I often wonder how many people game the system by voting "not sure" at the beginning on purpose and then voting for their real choice at the end.

@Nanofuture87

10 ай бұрын

What's the point when the stakes are just a tootsie roll?

@xyonblade

10 ай бұрын

@@Nanofuture87 If you're the kind of person who is deceptive in a poll to manipulate the results of a debate, then you probably think that you want to make the argument you're in favor of more broadly taken as the default view that libertarians should have.

Every critique of anarchy is inevitably a description of the status quo

@brane4859

10 ай бұрын

No

@bigz5262

10 ай бұрын

@@brane4859 give an example

@Alejandro-cn5yp

10 ай бұрын

Under this system Jeffry Epstein would have to convince 200 million Americans that it’s ok to rape children. Under anarchy him and his rich friends could hire a private army and buy some nukes and rape as many children as they want.

@wolflarson71

10 ай бұрын

@@bigz5262 Bad things will happen.

@michaelhutchings6602

10 ай бұрын

@@bigz5262 "The biggest gang would take over"

We tend to project our current reality when we assume that corporations would dominate anarcho-capitalist systems. I think, in reality, that anarcho-capitalist systems would destroy corporations and large institutions because those rely heavily on centralized state power and they thrive on the suppression of the power of individuals. By virtue of individuals having more power under anarcho-capitalism, we could reorganize more easily in order to dismantle any institution that we did not like. Big institutions would not be able to keep up with the speed and complexity of the social re-organizations. It would also put pressure on large institutions to treat people well as not to become targets. Currently, big institutions are able to use the state's coercive monetary and military powers to indirectly and simultaneously reward and punish people into compliance. Anarco-capitalist communities would never be able to exert such strong coercive powers on their most productive members as they could simply leave and the community would lose from that. Compare that to the modern state which has effectively commoditized all labor and made it totally subservient to capital under the most unjust monetary system imaginable where some people effectively receive free money from the state by mere virtue of having a lot of money already while the majority of citizens see their savings and the value of their employment contracts diluted year after year while their costs keep increasing.

@BinanceUSD

10 ай бұрын

The majority rule, and they love whips for their own backs with razors on.

@bryanutility9609

10 ай бұрын

You’re going to end up with monopolies controlling wide swaths of territory with nowhere to flee to. It’s just dictatorship.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@bryanutility9609no you wouldn’t. You just made it up and without evidence.

@theoles5481

10 ай бұрын

All anarchy is exactly the same thing. there's no capitalism or syndicalism. It's just the state of nature because you cannot enforce any system. The most psychopathic group of friends exploit there surroundings until the majority agree to restrict their actions by establishing a monopoly on violence. It's not a stable state that is why it doesn't exist anywhere that is not a warzone.

@bryanutility9609

10 ай бұрын

@@ExPwner it’s basic game theory. Natural monopolies exist. Right now multinational companies have more wealth & power than whole countries. Like they can’t just buy up the land and run it. 😂

It would be disastrous to statists and I would enjoy every second of it.

@Benbones99

10 ай бұрын

please explain russia invading ukraine.

@Lysander_Spooner

10 ай бұрын

@@Benbones99 I'm not a foreign relations expert.

@johnyoung5392

3 ай бұрын

@@Benbones99 Please explain Ukraine invading Donbas in 2014

Hmmm… Yaron “ free markets assume the use of force has already been abandoned…” no, there will always be some criminal minds who will desire to use force ! The question is not how to completely abandon from society the use of force, the question is how- and which system of organizing society can *minimize the most* the use of- and harms from people using force -

Great debate. It seemed kind of short definitely could have gone on for another hour or so and just let them freely talk with each other

I really enjoyed this friendly and spirited debate between two intelligent and articulate advocates, both of whom I have agreed with on several topics. Historically, I am sympathetic with minarchists, and somewhat skeptical of an-caps. But at the end of the day, the minarchists Achilles’ Heel is defining “minimum”. Kaplan put up a very strong normative challenge to this, and made me question my priors. More of these!

@johnwayne6646

10 ай бұрын

"Minarchism" is such a terrible word and Yaron Brook here is not a minarchist.

@hellothere-hx5by

10 ай бұрын

The minimum for Yaron is the protection of individual rights. Of course, all governments by definition have legislative, judicial (investigation and courts), and executive powers (police and military). These powers should be bound by the protection of individual rights according to Yaron.

@jirehla-ab1671

10 ай бұрын

​@@johnwayne6646i have no problems with classical liberalism.

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

@@jirehla-ab1671 It had no rational morality, thus it had to lose influence.

@jirehla-ab1671

10 ай бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 i am not referring classical liberalism that has no taxation

22:20 I'm just here for Caplan's Viking accent impression. 😆

When you have a debate about anarchy, the least you can do is read a bit about it and especially the variant that you'll discuss. But, Randians have an allergy in reading anything that is not 'Objectivism'. Clearly has not read a line on the topic

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

They are kind of like how Muslims only read a Quran. Objectivists are literally scared of reading good arguments from anyone else. Youll see them (Yaron does this) critisize all religion in one sweep without even reading a Wikipedia entry on Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta, let alone any of their texts or anything. They just know that group is "irrational" without having to look into it. In fact, Im surprised this debate happened, because Yaron for many years said he would never date an adult an-cap ("Like Tom Woods") because he said they are necessarily immoral. **Ive been to OCONs, Ayn Rand Cons, and studied with many of the intellectuals at ARI.

@kurokamei

10 ай бұрын

which one? its not like there's one version of anarchy or ancap.

@andreaspanayides2578

10 ай бұрын

@@kurokamei The kind supported by the person with whom you are debating. For example, he could have read Machinery of Freedom

@mariocamoes401

2 ай бұрын

There's no such thing as capitalist Anarchy. Anarchists are exclusively libertarian socialists

Is it not the case that in our current systems child predators are being protected instead of prosecuted when they are in powerful positions?

@diegomorales8616

10 ай бұрын

It's the goal or attitude about it that is different between the 2 systems. "Oh well, there are no guarantees" vs "This must stop."

@NarcArtTherapy

10 ай бұрын

Indeed, and what we have is a kleptocratic oligarchy. A parasite to the people growing in power through money printing, debt, runaway lawmaking, spending, borrowing, and enriching the "ruling" class.

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

Not at all… where do you see this? And as the other person pointed out the attitude is completely different.

@martiendejong8857

10 ай бұрын

@@diegomorales8616 my ancapism has a bit more focus on anarchism... they wont get away

@martiendejong8857

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness epstein brunell dutroux demmink and many more

I still can't find this on the audio only podcast feed

excellent debate, thank you very much yaron brook and bryan caplan

Striving towards a society without [insert bad thing] is not an argument for statism. We can strive for towards the world we want through private, non-coercive mechanisms, or through public, coercive, mechanisms. The former works better, as evidenced by the massive strides we've made thanks to free trade.

00:00 🎙 The debate centers on the resolution that anarcho-capitalism would be a complete disaster for humanity. 01:42 🗣 Yaron Brook argues that individual freedom and rights are products of intellectual and cultural achievements, requiring a government to protect them. 05:38 💼 Yaron emphasizes the need for a government to extract coercion from society, protecting individual rights through objective laws. 07:23 💹 Yaron asserts that free markets assume the absence of coercion, making the idea of competing defense agencies in an anarcho-capitalist system incoherent. 09:30 🌐 Yaron warns that the absence of government leads to chaos, violence, and civil war, as force becomes a tool for human interaction. 11:44 🔒 Yaron argues that where government leaves room, anarchy results in competing entities, such as organized crime, cartels, and militias. 13:57 ⚖ Yaron highlights the potential dangers in an anarcho-capitalist system, where competing agencies may protect conflicting interests without a clear objective standard of law. 15:10 🔄 Yaron critiques the current political system, stating that it resembles anarchy with pressure groups vying for influence, leading to a lack of individual rights protection. 16:19 🤔 Bryan Caplan questions the disaster claim, suggesting that minarchy (limited government) could be a stable and improved system over the current status quo. 18:23 🌍 Caplan challenges the idea that multiple independent countries would lead to disaster, citing historical examples of adjacent countries coexisting peacefully. 20:32 🛡 Caplan argues that anarcho-capitalism, with businesses providing services through voluntary contracts, is functionally equivalent to minarchy with small independent countries. 23:21 🚀 Caplan addresses the transition problem, asserting that shifting expectations from democracy to stable anarcho-capitalism is challenging but not a fundamental flaw in the system. 25:14 🌐 Anarcho-capitalism advocates argue for minimal government involvement, with private arbitrators enforcing rulings through mechanisms like reputation, ostracism, and bonding. 26:08 🤔 Anarcho-capitalists counter status objections, emphasizing individual rights, comparing it to arguments for personal freedom like the right to use drugs. 27:45 🌐 Stability in political systems is achievable when a majority expects it. Anarcho-capitalism proponents believe that, once widely expected, it wouldn't lead to disaster but rather a "second Renaissance." 28:24 🌍 Counterpoint: Examples of peaceful coexistence between nations might be challenged, referencing ongoing conflicts like Russia and Ukraine, emphasizing the need for governments and military forces. 30:16 🏛 Critique: The concept of anarcho-capitalism doesn't consider the potential for conflicts in a world with multiple private jurisdictions, highlighting the importance of a government as an ultimate arbitrator. 32:36 🌆 Exception: Anarcho-capitalism might work in an idealized scenario, like Galt's Gulch from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, where everyone agrees and trusts each other completely. 34:20 🔄 Historical Perspective: The argument involves a comparative analysis of systems, citing the unprecedented peace between European countries post-World War II and the role of changing expectations. 38:41 ⚖ Resolution Challenge: There's skepticism about the resolution that anarcho-capitalism would be a complete disaster, with a focus on the difficulty of predicting the future in complex social systems. 45:56 🌐 Anarcho-capitalism discussion on defense agencies protecting bank robbers. 48:06 🏛 Shrinking government to minimal levels as a transition towards anarcho-capitalism is reasonable, according to Caplan. 48:46 💰 Conceptually, the last step to anarcho-capitalism from minarchy would be minimal, especially with binding arbitration. 51:45 🤔 Caplan differentiates anarcho-capitalism from monarchy, emphasizing competence in modern contexts. 55:38 🔍 Caplan argues historical examples exist, citing Iceland as an almost anarcho-capitalist society. 59:08 ⚖ Caplan asserts anarcho-capitalism is incompatible withObjectivism, defining it as a contradiction. 01:00:19 🌐 Caplan envisions global pacification before widespread acceptance of anarcho-capitalism, drawing parallels with Soviet sympathy. 01:02:10 🤷‍♂ Caplan acknowledges no guarantees in either anarcho-capitalism or government systems, advocating comparative risk analysis. 01:04:03 🤔 Yaron Brook emphasizes the importance of not making promises that can't be backed up, highlighting the principle of individual rights in capitalism. 01:05:10 🌐 Yaron Brook discusses the idea of secession, stating that it should only be considered if it leads to greater freedom and protection of individual rights. 01:07:32 🧐 Bryan Caplan explains his moral basis for advocating capitalism, referring to Michael Huemer's concept of presumptive individual rights and the importance of evaluating social science evidence. 01:09:40 🌍 Yaron Brook differentiates their positions, highlighting the disagreement on whether competition can exist in a geographic area with overlapping sovereignties. 01:12:30 💡 Yaron Brook argues that anarchy undermines the concept of individual rights and private property, hindering the progress towards a society based on freedom. 01:15:28 🔄 Bryan Caplan criticizes Yaron Brook's tautological arguments, emphasizing the need to consider empirical evidence and pointing out the failures of existing governments. 01:17:32 🤔 Bryan Caplan challenges Yaron Brook on the implications of multiple independent governments, raising questions about handling issues like protecting child molesters. 01:19:36 🏆 The audience votes on the resolution: "Anarcho-capitalism would definitely be a complete disaster for Humanity," with the winner to be announced.

Anarcho capitalism actually makes sense, the more I look into it, the more reasonable it seems.

@Basilisk2077

4 ай бұрын

Agreed. Although it would only really work with a high IQ population. People who know what’s best for themselves.

@arofhoof

3 ай бұрын

@@Basilisk2077 "Although it would only really work with a high IQ population. People who know what’s best for themselves." You don't need high IQ to know what is best for yourself

@mariocamoes401

2 ай бұрын

Anarchocapitalism will just lead to either Fascism or to private Feudal lords

@sean_haz

2 ай бұрын

​@@Basilisk2077I disagree, in a market system you can see the results of your actions no matter how smart you are. If your neighbour gets into a dispute you can see how their agency works and compare it to yours. If they are protected better than you then you switch companies. With a political system you can win with rhetoric, you can never see how much better or worse the other candidate would have done.

I have both of these guys books! Glad to see them sparring !

I'm sorry, but the free market did very well, until the government intentionally crashed the market.

@Weirdomanification

10 ай бұрын

When governments were much smaller two-five thousand years ago, why didn't the free market take off? I'll tell you. It's because tyranny is not magically confined to a territorial monopoly on retaliatory force. Tyranny, the violation of individual rights, abounds even when there is active competition for government.

@LordRykard9376

10 ай бұрын

​@Weirdomanification I bet you will vote for free healthcare and college.

@ayandas874

10 ай бұрын

@@Weirdomanification Government wasnt smaller and there was no formal concept of a free market until after the renaissance era.

@Weirdomanification

10 ай бұрын

​@@LordRykard9376Wrong.

@Weirdomanification

10 ай бұрын

​@@ayandas874Reason and individual rights were necessary for the concept to be formed.

Under AnarchoCapitalism there are no competing security firms under a certain geographic area. The final arbiter is the property owner who unilaterally chooses a security firm

@equaltoreality8028

8 ай бұрын

As somebody who has been on both sides of this debate (Ancap now Objectivist), unforantly it doesn't work like that. You need to have one ruling body over a geographic area for arberation. Just look at the UN, its useless at best because there is not final judge to say your right and your right, no fixed set of rules, its yes you can vote on it but it doesn't mean that what you vote on is going to be respected. It would be the same thing in an Ancap society.

@jdhenge

8 ай бұрын

Each geographic area does have only one ruling authority: the property owner of that parcel

@equaltoreality8028

8 ай бұрын

@@jdhenge Ruling body may have been a poor choice of words. You need to governing body of a geographical area that extracts the use of physical force from a society. In other words is there to prevent people from hitting each other with sticks and submitting retalatory physical force to objective and impartial control, while banning the initiation of physical force. It also needs to be at the societal level to be effective. Effectly you delegate your right to self defence to the governing body i.e. in order to not only protect you but to enforce contracts with out resorting to violence.

@arofhoof

3 ай бұрын

@@equaltoreality8028 "As somebody who has been on both sides of this debate (Ancap now Objectivist), unforantly it doesn't work like that. You need to have one ruling body over a geographic area for arberation. " There already are private court service with juridiction by contract and not geographic area

@equaltoreality8028

3 ай бұрын

@@arofhoof Force doesn't work like that, is geographic or nothing. The court system needs to rule over all Parties in the case and you can only do that by geographic, anything else is frankly would only work in niche situations.

If anything, Yaron clearly demonstrated here that the Objectivists have no answer for Anarcho-Capitalism. His entire position is based on a subjective personal preference and the pragmatic desire for a guaranteed outcome where by magic we wish ourselves into a just and objective society. This has nothing to do with objectivity nor reality. The world isn't what you want it to be and by justifying (initiatory) force you certainly won't get there either.

@lights473

10 ай бұрын

I'm replying because I know the randian cult is going to respond. Randian cult shouldn't be confused with actual objectivists and the philosophy. Fact is objectivism is consistent with anarcho-capitalism because it is the only rational system of law and politics.

@ikematthews6866

10 ай бұрын

@@lights473 you have no idea about objectivism if you think its consistent with anarchy. Rand herself disavowed anarchy as a naive abstraction.

@hellothere-hx5by

10 ай бұрын

Straw man. Objectivists don’t see government as perfect because people can make choices and errors. But a government structured to the best of its ability to protect rights is leaps and bounds better than anarchy. That’s what objectivists think. The guarantee Yaron is talking about is the ideal a government partly fulfills. It reached closer to the ideal. It fulfills some conditions of the ideal. Obvious not all governments are created equal, so more conditions are needed for government to BEST protect rights

@lights473

10 ай бұрын

@@ikematthews6866 Rand herself have told her followers not to equate her beliefs with objectivism. Objectivism is its own philosophy that people can use to discover truths. Rand was simply wrong on anarchy and I'm sure she knew deep down statism was completely irrational

@ikematthews6866

10 ай бұрын

@@lights473 when did and what context did she say that? really? The ayn rand institute has a video title saying “her philosophy in 2 minutes” because she discovered it so her beliefs are objectivism. rand was absolutely right on anarchy, it’s not “statism” to limit government to the protection of individual rights, stop putting us in the same boat as others who want welfare or ban abortion.

That was a great debate.

So much of the statist case for a coercive state comes down to but-what-if extremes that already happen under the state, then they act like they dropped a gotcha bomb. The argument against the state isn't one for utopia where all problems are solved. The argument is for better solutions to always present possible problems and decentralizing those solutions to compete with one another for optimal outcomes.

The beginning of every debate need to involve (probably before the debate) hammering out the definitions of the words in the resolution. Yaron is purposefully misunderstanding Anarchy as meaning when rights aren't respected. That's not what anarchy means. And he says government is the monopoly on force in a geographical area, but what happens if someone doesn't want to pay taxes? Will their rights be violated? So by his definition that's anarchy. And he says that, that we have both government and anarchy right now. That's not what Bryan means by anarcho-capitalism at all, so they are talking past each-other the entire time. Total waste of a great opportunity to actually engage with these ideas.

@stealingfire5036

10 ай бұрын

And that touches on the concept of "Anarcho-Tyranny". A state of manufactured chaos, maintained by government action. Which itself is actually a critique of Statism, not to be strawmanned as Anarchism itself.

@MoralGovernment

10 ай бұрын

@@stealingfire5036 Exactly.

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

No it means that there is one law of the land that secures individual rights and its non negotiable.

@kylewatson5133

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness If you build the law of the land on extortionism which is slavery, then you've already lost your freedom. Catch 22.

@MoralGovernment

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness "it" means? What's it? Government? But the government we have, and no government that has ever existed secured individual rights. And there is different laws for those who are well connected to politicians and those that aren't. One set of rules for government agents, and one for everybody else. And the rules change all the time, and people don't even know what the rules are because there's so many and they change so much. Is that what you meant?

Great thing to debate, and no shade thrown at either debater, but the arguments for the "yes" position were just terrible. I wouldn't have argued as Mr. Caplan did, but he did a good job. I would have pointed out that the market is really good at supplying things that are demanded and that assuming there needs to be a monopoly on any service is something that would need lots of evidence, given that we have lots of evidence of everything else not needing a monopoly. I would have also pointed out that in 2 ways the State always violates the rights it's supposedly there to protect, once when it demands a monopoly on the use of violence, and again when it taxes. Therefore, at best the State cannot maximize freedom and the market can. In reality, the State has little incentive to provide the service of protecting our rights and the market should be able to, given it provides every other service just fine. And, at worst, the State system is "1984", the Soviet Union, Mao's China, WW3, and for the market, it would just turn into a State system! So, yes, the worst case scenario for market justice is that it would become just as bad as the State already is!

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

Nicely spoken!

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

Yaron seems to be making the point in the opposite. The market does fufill demands, so why would you allow markets to fulfill the demand of destructive violence?

@acem82

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness That is a fair question. The answer is simple, the market does work in productive ways. The way that even "bad" people get their lives to be better is to best serve others, which increases their profit (or wage, whatever). So, because we see this, we know that the market is generally a productive, not a destructive force. In the market, people are incentivized into good and not bad behavior. Now, would there be a "market" for actions that deprive others of their rights? Yes, there would likely be a very small market for this. Remember, An-Caps aren't Utopians, we aren't trying to make things perfect, just much better. But, given that the average person has a very high demand for their rights to be respected, those engaging in activities that violate rights would be part of a "black" market, and a very small minority at that. So, it is that the vast majority don't want to oppress their neighbor, or more specifically don't want to be oppressed, and that leads to way more demand of having rights respected vs. rights being violated. Violating rights simply can't compete! Now, in a State system, those who engage in violating rights are highly incentivized to become part of the State, See "Road to Serfdom", chapter 10, describing why the worst end up on top!

@bryanutility9609

10 ай бұрын

Perfect completion is a theoretical ideal. Plenty of natural situations produce oligarchies & monopolies. The market only affords two companies for phone car services, Uber & Lyft: both are run my woke ideologues. It’s in their interest to collude and fix prices it’s better for them to act as a monopoly. That’s not in any freedom lovers interest. They can tyrannically impose their will upon you. If they owned the roads it would be even worse. Only a government can protect your rights. Soon they will control the government too. Markers do not in any natural sense lead to more freedom. Only your will to use force against such people will set you free.

@acem82

10 ай бұрын

@@bryanutility9609 Perfect competition is *not* an ideal. It would require no improvement or advancement, no entrepreneurship! "Plenty of natural situations produce ...monopolies." No, they don't. The free market allows competition to come up at any time. Therefore, the only true monopolies are those imposed by the one monopoly, which is the State. "The market only affords two companies for phone car services, Uber & Lyft:" There is very little about the market for phone car services that is "free". There are taxi medallions, taxes, thousands of regulations... "It’s in their interest to collude and fix prices it’s better for them to act as a monopoly." No, they don't. The free market allows competition to come up at any time. They would always have to keep prices low enough to discourage new entrants into the market. "If they owned the roads it would be even worse." See above. "Only a government can protect your rights." 1. That's utterly false, disproven by logic, empirical data, and history. 2. How's that been working for you? "Soon they will control the government too." Got that one backwards. The real threat is the one with a monopoly on violence that steals your money, and you've bought into the lie that you should thank them for it! The big corporations you're so worried about would have near zero power to do anything unless they had the State to buy off and reduce their competition. Remember, one of these organizations has F15s and nukes! "Markers do not in any natural sense lead to more freedom. Only your will to use force against such people will set you free." Wow, that's so wrong, I could write paragraphs just describing the issues. 1. Markets do lead to more freedom. They incentivize people to provide each other with things the other wants to get what the provider wants. They incentivize people to serve others in order to be served. That is precisely the opposite of what the State does. 2. Why should I use force against people who I voluntarily trade with, or people who voluntarily trade with each other? What would give me the right? Why should I even consider that when, by definition, a free market trade always serves the interests of both parties? After all, if that trade didn't serve both parties, then that party wouldn't consent to the trade! -An Economist

53:23 Look at Kaplan just praying to the gods of logic in this whole minute lmao

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

😂 that was the most illogical bunch of BS coming out of Yaron’s mouth right there

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

@@ExPwner I'll say! Enough with this "principle of individual rights" and the "principle of freedom is founded" mumbo jumbo. For starters, my "individual rights", whatever he think those are, are somehow to be subjugated to the state just because he has a preference for a monopoly on force? He and the Objectivists have yet to justify this subjective preference and why anyone should care and play along with his desired outcome. Also, freedom isn't founded, it's taken from those who tell you that otherwise is the case. No monopoly on force, no state, no one is to decide for me what my freedom entails, we are not dealing in special privileges handed out by a monopolist we all supposedly have to obey from afar. I sometimes wonder if Objectivism is just Constitutionalism with extra steps cause most advocates seem to argue for this model. It's been tried, and it has failed badly, i don't see the appeal to this fantasy utopia where we just pretend morality is objective and we all rely on this monopoly on force, as if anvils are somehow to drop from the sky and land on wrongdoers to resolve conflict, give me a break!

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

@@maurices5954Subjugated to the state how? Please provide example?

@SuperSlayer76

10 ай бұрын

I kept wondering why it appeared Yaron’s voice was coming out of Caplan’s mouth 😂

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness The false notion that somehow the entity that calls itself "the state" has the right to decide on what individual rights are and act as a monopolistic protector of these supposed rights. This is not a consent-based ethic, it is extortion under the threat of violence by which they acquire the means necessary in order to "protect" these supposed individual rights. If theft is the foundation upon which individual rights are to be protected, then we are simply dealing with a large criminal organization of robbers who adhere to the might makes right ethic.

Brian does not get the difference between multiple countries next to each other with defined borders and a Lebanon kind of situation, which Yaron has in mind, when he says multiple police forces contesting the same territory

@prommann1234

10 ай бұрын

*Bryan

@anarchic_ramblings

10 ай бұрын

@@prommann1234 OK, but that kind of 'chaos' can be _resolved_ either through _market_ (i.e. voluntary) or _political_ (i.e. coercive) forces. To the extent that this chaos is controlled by market forces the result is maximised peace and prosperity.

@prommann1234

10 ай бұрын

If people were only motivated by maximizing peace and prosperity, a market solution to the problem of political order might be feasable. But they aren't so it isn't.

@KelthuzOfficial

10 ай бұрын

tell me how market forces resolved that in Lebanon? oh wait, what is stopping Hezbollah from adopting market means? Perhaps the fact that they CRAVE political power and not a functioning market society? @@anarchic_ramblings

@BlueSpawn

10 ай бұрын

@@KelthuzOfficial I am extremely doubtful that very many of the people in these war struck countries are aware of the concepts of voluntaryism and the Non Aggression Principle. They fall back on what they’ve been taught: Statism. In Statism, people fight for control of some local or remote power. To eradicate Statism, people must be taught about these other concepts like anarchy, objectivism, etc.

Love these two thinkers.

I have no idea how Bryan didn't win that

The truth came out when Galt's Gulch was brought up. Rand may not have been a fan of "anarchy" but she provided a blueprint of how it could work. Small community of high IQ individuals that had been meticulously screened and vetted.

Caplan wins here because in the Q+A he argued Brook into accepting a website as government. Throughout the debate Brook kept repeating that there needs to be "a single final arbiter in a given geographic area" (feels like a Rand quote in her definition of government). Caplan asked if someone who chooses, from a list, which private arbiter will be used for a final settlement of a case, qualifies as a government/final arbiter to Brook. Brook said yes. Well you can basically program a website to do that. Otherwise, government will need one person or a group of judges to volunteer minutes of their time.

@Benbones99

10 ай бұрын

who will program and own the website???

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

> you can basically program a website to do that God/website is not a substitute for mans free will mind.

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

​@@TeaParty1776 Do you believe you were fully sentient when you wrote that?

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

​​@@Benbones99a programmer. Or is this one of those jokes like who will build the roads?

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

@@-whackd Whats the differrence between sentience and consciousness?

Accountability was never sought, from Marc Ritch on.

This was great.

A major point in favor of an-cap and against the state is that under anarchism (libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, as some call it), laws develop over centuries and are local. They make sense to that group or tribe. An example of this from England was that if two men are in a fight the one furthest from home must retreat. This makes sense as the person closest to home as more moral right to fight. There was no state required to formulate this rule. People developed it over time and it works. When states are involved, on the other hand, the laws can contradict such norms that the people developed over centuries. Imagine a new state and they decide they don't like this rule, the person who is more aristocratic has preference (or to give it a modern spin, certain races are more moral - that could be blacks or whites, i.e. the Confederacy or some "woke" regime). You can see how the state tends to create law top-down and often ignores what the people want. I live in Minnesota. 67% of people here didn't want abortion up to birth but we got it anyway as the politicians wanted it. The most modern version of this is the EU overriding what Europeans by majority want.

@donnerwetter1905

10 ай бұрын

I thought humans are individuals and now you are talking about "groups" and "tribes" and how certain laws make sense to them, as if everybody in that tribe has voluntarily agreed to the laws. That's not the case. You are describing laws that develop out of tradition, but they are still forcible laws, which do not depend on the consent of those who are affected by it. If what you describe is anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-capitalism is not a society based on the so called non-aggression principle, as such principle prohibits the application of laws against someone, who hasn't agreed to them.

@marco_mate5181

9 ай бұрын

abortion in minnesota is only up until viabilty. There is no abortion up until birth, because at that point it's safer to just give birth, unless it has to be done to save the mother life.

@jdhenge

9 ай бұрын

Thank you for expanding my understanding of common law. That obligation to retreat I will incorporate into my understanding. Common law is the codification of natural law via private suit.

@L333gok

8 ай бұрын

@@donnerwetter1905 Notice how he doesn’t use the term law. He said rules, not law. Rules don’t have to be enforced. Get out of this statist mindset where we have to throw people in jail for half their life for breaking an insignificant rule.

@donnerwetter1905

8 ай бұрын

@@L333gok The post I replied to used the term "law". And rules that don't have to be enforced have no relevance. And what you call insignificant someone else would call significant.

What a great discussion!

@lights473

10 ай бұрын

Caplan sucks at representing ancap philosophy. They should have brought someone like Stephan Kinsella or Walter Block

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

@@lights473 I doubt that he will share a platform with Block but now that Yaron broke his own arbitrary non-objective rule of not going into an AnCap debate with anyone over 40, I'd say he should respond to the ever-standing invitation to debate Disenthrall's Patrick Smith!

I love how the title alone already poisons the well, a good start!

@microsoftpain

10 ай бұрын

average ReasonTV/Cato Institute libertarians

@Si_Mondo

10 ай бұрын

Trying to make it easy for Brook..... he still fails 😂

@smtandearthboundsuck8400

7 ай бұрын

Lol it's failing in Argentina after 3 days how do you feel ancap? Is it not real ancapistan? Don't you hate it when tankies do that? But heck, at least tankies have measurable successes in spite of conditions that would have ruined any other economic system and have an actual ideology.

Watch the movie "The Seven Samurai." That is what the state is - the bandits who live off the farmers. The bandits of course promote the idea that they are "providing security," (like the mafia always does) but in reality they are bandits. The farmers don't need the bandits. The individual does not need the state. Yaron is promoting the idea that the state was created by social contract, but that is not true. Read Oppenheimer or Rothbard (Anatomy of the State). The state is not based on a social contract, but the strongest group of bandits in that territory who took over and set itself up as the "protective agency," and the people there got no choice in that. The British state - for example - is the strongest band of robbers who took that territory. the people did not vote the king in.

I’m always pretty dissatisfied with the arguments with whom I’m aligned with in these debates. But Caplan argued really brilliantly.

Great debate, I like both debaters. Yaron seems to forget that people who work in government are imperfect humans, just like those in the private sector. /corporations only exist as a preferred tax structure.

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

How so?

@lukeasacher

10 ай бұрын

How are humans who comprise Government imperfect? Really? @@Mr.Witness

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

@@lukeasacher Yeah his whole point is that because humans are so imperfect we need a principle to serve as a guideline standard to hold them to, so when they fall short we it is clear down to every last detail of procedure to correct and process cases of negligence. Miscarriages of justice need a stable non negotiable burden of proof and evidence to use as a tool to check the imperfections of human knowledge.

@lukeasacher

10 ай бұрын

A perfect principle created by imperfect humans with imperfect knowledge. That is absurd. @@Mr.Witness

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

@@lukeasacher 1 its not created. The principles of gravity are not “creTed” they are identified by observing factual things that exists. 2 In what way is the principle that “No man or group of men has the right to initiate or use unjustified violence “ imperfect? And what does perfect mean to you?

"I'm a minarchist- I'm an anarchist- I'm a minarchist- I'm an anarchist... My sister- my daughter- My sister- my daughter..." I love both these guys- and Gene, whom I've had the pleasure to meet the last two years at Porcfest- and of course Nick G the man in Black... May I ask one question of both debaters? Was Mozart really a Red?

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

Except that Yaron never calls himself a minarchist

@lukeasacher

10 ай бұрын

And what ought he call himself? Oh, I know... an objectivist. Fine. But all human action is based upon subjective value and marginal utility. Would you agree? @@Mr.Witness

Yes

Yaron cannot get around the one world government contradiction or the contradiction of preventing people from organizing to defend rights in the name of defending rights.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

Right. He lost the ability to reason on those areas

I like Yaron Brook, but he is begging the question.

@KelthuzOfficial

10 ай бұрын

ok child molester

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@KelthuzOfficialGFY clown

Help a brother out! I can't find anything about "Price Mishbeck"? and company towns. Anybody got a hint?

Anthony De Jasay's point about relying on anarchy for cooperation at some scale on the planet between nations doesn't necessarily follow to that kind of cooperative anarchy being reliable at all scales on the planet. Complex systems can and do require opposite behaviors at different scales in order to function at all. An example of how changing scale and proximity can flip the appropriate behavior would be to consider the care of babies. They have not acquired language yet so it is impossible to form voluntary contracts with them or have them grasp the relevance of private property, liberty or life in a political context. They require family level communism before they can be integrated into an extended order of a free market society. If we were to impose the standards we place on others in the extended order of a market on babies then the species would go extinct. If we were to extend this kind of communism between parents and babies to the extended order then we would destroy massive swathes of our social order along with the lives of millions to billions of people depending on how far we extended this family level communism. There are of course other examples where one friend buys the rest of his friend's food and drink at smaller social gatherings. At this scale the comradery and building stronger bonds outweighs the costs of buying the food and drink for the one individual. If you increase the scale to an entire society of millions of people where there isn't enough time in the days for that one individual to build anything with them like their close-knit friends then this behavior becomes harmful for buying others their food and drink.

I think there are ywo things missing in both arguments. 1. The scarcity of resources is no where near what it has been throughout human history. Technology has made it much easier to do business in completely disconnected geographic areas. This is the quantifiable advantage and moral imperative for free markets. 2. Large governments are only interested in perpetuating their bureaucracies. By nature, they are not interested in individual liberty. Small governments probably have the same inclination, but obviously have less capability. There will never be individual liberty with large militaristic coercive governments. The relative peace and prosperity that we enjoyed today is not due to government, it is due to technology allowing for free trade and free-market to exist throughout large, disconnected Geographic areas.

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

Marx is wrong. Machines dontg cause ideas. Man chooses to think or evade.

@ajinkyakamate421

8 ай бұрын

Issue with small government is that it will eventually become big government and will have the capability to coerce people. Small government people always somehow fail to understand that US government was once a small government right? US gov 100 years ago was way smaller than current one, but it eventually become big piece by piece every year or every election cycle. So the talk about small government is better, is bullshit as eventually it will always lead to big government and we have example of US gov. Libretarians/anarcho capitalist also miss this point, whenever someone babbles about small government just point them to US govs history.

@Remindor

8 ай бұрын

Fully agree with this point. Technology today is way better than before and yet most of us experience worse living conditions than ever before. Not only that, but due to state intervention in the markets, the mechanism for distributing the proceeds of human innovation and development has become extremely speculative and, therefore, unjust. So we have better technology but it's used as a mechanism to transfer wealth from honest value creators to deceptive value extractors.

@TeaParty1776

8 ай бұрын

@@Remindor >yet most of us experience worse living conditions than ever before. Do you regard stupidity as a moral ideal?

@Remindor

8 ай бұрын

​@@TeaParty1776 yes, I think that's it. I'm really into stupidity. I should watch more CNN and MSNBC. Hopefully I can wrap my simple mind around the complex words they use.

If you found this debate interesting, I think you would appreciate my essay, "An Objectivist Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism" on the site, Objectivism In Depth. It goes into anarcho-capitalist arguments in detail and shows the problems with them.

@lights473

10 ай бұрын

And if you enjoyed that, you'll definitely love the objectivist defense of anarcho-capitalism

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

And if you pay attention to this debate, Caplan gets Yaron Brook to agree that the only "government" we need could be a website. A web site that disputing parties go to which forces them to choose among certified private arbitration companies for one that will determine the final settlement (like a supreme court).

@yang8244

10 ай бұрын

Objectivist : "we need an objective arbiter and force wielder otherwise there will be chaos!". ancap: "so you are in favor of a world government to be the objective arbiter and force wielder for all of humanity? Objectivist: "What? of course not! Ancap: "...." I doubt Id want to read the article that has enough intellectual weazeling to somehow overcome this nonesense.

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

@@yang8244 I literally had this reaction from several Randians when pointing out this obvious conclusion that one will arrive at when following this chain of logic. Either you want a monopoly or you don't, it shouldn't be this difficult of a concept to grasp if one is intellectually honest.

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

Ive been plugging your article nonstop.

27 minutes in, Bryan Caplan, explains the Libertarian version of the Soviet's "New Man." He thinks, at some indeterminate point in the future, man will reach a sufficient state of "goodness" and then the anarcho-capitalist state will thrive. Of course, he uses Objectivists as his examples of this "New Man" while explicitly rejecting the metaphysics and epistemology that produced the residents of Galt's Gulch. He also fails to realize that Galt's Gulch was not a model of a country. It was a small group of people who had literally sworn upon their life to elevate Reason as the first value in their lives, decided on some basic rules and lived together with the understanding they were all there for the same purpose. Galt's Gulch was far closer to a housing associate than anything resembling a country. Ayn Rand explained all this, of course. But Libertarians are very good at hearing what they want and ignoring anything that doesn't fit into their rationalizations.

"impartial objective arbitrator" That phrase may describe many things, but the US justice system is certainly not one of them. A quick review of what has happened to Trump is a great illustration of that reality.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

Exactly. Brooks (and all other Randians) trying to equate government monopoly with being impartial and objective is idiotic and false on its face.

@johnnynick6179

10 ай бұрын

@@ExPwner Here you are again, making things up. I know of NO Objectivists that consider our current government impartial or objective, and I know lots of Objectivists. How many do YOU know? Clearly you know very little about Objectivism. You refer to us as "Randians" which is the opposite of reality. Actual Objectivists do not WORSHIP Rand; they follow her philosophy. The fact that you don't understand the difference does not surprise me.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@johnnynick6179I am not at all making things up. That is something that you did and then when pushed on your blatant straw man continued to make an ass of yourself by blatantly lying and ignoring what people say to you. Spare me the “real government hasn’t been tried” crap. I was speaking to your made up ideal. You Randroids are constantly equating government monopoly over law with “objective law” as if the only way to have a predetermined set of laws is by monopolizing the process which is false.

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

​​​@@ExPwnerCaplan argued him down to accepting an organization smaller than a supreme court (they are our final dispute resolvers now) that gives people in conflict a list of certified private arbitration companies to choose from and says whichever one you choose is final. This could literally be done by a website. Brook said that people may still want to use government courts, but I don't think there is any "right" to them in Objectivism. I think that's kind of silly and it's like saying people would prefer government mail when it's on a level playing field. We already solve more disputes through private arbitration in the US, and in international business law, than any government courts. There are literally zero state courts for international business dealings, just private arbitration and insurance.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@-whackdexactly

Even if you had a tiny, tiny government, the amount of capitalism unleashed would make that state so rich that even if the state had a small cut that government would be huge. Also I can't imagine a state or government where the state funtionaries sit around all day and only protect individual freedoms and property and contracts, and do nothing else. That would be a dream, but we all know that never happens. At some point this "night watchman" thinks it is better than the taxpayer, more moral, smarter, and starts to push him around. This always happens, btw, in ever state ever studied.

Yaron trying to use the example of Ukraine-Russia war to prove his position is actually an example proving his opponent’s position.. that war ist the result of gvmts, not of what happens in free markets and anarchism-No-Ruler !

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

It’s basically all that the Randroids do at this point. They point at the evils done by the state that they want to keep and project that onto anarchy.

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

Meanwhile under anarchy, the worst that could happen is decentralized communities warring with one another, which would lead to way less casualties as funding a war is expensive and counter-productive to the mechanics of free-markets. Imagine an ancap community, living peacefully, in accordance to their moral code, being taken over by a monopolist state without any justification whatsoever. It would take a shitload of spindoctoring this act of aggression into somehow making people believe this was an act that is justifiable.

@Mr.Witness

9 ай бұрын

@@maurices5954The worse than csn happen under anarchy is your neighbor sets up a child prostitution ring and that is deemed a viable protection agency service. All of this nonsense about states vs states has nothing to do with the debate. Caplan never answers what Yaron is asking him which is what about INTERNAL issues not external relations.

Great debate. I did feel as though Yaron’s arguments were incoherent at times..

Isn't limited government a proven disaster? As Spooner said, the U.S. Constitution has either facilitated the current tyrannical system or it has been powerless to prevent it. Either way, the experiment in limited government has failed and to try it again expecting a different result is insane.

@johnnynick6179

10 ай бұрын

The current US Constitution was the closest mankind has come thus far to securing individual freedom. While it has not proven successful in the long run, it was a great leap forward from the Magna Carta. Mankind is still slowly groping its way out of the Dark Ages and learning how to create a "civil" civilization... one that holds individual rights sacrosanct. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the "experiment in limited government" will fail in the long run. The next society that tries to create a Constitutional Republic will learn from our mistakes and hopefully avoid the pitfalls we encountered. To give up on building a successful form of limited government is asinine and regressive. If YOU wish to go back to the wild, wild west days... or prehistoric times... just move to Mexico and hang out with some of the cartel members... or perhaps try a few areas of Los Angeles or San Francisco.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@johnnynick6179there is reason to believe it. That reason is that governments constantly grow and always violate individual liberty and are not bound by a piece of paper when they dictate what their own power will be. The “Wild West” is a myth. Not surprising that you can’t get facts straight here either.

Statists already seething in the comment section 🍿

@profoundwill43

10 ай бұрын

Love the avatar!

Yes.

Yarron Brooks needs to learn to distinguish "anarchy" from "anomy" and "government" from "state". Caplan is unable to help him as he has no philosophical competence, but his economics and empirical arguments are competent.

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

Yaron could have read a couple books from anarchist thinkers over the past few decades but he decided that is "immoral". Surprised this debate even happened because he didnt debate ancaps for the longest time and had the view that any adult an-cap ("Like Tom Woods") are necessarily immoral.

Yaron confuses anarchy with chaos and can’t even seem to articulate his position other than it doesn’t “feel” right.

@lukeasacher

10 ай бұрын

As Tom Woods said- "Anarchy is simply no 'archy'... no arbitrary rule." That makes sense to me, but of course it's a purely subjective opinion. :)

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

@@lukeasacherSo is their non arbitrary rule? Does that come under a principle? Who maintains the principle as a guideline for society?

@Jackmerius_Tacktheritrix5733

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness. Did you even watch?

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

@@Jackmerius_Tacktheritrix5733 I was there.

@Jackmerius_Tacktheritrix5733

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness Were you on your phone the whole time?

Yaron kept making the point that it's necessary to have government to guarantee basic rights but he didn't acknowledge that taxation is a fundamental violation of property rights and some sort of taxation is necessary to fund government.

@-whackd

10 ай бұрын

He doesn't favour taxation

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

In the Objectivist view there would be "voluntary taxation", which of course then makes a government simply another agency who attempts to outcompete other agencies for customers in a free market, it's an inconsistent position and a logical contradiction. The ancaps got the correct view on politics, without the ability to distort taxes from it's citizens, a government ceases to be a government and just becomes like any other agency that competes for goods and services.

@SwordOfApollo

10 ай бұрын

@@maurices5954 There's nothing that prevents a voluntarily funded government from excluding competitors. Just because YOU refuse to provide funding for the government doesn't mean that you won't be crushed when you start a "competing governmental agency". It's just that the government that crushes your agency will have been funded by the voluntary donations/fees of others.

@maurices5954

10 ай бұрын

@@SwordOfApollo I'm perfectly fine with that if that would end up being the outcome, as long as the "crushing" will occur through competition within a free market mechanism that isn't backed or enforced by a monopolist entity. Though i don't see why there would be a need for any crushing within small decentralized anarchic gated communities where individuals via voluntary contract and mutual consent live in accordance with their moral code and abide by a legal system they pre-agreed to when signing up to live in such a community. From a consequentialist analyses, if these agencies compete for customers, the best available options will manifest itself and society as a whole benefits from this as a secondary result.

@SwordOfApollo

10 ай бұрын

@@maurices5954 I mean that the voluntarily-funded government will arrest and prosecute the members of your "competing governmental agency" when your agency attempts to exercise police powers by arresting individuals. We are talking about force being used here, not "market mechanisms." If you are attempting to use force outside the oversight of the established government by conducting your own arrests, the established government must regard you as a threat to the rights of citizens and stop you by force. I recommend my online essay, "An Objectivist Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism." (You can search the title.)

In his next debate Yaron argues for raising the minimum wage.

The current government we live under basically started out as the system that Yaron is describing and look what it's become. Every form of government that's ever been theorized has been tried in practice and they've all failed, but yet people keep wanting to try it again and again. The definition of insanity...

The one universal law is the Non-Aggression Principle. All law beyond that is just logistics.

@thetimebinder

10 ай бұрын

That's not a universal law. Quite the opposite.

@lights473

10 ай бұрын

​@@thetimebinderit is a universal law. It is the natural law. The Non-Aggression Principle is the ONLY justifiable way of resolving conflicts over scarce resources. The purpose of law is a subset of ethics that deals with answering, given conflicts are possible because scarcity exists and because man acts (action in the Austrian sense), who gets the final say over some scarce resource? Who should own it? And we know that those who didn't initiate conflict are the ones who have the property right over it when they engaged in homesteading and became the first to use some resource in nature or engaged in voluntary trade and the ownership transferred.

@kylewatson5133

10 ай бұрын

The universal law is the principal of extortionism. If you built a society on a "pay them or die" model of financing, you will get absolute corruption...every. single. time.

@bryanutility9609

10 ай бұрын

@@lights473Conquest is the only legitimate form of rule. There is no “non-aggression” without force.

@lights473

10 ай бұрын

@@bryanutility9609 Force isn't aggression. Force can be used defensively or to enact retribution. But it is a contradiction say you can only have non-aggression by aggressing. An aggression is an aggression, it is not non-aggression. A is A.

Anarcho-Capitalism is "without rulers", NOT "without rules". The primary rule is the Non-Aggression Principle: the abolition of ceorcive force over others. It means without _coercive_ hierarchies, not ALL hierarchy. One legitimate hierarchy is the respect for property rights. In fact, there are many rules under Anarcho-Capitalism, but there is no coercive monopoly (aka government) on their enforcement or the defense of those rights. A government that does not initiate force against non-violent competition, is a "government" no longer.

@hellothere-hx5by

10 ай бұрын

Who is going to enforce the abolition of coercion over others? You see, you need retaliatory force to force initiatory force out of social interaction. You can't abolish the use of coercion over others without ABOLITION, without getting rid of it, without forcing it out of existence. Otherwise, people are free to use coercion against others. I don't know what you mean by hierarchies. I don't know why hierarchies are relevant. Your point about government doesn't make sense. A government that does not initiate force against voluntary actions is still a government because all that means is that the government, i.e. the monopoly on the use of force, only uses retaliatory force.

@Weirdomanification

10 ай бұрын

​@@hellothere-hx5byI agree with you. I used to be an ancap, but I realized that it does not protect individual rights, since the "non-aggression principle" is a floating abstraction. Ancaps frequently have different definitions of aggression. The popular theories basically leave the definition up to small communities.

@Lysander_Spooner

10 ай бұрын

@@Weirdomanification Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. It's pretty simple.

@iamchillydogg

10 ай бұрын

​@@WeirdomanificationInitiate physical force but if you insist we can have a national discussion about it and come to a consensus.

@Weirdomanification

10 ай бұрын

How does a community or protection agency establish who owns what?

Stateless societies have empirically existed in history. No state has ever implemented a nightwatchman state (minarchy). Therefore, stateless society is less theoretical, and at least AS possible, as minarchy. The idea that minarchism is more practical or realistic isn't born out by the empirical, historical and anthropological, evidence.

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

> Stateless societies have empirically existed in history In your unfocused mind. States have always existed, if only as force-based custom. Not all states are formally split from society.

@tonypalmentera7752

10 ай бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 except anyone can look up stateless societies...states could not exist until the agrarian revolution in economics, everyone knows that...surplus labor is required for a ruling class who does not labor to exist. The first city-states occurred 6,000 to 8,000 years ago...about 3% of human history. Law, roads, defense, trade, all preexist the state by thousands of years. Law, in particular, was customary for thousands of years in stable form, no victimless crimes existed due to the system being tort based and "criminals" being such for creating victims, not violating some offense to the state. All law was tort law. These are known facts. We have evidence of such law going back 14,000 years...4-6 thousands years older than the state has existed by any estimate by any expert in any field. Anything else?

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

@@tonypalmentera7752 >Law, in particular, was customary for thousands of years in stable form, Agreed, my point. State means enFORCEment of values (or ideas). State is not always formally split from the rest of a society. Anthropologists did not, at first, recognize a state in the subtle kinship relations in tribal societies. Marx is dishonest in limiting state to capitalism. He advocated a state, ie, a value or idea enFORCEr for communism. He simply used another word. Customary law is much older than mere millenia. We can rationally assume that cavedwellers had it or their societies would have disintegrated into a war of all against all. Animals(!) have something similar, eg, the pecking order among chickens. All living organisms that live in groups must have some method of enforcing behavior that aids survival in a group. But lawyers are probably limited to man.

@tonypalmentera7752

10 ай бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 No, customary law is a stateless form of law by every definition. You want to pretend states always existed, when they flatly didn't. Law empirically worked without a state, with no monopoly in a geographic area on dispute resolution services (law) and defense from invaders (defense more generally)...which define a state more than anything (even a minarchy contains those services). Minarchy is wholly theoretical. If the state can be established as a nightwatchman state or turned into one is yet to be seen. We know stateless society can exist, so can nation-states (it appears most city-states are extinct, as are dynastic states and imperial states). We get various forms of government within the nation-state apparatus...none of which are stateless (by definition), and none of which are minarchy. I don't think we need to deny stateless society is possible for minarchy to be possible...but minarchists always try to make this point anyway. It's as if them believing stateless society isn't possible is the only thing keeping them minarchists lol.

@tonypalmentera7752

10 ай бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 What form of law did the Xeer belong too? The one Somalians used in the years they were stateless, by everyone's definition? 15 years a stateless society, even the CIA acknowledging it... " During this period, Somalia has been cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and a country with no formal legal system.[2][3]" "Benjamin Powell argued that statelessness led to more order and less chaos than had the previous state,[5] and economist Alex Tabarrok claimed that Somalia in its stateless period provided a "unique test of the theory of anarchy", in some aspects near of that espoused by anarcho-capitalists David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard,[6]" Marxist state collapsed, markets broke out... "Anthropologist Spencer MacCallum has identified the rule of law during the period as that of the Xeer, a customary law indigenous to Somalia. The law permits practices such as safe travel, trade, and marriage, which survives "to a significant degree" throughout Somalia, particularly in rural Somalia where it is "virtually unaffected".[2] MacCallum credits the Xeer with "Somalia's success without a central government, since it provides an authentic rule of law to support trade and economic development."[2] In the Xeer, law and crime are defined in terms of property rights; consequently the criminal justice system is compensatory rather than the punitive system of the majority of states, and the Xeer is "unequivocal in its opposition" to any form of taxation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991%E2%80%932006)

1:15 Again with the "Guarantees aren't met 100% of the time so they are irrelevant." He is basing his entire argument on that and his "New Man" concept.

@sean_haz

2 ай бұрын

Not irrelevant, but not guarantees

Yaron agreed that the only "government" we need is somebody to choose which certified private arbitration company you need to settle a case with. That kind of "government" could literally be a website.

@whatabouttheearth

10 ай бұрын

😂 these fools are so lost they think state means government and that capitalism isn't antithetical with anarchism. So called "Ararcho Capitalism" is not, and can never, be a thing because capitalism is inherently based on, not only a boss/worker relationship, but also exploitative labor based on taking ones surplus value when they have no other option. Capitalism is built on theft. Anarchism is inherently anti capitalist, and it has always been anti capitalist, yall are simply taking the term "anarchist" from a pre existing leftist movement (and even anarcho individualists must be anti capitalist) which has had an on the ground physical presence for over 170 years. Anarchism is about alot more than no government and one of those things is it absolutely must be against modes of production which steal surplus value.

@Benbones99

10 ай бұрын

what if i bomb all the courts? what are the repercussions if i own all of the courts and they rule in favour of me every time??

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@Benbones99what if Dracula rides in on Godzilla?

@Si_Mondo

10 ай бұрын

​@@ExPwnerIt'll tell me that drugs have gotten a lot stronger since my day! 😃

I like listening to yaron's rants about collectivists sometimes but his arguments are skin deep.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

Yep.

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

Do you have an example?

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness53:23 with a bunch of illogical bullshit.

@Mr.Witness

10 ай бұрын

@@ExPwner Explain. He is getting to the root of the issue. The anarchist position in principle is that in a given jurisdiction anything is negotiable and on the table, its all equal. Whereas Yarons is the opposite freedom and a proper government necessitate that there are fact based non negotiable that should be explicitly taken off the table and are not up for sale or debate. The example being child molestation. A proper society is one that IN PRINCIPLE explicitly bans and threatens retaliation on all child molestation whether by groups or individuals. Doesn’t get any deeper.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@Mr.Witness​​⁠explain what? Yaron is doing nothing but making up a bunch of bullshit. That isn’t getting to the root of the issue, it’s arguing in bad faith. Corporations are not enslaving people. Anarchy is not no rules nor is it no individual liberty. He is making things up that do not happen in reality.

4:29 so Yarons position is individuals shouldn't have access to self defense? That's a pretty open and shut case to me lmao

1:03 "Because guarantees have not been fulfilled 100% of the time throughout all of history, we shouldn't have them." Comedy

🗣 Yaron defends the resolution that capitalism would be a complete disaster for humanity against Brian's opposition. 01:12 Yaron acknowledges that it's a 2 against 1 debate, with Gene having sympathy towards capitalism. Yaron argues that the concept of freedom in capitalism is individual liberty and pursuit of values, while Brian questions the definition of freedom. Yaron references the movie Braveheart to discuss the different conceptions of freedom. 💡 The individual's ability to use judgment for their own needs should be secured by a government that brings force under control, even though existing governments are corrupt. 08:19 Existing governments are corrupt but erasing or rejecting them completely would lead to chaos and violence. Instead of throwing out government, we should identify and fix what's wrong. The absence of government leads to chaos, violence, and civil war. 🗣 The speaker argues that anarchy leads to violence and is a threat to freedom and capitalism. 14:38 Pressure groups in the political system compete to take away individual freedoms and liberties. The speaker dismisses the idea that anarchy can work as a rationalistic fantasy. Anarchy leads to violence, war, and civil war. ! The insurance industry has developed a system of adjudication to keep disputes out of government courts, similar to how anarcho-capitalism would work with protection agencies handling disputes internally or contractually. 21:12 The insurance industry has a system of adjudication to keep disputes out of dysfunctional government courts. In anarcho-capitalism, disputes between parties subscribing to the same Protection Agency would be handled internally, and disputes between different agencies would be handled contractually. The idea that agencies in anarcho-capitalism would fight it out on the streets is as unlikely as Sweden becoming a dictatorship and invading Norway. 😕 The speaker discusses the stability of different political systems and the role of expectation in maintaining stability. 27:42 Democracy becomes stable when most people expect it to be stable. Anarcho-capitalism will be stable once most people expect it to be stable. The speaker acknowledges that the current situation between Russia and Ukraine challenges the expectation of peaceful interactions between nations. 🔒 There is no way to lock in through computer programming a neutral impartial arbiter for solving problems with countries. 35:14 The peacefulness of Norway and Sweden is likely to continue for a long time. It would be nothing short of a miracle for the U.S. to invade Canada. 🌍 The world is remarkably peaceful due to the ideas of freedom and the creation of governments that protect individual rights. 40:58 The world is amazingly peaceful and it is an achievement of the ideas of freedom and governments that protect individual rights. Countries that respect individual rights are likely to exist in peace even with overwhelming superiority. 🗣 The video discusses the negotiation process between Canada, Germany, and the United States, highlighting the flaws in their social democracies. 46:58 Canada, Germany, and the United States are considered crummy social democracies. Relative to their moral obligations, these countries are considered criminals. The governments of these countries are still the best in human history. 🗣 The speaker discusses the difference between being a slave and being an employee, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and freedom. 53:21 There is a big difference between being a slave and being an employee in terms of treatment and respect for rights. 🤔 The debater believes that it is contradictory to be both an objectivist and an anarcho-capitalist. 58:57 The debater argues that you cannot be an objectivist and an anarcho-capitalist at the same time. The debater believes that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms and that capitalism requires government. The debater acknowledges that there is a growing community of anarcho-capitalists who were influenced by Ayn Rand. 💡 The speaker emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights in a government system and warns against making promises that cannot be guaranteed. 1:04:34 The principle of individual rights is to provide a guarantee of protection for people's liberty. Setting up a system without the protection of individual rights will lead to failure. Encouraging competition among security provision can be achieved by allowing districts to secede from their states. 🔑 The current system is flawed but offers opportunities for improvement towards a truly free society based on the guarantee and protection of individual rights. 1:11:04 The concept of individual rights has led to greater prosperity and freedom, but the current system is dramatically flawed. To create a truly free society, force must be abolished and individual rights must be guaranteed and protected by government. Anarchy undermines the principles that have brought us to where we are today. 🤔 The speaker discusses the challenges of solving real-world problems and the distinction between governments and private organizations. 1:17:29 The question of how to deal with leaders in the real world is difficult because it requires action, not just words. The key element that distinguishes governments from private organizations is that governments can force people to join without unanimous consent. The United States was not founded on unanimous consent, contrary to popular belief.

@stlouisix3

10 ай бұрын

A debate between 2 super geniuses!

@Si_Mondo

10 ай бұрын

@@stlouisix3 But..... Rothbard and Mises are long dead.

I like some of the points on both sides, and I think some of the pro-government arguments could've been a bit stronger. I think that they both seemed to fail at differentiating between an idealistic presentation and a realistic one of their respective systems. Still, though, I think it's clear that the historical weight of evidence suggests that government can provide a more permanent solution for larger swaths of land, inherently granting more people peaceful access to each other and the same flavor of freedom. I feel like the "believe in anarcho-capitalism and it will work" argument fails to acknowledge the likelihood of that outcome, especially considering (even recent) historical precedent for the lack of government. I would levy a similar criticism against the pro-government argument as well, since it's a bit too preoccupied with socialist-esque "it's imperfect now but we'll fix it" arguments. Of course, improvements can be made to the restrictions placed on government, but it always seemed to me that there is no effective way to keep a government from gaining power (even slowly) over time. You can try to slow it down, but history tells us there is no final solution to the problem of government scope creep. So, while a capitalist utopia of any kind sounds nice, it only makes sense to advocate for improvements to what has worked best so far. That happens to be government, with all of its flaws. Having an idealistic view of your end-goal is not a bad thing, but it goes without saying that those idealistic visions are essentially impossible to achieve as you imagine them (this is true for everything). Oh, and to round out my comment, I think the resolution itself is based on the false premise that anarcho-capitalism is ever likely to exist, even if anarchy becomes the predominant (lack of a) system somewhere in the world. I feel like this debate on both sides went way too far with hypotheticals to have much reality left to grip on, and the wording of the resolution is the final casualty. How can it be a disaster if it never exists? Anarchy is and will always be a disaster, sure, but that has essentially nothing to do with any particular idealistic vision for it. Oh, and a note on objectivism. Self-proclaimed membership in such a philosophy seems to be relatively hypocritical if you consider yourself open-mided, or if you derive your personal view of morality even partially from a different source. Tenents of objectivism, like the general idea that self-interest can drive positive social change on a large scale, has been proven true time and time again. But there's a lot more going on in an all-encompassing philosophy, and I think too many people are willing to label themselves an "objectivist" without fully understanding what that philosophical distinction means. The most important understanding among libertarians is the idea that a secular form of governance should not make judgements on or interfere with the rights and thought-processes of the people underneath it. Individual people, including libertarians, should feel free to pursue their view of morality on their own terms, regardless of any particular philosophy.

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

The Greeks and Rand identified anarchy as unsustainable and leading to dictatorship.

@tehehe5929

10 ай бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 Minimal state is unsustainable as empirical evidence suggests. Even minimal state can be defined as dictatorship even in it's ideal form, or because government only grows as road to total dictatorship.

@tehehe5929

10 ай бұрын

Why no current government will allow independent, self-governed zones/cities (don't have to be existing ones)? They don't even want to sell the land along with acknowledgement of independence (+ all required treaties). Seems totalitarian to me (also happens in minarchy btw). What does that mean for private property? Does it even exists?

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

@@tehehe5929 Will objectivity guide govt in zones?

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

@@tehehe5929 Man has free will, which causes politics. Rights-protection requires objectivity, not an arbitrary minimum.

Crushing question at 1:00. How would global trade work with anarcho capitalists and non anarcho capitalist countries. Bryan Caplan AGAIN responds with this hypothetical "New Man" and extends it to the entire world. He uses the SOVIET UNION--the originator of the "New Man" concept--as the example of a country that achieved what he wants. This is comedy.

Yaron keeps refering to 'the same geographical area', as if that means something.

Ancap ftw

How would the issue of abortion be resolved under anarchy? On the one hand, many people do not believe fetuses are sufficuently sentient to warrant protection. Simultaneously, many people do believe fetuses are worth protecting. So what happens if a pro-lifer attacks an abortion doctor under the justification that he is protecting an unborn person?

@iCanSeeWhatMostCant

10 ай бұрын

The answer to your concerns is not to create an organization which has the right to steal resources from non consenting individuals in order to fund its opperation.

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

How would the issue of toddler murder be resolved?

@bigz5262

10 ай бұрын

How well is the abortion issue handled now? Anarchy isn’t a utopia, it doesn’t mean all of life’s problems go away, it’s just more peaceful and moral

@FourthRoot

10 ай бұрын

@@ExPwner Toddler murder is unlikely to become a conflict between security companies. They will all agree it's bad and work together to deter it from happening. That's not true when it comes to abortion.

@FourthRoot

10 ай бұрын

@@iCanSeeWhatMostCant I'm not making an argument for or against anarchy. I am asking how that conflict will be resolved.

I have no idea why bryan is talking about with the whole sweden norway thing. The state has only gotten bigger and more coercive over time. The reason why there are no more world wars is because of the invention of nuclear weapons gauranteeing mutually assured distruction. There are more small proxy wars and insurgencies than ever. War is the health of the state, as long as there are states there will be wars. I have no idea how he thinks we will achieve this minarchy when governments only ever get bigger over time. And I think there is a huge difference between minarchy and ancap.

Would anarcho-capitalism make accounting/finance mandatory in the schools? When do Libertarians talk about yhat?

@Mr.Witness

9 ай бұрын

Nothing is mandatory even stopping child molesters thats their whole point….

The guy on the podium, his argument easily defeated. We need government because people are inherently violent and self interested he posits. How much worse are these same people when you delegate to them the right to use violence without repercussions? A monopoly on the use of evil(violence and coercion) does not limit it, make it less potent, less dangerous, or less prevalent.

@someonenotnoone

5 ай бұрын

I'm really not sure how to interpret your idea of "the same people" here. You think that guy is advocating for a government that shouldn't be held accountable if they acted as bad as the thing he thinks they should prevent?

@07:00 Yaron Brook attempts to make the argument that "a free-market in retaliatory coercion" is "incoherent" or a contradiction in terms, since a free-market is one free from coercion. He erroneously identifies *retaliatory* coercion with coercion as such. He fails to distinguish (or fails to apply the distinction consistently) between two ways of using coercion, viz, *initiatory* coercion (aka "aggression"), and *retaliatory* (or responsive) coercion. Properly articulated, a free-market is one free from *initiatory* coercion (or aggression), and thus "a free-market in *retaliatory* (responsive) coercion" is IN NO WAY incoherent or a contradiction in terms. @BryanDCaplan

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

Correct

Yaron Brook's arguments are fraught with error and lameness.

Legitimized force and violence? You mean have or not have government? Hmm....

Yaron asks what about criminals, how could they be excluded in anarcho-capitalism. In medieval Ireland from about 600 to 1600 there was no state. Any person living on the island had to choose one of 83 tuaths, which were tribes. If you stole or killed or did bad things in one, they would banish you and forbid you for living there. That is how anarcho-capitalism would deal with criminals too. (notice also that states don't really deal well with criminals, Jeffrey Epstein operated in NYC under the "watchful eye" of a state for 30 years and only after that time was found out and arrested).

Depends on who you ask. It would be a disaster for oligarchs and large multinational corporations.

What is all this aboot??!

"Iceland situtaiton deteriorated quickly" it lasted 300 years+

1:24 "Anarcho Capitalism isn't just a potential future problem. It is a irrational distraction in the movement towards freedom."

Bryan wins this one, hands down.

41:35 In this exchange Yaron loses the argument by making his position contingent on an arbitrary determination of "the same geographic area."

@SikVox

2 ай бұрын

1:01:53 Here Caplan, though not wrong, faltered in his argumentation by focusing on the lack of guarantees, instead of emphasising that private entities are better incentivised to enforce individual rights reliably than a state.

Caplan won handily!

While I appreciate the minarchist's willingness to engage in real debate (it's excellent, thank you), he seemingly suffers from the fundamental misunderstanding that without government there can be no governance. For me, this is the central thesis of anarchism: centralized authority, centralized governance, is an illusion of governance that (eventually) collapses into totalitarian control. For freedom to exist, there can be no monopoly on violence, this is self-evident and requires no proof, yet proof is easily manifested by the mere existence of any free thinking and acting person. Freedom exists in the abdication of rule, the abdication of a monopoly on violence. The power of violence ought to be spread as evenly as possible among free people. You must convince free thinking people, not cowe them into obedience. 31 minutes in and the minarchist believes we live under a reasonable rule of law... what? is he blind, deaf, dumb? Hello? Pathetic, any fantasy and fictions he mentions is his own delusions and delirium.

@akash_goel

10 ай бұрын

Freedom requires vigilance and the ability to engage in violence. Thats the natural order. People who oppose private-law society mainly want to outsource that vigilance and self-defense to a "benevolent" central authority. This is cognitive dissonance.

Pointless debate in a room full of people that don't accept that governments aren't and shouldn't behave like companies.

In democracy, child molestation is illegal because a majority of people believe it should be illegal. In anarcho capitalism, where multiple businesses compete for customers, the business will enforce laws that attract most customers, which is also the majority. Also a business that doesn't enforce democracy will be outmatched by a business that does enforce it, because a majority of people believe in democracy. Elon Musk is one of the richest in the world. He could buy a lot of guns and dominate others. But the chances of Elon Musk believing in the values of democracy are much higher, so he would more likely give a lot of money to a business that strives for democracy, and in democracy every vote is equal and it's not how much money you have how valuable your vote is.

Brooks misses what I would think would be the most obvious point. As most people mistakenly conflate anarchy with chaos. He completely misses the point that anarchy means without a ruler (no King no president no governor etc), it does not mean without rules. People by and large observe menny societal rules and conventions. (Green means go and red means stop) There is no requirement for a cop to stand behind them ready to smack them if they do something wrong they do what is right because everyone benefits from it. It almost goes without saying to say yes there are people who do break the rules. Many of those rules being put in place to benefit those people who are "the authorities" or those who benefit from establishing that there is only one (official/government enforced) way to do something, which benefits them over others.

@KelthuzOfficial

10 ай бұрын

you don't need a government to enforce societal rules, UNLESS and UNTIL these societal rules start to deteriorate to a point of violating individual rights. For instance, if society starts to accept that you can slap a guy in the face if you think he dishonored you with his words - then it's time for a government to step in and arrest you and make you pay a compensation to the injured party. Under anarchy the injured party might have a problem pursuing justice if society at large thinks that an individual can just slap you in the face for perceived dishonor - BTW it happened for thousands of years until Western governments banned duelling and such. The rule-of-law and the protection of individual rights (to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness) cannot be dependent on fleeting and floating societal rules and conventions.

@thetimebinder

10 ай бұрын

Without a ruler, the rules aren't enforceable.

@BinanceUSD

10 ай бұрын

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏5* comment @chris Snyder

@BinanceUSD

10 ай бұрын

​​@@thetimebindercorrect, who's the ruler between me and you ? 😮

@ExPwner

10 ай бұрын

@@thetimebinderwrong. Rules are constantly enforced without rulers.

Do you believe that you have the right to take resources from your neighbor without their consent? Do you believe that your neighbor has the right to take your resources without your consent? Do you believe that you have the authority to delight rights that you don't possess to an external organization? Tell me how you contort logic in order to make superhuman government authority legitimate in your mind.

@KelthuzOfficial

10 ай бұрын

a proper limited government does not have more rights than an individual. It does not tax, it does not regulate, it does not initiate force. Individuals freely delegate their right to self-defence to that government in order to achieve the extraction of force from marketplace and authorize it to deal retaliatory force to criminals and invaders.

@thetimebinder

10 ай бұрын

I didn't consent to my neighbor stopping me from taking their stuff. I didn't even consent to their opinion that it is their stuff. It's my stuff. Since they are anti-statists, they can't deny my liberty to do whatever I want.

@iCanSeeWhatMostCant

10 ай бұрын

@@KelthuzOfficial That is not government. That is people organizing and doing business together for services and payments.

@iCanSeeWhatMostCant

10 ай бұрын

@@thetimebinder Just keep it consistent in your own head. If that's what you believe keep it logically linear. I would doubt that's actually what you believe and you are being facetious because I caught you being intellectual lazy.

@iCanSeeWhatMostCant

10 ай бұрын

@@thetimebinder But you did answer my question well enough, how you contort logic in order to make super human government authority legitimate in your mind. Well.. If you began at a place of logic I'm sure you would have contorted it.

Yaron Brook is completely wrong on this because violence is not good for business and it would not be controled ans dictated by the highest bidder. It wouldbe if someone decides to park their car wrongfully on your property. You can give a warning and have it towed on rhe owners car own cost and risk. When someone violates any individuals natural right and have a provable intent of causing an individual harm, loss, and damage their victims are in their right to stop them and homd them responsible for the harm, loss, and damage they intended to cause. A security firm would respect this right but they do not have any duty nor right to seek revenge/vengance on the victims behalf. They can seek compensation for the harm, loss, and damage the victims were intended to suffer. The point here is that if the claimed violator is proven to be guilty of having the intention of causing an individual permanent harm, loss, and damage then the violator owes the victims a debt they can never repay so they should be held permanently responsible for their actions. All what they own and create for the future would be their victims rightful property and the company will not get paid at all unless they get the violators to create value. It's quite simple. Violence would not be beneficial for any party not even the one who already have shown a clear intention to cause someone harm, loss, and damage. As a security specialist it wouød not be beneficial for anyone if the violators get disable to the point that it infringes on their ability to create wealth for their victims. If the violators refuse to work to compensate their victims they may find themselves as a reality tv star. We can publish their tantrums on sociaø media where people may wish to pay to watch how stupid they are. That said, most people would take responsibility on their own and would not even have to be forced at all. But most people might need guidence in order to create as much wealth as possible. The same tactics may be used to help the weakes on society who has problem to meet their responsibilities. A free market sheriffs main responsibility would be to help people be able to take responsibility for their mistakes, its not to punish anyone but make them kapable to take responsibility. And if you have businesses that violates Individuals natural right and cause people harm, loss, and damage they may be held responsible themselves individually. You can't hide behind others when you make mistakes nor can you make excuses to justify causing individuals harm, loss, and damage.

@Mr.Witness

9 ай бұрын

Yaron is right the debate was over at 1:02:00 .

No government preserves individual rights over its own power to control and tax, which corrupts over time. Debating not having government is a fool's goal or at best an exercise in futile thinking of the imagined, like wondering when Jesus will return to take away all the true believers.

@yang8244

10 ай бұрын

yeah, its all impossible until it happens.

Of course it would be. It flies in the face of the inconsistencies of human nature. On one hand, we're rugged individualists who dislike being told what to do. -and on the other hand, we're dependent collectivists who want to know that we won't starve, freeze, die of trauma or become homeless. However, anarcho-capitalism is an excellent philosophy to inform the mainstream.

@nmatky9327

10 ай бұрын

We are collectivists, meaning family, churches, neighbors, community. It doesnt have to be government

@stealingfire5036

10 ай бұрын

Cooperation and collectivism are not the same things.

@Si_Mondo

10 ай бұрын

​@@stealingfire5036Try and say that to some of the Pinkos I know! Blank stares.....

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

Man is a unity of mind and body.

He says “anarcho-capitalism” is a contradiction of terms because you can’t have capitalism without government - while ignoring the fact that 190+ sovereign states engage in international capitalism and trade without an overarching state.

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

The spread of the idea of individual rights enforced by the US military serves as an overarching state.

@SwordOfApollo

10 ай бұрын

Are you saying that the world currently lives under anarcho-capitalism, as you conceive it? Or is trade not the same thing as laissez-faire capitalism?

@DeathEater93

10 ай бұрын

Individuals engage in trade, not states, individuals.

@TeaParty1776

10 ай бұрын

@@SwordOfApollo Trade can be forcibly directed.

@johnnynick6179

10 ай бұрын

Name me just ONE sovereign state that is actually practicing Capitalism. In order to do so, you will need to change the definition of Capitalism. You think "countries that engage in international trade" means they are capitalists? Read the actual definition of Capitalism.

Just because there is always someone asking for it, here is a nice example of a close enough anarcho-capitalist society that lasted around 6 centuries: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couto_Misto

@bryanutility9609

10 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting history. Not sure how ancap adjacent this place actually was but certainly worthy of notice & study.

The answer to Caplan's poo-pooing of guarantees is: Even if not every guarantee is fulfilled, I still want guarantees. Because if I act on a guarantee and the counter party fails to deliver, I can still say "I am in the right and he is in the wrong." Thus, I can demand justice. Whether or not justice is delivered exactly as guaranteed is secondary to that principal. I still want the guarantee. What is Caplan's alternative? For his private police forces (aka militias) to refuse to offer guarantees of protection?? "Sure, we will protect you....probably. At least, most of the time if something more important doesn't come up." The essence of comedy is the identification of absurdity and Libertarians are great at it, albeit unwittingly.

@Mr.Witness

9 ай бұрын

The alternative is you will have to live next to a child sex trafficking ring or move next door to your sharia law compound and watch live beheadings

Worlds oldest parliament is Viking. The Althing. 963. UNESCO World Heritage Site. What Guy#2 claims the Vikings would never do… they did.

There are some good theoretical concepts associated with anarcho-capitalism, but I will point out that people don't generally flee highly regulated states to move to highly anarchic states. While I do support shrinking the administrative state, reducing the number of social programs and shrinking the power of government over the individual, there has to be someone guarding the door and keeping psychopaths from taking power. To me anarcho-capitalism is basically a form of tribalism where you call the leaders a board of directors rather than a tribal council.

At what point does a corporation become a government? When they demand taxes without providing an opportunity to opt out. Yaron was arguing for theft on a massive/limitless scale.

@CarrotCakeMake

10 ай бұрын

When they attempt to monopolize anything, including collecting taxes.

@user-ed1gj1ng5g

10 ай бұрын

> At what point does a corporation become a government? > When they demand taxes without providing an opportunity to opt out. > Yaron was arguing for theft on a massive/limitless scale. “Homeowners associations have been called private governments because they do many things that governments do. HOAs hold elections, provide services, tax residents, and regulate behavior within their jurisdictions, but as legal entities, they are not governments.” (at page 535) “To raise revenue for goods and services, HOAs lack taxing authority but not the power to charge assessments, which makes their inability to tax more a legal distinction than a real constraint. HOAs’ enforcement powers for failure to pay assessments equal those of local governments and allow them to place liens or foreclose on property, a power that the courts have upheld repeatedly.” (at page 537) - Barbara Coyle-McCabe, “Homeowner Associations As Private Governments”. Public Administration Review. July/August 2011 While there are a lot of H.O.A.s that are well run, there are a lot that are not. Given the amounts of money involved, and the lack of oversight, a massive epidemic of white collar crime -- fraud, Enron style accounting, embezzlement, etc. -- are not uncommon.

@bryanutility9609

10 ай бұрын

So the only right a customer has against a tyrannical corporation is to spend money elsewhere? If you don’t like the taxes just move.

@stefanburns3797

10 ай бұрын

A corporation becomes a mix between the private enterprise and the state when there is no separation between state and economics. The solution is to make that separation explicit.