Freedomain Radio

Oddly enough, ronpaulforums.com has the best of them so far, but there are others. Have a look:

ronpaulforums.com:

"...FWIW, Badnarik is doing quite badly in defending his points and countering Stef's. I'm rather disappointed. I really hoped for a more significant and compelling defense of the minarchist position..."

"...I thought Michael was doing pretty good but someone asked him about taxation in a minarchist society. He stuck to the Constitution, which is what he's good at, but it really contradicted his earlier assertion that all theft is wrong..."

"...I was only able to catch part of the debate but imo the clear winner was Molyneux. He really sliced through some minarchist delusions quite neatly..."

"...It seemed to me that Molyneux made some outstanding points about anarchy being hands down the only way to go, and Badnarik did not argue with him. This seemed like a total mismatch. I don't think Badnarik, as smart as he is, saw this coming...."

I knew Stef would dominate. Can't wait to hear the audio!

Good stuff. Thanks Greg.

I too am almost waiting patiently for the audio...

Thats about what I expected would happen.

GregG:

Oddly enough, ronpaulforums.com has the best of them so far, but there are others. Have a look:

 

ronpaulforums.com:

"...FWIW, Badnarik is doing quite badly in defending his points and countering Stef's. I'm rather disappointed. I really hoped for a more significant and compelling defense of the minarchist position..."

"...I thought Michael was doing pretty good but someone asked him about taxation in a minarchist society. He stuck to the Constitution, which is what he's good at, but it really contradicted his earlier assertion that all theft is wrong..."

"...I was only able to catch part of the debate but imo the clear winner was Molyneux. He really sliced through some minarchist delusions quite neatly..."

"...It seemed to me that Molyneux made some outstanding points about anarchy being hands down the only way to go, and Badnarik did not argue with him. This seemed like a total mismatch. I don't think Badnarik, as smart as he is, saw this coming...."

 

Thanks Greg. That last comment is from me! :)

It's actually not surpising that ronpaulforums has a lot of commentary on the debate. About 30% of the posters there are anarchists. I think it's a good place to do some recruiting. Probably only about 10% or less were anarchists when it was at its peak during the primary elections...but many, including myself, have made the jump from small to no gov't with help from people like Stef and some brilliant posters over there.

My favourite moment in the debate was when Stef pretended to be dr minarchist and wrote 'don't grow' on the tumour. I found that incredibly powerful and the delivery was spot on. I had no idea what was coming.

My least favourite moment was when Badnarik pointed his fingers at Stef up close to the side of his head like a gun and talked about respect. I felt myself tense up with a 'fight' response, as if someone was about to punch me personally. Stef didn't move but I felt a huge urge to grab Badnarik's arm and yank him off balance. I found his gesture very disturbing. I am feeling the emotion again as I write this.

Overall, I found I just didn't like Badnarik very much. Regardless of his arguments, I just didn't find him someone I could relate to. For all his libertarian scholarship, he still struck me as someone who is willing to use both personal and state force to get his way, and I couldn't possibly enthuse about someone like that. He moved and spoke like a tank in battle.

Stef in contrast was absolutely delightful to watch. His logic is consistent and metaphors glorious. More importantly, he leaves me feeling that 'I want to be on this guy's team.'

I'm still not really sure about how the whole DRO thing will play out, and it did seem like the weakest area of Stef's argument was when specific DRO-related situations were raised. The other point in Stef's argument that made me go 'hmm' was the argument that the smaller the intended government, the larger it would end up. I see the logic (smaller => more efficient, more free market => more tax revenue => more govt) but I'm not sure this adds much to the debate over and above the idea that ANY government always grows into a monster. Other people may see this differently.

There is something incredibly fluid about Stef's approach. His arguments are not rigid - they do not depend on specific starting conditions, or on certain types of human behaviour, and they function at every scale from the family to the continent to the globe. There is no imposition of solutions. There's only the universal rejection of the initiation of violence, and everything else follows from that. Beautiful. Quite beautiful. All respect to you Stef.

~Tess

I watched the debate last night and was very impressed with aplomb with which the anarchist position was portrayed. I noticed two things that were interesting to me:

First, apart from the logic of the arguments - I couldn't get over how much happier Stef seemed to be there as compared to Badnarik. I didn't expect to be so effected by that fact, and the whole "beacon for freedom" effect talked about in the podcasts took on a whole new level of truth for me while watching this exchange.

Secondly, I think the KO moment in the debate was when one audience member asked about where rights come from. It was such a simple question - and so central to the minarchist position that Badnarik's refusal to actually answer that question was telling. It is so fundamental an issue, I'm not sure how he expected to convince anyone when the foundation of the whole minarchist house of cards rests on a big hole where "edowed by their creator" used to be.

I'm not the hardest sell, I admit - but I think the debate ended right there.

Great observations, Tess. I agree with everything you pointed out, except for one aspect of Stef's DRO responses. I found the approach, "As a consumer, what service would you like me as a DRO to provide? What would you be willing to pay for?", really insightful and important -- It impresses three things on the listener, in my view:

( a ) The personal nature of anarchy - let's talk about what you and I would like, because to do otherwise is to presume a knowledge we don't have;

( b ) The voluntary nature of anarchy - everything is negotiable, so if you don't like what I have to offer, you're free to do whatever suits you instead;

( c ) The pluralistic nature of anarchy - it puts the burden on the individual asking the question, to find a creative solution himelf, to the problem he claims he cares about the most - it's an extension of the speech given on Saturday: "If you care so much about self-defense, well then, tell me how *you* would want it done." It reminds people about that "personal responsibility" that Badnarik kept going on about, in a real, viceral, specific way: How much - and what - are you willing to pay for?

I personally can't wait for the next event!

GregG:

Great observations, Tess. I agree with everything you pointed out, except for one aspect of Stef's DRO responses. I found the approach, "As a consumer, what service would you like me as a DRO to provide? What would you be willing to pay for?", really insightful and important

Actually, yes, you're right, that was an excellent response - I hadn't seen that one coming either.

Where I stumble is a failure of my imagination where I try to consider what my answers to those questions would be. I still feel at some level like I need some concrete examples rather than just being asked what my solution would be. I don't have one, that's WHY I'm nervous.

So I'd love to hear other people's answers to this sort of 'what would you pay for?' question. Then I can imagine how the interaction of the free market might play out, and be less scared of the potential consequences.

Does that makes sense?

~Tess

Tess:

 

Where I stumble is a failure of my imagination where I try to consider what my answers to those questions would be. I still feel at some level like I need some concrete examples rather than just being asked what my solution would be. I don't have one, that's WHY I'm nervous.

I came across an article the other day that you might find helpful.

Anarchy Isn't the Answer

When I originally saw the title, my stomach tensed up and I felt desire to avoid reading the article.  I think it's because on some level I still hope to find a perfect solution to all of life's problems.  Once I got up the courage to read it though, I was so glad I did.  It did a really nice job of grounding me back in reality.  Enjoy.

Oh, I'm with you 100% on how scary it is. Not having an "answer" to an important question is very scary. Being willing to assert "I don't know" for any length of time is very hard, because - at least in my past experience - it results in a barrage of hostility and humiliation.

We're all conditioned to look to "authorities" to "give" us these answers - to make us feel "safe". Shifting gears is definitely going to be a challenge, but in the exchange there on Sunday, I think we saw at least the incling of that transition, in the things the questioner was asking for: restitution, reconciliation, compensation, counseling, etc. 

I also think it was quite instructive how Badnarik and that one audience member responded. Retaliatory escalation. I can murder more than you can. Overwhelming force. That's the ONLY solution he could think of. That is a failure of imagination, if you ask me.

Allison:

I came across an article the other day that you might find helpful.

Anarchy Isn't the Answer

Excellent article! I was skeptical of the title as well, but it really makes some invaluable points.

I've struggled lately with defending the validity of Anarchy but this article reminded/clarified the issue for me: Once we reject the monopolization of violence and the idea that violence is the best way to solve social problems - answers to all the tough questions will slowly emerge.

GregG:

That is a failure of imagination, if you ask me.

Well said :)

You're right, of course, and I'm grateful that FDR has taught me to look to my own unconscious conditioning before declaring 'It can't possibly work!' or some such similar dismissal.

I've just remembered another highlight in the debate for me: When Badnarik insisted dogmatically that 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance' and Stef responded with something along the lines of 'I don't want to have to be constantly checking whether the tiger is hungry, I want it to not exist!'

Stef made it sound like Badnarik had surrendered before he'd even begun. The 'eternal vigilance' aphorism was being treated as holy scripture, unquestionable dogma. The realisation that it isn't actually true is as powerful as the realisation for me that adult relationships are all voluntary.

GregG:

I personally can't wait for the next event!

ditto.  Is there anything in the works for Stef at the moment?

I think in the early stages of an anarchy we will see people starting businesses that service one particular specific need. Over time they will develop their mutual contractual inter-relationships, turning into partnerships and then finally consolidating into large and broad firms.

But before I get to the example, you need to keep in mind that you and I are going to be significantly more wealthy than we are now. The 50-70% taken from us in taxes would now be retained. In addition we'd now also have an additional increase in wealth proportional to what is currently lost to the economic hidden costs of state's activities.  For example, taxes which used to be taken from you are now used by you to generate more wealth for yourself which when it was not available to you you were unable to do. And other people are using their returned wealth to generate more wealth for themselves which touches and affects your wealth too increasing your wealth even more. And with the discontinuation of the use of dysfunctional state programs the services are now being done more efficiently, faster and at higher quality which also touches you increasing your overall wealth even more.  It's quite staggering when you begin to think about it.

Tess:

So I'd love to hear other people's answers to this sort of 'what would you pay for?' question. Then I can imagine how the interaction of the free market might play out

Instead of jumping to a huge complex agency like a DRO, lets make the example at an earlier stage.

For me, I know one thing that I will want to hire a company to handle are issues arising with relation to my personal vehicle. Because all the roads are owned by individuals I can predict that some will let me use their roads for free (in order to draw tourism etc) while others will be asking for tolls, proofs of driving competency, proof of insurance and/or bonds should I damage their property, proofs of pollution emission levels, etc. It stands to reason that the higher the quality of these things I provide the cheaper the toll they may charge me. This is a lot of clutter and details that I don't want to deal with since my time is important to me.

So I will be hunting around for a company that handles as much of these areas as I can find since I have to check out their history and reputation and read all the small print each time. The less I have to do of that the better.

I have created a demand. I am willing to pay for these things. A lot of people are going to want to accept my money to provide what I'm asking for.

I find a company that looks pretty good. They ask that I take a driving test done either by themselves or an outside company and provide me a list of companies they have contractual agreements with and from which they will accept test results as well as offering me discounts should I use them. I am told I am free to be tested elsewhere but that creates more work for them and will be charged more to cover that.  I am also informed the better I do on the driving competency test the lower rates they will be able to offer me. So now have a real desire to do the best job on the testing that I am able. Fine.

I am also told my rates could be significantly lower depending on the results of a tox test if I so consent. Perhaps the results come back and show I sometimes smoke vegetables. I'm informed the rates will be slightly higher but that overall my coverage costs are now much lower after having been tested. Great!

What are they offering me you ask? They provide their customers a sticker for their bumper or window along with documentation, contact card and a toll card. They have built up a bit of a reputation and many of the toll roads (especially the local) will recognize, honor and accept their certifications and toll cards. Great that's what I was looking for.  Now I can get those lower toll rates and instead of having to carry money and coins with me all the time I can flash this card and it is all taken care of for me. I am told also that I will often be receiving a discount when using the toll card since it simplifies things for everyone involved.

I may have to go somewhere else for my accident bond/insurance coverage proofs. I may have to go elsewhere again for my road-side assistance.

But all this hunting takes time and energy so I have a desire to find all this at a one-stop-shop company. And these guys know this and will have a continual pressure to provide it as a result. As company reputations build and they begin to co-contractualize I can expect these companies to gobble and absorb each other becoming larger interconnected services. Eventually I will be able to perhaps just look for one DRO, read just their small print, research just their reputation and history and then I'm done and all this stuff will be done. There's a Ease to Risk ratio here and the happy medium will be found.

The free market is a marvel.