Debate with Jan Helfeld on anarcho-capitalism versus limited government libertarianism

Email Print

I was indeed in a debate with Jan Helfeld. (Thanks to Tom Woods for making this available to the LRC blog: Mr. Helfeld defended limited government libertarianism, or minarchism; I took the position that anarcho-capitalism was the only just and viable system. At the outset, I thought we would have a respectful debate, a civil one, where we each treated the other in a polite manner. ‘Twas not to be. Although we had agreed beforehand not to interupt each other, my debating opponent violated this stipulation more than a half dozen times. And not only was he impolite to me, he treated the moderator of the debate in the same manner. Toward the end of our acrimoneous debate I asked for a ruling from the moderator, Daniel Rothschild. Mr. Helfeld was adamant that no such ruling could be made. He expressed this opinion of his in the most vociferous manner. When, finally, Daniel offered his decision, Mr. Helfeld abruptly cut off the debate, no gentleman he. It would appear that at least this minarchist does not abide by third party verdicts. Nevertheless, I have offered to debate Mr. Helfeld for round 2 on this topic. I did so since I think it important to make the case that while minarchism is obviously an important step in the right direction, anarcho-capitalism is the ultimate goal for libertarians who respect the NAP. We are now discussing the format. If we can agree on one, I’ll keep you all posted.

4:57 pm on May 13, 2014
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts