Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: “Who Cares About Anarchy When You Can Have Limited Government?”

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

A Sunday Night Social Debate * May 18, 2008 * 4:00-5:30pm at the Galaxy Hut

Presented by the Center for Liberty and Community

Jan Helfeld will argue in favor of limited government as the optimal system for achieving human happiness. Helfeld is a lawyer and businessman turned TV producer. In the last few years he has traveled the world as a lecturer and debater at numerous universities. He has produced documentaries such as “To Invade or Not Invade” about the Iraq War and other philosophical explorations such as “The Proper Function of Government”, “The Socratic Interviewing Technique”, and “The Media Against Business.” He also has hosted/produced several TV shows in Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. See a video clip of Jan’s interview with Senator Harry Reid at: http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003277.php

And in favor of anarchy…

Michael Owen is a certified gun-toting, swing-dancing anarcho-capitalist. He received his Ph.D. in 2003 from North Carolina State University in theoretical astrophysics. He is currently employed as a computational fluid dynamics engineering consultant for a small firm in Maryland. He is the husband of Congressman Ron Paul's Communications Director, Rachel Mills.

The debate will be moderated by Kevin Rollins, publisher of the The Free Liberal, the Center for Liberty and Community’s web magazine.

This debate is free and open to the public. RSVPs (to publisher[at]freeliberal.com) are appreciated but not required. Following the debate we will commence our usual social hour. Register for the event and invite friends through the Facebook page.

Galaxy Hut is located on Wilson Blvd between Danville and Edgewood Sts in Arlington, Virginia (Directly across from the Whole Foods Supermarket and a few blocks from the Clarendon Metro Stop on the Orange Line. http://www.galaxyhut.com * 2711 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22201.

Comments

Since I'm unlikely to be there, here's a question for the debaters:

Is it IMPERATIVE to define a destinational endpoint for an "ideal" society? Why not simply acknowledge that the State coerces too much and advocate less of it? If it IS imperative, please cite an example of a pre-defined endpoint that was eventually achieved.

Posted by: Robert Capozzi | May 15, 2008 01:33 PM

More comment...

- Has there ever been Plato's Republic in fact? Has there been a Congress of Philosopher Kings?
- Did first Millenial Iceland have a document that they followed, or did their brief, low-population tundra-utopia just sort of evolve?
- What's the blueprint for modern-day Somalia? Do Somalians carry around copies of For A New Liberty, for example? Do all Somalians believe that fetuses are parasites?

Posted by: Robert Capozzi | May 15, 2008 07:04 PM

Does a minimalist imbibe in Rawls or hold Machiavelli as a guilty pleasure ?

If we accept roads as a public good, are the millions of deaths via war externalizing ?

Has the numbing of the individual in the face of absolutist state and collectivist beehive mentality become a matter of adaptation or is it simply based on fear of the brute force of the monopoly of the aforementioned ?

Petty biases are implicit both ways if you like Robert.

Posted by: Eric Sundwall | May 16, 2008 07:53 AM

The issue is not whether anarchy is best, but how to get there. The question I have for each panelist is how do you get to where you want to go? How have you been trying to do it? Has it been working? Why or why not? Are you open to new solutions, such as anarcho-syndicalism?

Posted by: Michael Bindner | May 16, 2008 09:46 AM

eric: Does a minimalist imbibe in Rawls or hold Machiavelli as a guilty pleasure ?

bob: don't know, Eric. You'd have to ask a self-identified "minimalist."

eric: If we accept roads as a public good, are the millions of deaths via war externalizing ?

bob: I'd say death via war is tragic. Not sure what "externalizing" is.

eric: Has the numbing of the individual in the face of absolutist state and collectivist beehive mentality become a matter of adaptation or is it simply based on fear of the brute force of the monopoly of the aforementioned ?

bob: Tough question. Fear is mind-numbing, yes. Near as I can tell, the incidence of pervasive fear and fear mongering is and always has been the human condition.

Posted by: Robert Capozzi | May 16, 2008 11:45 AM

My only response to Mr. Capozzi's second set of questions is a rolling of the eyes. Do you see yourself as a sort of free liberal Bill Buckley, trying to run the "crazies" out of the movement to make it more respectable?

Posted by: DASawyer | May 16, 2008 08:27 PM

DAS,
I'm going for more of Menchen "Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" sort of thing.

Grandiosity in any form needs to be called for what it is.

Posted by: Robert Capozzi | May 17, 2008 05:50 AM