In a free market, the people vote and consent with their dollars against corporate rule. Evil corporations are shunned, defunded, ostracized, and destroyed by the people in a free market.
@@ekahnjennett4517 If public trust in government in the US continues to tank and/or if Javier Milei, the ancap economist, becomes the next president of Argentina, we may see libertarianism in action.
@@doomsdaybro8290Esperemos que Milei lo consiga. Por como funciona el gobierno Argentina y el legislativo ahí es posible que no consiga hacer casi nada porque simplemente no podrá.
More capable people typically want more freedom to exercise their abilities and less capable want more protection to ensure that they can get by. 🤷🏻♂️It’s just statistics really. Most people aren’t terribly smart or good at anything.
Because humans are hierarchical by nature like pretty much the majority of other animals, it’s very hard to overcome our own nature, most people aren’t even aware of it. Besides even though all men are free at the moment of birth at least, generally there is someone waiting there (usually the state itself) to take that freedom away, the only way it can be taken, by force, and then it takes blood and courage to get it back, hence 99% of all humanity have lived in chains, you could objectively stated that: “humanity is a slave species, in which individual liberty is a rarity” On a personal note, I’m pretty much like you, I desire above anything else, as much freedom as I can get.
So I take it you're a good form of covid because you satirize the government with irony rather than getting people sick? Why can't you be the dominant form of covid then? Covid-19 sucks ass!
One of the reasons that anarco capitalism doesn't exist is because governments don't let it exist. Governments monopolize various features and force people to pay for it. Schools are a good example, since it hardly makes fiscal sense to pay for public school and private school, when you could just send your kid to public school and not have to pay for private school.
I can’t believe all the negativity here. Most of the ideas David expressed are libertarian and the way I see it he’s taking the arguments for freedom and individualism expressed by Mill, Hayek, Locke, Mises, Rothbard, Buchanan, Sowell, Williams, the other Friedman, and more to their logical conclusion. The point he made regarding cyber space is a great example and we should all work hard to keep it free. His ‘baby steps’ of school vouchers have been tossed around for decades and it’s protectionism that’s stopped us from implementing such a simple, elegant, and effective plans. Great video and I’d love to see more.
@@alexndg5260 Put simply, I don't know. I do think we can learn something from the anarch-capitalist ideas. I also believe given the size and intrusions or most governments, including our own, we'd be better off moving in the direction of smaller government even if we never get to a place where there is no government.
@@GlennFamilyChannel so let me ask you one of thing, I take it you're a fan of Reagan correct? Do you not see what he's done to America long term? Do you understand what America was like before 1980? How much better off the average American family was back then? This isn't a rhetorical question, I just can't understand how some people are incapable of seeing the damage that this "libertarian" viewpoint has done. Trump basically did the same thing last time with his wealth redistribution program that he refers to as a tax cut. You understand that it was simply designed to make the rich richer right? How is it that there are so many people who are unwilling to see that?
We call it chaos not anarchy, anarchy in a "political " sense is and alwways has been the complete absence of the state or any violent interventonary institution
dunno if you guys cares but if you guys are stoned like me atm then you can watch pretty much all of the new series on InstaFlixxer. I've been watching with my gf for the last few months xD
I think that's pretty optimistic thinking, to say the least. There's no guarantee that people will magically follow the NAP under anarcho-capitalism. Friedman admits that anarcho-capitalism may actually end up looking very un-libertarian. Rothbardians are allergic to thinking about what anarcho-capitalism will *actually* look like, so they have this cheery idea that everyone will just sing kumbaya and obey the NAP.
No that's not the same thing. The NAP is just leaving people alone wheras MAD is what'll happen if one ruling class uses its nukes on the other. MAD is a pretty good reason alone there shouldn't be a government.
@@DrDave21 There is no optimism about the NAP, violators will be executed and looted or enslave by contract if they survive, ancap is a society in which we the heavily armed citizens pray to be violated so we have the necessary excuse to handle violence like the true business it is.
Capitalism cannot exist without the state repressing, killing and jailing people who oppose it. Whos going to guard a landlords 20 houses? The NOT-army and NOT-police?
His remarks on Islandic legal system can -at least partly- be said for every legal system of early medieval europe. "Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair". If a victim wasn´t able (poor, socially excluded) to bring forth an accusation, a crime would never be brought before a court in almost every fucking country before the 12th century, before the invention of the inquisitorial system (which emerged with the reimplementation of top-down roman law in contra to than existing rather bottum-up germanic law). Even if a verdict was reached in front of a court the victim in most cases had to enforce it by him/herself. This often ended in violent, long ongoing blood feud when the other party answered with violence. Njáls saga even describes such a bloody feud for the Iceland Commenwealth later settled in an Althing. The only difference that in Iceland there was no centralized court system to reach & take out the verdict to beginn with (but the court system in other medieval countries was low level by far until the 13th century as feuds where common practice and the reach of most kings courts were weak and partly in case of the Reich got even weaker --> e.g. Statutum in favorem principum (1231)). So kind of an weak argument as the judical system in early medieval europa was weak & more than often on the brink of anarchy. Even existing "bottum-up" institutions like pantaidinge haven´t changed that.
He actually describe in more detail in his book on ancient legal system how the icelandic legal system would deal with peoples too poor to get justice. it was quite an elegant solution: the legal claim was a “property title” that a poor person could sell to someone else more able to pay the legal cost.
The point of anarchist communism and anarchist syndicalism not having a proper solution to replace government functions is just not true. Anarcho-syndicalists have labour unions and anarcho-communists have communes.
@@MiserableMuon : Anarchism has never been about opposing hierarchies. It's about having no government, by definition of the word, which comes from the Latin word anarchia, which came from the Greek word anarchos ("having no ruler"), with an- ("not" or "without") + archos ("ruler") literally meaning "without [a] ruler". Anarchy was first used in English in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".
It was disappointing to hear his "I don't know" reply to the question of why we don't we see more free societies, when the main answer is pretty obvious: almost everyone is indoctrinated from a young age to believe in the necessity and goodness of States.
I have my sympathies with the minarchists at times but I do often wonder how feasible it is on countries that exist already. Nobody would be willing to pay tolls for every street they have to drive on.
Richard Carson radio sounds like a good alternative but what do you do with the big techs of this world who behave like a self serving class and censor whomever they wish at their own whim, including conservatives and libertarians yet still maintain a market dominance regardless of what they do? I’m not convinced that building competitors will ultimately succeed. Government might be necessary to bring down these monolithic tech oligarchies.
@@richardcarson3596 There is no such thing as "public goods". Therefore, there is no "market failure". The term "public goods" was invented by a bunch of socialist professors to find a lame excuse for socialism. For every venue of life, there does exist a market solution. If you can't find a market solution, then it's because you're terrible at business. (i.e you lack the entrepreneurial talent). This is a "gods of the gaps" kind of argument, and reflects your own intellectual failure. As for radio: Have you ever heard of Advertisement? Paywalls or Donations? 🤔 There is a company called Netflix that does offer streaming services and they make LOTS of MONEY from subscriptions. Have you ever considered their business model? Did it occur to you how similar streaming is to radio? (actually it's pretty much identical). Also there is a company called TH-cam. Oops, you're reading THIS comment right now on their website, and chances are that you've seen an Ad just before doing so. Just use your brain, dude. 😂
@@KurtGodel432 Do you know what's worse than big tech? ANSWER: Big Tech Gov't !!! Btw, Big tech became big because of the cheap money policy by the FED, which primarily benefits big corps at the expense of everybody else. Why do you think corporate america favors zero interest rates?
I’m relatively new to Ancap theory and economic theory. I had no clue David Friedman was an ancap I didn’t think Chicago school economics could co-exist with ancap theory. Don’t Chicago school economists believe in systematically increasing and decreasing the money supply? How would that even be possible under ancap theory?
In an ancap society markets would determine what the best form of money is, likely something like gold. Something that can be controlled and artificially increased or decreased by a central power is not something markets would want as a money.
Chicago school economists invented neoliberalism, and it’s ideologies which take it to its natural conclusion; anarchy-capitalism and right wing libertarianism
I don't totally agree. Anarcho-Capitalism would be Republican if there is no self-government and Democracy. Real Anarchist Capitalism is direct Democracy and self-govt, resulting in freedom.
Yeah especially considering the british state almost unilaterally caused the Irish famine by making everyone slaves for being the wrong type of Christian... I wonder why they didn't step in and help like a good democracy
@@anancapcat4221 I’m referring to the lack of action taken during the era of the Raj/empire because of Britain’s laissez faire attitude, not modern day India.
You do realize that the famine was caused by the British government, right? Also, what do you think caused the famine in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic or Maoist China?
@@cacodemon_doom well first the famine in India was caused by a lack of government intervention, same with Ireland. Second comparing state intervention by modern welfare states run by democracies is not the same as communist tyrants.
I thought capitalist market economy inherently creates rulers? Anarchy is not without rules, or governance, or leaders. It is without rulers. How are ancaps not a contradiction?
@@TheLordMeowMeow So, what about the capitalism part is voluntary? Didn't sound very voluntary to me. Looks a bit like McRailroads and Alexaville if I'm not mistaken.
@@grimm5155 Does capitalism not allow you to choose where you work, or spend your money, or invest, or to start a business, or where you go to school, or your doctor? How do you get more choice than that without putting a gun to someone's head (the opposite of voluntary) or bending the laws of physics? It's only McRailroads or Alexaville if people choose to spend their money there.
Just because the government might be bad at producing food doesn't mean it's bad at producing laws. For a start, what entity other than a government has ever produced laws? Producing laws is what governments do. Food, on the other hand, largely is produced by the private sector. If a private company produces an edible product, no-one is under any obligation to buy it; If a government produces a law, everyone has to follow it. Imagine if laws were produced by private companies and you could pick and choose which ones to follow - it would be complete chaos!
@@rickelmonoggin, governments already produce awful laws. In one US state it is illegal to clap under water. In a few states it is illegal to collect rainwater without a license. The government also produces far too many laws that control almost every aspect of people’s lives. You don’t need laws to protect people. But people should be free to follow private law if they get into some kind of contract where following private laws is part of the contract. Especially as laws cause so many innocent people to go to prison and violates people’s rights.
@@taxslave5906 This is incoherent. "laws cause innocent people to go to prison" - If they break the law, then they're not innocent. Some laws may be bad, but that's not to say that they all are. Maybe you think it should be legal to shoot people?
@@rickelmonoggin, I don’t mean innocent in the legal sense. I mean innocent in the moral sense. People are constantly locked in prison for victimless crimes.
i fucking wish Anarchocapitalism would devolve into feudalism most likely, since it still has a system in place that is directly opposite to equality (capitalism), the capitalists that can amass the most money at the start of it all will quickly become effectively feudal lords. Not unlike what happened with the internet!
Who is protecting these corporate assets. Private police? Why shouldn't the public just organize their own watches, and why exactly would they keep recognizing Bill Gates ownership over vast swaths of the United States land? How would you enforce control over that distance?
Your argument if flawed and makes the assumption that business interests have the well-being of humanity as an interest. Good governments make good laws, big business makes laws in the U.S already with no regard for the community or the environment.
Corporations are part of government, they go hand in hand, protected by corporate laws, limited Liability, passing red tape for competitors. So yes corporations would only exist as long as governments are still around.
It removes the advantages and bailouts big business gains from government through rent seeking and removes the chains put on small business so the market is more equitable. The limiting factors for moving up economic classes in most instances are education, wages, cost of starting business, willingness to save, willingness to work hard, capacity to work smart. Education is cheap with the internet, most people making minimum wage still live with their parents so they can save most of it, the cost of starting a business would go down and with internet businesses it is pretty low and technologies like 3D printing and arduino are decreasing it in other categories. Everyone who falls through the cracks benefits from everyone else being more productive increasing wages with more businesses popping up and improving the ability of family and community to support the needy. But if you really have a problem with the smart and privileged being more successful than others you can screw the poor and middle class by undermining economic prosperity. The wealthy and high achievers will still be more successful under any system.
It has but since it gets in bed with government by default to suppress economic freedom it must be stopped. As for every system going eventually I'm not so sure about that one except that all governments fall.
You don't know what corporatism is. You are thinking of corporatocracy. I'm tired of pointing this out to people. Corporatism is when society is organized into guilds or syndicates based off of trade. This includes both employers and employees. This is used for political and economic representation. It's a type of syndicalism I guess you could say. Corporatocracy, which is essentially what we have now, is when big business controls the government through, either formally, or through lobbying.
@Fell Man of course they blame Capitalism instead, just as you can see in the naysayers in these comments. Every time they blame Capitalism for real life problems or imaginary hypotheticals, it’s clearly actually the State that enables and makes possible the actual problem. 2008 was a clear example of this. And of course, everyone decides that even bigger Government is the solution to a problem that Government created. Very frustrating.
@@Cacowninja Political spectrum, democrats went to the extremes, Republicans were more moderate but still both sides are authoritarian. The farthest down is libertarian but, get off the spectrum you have anarchy
@@sour-vampire And it's fine to have anarchy in fact we should have anarchy/anarcho-capitalism because that's true freedom and everything else that's good. The ruling class can only destroy, the free market can build.
@@sour-vampire In which part of the world you don’t have to pay for stuff? I was missing slavery, time to move there to start business immediately, where is it?
Utter rubbish. After 40 years of ideological neo-liberal Thatcherism here in the UK, we have plenty of examples of once state owned services becoming much worse after privatisation and semi-privatisation, e.g. rail, transport, energy, education, health, etc - in every single case. Bosses wages and shareholder dividends rocketed, while for customers prices increased and standards decreased. Workers saw their pay and conditions slashed, leading to one of the highest levels of socio-economic and political inequality in the developed world. His ideas would turbo charge this further. How would the market provide for those too sick and/or disabled to work under anarcho capitalism?
@@Creezusz Well in my particular case … Cuba, we had a nice prosperous capitalist society, even though it was statist 🤮, then everything was nationalized, or steal by the state, and after 63 years of communism everything looked like it’s falling into pieces, like if you were living in the aftermath of a war, but there was never any real war, any shelling or anything, just huge statism.
No such thing as anarcho capitalism its just free market capitalism, rich people are already free.please dont bastardise the word anarchist which has a rich working class history of fighting inequality .
_"No such thing as ana rcho capita lism its just free market capitalism, "_ Free market capitalism is an economic system. Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology. Two different things.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Well you can try to dress it up ,but you cant polish a turd .The words anarcho and capitalism have nothing to do with each other .the word anarcho means No rulers ,with capitalist society's money and markets rule supreme over everything unfortunately.
Turn over government to big business....right...you are crazy. Big business already crushes humans for profit, your idea would be giving big business free licence to treat humans like disposable assets.
@@Makarosc Considering the fact most people if not all could defend themselves in such an ancap society that simply isn't true about having the biggest gun. Also society tends to not want thugs so they wouldn't get very far in it. When thugs do get far it's because of the government.
@@aaronrichardson8043 No, they simply follow already established laws by the government. Also, USA is not the best example of law and order, the country which has more incarcerated people then china does. Oh, wait, that's a prison business.
Lobbying already exist for this very purpose. And countries actively compete with each other by making laws different to attrack other buyers of laws (migrants).
You can't have a government period, that's involuntary violence and rule over people. I don't care how small it is, if it's government it's inherently wrong. It'll just get bigger anyways so what's the point of minarchy? Have a small but still inherently unjustified government that'll just get big? No thanks! Government of any kind anywhere was once small btw.
@@libertaaron8442 In what world do you not need government to enforce property rights? It certainly requires the use or threat of force or the people with less property will just take from those with more. Private police and armies then? In which case the wealthiest individuals would just recreate government around themselves just as happened with early civilization.
@kippered beef I'm all about spontaneous order. Capitalism is not about that. It's about power, ownership and control based on money and property, which are legal fictions, not natural interaction.
Money and property are extensions of natural law, not statist law. Statist law enforces currency and owns all property. You only use their currency (don’t own it) and rent your land (try not paying your property taxes and see what happens). Under anarcho-capitalism property is determined by inserting your labor into previously unclaimed land/resources. Money is whatever you want it to be. You want to trade a man a goat for a hammer and both parties agree of their own free will...well on that day a goat is your currency.
@@argusfestWhat you just said describes corporatism/statism not capitalism. Money and property are things that you own, you don't need a state for that. Money is just a form of trading and people having been trading since the beginning. You're basically saying you need a state just to give someone this for that!
@@Sletenskapsmannen Yes, new technologies will always cause disruption. My position regards the ethics of how AGI will be an incentivizing element in a capitalist market economy. Considering current government corruption, and speculating the consequences of ungoverned free market capitalism, we are in a delicate position of intelligent entities becoming servants to their creators and disregard for social outcome by large organizations for capital return. What solutions would you suggest on this issue?
@@thesayerofing the singularity. the only way agi and automation could become a potential threat to the human species is if you let the government """solve""" it. the market would innovate in every possible direction, and then see what sticks with the population, and that definitely includes merging robot and human minds. better yet, the idea that Marxism could counter the economic calculation problem if only it had an omniscient, omnipotent computer to prevent it from immediately destroying itself (which, lets be honest, might still not be enough, as Marxism is fucking retarded) requires the stagnation of ALL progress, otherwise the exponential growth of the number of options that would have to be calculated, combined with the still very present possibility of increased complexity from people responding to predictions made by said computer, possibly due to a singularity event, would mean that the computer itself would have to be improved (likely at exponential rates) just to be able to continuously predict itself and the new environments it creates. nothing but stagnating innovation in certain sectors can avoid this.
@@thesayerofing Consider the AGI a fully conscious entity (because that’s literally what it is) therefore it will be subject to the same NAP than the rest of the individuals in this society, problem solve. In case a company lies about it’s own creation level of consciousness, and enslave the entity, this will be in its full right to rebel (like any free human would) and annihilate it oppressors, this is a free society, the rest of us will see it as the normal thing to do in this condition, the AGI will have no reason to rebel against humanity, or not even ancap society, because you can only rebel against your master, you can’t rebel when you are free.
Nothing is stopping someone from doing that now if they can avoid detection or punishment from the Government. The best answer in any case is to arm yourself and prepare for the worst.
Honestly without a government the child rapist are going to be killed, people will die and retaliate for deaths. People will die for robbing, people will die being robbed.
@@Cacowninja And anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. It's anarcho-capitalism, or in other words, pseudo-anarchism or fake anarchism. It is opposition to Democracy plain and simple, which is fascism. Listen to all the right-Libertarians who prattle on about how they hate Democracy, and you'll begin to understand. Actual anarchism is an increase in Democracy, by making the workplace democratic (socialism) not just removing any and all laws so corporations can do what they want.
@@lorenmiller3797 Anarcho/anarchy means no rulers, capitalism means nobody ruling over voluntary trade to make it involuntary. So if there's no rulers then there's capitalism. If there's no rulers and just capitalism that's anarchy! I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about at all. There are no right libertarians just ancaps and yeah we're against democracy and ANY GOVERNMENT big time! Socialism isn't anarchy btw, because it has rulers!
@@lorenmiller3797 socialism inevitably fails without a coercive force keeping it in place. A society of so-called socialist anarchy will either fall into poverty and conflict to be quickly ruled by a coercive power or evolve into a capitalist anarchy. Capitalism, unlike democracy, is not about politics but about economy. It allows for individual freedom of thought and action. Socialist anarchy might be great in theory, but it should be simple enough to see that it can not work.
His name is Friedman, by default he must be right
Understandable
😬
Good joke.
Can somebody tell me how people would prevent an anarcho-capitalist society from evolving into a corporate autocracy?
In a free market, the people vote and consent with their dollars against corporate rule. Evil corporations are shunned, defunded, ostracized, and destroyed by the people in a free market.
@@doomsdaybro8290 thats awfully optimistic for someone living in a "crony capitalism" or techno fuedalism heirarchy
@@ekahnjennett4517 If public trust in government in the US continues to tank and/or if Javier Milei, the ancap economist, becomes the next president of Argentina, we may see libertarianism in action.
@@doomsdaybro8290Esperemos que Milei lo consiga.
Por como funciona el gobierno Argentina y el legislativo ahí es posible que no consiga hacer casi nada porque simplemente no podrá.
They wouldn't and this is why ancap is not a good idea
I can't for the life of me figure out why people don't want to live as free as they possibly can. Why are people so eager to be ruled ??
or to rule themselves? (i.e. The Dictarship of the Proletariat)... I don't know. It must be genetic or something.
Fear.
Cowardice and knowl they'd fail on their own
More capable people typically want more freedom to exercise their abilities and less capable want more protection to ensure that they can get by. 🤷🏻♂️It’s just statistics really. Most people aren’t terribly smart or good at anything.
Because humans are hierarchical by nature like pretty much the majority of other animals, it’s very hard to overcome our own nature, most people aren’t even aware of it.
Besides even though all men are free at the moment of birth at least, generally there is someone waiting there (usually the state itself) to take that freedom away, the only way it can be taken, by force, and then it takes blood and courage to get it back, hence 99% of all humanity have lived in chains, you could objectively stated that: “humanity is a slave species, in which individual liberty is a rarity”
On a personal note, I’m pretty much like you, I desire above anything else, as much freedom as I can get.
Stop thinking, the state deserve your money, keep making fun of his desk and keep voting
And keep licking boots
Don't forget to do what you're told.
So I take it you're a good form of covid because you satirize the government with irony rather than getting people sick?
Why can't you be the dominant form of covid then? Covid-19 sucks ass!
Do corporations deserve your workplace, either? No, obviously!
One of the reasons that anarco capitalism doesn't exist is because governments don't let it exist. Governments monopolize various features and force people to pay for it. Schools are a good example, since it hardly makes fiscal sense to pay for public school and private school, when you could just send your kid to public school and not have to pay for private school.
Anarchist Capitalism exists if you obey laws.
I do think that any ideology based on Anarchism is dangerous though. I'm not really an Anarchist.
Discernment and being a responsible adult with boundaries
I can’t believe all the negativity here. Most of the ideas David expressed are libertarian and the way I see it he’s taking the arguments for freedom and individualism expressed by Mill, Hayek, Locke, Mises, Rothbard, Buchanan, Sowell, Williams, the other Friedman, and more to their logical conclusion. The point he made regarding cyber space is a great example and we should all work hard to keep it free. His ‘baby steps’ of school vouchers have been tossed around for decades and it’s protectionism that’s stopped us from implementing such a simple, elegant, and effective plans.
Great video and I’d love to see more.
Thank you👍👍
It's fun to think of such a society but do you actually think it could function?
@@alexndg5260 Put simply, I don't know. I do think we can learn something from the anarch-capitalist ideas. I also believe given the size and intrusions or most governments, including our own, we'd be better off moving in the direction of smaller government even if we never get to a place where there is no government.
@@GlennFamilyChannel so let me ask you one of thing, I take it you're a fan of Reagan correct? Do you not see what he's done to America long term? Do you understand what America was like before 1980? How much better off the average American family was back then?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I just can't understand how some people are incapable of seeing the damage that this "libertarian" viewpoint has done. Trump basically did the same thing last time with his wealth redistribution program that he refers to as a tax cut. You understand that it was simply designed to make the rich richer right? How is it that there are so many people who are unwilling to see that?
@@GlennFamilyChannel I would love to know your thoughts
ooo so many high-level important ideas, my brain is left in recovery mode.
His desk is what anarchy looks like...
And there aren't statists with messy desks? I mean dude your argument is horrible!
Spontaneous Order !
Dumb, The future is anarcho capitalism. You can't stop freedom
We call it chaos not anarchy, anarchy in a "political " sense is and alwways has been the complete absence of the state or any violent interventonary institution
It's what leftist anarchism is
It’s _privatize the police,_ not _defund the police!_
dunno if you guys cares but if you guys are stoned like me atm then you can watch pretty much all of the new series on InstaFlixxer. I've been watching with my gf for the last few months xD
@Kohen Krew Yea, I have been watching on InstaFlixxer for months myself =)
@Kohen Krew Definitely, I've been using InstaFlixxer for since december myself :)
@Kohen Krew definitely, have been watching on InstaFlixxer for months myself :)
Wow, the bots found my comment.
The only "law" Individuals would follow, is the Non Agression Principle, which is the same as the Mutually Assured Destruction agreement
I think that's pretty optimistic thinking, to say the least. There's no guarantee that people will magically follow the NAP under anarcho-capitalism. Friedman admits that anarcho-capitalism may actually end up looking very un-libertarian. Rothbardians are allergic to thinking about what anarcho-capitalism will *actually* look like, so they have this cheery idea that everyone will just sing kumbaya and obey the NAP.
No that's not the same thing.
The NAP is just leaving people alone wheras MAD is what'll happen if one ruling class uses its nukes on the other.
MAD is a pretty good reason alone there shouldn't be a government.
@@DrDave21 There is no optimism about the NAP, violators will be executed and looted or enslave by contract if they survive, ancap is a society in which we the heavily armed citizens pray to be violated so we have the necessary excuse to handle violence like the true business it is.
" handle violence like the true business it is"
Beautifully put.
Thats the argument for ancaps exactly
This makes more sense to me than anarcho communism and anarcho socialism Chumpsky seems to advocate.
Capitalism cannot exist without the state repressing, killing and jailing people who oppose it. Whos going to guard a landlords 20 houses? The NOT-army and NOT-police?
His remarks on Islandic legal system can -at least partly- be said for every legal system of early medieval europe. "Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair". If a victim wasn´t able (poor, socially excluded) to bring forth an accusation, a crime would never be brought before a court in almost every fucking country before the 12th century, before the invention of the inquisitorial system (which emerged with the reimplementation of top-down roman law in contra to than existing rather bottum-up germanic law).
Even if a verdict was reached in front of a court the victim in most cases had to enforce it by him/herself. This often ended in violent, long ongoing blood feud when the other party answered with violence. Njáls saga even describes such a bloody feud for the Iceland Commenwealth later settled in an Althing.
The only difference that in Iceland there was no centralized court system to reach & take out the verdict to beginn with (but the court system in other medieval countries was low level by far until the 13th century as feuds where common practice and the reach of most kings courts were weak and partly in case of the Reich got even weaker --> e.g. Statutum in favorem principum (1231)).
So kind of an weak argument as the judical system in early medieval europa was weak & more than often on the brink of anarchy. Even existing "bottum-up" institutions like pantaidinge haven´t changed that.
He actually describe in more detail in his book on ancient legal system how the icelandic legal system would deal with peoples too poor to get justice.
it was quite an elegant solution: the legal claim was a “property title” that a poor person could sell to someone else more able to pay the legal cost.
@@anteeko why would someone just… buy someone’s court case? Now that sounds like an unbeneficial trade of I’ve ever heard one.
What tool do you have to stop corporation that abuse power?
What power are they abusing?
For profit hospitals and for profit prisons have been an unmitigated disaster now expand that concept?
The point of anarchist communism and anarchist syndicalism not having a proper solution to replace government functions is just not true. Anarcho-syndicalists have labour unions and anarcho-communists have communes.
How do a rejection of all hierarchy be compatible with a system that results in hierarchy. AnCaps are just confusing.
@@MiserableMuon : Who said anything about rejecting hierarchies?
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. the original anarchists. Aka, the mutualists, the communists, the syndicalists. And the egoists.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. good luck convincing us you guys are anarchists for rejecting the state. Anarchists wanna-bes
@@MiserableMuon : Anarchism has never been about opposing hierarchies. It's about having no government, by definition of the word, which comes from the Latin word anarchia, which came from the Greek word anarchos ("having no ruler"), with an- ("not" or "without") + archos ("ruler") literally meaning "without [a] ruler". Anarchy was first used in English in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".
It was disappointing to hear his "I don't know" reply to the question of why we don't we see more free societies, when the main answer is pretty obvious: almost everyone is indoctrinated from a young age to believe in the necessity and goodness of States.
hmmm... maybe. I'm not saying it is or it is not true, but if so, then why? what would anyone gain from that? any ideas :) ?
I have my sympathies with the minarchists at times but I do often wonder how feasible it is on countries that exist already. Nobody would be willing to pay tolls for every street they have to drive on.
Look up the market failure of public goods. Now consider radio.
Richard Carson radio sounds like a good alternative but what do you do with the big techs of this world who behave like a self serving class and censor whomever they wish at their own whim, including conservatives and libertarians yet still maintain a market dominance regardless of what they do? I’m not convinced that building competitors will ultimately succeed. Government might be necessary to bring down these monolithic tech oligarchies.
Well, the public will be willing to pay tolls to drive on roads when the public roads breakdown and the people start clammering for alternatives.
@@richardcarson3596 There is no such thing as "public goods". Therefore, there is no "market failure". The term "public goods" was invented by a bunch of socialist professors to find a lame excuse for socialism.
For every venue of life, there does exist a market solution. If you can't find a market solution, then it's because you're terrible at business. (i.e you lack the entrepreneurial talent). This is a "gods of the gaps" kind of argument, and reflects your own intellectual failure.
As for radio: Have you ever heard of Advertisement? Paywalls or Donations? 🤔 There is a company called Netflix that does offer streaming services and they make LOTS of MONEY from subscriptions. Have you ever considered their business model? Did it occur to you how similar streaming is to radio? (actually it's pretty much identical). Also there is a company called TH-cam. Oops, you're reading THIS comment right now on their website, and chances are that you've seen an Ad just before doing so.
Just use your brain, dude. 😂
@@KurtGodel432 Do you know what's worse than big tech? ANSWER: Big Tech Gov't !!!
Btw, Big tech became big because of the cheap money policy by the FED, which primarily benefits big corps at the expense of everybody else. Why do you think corporate america favors zero interest rates?
If someone gets shot on the street how is the killer is going to get apprehended ?
I’m relatively new to Ancap theory and economic theory. I had no clue David Friedman was an ancap I didn’t think Chicago school economics could co-exist with ancap theory. Don’t Chicago school economists believe in systematically increasing and decreasing the money supply? How would that even be possible under ancap theory?
In an ancap society markets would determine what the best form of money is, likely something like gold. Something that can be controlled and artificially increased or decreased by a central power is not something markets would want as a money.
Chicago school economists invented neoliberalism, and it’s ideologies which take it to its natural conclusion; anarchy-capitalism and right wing libertarianism
AND WE DON`T NEED TO SAVE THE WORLD.
What do you mean by "we"?
Interesting. Seems like freedom, but I'm not into less govt. because that's REPUBLICAN. I'm into self govt.
Milton Friedman is the greatest academic charlatan of all time. (Followed closely by Nietszche)
I don't totally agree. Anarcho-Capitalism would be Republican if there is no self-government and Democracy. Real Anarchist Capitalism is direct Democracy and self-govt, resulting in freedom.
Regarding famines look at the fatality rate in Ireland and India to see what a lack of state intervention looks like.
Yeah especially considering the british state almost unilaterally caused the Irish famine by making everyone slaves for being the wrong type of Christian... I wonder why they didn't step in and help like a good democracy
Dude those places are full of government in fact, India is considered the biggest democracy on the planet.
@@anancapcat4221 I’m referring to the lack of action taken during the era of the Raj/empire because of Britain’s laissez faire attitude, not modern day India.
You do realize that the famine was caused by the British government, right? Also, what do you think caused the famine in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic or Maoist China?
@@cacodemon_doom well first the famine in India was caused by a lack of government intervention, same with Ireland. Second comparing state intervention by modern welfare states run by democracies is not the same as communist tyrants.
I thought capitalist market economy inherently creates rulers? Anarchy is not without rules, or governance, or leaders. It is without rulers. How are ancaps not a contradiction?
They are, pretty sure the founder of ancap admitted as much
Keyword: voluntary.
You big dumby. One is through coercion the other is by voluntary mutual agreement.
@@TheLordMeowMeow So, what about the capitalism part is voluntary? Didn't sound very voluntary to me. Looks a bit like McRailroads and Alexaville if I'm not mistaken.
@@TheLordMeowMeow
There is nothing voluntary in capitalism
@@grimm5155 Does capitalism not allow you to choose where you work, or spend your money, or invest, or to start a business, or where you go to school, or your doctor? How do you get more choice than that without putting a gun to someone's head (the opposite of voluntary) or bending the laws of physics? It's only McRailroads or Alexaville if people choose to spend their money there.
What talk is he referring to?
god hear that man carlos from Mexico
Just because the government might be bad at producing food doesn't mean it's bad at producing laws. For a start, what entity other than a government has ever produced laws? Producing laws is what governments do. Food, on the other hand, largely is produced by the private sector. If a private company produces an edible product, no-one is under any obligation to buy it; If a government produces a law, everyone has to follow it. Imagine if laws were produced by private companies and you could pick and choose which ones to follow - it would be complete chaos!
Governments have no incentives to produce good law
@@nyan285 They have the incentive to continue to get elected. Even dictatorships have the incentive not to be overthrown.
@@rickelmonoggin, governments already produce awful laws. In one US state it is illegal to clap under water. In a few states it is illegal to collect rainwater without a license. The government also produces far too many laws that control almost every aspect of people’s lives. You don’t need laws to protect people. But people should be free to follow private law if they get into some kind of contract where following private laws is part of the contract. Especially as laws cause so many innocent people to go to prison and violates people’s rights.
@@taxslave5906 This is incoherent. "laws cause innocent people to go to prison" - If they break the law, then they're not innocent. Some laws may be bad, but that's not to say that they all are. Maybe you think it should be legal to shoot people?
@@rickelmonoggin, I don’t mean innocent in the legal sense. I mean innocent in the moral sense. People are constantly locked in prison for victimless crimes.
Anarchy would erode into Socialism and Communism if there was no Democracy and direct self govt.
i fucking wish
Anarchocapitalism would devolve into feudalism most likely, since it still has a system in place that is directly opposite to equality (capitalism), the capitalists that can amass the most money at the start of it all will quickly become effectively feudal lords. Not unlike what happened with the internet!
Every communist country is big government. Once you give the government power its easier and easier to take more with the more power you give it.
Who is protecting these corporate assets. Private police? Why shouldn't the public just organize their own watches, and why exactly would they keep recognizing Bill Gates ownership over vast swaths of the United States land? How would you enforce control over that distance?
Proud AnCap.
Your argument if flawed and makes the assumption that business interests have the well-being of humanity as an interest.
Good governments make good laws, big business makes laws in the U.S already with no regard for the community or the environment.
If you democratize businesses that *should* fix that problem.
"good governments" 😂 😂 😂 😂
Corporations are part of government, they go hand in hand, protected by corporate laws, limited Liability, passing red tape for competitors. So yes corporations would only exist as long as governments are still around.
@@TheLordMeowMeow I really hope you are from the U.S.A
@Erik Manbodh What are you?
His idea breaks down into dividing society into more segregated groups based on income.
In Cuba, the classes are divided into who does and who does not receive US Dollar remittances from relatives abroad.
It removes the advantages and bailouts big business gains from government through rent seeking and removes the chains put on small business so the market is more equitable. The limiting factors for moving up economic classes in most instances are education, wages, cost of starting business, willingness to save, willingness to work hard, capacity to work smart. Education is cheap with the internet, most people making minimum wage still live with their parents so they can save most of it, the cost of starting a business would go down and with internet businesses it is pretty low and technologies like 3D printing and arduino are decreasing it in other categories. Everyone who falls through the cracks benefits from everyone else being more productive increasing wages with more businesses popping up and improving the ability of family and community to support the needy. But if you really have a problem with the smart and privileged being more successful than others you can screw the poor and middle class by undermining economic prosperity. The wealthy and high achievers will still be more successful under any system.
@@Supersctar Are you an ancap like me?
@@Cacowninja I guess so. I don’t like wearing caps.
@@Supersctar No I mean are you against government?
crypto is the future
I support Altcoins more than Bitcoin because Altcoins are the true Free Market. Bitcoin is trying to become the new Monopoly on Currency/Money.
True.
Corporatism has actually brought great things to civilization, but like every system, is has to come and end eventually.
It has but since it gets in bed with government by default to suppress economic freedom it must be stopped.
As for every system going eventually I'm not so sure about that one except that all governments fall.
You don't know what corporatism is. You are thinking of corporatocracy. I'm tired of pointing this out to people. Corporatism is when society is organized into guilds or syndicates based off of trade. This includes both employers and employees. This is used for political and economic representation. It's a type of syndicalism I guess you could say. Corporatocracy, which is essentially what we have now, is when big business controls the government through, either formally, or through lobbying.
We could have had that happen in 2008 except there was a Government bailout. That's the antithesis of the Free Market.
@@cosmosaic8117 I know, I wish people would get that so they'd stop voting and supporting government!
@Fell Man of course they blame Capitalism instead, just as you can see in the naysayers in these comments. Every time they blame Capitalism for real life problems or imaginary hypotheticals, it’s clearly actually the State that enables and makes possible the actual problem. 2008 was a clear example of this. And of course, everyone decides that even bigger Government is the solution to a problem that Government created. Very frustrating.
I was left behind, went all the way right in the wrong direction. Now im digging a hole in the middle of the road before im ran over.
What do you mean?
@@Cacowninja Political spectrum, democrats went to the extremes, Republicans were more moderate but still both sides are authoritarian. The farthest down is libertarian but, get off the spectrum you have anarchy
@@sour-vampire And it's fine to have anarchy in fact we should have anarchy/anarcho-capitalism because that's true freedom and everything else that's good.
The ruling class can only destroy, the free market can build.
@@Cacowninja it'll be crazy to pay for everything, and have a survival of the fittest mentally , but our world right now is even crazier to me.
@@sour-vampire In which part of the world you don’t have to pay for stuff? I was missing slavery, time to move there to start business immediately, where is it?
Utter rubbish. After 40 years of ideological neo-liberal Thatcherism here in the UK, we have plenty of examples of once state owned services becoming much worse after privatisation and semi-privatisation, e.g. rail, transport, energy, education, health, etc - in every single case. Bosses wages and shareholder dividends rocketed, while for customers prices increased and standards decreased. Workers saw their pay and conditions slashed, leading to one of the highest levels of socio-economic and political inequality in the developed world. His ideas would turbo charge this further. How would the market provide for those too sick and/or disabled to work under anarcho capitalism?
Do you have a link?
@@Creezusz Well in my particular case … Cuba, we had a nice prosperous capitalist society, even though it was statist 🤮, then everything was nationalized, or steal by the state, and after 63 years of communism everything looked like it’s falling into pieces, like if you were living in the aftermath of a war, but there was never any real war, any shelling or anything, just huge statism.
Those are the consequences of increased regulations and increased taxes.
No such thing as anarcho capitalism its just free market capitalism, rich people are already free.please dont bastardise the word anarchist which has a rich working class history of fighting inequality .
_"No such thing as ana rcho capita lism its just free market capitalism, "_
Free market capitalism is an economic system. Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology. Two different things.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Well you can try to dress it up ,but you cant polish a turd .The words anarcho and capitalism have nothing to do with each other .the word anarcho means No rulers ,with capitalist society's money and markets rule supreme over everything unfortunately.
Turn over government to big business....right...you are crazy.
Big business already crushes humans for profit, your idea would be giving big business free licence to treat humans like disposable assets.
It's not turning government over to big businesses it's eliminating it entirely.
@kippered beef Exactly!
@@Cacowninja which is automatically gives power to whoever has the biggest gun
@@Sletenskapsmannen lmao do you eat Nestlé or drink Mtn dew
If there the only one selling water you have to
@@Makarosc Considering the fact most people if not all could defend themselves in such an ancap society that simply isn't true about having the biggest gun.
Also society tends to not want thugs so they wouldn't get very far in it.
When thugs do get far it's because of the government.
but what about the mc nuke
Lit🔥
What about when a private company hinders the rights of an individual that isn't in the exchange. Don't we need government for that.
Name a right
You sue it through private courts or fight back physically if necessary.
Also corporations love government to exist so they can suck up to it.
stop paying the private company, consider going to their competition. if all else fails, rights enforcement agencies are a thing.
@@Creezusz Corporations bought the governments. Now what?
@@Creezusz You can't buy the court if it's working for someone else and isn't for sale.
Want´s to be an anarchist but can´t keep his desk clean...
anarchists keep their desks as cluttered as they please.
Um is he infringing on other people regardless of his desk being involved?
If "No." then don't bother bringing up the desk!
don't desk shame me
You can't sell law, like a commodity.
Private security teams and companies. Bail bondsmen. I would say those are good examples
@@aaronrichardson8043 No, they simply follow already established laws by the government. Also, USA is not the best example of law and order, the country which has more incarcerated people then china does. Oh, wait, that's a prison business.
@@ArtuursPaulausks Politicians are bought the same as any commodity.
Lobbying already exist for this very purpose. And countries actively compete with each other by making laws different to attrack other buyers of laws (migrants).
Liberalism
The only thing the government should do with the economy is managing monopolies. Everything else goes.
No.
@willepiot 27
I didn’t say no to you.
You can't have a government period, that's involuntary violence and rule over people. I don't care how small it is, if it's government it's inherently wrong.
It'll just get bigger anyways so what's the point of minarchy?
Have a small but still inherently unjustified government that'll just get big? No thanks!
Government of any kind anywhere was once small btw.
Monopolies are a direct result of government. Have a look at how much Google and other megacorps gets in subsidies. What a coincidence huh?
Managing monopolies, the government is actually the disposable part of a monopoly.
Monopoly = Private Enterprise + Government Force
Who also came here from Blue Politics, and was talking live with him
HOLY SHEEET! Welp, i missed that one in there :'(
Money and property are legal constructs. They exist because of government. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
You don't need government to use money, or enforce property rights, or build roads. But you do need government to restrict or prohibit those things.
@@libertaaron8442 In what world do you not need government to enforce property rights? It certainly requires the use or threat of force or the people with less property will just take from those with more. Private police and armies then? In which case the wealthiest individuals would just recreate government around themselves just as happened with early civilization.
@kippered beef I'm all about spontaneous order. Capitalism is not about that. It's about power, ownership and control based on money and property, which are legal fictions, not natural interaction.
Money and property are extensions of natural law, not statist law. Statist law enforces currency and owns all property. You only use their currency (don’t own it) and rent your land (try not paying your property taxes and see what happens).
Under anarcho-capitalism property is determined by inserting your labor into previously unclaimed land/resources.
Money is whatever you want it to be. You want to trade a man a goat for a hammer and both parties agree of their own free will...well on that day a goat is your currency.
@@argusfestWhat you just said describes corporatism/statism not capitalism. Money and property are things that you own, you don't need a state for that.
Money is just a form of trading and people having been trading since the beginning. You're basically saying you need a state just to give someone this for that!
AGI is going to make this contradictory theory really weird. Not sure he has thought about that...
What do you mean?
@@Cacowninja AGI Artificial general intelligence.
@@Sletenskapsmannen Yes, new technologies will always cause disruption. My position regards the ethics of how AGI will be an incentivizing element in a capitalist market economy. Considering current government corruption, and speculating the consequences of ungoverned free market capitalism, we are in a delicate position of intelligent entities becoming servants to their creators and disregard for social outcome by large organizations for capital return. What solutions would you suggest on this issue?
@@thesayerofing the singularity. the only way agi and automation could become a potential threat to the human species is if you let the government """solve""" it. the market would innovate in every possible direction, and then see what sticks with the population, and that definitely includes merging robot and human minds. better yet, the idea that Marxism could counter the economic calculation problem if only it had an omniscient, omnipotent computer to prevent it from immediately destroying itself (which, lets be honest, might still not be enough, as Marxism is fucking retarded) requires the stagnation of ALL progress, otherwise the exponential growth of the number of options that would have to be calculated, combined with the still very present possibility of increased complexity from people responding to predictions made by said computer, possibly due to a singularity event, would mean that the computer itself would have to be improved (likely at exponential rates) just to be able to continuously predict itself and the new environments it creates. nothing but stagnating innovation in certain sectors can avoid this.
@@thesayerofing Consider the AGI a fully conscious entity (because that’s literally what it is) therefore it will be subject to the same NAP than the rest of the individuals in this society, problem solve.
In case a company lies about it’s own creation level of consciousness, and enslave the entity, this will be in its full right to rebel (like any free human would) and annihilate it oppressors, this is a free society, the rest of us will see it as the normal thing to do in this condition, the AGI will have no reason to rebel against humanity, or not even ancap society, because you can only rebel against your master, you can’t rebel when you are free.
I don't know about that when it comes people disagreement throught excess of violence. I'm gonna seize your wealth...
Nothing is stopping someone from doing that now if they can avoid detection or punishment from the Government. The best answer in any case is to arm yourself and prepare for the worst.
In any case, private security firms would likely be common as a privatized police force, as well as private courts, etc.
Honestly without a government the child rapist are going to be killed, people will die and retaliate for deaths. People will die for robbing, people will die being robbed.
Feudalism.
Right wing is right 🤣
@UnusualBug why bro
Total rubish, garbage
And why is that?
It's an Ancap Revolution
Cringe
You?
Because people are free in such a system? Gee such cringe!
protofascism.
Fascism involves a monarchy/royalty/King which is government. Anarchy has no government thus isn't fascism of any kind.
@@Cacowninja And anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. It's anarcho-capitalism, or in other words, pseudo-anarchism or fake anarchism. It is opposition to Democracy plain and simple, which is fascism. Listen to all the right-Libertarians who prattle on about how they hate Democracy, and you'll begin to understand. Actual anarchism is an increase in Democracy, by making the workplace democratic (socialism) not just removing any and all laws so corporations can do what they want.
@@lorenmiller3797 Anarcho/anarchy means no rulers, capitalism means nobody ruling over voluntary trade to make it involuntary.
So if there's no rulers then there's capitalism. If there's no rulers and just capitalism that's anarchy!
I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about at all.
There are no right libertarians just ancaps and yeah we're against democracy and ANY GOVERNMENT big time!
Socialism isn't anarchy btw, because it has rulers!
@@lorenmiller3797 socialism inevitably fails without a coercive force keeping it in place. A society of so-called socialist anarchy will either fall into poverty and conflict to be quickly ruled by a coercive power or evolve into a capitalist anarchy. Capitalism, unlike democracy, is not about politics but about economy. It allows for individual freedom of thought and action. Socialist anarchy might be great in theory, but it should be simple enough to see that it can not work.
Ah yes, all of the fascist societies that have no government…