Minarchy (Badnarik) vs Non-Archy (Molyneux) debate here!

[Conza88]

YouTube - Molyneux Badnarik Debate, Drexel University, July 5, 2009

http://www.fdrurl.com/phillyaudio​

This was buried in the other thread... so I thought let's make it easily accessible.

 

[Kraig]

Just fired it up.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Sweet!

I've been looking forward to this.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

w00t!

 

[CCTelander]

Listening now! Great stuff!

 

[UnReconstructed]

So, in the first few minutes Badnarik states over and over that we should have anarchy but we can't trust each other and therefore we should put people we can't trust in charge of everyone...

 

[silverhandorder]

That is not what he said. He said that he said there are always people who will gravitate to government. This is why we have it in the first place. Short of declaring war on a faction you will not be able to prevent a government from forming.

I like Moleneux's ideas and I am happy to go along with the philosophical aspects but I disagree in political non participation.

 

[Conza88]

but I disagree in political non participation.

As do I. And not an emotional or irrational basis btw. :o

I stated why I thought he was wrong on that video awhile back.

 

[Brassmouth]

Interesting that this thread keeps falling by the wayside.

How much you wanna bet that none of the stock minarchists on this site bother to listen? And how much you wanna bet most of them won't listen because they know who will win?

 

[Conza88]

Interesting that this thread keeps falling by the wayside.

How much you wanna bet that none of the stock minarchists on this site bother to listen? And how much you wanna bet most of them won't listen because they know who will win?

My life? lol... </dangles bait>

 

[Kraig]

Molyneux's point about the smaller the minarchy -> the more wealth is created -> the more wealth for the government to seize down the road -> the more powerful government in the end, is a new idea to me.

Badnarik just said most people want to "sub-contract" defense out, half the time it seem like he is arguing for anarchy because he spends his time arguing against government right now without explaining very well how minarchy can be maintained.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

bump

 

[Brassmouth]

Molyneux's point about the smaller the minarchy -> the more wealth is created -> the more wealth for the government to seize down the road -> the more powerful government in the end, is a new idea to me.

Badnarik just said most people want to "sub-contract" defense out, half the time it seem like he is arguing for anarchy because he spends his time arguing against government right now without explaining very well how minarchy can be maintained.

That's also the impression I got. I seems Badnarik was as close to an anarchist as a minarchist can get. His only hang-ups were irrational beliefs regarding human nature.

 

[CCTelander]

That's also the impression I got. I seems Badnarik was as close to an anarchist as a minarchist can get. His only hang-ups were irrational beliefs regarding human nature.

This is pretty much the impression I got. Badnarik even praised anarchism a couple of times, but continued to claim that "human nature" made it impossible.

He never actually dealt with the fact that the exact same "human nature" makes ANY kind of government impossible, other than to continually repeat the "eternal vigilance" line.

I think he overstated the reluctance of people to act in self-defense also, but I do concede that this IS a valid observation. People generally ARE reluctant to use force, especially deadly force against other people.

What he fails to consider however is the fact that people ARE completely responsible for their own security RIGHT NOW. The courts have repeatedly ruled that government agents of any kind, including police, firemen, etc., are under no obligation whatsoever to protect the person or property any individual, or even to show up when called. (See the book Dial 911 and Die for innumerable examples.)

Realistically, this would be true even under Badnarik's ideal minarchic state, since even if the willingness were there, the manpower would not be without actually creating a massive police state.

I'll have to listen again for more, but that's what I remember from listening yesterday.

 

[CCTelander]

Molyneux's point about the smaller the minarchy -> the more wealth is created -> the more wealth for the government to seize down the road -> the more powerful government in the end, is a new idea to me.

Badnarik just said most people want to "sub-contract" defense out, half the time it seem like he is arguing for anarchy because he spends his time arguing against government right now without explaining very well how minarchy can be maintained.

That's the crux of the issue to me. In my experience, minarchists/constitutionalists never seem to be able to get below the very surface of repeating the old platitudes of "educate the people" or "eternal vigilance." They never seem to be able to explain exactly how they intend to do this, exactly WHAT the people need to be educated in, and how that all is to be applied to maintain a limited government.

When pressed on it, like Barnarik actually was during the Q&A, they just repeat that "eternal vigilance" is the price of liberty. Sound bites don't constitute a sufficient answer.

 

[mediahasyou]

Thank you.

 

[Stary Hickory]

That's the crux of the issue to me. In my experience, minarchists/constitutionalists never seem to be able to get below the very surface of repeating the old platitudes of "educate the people" or "eternal vigilance." They never seem to be able to explain exactly how they intend to do this, exactly WHAT the people need to be educated in, and how that all is to be applied to maintain a limited government.

When pressed on it, like Barnarik actually was during the Q&A, they just repeat that "eternal vigilance" is the price of liberty. Sound bites don't constitute a sufficient answer.

What kills me about Anarchists is that the naively believe that everyone will behave and not create the same problems again. The governments main purpose is to be an instrument of violence that is supposed to be used to thwart violence against the population. However you can say why create government if it's violence. And I say anyone who creates a institution of violence will have created government.

There is no way to stop people from creating violent institutions. They WILL do it, I think it is naive to not plan on combating this. It is always a struggle, there is no utopia, neither in Socialism or Anarchism. The same assholes always screw it up. Hence the reason there will always need to be some coalition of violence to stop aggressive violence.

So government is going to exist, the question is, how to make sure it does not turn into an institution of aggressive violence against our own people like the Federal Government. You cannot expect people to simply see the light and behave...it will not happen. I am all for educating and moving in that direction, but this notion of no government is borderline crazy. Somewhere someone will form a government, with or without our consent.

 

[t0rnado]

Badnarik seemed a bit toned down here. I've seen videos of him saying that he would've assassinated FDR himself and shot anyone that tried to license his right to own a gun.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What kills me about Anarchists is that the naively believe that everyone will behave and not create the same problems again.

False. (and you should know better, too.) Anarchists stress the need for private defense for this very reason. It is the minarchists who naively believe that the government and its aggressive tendencies can be constrained by a piece of paper.

 

[CCTelander]

False. (and you should know better, too.) Anarchists stress the need for private defense for this very reason. It is the minarchists who naively believe that the government and its aggressive tendencies can be constrained by a piece of paper.

Or by "eternal vigilance." Most minarchists/constitutionalists seem unwilling to face the ramifications of that statement though, at least in my experience.