Freedomain Radio

The Full Video of the Debate: http://www.fdrurl.com/phillyvid

Sample Clip:

Thank you so much for your patience!

Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio and Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate debate the question 'How Much Government is Necessary?'

http://www.fdrurl.com/phillyaudio

Thanks, Stef!

Waiting for the video

promo clip:

I don't have time to listen to all of this right now.  However, I'll say that, up to about the 9:00 mark, Badnarik has done little but construct a straw-man to swing at.  Self-sufficiency --- does he think we're all primitivists?  Widespread intelligence --- could I not attach the same requirement to government and dismiss statism on those grounds?  Mutual trust --- I daresay my utter LACK of trust in Badnarik and any other would-be ruler is reason enough to be an anarchist.

I can't disagree that some manner of thinking needs to change within the general population before much else does, and as such he makes a fair point about many people wanting to regulate the other guy, but doesn't that pose just as much of a "problem" for his constitutional minarchy?

Everyone must want this, I'm only getting 14kb/s. Thank you so much for posting it stef.

Stefan's answers were truly inspiring.

Badnarik on the other hand was like an old record: pushing his Constitituion like a Bible-thumper would push Jesus Christ. He didn't address most counterpoints raised by Stefan, which was somewhat trying to provoke a debate. No such debate took place. It was like Badnarik was deaf to Stefan's arguments. This seemed to also be the sentiment of the people in the chat room during the live stream.

Badnarik's core argument is that people don't want anarchy because they don't want to use violence. Right. So why didn't he rebuke Stefan's counterpoint about DROs and outsourced security? Why? Because he was too busy Constitution-thumping.

Stefan's stabs at Badnarik included: statism is dangerous, foolish, Constitution is just a useless piece of paper... Badnarik didn't even get pissed off?! Nothing. As if Stefan had said nothing.

I don't call this a debate. I call this an affirmation of Stefan oratorical skills and the inability of anyone on statist/minarchist side to hold their ground.

Thanks - I think it is also true that if people do not want to use violence directly, the last thing we should have is a government, where statist violence is always outsourced, particularly for the politicians.

I also never quite know what to say when libertarians start talking about their comfort with shooting people...

Stef, you lit up the entire room with your enthusiasm, fierce intellect, cutting logic, deep humility and sense of humour. It really was such a pleasure to watch/hear you do your thing. Now when I listen back to this, I think it was another huge step for FDR; I mean first Phili, then this... now the sky is the limit!

Watching the two of them on stage, for me, was like looking down either end of a time tunnel. One, 30 years into the past. The other, 30 years into the future.

Badnarik was trying to win an election. Stef was trying to win hearts.

That was really a great listen! Great job!  Not quite sure why Badnarik kept talking about his ability to shoot people every other question. I'm not sure if he has a grasp on exactly what type of anarchy you were defending. I love your enthusiasm and passion for what you do and who you are, Stefan, its truly an inspiration to me and obviously many others. Keep up the great work.

Yes, I also remember myself wondering, why he keeps reminding that he can kick someone's ass...

This is a great discussion. I'm only 36 minutes into it and I've already heard so many new ideas, such as how the United States government grew so much because of the Industrial Revolution.

Badnarik conflates the state and the services it has monopolized. 

As if bureaucrats actually ran utilities, anyway. 

Thanks for this! Hooray for Anarchy!

Stef you are the man you kick butt. I must say I was really annoyed and yes to be honest angry at Badnarik comments about most people not actually willing to kill another human. I mean no duh!!! Otherwise civilization wouldn't exsist. And you should've retorted right back and ask the audience how many have childeren and wouldn't kill another human being to protect their offspring. I mean I would kill if I absoultely had too to protect my brother. And thats if I had too. Thats alot on one conscience. And furthermore when an member in the audience actually called him out on he dismissed it and basically said that you probably couldn't just he saw a bunch of wanna be rambos actually taken back by the idea of mudering someone else. That made me angry and made all that much happier that I don't vote lol