Debates on Liberty.me – Liberty.me

Debates on Liberty.me

Tags: debate Economics Philosophy social issues

Marianne Copenhaver July 3, 2014 at 12:19 am

Who would you like to see debate live on Liberty.me?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Frank Marcopolos July 4, 2014 at 4:03 pm

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!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Michael Bunch September 8, 2014 at 9:01 am
  
  Oh man, I’d pay to watch that.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Jeremiah Harding September 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
    
    And if it was on here, you would pay to see that 🙂
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  Michael Esch September 8, 2014 at 11:24 am
  
  This would be amazing!
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Ed ODonnell July 4, 2014 at 11:20 pm

I’d like to see a bitcoin v. gold debate. Maybe Jeffrey Tucker v. Peter Schiff.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Rick Rule July 9, 2014 at 3:07 pm
  
  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.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Nico Metten July 10, 2014 at 11:23 am
  
  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.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Rick Rule July 10, 2014 at 6:09 pm
  
  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!
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Matt Van Wormer July 24, 2014 at 9:15 am
  
  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”.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Michael Esch September 8, 2014 at 11:25 am
  
  I think Ron Paul v. Jeffery Tucker on this issue would be fantastic.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Toni Sopocko July 4, 2014 at 11:31 pm

Isn’t there a debate on Tuesday evening???

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Marianne Copenhaver July 7, 2014 at 8:27 am

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.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Frank Marcopolos July 7, 2014 at 5:49 pm

How will the winner of the debate be decided? Will there be some kind of audience voting mechanism?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Wesley Mathieu July 7, 2014 at 9:03 pm

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.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Frank Marcopolos July 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm
  
  I disagree, but I am preferential to quantification. I know not everyone shares that preference.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Marianne Copenhaver July 8, 2014 at 10:15 am

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.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Frank Marcopolos July 8, 2014 at 10:30 am
  
  The way Munk Debates does it may serve as a workable model: http://munkdebates.com/
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Marianne Copenhaver July 8, 2014 at 10:34 am

I’ll check it out. Thank you, Frank!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Bart Vandalay August 9, 2014 at 10:38 am

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

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Jeremiah Harding August 30, 2014 at 9:55 pm
List of debates I’d love to see.
1. Jeffrey Tucker/Chris Cantwell (approach to libertarian outreach)
2. Josie Wales/Cathy Reizenwitz (libertarians and feminism)
3. Antonio Buehler/Pete Eyre (libertarians and cops)
… To name a few. I’ll post more here later 🙂
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Chip Marce August 31, 2014 at 10:11 am

Jeffrey Tucker and Ann Barnhardt discussing Fed policy.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Frank Marcopolos September 7, 2014 at 11:04 am

I believe there has been a debate scheduled, according to the libertydotme twitter account. Jack Hunter vs. David Shellenberger on Is Politics the Answer?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Michael Esch September 8, 2014 at 11:39 am

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.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Jeremiah Harding September 8, 2014 at 12:05 pm
  
  Yeah, I made my mini list all brutalists vs non brutalists. Want to see if anyone will do it.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Frank Marcopolos September 8, 2014 at 12:19 pm
  
  I could be confused, but how could someone who is against the NAP realistically call themselves a libertarian?
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Rick Rule September 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm
    
    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.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Frank Marcopolos September 8, 2014 at 12:37 pm
      
      Good point.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    Ashley September 9, 2014 at 12:04 am
    
    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?
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Michael Esch September 9, 2014 at 6:38 am
    
    Brutalist believe “liberty allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.”
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Ashley September 9, 2014 at 12:55 pm
      
      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.)
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Frank Marcopolos September 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm
      
      yepyep
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    Chip Marce September 9, 2014 at 4:13 pm
    
    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. 😉
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  Nick Newell January 9, 2015 at 10:21 pm
  
  Who would be a brutalist? That is so mean.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Alexander Butler September 8, 2014 at 4:27 pm

I’d like to see an epic showdown between a right-libertarian and a left-libertarian.

Chomsky vs. Molyneux?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

John Jones September 9, 2014 at 12:54 am

Doug Casey vs. Paul Krugman on anything. Hell, they can box for all I care, I just wanna see Casey bury his butt.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Rick Rule September 9, 2014 at 10:54 am
  
  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.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    John Jones September 9, 2014 at 12:09 pm
    
    As much as I disagree with a great deal of what Rove stands for, he is not to be trifled with intellectually.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Rick Rule September 9, 2014 at 1:30 pm
      
      I’d love to take him on. I would not be unprepared.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - John Jones September 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm
      
      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.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Rick Rule September 9, 2014 at 2:53 pm
      
      I would prefer to take on Rove, we need an economist to take on Krugman
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Frank Marcopolos September 9, 2014 at 2:56 pm
      
      I nominate Robert Murphy.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    John Jones September 9, 2014 at 1:38 pm
    
    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.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Rick Rule September 9, 2014 at 2:56 pm
      
      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.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - John Jones September 9, 2014 at 3:02 pm
      
      I think Dean was just happy they took the heat off him.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Frank Marcopolos September 9, 2014 at 1:55 pm

I just hope tonight’s debate goes off without a hitch, so we can have more in the future.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Harry Halbert September 11, 2014 at 11:15 pm

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/

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

starrychloe September 15, 2014 at 12:04 am

David Friedman vs. Bill O’Reilley

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Bryan HM January 9, 2015 at 12:56 am

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.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Reagan Rothbard January 9, 2015 at 1:28 am
  
  @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?
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Bryan HM January 9, 2015 at 2:18 am
    
    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…
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Jesse Lohse January 9, 2015 at 8:04 am

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!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

1 2