I geeked out when I saw this. David Friedman is one of my top intellectual heroes. If only more libertarians would heed his nuanced empiricism rather than clinging to their unbridled rationalism over first principles, they might usher in a new era of relevance for libertarian ideas. Unfortunately, to hear most of them speak, they're still stuck in the dogmatism of John Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged -- and the world has cut their mic.
David Friedman is one of the best anarcho capitalist political economists and theoreticians in the world. Thank you very much for this episode. His emphasises on the wide range of ways in which laws and rules could, and historically has emerged without the state is always fascinating. Yet, he seems miss a critical precondition, that for such mechanisms to emerge, a society need to exist. And social identification based on a basic level of mutual trust is a necessary precondition in any society. As the society grows, and relatively complex transactions takes place between people who may not have personal experience of mutual trust, that the need for commonly understood laws and rules emerge in the society. This facilities more wider range of transactions between people who don't know each other personally. This is why legal rights are never sufficient for a functioning society without a shared moral values underlying it. Legal rights are our commitment to others under the threat of possible social sanction if one violates the rights of someone else. On the other hand, duties are ones commitment to oneself to recognise and practice those moral values that underlie the duties. Legal rights can only cover the formal transactions between two people, while the moral values and duties cover all aspect of the individual and social existence. Thefore, shared values and commitment to practice the duties seem to be a necessary precondition for the rules and rights to emerge. Only then one could look at the instititional processes through which those laws and rules emerge. This makes it possible to assess the validity of the ethical principles and transactional efficiencies of those laws. In practical terms, such a framework could help ask the question whether school voucher improves choice and efficiency of the schools. Also recognise the prospect of further entrenching the role of the state in education. Since every action of the state is a manifestation of its monopoly over legalised violence, whether this legitimisation of state in education inevitably lead to normalisation of violence in society. The extreme political polarisation and social fragmentation that we experience today is a reflection of desperate attempts by every ideology to capture the levers of state power. Not surprisingly, such a situation contributes to destroying the social trust, and strikes at the root of shared values that anchor the society. What do you think? Apologies for the long rant. 🙏
Can someone help me understand how this would work with these examples: - someone buys a peice of land, there’s a dispute with the neighbors on part of that land they say was theirs. - you own a flower shop in nyc and want to have a flower booth on the sidewalk but it’s impending foot traffic, pedestrians want it off, but you own that peice of the sidewalk and want the booth to stay. - there are multiple different garbage truck companies in a city, but residents hate having 5 different loud garbage truck pass and impede traffic everyday. The clear answer is to have one company pass every few days
Society can exist on a MUCH smaller scale government...people are too egotistical to compromise on what they want. It has to be reduced by at least 80%
@@allstonian13 We're actually experimenting with this, but the roadblock we've hit is the existing governments: they would always "invade" in one way or another. We've found out that trying anarcho-capitalism inside a "country" container is a useful concept that people already understand from the outside and can act as an interface when interacting with the rest of the world. The difficult part is making sure this container never gets any real power other than diplomatic.
HOAs are the best example in my opinion of how private law works. Some group of people create an organization to provide a set of rules and restrictions in a private community. People voluntarily choose to live there and be bound by the laws knowing what are the stipulations for how the rules will be enforced and pay a fee to support the HOA. Often times they offer no appeal to public courts only direct litigation with the HOA itself or defer to some private third party. They all have different stipulations on how the rules can be changed and what the fines are for breaking them. The rules are generally enforced by other HOA members bringing complaints against their neighbors. Now in my experience, most HOAs suck and I prefer to live places where Karen's aren't empowered by stupid housing restrictions to micromanage your private property, but they certainly aren't worse than centralized governments that bring in swat teams to raid your house or steal 30%+ of your income to blow up people in foreign lands.
It should be a small government and a big citizen, and the government is an auxiliary middleman, so that all citizens can have a good life, property and freedom guarantee and live a happy life. If you become a big government and a small citizen, the citizens will be turned into slaves and squeezed without three rights guarantees.
Why do you think they want to implement a One World Order? One Global government? To enslave us. The Roman Empire is ruling the west. Just changed the name to The Vatican. That’s the head of the snake. Those. The Rothchilds. The Italian black nobility are the puppet masters. That’s the head of the snake.
Example of private production of law: As an aircraft maintenance engineer/mechanic, if I don't follow the instruction given by Boeing/airbus on a specific task I can go to jail. Boeing/Airbus maintenance instructions law and privately produced and agreed by all participant involved.
Yup. I remember him saying this in an interview: "You have to get it out of your head that anarchism is no law and order. Anarchism is the mother of order!"
Ayn Rand figured out how to get an "ought" from an "is," resolving the famous is/ought dichotomy. I'm assuming Mr. Friedman disagrees with her ideas on this?
They are managed by the same puppet masters- The Vatican- the old Roman Empire. Those are the ones moving the strings in the West. Coincidence that USA is adopting the same politics in regards to equality, Illegal migration etc as in Europe?? Don’t think so. The Vatican is the head of the snake. Everything that’s happening is deeper than politics. It’s a secret society agenda.
No.. the best countries have laws that protect inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. None do it objectively, unfortunately, but it’s possible. Read “Capitalism The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, if you want objective solutions.
And What happens when someone can't afford to pay one of these "Private rights protection firms? That is the fatal flaw in your system. Those who have no, or little money get no protection. You also have replaced 1 communal government with an endless number of small corporate governments all of which are in competition for citizens monies. Furthermore, who decides what counts as money and what it's worth? I'm not going to carry a cow and six chickens around in my pockets. How are you going to have an economy without a token of exchange that is ubiquitous throughout society.
@@ianthompson5678 bullshit! You're delusional. Government can't keep corporate greed in check now and you want to hand everything over to companies with a profit motive?! Like it or not there are some things that we need government for and some expenses that are more manageable though government. We could pay for absolute security and universal healthcare for everyone if the oligarchs would pay their fair share in taxes. This country would do far better if we still had a middle class and it wasn't paying 24% of it's income in taxes. Far better to arm everyone and make everyone responsible for their own safety than to employ a "Corporate Police Force." That's just begging for someone to oppress you.
I think he said you would sell shares of your claim. So investment firms would fund your case for x% of your winnings. Competition among these firms could drive down the percentage of your winnings they would get.
@@D3xTRb0y Not likely. We've already seen what happens when businesses operate without any form of regulation. Plus, who decides what the laws are? What constitutes an actionable offence? How does one "clan" hold it's neighbor accountable if the neighboring clan doesn't consent to the same laws that you do? What if the neighboring clan believes that it's acceptable to steal from those who can't stop them from taking what they want? It would be endless tribal warfare with stronger less ethical groups raiding and oppressing smaller more conscientious groups. Only Instead of arrows and rocks they fight with modern weapons. Like it or not, we do need a universal set of laws for an entire society to live by in order to have stability. The week must be protected from the depredations of the powerful and unscrupulous. Far better to rewrite our legal code from scratch and eliminate all of the unjust and extraneous laws on the books and whittle it all down to a number that every single citizen can know and understand. Then put in place men and women of verified character and integrity with checks on their power and authority to "protect and serve." These people would be accountable to the people for their actions and subject to the same laws as everyone else. The current system is too big, too cumbersome and too corrupt to be sure. But anarchy would be chaos and death for those without the capacity to fund justice. As it stands right now, defendants with money to "hire the best lawyers" can get away with all sorts of crimes simply by creating "reasonable doubt" or "sympathy" even when their guilty as sin. (Whoever has the better lawyer wins.) Hell, just look at trumpty wompty and his incitement to riot and insurrection on January 6th, or any of his other numerous crimes committed in full view of the world. He's being shielded by his supporters, some of whom wouldn't be in their positions if not for him. (Conflict of interest) I'm reminded of "Chancler Palpatine" in Star wars when the trade federation delegate asked "my lord, is that legal?" Palpatine replied, "I will make it legal." Anarchy will only open the door for a strong man to step in and oppress everyone. It happened with Cesar, it happened with Hitler, it happened with Xerxes, it will always happen if the people aren't united and the government subordinate to them.
Yes.. most religious people don’t sacrifice their needs and desires anyway. Can you imagining sacrificing your food to someone else in order to be moral? If sacrifice is moral, as religions claim.. you’d die in a month or two from starvation if religious morals of altruism are acted on consistently. To the degree that society succeeds at all, it’s to the degree that individuals are selfish and self interested, pursuing their goals and values while trading, not sacrificing, successfully with other’s. Religion is a plague on the Earth, but, it’s better than nihilism. I don’t want to live in the Dark Ages and neither should you.
@@bradbecker8982 Even in the dark ages there were “God’s”. The problem is humanity utterly fails to accept that somethings are beyond our understanding and comprehension, and no explanation is required to the why we are here, what is our purpose etc.
@@robertholland7558 That’s the conventional view, and it’s inconsistent with our daily choices and actions. If nothing matters metaphysically and we can’t understand reality, why do we eat food and pursue values? We can comprehend all of what’s real, by means of reasoning. The explanation for human existence is that we evolved from lower mammalian beings that could not reason, into humans with the capacity to understand logic. The purpose of any individual’s life is to achieve their own happiness and to experience joy in life, without contradiction.
I'm not interested in how much damage a drug does to you, I'm interested in how many people you harm or steal from to get your fix. Even if a drug is legal, you still have to pay for it.
Circular problem… the drug [more than likely] will impede your ability to pay for your addiction or “harm you, your ability to continue your habit” and therefore translate to you harming others to meet the addiction each feed the problem? So both matter?
@@freethepeople Yeah and typically not nearly as [personally] destructive either, as say, street grade heroin or crack? [to name a couple] And we could argue all day, but the more destructive the drug… yeah, you understand. “cheap and Legal” only factors in a little… Alcohol has ruined / destroyed a lot of lives, in its own unique ways. But Weed in comparison [even when illegal, back in the day] didn’t inspire much [if any] folks robbing or killing? By it’s users [not including dealers and traffickers]. But we weren’t talking about those folks… which probably is more of an issue than the “users”?
@@freethepeople So drunk driving doesn't harm others? People on hard drugs don't drive under the influence? If people would stay at home and be financially responsible for supporting their habit, then I couldn't care less what they do. But you know very well that is not what happens.
Can a society exist without a government? Of course. Tribal societies had been doing this for thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years. Can a society with our level of complexity? No.
Watch all episodes of the Kibbe on Liberty podcast here: th-cam.com/play/PL36_JCmmBwZrrsXd0VIMJXHBSuWfUm57k.html
I geeked out when I saw this. David Friedman is one of my top intellectual heroes. If only more libertarians would heed his nuanced empiricism rather than clinging to their unbridled rationalism over first principles, they might usher in a new era of relevance for libertarian ideas. Unfortunately, to hear most of them speak, they're still stuck in the dogmatism of John Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged -- and the world has cut their mic.
It was a thrill to get to interview him!
Ayn Rand explicitly rejected rationalism and all forms of a priori knowledge. You're probably thinking of the Rothbardians instead.
@rod6722 Nobody said Rand is a rationalist, it was just an allusion to a scene from a book that so many will remember.
David Friedman is one of the best anarcho capitalist political economists and theoreticians in the world. Thank you very much for this episode.
His emphasises on the wide range of ways in which laws and rules could, and historically has emerged without the state is always fascinating.
Yet, he seems miss a critical precondition, that for such mechanisms to emerge, a society need to exist. And social identification based on a basic level of mutual trust is a necessary precondition in any society. As the society grows, and relatively complex transactions takes place between people who may not have personal experience of mutual trust, that the need for commonly understood laws and rules emerge in the society. This facilities more wider range of transactions between people who don't know each other personally.
This is why legal rights are never sufficient for a functioning society without a shared moral values underlying it. Legal rights are our commitment to others under the threat of possible social sanction if one violates the rights of someone else. On the other hand, duties are ones commitment to oneself to recognise and practice those moral values that underlie the duties.
Legal rights can only cover the formal transactions between two people, while the moral values and duties cover all aspect of the individual and social existence. Thefore, shared values and commitment to practice the duties seem to be a necessary precondition for the rules and rights to emerge.
Only then one could look at the instititional processes through which those laws and rules emerge. This makes it possible to assess the validity of the ethical principles and transactional efficiencies of those laws.
In practical terms, such a framework could help ask the question whether school voucher improves choice and efficiency of the schools. Also recognise the prospect of further entrenching the role of the state in education. Since every action of the state is a manifestation of its monopoly over legalised violence, whether this legitimisation of state in education inevitably lead to normalisation of violence in society.
The extreme political polarisation and social fragmentation that we experience today is a reflection of desperate attempts by every ideology to capture the levers of state power. Not surprisingly, such a situation contributes to destroying the social trust, and strikes at the root of shared values that anchor the society.
What do you think? Apologies for the long rant. 🙏
Can someone help me understand how this would work with these examples:
- someone buys a peice of land, there’s a dispute with the neighbors on part of that land they say was theirs.
- you own a flower shop in nyc and want to have a flower booth on the sidewalk but it’s impending foot traffic, pedestrians want it off, but you own that peice of the sidewalk and want the booth to stay.
- there are multiple different garbage truck companies in a city, but residents hate having 5 different loud garbage truck pass and impede traffic everyday. The clear answer is to have one company pass every few days
surveyor
you own the sidewalk you keep your cart there
You move, you ignore it, you convince your neighbors to all use the same truck
Yes. Government hinders social cooperation.
Perfectly! No government, no problem!
Society can exist on a MUCH smaller scale government...people are too egotistical to compromise on what they want. It has to be reduced by at least 80%
It should be reduced by 100%.
@@allstonian13 hell yeah
@@allstonian13 We're actually experimenting with this, but the roadblock we've hit is the existing governments: they would always "invade" in one way or another. We've found out that trying anarcho-capitalism inside a "country" container is a useful concept that people already understand from the outside and can act as an interface when interacting with the rest of the world. The difficult part is making sure this container never gets any real power other than diplomatic.
HOAs are the best example in my opinion of how private law works. Some group of people create an organization to provide a set of rules and restrictions in a private community. People voluntarily choose to live there and be bound by the laws knowing what are the stipulations for how the rules will be enforced and pay a fee to support the HOA. Often times they offer no appeal to public courts only direct litigation with the HOA itself or defer to some private third party. They all have different stipulations on how the rules can be changed and what the fines are for breaking them. The rules are generally enforced by other HOA members bringing complaints against their neighbors. Now in my experience, most HOAs suck and I prefer to live places where Karen's aren't empowered by stupid housing restrictions to micromanage your private property, but they certainly aren't worse than centralized governments that bring in swat teams to raid your house or steal 30%+ of your income to blow up people in foreign lands.
It should be a small government and a big citizen, and the government is an auxiliary middleman, so that all citizens can have a good life, property and freedom guarantee and live a happy life. If you become a big government and a small citizen, the citizens will be turned into slaves and squeezed without three rights guarantees.
Why do you think they want to implement a One World Order? One Global government? To enslave us. The Roman Empire is ruling the west. Just changed the name to The Vatican. That’s the head of the snake. Those. The Rothchilds. The Italian black nobility are the puppet masters. That’s the head of the snake.
Example of private production of law: As an aircraft maintenance engineer/mechanic, if I don't follow the instruction given by Boeing/airbus on a specific task I can go to jail.
Boeing/Airbus maintenance instructions law and privately produced and agreed by all participant involved.
Amazing video sad to see so few views
Michael Malice oddly comes to mind.
Yup. I remember him saying this in an interview: "You have to get it out of your head that anarchism is no law and order. Anarchism is the mother of order!"
Ayn Rand figured out how to get an "ought" from an "is," resolving the famous is/ought dichotomy. I'm assuming Mr. Friedman disagrees with her ideas on this?
Feels like I walked into an alternate universe and I discovered the capitalist equivalent of marxism.
Everybody here saw the videos of Sam Seder about libertarianism?
What if the conflict or for purpose of takeover which is beneficial to the warmongerer
VERARCHY is an advanced form of this kind of thinking.
No, it's BS.
No. Obviously
Trump supporters don't get mad that Bernie holds similar views on immigration.
Kibbe has a huge blindspot when it comes to Trump.
They are managed by the same puppet masters- The Vatican- the old Roman Empire. Those are the ones moving the strings in the West. Coincidence that USA is adopting the same politics in regards to equality, Illegal migration etc as in Europe?? Don’t think so. The Vatican is the head of the snake. Everything that’s happening is deeper than politics. It’s a secret society agenda.
No.. the best countries have laws that protect inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. None do it objectively, unfortunately, but it’s possible. Read “Capitalism The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, if you want objective solutions.
chip off the ole block
And What happens when someone can't afford to pay one of these "Private rights protection firms?
That is the fatal flaw in your system.
Those who have no, or little money get no protection.
You also have replaced 1 communal government with an endless number of small corporate governments all of which are in competition for citizens monies.
Furthermore, who decides what counts as money and what it's worth?
I'm not going to carry a cow and six chickens around in my pockets.
How are you going to have an economy without a token of exchange that is ubiquitous throughout society.
Everyone can afford to. A private service is gonna be no more expensive than the current state monopoly
@@ianthompson5678 bullshit!
You're delusional.
Government can't keep corporate greed in check now and you want to hand everything over to companies with a profit motive?!
Like it or not there are some things that we need government for and some expenses that are more manageable though government.
We could pay for absolute security and universal healthcare for everyone if the oligarchs would pay their fair share in taxes.
This country would do far better if we still had a middle class and it wasn't paying 24% of it's income in taxes.
Far better to arm everyone and make everyone responsible for their own safety than to employ a "Corporate Police Force."
That's just begging for someone to oppress you.
I think he said you would sell shares of your claim. So investment firms would fund your case for x% of your winnings. Competition among these firms could drive down the percentage of your winnings they would get.
@@D3xTRb0y
Not likely. We've already seen what happens when businesses operate without any form of regulation. Plus, who decides what the laws are?
What constitutes an actionable offence?
How does one "clan" hold it's neighbor accountable if the neighboring clan doesn't consent to the same laws that you do?
What if the neighboring clan believes that it's acceptable to steal from those who can't stop them from taking what they want?
It would be endless tribal warfare with stronger less ethical groups raiding and oppressing smaller more conscientious groups.
Only Instead of arrows and rocks they fight with modern weapons.
Like it or not, we do need a universal set of laws for an entire society to live by in order to have stability.
The week must be protected from the depredations of the powerful and unscrupulous.
Far better to rewrite our legal code from scratch and eliminate all of the unjust and extraneous laws on the books and whittle it all down to a number that every single citizen can know and understand.
Then put in place men and women of verified character and integrity with checks on their power and authority to "protect and serve." These people would be accountable to the people for their actions and subject to the same laws as everyone else.
The current system is too big, too cumbersome and too corrupt to be sure.
But anarchy would be chaos and death for those without the capacity to fund justice.
As it stands right now, defendants with money to "hire the best lawyers" can get away with all sorts of crimes simply by creating "reasonable doubt" or "sympathy" even when their guilty as sin. (Whoever has the better lawyer wins.)
Hell, just look at trumpty wompty and his incitement to riot and insurrection on January 6th, or any of his other numerous crimes committed in full view of the world.
He's being shielded by his supporters, some of whom wouldn't be in their positions if not for him. (Conflict of interest)
I'm reminded of "Chancler Palpatine" in Star wars when the trade federation delegate asked "my lord, is that legal?"
Palpatine replied, "I will make it legal."
Anarchy will only open the door for a strong man to step in and oppress everyone.
It happened with Cesar, it happened with Hitler, it happened with Xerxes, it will always happen if the people aren't united and the government subordinate to them.
Can a society exist without god
Yes.. most religious people don’t sacrifice their needs and desires anyway. Can you imagining sacrificing your food to someone else in order to be moral? If sacrifice is moral, as religions claim.. you’d die in a month or two from starvation if religious morals of altruism are acted on consistently. To the degree that society succeeds at all, it’s to the degree that individuals are selfish and self interested, pursuing their goals and values while trading, not sacrificing, successfully with other’s. Religion is a plague on the Earth, but, it’s better than nihilism. I don’t want to live in the Dark Ages and neither should you.
Society CAN exist without Yahweh the god of the Bible.
@@bradbecker8982 Even in the dark ages there were “God’s”.
The problem is humanity utterly fails to accept that somethings are beyond our understanding and comprehension, and no explanation is required to the why we are here, what is our purpose etc.
@@robertholland7558 That’s the conventional view, and it’s inconsistent with our daily choices and actions. If nothing matters metaphysically and we can’t understand reality, why do we eat food and pursue values?
We can comprehend all of what’s real, by means of reasoning. The explanation for human existence is that we evolved from lower mammalian beings that could not reason, into humans with the capacity to understand logic. The purpose of any individual’s life is to achieve their own happiness and to experience joy in life, without contradiction.
@@bradbecker8982 what are you on about?
You are overthinking and completely misinterpreting what I mean.
I'm not interested in how much damage a drug does to you, I'm interested in how many people you harm or steal from to get your fix. Even if a drug is legal, you still have to pay for it.
Circular problem… the drug [more than likely] will impede your ability to pay for your addiction or “harm you, your ability to continue your habit” and therefore translate to you harming others to meet the addiction each feed the problem? So both matter?
Very few people harm others over their addictions to alcohol or nicotine, because those substances are legal, and very cheap to obtain.
@@freethepeople
Yeah and typically not nearly as [personally] destructive either, as say, street grade heroin or crack? [to name a couple] And we could argue all day, but the more destructive the drug… yeah, you understand.
“cheap and Legal” only factors in a little… Alcohol has ruined / destroyed a lot of lives, in its own unique ways. But Weed in comparison [even when illegal, back in the day] didn’t inspire much [if any] folks robbing or killing? By it’s users [not including dealers and traffickers]. But we weren’t talking about those folks… which probably is more of an issue than the “users”?
@@Studio51media what exactly is a “drug” or “addiction “? Some suggest this includes love, adrenaline and many other such like activities/hobbies.
@@freethepeople So drunk driving doesn't harm others? People on hard drugs don't drive under the influence? If people would stay at home and be financially responsible for supporting their habit, then I couldn't care less what they do. But you know very well that is not what happens.
Can a society exist without a government? Of course. Tribal societies had been doing this for thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years. Can a society with our level of complexity? No.
why not? what makes a complex society to that?
Well tribal societies were centralised and centred around small groups. Anarcho-Capitalism is decentralised and can be applied to an infinite scale.
Isn't government making our lives more complex?
Nice to hear him call out the environmentalism scam.
Scam?
Has the climate changed so slowly that you haven't noticed?
chip off the ole block