Stephan Kinsella Debates Jan Helfeld

[PreDeadMan]

Here is a debate between Stephan Kinsella and Jan Helfeld on Limited Government (Helfeld) Vs No Government(Kinsella)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOf1qKk0r84&list=UUhAftdPvwp_dHsr0eSOwb_g

 

 

 

 

[Freedomain]

Was anybody driven into the ocean with a tank during this debate?

[TheLolGuy]

Is this going to be another case of déjà vu?

[Magnus]

I somehow misses the Helfeld-Molynooks debate.

 

This one was horrid. It covered (a) lifeboat scenarios that I haven't even seen online since 2004, and (b) the Warlords Take Over scenario, which fell out of fashion in 2005.

 

I almost wet myself when I saw Helfeld embarrass Pelosi, and I like Kinsella, but this video was a hot mess.

 

What does the FDR board think about the current state of the popularity of anarchism vs. minarchism? Kinsella said anarchism is now the dominant mode, and minarchism is the fading legacy. Does that jibe with people's experience? I confess I'm a bit out of touch.

[Freedomain]

I think that until people stop hitting their children, none of these "isms" matter much at all.

[tasmlab]

I've watched bits of this, the Larken one and the Stef one.

 

I think it's the CERTAINTY that annoys me most.  Jan knows with precision what would happen.  There's no admission that maybe we don't totally know everything.

[Magnus]

I've watched bits of this, the Larken one and the Stef one.

 

I think it's the CERTAINTY that annoys me most.  Jan knows with precision what would happen.  There's no admission that maybe we don't totally know everything.

 

I couldn't extract that much coherent content.  90% of it was meta-discussions about meta-discussions, and sundry technical difficulties. 

 

What bothered me was the "thirsty man in the desert" argument, or its cousin "trespassing in an emergency," which is Kindergarten-grade stuff. 

 

It's perfectly sensible for the law to make narrow allowances for theft in the face of life-and-death, exigent situations.  Life is more important than temporary restraints on liberty, and they are both more important than trespass on property.  There is a hierarchy of rights. 

 

But how that hierarchy of rights explains the State and taxation, I just can't remotely comprehend.  The levying and collection of taxes is just about as far away from extremis and split-second crisis management as one can possibly get.  It's the opposite of crisis and duress.  The State is plodding, bureaucratic, planned, regular and predictable.  It's systems and impositions are completely unlike the Drowning Man scenario. 

 

The duress or crisis excuse doesn't make the trespass or the theft any less wrong, by the way; it only mitigates the penalty for the violation.  It renders theft excusable, not justified.  But even where there is genuine duress, the Duress excuse is only valid to the extent there are no other good options. 

 

But the State has all the time in the world on its hands.  It has infinite alternative options!  The life-or-death duress, crisis and extremis excuse makes no sense, as a justification for Statism and taxation. 

 

It should have taken 20 seconds to dismantle that whole line of Duress "argument."  Instead, they got into an argument about ad hom-be-dom attacks, Molynooks and debate-formatting. 

[AnCap AllCaps]

This "debate" was garbage. I did enjoy Kinsella blasting Helfeld. Because Helfeld is rude, he rants and tries to talk over people even when he can't spit a syllable out, and then interrupts like mad, even when his opponent just silently let Helfeld continue for 3-5 minutes. Jan was so rude to Larken, so I enjoyed Kinsella treating him like dirt.

 

But Jan's argument seems to be an "argument from prediction." So he makes a prediction (gangs with tanks) and then treats it like it is A CERTAIN OUTCOME, or that voluntarism will lead to "gangs with tanks" necessarily.

 

----

 

But from my understanding... The US HAS a constitution that outlines the "limited government" position that Jan is advocating. And DO WE HAVE that "limited government" that the constitution and the founding fathers envisioned? Obviously not.

 

So we have AN EMPIRICAL TRIAL of Jan's proposal, and we can see the outcome. So it may be proper to ask "CAN a government EVER be limited?" Or will it NECESSARILY end up like it is now?

 

So Jan is at a A SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE. Like someone arguing "for the drug war," they are in a bad position, because we have already seen how it has played out, and how the outcome was not as designed; just as in the US and the constitution.

 

So Jan seems to be arguing for "limited government" WITHOUT PAYING ANY NOTICE TO WHAT HAS COME OF THE US!!! Wow. And this does not get addressed?

 

If you guys want to see A LONG DISCUSSION about this debate, head here:

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/317756/no-government-vs-limited-government-debate

 

I left many comments on that thread about Jan's arguments.

 

And a couple more anarchist threads.

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist

http://www.dailypaul.com/318132/how-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-society-repel-invasion

Jan started a thread over at www.dailypaul.com, a libertarian website that I frequent. And I left this in his thread; out of love of course.

 

[Magnus]

To paraphrase Spooner, either the Constitution authorized the government we have now, or it's failed to prevent it. Either way, it's unfit to exist.

 

(And that was written 100 years ago!)

[TheLolGuy]

I wonder if Stephan K saw Stef's debate with Helfeld in his preparation and saw how the latter became more arrogant and condescending as their debate went on, then decided to be more assertive here.

[st434u]

I'm in favor of the no-state (stateless) position, but in this case, Jan won the debate by a landslide. This was Stephan Kinsella at his worst and Jan Helfeld at his best.

 

Maybe Stephan shouldn't drink so much before and during a debate. His lack of concentration and of patience, tantrums, ill-will, unwillingness to follow a proper debate by it's terms and his constant insult-throwing were more reminiscent of the late drunkard and radical socialist Christopher Hitchens, than of someone with the high class and style that I seemed to regard Kinsella as having.

[Mike Fleming]

Kinsella said anarchism is now the dominant mode, and minarchism is the fading legacy. Does that jibe with people's experience? I confess I'm a bit out of touch.

 

I think so.  I think anarchism is becoming dominant.  I used to argue the minarchist position 4-5 years ago but found I just couldn't sustain it.  It has no consistency.  You have to ignore certain facets of it that don't make sense and I personally, and I think other intellectually honest people, just can't do that in the long run.  There is only one consistent position.  No state.  And when you actually think about the workings of it, it just makes more and more sense.  I think in the era of the internet where all ideas are out out there in the open for every to look at and tear apart inconsistencies that anarchism will eventually emerge supreme.  I have seen a great many arguments against it and it holds up against them all.  Most, if not all, of the arguments against it are based fundamentally on the fear meme and more and more people have had enough with scare-mongering.

[AnCap AllCaps]

What does the FDR board think about the current state of the popularity of anarchism vs. minarchism? Kinsella said anarchism is now the dominant mode, and minarchism is the fading legacy. Does that jibe with people's experience? I confess I'm a bit out of touch.

 

I think anarchism is the dominant now. Once you have accepted the philosophy of minarchism, you accept mostly "self-ownership," the "impossibility of legislating or granting rights that YOU YOURSLEF do not possess," and the non-aggression-principle... YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH ON YOUR WAY to becoming an anarchist.

 

Sit in that marinade long enough, and the eventual conclusions THAT YOU MUST logically conclude is that "government type entitities ARE NECESSARILY IMMORAL."

 

So just like the idea of slavery... You can beat yourself over the head trying to come up with a consequentialist theory of why "slavery is a necessary evil," but the MORAL ARGUMENT is like gravity, just pulling you back down to earth. You cannot fight it.

 

And I SPEND alot of my time over at www.dailypaul.com (and I welcome you guys and would love to see MORE ANARCHIST POSTS over on that site, it is a wonderful board, check it out) and those people are of course all Ron Paul lover's and many GOT THEIR START in this philosophy straight from the man Ron Paul. And that somewhat includes me. Then I saw a video Stef did about Ron Paul and.... HERE I AM! Anywways, if you listen to enough interviews by Ron Paul, his position IS THAT OF AN ANARCHIST! No kidding, philosophically he is damn close to being a AnCap. Ron doesn't even whale about the "important role of a government military." He even uses the EXACT WORDS "the non-aggression-principle."

 

So I would say that AnCap is now dominant. And it is hard for a minarchist that has embraced those principles to DENY that anarchism is the eventual philosophical conclusion that these principles demand.

[nathanm]

What a waste, who cares about the damn camera angle?

 

My formal debate review:

[JSDev]

Just listened to this "debate"... I had great respect for Kinsella until hearing this. I can't wrap my head around why he felt it was necessary to act like a child (no disrespect to children). As wrong and annoying as helfeld was, he didn't deserve to be called a mother fucker. His lifeboat questions were pretty easy to answer too. Fine to steal water in an individual life or death situation but do not codify and institutionalize this theft in the form of a gang and call it a moral limited government. Also, why don't you have friends who will give you water voluntarily, I mean you're dying and nobody wants to give you water? The question is completely absurd.