Who would you like to see debate live on Liberty.me?
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Debates on Liberty.me
This would be cool, especially if it were a statist vs. a libertarian. Doubt a statist would agree to it, though. Jon Stewart v. Tom Woods!
I’d like to see a bitcoin v. gold debate. Maybe Jeffrey Tucker v. Peter Schiff.
I would love to see Doug Casey versus anyone who wants to go up against him on philanthopy and non profits. Doug believesthat the act of becoming rich through ones own effort discharges any obligation to society, because the monies earned through free exchange suggests that the utility provided by the earner was sufficient to warrant the payments made.
He believes that non profits have perverse incentives, and poor feedback mechanisms, and opposes philanthropy on both moral and practical terms.
I think Doug is broadly right. However, society is not really a real entity that can be enriched. At the end it all comes down to individuals. And although people who make money on a free market help a lot of people, there might be some people left, who don’t benefit and need help. A good example is a natural disaster. It is usually not their fold that it happened and they might need immediate help.
I agree with Doug too… but I’m active in philanthrpy anyway, because n one will address some of the ssues I’m concerned with in a for profit format. Thank you Liberty.me for being sustainable!
There’re a couple things in this dialogue that are ominous to me. 1st Nico you mention people making money “on” a free market system. Like individuals feed off of this entity called “free market system”. It is those very same individuals that make up the free market system. It is their savings and “right” use of and “making of” their money that makes for a more robust free market system – which raises they whole level of the playing field for others. 2nd you mention individuals might need immediate help. Does that need create a claim on others’ resources?
Lastly Rick you mention that you are active in philanthropy. I’m not sure of others (though I believe it’s true for them as well) but I find the greatest fulfillment in my life when I am in service to others. I think it’s a sign of a healthy person when they are actively helping others. Ok, that said, I don’t believe other peoples’ needs justify the transfer of or demand of that help. What is it about our society today that people sell to you that they give to others? Why is there even a public conversation about your value as a “rich person” if you give to others? That is a personal choice that the riches of are best experienced as a private expression – “just sayin”.
I think Ron Paul v. Jeffery Tucker on this issue would be fantastic.
Yes Toni there is! http://liberty.me/classes/the-great-ip-debate-stephan-kinsella-vs-alexander-baker/
We’re also working on scheduling a debate between Molyneux and Horwitz.
How will the winner of the debate be decided? Will there be some kind of audience voting mechanism?
I presume the winner is the one who *actually convinces* people in the audience, which doesn’t have to be quantified. The exchange of ideas and arguments should be allowed to stand on its own without necessarily declaring one side victorious.
I disagree, but I am preferential to quantification. I know not everyone shares that preference.
That’s a really good question. I’m not sure how the debate tonight will be judged. But I know that I’ll have debate rules and guidelines set for the Molyneux/Horwitz debate if both parties agree. I’ll ask the people moderating and let you know.
The way Munk Debates does it may serve as a workable model: http://munkdebates.com/
I’d like to see a debate between Thaddeus Russell and Thomas Sowell on the issue of the roots of what Sowell calls “Black Ghetto Culture”. For background on this you can see Thad adresses their disagreement starting at about 24 minutes into this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HYhWXIdePw
And Jeff Rigginbach sums up Sowell’s position nicely in his review of Thad’s book here:
http://mises.org/daily/5040/A-Renegade-History-of-the-United-States
List of debates I’d love to see.
… To name a few. I’ll post more here later 🙂
I believe there has been a debate scheduled, according to the libertydotme twitter account. Jack Hunter vs. David Shellenberger on Is Politics the Answer?
I wouldnt care about who did it but I have recently heard some libertarians being against the Non-Aggression Principle. So a debate on the subject would be awesome.
Also a debate between humanitarian and brutalist libertarian would be interesting.
Yeah, I made my mini list all brutalists vs non brutalists. Want to see if anyone will do it.
I could be confused, but how could someone who is against the NAP realistically call themselves a libertarian?
If they call themselves libertarian, we want them here, and we want to treat them civilly. We can persuade them if we don’t offend them. These debates give us that chance.
I think it depends on how you define NAP. Since I’ve never looked it up I’ve always considered myself NAP, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stand by and let you take food out of my kids mouths. Does Bruatlist, a new term for me tonight, apply to people who believe in defending themselves?
Thanks for the definition. In that case I don’t see how any libertarian can not be a Brutalist. Not that one must participate in it, but that one respects another’s right to be as bigoted and hateful as they may please. But that’s off the topic from this thread. (I was taking the term as committing any violence in any form.)
Keep in mind that not all LMers are libertarians. Or anarchists. I’m a proud member of the LM Conservative and classic Liberal minority.
All two of us get together on Thursdays and talk about our plans for world domination. 😉
I’d like to see an epic showdown between a right-libertarian and a left-libertarian.
Chomsky vs. Molyneux?
Doug Casey vs. Paul Krugman on anything. Hell, they can box for all I care, I just wanna see Casey bury his butt.
I Saw Casey versus Rove in New Orleans, unfortunately Doug was not prepared, and Rove did the burying.
An earlier debate, Casey versus Newt Gingrich featured a much more prepared Casey, and his easy victory.
As much as I disagree with a great deal of what Rove stands for, he is not to be trifled with intellectually.
I hope you get the chance to take on Krugman. He is nothing but a bully and could not be more wrong and disingenuous in his views.
He has become nothing but a political mouthpiece masquerading as a legitimate economist.
I would prefer to take on Rove, we need an economist to take on Krugman
Found the Rove debate on YouTube and listened to half of it over lunch at my desk.
Doug just seemed to let his utter disdain for political operatives (Rove) get the best of him. When you challenge an intelligent guy on issues he was intimately involved in, you better have your facts at the ready.
In fairness Doug took on other democrats and republicans in earlier New Orleans conferences, and wiped the floor with them. He also manhandled Dick Cheney from the podium, but not in open debate.
I just hope tonight’s debate goes off without a hitch, so we can have more in the future.
Jeff Peterson II from “We The Individuals” wrote a great post on this very topic –
http://wti.liberty.me/2014/09/01/top-ten-debates-that-need-to-happen/
Personally I think more long-form organized discussions would be more valuable. Perhaps maybe even through text only so people think things over more. I know it can be a great entertaining TV pasttime to have talking heads hurl opinions at each other while crowds cheer, but sometimes that’s all it is.
@bryanhm that is a great idea – let’s pick a question and try it out. Maybe ask in the social feed? You have any ideas?
A constructive forum debate seems actually best…to me at least. Each party would have even a day or so to think and write a reply. Real discourse in the truer sense of the term. Thinking along the lines of letter correspondence rather than teenage IMing 🙂 This sort of thing probably exists on reddit but it would be cool to see here too.
Ideas would be: Governance Trends in 2015, Governments as Bundled Service Providers vs. Governments as Deified Parental Projections, and Stay in the State vs. Break Away (wrt Americans giving up citizenship). These would all be GREAT reads! Not looking for re-hashing of monetary theories. I feel like those discussions all took places decades ago, books were written and circulated…
I think debates not just from outside the liberty circle but from within could be fun too. I find myself writing a lot of articles counterpointing other articles. I think it would be fun to flesh that out in a face to face debate. Although I do agree with Bryan regarding long form discussions, although I don’t know if they necessarily need to be super organized. I think a brief framework just to give it some structure is all that is needed, especially since discussions of such topics can go on for hours and hours!
