Freedomain Radio

Last week, we had a debate between a two voluntaryists and two socials democrats at a cafe here in SD.

The debate was taped and on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX2TqXT8GcY

This is part 1. Unfortunately due to the length of the debate it's in 27 parts, which you can find all on the hotforliberty youtube account.

Enjoy!

I'm only on the 5th video, but this is great so far.  Thanks for sharing.

 Is anyone else cringing while watching this?  Im only on video 6 and they have defended the success of voluntaryism using examples like airlines or somalia that made the audience laugh.  They also didnt refute the socialists claim that a dollar democracy is the definition of coercion and not socialism.  How can they let a statement like that slip by????

sizzle_pak:

 Is anyone else cringing while watching this?  Im only on video 6 and they have defended the success of voluntaryism using examples like airlines or somalia that made the audience laugh.  They also didnt refute the socialists claim that a dollar democracy is the definition of coercion and not socialism.  How can they let a statement like that slip by????

Yeah, I was watching this yesterday, got about 8 parts in and couldn't take it anymore.

 I would have to agree.  It is very hard to watch.  They so easily get sucked into the effects of thier position and don't stay on the moral problems of democratic socialism.  And when they were asked what force is they should have just said shooting me if I dont comply.  I know that is easy for me to say, but dear god that video made me feel anxious. 

In their defense, this wasn't so much a back-and-forth debate, and the voluntaryists (Joe & Joey) were able to refute the coercion point later, although it was tough to take (being there live) listening to the socialists conflate corporatism with the free market, and not hear an immediate refutation on that point.

I vaguely remember reading about this somewhere. I did a Google search and found the SD Libertarian meetup group. I had heard about the Cafe Libertalia Mises meetups before. I'd like to attend some time but it's simply not feasible for me to make it down there after work. It's a 2 hour drive each way.

Judging by the other comments on this thread, it sounds like watching the debate would probably aggravate me. I've seend debates between conservatives and liberals and while the conservatives tend to own the economic issues, they end up looking foolish when the liberals expose other inconsistencies on other issues. This is what happens when one doesn't stick to principles.

 No doubt.

 I made it through completely but I wanted to throw up at some points. (I also couldn't believe they didn't challenge the socialists claims of US capitalism)  At one point a woman in the audience asks him if he would use force against someone that built a damn upstream of his fishing river.  He started off talking about DRO's but when she asked what he would do if the person refused to comply with the DRO, he said he would kill her!  This is clearly someone who doesn't understand his own position very well and makes anarcho capitalists look like violent, uncaring pragmatists.  This debate did much more harm than good imo. 

A lot of criticism out there...  For one it's harder that it looks, especially with a structured debate format.  If you like to criticize from the forum, try and set something like this up yourself.

The question you're refering to was: "Describe a situation where less governmet resulted in a positive outcome."  You have about 10 seconds to think about it and 2 minutes to answer.  How would you respond?  Go...

The problem with questions like that is that they divert attention away from the underlying issue, which is that one side advocates armed robbery.

Each side could provide hundreds of examples of situations in which more or less government violence resulted in positive outcomes without ever mentioning the obvious.

I'm not saying that I necessarily think I would have done a better job under pressure etc., but I do think that there is lots of room for improvement for the gentelemen who engaged in the debate.

I think I will approach them with a list of things of what in my opinion they should definitely never try again (e.g. bring up Somalia!!!), and other general concepts that they should focus on much more strongly and passionately, and with less frustration and anger.

It also seemed to me like the argument from self-ownership doesn't really hit home with people out there and that the guy was getting noticeably frustrated about it.

I was wondering if others had any specific suggestions for improvements in the different situations in a debate like this. It seems like if you can't get the distinction between defense and aggression and that between voluntary vs. compulsory action agreed upon, then there is no need to debate any further unless an agreement on that matter is reached that you can reference moving forward.