I used to be a libertarian but then I became an anarchist when I realized libertarianism is contradictory. How can you uphold liberty when government means to control people?

@sweatt4237

8 жыл бұрын

+Anarchia That last step is scary but after you take it, it is amazing.

@deadeyeeffect319

6 жыл бұрын

Anarchism is contradictory b/c true liberty has no consequences. There always has to be rules and having rules mean having government.

@177SCmaro

5 жыл бұрын

DEADeyeEFFECT No, there are countless examples of rules in society that don't come from government. Even something as simple as a card game has rules that don't require sociopaths who pretend to have the right to murder or steal from other people.

@AspieMediaBobby

5 жыл бұрын

177SCmaro Do you know how capitalism fuckin` started?A large-scale theft from the people!It`s called the English Enclosure Movement,look it up!

@landonpowell6296

5 жыл бұрын

Tell me when you realize that you can't be anti-hierarchy when you're in favor of capitalism.

"From such beginnings of governments, what could be expected, but a continual system of war and extortion?" Tom Paine.

@paxhumana2015

8 жыл бұрын

+Mark Schuckert , the said irony is that even anarchism always leads to such a government, but people like him want to promote such things like people promote any other forms of government.

@8520204

8 жыл бұрын

+Pax Humana Whether he is sincere or not remains to be seen. But, I am sure, you understand, the cream and the crud always rise to the top.

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

@@paxhumana2015 his not advocating for statism. Anarchy is voluntary associations between human beings not violence and force like your daddy government went force people to pay taxes, you don't even have understand what Anarchy means or stands for, Anarchism doesn't support government or state and grows one neither. You have evidence of a anarchy is a form government?

Outstanding video! I love near the end where he says minarchists believe in market forces as the best thing 95% of the way, but anarchists believe in it 100%.

The natural laws of cause and effect when implemented consistently is a great deterrent to criminal activity. We don't need someone somewhere else to steal from us when it's unlikely they can provide a service better then what we can do for ourself. Police often show up in time to write a report but rarely stop crime.

@tekkenjam

Жыл бұрын

Doesnt deter banks from robbing from you everyday through inflation. Good luck with a resource based economy when no one is around to enforce it other than your own will to survive.

+Larken Rose - thanks for making the trip out to Denver. I enjoyed your talk and your insight. I hope you continue with your work.

Keep it up guys. We need people to hear this and consider these thoughts and ideas. Godspeed!

1:19 you can still kinda see it.

Everyone is an anarchist, but what Larkin Rose is talking about isn't anarchism - it's libertarian anarcho-capitalism. There's a BIG difference.

@davesims7917

5 жыл бұрын

Can you elaborate?

@drumdad1242

5 жыл бұрын

Nope.

@smandin1

4 жыл бұрын

WTF

@ranacaran

4 жыл бұрын

@@davesims7917 there is no capitalism without slavery racism colonialism. If you are born poor in capitalism you are slave. Try playing board game monopoly with friends and at start one friend start with 95 percent of property and money and see how it goes.

@davesims7917

4 жыл бұрын

Anarchopuss So it sounds like you’re more on the side of equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity… Yeah I understand that not everybody starts off with the same hand but in a truly free society you can take a disadvantaged hand and still turn it into something good. Crony capitalism seems to be the major issue here because it has the government on its side using coercion as a way of these big corporations to maintain power… Get rid of the government and it would be no coercian

Martin the Minarchist recognizes that government does so many things terribly, (where the market does all of those things well, comparatively) but fails to see the problem that law and arbitration are way more important and complex than the things you think government is terrible at doing and shouldn't. So (Martin the Minarchist) if government is not as effective as the market in producing I phones and/or insurance/medical care, certainly they would be even less effective in producing more complex and more important/essential things like law and arbitration. To defend the necessity of government law and courts, it would only be logical for government to produce and distribute food as well.

- [00:00] 🎙 The conversation discusses how people inherently behave as anarchists in their daily lives, except when it comes to politics. - [02:23] 🤔 People often justify government actions, like taxation, as necessary for essential services, but fail to see it as robbery. - [05:00] 💭 Anarchists highlight the inconsistency of supporting government actions while condemning individual acts of robbery. - [08:08] 🏛 Advocates for government fail to recognize taxation as theft due to societal conditioning and rituals. - [10:23] 🤝 Voluntary interactions in markets are seen as preferable to coercive government control. - [14:34] 💡 Recognizing the flaws in justifying government coercion leads to the realization of anarchist principles.

Belief is a power but not believing is a super power.

Interesting perspective.

Assuming that everyone in an anarchist nation will be friendly and cooperative in a market is the same as the naive presumption that everyone in a communist system will be happy to share everything they have with you voluntarily. This however does not even include the fact that merchants will probably fighting over the control of resources with other merchants which often resort to the use of hired-bodyguards, essentially leading to private armies. Over time, those with the bigger private armies have more access to control and land, allowing them to create regulations that benefit their organizations. Such is those who do not study history, are therefore doomed to repeat it.

@hermestrismegistus5384

5 ай бұрын

How do you think anarchy is manifested in the real world? Lol.... It can only come about by aggregate moral behavior in the first place, thus making your concern irrelevant. Cheers, hope that helps

@hermestrismegistus5384

5 ай бұрын

Your fear is a government replacing government. Silly silly. Give up the fear that causes that concern, it's useless, incoherent and contradictory.

Tell "Stacy Statist"...The Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no Constitutional duty to protect anyone.

Interesting video and discussion. I'm sorry but that is just the cutest squirrel at 3:25 . He looks genuinely interested in the conversation.

Great talk!!

Anarchy Squirrel!

There is no greater anarchist red-head.

Great discussion!.... Squirrel!

@smh9902

10 жыл бұрын

I'm assuming this has something to do with German language? I find it odd how the Libertarian Movement and However this is pronounced freiwilligfrei is most common in Germany and the United States. Two places that seem off the wall or relatively politically unconnected for being the incubator for such a movement.

@meluvcheese22

9 жыл бұрын

Joe Schmoe No, there was just a cute squirrel in the background...

Brilliant.

If people were taught history, these people would know what anarchists are. Even Rothbard said there is no historical connection between ancaps and actual anarchists.

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

The word "anarchy" literally means "no rulers", therefore, just because they don't advocate for your idea of anarchy doesn't mean they can't call themselves anarchists. In fact, if you advocate for anarcho-communism, you would be the one using the term incorrectly, because all forms of communism require a ruler, or multiple rulers to enforce equality.

@ernststravoblofeld

4 жыл бұрын

@@livewire2759 You're two hundred years late to a party you wouldn't enjoy anyway.

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

@@ernststravoblofeld Anarchy has existed since the beginning of time. Just because Marx advocated for dissolution of government 200 years ago doesn't mean that communism can actually be anarchist. They are using the term incorrectly, not us.

@ernststravoblofeld

4 жыл бұрын

@@livewire2759 who cares? Ancaps have no connection to any anarchist tradition, and capitalism can't exist without state violence, so piss off.

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

@@ernststravoblofeld Who cares about tradition? If you have to follow "tradition" that makes your idea of anarchy more of a system than anything the "ancaps" preach. Communism can't exist without state violence, "capitalism" (correctly called free market) exists every day, all over the world and has since the beginning of time. The free market is corrupted by government violence, not supported by it.

When he said you can hire people to protect themselves...when he's an 'anarchist'... ffs...

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

Voluntary associations and private service?

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

What do you think anarchy is? Private security is not a government, it's an extension of a person's right to self defense.

@smith3696

4 жыл бұрын

@@livewire2759 briefly, I think anarchy is a philosophy that demands all authority is justified. Meaning all violence must be ruthelessly investigated through the lense of ethical reasoning. If we accept that paying someone to commit violence is acceptable it will inevitably give those with the most 'security' the power to claim ownership over all the vital resources, then they could demand that everyone becomes their bitch if they want to survive. Then you've got to ask, why must the security be hired? why are they not volunteering? The ability to hire security typically means that there are people whose situation is unstable, and their ability to survive as they would like to is threatended, and that they must sell themselves as security for their continued welbeing. This is a form of coercion that can really only be brought about under the conditions where vital resources are unavailable. So the security/ tyranny relationship become self perpetuating

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

@@smith3696 In that case, I guess we need to define a few more terms. First, the term anarchy, which comes from the greek words "an" meaning "without", and "archos" meaning "ruler" (king, chief, dictator, parlament, congress, etc...). So anarchy literally means "no ruler(s)". Authority is "the power or right to make decisions, give orders and enforce obedience". Therefore, if there are no rulers, there can be no authority. Next, what is violence? Violence is "behavior that is intended to hurt, damage or kill". Finally, what is self defense? Self defense is a right inherent to all living things, to defend their life and well being by whatever means necessary. Hiring private security is not the same as "paying someone to COMMIT violence", it is paying someone to protect you and your property from those who DO commit violence. Self defense is not an action, it's a reaction. Yes, it's still violent, so if you're a pacifist, it won't fit into your philosophy, but we can discuss that later. So if someone hires private security, they are not hiring "rulers", and they are not paying them to commit violence, they are simply paying them to defend personal property. As private security, they have no right to initiate violence, but they do have the right to defend against the initiation of violence, just as the individual who hired them. If a person hired as private security tries to initiate violence on someone else, who also has a right to self-defence, they will be met with force in the form of self defense, which is what already prevents the majority of people from initiating violence. The ability to hire private security is necessary in a free market because an individual may not be able to defend their all of their property at once. The key to all of this is the non-aggression principle. Yes, oddly enough, a common minarchist principle is the basis of how anarchy works. So now the question is, how do you get people to adhere to the non aggression principle without a ruling class to enforce it? The answer to that is a universal moral understanding, which again, I believe every person other than psychopaths and sociopaths naturally understands. These are basic moral principles like, don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, etc. When the majority of people understand this, they can live together peacefully without any need for an authoritarian ruler to enforce these principles, and they can work together to defend their society against other societies that do have authoritarian rulers.

Great info, Thank you. The squirrel doing photo bombs, too funny.

@jeffdevine6387

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC invisible to me as well. The ministry of truth strikes again, smh...

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffdevine6387 Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.

@jeffdevine6387

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC what is the other option?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffdevine6387 Are you willing to create an account at the forum section of *_City-Data_* *?*

@jeffdevine6387

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC I will choose to contact via email

On the specific topic of how education 'could' be provided in a voluntary society, I think Churches already provide an _excellent_ example of how education already *is* provided voluntarily. Just look around at how many Churches exist in every community, and how many people are provided (religious) education free of charge. Even most religious zealots would agree that education in the areas of reading, writing, and arithmetic are as (if not more) important than religious education -- not to mention in _far_ greater market demand -- so empirical evidence of at least one way it 'could be' [is] done, is right in front of us.

@sweatt4237

9 жыл бұрын

Jason Parthum Wow, this is an excellent observation I have never thought about.

@JasonParthum

9 жыл бұрын

***** Thanks! -I actually started researching this approach a few years ago (even created a Facebook Group, that's still private), but I became worried that if the idea grew too much the backlash from government would undermine the existing freedoms still protected (to some extent) for other religious groups.- EDIT: Oops, I confused two different threads.

This is excellent, and I think it's one of those conversations that will "tip" a minarchist, or even some open-minded Republicans or Democrats into at least understanding the moral argument. I love Justin Longo, and thought he added enormous value to the LR event in Denver (in addition to being co-organizer with Amanda!). I wish he hadn't described anarchists (voluntaryists) as believing that "markets work 100% of the time", because that can and will usually be interpreted by statists/minarchists as meaning free market exchanges always lead to positive outcomes, will never result in bad actors prevailing, etc., which I know he did not mean, and no intelligent voluntaryist believes.

@xinthislifex

10 жыл бұрын

Mike - Thanks for the kind words and yes, I do not mean that markets work perfectly 100% of the time. What I mean is that is we anarchists would like the market to provide 100% of goods and services, while minarchists only want the market to provide 95% of goods and services. In other words, they think the market "works" 95% of the time, we think it "works" 100% of the time. I'm trying to illustrate and get those on the fence to really think about why they don't want market forces to work for that last 5%. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback and I'll change my verbiage to be more precise from now on.

6:24 squirrel on the left, climbing the tree.

These guys are capitalist.

@onlinepokeraddict

7 жыл бұрын

dumb*

@axelfoley20

5 жыл бұрын

Essa you don't even know what capitalist is. Real capitalist means no government and obviously you do not understand that. Real capitalist and free market means no government interference and our current system is completely government run. True capitalism does not exist; it's called crony capitalism and it's designed to fool you into thinking that capitalism doesn't work and we need this big government system which is the criminal system that is there to enslave you, so wake up! Let's stop this bullshit by waking up to it!

@yerlikzharylgapov8634

5 жыл бұрын

axelfoley20 i agree with you. But how would people build roads

@dennymiller89

5 жыл бұрын

@@yerlikzharylgapov8634 roads existed before taxes. If there is a need in society it will get met with or without government.

@yerlikzharylgapov8634

5 жыл бұрын

dennymiller89 but how exactly would this system work? Roads are private or they are everyone's?

Bonus for the Squirrel @6:20

Great video but I just ended up staring at that cute squirrel skipping around in the background!

If government and the mafia are both proposing protection in exchange for money taken against your will, how do you propose people be protected without spending money?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?

You guys are too hung up on the idea of currency. Where capital exists, so does inequality. By its very nature capital is a power system used to control and subjugate.

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you think that inequality is such a problem? Why do you think it will lead to control and subjugation? Inequality is inevitable. Those who try to eliminate inequality (communists) always end up creating vastly more inequality because equality requires control and subjugation. Just because someone has more capital than most, doesn't mean that others are required to trade with that person, therefore they have no real power because in order for their capital to have value, they need people to trade with them. This is why the free market is self correcting, it doesn't require intervention to make things "equal". If I have something to trade, and I find someone else with something to trade, he wants my products, I want his products, so when we trade, we both get what we want, we both win, so any inequality between us doesn't matter.

@livewire2759

3 жыл бұрын

@JBSptfn Inequality is inevitable, just as capital is inevitable. You can try to eliminate one or the other, or both, but it's impossible. Like it or not, more intelligent people will always be more successful than less intelligent people. You can provide equal opportunity to people, but you can't change the genes they're born with. It's the same thing with capital. All "capital" is, is something any person owns, including their own body, therefore, a person with superior intelligence will have more "capital" than someone with low intelligence. A man with large muscles and strong bones with have more "capital" than a man who is weak and frail, unless the weak man happens to be more intelligent. A beautiful woman will have more "capital" than an ugly one, unless the ugly one happens to be more intelligent. If you take away a person's self ownership, you assume that someone else owns their body, which is slavery, which is immoral. Therefore, you cannot eliminate capital. Now, I'll admit that I don't know a lot about egalitarianism. I remember looking it up years ago but I don't remember a lot about it. So I'll check out your link and address that directly later on.

@livewire2759

3 жыл бұрын

@JBSptfn Ok, the first thing I noticed is that they say "no to capitalism, no to socialism, and no to communism", but immediately after that they say, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which is straight out of Marx's communist manifesto. It also says it's a "democratic revolution", but I'll get to that later. So, first I'll reiterate that forcing equality is immoral, and "from each by ability, to each by need" is FORCED EQUALITY. It's communism. It requires a central power to collect and redistribute wealth against the will of those who don't want to participate. History is proof that every time a person or group of people is given that much power over the rest of the people (which sure as hell isn't democratic) they end up keeping most of the wealth for themselves while masses of people die of starvation and anyone who fights back or even speaks out against the system is outright murdered. Secondly, I'll debunk the idea of democracy in two sentences. If each and every person is capable of ruling themselves and running their own lives, there is no need for a government to do that. If each and every person is NOT capable of ruling themselves or running their own lives, then why the hell should I trust them to rule me and run my life? There you go, that's democracy debunked. Democracy is a sham designed to sound like it's perfectly fair when in fact it only favors the majority and forces the minority to live by the the majority's rules. It's mob rule. What the mob wants, everyone has to accept whether they like it or not. I shouldn't even have to point out why that is immoral.

@livewire2759

3 жыл бұрын

@JBSptfn If he doesn't believe in democracy, why does he promote his system as being "true democracy"? If he doesn't believe in the communist manifesto, why does he quote it directly to describe his favored system? Don't be ignorant, this man is completely full of shit. He's a scam artist trying to take advantage of people just like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc... did. He wants to be the guy in charge so he can keep the wealth for himself.

@livewire2759

3 жыл бұрын

@JBSptfn As for the money issue, it's impossible to eliminate money because anything and everything can be used as money or currency. Anything people can trade can be considered "money". Now, I'm all for the elimination of FIAT currency, which is promissory notes created by governments to take the place of actual money, essentially IOU's that people can supposedly exchange for gold and silver. But again, anything that can be traded is technically "money", so the only way to eliminate that is to eliminate trade, and eliminating free trade requires a central power to collect and redistribute wealth, products and services... which is COMMUNISM.

I feel like anarchy would be most applicable to pre-industrial revolution time

@TheElectricalNut

3 жыл бұрын

So with factories and technology existing then complete freedom somehow shouldn't?

This is ridiculous. "Anarcho" capitalism isn't true Anarchism

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

yes it is, the thing is that is a preference on were we wanna live on, if you a communist you can have a community that has those preferences, anarchy is about living without a state and violent domination, is to live on your own turns and let others live on their own terns.

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

@@kioselnelio4598 have evidence?

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

"Anarcho-capitalism" is simply a term used to help statists distinguish the difference between true anarchy and leftist "anarcho-communism". When I identify myself as simply an anarchist, people like to assume that I'm a leftist, even though I clearly have a black gadsden flag next to my name, so it's easier for them to understand my philosophy if I say I'm "anarcho-capitalist", and then later in the conversation I can explain to them how that's actually an oxymoron.

@meandtheboisvlogs8109

3 жыл бұрын

It most certainly is. True capitalism can only exist with a lack of a state. Furthermore Anarcho-Communism cannot exist for the simple fact that someone has to enforce that people give to the commune. Which is a government

@mr.jamster8414

2 жыл бұрын

@@meandtheboisvlogs8109 Nah, Voluntary communes exist already.

Larken Rose, this was BRILLIANT! I think the informal talk worked even better from a content perspective than your speech in Vegas. You need to do more of this. :)

My example of anarchy in motion is the two way street. Everyone who says that people are born evil always have there liscence and drive at least 6/7 of the week. You are trusting an absolute stranger to stay in there lane and respect your life and others. Sometimes people even drive with there FAMILIES! At any point the stranger can come into your lane by moving a finger 3 inches, everyones dead. Yet, "if govERnMenT dIDn'T ExIsT it WOUld Be TotAl CHAos.".....also squirrel is legend. 🤣

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider

Oh I know I know I'm an anarchist the government doesn't matter they could tell you to not do something but if I wanna do it I will I'm Not an evil guy I just don't like being told what to do And I hold freewill Freedom Liberation Versatility as the four most important Things In life that Excludes Christ because he's my favorite

4:25 haha did anyone else notice?

@LucaPrn

8 жыл бұрын

si! :)

Hello, fresh Voluntaryist here from Czechia: I couldn't agree more with the contradictions in your head statement. Since I've learned about Locke and Jefferson in high school, I believed that 1. people have natural rights regardless of state. 2. the only way that state is legitimate is through consent of the governed - social contract. Now that alone is enough to push you to anarchismonce you resolve the contradictions. But perhaps the most important idea, again since highschool was: I do not want others to do on my behalf that which I wouldn't do myself and I do not want others to force me to do on their behalf what they wouldn't do themselves. And this statement in my oppinion speaks to the moral core in us. Once you start going through the question: in which case I as a policeman or as a soldier would be willing to drag someone into jail in front of their kids or even kill them if they defended themselves? You will pretty much instantly become libertarian, because there is a LOT you tacitly consent to but would never do yourself. And then if you imagine someone just wanting to live on their property, that they worked for, that they deserve, just wanting to live in peace and you as a policeman/soldier sent there to kill them if they resist, would you do it? To that innocent person? I sure wouldn't. That just made me an anarchist.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Otto, are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.

A power vacuum is always filled.

4:28: squirrel: "fucking hell that's Larken Rose, I'm off..."

Oh, I know I am.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Jonas, are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.

whats up with everyone getting hung up on terminology. capitalists, anarchists, voluntarists are all the same. they all advocate voluntary interactions. i dont know if these people just dont understand what capitalism means or they have a weird view of what anarchy is.

@joshuajordan6278

5 жыл бұрын

Zhong Zhang Because anarchism is both anti state and anti capitalism. Anarchy as a political philosophy began, at least in Europe, as opposition to any unreasonable hierarchy. Capitalism cannot exist without hierarchy, thus anarchists are opposed to it .

Larken Rose inherited a share in the most valuable land-trust on earth thru American citizenship and not only tries to debase the value of that collective inheritance for others by advocating open borders, he refuses to do the ethical thing for someone who denies the land-trust principle, which is self remove from other people's private property once he has opted out of their society. He hasn't thought through his positions, he's just stopped at the point where he feels comfortably smug about his smartness over the masses. This is libertarianism all over. It's why in fact Mises and Rothbard style libertarianism is the next most acceptable position beyond mainstream left and right: like them it is shot through with obvious philosophical flaws and moral double standards, meaning it like them can never attract seriously principled or smart people, and therefore is always controllable by designing elites.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?

I am 100% an anarchist. Totally on board with volunteerism and non-aggression and all of that. HOWEVER ... I'm also a realist. As much as I'd love to flip a switch and be living in Anarchy tomorrow, I know that's NEVER going to happen. Why? Because 99% of people are terrified of the idea of not having a superstructure of politicians (who they KNOW are corrupt) telling them how to run their lives. We can't defeat that fear. So, what can we do? We have to roll things back in the same way as they got rolled forward. Remember, the entirety of the U.S. government used to be small enough to fit within a single manilla envelope. It expanded little by little for more than 200 years. We can't expect the country to go cold-turkey without government ... but we can ween them off. We need to, department by department, law by law, regulation by regulation, peel this thing back until there's almost nothing left ... and once there's almost nothing left, show how a private market can do that job BETTER and at a lower cost ... then let what remains of the government wink out of existence. It will take decades to get there ... but that's the only way this is going to happen. This is why I, as an anarchist, favor the UBI (Universal Basic Income) and the Fair Tax. Why would I advocate those things? Because, though they are bad, they aren't as bad as what we already have. The current welfare state is dozens of agencies with hundreds of billions in overhead and tens of thousands of government employees. The UBI is ONE government program that takes a handful of IRS agents to implement because there are no exceptions. It goes to EVERYONE. They basically just have to hit the authorize button for payments. The overall cost would be a fraction of our current cost and when the time comes, being a SINGLE agency with very little to do, it will be easier by an order of magnitude to abolish than the dozens of agencies we currently have. This is the long game. I support the Fair Tax for the same reason. It's a single retail sales tax that pays for EVERYTHING and requires the abolition of ALL other taxes. It's completely transparent. Taxpayers know EXACTLY how much they're paying and can see if what they're getting in return is worth that price (which of course it's not). Right now people don't mind paying taxes because they don't realize exactly how much they're actually paying. When you add up all Federal, State, and Local taxes, the AVERAGE person in the U.S. pays about HALF of his total gross income to the government. Those sneaky bastards in government are really good at hiding it, though, so you never see all the little taxes you're constantly paying that you don't even know about. Having a single point of taxation makes the people aware, and when the time comes, will make it much easier to abolish. Again ... long game. It's all about positioning the government to shut it down without freaking out the statists. The long game is the only way we're going to win.

4:30 squirrel !!!

@Bluenosegrows

9 жыл бұрын

WildMight CIA squirrel !!

@batfly

8 жыл бұрын

Hammy is an anarchist too!

@byrysh

6 жыл бұрын

NSA!

What if we could have voluntary taxation? People can subscribe and pay for the services they want, but don't have to pay for anything if they don't want to.

@slicedGabe

9 жыл бұрын

Amber Ridgdill But these are mandatory, I don't agree with forcing people to pay for a service.

@slicedGabe

9 жыл бұрын

Amber Ridgdill I agree with you. And I meant taxes are mandatory, I didn't mean those specific things.

@slicedGabe

9 жыл бұрын

Amber Ridgdill Not a problem. I think anarchy really wouldn't work with the American people though.

@slicedGabe

9 жыл бұрын

Amber Ridgdill True. But I see libertarianism as a much more realistic choice

@slicedGabe

9 жыл бұрын

Amber Ridgdill Going straight to anarchy from statism would create chaos - just like what most people think anarchy is. If we are to achieve anarchy, we must first go from statism to libertarianism. A smoother transition would be better imo

great conversation, just a little stupid idea to record it next to a road

What I don 't hear is that it's everyones personal job to protect themselves, so if those who are afraid to be robbed is to get any means of self defence that works for you.

@suppaduppa

2 жыл бұрын

Precisely!!! This clearly shows the dependence of most people on others to take care of them. They have been conditioned to be sheep and weak. Bad guys will always exist with or without the presence of a government. It is not uncommon to hear stories of dirty cops or crocked politicians working together with criminals. What are you going to do when the police that are tasked to keep evil people at bay is in bed with them? Humans are really resourceful creatures. There will be a transition period with the absence of governments. Humans will adept to the new situation and find ways to solve issues that were handled by government. The free market has shown countless times that its more efficient in solving complex problems than the gov. Also, by being forced to be more responsible men will grow stronger and capable. This is what we need. We have too many weak men. Firemen could be replaced by technology. New building material and techniques could be developed that would drastically reduce fire damage/hazards or the spreading of it. The issue is that most people cant shift their worldview. They only think in terms of the current system they are used to. Who knows, we can come up with a system that make police obsolete by creating a system that rewards citizens that track down criminals.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Your comment is confusing. Are you pro-government or anti-government?

Her jop is AMAZING btw.

12:28 she teleported?

@myrealfakename6068

3 жыл бұрын

😂

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?

"money" for food is not a trade, its a transaction with fiat that needs accounting to the owner of the currency. a tradesman gets PAID for his lobor

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Your comment is confusing. Are you pro-government or anti-government?

I understand the point conveyed here about anarchism, however; I reiterate that "no man is an island entirely unto itself." Since man needs the services of its fellow man, it will require contractual arrangements. It is inevitable that a dispute will arise from within these contractual arrangements and a third-party intermediary will be necessary to determine the outcome because one or both parties is often too incompetent to handle their own affairs peacefully. Natives are considered to have perhaps one of the most natural hierarchies there are on the planet by way of tribal councils. The family of nations around the world have signed onto the U.N. Charter where they all esteem the Right of Self-Determination (self-government) and, even if we do not agree with the way other States operate, we all go to peace with them. Man must always have government ("govern-mental"), however; the right entitled to all persons on this planet is deciding to either self-govern or be governed. "The problem is choice." -- Neo

@JasonParthum

10 жыл бұрын

Blake Lynch Maybe I'm not fully comprehending, but it sounds like you're simply pointing out semantic differences between the terms 'anarchy' and 'self-governing'? I've often wondered if (at least some of) the U.S.'s founding fathers envisioned the term 'government' ultimately becoming redefined from the slavery/monarchy connotations of the time, to eventually being regarded as meaning self-government/anarchy; thereby evolving away from the myth, rather than attempting to confront and destroy it head-on (which very likely would have failed at the time).

@anthonyc8172

9 жыл бұрын

Anarcho-Capitalism is built ENTIRELY on contractual agreements. The "third party" to which you refer, in an ancap society, is a private defense agency... which is also contractual. Thus, about half of what you're saying (minus the need for government part) is compatible with anarcho-capitalism.

11:07

long live Anarchism 🏴

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheHOBRunner No you’re not “the wrong person”, so go ahead and answer my request?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheHOBRunner I’m looking for help with something. It’s related to _freedom from government._ I don’t want to talk about it where just anyone can see. So, again, *are you okay with emailing me, or would you prefer a NON-email way for us to talk privately?*

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheHOBRunner Then how do you have a KZread account?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheHOBRunner You don’t know what your email address is? Is that what you’re saying?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheHOBRunner There’s a way you can find your address. Click on the circle with your username’s first letter (on the top-right corner on KZread) and then click on the gear-shaped icon with the word “Settings”. That should take you straight to a page where you can see the address used to create your KZread account.

No offense!!!! Please do not gun me down. BUT, someone PLEASE teach that young lady how to stand up from a bench while wearing a dress!!!!!! The camera man cut it out because he has a bit of decency and respect for the lady. . Also, wear something that fits.

@baronjphellingtonesq9636

7 жыл бұрын

Dichotomy How about people wear what they want and move how they want and you can fuck off you holocaust denying scumbag.

@nonyanonya6292

6 жыл бұрын

Dichotomy shut up woman

@imulippo5245

6 жыл бұрын

If you can't wear a dress without showing your panties, blame yourself. Cameraman should have not cut anything.

@roxannestorm2616

6 жыл бұрын

Dichotomy quit thinking with your private parts and start thinking with your brain. We're on a subject of Anarchy. Not America's Top Model. Please get serious!

@BRIANHUGHGRIFFITHBHG

6 жыл бұрын

1 minute 20 sec mark she showed all her liberty

Squirrel! :D

@WarNDeath2000

8 жыл бұрын

+Krešimir Cindrić Ovo treba u Hrvatskoj predstaviti nama bi ovo odgovaralo!.

I'm not voting for the first time this year.

love the squirrel the listening in the background :- )

how are we supposed to build utopia without ur help?

What distinction do you draw between anarchism and libertarianism. I'm a Liberal, borderline Libertarian Socialist and have toyed with anarchism. I've always opposed libertarianism, but this video has made me scared that being an anarchist is basically being a libertarian.

@alladroy2688

8 жыл бұрын

Libertarians still believe in having some government. Anarchy is NO rulers. That's all it is. Anarchy is the LACK of a political system, not a type of political system.

@gwho

8 жыл бұрын

libertarianism = minarchism (small government) anarchism = anarchism (no rulers)

@Somberdemure

3 ай бұрын

Socialism is not anarchism. It is violence.

stay coherent and you'll also get vegan.

@charlie08240824

8 жыл бұрын

You'll be a vegan if you apply the NAP to animals, which isn't logically consistent at all. It's admirable to practice non-violence towards animals, but the animal kingdom as a whole is not capable of understanding human thought and language, and therefore can't comprehend or reciprocate moral principles. Many members of the animal kingdom will happily eat you and think nothing of it.

If money were abolished, it would be impossible to rob anyone.

@alanlanzoni8854

8 жыл бұрын

Isn't it today?

@alanlanzoni8854

7 жыл бұрын

+Oberon Pan Is it impossible to steal a baby???

@alanlanzoni8854

7 жыл бұрын

If evil people exist, why do you think bad people being able to reach the power is the solution?

@benangel3268

6 жыл бұрын

Most crimes handle on money.

@romanbrandle319

6 жыл бұрын

got em' , their just extremist capitalists .

Good video. But I don't call myself a anarchist for the same reason I don't call myself spiritual; because of the negative associations that somehow come with those words. It's almost as though the definitions need updating - or more people need to familiarize themselves with a dictionary. Instead of talking about certain issues big or small, it's become a battle of semantics, where you can't even join a conversation without waving a flag above your head declaring that you're X, Y or Z. I'm sick of the labels. This sporting event mentality coupled with the belief in man-made "authority" is doing far more damage than good. So when people ask me in the future where I stand, I'll simply reply that I'm for equal rights among everyone (non-aggression principle/self-ownership/etc), and that's it. No use in discussing anything beyond that...

monarchy = 1 ruler democracy = the people rule anarchism = no rulers minarchism = small rulers ( PETER DINKLAGE FOR PRESIDENT/KING/SUPREME LEADER!!! )

what would an anarchist society do about the poor and weak people who can't protect themselves from the people who rob them? anything?

@HobokenSquatCobbler

10 жыл бұрын

Question is: what would YOU do? If you care about the weak and poor now, there's no reason you would not still care for them in the absence of government. In fact, you'd probably be even more concerned about them, since there would not be a coercive entity there making you believe you "already gave". Few of us are comfortable knowing that others suffer when we can offer help to them. Government welfare emotionally disconnects people from those they'd like to help, making it easy for many to conclude that it's "already handled". Often, govt welfare has a reverse effect, and hurts those it is alleged to help. There is a simple law of economics, that states that anything government taxes will decrease, and anything it subsidizes will increase. By providing money and assistance to the needy with few conditions, government welfare in effect subsidizes the conditions of poverty and joblessness. At the very least, govt is an inefficient provider that funds its efforts by violating the rights of others. Private aid and charity, some types of which have already been made illegal by local govt in a few areas, will see substantial growth once there is no public purse of stolen money.

@HobokenSquatCobbler

10 жыл бұрын

Regarding protection for those who can't protect themselves, private security can provide much more effective protection than govt police forces do, and the competition of the free market will provide the choices consumers demand out of any product or service. Are you on a budget? Can you afford Cadillac-quality protection? All options that there is a need for will be available, at a much lower price than the taxes requires to support inefficient, disinterested government police forces. Check out the Threat Management Center in Detroit, which sprang up to serve the need not satisfied by city police.

@LarkenRose

10 жыл бұрын

Mike beat me to it. Would YOU just watch people starve, or watch them be victimized? I wouldn't. The people I hang around with wouldn't. And if I hadn't been robbed into poverty by the mercenaries of the "compassion nazis," I would be able to help a lot more. Don't pretend that advocating mass extortion makes you moral or noble.

@matthewbaumann630

9 жыл бұрын

People will be killed by gangs while others walk by and do nothing. Anarchy is a terrible system.

@HobokenSquatCobbler

9 жыл бұрын

You DO know that is what happens now, don't you? Seen the Eric Garner video? Familiar with Kelly Thomas? If the WORST we could expect with Anarchy is what we have now, I'll give it a shot. Oh and... anarchy is not a system.

Even the squirrel gets it.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider

Sure love the way that Larken ex... 1:46 SQUIRRELL!!

4:26 a squirrel spooked by crazy anarchist.

3:25 OMG THAT SQUIRREL ON THE LEFT

Whi in this world could down vote this video?

@paxhumana2015

8 жыл бұрын

+Charles Freeman , first of all, it is who, and not whi, and second, I would because anarchism always, without a doubt, leads back to structured governments that are just as, if not even MORE repressive, ironically enough, than the governments that anarchism made in the first place.

@imulippo5245

4 жыл бұрын

Charles Wakefield, a socialist who thinks anarchy means 'no hierarchy' :)

squirrel!!@1:50

Larken Rose is the ONLY anti-communist anti-socialist conservative whom I admire for his awesome courage. If you're not a communist or a socialist, then you're an anarchist, & vice versa. OBVIOUSLY, words such as "communism" & "socialism" are so VAGUE & BROAD. There exists MILLIONS of different COMBINATIONS of laws covering MILLIONS of different things in life, that it is an absolute certainty that every pair of persons will disagree about something, and that something will be important enough for them to fight & kill each other over. If you support a military, if you support having police, then you got NO RIGHT to complain about communism or socialism or communists doing the same & enforcing THEIR laws. If government is going to exist & is going to punish people, then govt should HELP all childfree non-breeders equally. Otherwise, there exists NO justification for govt to exist. The problem is the entire concept of LAW itself and this equally evil concept that "one should obey laws no matter how unfair & how much pain & suffering they force onto select people". That evil ideology has caused more suffering & pain than any alleged "anarchy".

@theultimatereductionist7592

5 жыл бұрын

The problem with conservatives is their INFINITE hypocrisy of preaching the religion of free market anarchy i.e. capitalism, all while forcing anti-gay marriage laws onto people, anti-drug laws, anti-abortion laws, and anti-animal rights laws that protect the HOLOCAUST of factory farming that FORCE BREEDS, i.e. RAPES, and TORTURES and MURDERS BILLIONS of innocent cows chickens & pigs a year. Bleeding heart cuntservatives and, yes, millions of communists, NEVER take into account the negative consequences that THEY force upon OTHERS: mostly nonhuman animals, as well as human prisoners, as well as the offspring whom they force into the world without their prior consent. Libertarian ideals ARE good, such as the non-initiation of force or injustice principle, but unfortunately FAR too many libertarians NEVER TAKE their ideas INTO PRACTICE, when it's one of THEIR selfish habits - such as meat-eating & breeding - that initiates negative force onto others.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

There’s an invisible reply here. What does it say?

Rose is an amusing fellow, but he never answers the question, for those among us with less money, how would they pay for schooling, police protection, fire protection, health care and so on? Or perhaps they just have to be left behind to their own devices?

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. That may be unfortunate for you, but you would have to defend yourself, and your family, and find a way to educate your own children, however, without government interference, you'd be surprised at how easy those things would actually be. Without government regulations and taxation, you could make far more money in a free market while working the same job you have now, so single income households would become the norm again, which would allow your wife to stay home and educate your children. With the extra money you make, you could afford to buy a few guns and lots of ammo for self defense, and you could teach your wife and kids how to shoot safely and responsibly so they can defend themselves while you're working. It's the same story with health care. Without doctors being forced to participate with insurance companies that buy politicians which results in astronomical health care costs, health care would become affordable again. Add to this your increased income and suddenly you can afford procedures that used to cost a fortune, and you won't even need insurance anymore. Now, of course there will still be people who aren't fortunate enough to make it in a free market, but with all the extra money other people will be making, it will be easier to be charitable as well, and since private charities have always been more efficient than government welfare, it will actually work to help people rather than keeping them enslaved and impoverished.

@FreedomPhilosophyTV

3 жыл бұрын

Education- almost free with internet then there’s scholarships Security- neighborhood watch, buy a cheap gun etc. poor don’t have much to steal anyway Fire- collectivise and pay for insurance, possibly rental with fire protection included, build a fireproof house Healthcare- collectivise and buy insurance, fraternal societies, charity People are not entitled to other peoples stuff because they can’t afford it themselves. There’s also an element of being a grown up and accepting your situation.

Capitalists are not Anarchists lmao

"Every body wants police"? I think not!

The word ANARCHY means NO RULERS... it does not mean against or without government... ALL actual anarchies have governments and rules... but these have to be Pre-agreed upon by the group not before birth and by founding fathers of any kind... A human being can NEVER be free if there are hierarchies or monetary systems... or if local resources are controlled by a corporate elite...THAT is NOT anarchy but Corporatism...the exact opposite to anarchy...A human being is NOT free if just owning a gun either whole living in absolute poverty.... A human being can ONLY choose out of free will when NOT harassed, or under duress or pressure... when a human being is in need the person is forced into slavery...serfdom...any choice made by this person is invalid because the person has NO other choice but to choose exploitation... I.e. the current parasitic system being defended here... Human beings are the ONLY organisms that have to pay for just existing over the earth... if there is a travesty of justice is having to pay for food, shelter or just to exist.... There are NO hierarchies in anarchy... NO Gods and NO Masters... The system is obviously rigged against the workers... and I cannot conceive of an anarchist Pro-system by defending corporate masters and monetary systems... Pro-Corporations... or Pro-Private entities... or Pro-Exploitation via a Monetary System... or any other fashion. If a person defends being exploited and slaved under the idea that choosing your master is freedom then that person is living in LaLa land...and that is NOT anarchy of any kind... I hear arguments similar to Ron and Rand Paul... Pro-Corporate... if you are Pro-Corporate endorsing worker exploitation... Labor exploitation... THEN you are Pro-Government... Pro-Corporate-Government... See ENTIRE Playlist: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mHV_28tsg7ypj6w.html

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

@Reverse Cell nothing is free, your communist ideology is way far from Anarchy.

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

Ron Paul is not a Anarchist, his a statist

@Somberdemure

3 ай бұрын

So you don't actually know what anarchy means. You literally just contradicted yourself. Government is a ruling class, therefore they are RULERS.🤦 Consenting to slavery is a contradicting slavery within itself. Work exploitation? You mean voluntarily signing of for a job that is shitty and then becoming agree about it?

You are a group of three. Did you get a permit to meet in this park? If not, I declare this as an unlawful assembly 'cause I gots this badge on my shirt. "Whoever desires liberty should understand these facts: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a “government”, puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him to extort more money, and also to keep him in subjection to its will. 2. That those who will take his money without his consent, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man’s money without his consent for any such object as they profess to take it-that of protecting him. For why should they wish to protect him if he does not wish them to do so? Protect him so that he can continue paying taxes (protection money). 4. If a man wants “protection” he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him in order to “protect” him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets until they have assurances that it will be used as they wish it to be used. 6. That no government can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or be supposed to have honest purposes any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support" Lysander Spooner. The government robs you to protect you from others who might rob you. The government hates competition.

What happens if you're poor and can't afford this protection? I know the poor are already treated pretty miserably, but at least the police have to make some effort to protect even poor people. And what is to prevent the rich from hiring a massive "police force" of their own, (which no doubt would be stronger than yours) from imposing their rules on you? I hate government as much as anybody, but this feels like a recipe for a wealthy ruling class just imposing any rules they want on everybody else. Seems like the problem isn't just government, it's too much power concentrated in the hand of too few people. People in power always seem to want to accumulate more power. The idea of democracy is supposed to be - one person, one vote - so every citizen supposedly has equal say in the rules and laws that govern us. Of course that's not true in reality, but if you take the democracy part away, then what do we have left? I think it's just money, and clearly we are all wildly equal in that regard. Money becomes power. And if you think the already rich and powerful won't try to leverage their existing money and power to accumulate more, even at the expense of everyone else, what planet are you living on? Not to mention the possibility of foreign invasion. Is there an army/navy? If so, who pays for it? Difficult to see this working in the modern world, but the intention seems good.

@Somberdemure

3 ай бұрын

Even if you are poor, you are still responsible for your safety because no one can protect you like you can protect yourself. Police don't protect anyone, but literally see everyone as a criminal. Stealing from others to give others safety is still immoral and you can never REALLY protect them. In a free society, there is no taxation so you get to keep the product of your labour and decide what that money goes to. Therefore, more money for protection. As far as "the rich having a bigger police force". In a free society, individuals understand that they are responsible for their own safety and would surely be armed. For example: when people realize that the police don't actual protect them in certain states, they start to purchase more weapons. Any rich guy with "the biggest police force" would be challenged by organized groups thwarting his ability to rule. There is no army. It would be a militia which could be funded via charity or simply individuals using what they have and organizing. Guerilla warfare does amazing wonders.

Ok so let's say Larken's anarchy is implemented and government is removed. Since there is no police or military protection, a local town decides to hire a private protection force. The free market provides them with several good options, each of whom present a gameplan and a set price for their services. The town looks at the options and decides pretty much unanimously on one of the providers. They pay them and the provider begins policing and protecting the town. Sounds great. But after a while some townspeople begin to realize that the minority of people who chose not to hire the protection are still benefiting from the service. They nicely ask those people to chip in but most still refuse. Now one of two things happens: Either the majority of townspeople force the minority to chip in for the private protection (now you have government again) or more and more people will stop chipping in because they will receive protection whether they pay or not. As more people stop paying, those who remain will have to foot a bigger and bigger percentage of the bill, and they too will begin to feel used and stop paying, causing the the protection providers to quit and go elsewhere. Either way I don't see how it works. If someone can correct my logic please do. I'm open to Larken's ideas I just don't see them working in reality.

@sweatt4237

8 жыл бұрын

+Oldschool Rules I copy and pasted this from someone else. It applied perfectly to your point. Thanks for being open minded to peace and freedom, you are way ahead of your peers. Before I became an Anarchist I was scared to, but since I did I have never lost the moral argument, not one time, why because anything other than self rule is immoral. "Consider this example: It is 1862 and you own a cotton plantation with slaves. I come by and I tell you that Slavery is wrong, and that you should stop it. You then ask me "But if I let these slaves go, who will pick the cotton?" Now, do I have to be able to predict the future and tell you that we will have giant robotic machines that run on old dinosaur bones that will harvest the cotton much faster, in order for you to want to let the slaves go? The fact that I dont have all of the answers does not change the fact that forcing individuals to work and pay for services is immoral and unjust. The real answer to your question is this: I have no idea how everything is going to work, but I know for a fact that slavery (Government) is wrong."

@mdmac92

8 жыл бұрын

+Brock Samson I hear you. But I'm not sure that I buy the moral argument for anarchism. Private property itself violates the non-aggression principle. The only thing giving you the right to 'own' your property is a piece of paper. Which is backed up by the fact that if someone comes and tries to take your property, you will shoot them or have other people come and put them in a cell. The deed to your land is no different than the constitution in that it's a piece of paper backed by violence. So by anarchist standards ownership itself is immoral and the free market is baseless.

@sweatt4237

8 жыл бұрын

Oldschool Rules Reacting to violence is not a violation of the non-aggression principle, such as self defense. "Private property itself violates the non-aggression principle." Does this mean that my ownership of my arms violates the non-aggression principle? My arms are my private property. That doesn't need to be enforced with violence it is just seen as natural law, or UPB. It's when you think you have a right to my arms that the first violation happens.

@mdmac92

8 жыл бұрын

+Brock Samson +Brock Samson Who's to say that attempting to take your property is aggression though? What gives you the right to own a rifle other than a law on a piece of paper backed by violence. Say you owned a piece of land that contained an apple orchard. If someone came and tried to collect a basket of apples from your trees, you could shoot him in self defense of your property. But was it really an act of 'aggression' to pick some apples just because you have a piece of paper that says you 'own' that orchard? And If you go back in time far enough, the original 'owner' of the land was a person who basically just threw down a couple stakes in the earth and said 'this is mine now, if you try to use this land without my permission I will kill you'. Which seems like aggression to me.

@sweatt4237

8 жыл бұрын

+Oldschool Rules Hey man, how you doing? Did you get a chance to check out that video?

Hmmm, sounds alot like the "Categorical I mperative" than "Anarchism " . But who cares the squirrels the star on this show ! Woohooo

every one is different not everyone that own a home has or even want a home so why would that person have to pay school taxes that doesn't use that sevios other things and money should only be a second opinion to get things the first should be bardering like offer to work for something or to trade in something

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve there was no income tax in the US. Discussing any kind of social construct without addressing the concept of money is just stupid. In a democratic full money System ninety-nine percent of us wouldn't have to pay taxes at all. if you don't have any mechanisms to prevent the accumulation of wealth the winner will take it all. With or without government. So how do you prevent the accumulation of wealth in a stateless society?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Dieter, do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?

all i hear = RrrrrR rR r Rr R(car*s) / UUUUUUUUUUUUUWFFFFSSSSSSSS(plane)

That chick is hot af

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?

what is your self defense if you had hungry wife and children ??

@Somberdemure

3 ай бұрын

A job.😂😂😂😂

Everybody wants police LOL WTF?

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?

Whilst it pertains to our current governmental systems. This argument is a simplistic conflation of the word "state" with "initiation of violence", you could have a purely voluntary donation based state, or voluntary state, or even a state which is just a corporation that owns everything, and agrees with non aggression principle. Pretty much what we have now, if you just call "taxes" "existence in country rent"... Word play isn't very convincing... Oh they are "Anarcho-caps"... typical im finding the majority of popular "anarchists" are really just people who want the worst kind of tyranny possible ; unrestrained capitalism... go figure...

@ivckins

9 жыл бұрын

Rodney Mulraney What you know as capitalism is a corrupt form. We have no free markets. It's still a theoretical concept as far as wider application than a black market. Corporations are enabled by the state through both law and extortion ("taxation" and subsquent welfare for unsustainable practices and models - just like microcosms of centralized banking economies). Anyway, rent is a voluntary agreement. Taxes are applied regardless of consent and backed with violence, making them extortion - not mere coercion. A state, official agency, government, whatever you want to call it, is a body that creates and enforces laws. Ultimately it will rely on unprovoked violence if necessary. It is a supreme legal body. They do not exist without utilizing violence. If it was a voluntary society that didn't use force or presume to write laws, it's by definition not a supreme legal body and therefore not a government. If no one is enforcing a rule (law) on you, you aren't being governed. If someone is enforcing a rule you agreed to in a mutually voluntary contract, you are simply being held to your word. Again, not a form of governance unless there's a third party to adjudicate and takes legal authority over all other parties in the matter.

@RodneyMulraney

9 жыл бұрын

I am not saying taxes are valid and rent is not... I am a real anarchist, our position is that both taxes and rent are wrong. We oppose all forms of oppresion, and exploitatoin... we are against capitalism, and for socialism and democratic decision making... We are social libertarians. We care about others, we want a decent and worthwhile society and we do not need some group of noobs leeching off of us and ordering us around...

@mambasneak3929

5 жыл бұрын

@@RodneyMulraney you are a communist, taxation is theft because people didn't voluntary ask for the services, also rent is not theft because you are living on private land but the owner decided to charge you let live on it. How capitalism exploits people and those who work ?

That's still anarchist philosophy.

no gods, no masters, but bosses :^) feudalism with bitcoins? spoooky

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

No, having bosses does not mean feudalism. Feudalism was supported by governments (kings). The employer/employee relationship is entirely voluntary. If you don't like your job, you can ask for better conditions, better pay, or find a new job. Without government licensing, you can even start your own business to compete with your former employer if you'd like.

@DeadEndFrog

4 жыл бұрын

@@livewire2759 Thats assuming all things being even, which they are not from the start (current system), they won't be when the conditions change (anarcho capitalism), and they won't be within the new system (anarcho capitalism begets smal "governments" enforced by private persons). Oppertunities are then a matter of birth, and conditions within a given space- There is nothing stopping any given person to buy up land and create what will essentialy become a new form of government within their property. Landovnership will simply become the new status quo.

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

@@DeadEndFrog "All things being even"... things will never be "even". Equality is a fallacy preached by those who are too lazy to work to get ahead. The fallacy of equality is what leads to people forming governments. There will always be parasites that offer to help people by forcing equality, by making them feel jealous of their neighbors. It's that jealousy that politicians take advantage of, and encourages people to vote to steal from their neighbors. What prevents governments from taking over is people exercising their rights to speak, travel and defend themselves. Essentially, anarcho-capitalism (which is an oxymoron) is every man being his own governor. Those who are incapable of governing themselves are the ones who seek out others to govern for them, which is perfectly fine as long as they don't try to force their will onto others. That's where education comes in. When people are educated about basic human natural rights, they can protect themselves from tyrannical governments that will inevitably form by speaking out against them, and defending themselves against the governments "law enforcement" by using equal and opposite force.

@DeadEndFrog

4 жыл бұрын

@@livewire2759 i don't see a problem with the first parahgraph. But the second one is a bit off, if people need to be educated, its essentialy the same as saying indoctrinated. If they don't have those values inherent to them, but these values need to be instiltd, then its no diffrent then being an authoritarian. And if as you say people are allowed to rebel against their capitalist overlords, for them becoming their masters, then you are just an anarchist.

@livewire2759

4 жыл бұрын

@@DeadEndFrog I'll concede that "education" probably isn't the best word to use in this case. I believe the majority of people, psychopaths/sociopaths being the exception, do have the values of basic human rights inherent to them. The problem is that they've already been indoctrinated by govt. education. So maybe a better way to say it is that people need to be un-indoctrinated, but essentially the point is that without authoritarianism in place, the idea of self governance, or anarchy will be easier for people to understand. There are a number of philosophers who have ideas for how this can be achieved, my personal belief is that it must start with children, by getting parents to stop being authoritarian and violent with their kids. Of course there will always be those psychopathic/sociopathic parasites who want to create authoritarian systems of government, so the battle over authoritarianism and anarchy will always exist. I'm not sure how to take your last paragraph, but yes, I am an anarchist. If you mean "just an anarchist" as in not anarcho-capitalist, I see the term "anarcho-capitalist" as an oxymoron. If there is no ruling class to regulate a trade market, "capitalism" becomes the "default system" so to speak. Therefore, I see anarchy and "capitalism" (a trade market truly free of any regulation) as one in the same. As for those who believe in anarcho-communism, that's a whole other discussion.

9:12 lmao

As a libertarian socialist, this is actually pretty good.

@michaelbutler9587

8 жыл бұрын

it wud work on an individual community basis. nobody really knows how it wud work until it is put into practise. im sure most of us have an ideal community model in our heads. a libertarian socialist society wud allow u to express these opinions and everyone elses on an equal level.

@thedynamix4714

7 жыл бұрын

how do you see socialism better than capitalism. I can see the libertarian, me being an ancap. But i dont get socialism.

@nuthying3156

7 жыл бұрын

Do you have a job?

@thedynamix4714

7 жыл бұрын

Austin Rominger yes

@nuthying3156

7 жыл бұрын

Have you never thought that maybe you should get more decision making power? Or maybe that it would be nice if you could get more flexible hours or free time?

Oh wow that guy can't think outside of his own close minded reflection for shit. They were really trying to make him change the subject and give other arguments but he doesn't seem to be able to. Disappointing.

Hmmm... Nerdy bunch....

Hahah the dictionary definition on the Internet of anarchism and capitalism sound the same therefore they are the same. I'm not surprised a voluntarist would use such shit logic.

@ 6:24 SQUIRREL!!!!

Disagree with this. Using the word "robbed" is false and provocative/emotive. It's not robbery or stealing.

@nustada

9 жыл бұрын

Where do you live so I can go "not rob" you. You apparently think people violently taking your stuff is excusable.

@LAnonHubbard

9 жыл бұрын

nustada If they're not contributing to society financially in accordance to the law, then yes, violently take their stuff. What's the problem with that?

@bza069

9 жыл бұрын

LAnonHubbard every dollar you "contribute" by force of law has your name on it when its spent on bombs dropping on innocent third worlders, supporting dictators, regime change, bribes, subsidies, kick backs, inefficiency, militarized trigger happy cops, disgusting political class luxury, welfare for the lazy, 100s of tyrannical armed fed agencies....and on and on. you call it contributing.... clear thinking moral individuals call it theft by force.

@LAnonHubbard

9 жыл бұрын

bza069 You are listing spending on tax dollars which are generally considered bad. How about for balance you also create a list of things which are considered good? Things are not as black and white as you are making out. Perhaps supporting a dictator is a valid thing to do if it means stability in a region, or if it prevents an even worse dictator for presiding (to give you two examples). Conflicts are complicated affairs. "clear thinking moral individuals call it theft by force" I'm clear thinking. I'm moral and I'm an individual and I don't call it theft by force so you need to reword that a little as it's inaccurate.

@nustada

9 жыл бұрын

LAnonHubbard "How about for balance you also create a list of things which are considered good?" If you are robbed, your money may help whomever the thief pawns your goods. If the thief gets away, then it benefits them. "Things are not as black and white as you are making out" Theft and initiating violence is evil. It absolutely is black and white. You own yourself, you own what you mix your labor with, you own whatever you volyntarily trade your goods with. Any violation of that is a violation of you. "Perhaps supporting a dictator is a valid thing to do if it means stability in a region, or if it prevents an even worse dictator" Perhaps women should be raped if it prevents them from getting raped worse. "Conflicts are complicated affairs." No, they are not. "I'm clear thinking." As a vacuum. "I'm moral " No you are not. See below. "I don't call it theft by force" So, if someone behaves the exact same way as government does, with their neighbor, they would not be considered a criminal?

Anything the Government can do the private sector can do, the difference is that it gives you a voluntary choice what you would like to purchase. The government protection, police,etc, is applied after the offense has occurred. Kinda late isn't it?? Should I pay school taxes when I have no children? Should I pay for farmer Jone's to feed his cows, when I still have to pay to purchase the milk? I should have the final say in how I spend my labor earnings and not be told by anyone with a label what I must do! I wouldn't allow them to do it to me without a label and I never agreed to give them authority over me with a label. A position of authority, be it a department, badge, etc draws people into those positions that seek control over others! My opinion.

@Drumbeat52

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC No problem, I'll talk but I have no desire to fight the government in a tax movement as I have already been down that road.

@Drumbeat52

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC The email address will have casper in it.

Anarchy is still too influenced by christianity. All anarchist arises from Christian churches and carries the inherent toxicity of it.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Your comment is confusing. Are you pro-government or anti-government?

666 views

@endtimeteacher234

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC ya

@endtimeteacher234

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC sure I can do that

@endtimeteacher234

2 жыл бұрын

@@Will_JC I sent you a message on it

tell the woman to quit chomping on gum. It's unprofessional and irritating to watch.

@Will_JC

2 жыл бұрын

Do you support the claim that one has a right to use a car on the roads without a license?