry, when we favor anarchy, we're not in favor of a system. Now, Jen 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, Jen'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 100 times if I need to. What that means is Mr. Jan Hellfield cannot, in this conversation, come up with an argument that will tell me, or 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. Hellfield 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 Ms. Nancy Pelosi and other Congress critters like her. So to me, it's one or the other. Mr. Hellfield will tell me what aggression is, and please don't complete it with self-defense. And he will tell me why it's OK that we can justify committing aggression in an institutionalized way, in some cases. I want to hear this justification. Because if Jan Hellfield 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 Hellfield 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 Hellfield 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, 1, 2, 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 sink 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. So most people want to remind you that we got to stay away from adhanomums. It's not adhanomum. 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 agree 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 are 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 the 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. 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? IE, 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 was 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, everybody's life and property will be less safe. Please do not interrupt me. I didn't interrupt you. What are you reading? Excuse me. I'm a moderator. Will you tell the other debater to be quiet? He has two minutes. You'll ask him. No, no, you cannot interrupt. Jesus Christ. Go ahead. Keep reading your text. Stefan, just give me two more minutes to make it clear. 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 non-existent, 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 US Army to protect you and to retaliate and to stop them. You have to deal with yourself with your security agencies. Secondly, disagreements, 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. It's 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, right, Daniel? Some of these fights, will you stop interrupting me? Well, I think your time's up. That's the moderator's job. Let him do his job. Yeah, have a minute. He has another minute. Let the moderator do his job. So when's it gonna be up? I didn't interrupt you. Did I? No, you just want to take my money from me by taxes. No, you want to just attack and whatever, but you don't want to follow the rules. And that's one of the big problems I have with anarchists. They never want to follow the rules. They agree to. And in an 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 anarchists. And it's all okay. You want to interrupt me, and it's my turn to talk. I don't know if it is your turn. It's your format. It's just a Rothschild. I will... You have to listen to the format, and you should... It's the fun. It's the fun. Come on. You have to be respectful. He has another minute. I mean, I don't think you should... Go ahead, go ahead, 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 Macquaries, passed on from generation to generation. In contrast, under a limited government, disagreements are limited to the parties. And they have finality. Oh, gee. 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. So, in conclusion, our life, liberty and property, would be less safe under anarchism as a result of a proliferation of gang warfare. Oh, for God's sake. Extortion by domestic and foreign criminals and a loss of the benefits of the free market. And that's why I'm against it because there will be more initiation of physical force under anarchism. There's no government rather than less. And that's 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. So 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 him questions. We're going to do question and answer now. Well, OK. 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 you, 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 justified? OK, well, I heard the question. 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 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. Now what, there are what? Do you want to ask a second question, or what? Yeah, I don't know what to answer. I don't know, what are you going to do? Except for the slaves, go ahead. I'm going to follow the format. You agree to a 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. And this limited government has created tremendous benefits for people since it occurred. So I don't see any initiation of physical force there. Of course you don't. And so that's right. And so 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 the possibility of a 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. So the optimum possibility is to have a limited government where you will have the least amount of initiation of physical force in the society. That's what certain people believe. Now 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. I didn't agree. I didn't agree to anything. Well, in your writings, you have said that there is implied consent of the government. Have you said that or not? No. Oh, I'll quote it to you exactly. The article that you requested that I read about, your position on anarchism, says exactly that. So if you forgot what you wrote, then that's not my problem. Anyway. No, your problem is your opinion on statism. Everybody is born into a system that either has a government or it doesn't. It's either limited or it's not. And when you're a baby, we're talking about the state of the government. I'm just asking you. OK, well, I'm at the state of the government. Why there is no initiation of force and what the situation is. People think that under the limited government, they will have the rights protected. They agreed 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. You keep calling me a status. I'm not a status. I believe 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 what your position is. Are you saying that a limited government is not? Wait a minute, moderator. He has a right to ask me a second question. I'm ready to listen to it. We're not going back and forth? OK. No, no, I didn't. I'm OK with Daniel asking Jan. Well, of course, then. You want a two-on-one guy? Well, I'm not asking Jan any question. I'm just making sure. I'm not going to debate two anarchists at once. I'm just going to debate one anarchist at a time. I'm not asking Jan any questions. Well, 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 just say something. Oh, do 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? So Jan, you've immediately 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. 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 of it. You're asking a lot of different questions. You asked three of them. I know it can be confusing. One question at a time. So I'm happy to answer them. What makes you think that you want to answer that whether a limited government is possible? It's possible by you. You said it wasn't possible. Is that was one of the things you wanted me to answer or not? What makes you think that it's a good thing and justifiable? OK, OK, well, OK, those three things in one question. Fine, whether it's possible, a good thing and justifiable. The answer is yes. 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 you made. Unfortunately, I don't know if that's right. And I wasn't able to answer. 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. Well, 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 a government, 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 you. Don't tell the judge that you don't want a government or a state. Yeah, fuck the judge. OK, so 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 strayed to less. We have a lot of redistribution of wealth. 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 we both agree should be removed. Next question. So you don't want to him ask you weren't a US Kim one. 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. Sure. 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? How is the format that we said you want? 12 me, 12 you. You've 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. But you don't want to follow the format. I don't think the format was a problem at all for me. It'll be back and forth instead of just one person doing all the ones. The format is that he has asked 12 questions and then I get to ask 12 questions. That is a format. 12 in a row for me? 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 know, you want like a free-for-all with no rules. That's basically. I think what he wants is, look, we can still have the same amount of questions. 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, and maybe he wants it more. 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. And I would have been open 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 dream. Nobody knows what you think, really, 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. Be a big boy, and not, and make your decision. Let's have a civilized debate. No, it can't be civilized with the sky. It can't be. Really? Yeah. You've been interrupting him a lot. He hasn't really been interrupting you. You know what? 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 guys don't like the rules. Oh, you don't want your positions to be made clear. I understand that. I want my position. We sent you a format. You agreed to it. It's just like Molly Nukes, who in the middle of the interview debates. It's Molly Nukes. What are you? I want you to follow the format and say, 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. I think we should either follow the format or we can do it back and forth. OK, I want to ask you a question. I'm not going to ask him 12 questions in a row with five-minute, two-minute responses. That's ridiculous. So I will not do that. So let's do it back and forth, Jen. Is that OK with you? Do 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 OK if we do you ask one, he asks one, you ask one, he asks one? He asks three or four. So you can ask three or four now. I'm going to give you the spot. Oh, wow. Well, I want to be generous to both of you. I want to make both. So I'm trying to be of making everyone happy. Yes, and you want to please everyone. Fine. Look, you can ask three or four in a row. OK, no interrupts is your name, Carl. OK, 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. OK, 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, but what's the relevance, Jan? Why don't you tell us what the relevance of it? The relevance of it is a small question. 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 a bullshit question and it has no relevance to what we're talking about. OK. Moderator, I want you to admonish Stefan for adhanomums. He's calling me a bullshit. 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 to say, well, if you think it's OK in this scenario, then why is it not OK in other scenarios? Is that a fair, am I being fair in interpreting your question that way? Yeah, but then 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 it. He said it's not just a bullshit question. You're supposed to enforce the rules, which is I'm OK. OK, wait a second. Wait a second. Go ahead, ask a question again. Go ahead. Let's try it. 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? 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 or rights, would you let go of the boat and drown or would you hang on and try to save your life? I don't know. Well, I'm really glad that I'm having this debate with you because I'm going to save your life, Stefan. And so the gratitude that you're going to give me is so much that it'll be worth this debate. 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 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 a extreme duress situation like that, you won't lose your life thinking, oh my gosh, should I violate their rights or not? And by that time, you drown. OK, so my response is, Jan, I suggest that someone like you, a washed up lawyer, should not challenge a legal criminal. Now, that's an ad hominem, you see? Yeah, well, it's not ad hominem. It is an ad hominem. You're saying that I'm a washed up lawyer. Well, you're actually mispronouncing it, which is. You have no idea of my career or what I want to do. That's a pretty good idea. Basically, nobody a loser. So basically, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even pronounce ad hominem properly, OK? Oh, really? Well, that's fine. But you're the one who makes the ad hominem, and the moderator is supposed to present them, and cause you to be an accent on your pronouncing. Come on, come on, please. Let's just answer the question without cornering it. No, because it's a loaded question. I'm not going to answer that question, because he is kind of loaded. Just like out of the picture. Like a little statistic, you were trying to argue for the state. I'm saving your life, buddy. And you know what I'm saying? And the price of it, the price is there. 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 I ask you a question. 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. Go ahead. So my answer is that you are doing what status always do. You come up with situations. You're trying to justify aggression. You won't do it directly, because you can't do it. Because you are a craven-coward defender of the state. Come on. No, no, no, no. I mean that directly and explicitly. And I will return. Right. You are at those at Harlemums. And I imagine it's not easy to stop you from doing that, because that's not at Harlem. But you don't care about the rules. You are happy to use at Harlemum 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, you're not. No, no, no, no. A simple question. This is a double standard I see in you. You expect me to answer your questions? Yes. If you don't answer this question, I'm going to end up in trouble. That's the problem with anarchists. It's all one way. My goodness. That shows that the state is justified. That's fine. But look, I'm going to tell you, 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, 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. Look, look, look, Jan, Jan, I'm not going to let you defecate. I try to help him. I'm not going to let you defecate. Hey, Jan, you're going to, 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 defecate. You're not going to grab the mic. So you answer the question, or I'm done. That's it. You're already running just like Molly Nooks. You can't take the heat mic. It's not Molly Nooks. I mean, you don't know how to pronounce words. I agreed to format. You have a fake law degree for something. I asked you, but here's no, here's the thing. You say you won't answer my question. No, no, no, no, no. 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. No. 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. Give me your question right now. Give me the question. 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. So I just told you, made this 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. I mean, do you even know how to read? Read the word. It's at Hanuman. You see, 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 that 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. Goodness, now you want to start with obscenities. I start with obscenities. How about that? What? Let me ask you a question. How can you do that? So 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. Anymore insults? Nothing. Bullshit. Well, well, being stated from people's point of view, insults like this, it just means that they're back up. Yeah, or maybe they're right. How about that? Please, let me say something. Don't have any good arguments. 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. And come on, Kinsella, you itself told me that you were a minarchist before, and that you were a Randian. 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? What's the question? 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. Depends on the content. So 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? Are you saying that the state is justified? 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, motherfucker. Are you saying that the state is justified? Are you going to let this guy continue to you? You don't talk to me like this. Thank you, and it's not. 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? Did you read the rules? I didn't try 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? Really? Well, that would be a feat. If I could do that through the internet, I would really be happy. You're a support of the state, aren't you? What should I do? I didn't even close to you. 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. 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, Jamie. Come on. Come on. This is not a macho fest. All right? Let's engage. No, it's not, Daniel, but it's about principles. If you continue this debate and answer my questions, you know, OK, so 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. What are the other? Here we go. There's two possibilities. Either these dispute resolution organizations have nuclear weapons or they don't. Let's analyze them separately to see what the results are. If 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 miss it. The ones that I assume are going to exist in your anarchist scenario since there is no state. Why do you assume that? I never said that. All I said was 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 that the state commits aggression. So I am waiting for you to rebut one of those two claims. And you keep. Well, we're in the middle of a debate. No, we're not. I haven't claimed that there's a rebuttal period. But I asked you a question. So in other words, you. No, no, no, no, no, no. You said. Will there be any security alliances that have? Are you asking me for a prediction? Is that what you're asking me for? 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 what to do. 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. Hey, Jan? 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 that we're going to have democracy 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. But I didn't give you a scenario. I did not give you a scenario. Yes, you did. That's your. No, I said a question. 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. Well, 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. And I said my opposition is against aggression and the state, which is the institutionalized state. It's the same thing as the way I used the word government so there's no real difference. Yeah, and now you're doing the opposite of what I predicted. So 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 as its function to enact and enforce rules that apply to the whole territory that is in question, the whole country, or the whole society. OK, let me ask you a simple question. Oh my god, so I just asked you a question. I will clarify my question. I don't think your question was clear. You said 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 just. There are a lot of surprises left. You're just right in the middle on you. My question is, you can learn a lot. You can figure out whether you should initiate force if you're under extreme duress or not. I'm pretty sure already that I shouldn't initiate force unlike you, apparently. Yeah, well, I'm telling you upfront, if my life's at stake, and I have to choose between drowning and violating the guy's boat rights, property rights, I will hang onto his boat if I can. Well, how does that work? But you're going to drown because you're going to just think about it and wonder what to do. How does that determine? And you're going to be grateful that I'm bringing this up if you haven't even considered? How does that determine what rules we should have in society? Well, what it determines is that you don't understand the principle of the question. I'm going to tell you if you want to 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. So it is absolutely true that you should not initiate force against other people under normal circumstances, meaning outside one situation scenario, like extreme duress. But you, and apparently I, I know you've got that from law school. So I'm going to answer these principles as this principle has an irreducible context. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that? I'm not going to answer my question. You don't have a coherent question. My questions are not coherent, so you don't have to answer them. Yours are coherent, so I have to answer that. Exactly. Exactly. Do you think that the government has the right to? To really expect me to answer any question that you ask. I don't expect anything from this. My expect of state is that they're going to be in favor of the state, which is what you're doing. So the question is, are you, do you think you can come up with a reason where the government has the right to take property from people, which they call taxes? Yes or no? Look, so no. Daniel, look, Daniel. Yes. 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. No, no, but wait a second, Daniel. You said, 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. Oh, he did. I asked him. He did. I think his answer was, and you could correct me if I'm wrong, his answer was, what does that have to do with anything? Because whether you have a government or not, people could still commit those actions. So how is the government going to, what does that have to do with anything? He, I, I, I, I, I, I, is that, is that pretty much your response? I should have debated you, you're clear. I asked you. Let's back off. I'm willing to go with whatever Daniel says, OK? And if you ask me two questions in a row, go ahead. Go ahead. So the answer is that, what would you do? I said, would you, without a government, when a foreign tyrant threatens, like Putin or Kim Jong-il that have nuclear weapons, they transcend you an extortion note, what you propose the society of the United States now would no longer a military or a government to defend themselves, what should they do? Well, what do you mean, what would I do? You mean as a, they don't have, 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? Is it a loaded question? I mean, what's the relevance? What are you trying to ask? Are you? I'm trying to ask exactly what I'm asking. Hold on a second. You are supposed to be arguing for the state. I'm arguing for limited government. You keep saying that I'm the state, but I don't, those are the guys that I'm happy all the time with the state. 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, if you want to say this, but you think that that's the same as the Nazis and the Nazis and the Nazis and the Nazis. I don't say that they're all the same. Right. No, 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. I try to know. 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? You're debating nothing. 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're against yourself. Well, my answer is you're equating morality, private 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 that's an irreducible primary that it's a... I never said that. Under all context, every context you should not initiate force, no matter what, if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die, just go ahead and die, but don't violate individualism. I never said that. That's dishonest. Well, but you say you don't know. So maybe you would. And I think you haven't specified the context enough for me to answer the question. And I don't know. I'm giving you a few scenarios either. They're all the same category. Why don't you tell me whether you think that's... Ask him, for instance, if a person is starving and he can't afford, let's say, to buy an apple from the supermarket, is it justified to take it? So it doesn't starve, right? Right. Okay. 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, Hellefeld, 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? No, we're not. We're talking about whether the law is just a... You said... Nope. 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. That's a curriculum. Well, what is it that you're suggesting that you don't have an answer for him, whether it's right or wrong? You say you should adhere to the non-aggression principle. And then when I present you... I never said that either. 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 mind. No, 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 doesn't mean... That's not the question that we... Guess what? We agree. And in a limited government, that it is a model. Let me ask you a question. But the point is, is it morally wrong for someone to violate the non-aggression principle under extreme duress? I don't know. You don't know? Well, you better figure it out because your life might depend on it. Well, you better figure it out. You're the one in favor of the state. No, I already figured it out. And I was up front and told you. I'm not gonna... When if I am starving, I'm gonna steal the apple and I'm gonna make the case to the jury. Look, I was starving. If you wanna put me in jail, fine. But my choices were to die or steal the apple. And so I stole the apple. What do you want me to do? And any reasonable person would know the answer to that question. It wouldn't start, 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 gonna deviate from the principle of non-aggression, you think, oh, this is a horrible person. He might harm my children or steal my stuff. I never said that. Yeah, that's exactly what you said about me. No, it's not. Well, take a look at that. That's a great question. It's a tall man. 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 between. Uh-oh, you've come to an anemones. I'm not hearing any more an anemones. Oh, sorry. Again, you're mispronouncing it. It's not an anemone. It's more an anemones. It's ad hominem, not ad hanemum. I mean, you're just mispronouncing it. All right, whatever. It's an insult. You like that word better? It's not an insult. It's basically, 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 and, 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. I can't wait 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, more will make your life more risky, and put your life and property at risk. Yeah, yeah, fine, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 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- Yeah, the founding fathers who were racist. They don't feel any gratitude towards them either. Yeah, the founding fathers who were homeless. 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? I mean, the founding fathers were racist. 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. Are you- Of course I am. I am. Of course I am. I'm grateful to them. Not like you, in your situation. I guess you're not black. You're not black children. They are 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. Questions, I think I'm gonna 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- About all the format of it. This is- Are you gonna answer my questions? Because I have more questions for you. And you won't answer what will happen and neither did the moderator. What will happen if they have no- I don't want to answer any questions. I'm not gonna do that. Look. I know, next time I'll do a debate with you 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 to your point. I don't want to bring you to the table. I don't want to answer these questions, but I would if you want me to. But anyway- I'm gonna next time I'll just do a debate with you and we'll get some answers. But okay. Are you gonna 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 would ask you, what's the point of the question? So, you ask- That's how you answer questions with a question, huh? So- I don't give you any questions. Depending on what the audience where I'm leading you, you answer- You can't answer the questions straightforwardly? I don't respond to loaded questions, no. Okay, so you reserve the right to answer questions that you want and others that you don't want. Yeah, since I'm not- And that's against the rule. That's against the rule, right? And apparently, Daniel will not insist that you answer the question, which is his job. I've said it a few times. I don't know how many times you want me to say it. I mean, I think you should answer the question. I'm not sure what the point of the question is. That's irrelevant. It's gonna be a big surprise for both anarchists. But I've answered the question. I mean, I think, you know, 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, you know, 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 are 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, right? 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, I will not answer his loaded questions. You didn't say what was the equivocation. You don't even know what an equivocation is. You did, 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? Ha ha ha ha. It's a simple question. You asked me that question and I answered it before. What's the answer? Now it's- Is it under extreme duress, yes, right? What? I think that's your answer, right? Under situations of extreme duress, it's justified to use aggression. Is that your answer? Under extreme duress, yes. And you see, I answer his questions, but even he won't answer mine. Okay, I don't think he didn't answer the second part. The second part, but he did answer the first. So the second part is, do you think the state necessarily commits aggression? But this is like, in other words, I'm gonna answer his question and he won't answer mine. Is that the rule, the new rule? 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. I can't control what other people- That depends on a person following the rules that he agreed to. If the 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 Cancel doesn't agree to the debates with a statist, faux anarchist libertarian. That means that the state's justified so that's your argument. We could find out if a limited government is better than no government. If you would follow the format and answer the questions responsibly, not answer a question with them, and the court- I'm worried if you don't know that. I don't know if you can answer it. So the limited government- I have a lot of interesting questions here. Do you want me to ask them to you? 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- We'll pick and choose which ones we want to answer. Yes, I will pick and choose. Wow, it always sounds me- The sense of- Here's a question. Do you think criminals act with individuals that are not organized? As well as- Why doesn't this echo on your end, Jan? No. Okay, here's a question. Under the- No government's scenario- The one you are defending- Do you think criminal gangs will attack individuals that are not organized? Do you think they will set a weaker- 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. So let's be clear about that. Are we clear about that? In the scenario where there is no state- What I call- Will criminal gangs 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 on your end- I think it's only on your end- I think it's only on your end- I think it's only on your end. Am I speaking or not? Yes. Okay, okay. 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 and we're against crime, except 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 or something. Well, go ahead. Make sure that I understood your answer. You think that some criminal gangs will sometimes be quarreling and you see that they're 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? 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. Okay, great. Hold on, hold on. Okay. Do you think somebody... Wait, Jan, 10 seconds, hold on. I would just say that in your ideal society of 200 or 1,000 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, how many governments do you think there's 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 gang will attack individuals and are not as well as they consider weaker than themselves? What criminal gangs? You said these criminal gangs. Which ones? Any criminal gang. Which ones? Any one that agrees that there would be criminal gangs or not. So you think there would be criminal gangs? I said there could be. Well, so you have no idea where there would be criminal gangs? Yeah, I can't predict the future. In other words, you don't know under anarchist scenario whether there will be BROs, whether there will be criminal gangs or anything else. Yeah, I know it really bugs you, Objectivist, that we can't figure out exactly what the hell life's going to be like. Well, I can tell you if you're sure. I will tell you this. If we have no rape and no robbery, guess what that means? There's no rape and robbery. Now, 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 what a society with no rape and robbery is going to look like? Why don't you tell me? 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. I don't want to follow the format of me answering you. I don't want to follow the format of a status trying to trap me into doing what you're doing. No, I don't want to do that. Trapping you again, and you agree with a status like you. You agree with this format. Yeah, why don't you agree not to tax me and rob me, one a week? I will agree to answer your questions. You're welched on the format, and that is a good insight into your character. Well, that's a good insight into your contract. I couldn't count on you being doing what you say you were going to do. That's the real problem. I guess I was a fake girl. Even though you are right at not just insulting me and nanomoms. I will try that. I've told you five times. There will be security agencies that will be attacked obviously. My question is some of them Hey, Jan. Let me tell you something. 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 don't have the control of any planet. The governments are quite different from the others. I have very no interest in continuing talking with you because you basically have nothing positive to say whatsoever. You're defending the state. That was the I see. You don't want to answer the questions. You will spend one hour and 45 minutes. I think that's been enough of you. If you don't want to follow the format, you won't follow the revised form. Just stop insulting and nanomoms. That means the state is justified, Jan. That's a good job. It just means that you're not willing to discuss the reasoning and you're not willing to examine the consequences of 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 and I'm leading you through. Yeah, Jan. 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 bite racists is justified because you think gang warfare is not justified. You're just a little stupid. Gang warfare is worse than the scenario we have now which is a mixed economy. That's what I'm trying to tell you. This is what you're in favor of, dude. Even with all its faults, how do you know that? How do you know that? Honest question, how do you know that? That's what I was explaining to you, but you won't even consider it. You didn't explain, I'm asking you a question. You can't foresee the natural consequences of not having a government. How do you know? That's my question. You say you don't know. So because Stephen and Stella want to answer questions, you know you've been a status for 30 years because I won't answer questions in 2014. Right? 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 really going to result and we don't have to stay? I told you that people will naturally form part of security alliances to protect their individual rights if there is no government. Can you just answer a question about reading something? 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. No, that's bullshit. I didn't say that. That's a lie. That's totally dishonest and a lie. You said that you didn't know that you were doing any DRO. I am very precise. I am not going into loaded questions and I don't answer questions. You didn't do us any DROs. Because you had a loaded question with a bunch of somethings and that's completely wrong what you just said. In the future, can you just answer the questions? In the future, can you stop advocating taxation of me? If you do that, we have a deal. How about that? Why don't you stop advocating taxation? Do we have a deal or not? Yes or no? Will you condemn taxation right now? Yes or no? Will I condemn taxation? Yes. Will you swear at taxation? I will condemn redistributive taxation and taxation. No, no, no. But now I won't condemn taxation if you don't want to hear the answer. The answer is my money is taken from me every April 16th, motherfucker. Do you understand? That's the answer. Can he continue with obscenities and if you can take my money because you agree that insults and obscenities will not be allowed in the debate. You're not important. Are you advocating a coercion against the other guy in the debate? Is that permitted? It's really funny that I paid more in taxes last year than you probably made in your life. Oh boy. That's really funny. Engaging in a civilized debate that we should not have named Colling. I don't know how many times we could say that. I don't know how many times we could say that. I don't know how many times we could say that. Well, I'm getting an answer. Can cello won't answer the questions. Call me black. Can cello is totally irrational for you not wanting to be stolen from. He wants to take the IRS out against me but I'm the 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. Why don't you post taxation? Why don't you post taxation? If you're on fraud. Why don't you post taxation? Not even the amended format. Oppose the IRS. How about that? Oppose the federal government. So anyway, I guess you better schedule a debate with somebody who's willing to answer questions that won't. There's the rules in there when you're supposed to answer the questions and I said he didn't ask and he's supposed to tell me it wasn't no one. He just said 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. I see well that's not common. That's what you've been doing the whole debate. I explain to you that people that think that they need a government in order to have the action of their individual love. Have a right and do what you do. Form a that is dedicated to protecting the indexing rights of their citizens and that social institution performs that function and taxes them only for that purpose. They are not being aggressive. The people are right in doing and they will have a better and happier that they do. Anarchy. Fine. You've monopolized them. That's why you won't answer. We've had enough of your status mouth. That's enough. No. I'm not going to be civilized with a guy like that. Thank you for admitting that you're in favor of taxation. Thank you for admitting 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. Same word. That's my opinion. Welcome to my opinion. You can shut the fuck up for a second. That I was and that I wasn't, it goes back and forth. Well, you're in favor of taxation. No, no, I told you under what circumstance I'm in favor of. Whatever. I don't care. You are my enemy and if we ever have a war I wouldn't be sorry. You don't know the difference between your enemies and your friends. I was at the front line. Yes, I do. Most of my enemies are not as confused as you are. You're a real statist. You pretend you're like a libertarian. You pretend you're not a libertarian. You're a statist. They're fun. Well, you are. No, Daniel, he is. He's in favor of taxation. I'm not justifying any positions. What I am saying is people have a view that they have and the point of a debate. I don't care about people's views. If they leave me the fuck alone, that's fine. He wants to take my money from me and that's not good. It's not funny, man. If I was a loser like you I would think it was a joke. But if you make a lot of money it actually makes a difference. Stefan, was there ever a point where you support taxation? No, never. Nobody can trust you, cancella, because you do not comply with your agreement. You are a welcher. You agree with your agreement. An agreement with you is worthless because you won't follow it. You agree to things and you won't do them. You won't do them. Do you even know what's wrong? Do you even know what's wrong? You don't have any integrity and you don't even realize that you displayed that to everyone in this video. I'm willing to comply with your agreement. I'm not advocating taxation. Do you think that all you can think about is taxation? Hey, Jan, you understand that your days are numbered. No one cares about you. You are just the status. No one cares about watched out losers like you. You understand that? You can't even pronounce the word right. It's true. The format that they agreed, because this guy will not and you said he was laid back. Well, laid back. So people like me, we hang out with people that are actually successful, real people or we hang out with principal people. Not people like you. There's a point at this point. There's a person who will not comply. Yeah, fuck off, bye. Oh, more at Hanuman. 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. 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 engage in Hanuman. 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. I have I have a civilized discussion. Sorry. Okay.