TheLolGuy Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Seriously? We've already seen numerous times what these debates revolve around and it isn't interesting anymore! My prediction is this - Block will try to get Helfeld to admit that government by definition is the initiation of violence, Helfeld will evade the point and summon some absurd hypothetical, e.g. die in desert or steal to survive, fall from flagpole or jump onto someone's property - then somehow conclude that if you choose to violate property rights, this justifies the existence of a state. Once that goes nowhere, Helfeld will proceed to describe to us the distant future in detail, how society will self-immolate, how a civil war will ensue and how everyone will murder each other without a state. But I don't think I have the endurance to find out if I'm correct.
Magnus Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 But but ... the Founding Fathers! If only we returned to their vision! Gee, I wonder if there are any systemic, economic pressures that tend to increase the power of States, over time ... It's a mystery!
BenJ Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Seriously? We've already seen numerous times what these debates revolve around and it isn't interesting anymore! My prediction is this - Block will try to get Helfeld to admit that government by definition is the initiation of violence, Helfeld will evade the point and summon some absurd hypothetical, e.g. die in desert or steal to survive, fall from flagpole or jump onto someone's property - then somehow conclude that if you choose to violate property rights, this justifies the existence of a state. Once that goes nowhere, Helfeld will proceed to describe to us the distant future in detail, how society will self-immolate, how a civil war will ensue and how everyone will murder each other without a state. But I don't think I have the endurance to find out if I'm correct. I'll save you the trouble. You are correct!
AnCap AllCaps Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 But I don't think I have the endurance to find out if I'm correct. Well you were mostly correct. But "don't have the time" to watch a Walter Block video? Blasphemy haha. Was anything iteresting uncovered during this debate? 1. At least Jan didn't scream "gangs with tanks" like he did in all other debates. 2. Jan does always resort to extreme "flagpole" hypotheticals (retarded, and if you have listened to the early Stef podcasts, you know how worthless this is). 3. Block raises a good point, shouldn't statists then push for a "one world government?" 4. Although Jan calls himself "small government, minarchist..." BUT DARN does he sound FULL BLOWN STATIST! Damn near socialist. 5. While Jan calls himself "libertarian," as in "As long as you don't hurt anyone else (NAP), go ahead..." But Jan gives "scare stories" of "gangs with tanks" in this instance; so "You are free to take risks, but let me just try and scare the crap out of you and demand I am right about my prediction;" In the same way that democrats use "scare stories" like "The poor and elderly will die in the streets!" 6. Jan is allergic to logic: Jan's premise: "Consent is implied." Jan's conclusion: "Concent is impled." When asked to justify the logic behind this, Jan's logic is: "Concent is implied." Jan just PRESUMES the conclusion and restates it repeatedly; sort of like how Christian's just say "god did it." 7. Poor Jan cannot seem TO GET ALONG WITH ANYONE! Of all of the people that are pleasant to deal with, Larken, Stef, and ESPECIALLY WALTER, are SUCH PLEASANT PEOPLE. How could you end up being rude to these guys?
Recommended Posts