I watch a lot of TH-cam. Truuuuust me. A lot of TH-cam. A. Lot. Of all the content and channels I've seen, this is by far one of the best channels I've ever listened to. Thank you.
I was going through the HARVARD Lecture Series on Justice (by Michael Sandel) and was looking for some intellectual material/discussion on Nozick & suddenly you uploaded this episode! I can't thank you more. Wishing you all the success ~ One of your ardent followers. ❤️🇮🇳
What a philosopher this Robert Nozick is. Even if you're not toiling away in the fields under pain of death, and your master doesn't even really need you, it still sucks to be a slave. Brilliant! Some of this shit that passes for philosophy borders on childlike observations. Most of 'philosophy' is painfully trite. And all it really does is shine a light on the power of social conformity and the imperative to adhere to social taboos. What you talk about and what you don't talk about, lest you threaten the status quo. Which of course is utterly intuitive to people. Nobody wants to be ostracized by the group. They don't have to be taught to keep their trap shut. And then these mouthy philosophers come along and start babbling a bunch of truisms, and the most bluntly plain observations, and are hailed as geniuses. And even when they're granted this special status, and imprimatur to speak so boldly, they say the most inane shit. And they themselves never challenge the suffocating status quo. Which would be extremely easy and straightforward to do. And would be the right thing to do. Anything else is merely obfuscation. That's essentially what philosophers are, professional obfuscators....
you would be suprised if you think people truly believe half the concepts put forth by Robert Nozick. The path is beaten, but this is his take on a centuries old problem.
I like those debates that complexify what we thought about left and right because things are more complicated than this dualism. But, I can't lie that bothers me that Nozick arguments about society that can keep trying and trying and trying untill someday we'll find out collectively a solution for human problems. That, for me, is a thought of XX century (like the marxist version centered on state or the Hayek liberalism) because we are in the time of environmental catastrophes. We don't have time to think just about "our problems" with this traditional mindset, we have to decolonize ourselves, so we can think again about this "Nature" vs. "Culture/Society" rupture that caracterizes our civilization. I always thinked that we should have a more organic society with less centrilized power, but what can we do to mitigate the end of the world as we know right now without power to stop capitalism to destroy nature? Look at the amazon forest and the australian fires, what the fuck is that? I read Stengers over and over again and its stunning that this "intrusion of Gaia" will change everything. Would love to hear more about her work. Thanks.
I think you might find someone like Murray Bookchin perhaps quite interesting :) He was an ecologist that argued against the traditional Marxist-Leninist stance, promoting instead decentralised forms of governance. His ideas may be helpful to you. I guess also about the current problems in the world, the best we can do for the moment, is to help educate our friends and families, and show them alternatives and ways that would actually empower them in being able to make a difference as well, join groups like Extinction Rebellion to try and pressure politicians into taking the climate more seriously, and also voting for people who will at the very least cause less harm :/ :) I think the important thing is people feel like they actually have some power in the outcome tho, otherwise there seems to be no point to try in the first place.
Trial and error is the foundational block for human advancement and civlization, there's no other way that has proved better. If you can comes to terms with that then you'll be swimming against the tide. If you're literally destroying the planet and there's evidence that it's destroying life forms or displacing people who live there then there should be a penalty. The question you need to ask yourself is if the state grants those destroyers the license to do so via eminent domain or even canon laws. Most times, thats usually the case. So i won't be quick to blame capitalism for that but the state as capitalism doesn't permit for the tragedy of the commons.
For what I understand, having read some of his ideology, I take it the debate reduces to two moral views... The right one has to what he works, and the right one has to live under human conditions... Clearly, both Rawls and Nozick could argue why each others ideology is based upon abstract matters; Rawls well may easily say that property is a "human notion", since such ideas weren't remotely existent before our approach into this world, and Nozick could sustain that objectively there are only "individual beings", not such thing as a "greater purpose". John Locke said "When a practice is universal, it's reasonable to think the cause is natural". So what's left (I think) is to question: Which of the two is more susceptible of being a strictly subjective matter? What has the story showed us? Knowing that; What should we privilege then?
It is worth saying here that Nozick's critique of "anarchists" is of the right wing "free" market type. Original Anarchists where socialists who believed the use of the state in the road to freedom would only reproduce the same social classes - accept this time rather than it be a worker class and a capitalist class, it would be a worker class and a governing class. Original anarchists believed resources should be socialised - meaning the right to property would function differently than how it does now (this is something which from as much as I know isn't changed from now according to the right wing anarcho capitalist types), though this is a generalised summary of anarchist thought, and if you'd do more research into left wing anarchism I'm sure you would be able to find out where I have gone wrong in places.
Interesting discussion. Lots to think about. We don’t know what the ‘state of nature is’ and Rousseau had the opposite view to Hobbes. We also have to think about what could make a state legitimate (us, God, power ie monopoly on violence). Given the way the world is going, these discussions are important.
This is a brilliant channel I'm really enjoying it. I was just wondering, what happens when you get sick in the minimal state? Doesn't Nozack believe in healthcare as a human right?
No that's just giving the government more power over your life, why do we want federal government to interfere when this can be done way more optimally locally in your community.
@@dhananjaytalati4529 Alright, however it seems to me that this distinction between federal and communal is only relevant to federated republics like the U.S, but if we put that aside for a second and assume that in this scenario there is no federated overblown government far away and instead we rely on healthcare or other social goods to be provided locally, doesn't that then boil down to the exact same thing, just on a different scale ? According the the logic of the example you used, wouldn't you still be forfeiting your power the same way, the mere difference being that the institution you rely on exists on a smaller and more local/communal scale ?
The argument that, "if the laborers don't consent to the agreed upon deal, it is effectively slave labor" is true, however, this is why open borders are commonly associated with anarchism and many others in the socialist/communist idea sphere. Effectively, there are no governmental barriers for leaving or joining a communist system.
Historically states has evolved from minimal form (minarchy/minarcho-monarchism) in 17th-18th century to centralized modern states in late 19th century till today's . That evolution has occurred cause of war expenditure mainly in late 18th and early 19th centuries and the need of central states to had incomes for the army basically.
Do you ever plan on breaking down the differences on the definition of rights? Iirc nozick breaks down rights as "the ability to do good" (right libertarianism/aristotleian) vs rights as "maximum autonomy" (left libertarian/anarchists etc)
This seems more reasonable. This doesn't feel like idealistic nonsense, but at the same time creates holes for people who need help to succeed to fall through. One of the problems of government mandated systems is that of the apparatchik. This term denotes a member of the communist political organization, but also has a connotation of opportunistic, lazy parasite. It's the people who get into positions of power within a system, set up a tent, make a fire, and settle into a cozy lifestyle of mediocrity and frustrating anyone who wants their help. Think Parks and Recreation. Another problem of the apparatchik is that they are highly political and deny help to anyone who they deem to be contrary to their ideology. This shows up in businesses a lot as well, but has more to do with personality types. A narcissistic manager will higher people who also display narcissistic traits. Abusers higher abusers, and so on. The manager surrounds him or herself with like minded people. This leads to a yes-man situation. If it goes on long enough the business will fail the moment the charismatic leader puts his/her incompetent lackeys in charge, and leaves. In those situations politicians are promoted, and politicians make crappy leaders. Do as I say, not as I do becomes the norm. Morale plummets, and anyone who's been around awhile who has the slightest bit of competence has to carry endless dead weight. The competent ones leave, and then the leadership flounders when it has no competent followers to throw its dead weight on. It's weird how libertarianism doesn't talk about how its ideology only benefits a very few, and causes most to live in misery. It's kind of the perfect state of nature, or a justification of laissez-faire capitalism. At the bottom of this system when everyone is miserable, no one wants to see anyone else succeed. The structure begins to rot from the bottom up. The good people and the smart become trapped in a vicious circle created by jealousy, resentment, abuse, and addiction. Once the person realizes that there is no hope, their soul dies. There's no way out of this elo-hell without the help of other people. The hopelessness, and toxicity of those with no hope is what traps people in this elo-hell mindset.
So the obvious problem here is, he seems to not care at all what the laws are, except, when it comes to taxation. Taxation as a law is wrong, but everything else, in a world without taxation, is fair. Basically, he seems to presuppose private property as fundamental right, not as a social contract. You do that, and then you get anarcho-capitalist style minarchy, by pre-supposing the solution. I think a more sane result from the same arguments would be to renegotiate private property as something you pay back to society for. You know, service fee for protecting stuff you have, proportional to how much protection you need. After that, his exact same logic leads to (wealth) taxes being very good idea.
Brilliantly explained. Although I was hoping you would also shed some light on his Rectification of Past Injustices Theory. As it seems to be directly at odds with the first two principles.
Here is the thing. When I look at my life, I don't feel oppressed by the government. Most, if not all, the places where the government influences my life is a great benefit to me. But I am oppressed daily by the corporate system we live under. They are our true overloards. And they are not benevolent. And we have no recourse.
The corporate system is used by and another aspect of the government. What do you think they get for all those contributions and giving government officials cushie jobs after they leave the government. They are one and the same at this point.
I can’t say Nozick’s arguments are very convincing to me. He makes a ton of assumptions which libertarians commonly make, also he seems to specifically be talking about anarcho-capitalism, not anarchism. He assumes Hobbes’ state of nature, which is demonstratively incorrect. He also only specifically talks about negative rights when discussing rights, which takes away any nuanced discussion on rights.
I mean he doesn't have to talk about positive rights because that's covered under the idea that you shouldn't be harmed without your consent. If there is a right to Healthcare, that would mean that you could presumably force a doctor to render you his services even if you can't compensate him for it. He might not he willing to service you anyways, especially if he's not taking Medicare because of bad reimbursement rates for example. Of course the proponents of Healthcare being a right would argue that the solution is to not give the doctor a choice, or to mandate that he serves everyone at a government mandated price point. But this removes his freedom all the same.
Rawls's veil of ignorance thought experiment is significantly different than how it is characterized here. The communitarian perspective and its compatibility with the minimal state voiced toward end of podcast was interesting.
I love your channel, keep up the good work! I do have to say that Nozick's view on how wealth may be accumulated in a "just" or "lawful" manner is horrible. You could, for example, use this train of reasoning to conclude that the way slave owners, or even colonial nations, gained their abundant wealth was ok, because their actions were in line with the laws during those times. Ofcourse I see the point of those laws being "unjust" laws, but I don't see how Nozick would arrive at a judgment as to what laws would be just or unjust.
If you take Noznick ideas seriously then all Indians in USA shoudl get back all land in USA and all Blacks in USA shoudl get reparations since they are descendants of slaves. I think Noznick never provide any answer how those reparations shoudl be pay. Or is it even possible to fix those types injustices? I think he just avoid this question. Other exampek. After WW2 many Germans weare remove from they homes since borders weare moved. They lost properties. But it was consequence losing of war started by Germany. Land was used by new owners. Woudl Noznick propose to give property back to old owners today? Can we think then that progresive income tax financing public services - education , heltcare, roads, railways etc is just a way to minimize inequality and historical injustice and improve people lives, and it is really small price if you compare it to what justice reparations shoudl be according to Noznick ideas
I believe Nozick would not be in favor of reperations when it comes to things that happened so long ago. He argues that forced redistribution would infringe on the property rights of individuals who currently hold their resources and property justly acquired. He stresses all the time how important he finds consent: if you directly got your property by a voluntary action on both parts, your property is still just to a high degree and you should not be coerced into reparations
Blah blah, property rights, take a NAP, blah blah. Not even Marx wanted "equality". Example at 18 minutes is a straw man, but minarchists need that kind of help for sure.
I watch a lot of TH-cam. Truuuuust me. A lot of TH-cam. A. Lot. Of all the content and channels I've seen, this is by far one of the best channels I've ever listened to. Thank you.
Thanks for making me smarter
Thank you very much for sharing this invaluable knowledge.
I was going through the HARVARD Lecture Series on Justice (by Michael Sandel) and was looking for some intellectual material/discussion on Nozick & suddenly you uploaded this episode! I can't thank you more. Wishing you all the success ~ One of your ardent followers. ❤️🇮🇳
Thank you for educating us. Appreciate it very much!
What a philosopher this Robert Nozick is. Even if you're not toiling away in the fields under pain of death, and your master doesn't even really need you, it still sucks to be a slave. Brilliant! Some of this shit that passes for philosophy borders on childlike observations. Most of 'philosophy' is painfully trite. And all it really does is shine a light on the power of social conformity and the imperative to adhere to social taboos. What you talk about and what you don't talk about, lest you threaten the status quo. Which of course is utterly intuitive to people. Nobody wants to be ostracized by the group. They don't have to be taught to keep their trap shut. And then these mouthy philosophers come along and start babbling a bunch of truisms, and the most bluntly plain observations, and are hailed as geniuses. And even when they're granted this special status, and imprimatur to speak so boldly, they say the most inane shit. And they themselves never challenge the suffocating status quo. Which would be extremely easy and straightforward to do. And would be the right thing to do. Anything else is merely obfuscation. That's essentially what philosophers are, professional obfuscators....
you would be suprised if you think people truly believe half the concepts put forth by Robert Nozick. The path is beaten, but this is his take on a centuries old problem.
@@itstesfa4185are you going to refute anything he said or just say "nobody believes this guy"
@@damianwilson391 He didn't say anything of substance. Can't refute a nonargument.
This is exactly what I've been looking for, Thank you :)
Just found you. Wonderful talk! I have subscribed and liked. Super, just super!
I like those debates that complexify what we thought about left and right because things are more complicated than this dualism. But, I can't lie that bothers me that Nozick arguments about society that can keep trying and trying and trying untill someday we'll find out collectively a solution for human problems. That, for me, is a thought of XX century (like the marxist version centered on state or the Hayek liberalism) because we are in the time of environmental catastrophes. We don't have time to think just about "our problems" with this traditional mindset, we have to decolonize ourselves, so we can think again about this "Nature" vs. "Culture/Society" rupture that caracterizes our civilization. I always thinked that we should have a more organic society with less centrilized power, but what can we do to mitigate the end of the world as we know right now without power to stop capitalism to destroy nature? Look at the amazon forest and the australian fires, what the fuck is that? I read Stengers over and over again and its stunning that this "intrusion of Gaia" will change everything. Would love to hear more about her work. Thanks.
I think you might find someone like Murray Bookchin perhaps quite interesting :) He was an ecologist that argued against the traditional Marxist-Leninist stance, promoting instead decentralised forms of governance. His ideas may be helpful to you.
I guess also about the current problems in the world, the best we can do for the moment, is to help educate our friends and families, and show them alternatives and ways that would actually empower them in being able to make a difference as well, join groups like Extinction Rebellion to try and pressure politicians into taking the climate more seriously, and also voting for people who will at the very least cause less harm :/ :) I think the important thing is people feel like they actually have some power in the outcome tho, otherwise there seems to be no point to try in the first place.
Trial and error is the foundational block for human advancement and civlization, there's no other way that has proved better. If you can comes to terms with that then you'll be swimming against the tide. If you're literally destroying the planet and there's evidence that it's destroying life forms or displacing people who live there then there should be a penalty. The question you need to ask yourself is if the state grants those destroyers the license to do so via eminent domain or even canon laws. Most times, thats usually the case. So i won't be quick to blame capitalism for that but the state as capitalism doesn't permit for the tragedy of the commons.
This is so great. Thank you so much.
Iam a new subscriber from India...thank you.....
Thank you for being a rock in the tide of the war against intellectuals.
Excellent.
What do you do for a living? Is there a possibility of a qna (question n answer) episode?
For what I understand, having read some of his ideology, I take it the debate reduces to two moral views... The right one has to what he works, and the right one has to live under human conditions... Clearly, both Rawls and Nozick could argue why each others ideology is based upon abstract matters; Rawls well may easily say that property is a "human notion", since such ideas weren't remotely existent before our approach into this world, and Nozick could sustain that objectively there are only "individual beings", not such thing as a "greater purpose". John Locke said "When a practice is universal, it's reasonable to think the cause is natural". So what's left (I think) is to question: Which of the two is more susceptible of being a strictly subjective matter? What has the story showed us? Knowing that; What should we privilege then?
It is worth saying here that Nozick's critique of "anarchists" is of the right wing "free" market type. Original Anarchists where socialists who believed the use of the state in the road to freedom would only reproduce the same social classes - accept this time rather than it be a worker class and a capitalist class, it would be a worker class and a governing class. Original anarchists believed resources should be socialised - meaning the right to property would function differently than how it does now (this is something which from as much as I know isn't changed from now according to the right wing anarcho capitalist types), though this is a generalised summary of anarchist thought, and if you'd do more research into left wing anarchism I'm sure you would be able to find out where I have gone wrong in places.
Anarchist socialists believed Rousseau’s state of nature. Not exactly the most in touch people.
Interesting discussion. Lots to think about. We don’t know what the ‘state of nature is’ and Rousseau had the opposite view to Hobbes.
We also have to think about what could make a state legitimate (us, God, power ie monopoly on violence).
Given the way the world is going, these discussions are important.
I love this show!
Thanks
This is a brilliant channel I'm really enjoying it. I was just wondering, what happens when you get sick in the minimal state? Doesn't Nozack believe in healthcare as a human right?
No that's just giving the government more power over your life, why do we want federal government to interfere when this can be done way more optimally locally in your community.
@@dhananjaytalati4529 Alright, however it seems to me that this distinction between federal and communal is only relevant to federated republics like the U.S, but if we put that aside for a second and assume that in this scenario there is no federated overblown government far away and instead we rely on healthcare or other social goods to be provided locally, doesn't that then boil down to the exact same thing, just on a different scale ? According the the logic of the example you used, wouldn't you still be forfeiting your power the same way, the mere difference being that the institution you rely on exists on a smaller and more local/communal scale ?
@@Yourdrunkuncledave Gobal warming...seems like a local issue. No problems here. Garbage ideology, lets live in the future, not the past.
You voluntarily purchase the medical labor of others in a bilateral exchange.
The argument that, "if the laborers don't consent to the agreed upon deal, it is effectively slave labor" is true, however, this is why open borders are commonly associated with anarchism and many others in the socialist/communist idea sphere. Effectively, there are no governmental barriers for leaving or joining a communist system.
Great episode. Thank you.
Historically states has evolved from minimal form (minarchy/minarcho-monarchism) in 17th-18th century to centralized modern states in late 19th century till today's .
That evolution has occurred cause of war expenditure mainly in late 18th and early 19th centuries and the need of central states to had incomes for the army basically.
Do you ever plan on breaking down the differences on the definition of rights? Iirc nozick breaks down rights as "the ability to do good" (right libertarianism/aristotleian) vs rights as "maximum autonomy" (left libertarian/anarchists etc)
This seems more reasonable. This doesn't feel like idealistic nonsense, but at the same time creates holes for people who need help to succeed to fall through. One of the problems of government mandated systems is that of the apparatchik. This term denotes a member of the communist political organization, but also has a connotation of opportunistic, lazy parasite. It's the people who get into positions of power within a system, set up a tent, make a fire, and settle into a cozy lifestyle of mediocrity and frustrating anyone who wants their help. Think Parks and Recreation. Another problem of the apparatchik is that they are highly political and deny help to anyone who they deem to be contrary to their ideology. This shows up in businesses a lot as well, but has more to do with personality types. A narcissistic manager will higher people who also display narcissistic traits. Abusers higher abusers, and so on. The manager surrounds him or herself with like minded people. This leads to a yes-man situation. If it goes on long enough the business will fail the moment the charismatic leader puts his/her incompetent lackeys in charge, and leaves. In those situations politicians are promoted, and politicians make crappy leaders. Do as I say, not as I do becomes the norm. Morale plummets, and anyone who's been around awhile who has the slightest bit of competence has to carry endless dead weight. The competent ones leave, and then the leadership flounders when it has no competent followers to throw its dead weight on.
It's weird how libertarianism doesn't talk about how its ideology only benefits a very few, and causes most to live in misery. It's kind of the perfect state of nature, or a justification of laissez-faire capitalism. At the bottom of this system when everyone is miserable, no one wants to see anyone else succeed. The structure begins to rot from the bottom up. The good people and the smart become trapped in a vicious circle created by jealousy, resentment, abuse, and addiction. Once the person realizes that there is no hope, their soul dies. There's no way out of this elo-hell without the help of other people. The hopelessness, and toxicity of those with no hope is what traps people in this elo-hell mindset.
Keep it up :)
NozicK is such a baby. God damn.
I'm definitely liking what Nozick is saying compared to Rawls for sure, I'm an anarchist after all
How is there currency in the anarchist society when there is no state? How are the security groups paid?
Crypto already exists
SEX
Decentralized currencies, blockchain.
See invisible hand explanations in anarchy portion of the book.
that's not where I imagined the finger would be 18:00
So the obvious problem here is, he seems to not care at all what the laws are, except, when it comes to taxation. Taxation as a law is wrong, but everything else, in a world without taxation, is fair.
Basically, he seems to presuppose private property as fundamental right, not as a social contract. You do that, and then you get anarcho-capitalist style minarchy, by pre-supposing the solution.
I think a more sane result from the same arguments would be to renegotiate private property as something you pay back to society for. You know, service fee for protecting stuff you have, proportional to how much protection you need. After that, his exact same logic leads to (wealth) taxes being very good idea.
Great show..mom
Any other good philosophy podcast?
I’d recommend hi phi nation
dude im boofed
Nozick got it ... Rawls not so much.
Brilliantly explained. Although I was hoping you would also shed some light on his Rectification of Past Injustices Theory. As it seems to be directly at odds with the first two principles.
Here is the thing. When I look at my life, I don't feel oppressed by the government. Most, if not all, the places where the government influences my life is a great benefit to me. But I am oppressed daily by the corporate system we live under. They are our true overloards. And they are not benevolent. And we have no recourse.
The corporate system is used by and another aspect of the government. What do you think they get for all those contributions and giving government officials cushie jobs after they leave the government. They are one and the same at this point.
I can’t say Nozick’s arguments are very convincing to me. He makes a ton of assumptions which libertarians commonly make, also he seems to specifically be talking about anarcho-capitalism, not anarchism. He assumes Hobbes’ state of nature, which is demonstratively incorrect. He also only specifically talks about negative rights when discussing rights, which takes away any nuanced discussion on rights.
Yes id especially take issue with his use of harm in the sense of high taxes if we tax a billionaire at 40 percent theyre not really harmed
I mean he doesn't have to talk about positive rights because that's covered under the idea that you shouldn't be harmed without your consent. If there is a right to Healthcare, that would mean that you could presumably force a doctor to render you his services even if you can't compensate him for it. He might not he willing to service you anyways, especially if he's not taking Medicare because of bad reimbursement rates for example. Of course the proponents of Healthcare being a right would argue that the solution is to not give the doctor a choice, or to mandate that he serves everyone at a government mandated price point. But this removes his freedom all the same.
anarcho-capitalism is the base state of anarchy. Any realized collectivism requires a deviation from the norm.
Rawls's veil of ignorance thought experiment is significantly different than how it is characterized here. The communitarian perspective and its compatibility with the minimal state voiced toward end of podcast was interesting.
I love your channel, keep up the good work! I do have to say that Nozick's view on how wealth may be accumulated in a "just" or "lawful" manner is horrible. You could, for example, use this train of reasoning to conclude that the way slave owners, or even colonial nations, gained their abundant wealth was ok, because their actions were in line with the laws during those times. Ofcourse I see the point of those laws being "unjust" laws, but I don't see how Nozick would arrive at a judgment as to what laws would be just or unjust.
If you read anarchy, state, and utopia, you’d know that isn’t the reasoning he uses. This is a terrible take that misapprehends anything Nozick said.
Im sure you get this a lot, but you totally sound like Joe Rogan!
Bleu cicutto i dont see it
He sorta sounds like he has short brown hair possibly wearing glasses 😂
@@Phoenix-jd5gy 😂 hes brunette. I dont think he wears glasses. Stephen West is beyond our mere appearance. As we all are.
If you take Noznick ideas seriously then all Indians in USA shoudl get back all land in USA and all Blacks in USA shoudl get reparations since they are descendants of slaves.
I think Noznick never provide any answer how those reparations shoudl be pay. Or is it even possible to fix those types injustices? I think he just avoid this question.
Other exampek. After WW2 many Germans weare remove from they homes since borders weare moved. They lost properties. But it was consequence losing of war started by Germany. Land was used by new owners. Woudl Noznick propose to give property back to old owners today?
Can we think then that progresive income tax financing public services - education , heltcare, roads, railways etc is just a way to minimize inequality and historical injustice and improve people lives, and it is really small price if you compare it to what justice reparations shoudl be according to Noznick ideas
I believe Nozick would not be in favor of reperations when it comes to things that happened so long ago. He argues that forced redistribution would infringe on the property rights of individuals who currently hold their resources and property justly acquired. He stresses all the time how important he finds consent: if you directly got your property by a voluntary action on both parts, your property is still just to a high degree and you should not be coerced into reparations
Blah blah, property rights, take a NAP, blah blah. Not even Marx wanted "equality". Example at 18 minutes is a straw man, but minarchists need that kind of help for sure.