There's some new stuff ( Text T-Shirts! ) on the merch store! The shirts are quite comfy I am wearing one right now. mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products Profits from this help me buy more fum...I mean...uh...make more content.
You mentioned debunking leftist "science". Is there any chance of you doing a video on Stephanie Kelton's The Deficit Myth or Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?
I really don't think a lot of libertarians realize just how much the 'living in Ancapistan inside their head' hinders their ability to become the dominant side of conservative thought. I will admit to being more minarchist, but a lot of people view even that as a utopian pipe dream. I can confidently agree that any open borders talk immediately loses a lot of people because they've directly seen it be abused by politicians. Completely eliminating taxes is another one because people are not ready for the idea of dissolving the state. Essentially, jumping straight to end-game libertarian policies, especially without laying the ideological groundwork first, makes us seem out-of-touch and childish to a large section of the population.
This is true especially for people like me who is not really balls deep into any ideology. It really feels like what if someone tries to make sci-fi reality. Sure, it is nice to have FTL and Exotic matter, but we don't have the groundwork (physics or otherwise) that makes it possible for us to do or create those things, let alone be able to know how would they work, what rules do they abide by, and how can they be used in practical ways without strings attached when it comes to the end-user.
You can't have open borders in the United States without precipitating a crisis. The idea wasn't just abused: there's no meaningful concept of open borders without a pile of Haitian and Venezuelan gangsters bum rushing you.
Fifty percent of the population already see everything the other side wants as stupid and childish. Just because people can't understand why they're wrong or wishing for immoral outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for what's right
Open borders is not at all libertarian if the results are more authoritarians flowing in. It was introduced by leftists and the fact that actual libertarians don't just discard shows that a lot of them are just parroting the ideology and not actually thinking at all. As far as the less government and taxes try cutting by 1% and stopping when things stop improving. Those tax increases happened over a century.
I’m not a Libertarian. I have massive philosophical differences with them. I hate Socialism and find socialists to be genuinely abhorrent, and I admire your work. I disagree with most people on stuff, but I like this channel and the anti left work it has done. Godspeed.
I think Libertarian thought is much more useful than a lot of other political ideologies, but there’s a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of social cohesion and just the fact that most people are complete sheep that follow anything.
Liberty requires virtue to avoid descending into chaos. Most people are not virtuous. In fact, pretty much no one _is_ virtuous. That's why the very first freedom you introduce to a populace, and the freedom that must be defended at all costs, is the freedom to defend themselves from the lapses in virtue of their peers. Darwinism will then sort out most of the malcontent scum, enabling further increases in freedoms. I'm a minarchist because I believe eliminating government as a concept is philosophically impossible. Power will always exist in some semantic form or another. It just needs to be bridled and decentralized as much as possible. Those with power should never be sheltered from the consequences of its abuse.
@@draketheduelist This is an insane take, bro applying Darwinism to a political or social system is backwards and has widely been accepted to be harmful and idiotic literally a whole ass century ago.
Here are the questions: 1:11 NAP and past property injustices 2:31 video recommended 2:45 How outside the mainstream are Libertarian positions 5:00 Coconut and other analogies 5:33 Most Left wing views 7:18 Leftists hard to debunk because they're more correct? 8:30 Agorism 9:15 Rappers 9:25 Zoning laws 11:43 Taking small steps for Libertarianism and Strategy 14:32 What keeps Republicans non-Libertarian 19:20 Home school 20:48 Military in a Libertarian society 22:22 Biggest downside about Libertarianism (plus, Consciousness Levels) 27:38 Bonus: Goals for the Mises institute 29:50 How are you so correct? 30:50 Becoming a team? 31:48 Violence in self defense 34:43 Opinions on Responses to you 37:45 What's the State/Non-State distinction 39:50 Best way to fight Government encroachment 42:05 Grassroots advocacy 44:55 NAP to Aliens? 47:27 Future videos on wild claims?
Nick Gillespie not getting what people vote for and suggesting Trump would get more votes if he didn't talk about the border or just made economic arguments was one of the most naive takes I've heard from the Reason crowd in quite a while.
One of the biggest problems I found with (L)ibertarianism is the different definitions that you mention with Anarchy being the example. If we cannot agree on a common lexicon in which to define things, then we're already working at odds. There's a difference between appealing to the lowest common denominator and being understood at all. Not everyone is or wants to be well versed in Esperanto.
Yep, that's why I prefer to call it Voluntarism, because the main point of ancap is for interactions to be made without coercion, AKA voluntarily. 'Anarchy' and 'capitalism' have waaaay too many other interpretations, and your average Joe will think about them first instead of understanding your point when you try to explain it.
@@theunholybanana4745 property rights are innate, it doesn't matter if the people believe in it. You still have a right to your body And it is still wrong to impose on that right Even if the other party does not believe in it. On top of that, the Indians weren't stupid. Even if they didn't personally believe in a thing, they are more than capable in understanding that the people they are talking to do. So that either they were trying to scam them by selling them a new color, Or They could reasonably come to the conclusion that the other people will act as if this is a binding resolution. They also had a reasonable understanding of trade. Which means they did have the knowledge of property rights. They just didn't think it applied to land mass. And if they didn't think that then they shouldn't have sold it.
@@theunholybanana4745 Blatantly false. The Native Americans fought over land all the time with tribe warfare. That's the entire reason why different tribes held different allegiances during the French And Indian War. They traded land in exchange for various foreign goods, with guns being a majorly coveted item for this trading to gain a combat edge over other tribes.
Every day my motivation grows. You and everything else that is going on in the world only encourages me further to make my own channel and speak out... Thank you. I just need to find a place to begin
You can do it! Remember to make your videos neither too long nor too short, have a specific topic to focus on so it's easier to follow your content (at least early on as you gain experience to tackle more topics at the same time) and most importantly don't be disheartened if you don't succeed at first, failure is a normal part of human life and it shouldn't be a deterrent for you to speak up. Good luck!
I did that on a different account and struck gold, 100k views on my third video bringing in around 3k subs. That in just a week or two is a huge deal! Most people only hit 1k after a year or so. You can do it! Theres a huge thirst for sanity in the world right now. Channels like ours will grow like crazy in the next years
18:25 the closest person to this right now is Vivek Ramaswamy and if he does a good job leading the department of government of efficency with elon he has a high chance of winning the primaries and the General Election in 2028
To be honest, I think that not treating Open Borders as the 1° issue while also striving for the achievement of a libertarian society is quite shortsighted. Libertarianism as an ideological and societal structure bases itself on concepts and principles that mainly derive from the cultural, societal, and intellectual ethos of the Western world. The NAP, basic individual freedoms, and natural law are inextricably tied to our societies and their history and development. Not doing anything to stop our replacement and letting 3rd worlders be coddled and favoured by our governments will only lead to us becoming a minority. And as such the pool of individuals compatible to Libertarianism would shrink so drastically that it will at last become completely unachievable.
I think that an alliance out of convenience with Wignats would be more useful. Let them clean the mess of Open Borders up and then it will be possible to discuss how government should work. Then again they care mostly about securing a future for white people, once that's done they'll be more interested in preserving that security than getting entangled in the weeds of internal government policy.
Actually , Machiavelli had a more realistic take on mercenaries in The Prince Chapter XII: "I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;[*] and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty." Machiavelli always gives examples from history and his view is very pragmatic unlike the theoretical and idealistic view. You want modern example? The march of the Wagner Group on the capital of Russia. even if they didn't win, they caused damage to the Russian war effort and moral. Did you have the chance to read Machiavelli works?
Zoning is solved by resource access as a private matter. It causes anyone upstream to be legally responsible for their impositions on those downstream. I can sue someone for dumping toxic waste not on my lawn, but now near my dock. Both should have equal liability, and they don't!
Mentis collab with Hoe Math CONFIRMED??!!1!!! I wish lol The part about explaining complex things in simple terns is extremely important for me; I have some very... let's just say enthusiastic establishment puppets/leftist activists/cathedralites friends (they're actually good people, but their ideas are so damn off from reality, it's increasingly hard to discuss), so, for example, arguing with them about how it's economic development, and not leftist/marxist "worker rights", that can really improve the lives of the poor is extremely complicated.
I’ve found it impossible to reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Unless they’re like a Thomas Sowell who had a very genuine inclination to look into the data, they probably are more interested in the vibes than anything else. But I don’t know them, so it’s rather hard to say. I think the number #1 thing that gets them out of that mode of thinking is having them be personally accountable to it, so if things go wrong with it, make sure they don’t have an excuse for it.
@@MentisWave Yoooo I didn't even know that existed. I need to look into that. Although tbh, I do love some lines in the English dub for how hammy they are. "You may speak like a human, but you're still a heartless robot, aren't you?" "That is correct. What is the problem?"
What do you make of the observation that the socialists and right libertarians often sound similar in the structure of their political comments? Some examples: "socialism/libertarianism is too complicated for most to understand." "That's not real communism/libertarianism." "We need to take over the mainstream party from the inside." "Candidate A lost because they were not far enough." "The opposite party has all the institutional power." I agree much more with a right libertarian position, but I cant help but notice these similar comments in both online spaces. Is it a function of both believing themselves marginalized (regardless of the truth of it)? Perhaps a desire to be the outsider & underdog? Or just a lens so far away from the center And each other that everything looks backwards?
Is quite simple. A lefty wants power. When they say "true socialism" they mean socialism where they are in charge. A right libertarian is selfless is the sense they want freedom for all. Both ideologies are built upon dismantling the status quo government. Libertarians just won't replace the government afterwards
It's not surprising that delusional thought looks the same. For the commies, it's literally part of their ideology that no matter how much power they hold, they're still oppressed and need to defeat the non-believers. For Libertarians it's ideological ostriches with their head up their own sandy assessments.
It's just the nature of politics. There are so many competing ideologies that they all kind of are underdogs until one gains power in any sector (officially or unofficially). Then they have to work towards that ideal with many hurdles in the way set by the other ideologies. Whichever one gets the closest to their goal is deemed the status quo by other ideologies except they now have a more up to date blueprint on how to get power.
I was thinking of a definition of anarchy that I could use when ever someone ask me about it. Here it goes: Anarchy is when people come together and organize themselves of their own volition into a natural hierarchy without government authority. I think it's good and it works for the people that don't know or think anarchy is total chaos, it does the job at explaining very clearly and succinctly.
I love how Michael Malice explains it. Anarchy is a relationship. It means without rulers, every government around the world is in a state of anarchy with one another. You and I also share an anarchic relationship between each other as neither rules over the other.
How do you deal with completely immoral societies in a Hoppean style world? One community steals, kills, and pillages each other, or other communities (not under protection of a private military or have their own defenses). How would this community be dealt with?
Charity exists, and especially so in an ancap society, societies who do not have a PM could form alliances with communities who do, if it is a good, moral community people are naturally drawn to defend it even if it isn't their own. If this community of pillagers were to stay within their own borders and does not trangress on other communities then the strategy is to do nothing, it will fall from its own accord.
According to Hoppe, every community (or at least one of those community) will be insured by an insurance company which will obviously be liable for their insured property being burned down by marauding raiders. These companies would have a vested, financial interest in annihilating any immoral societies, which would naturally make themselves uninsurable. I might be explaining this poorly, so i would recommend actually reading The Private Production of Defense. It's available online for free and its a fairly concise read.
I am quite suprised that actually you are a Hoppean, but nonetheless I am happy that there is someone on youtube that presents the libertarian ideas this well. Cheers from from a European Minarchist
@@Fernybun Because an action is either coercive, or voluntary - there is no third alternative. To claim all voluntary actions are coercive is equivalent to claiming all actions to be coercive. From this you either conclude that one shouldn't act, therefore everyone should die, or you conclude that coercion is fine, and accepting slavery is basically the same thing but more specific. It's a very anti-human view, besides the fact how obviously reality-denying it is. I mean, "voluntary" is quite literally the opposite of "coercive" by definition.
35:30 "People who arn't born yet don't have property rights," Slightly disagree. I belive life, and the "property" right to it, begins before birth, at conception.
Judging by the fact he's talking about the anti-natalism question I'm assuming he wasn't paying attention to the specific wording in terms of the abortion issue. I'm pretty sure he's pro-life, but I could not tell you why I think that. I could have seen him say something like it, or maybe I just projected it onto him and effectively made it up. Who knows!
I'm sure if you explain ECP to an average conservative, they'll sort of get it and accept it as an argument against socialism. The problem is, the ECP is not just a criticism of socialism. It's the argument against central planning in general, which they wouldn't logically conclude from having heard it. Frankly, many more moderate libertarians don't truly understand how far-reaching the implications of the ECP are. Because that very same ECP disproves the possibility of efficiency of any government intervention into the economy, as well as, more importantly, disprove the possibility of sustained natural monopoly in the free market. Accepting the ECP is one thing - accepting its logical conclusions is hardcore king shit.
Quick Question how does libertarianism deal with (in my eyes) problematic firms like blackrock and vanguard. As in how does it prevent them buying up large chunks of land and housing?
28:00 - The Heritage Foundation is something pretty close to this. They're a bit more conservative rather than libertarian but would definitely be willing to swing libertarian to get more relevancy and to oppose Marxism.
Hey Mentis, I have been watching your videos for a while now, and I want to take a further dive into the ideas you talk about in your videos. I was wondering where a good start would be to learn more about things like austrian economics, natural law, and meses libertarianism.
Hey Mentis. How much have you looked into Hegelianism and dialectics? It's something I'm only just now finding out about and there's an excellent video by James Lindsay here on youtube that made about a dozen different things click for me. He also makes an indirect and probably unintentional reference to Moldbug's "cthulhu swimming left" idea. I haven't heard you mention dialectics before. edit: typo
@@lainiwakura1776 Yes, TIK was the introduction for me, but after watching Lindsay's video I found TIK had dumbed it down a little too much IMO, and stuck with the mysticism idea too much when talking about Marxist dialectical materialism instead of more important points you could criticize it on, like that it's an inherently totalitarian moralising busybody "we'll just make everyone do x" way of thinking TIK is still great though. Been watching a lot of his content lately.
@@GammaJKunfortunately Mentis is light on the theoritcal functioning of leftwing ideaology. You'll just have to buckle up and become a Lindsayian. Ask any questions you have so far or listening suggestions.
Grats on 80k. I don't care for the levels of thinking model. For one, it has "to be fair you have to have a high IQ to understand " vibe. Secondly, all it really measures in the real world is how luxurious a belief can you maintain. When the barbarians are at the gate or your children are starving being a level 99 archmage is a handicap, not a boon.
The levels of thinking model is supposed to be a "What is the most complex way of thinking you can muster?" chart. People spend most of their time at the lowest levels of thoughts anyway. Survival mode is something that people capable of very complex thoughts still have and can use in emergencies. The luxurious beliefs handicap is more of a problem with the propensity for midwits to only understand half of the situation and come to the wrong conclusion.
Considering the republican party is based primarily on lockean natural rights, you should have a means to use their values to turn them more libertarian. Just argue they should follow those first principles to their logical end point, they will end up far more libertarian.
I don't think Anarcho-capitalism necessitates an economy that utilizes the capitalist mode of production exclusively. Voluntary socialism would harmonize just fine in such a society. I'm not saying it would thrive or be popular. I'm just saying "Laissez-faire Anarchism" would be a more accurate description of AnCap ethics.
The leftist cope is huge with this one. Why even bother anymore? You try the same shit AGAIN, mass produce corpses at lightning speed AGAIN, blame capitalism when it all collapses and just do the same shit AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN AD INFINITUM TIMES ETERNITY. And at no point do you ever even consider thinking that it might potentially be a wise idea to realize that maybe, just maybe, your ideology DOES NOT WORK.
In ancap, no one's gonna coerce you to utilize exlusively the capitalist mode of production. If someone wants to set up a socialist commune somewhere, they can go right ahead. I'm just not gonna sell stuff to them, because I find their ideology dangerous and anti-human.
Will you ever debate or debunk conservatives that disavow libertarian conservatives-- such as John Doyle? I really like you and John Doyle, so a debate between you two would be very fun to watch.
Hey Mentis, can you make a video on “Muh Monopoly”? This is one talking point I see from the left A LOT. It seems to me, as someone who loves history, that most people view monopolies as an inherently Capitalist phenomenon because of Standard Oil and US Steel being ‘natural monopolies’ (not really but most people seem to have that idea) along with other stigmas people tend to put on the more Laissez Faire economic policies of the 1800’s. I would love to see a video going over and explaining how monopolies are a government phenomenon instead of a capitalist phenomenon just because of how much people tend to criticize capitalism for it. I’m actually a Friedmanite so I tend to agree with the policy he lays out in Capitalism and Freedom on monopolies, which is similar to what I’ve read on the Mises Institute website. But I’m curious to see how someone else who supports the Austrian School in the modern would go about this issue and would also like to see it become a more discussed debate instead of the academic consensus just “accepting” the Keynesian arguments.
How do you ensure that natural law courts would not take advantage of people for the betterment of whatever group they represent? Basically, in a libertarian court system, who holds the courts accountable and how to the courts enforce authority?
Japan has just as many building restrictions, and actually some extras. The land our house is on, despite being twice the size of the surrounding areas, is not showed to be subdivided. Not only that, the house can’t be rebuilt-let alone reelected-without special permission
You mention understanding natural law in reference to antinatalism but also in general through the rest of the video (and your other videos as well). Where should one start he wanted to learn about natural law?
My whole issue with libertarianism is actually what ultimately made me shy away from it. It assumes individuals will simply coexist within a balance of other individuals and not collectivize much like commies or foreign invaders like to do. It doesn't work in a society where everyone has vastly different belief structures and moral values. Of course, libertarianism doesn't say that the state won't exist to deal with some of these problems, just that it will be limited under the rule of the people. However, this is a very hard balance to strike because it's essentially requiring faith in the state to enforce laws fairly for it's citizens when it very well could have every desire to subvert the will of the people in exchange for a foreign slave class that's willing to give them more power in perpetuity for gibs. It just seems impractical in the U.S. but I am open to a lot of the ideas.
I’ve always said with regard to logic vs “feels” and collaboration: One person is smart, 4 or so can be genius, but any more than 10 and they’re all idiots.
20:13 Big facts here. I was homeschooled for 12 years (and wouldn't trade it for anything), but in terms of mental health, there's a world of difference between a homeschooled kid who gets out of the house and a homeschooled kid who doesn't (I would know; I've been both kids). It's a simple thing to do, too--just going to a church with a good Sunday School and picking up a sport did the trick for me.
I live in a small town and I feel like that fact alone keeps the public schools more politically neutral. Even if the teachers themselves are leftists the subject material taught at the school tends to be more objective. If you're a sane person the last thing you want is to run into someone at the post office and explain why their 3rd grader came home and announced they are now non binary. My oldest is in 3rd grade and was asking me about the candidates in the election. I was actually kind of impressed when she asked me, "I understand some people want Kamala to win because she's a woman, but who do you think would be better at being the president?"
What do you think about Google having to sell Chrome? I'm a little split on it. I don't like that google can just disable ad-blockers on their platform that some 65% of website rely on, but I also don't like the Government being able to break up good companies like Google.
There was nothing wrong with chrome being under Google. Don't like it? Don't use it. What does selling chrome accomplish? It's probably going to go into the hands of an even more controlling organization. Browser choice is a free market and for a decade now chrome was by far the best product objectively speaking. If they wanted to harm their market share by downgrading their product then it should be the free market to decide if they want to continue using chrome or not.
Forcing Google to divest chrome (especially without removing their defacto ownership of Chromium) will be exhibit A on "this whole process was performative theatre". Chrome was never the interesting part, that it took a significant chunk of market share is a happy accident for Google, the important part was always Chromium. Chrome didn't win the browser war, Chromium did.
I appreciate your awesome videos and great content. I am personally trying to get a better understanding of natural law, i vaguely recall in a q&a you mentioned books that talk about natural law, could you tell me what they are again so i can better educate myself on the idea, or possibly a video on natural law could be pretty cool
Another problem with the give natives back their land argument , is that natives b4 meeting europeans , never had a concept of ownership of land. Youll find that today among natives still. " how can anyone own land its not ours its the earths its the spirits etc " lol
Have you considered doing a video explaining the claim that state intervention is what causes all monopolies. the Gilded Age monopolies would be a great e.g for your claim that natural monopolies have never occurred and are likely not real. You’re the first person I‘ve heard claim that no natural monopolies at all have formed and as such I‘ve seen no explanation of the idea anywhere. Also, great videos
Another problem to consider when talking about land back is that contemporary cultures in the US and Canada (conveniently Mexico and other post-colonial states in Central America are absent here despite similar histories, hmmm…) refer to indigenous people as an entire ethnic bloc rather then the collection of different cultures and nation states that pretty much most other human societies form themselves into. The Sioux people are going to have differing ideas regarding land rights and governance when compared to the Iroquois. Even in the European Union, the model that most liberal societies imagine is a step towards progress, there are disputes and rivalries between states that can get heated. Even in China, a country that largely succeeded in forming a large and long lasting ethnostate, regional differences still persist.
I had asked a question related to zoning which was mostly answered at 9:25. In my opinion, zoning is one of the issues libertarians should bring to the forefront. It's something I think we could gain a lot of ground with. Urbanist ideas are getting really popular with the youth for lots of reasons, but the main one is how the housing crisis has made the dream of owning your own home almost impossible for Gen Z. The issue is a lot of urbanists online, especially on youtube, tend to come from left-leaning backgrounds, and I'm seeing some people trying to turn urbanism into a right vs left thing. Libertarians should come out and set the record straight that urbanism is inherently libertarian and pro-capitalist, and that's a GOOD thing! Also that left-wing ideas like rent control or forcibly taking vacant property from landlords wouldn't fix the problem, and in some cases make it worse.
I've never seen the levels of thinking before. I've heard the concept never seen something like that chart before, but it explains a lot. I've had a mental model simular to that for a while but it's better articulated in that chart. Maybe lacking a few vectors, but generally useful.
I find it exceptionally ironic that socially advanced societies that begin to adopt individualism have a major tendency for self-destruction via the importation and tolerance of groups that wish to destroy them. Almost a kind of social Fermi's Paradox.
@@davidlewis6728 Listened quickly to a few videos right now and no, I don't find it. What he has done is defend rights, explain why there are no such thing as positive freedom etc. But that is not what I'm after. I'm after a video that explains where rights come from and why e.g. the government, or a constitution for that matter, can never grant anyone freedom of speech.
@@JohnDoe-sq5nv pretty sure he did a video on these topics, but 1) self-ownership and natural law. 2) rights are negative. nothing can "grant" rights, they are innate. the government was supposed to protect them but failed. if positive rights (granted rights) are illegitimate, that directly addresses the question about where rights come from, and why the state can't grant them.
@@davidlewis6728 I know what rights are, but I'd like to see a video by him explaining to others what rights are. Not just stating that they are innate, but how and what it actually means. What are property rights really, what is freedom of association really, what is freedom of speech really, and why they can never be granted, only violated. What role beasts play and why the beasts actually have the same rights even when they don't understand them and why we have a right to violate their rights, what it means when intelligent beings respect others rights. Why we have a right to violate beasts rights was justified in this video, but not properly explained nor explained in the proper context. Freedom of speech and its limitations, for example, is extremely easy to explain in the context of beasts rather than humans. Because it more than any other example helps set the natural boundaries of freedom of speech. I've talked with plenty of Hoppeans who actually don't understand this and still in some way always involve states or contracts when they try to understand rights. Sometimes you have to peel back several layers, but somewhere in there they still believe that rights come from some sort of explicit contract or defer it to the will of god. This wouldn't even be that long of a video, maybe 20-30 minutes. It is a shift in mindset that would have to be explained, but once you understand the basics everything falls into place naturally.
Key thing in ancap politics is understanding theres more to life than money. Tarrifs being a prime example. It dosen't matter how much money your country has if youve allowed strategically critical businesses to be eroded to nothing by a combination of foriegn import tarrifs and subsidized goods. Its kinda hard to fight a modren war when you cant get the chips to produce drones and missles, but your opponent can. A true ancapistani society would have no answer to a ghengis kahn.
This is correct. Once an ancap insurance company has a enough land-mass covered, there is nearly nothing that can stop it from restarting the state extortion process. Some ancaps would tell you this problem can be avoided with competition, but the simple reality is that the only way someone can escape extortion is by moving out to another location where there isn't extortion, and moving out is simply too financially costly and time-consuming to be viable(due to immigration laws, having to find a new job, housing market and thousands of other reasons), the same way you can't just move out to canada or europe if you don't like your country's state. It's even more true for a covenant community trying to escape the insurance's extortion. Matter of fact, this leads covenant communities to start extortion themselves.
Okay, Mr. Mentis. I have an artist for you. Try giving Aesop Rock a listen. He's a rapper, but it's said he has the largest vocabulary in hip-hop, by a wide margin, and he tends to rap about abstract concepts and his life. His latest album 'Integrated Tech Solutions' has a song called 'Mindful Solutionism' thats about the advancement of technology. It might not be your thing, but I love the guy's work and tend to suggest him to other big/deep thinking types.
Hi MentisWave, me again, the guy who asked about tying senators's wage to the average population's income I didn't know you would do a video of Q&A again! But I hope you read this or others also see and comment the same sugestion Could you make a video on Historia Civilis video on Time, the clock and the development of capitalism? I think its an interesting video but I disagree strongly on its idea that just blames "rich man bad"
29:51 I'm going to need to remember that. It seems daunting but probably worth doing, and runs completely counter to the tendency toward reaction and spontaneity that people love to see.
Socialized healthcare wouldn't even be a stance if it weren't so expensive to afford due to what feels like monopolized patents in the medical fields driving the prices up. Also, the fact that hospitals charge a ton extra and you can ask for an itemized bill to make it much cheaper is insane to me as well. I obviously don't know too much about it, but it seems flawed from an outside view. The FDA seems corrupt with the industry funding that totally doesn't change how they see companies and profit over affordable safety of the general population.
There's some new stuff ( Text T-Shirts! ) on the merch store! The shirts are quite comfy I am wearing one right now. mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products
Profits from this help me buy more fum...I mean...uh...make more content.
Hapi
Which BreadTuber do you plan on doing a full High-Octane video on next?
Sell fumos?
Do that Innuendo Studios series after you do the Coconut Refutation!
You mentioned debunking leftist "science". Is there any chance of you doing a video on Stephanie Kelton's The Deficit Myth or Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?
I really don't think a lot of libertarians realize just how much the 'living in Ancapistan inside their head' hinders their ability to become the dominant side of conservative thought. I will admit to being more minarchist, but a lot of people view even that as a utopian pipe dream. I can confidently agree that any open borders talk immediately loses a lot of people because they've directly seen it be abused by politicians. Completely eliminating taxes is another one because people are not ready for the idea of dissolving the state. Essentially, jumping straight to end-game libertarian policies, especially without laying the ideological groundwork first, makes us seem out-of-touch and childish to a large section of the population.
This is true especially for people like me who is not really balls deep into any ideology. It really feels like what if someone tries to make sci-fi reality. Sure, it is nice to have FTL and Exotic matter, but we don't have the groundwork (physics or otherwise) that makes it possible for us to do or create those things, let alone be able to know how would they work, what rules do they abide by, and how can they be used in practical ways without strings attached when it comes to the end-user.
This seems accurate, with any utopian ideology you have to use slow-boil tactics. Bring it to the boil too fast and the frogs will leap out.
You can't have open borders in the United States without precipitating a crisis. The idea wasn't just abused: there's no meaningful concept of open borders without a pile of Haitian and Venezuelan gangsters bum rushing you.
Fifty percent of the population already see everything the other side wants as stupid and childish. Just because people can't understand why they're wrong or wishing for immoral outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for what's right
Open borders is not at all libertarian if the results are more authoritarians flowing in. It was introduced by leftists and the fact that actual libertarians don't just discard shows that a lot of them are just parroting the ideology and not actually thinking at all. As far as the less government and taxes try cutting by 1% and stopping when things stop improving. Those tax increases happened over a century.
Mentiswave has become pretty dapper in his last few videos with the suit
They are fun to make at least.
@@MentisWave Maybe instead of merch you should open a fine tailored dress service in Italy or something.
@@Ripa-Moramee
now _that_ I could get behind.
I prefer the "greasy NEET playing games at his desk while surrounded by Chinese cartoon plushies" vibe better. Real man of the people kinda look.
@@CowslippoetrySFO lel
I’m not a Libertarian. I have massive philosophical differences with them. I hate Socialism and find socialists to be genuinely abhorrent, and I admire your work. I disagree with most people on stuff, but I like this channel and the anti left work it has done. Godspeed.
I think Libertarian thought is much more useful than a lot of other political ideologies, but there’s a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of social cohesion and just the fact that most people are complete sheep that follow anything.
Liberty requires virtue to avoid descending into chaos. Most people are not virtuous. In fact, pretty much no one _is_ virtuous. That's why the very first freedom you introduce to a populace, and the freedom that must be defended at all costs, is the freedom to defend themselves from the lapses in virtue of their peers. Darwinism will then sort out most of the malcontent scum, enabling further increases in freedoms.
I'm a minarchist because I believe eliminating government as a concept is philosophically impossible. Power will always exist in some semantic form or another. It just needs to be bridled and decentralized as much as possible. Those with power should never be sheltered from the consequences of its abuse.
@@draketheduelist This is an insane take, bro applying Darwinism to a political or social system is backwards and has widely been accepted to be harmful and idiotic literally a whole ass century ago.
Same for me
@draketheduelist based minarchy bro
Thoughts on Lichtenstein?
100k Q N A will be wild.
Oh, it will.
It's gotta be BEEEG
@@Ripa-Moramee
"hyooj" - Tangerine man
@@MentisWave Told ya I'd see ya'll at 100K! =)
ft. QAnon on 100k
Here are the questions:
1:11 NAP and past property injustices 2:31 video recommended
2:45 How outside the mainstream are Libertarian positions
5:00 Coconut and other analogies
5:33 Most Left wing views
7:18 Leftists hard to debunk because they're more correct?
8:30 Agorism 9:15 Rappers
9:25 Zoning laws
11:43 Taking small steps for Libertarianism and Strategy
14:32 What keeps Republicans non-Libertarian
19:20 Home school
20:48 Military in a Libertarian society
22:22 Biggest downside about Libertarianism (plus, Consciousness Levels)
27:38 Bonus: Goals for the Mises institute
29:50 How are you so correct?
30:50 Becoming a team?
31:48 Violence in self defense
34:43 Opinions on Responses to you
37:45 What's the State/Non-State distinction
39:50 Best way to fight Government encroachment
42:05 Grassroots advocacy
44:55 NAP to Aliens?
47:27 Future videos on wild claims?
Thank you, this is great!
Nick Gillespie not getting what people vote for and suggesting Trump would get more votes if he didn't talk about the border or just made economic arguments was one of the most naive takes I've heard from the Reason crowd in quite a while.
So, business as usual?
Some things from Reason are fantastic, but a lot of their newer content makes me cringe.
ReaCNN is usually deluded. At least they fund Remy videos on occasion.
Reason always swings for the dumbest arguments.
@@Joker22593Wonder how many people wouldn't be subscribed to Reason if it weren't for Remy
One of the biggest problems I found with (L)ibertarianism is the different definitions that you mention with Anarchy being the example. If we cannot agree on a common lexicon in which to define things, then we're already working at odds.
There's a difference between appealing to the lowest common denominator and being understood at all. Not everyone is or wants to be well versed in Esperanto.
Yep, that's why I prefer to call it Voluntarism, because the main point of ancap is for interactions to be made without coercion, AKA voluntarily. 'Anarchy' and 'capitalism' have waaaay too many other interpretations, and your average Joe will think about them first instead of understanding your point when you try to explain it.
Anarchy has *always* meant "without rulers."
How is "Anarchy" an example of people using different definitions?
People need to know AnCap isn't the only Libertarian school of thought. There's fusionism, minarchism, paleolibertarianism, Objectivism...
AnMon is pretty interesting. It's basically J.R.R. Tolkien's political philosophy
The earliest land usage in English North America was acquired through purchase and not violence
Yeah natives didn't believe in property rights, the land was owned by everyone, so applying property rights to them doesn't really make much sense
@@theunholybanana4745 property rights are innate, it doesn't matter if the people believe in it. You still have a right to your body And it is still wrong to impose on that right Even if the other party does not believe in it.
On top of that, the Indians weren't stupid. Even if they didn't personally believe in a thing, they are more than capable in understanding that the people they are talking to do. So that either they were trying to scam them by selling them a new color, Or They could reasonably come to the conclusion that the other people will act as if this is a binding resolution.
They also had a reasonable understanding of trade. Which means they did have the knowledge of property rights. They just didn't think it applied to land mass. And if they didn't think that then they shouldn't have sold it.
@@theunholybanana4745 That is complete horseshit. Literal Communist propaganda.
@theunholybanana4745 oh yes it was owned by everyone, especially the tribes that fought off other tribes for the land owned by everyone.
@@theunholybanana4745
Blatantly false. The Native Americans fought over land all the time with tribe warfare. That's the entire reason why different tribes held different allegiances during the French And Indian War. They traded land in exchange for various foreign goods, with guns being a majorly coveted item for this trading to gain a combat edge over other tribes.
Every day my motivation grows. You and everything else that is going on in the world only encourages me further to make my own channel and speak out...
Thank you. I just need to find a place to begin
You can do it! Remember to make your videos neither too long nor too short, have a specific topic to focus on so it's easier to follow your content (at least early on as you gain experience to tackle more topics at the same time) and most importantly don't be disheartened if you don't succeed at first, failure is a normal part of human life and it shouldn't be a deterrent for you to speak up.
Good luck!
I did that on a different account and struck gold, 100k views on my third video bringing in around 3k subs. That in just a week or two is a huge deal! Most people only hit 1k after a year or so. You can do it! Theres a huge thirst for sanity in the world right now. Channels like ours will grow like crazy in the next years
18:25 the closest person to this right now is Vivek Ramaswamy and if he does a good job leading the department of government of efficency with elon he has a high chance of winning the primaries and the General Election in 2028
To be honest, I think that not treating Open Borders as the 1° issue while also striving for the achievement of a libertarian society is quite shortsighted. Libertarianism as an ideological and societal structure bases itself on concepts and principles that mainly derive from the cultural, societal, and intellectual ethos of the Western world. The NAP, basic individual freedoms, and natural law are inextricably tied to our societies and their history and development.
Not doing anything to stop our replacement and letting 3rd worlders be coddled and favoured by our governments will only lead to us becoming a minority. And as such the pool of individuals compatible to Libertarianism would shrink so drastically that it will at last become completely unachievable.
I think that an alliance out of convenience with Wignats would be more useful. Let them clean the mess of Open Borders up and then it will be possible to discuss how government should work. Then again they care mostly about securing a future for white people, once that's done they'll be more interested in preserving that security than getting entangled in the weeds of internal government policy.
Ah, another MW video dropped. Time to put in my earbuds and go for a walk around my neighborhood like Mr. Rogers. 😀
It’s either almost midnight or almost 3 am. I hope you live in a gated community. Lmao
Actually , Machiavelli had a more realistic take on mercenaries in The Prince Chapter XII: "I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;[*] and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty."
Machiavelli always gives examples from history and his view is very pragmatic unlike the theoretical and idealistic view. You want modern example? The march of the Wagner Group on the capital of Russia. even if they didn't win, they caused damage to the Russian war effort and moral.
Did you have the chance to read Machiavelli works?
i was homeschooled but had 6 times 2 hours of swimming a week so i had a lot of friends and i have decent charisma, good old days
Zoning is solved by resource access as a private matter. It causes anyone upstream to be legally responsible for their impositions on those downstream. I can sue someone for dumping toxic waste not on my lawn, but now near my dock. Both should have equal liability, and they don't!
Responsibility would literally change with the prevailing wind direction.
@@hooligan9794 cool. don't dump toxic shit into the environment, then
Mentis collab with Hoe Math CONFIRMED??!!1!!! I wish lol
The part about explaining complex things in simple terns is extremely important for me; I have some very... let's just say enthusiastic establishment puppets/leftist activists/cathedralites friends (they're actually good people, but their ideas are so damn off from reality, it's increasingly hard to discuss), so, for example, arguing with them about how it's economic development, and not leftist/marxist "worker rights", that can really improve the lives of the poor is extremely complicated.
I’ve found it impossible to reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Unless they’re like a Thomas Sowell who had a very genuine inclination to look into the data, they probably are more interested in the vibes than anything else. But I don’t know them, so it’s rather hard to say. I think the number #1 thing that gets them out of that mode of thinking is having them be personally accountable to it, so if things go wrong with it, make sure they don’t have an excuse for it.
Not even related to the QA but BASED Zone of the Enders 1 enjoyer.
+Undub mod.
@@MentisWave Yoooo I didn't even know that existed. I need to look into that.
Although tbh, I do love some lines in the English dub for how hammy they are.
"You may speak like a human, but you're still a heartless robot, aren't you?"
"That is correct. What is the problem?"
What do you make of the observation that the socialists and right libertarians often sound similar in the structure of their political comments?
Some examples: "socialism/libertarianism is too complicated for most to understand." "That's not real communism/libertarianism." "We need to take over the mainstream party from the inside." "Candidate A lost because they were not far enough." "The opposite party has all the institutional power."
I agree much more with a right libertarian position, but I cant help but notice these similar comments in both online spaces. Is it a function of both believing themselves marginalized (regardless of the truth of it)? Perhaps a desire to be the outsider & underdog? Or just a lens so far away from the center And each other that everything looks backwards?
Is quite simple. A lefty wants power. When they say "true socialism" they mean socialism where they are in charge.
A right libertarian is selfless is the sense they want freedom for all.
Both ideologies are built upon dismantling the status quo government. Libertarians just won't replace the government afterwards
It's not surprising that delusional thought looks the same.
For the commies, it's literally part of their ideology that no matter how much power they hold, they're still oppressed and need to defeat the non-believers.
For Libertarians it's ideological ostriches with their head up their own sandy assessments.
It's just the nature of politics. There are so many competing ideologies that they all kind of are underdogs until one gains power in any sector (officially or unofficially). Then they have to work towards that ideal with many hurdles in the way set by the other ideologies. Whichever one gets the closest to their goal is deemed the status quo by other ideologies except they now have a more up to date blueprint on how to get power.
I was thinking of a definition of anarchy that I could use when ever someone ask me about it. Here it goes: Anarchy is when people come together and organize themselves of their own volition into a natural hierarchy without government authority. I think it's good and it works for the people that don't know or think anarchy is total chaos, it does the job at explaining very clearly and succinctly.
I love how Michael Malice explains it. Anarchy is a relationship. It means without rulers, every government around the world is in a state of anarchy with one another. You and I also share an anarchic relationship between each other as neither rules over the other.
Found this channel a few days after the election and I've binges all of your videos, can't wait to see it grow!
How do you deal with completely immoral societies in a Hoppean style world? One community steals, kills, and pillages each other, or other communities (not under protection of a private military or have their own defenses). How would this community be dealt with?
Charity exists, and especially so in an ancap society, societies who do not have a PM could form alliances with communities who do, if it is a good, moral community people are naturally drawn to defend it even if it isn't their own.
If this community of pillagers were to stay within their own borders and does not trangress on other communities then the strategy is to do nothing, it will fall from its own accord.
They can't. It is the principle reason these kinds of societies are just as much ridiculous utopian fantasies as communism.
Physical Removal.
According to Hoppe, every community (or at least one of those community) will be insured by an insurance company which will obviously be liable for their insured property being burned down by marauding raiders. These companies would have a vested, financial interest in annihilating any immoral societies, which would naturally make themselves uninsurable.
I might be explaining this poorly, so i would recommend actually reading The Private Production of Defense. It's available online for free and its a fairly concise read.
@Delta-es1lg So the NAP results in annihilating society that will not comply.
Sounds so much like communism it is uncanny.
As a former Tankie. I still get a bit triggered when people criticize communism even when I'm more of a Libertarian now.
Leaves me wondering wondering how did you went from communism to libertarianism in the first place.
That’s interesting, why exactly do you feel triggered?
Dam I haven't seen that profile photo in a minute
Skill issue. Get good.
As someone who has never been a tankie, I get triggered upon realizing tankies exist
People who aren't born yet can have property rights as most people understand them, but only after conception.
Hi Mentis ,Can you make a video about childrens rights and parental obligations?
I am quite suprised that actually you are a Hoppean, but nonetheless I am happy that there is someone on youtube that presents the libertarian ideas this well. Cheers from from a European Minarchist
I lost it at “all voluntary actions are coercive.” It sounds like a pro-slavery argument.
But commies actually believe it.
How so?
@@Fernybun Because an action is either coercive, or voluntary - there is no third alternative. To claim all voluntary actions are coercive is equivalent to claiming all actions to be coercive. From this you either conclude that one shouldn't act, therefore everyone should die, or you conclude that coercion is fine, and accepting slavery is basically the same thing but more specific. It's a very anti-human view, besides the fact how obviously reality-denying it is. I mean, "voluntary" is quite literally the opposite of "coercive" by definition.
Most lefties I know use that argument.
It’s Original Sin for libtards and communists.
35:30 "People who arn't born yet don't have property rights," Slightly disagree. I belive life, and the "property" right to it, begins before birth, at conception.
Judging by the fact he's talking about the anti-natalism question I'm assuming he wasn't paying attention to the specific wording in terms of the abortion issue. I'm pretty sure he's pro-life, but I could not tell you why I think that. I could have seen him say something like it, or maybe I just projected it onto him and effectively made it up. Who knows!
I'd LOVE to see Innuendo Studios debunked!
Dude thank you. Your answers clarify a lot of things some of my family members have asked about. I have shared this video with them.
Hello mentis!
Hello early comment chad!
Do these more! They are really fun to watch and your thoughts are very interesting.
I've noticed that conservatives are starting to accept libertarian presuppositions. I've even noticed them beginning to accept the ECP
They usually "accept it" but only in so far as they deny it applies to them.
I'm sure if you explain ECP to an average conservative, they'll sort of get it and accept it as an argument against socialism. The problem is, the ECP is not just a criticism of socialism. It's the argument against central planning in general, which they wouldn't logically conclude from having heard it. Frankly, many more moderate libertarians don't truly understand how far-reaching the implications of the ECP are. Because that very same ECP disproves the possibility of efficiency of any government intervention into the economy, as well as, more importantly, disprove the possibility of sustained natural monopoly in the free market.
Accepting the ECP is one thing - accepting its logical conclusions is hardcore king shit.
Quick Question how does libertarianism deal with (in my eyes) problematic firms like blackrock and vanguard. As in how does it prevent them buying up large chunks of land and housing?
Minarchy is better imo
Which BreadTuber do you plan on doing a full High-Octane video on next?
28:00 - The Heritage Foundation is something pretty close to this. They're a bit more conservative rather than libertarian but would definitely be willing to swing libertarian to get more relevancy and to oppose Marxism.
3:11 3:44 4:11 5:01 5:35 6:16 7:07 7:18 8:32 (9:15 I love this Man) 9:27 11:44 12:18 (13:21) 14:34 16:01 18:02 19:00 (20:50) 22:22 24:02 24:46
Hey Mentis, I have been watching your videos for a while now, and I want to take a further dive into the ideas you talk about in your videos. I was wondering where a good start would be to learn more about things like austrian economics, natural law, and meses libertarianism.
Basic economics by thomas sowell
Basic economics by thomas sowell
Thanks for putting my question at the very very start. You're on a roll bro.
Thanks, Mentis! Hope your health gets better soon!
Babe get up! Mentis posted!
Hey Mentis. How much have you looked into Hegelianism and dialectics? It's something I'm only just now finding out about and there's an excellent video by James Lindsay here on youtube that made about a dozen different things click for me. He also makes an indirect and probably unintentional reference to Moldbug's "cthulhu swimming left" idea. I haven't heard you mention dialectics before.
edit: typo
I think TIK does this well, I find his content more engaging. His last video had him proving who the god Not zees worship is.
hegelianism is just a massive reification fallacy.
@@lainiwakura1776 Yes, TIK was the introduction for me, but after watching Lindsay's video I found TIK had dumbed it down a little too much IMO, and stuck with the mysticism idea too much when talking about Marxist dialectical materialism instead of more important points you could criticize it on, like that it's an inherently totalitarian moralising busybody "we'll just make everyone do x" way of thinking
TIK is still great though. Been watching a lot of his content lately.
@@GammaJKunfortunately Mentis is light on the theoritcal functioning of leftwing ideaology. You'll just have to buckle up and become a Lindsayian. Ask any questions you have so far or listening suggestions.
Grats on 80k.
I don't care for the levels of thinking model. For one, it has "to be fair you have to have a high IQ to understand " vibe. Secondly, all it really measures in the real world is how luxurious a belief can you maintain. When the barbarians are at the gate or your children are starving being a level 99 archmage is a handicap, not a boon.
The levels of thinking model is supposed to be a "What is the most complex way of thinking you can muster?" chart. People spend most of their time at the lowest levels of thoughts anyway. Survival mode is something that people capable of very complex thoughts still have and can use in emergencies.
The luxurious beliefs handicap is more of a problem with the propensity for midwits to only understand half of the situation and come to the wrong conclusion.
Considering the republican party is based primarily on lockean natural rights, you should have a means to use their values to turn them more libertarian. Just argue they should follow those first principles to their logical end point, they will end up far more libertarian.
I don't think Anarcho-capitalism necessitates an economy that utilizes the capitalist mode of production exclusively. Voluntary socialism would harmonize just fine in such a society. I'm not saying it would thrive or be popular. I'm just saying "Laissez-faire Anarchism" would be a more accurate description of AnCap ethics.
The leftist cope is huge with this one. Why even bother anymore? You try the same shit AGAIN, mass produce corpses at lightning speed AGAIN, blame capitalism when it all collapses and just do the same shit AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN AD INFINITUM TIMES ETERNITY. And at no point do you ever even consider thinking that it might potentially be a wise idea to realize that maybe, just maybe, your ideology DOES NOT WORK.
In ancap, no one's gonna coerce you to utilize exlusively the capitalist mode of production. If someone wants to set up a socialist commune somewhere, they can go right ahead. I'm just not gonna sell stuff to them, because I find their ideology dangerous and anti-human.
Congratulations on the lucky 7's!
I've never been able to get ZOEs gameplay out of my head, It's so good. Love the mech design too.
Will you ever debate or debunk conservatives that disavow libertarian conservatives-- such as John Doyle? I really like you and John Doyle, so a debate between you two would be very fun to watch.
Hail ya Zone Of Enders in the background
Hey Mentis, can you make a video on “Muh Monopoly”? This is one talking point I see from the left A LOT. It seems to me, as someone who loves history, that most people view monopolies as an inherently Capitalist phenomenon because of Standard Oil and US Steel being ‘natural monopolies’ (not really but most people seem to have that idea) along with other stigmas people tend to put on the more Laissez Faire economic policies of the 1800’s. I would love to see a video going over and explaining how monopolies are a government phenomenon instead of a capitalist phenomenon just because of how much people tend to criticize capitalism for it.
I’m actually a Friedmanite so I tend to agree with the policy he lays out in Capitalism and Freedom on monopolies, which is similar to what I’ve read on the Mises Institute website. But I’m curious to see how someone else who supports the Austrian School in the modern would go about this issue and would also like to see it become a more discussed debate instead of the academic consensus just “accepting” the Keynesian arguments.
I made this comment before watching the video and just heard you were planning on making a monopoly video 🤦♂️
How do you ensure that natural law courts would not take advantage of people for the betterment of whatever group they represent?
Basically, in a libertarian court system, who holds the courts accountable and how to the courts enforce authority?
12:11 people do be out here saying "it's not real communism" except "it's not real libertarianism" huh
that is so hilarious
Ancapistan. Ha ha ha! That's good. I always called it Libertopia. I'm gonna' use your word from now on. 😂
1st also do an IP video
Japan has just as many building restrictions, and actually some extras. The land our house is on, despite being twice the size of the surrounding areas, is not showed to be subdivided. Not only that, the house can’t be rebuilt-let alone reelected-without special permission
100 views in 4 minutes... bro really fell off
🤫
Posted at midnight
Wtf does this even mean?
@@rucker69 It means the commenter is unoriginal af lol
You mention understanding natural law in reference to antinatalism but also in general through the rest of the video (and your other videos as well). Where should one start he wanted to learn about natural law?
My whole issue with libertarianism is actually what ultimately made me shy away from it. It assumes individuals will simply coexist within a balance of other individuals and not collectivize much like commies or foreign invaders like to do. It doesn't work in a society where everyone has vastly different belief structures and moral values. Of course, libertarianism doesn't say that the state won't exist to deal with some of these problems, just that it will be limited under the rule of the people. However, this is a very hard balance to strike because it's essentially requiring faith in the state to enforce laws fairly for it's citizens when it very well could have every desire to subvert the will of the people in exchange for a foreign slave class that's willing to give them more power in perpetuity for gibs. It just seems impractical in the U.S. but I am open to a lot of the ideas.
I’ve always said with regard to logic vs “feels” and collaboration: One person is smart, 4 or so can be genius, but any more than 10 and they’re all idiots.
20:13 Big facts here. I was homeschooled for 12 years (and wouldn't trade it for anything), but in terms of mental health, there's a world of difference between a homeschooled kid who gets out of the house and a homeschooled kid who doesn't (I would know; I've been both kids). It's a simple thing to do, too--just going to a church with a good Sunday School and picking up a sport did the trick for me.
I live in a small town and I feel like that fact alone keeps the public schools more politically neutral. Even if the teachers themselves are leftists the subject material taught at the school tends to be more objective. If you're a sane person the last thing you want is to run into someone at the post office and explain why their 3rd grader came home and announced they are now non binary. My oldest is in 3rd grade and was asking me about the candidates in the election. I was actually kind of impressed when she asked me, "I understand some people want Kamala to win because she's a woman, but who do you think would be better at being the president?"
The first answer boils down to “might makes right, if you hold it long enough “
What do you think about Google having to sell Chrome?
I'm a little split on it. I don't like that google can just disable ad-blockers on their platform that some 65% of website rely on, but I also don't like the Government being able to break up good companies like Google.
There was nothing wrong with chrome being under Google. Don't like it? Don't use it. What does selling chrome accomplish? It's probably going to go into the hands of an even more controlling organization. Browser choice is a free market and for a decade now chrome was by far the best product objectively speaking. If they wanted to harm their market share by downgrading their product then it should be the free market to decide if they want to continue using chrome or not.
Forcing Google to divest chrome (especially without removing their defacto ownership of Chromium) will be exhibit A on "this whole process was performative theatre". Chrome was never the interesting part, that it took a significant chunk of market share is a happy accident for Google, the important part was always Chromium. Chrome didn't win the browser war, Chromium did.
I appreciate your awesome videos and great content. I am personally trying to get a better understanding of natural law, i vaguely recall in a q&a you mentioned books that talk about natural law, could you tell me what they are again so i can better educate myself on the idea, or possibly a video on natural law could be pretty cool
Thanks for another Q/A. Do I have to be a patron to ask a quastion?
Another problem with the give natives back their land argument , is that natives b4 meeting europeans , never had a concept of ownership of land. Youll find that today among natives still. " how can anyone own land its not ours its the earths its the spirits etc " lol
It probably depended on the tribe because a decent portion where nomadic
Most of America's land wasn't stolen. It was bought, traded, and at times conquered
How do you feel about monarchism. I remember Hoppe sympathizing with monarchism and Liechtenstein
I wouldn't say he sympathised with monarchism, just saw it as lesser evil than "public government"
Have you considered doing a video explaining the claim that state intervention is what causes all monopolies. the Gilded Age monopolies would be a great e.g for your claim that natural monopolies have never occurred and are likely not real. You’re the first person I‘ve heard claim that no natural monopolies at all have formed and as such I‘ve seen no explanation of the idea anywhere.
Also, great videos
Some day I will notice your post in time and actually ask my question..
Another problem to consider when talking about land back is that contemporary cultures in the US and Canada (conveniently Mexico and other post-colonial states in Central America are absent here despite similar histories, hmmm…) refer to indigenous people as an entire ethnic bloc rather then the collection of different cultures and nation states that pretty much most other human societies form themselves into. The Sioux people are going to have differing ideas regarding land rights and governance when compared to the Iroquois. Even in the European Union, the model that most liberal societies imagine is a step towards progress, there are disputes and rivalries between states that can get heated. Even in China, a country that largely succeeded in forming a large and long lasting ethnostate, regional differences still persist.
Someone else has already said it, but Mentis really looking dapper with the suit now.
'we need to rebuttle [idiots]'
we need to make a parrellel society. detach, disengage, ignore.
a great video indeed as always
Damn, playing Zone of the Enders while talking libertarianism! This is the channel for me!
2:10 You'd be surprised to find out how many land/property CAN be proven to be in wrong hands this way.
More Vaush pwnage please
Gar-Vaush's Elections Coverage Stream was hilarious
What's your take on Distributism? Sorry for the spam. UT's Community Guidelines are awful.
I think about how NRX Distributist Dave says very little about distributism.
I had asked a question related to zoning which was mostly answered at 9:25. In my opinion, zoning is one of the issues libertarians should bring to the forefront. It's something I think we could gain a lot of ground with. Urbanist ideas are getting really popular with the youth for lots of reasons, but the main one is how the housing crisis has made the dream of owning your own home almost impossible for Gen Z. The issue is a lot of urbanists online, especially on youtube, tend to come from left-leaning backgrounds, and I'm seeing some people trying to turn urbanism into a right vs left thing. Libertarians should come out and set the record straight that urbanism is inherently libertarian and pro-capitalist, and that's a GOOD thing! Also that left-wing ideas like rent control or forcibly taking vacant property from landlords wouldn't fix the problem, and in some cases make it worse.
I've never seen the levels of thinking before. I've heard the concept never seen something like that chart before, but it explains a lot. I've had a mental model simular to that for a while but it's better articulated in that chart. Maybe lacking a few vectors, but generally useful.
god I haven't seen zone of the enders in ages.
I find it exceptionally ironic that socially advanced societies that begin to adopt individualism have a major tendency for self-destruction via the importation and tolerance of groups that wish to destroy them. Almost a kind of social Fermi's Paradox.
Will you make a video on what rights actually are, and why they can't be granted by a state?
he already made multiple videos on that topic in response to vaush.
@@davidlewis6728 Hmm, don't remember that. Will go back and have a look.
@@davidlewis6728 Listened quickly to a few videos right now and no, I don't find it. What he has done is defend rights, explain why there are no such thing as positive freedom etc. But that is not what I'm after.
I'm after a video that explains where rights come from and why e.g. the government, or a constitution for that matter, can never grant anyone freedom of speech.
@@JohnDoe-sq5nv pretty sure he did a video on these topics, but 1) self-ownership and natural law. 2) rights are negative. nothing can "grant" rights, they are innate. the government was supposed to protect them but failed. if positive rights (granted rights) are illegitimate, that directly addresses the question about where rights come from, and why the state can't grant them.
@@davidlewis6728 I know what rights are, but I'd like to see a video by him explaining to others what rights are. Not just stating that they are innate, but how and what it actually means. What are property rights really, what is freedom of association really, what is freedom of speech really, and why they can never be granted, only violated. What role beasts play and why the beasts actually have the same rights even when they don't understand them and why we have a right to violate their rights, what it means when intelligent beings respect others rights. Why we have a right to violate beasts rights was justified in this video, but not properly explained nor explained in the proper context.
Freedom of speech and its limitations, for example, is extremely easy to explain in the context of beasts rather than humans. Because it more than any other example helps set the natural boundaries of freedom of speech.
I've talked with plenty of Hoppeans who actually don't understand this and still in some way always involve states or contracts when they try to understand rights. Sometimes you have to peel back several layers, but somewhere in there they still believe that rights come from some sort of explicit contract or defer it to the will of god.
This wouldn't even be that long of a video, maybe 20-30 minutes. It is a shift in mindset that would have to be explained, but once you understand the basics everything falls into place naturally.
Just like your videos because I can watch this while drive and play games
Are you black? (Just curious. Im racist 🤭)
Do you have a list of recommended books for a general introduction to Libertarianism?
Also keep up the good work!
Zone of the Enders, nice. Also my favorite Rapper is Tom Macdonald (also not a big fan of rap) and Ben Shapiro 🤣
I'm surprised there's no DOGE video yet.
Key thing in ancap politics is understanding theres more to life than money. Tarrifs being a prime example. It dosen't matter how much money your country has if youve allowed strategically critical businesses to be eroded to nothing by a combination of foriegn import tarrifs and subsidized goods.
Its kinda hard to fight a modren war when you cant get the chips to produce drones and missles, but your opponent can.
A true ancapistani society would have no answer to a ghengis kahn.
Very epic explanation 👍👍
Need to know more about these micro luxury apartments
Would insurance just be government by corpo proxy if they control the martial forces?
Therefore, insurance also have a proxy monopoly of force on individual trade nodes if not routes
This is correct. Once an ancap insurance company has a enough land-mass covered, there is nearly nothing that can stop it from restarting the state extortion process. Some ancaps would tell you this problem can be avoided with competition, but the simple reality is that the only way someone can escape extortion is by moving out to another location where there isn't extortion, and moving out is simply too financially costly and time-consuming to be viable(due to immigration laws, having to find a new job, housing market and thousands of other reasons), the same way you can't just move out to canada or europe if you don't like your country's state. It's even more true for a covenant community trying to escape the insurance's extortion. Matter of fact, this leads covenant communities to start extortion themselves.
I wish there was another Zone of the Enders game
Okay, Mr. Mentis. I have an artist for you. Try giving Aesop Rock a listen. He's a rapper, but it's said he has the largest vocabulary in hip-hop, by a wide margin, and he tends to rap about abstract concepts and his life.
His latest album 'Integrated Tech Solutions' has a song called 'Mindful Solutionism' thats about the advancement of technology.
It might not be your thing, but I love the guy's work and tend to suggest him to other big/deep thinking types.
Yeah, i went to a private online school. Definitely made me socially inept.
Id like to hear the libertarian response to how prisons and police forces would work under a no tax, pure market econony
Hi MentisWave, me again, the guy who asked about tying senators's wage to the average population's income
I didn't know you would do a video of Q&A again! But I hope you read this or others also see and comment the same sugestion
Could you make a video on Historia Civilis video on Time, the clock and the development of capitalism? I think its an interesting video but I disagree strongly on its idea that just blames "rich man bad"
I thought that Historia video was titled simply as _Work_ .
@@1685Violin Yeah I gave a description of the video, not the title
29:51 I'm going to need to remember that. It seems daunting but probably worth doing, and runs completely counter to the tendency toward reaction and spontaneity that people love to see.
Socialized healthcare wouldn't even be a stance if it weren't so expensive to afford due to what feels like monopolized patents in the medical fields driving the prices up. Also, the fact that hospitals charge a ton extra and you can ask for an itemized bill to make it much cheaper is insane to me as well. I obviously don't know too much about it, but it seems flawed from an outside view. The FDA seems corrupt with the industry funding that totally doesn't change how they see companies and profit over affordable safety of the general population.