Home > Agnosticism, Atheism, Economics, History, Law, People, Podcast > Morpheus is Fighting Neo! – Libertarian Minarchism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism

Morpheus is Fighting Neo! – Libertarian Minarchism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism

Depending on what type of logic best tickles your noodle, you might prefer to hash out new ideas through debate. Live, in person argumentation, is not only able to get your heart rate up but it allows you to use your inductive reasoning skills to hone in on potential weaknesses in what your interlocutor is saying, which in turn helps you form ideas of your own.

As far as the greater scheme of political discourse goes, this topic is very much on the fringe. This debate is in the minutia, buried under the tumultuous back and forth of above ground politics. Furthermore, and perhaps because of that, it no longer fits on the left-right spectrum. We are going either up or down now.

Because of the circumstances, exploring the proper ethical and pragmatic boundaries of government, to this level of precision, seems like splitting hairs. This is being extremely nit-picky about the role ‘the state’ has to play in all of our lives. But ideas are important. For eons and eons the debate between agnosticism and full blown atheism must have felt similarly hollow. Perhaps more even so, because with the advent of the internet and the campaign of Ron Paul, these ideas are much, much easier to get exposed to. ______________________________________________________________

I hereby present that debate opportunity, albeit vicarious, with two of the heaviest hitters in the idea-sphere:

1) Peter Schiff vs. Stefan Molyneux (< 20 minutes)

  • Peter Schiff: “CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc.” – Wikipedia
  • Stefan Molyneux: “[B]logger, essayist, author, and host of the Freedomain Radio… He self-identifies as a full-time parent and philosopher.” – Wikipedia
______________________________________________________________

Also, if that leaves you all dressed with up with no person to yell at, here is another debate featuring Stefan Molyneux. This video has pretty shit sound quality, so there is your disclaimer, but nonetheless, this exact video is known to be responsible for the ‘conversion’ of quite a few people. You would be surprised.

2a) Stefan Molyneux vs. Michael Badnarik (Bigger, longer, and cut just a little at the beginning)

  • “Michael J. Badnarik: Software engineer, political figure, and former radio talk show host. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 elections.” – Wikipedia
______________________________________________________________

Enjoy at the short term expense of your social life but at the long term benefit of your morality and your philosophical clarity. 😀 OnBoard, Johnteezey

Advertisements
  1. Johnteezey
    2012-06-15 at 18:21:57

    Inb4 Government shrinkers versus government growers.

  2. 2012-07-08 at 00:56:41

    Government shrinkers FTW!

  3. 2012-08-26 at 04:34:25

    I re-watched/listened to the two debates in the videos, definitely good stuff! It’s a higher-level discussion. In this crowd, we’ve already established that the gov’t is big & bad; we’re all gov’t shrinkers. But it’s cool to see things really hashed out. In the one with Schiff, I think the chink in Schiff’s logic (and again he’s more enlightened than the vast majority of people so he’s already onboard, plus he’s awesome for having the balls and the will to do battle with the behemoth that is the government) is that Schiff mentions an example of how a toll bridge is used to collect money from people to pay for the upkeep of the bridge, and if you don’t like it you don’t have to use the bridge; this is the essence of capitalism. The problem with this example is that in most cases the gov’t has a monopoly on the bridge (and roads), so you don’t have a choice. If you don’t want to use it, you’re fucked.

    In the second video with Badnarik, Molyneux fully fleshes out the idea of minarchist (small gov’t) vs. anarchist (no gov’t), and I’m totally on board with everything he says (“You had me at hello”) because it makes perfect sense. However if I were in the audience I would want to comment to Molyneux that even though I agree with pretty much everything he’s saying, I would like to point out the significance of still having an umbrella term as we’ve discussed called for example “government shrinkers” to distinguish from people who are “government growers”, because I think we can agree that if someone is still in the mindset that we need MORE government than we have now, we’re not going to get them into the Anarcho-Capitalist mindset; we have to first help them wake up and realize the government sucks. Don’t forget that a large majority of people, if asked, would be in favor of GROWING the government in one way or another. Once someone has seen the light and is of the mindset that we need LESS government, they will come into the “government shrinkers'” tent, have tea with us fellow government shrinkers, and ONLY THEN can we show them that not only is smaller government better, but zero government is best.

    Did that make any sense or am I rambling again? Better break out the ball-gag…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: