Economics of the Stateless Society | Robert P. Murphy

Mises University 2017. Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 25 July 2017.

[@BravoFourTactical]

Love listening to Dr. Murphy speak. Hope to one day listen to him in person.

[@Somuchcooleronline1]

Oh man, he had me with the Janet Yellen joke.

[@politics4270]

Great lecture sir

[@gamerasanders8697]

Beard Murphy scares and intrigues a me. Where has the smooth faced gentleman Bob Murphy go?

[@Melki]

kinda in line with the separation of duties principal. The government is in for it itself so that's where the government is lacking. The fact that trias politica is still in power though, shows that it might not be entirely impossible for the government to improve on this from within themselves

[@smorrow]

I'm surprised Gresham's Law wouldn't select against beautiful coinage.

[@Waitwhat469]

40:00 Airplanes offer a counter example in which private companies pack in as many people as possible

[@garrettpatten6312]

people still buy the tickets though and they totally could fit in more. Imagine standing an entire flight like a subway ride.

[@thomaskauser8978]

battelle is the market for security

[@jarrod752]

Another language critique: Money isn't created by governments, only _currency..._ They are different things.

[@CrimsonFlameRTR]

The obvious question to the last (immigration) example is air travel. I can go over the border in the air.

[@tophan5146]

Privately-owned anti-aircraft weapons.

[@eKoush]

trust noone.

[@jeffgreene5956]

Think about it... "immigration" - The word itself is statist, in its political usage. Immigration from what to what? It's not, in any sense being used like - people are a flock of birds just going from one geographic area to another - People from one geopolitical area not "going" but rather, entering another geopolitical territory whose boundaries are determined by the state and not by private property. In a libertarian society therefore (wherein the state would not own property, because in my libertarian society there is no state) how could it be anything but a private property issue?

[@robinsss]

libertarians have never said we have a right to walk onto private property ………....just public

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

Bear Grizzly

[@sethapex9670]

Wouldn't some people prefer to get higher interest on their savings instead of a 100% reserve rate?

[@BobWidlefish]

*@Seth Apex* perhaps, though it doesn’t change the fact that by allowing banks to create fiduciary media its economically unsound. There’s also no reason to mix the two separate ideas of time-unavailable deposits (CD) with demand-deposit accounts (checking). There’s also a separate account type called “savings” that provides higher interest because that pool of money less variable on some time scales. The higher interest payment means something. The money isn’t free. It’s not magic. It’s the result of certain actions being taken with the money deposited.

[@sethapex9670]

I know it isn't free. It's being loaned out at an even higher interest rate or invested with a higher expected return. I agree that checking accounts should be 100% reserve and funded by an annual fee or something, and if banks want to use the funds in those accounts, they should advertise their savings and CD accounts and persuade the account owner to voluntarily transfer the funds to such accounts. Savings accounts can probably go down to the ordinary 10% reserve while CDs could probably go to 0.1% reserve.

[@garrettpatten6312]

It'd be one thing if you actually got a cut of the 99 more times your money gets loaned out or whatever it comes out to.

[@kellogsnotavailable]

I think he is more wrong than he is right 1. How many stones to trade for a horse / some eggs boils down to the same issue of directly exchanging eggs for horses, and people do not have a problem with that. 2. History has shown us over and over again that only the politically and militarily mighty were able to stamp coins; nowhere has there been any privately owned coin mints. It is just a *natural* fact of life. He fails to see the power of a universally accepted coin here. 3. He is right about the No Central Bank paradigm though, it makes sense. 4. Having a dozen teams compete for a road section is just what we have now; the govt is in charge of picking the firm with the best project for the budget, which surely has its shortcomings, but the idea remains: we do have competing road building companies and we have always had them. And yes, 10 roads running side by side between two villages would be sheer madness. Libertarianism, the way I see it, is nothing but a wild shot taken at reinventing the wheel, but ignoring the mostly predetermined trajectory that this process will be following.

[@BobWidlefish]

*@kellogsnotavailable* keep an open mind and keep studying mises.org material about history and politics and economics - it will change your life. Be as skeptical as you can be. Though be serious and honest and rigorous too - follow the facts wherever they lead. Challenge your assumptions. Seek disconfirmation of your existing beliefs. Practice epistemic humility. I wish you well as one human being to another - cheers!

[@smorrow]

"nowhere has there been any privately owned coin mints." 16:25-18:25

[@senselessnothing]

Statelessness is possible in a nice theoretical world where there is no envy or cutthroat competition and people espouse neat libertarian ethics, are terribly smart and proactive. The fact of reality though is that as long as one has much to gain from coercing somebody else, he will. As long as a group of people can organize to gain privileges from the greater whole, they will.

[@smorrow]

"The fact of reality though is that as long as one has much to gain from coercing somebody else, he will." Do you think libertarians are going to read this and be all like "oh, I didn't know that"

[@senselessnothing]

I am a libertarian myself mind you. The second part of my assertion is the key one. There is a difference between realization and internalization, I don't think most libertarians have internalized it and recognized it as a fundamental characteristic of humans. Because guess what, 98% of blacks voted for obama. We can see it in today's US that politics is filled with special interest groups and voting groups. In a stateless society human nature doesn't change. I find the more hoppean construction of private societies much more plausible, but that's not quite stateless is it? It's centralized and all. After 100 years of intelligence research now we know that for people with less than 85 IQ there is no major class of jobs they can sustainably do. In the US this amounts to 50mil people, are they all going to walk dogs, cats and turtles? They would be willing to start a civil war for welfare.

[@CarrotCakeMake]

Anyone who sees the restriction of general immigration (as a consequence of absolute property rights) as a virtue rather than a vice is not a libertarian.

[@ReckonRight]

What a weak and shallow non-argument. This kind of virtue signalling, purity spiraling pseudomorality is characteristic of race-obsessed ideologues on both the ethno-nationalist right and the culturally Marxist left. The immigrant content of peaceful communities is not a libertarian issue, and the immigrant content of communities other than yours is non of your damned business. Anyone who sees the infringement of property rights (as a consequence of race-baiting, politically correct diversity worship - or any other smug utopian priority) as a virtue rather than a crime is not a libertarian. The idea that libertarians should support mass violations of the NAP to placate the feelings of pro-immgration jerks is complete nonsense and your KZbin handle suits you.

[@CarrotCakeMake]

No libertarians are saying that you have to support immigration onto your property. But just because you own property has never meant that you can do whatever you want with it. You can own a gun, that does not mean you get to shoot people with it . You can't poison up the air around your place and when the wind blows say "but it was my property". You can't expect us to support a rule that says "anyone who wanders onto my property is my slave". Building your property, even with the collusion of others, to prevent the general immigration of others to and from property that you do not own is an obvious assault against general liberty. And you would agree with this if I surrounded your property with my own and didn't let you leave. Accusing me of me being a nationalist or a marxist or a jerk for pointing this out shows just how demented the fake libertarian anti-immigration movement has become. And I'm not accusing the presenter of supporting this, he was simply pointing out that it is a possibility.

[@ReckonRight]

I appreciate your attempt to make actual arguments this time, but unfortunately they are all crazy. 1. Yes libertarians (you) *are* saying you have to support immigration onto private property, either that or property can only be owned in a fashion(and shape) amenable to your politics. The idea you call "general immigration" implies. In order for "general immigration" to be respected, either I can't own property that "general immigrants" intend to use, or I can own that property but must grant them access. Either way it's a violation of property rights, and/or a violation of freedom of association(and about as anti-liberty an idea as I can imagine). In any case of immigration, whether onto property owned by the individual, owned by the state, or owned by the community, the immigration policy is determined by the owner(s). Sitting behind a keyboard doesn't give you a vote, only ownership does. 2. All your examples of restrictions on property rights are derived from the same thing that property rights derive from: the NAP. The reason you can't shoot someone? The NAP. Why can't you poison the air? The NAP. Why can't you enslave wanderers? NAP. The idea that these examples prove why it is acceptable and necessary to violate the NAP on a massive scale is not only inconsistent and clearly wrong-headed, but frankly, repugnant. And it shows a total lack of principled thinking on this. 3. Liberty is personal and negative. You don't have positive rights to get stuff you want or to do stuff you want by membership in some general category. You only have freedom *from* interference, you don't have any externally granted freedom *to* interfere with the lives of others. There isn't an exception to the libertarian concept of negative rights that applies to immigration. While there is obviously no such thing as an assault against general liberty, assaults against general logic and common sense are quite real, and too damn common. 4. Your hypothetical surrounding of my property is a totally goofy and imaginary non-problem that is actually a laughline at 35:24 of this very video. The idea that this supposed nightmare dilemma is sufficient reason to contradict the most fundamental libertarian values across an entire society is even more laughable. I think we should be able to tell at this point who the actual 'fake libertarian' really is.

[@CarrotCakeMake]

The exceptions and ambiguities of NAP are too numerous for any careful thinker to take it seriously. That's why it is hedged by calling it "principle" rather than an "axiom", although most careful thinkers simply call it a categorization technique. If you said to Fidel Castro "Unjustified aggression against another person should never be tolerated", he would 100% agree with you and claim in all honest belief that he tried to live his life that way. What makes libertarians different isn't "NAP", but the interpretation of what is violence and what is justified. For example, it is a common libertarian trait to believe that refusing to subsidize another individual is not harming them, or that any harm that results in refusing to subsidize someone is justified. Most nonlibertarians would think that if a starving man asks a rich man for enough money for a little food and he refused, that is a violation of their interpretation of NAP. Again, what makes a person "libertarian" isn't whether they believe NAP, but moreso what they think NAP means (although there is a lot more to it than that). If you intentionally claim ownership of property (or after-the-fact collude) with the intention of preventing someone from being able to travel freely, then you are violating any agreeable interpretation of NAP. You cannot honestly claim that such a use of property isn't an aggressive or hostile action against another person, especially since you wouldn't agree with agree with it being a tolerated action taken against you. In the video they were laughing at Walter Block's type of response, as he tends to be unafraid of considering extreme or tedious things. But they didn't address the undeniable objection and neither did you. You just called it totally goofy and imaginary non-problem (after accusing me of making non arguments, of all things). The fact remains unchallenged: if I bought all the property and roads around your house, and said that you are never allowed to cross that property, you wouldn't respect it and neither would any other sane person. One rule for yourself and another for others is not libertarian. We're not arguing that you have to let them everywhere on your property or let them stay. And not arguing that you would have to let an army pass or some other action that puts you in danger. I'm not saying it is always 100% unambiguous when someone is acting to intentionally prevent another person's ability to generally travel. But deliberately organizing your property to prevent other's immigration among places not-your-property is no more justified than putting your arms around someone without touching them and then claiming a right to self defense when they touch you to leave. But maybe you still don't agree with me. Maybe you do believe that property rights are so important to liberty that a violation of general travel has to be tolerated. That is fine, I can still see you as a person who possibly believes in the general pursuit of liberty, because as Jefferson said, "But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle". That wasn't the original point I was making. The issue is: if someone goes so far as to say that it is a benefit of private property rights to prevent general immigration rather than a necessary evil, then in no way can that person be considered a libertarian. To call it a benefit of a policy to arbitrarily restrict the liberty to travel, a freedom everyone has before property even becomes claimed, can hardly be called libertarian. This is no sophistry or "positive right" you allege, because you have to actively interfere with someone to prevent their travel.

[@MRBiel201]

blah blahblah The other poster made a grave mistake: The property laws and the NAP can be completly separated and praxeologically derived. One is not needed to deduce the other. You may also be surprised by this, but very few libertarians actually defend this vague idea of "Liberty", they only defend private property. And mind you, we're not talking about communists here, we are talking about a very specific group of thinkers known as austro-libertarians. Surely, there may be other schools of libertarian thought, like the chicago school, but they are simply not important. Now, back to youe argument. You know why you can't use your property, in this case, your guns and bullets, against a peacefull individual? Because that would violate his property. And, in the same way you cannot force your lead onto my body, you cannot force your immigrants onto my property. If they enter my house they are criminals that must be shot dead. You have only one right: The right to self-pwnership, everything else are simple analitical a priori propositions. You do not have a right to movment or to fly, as these contradict self- ownership and reality respectivily. If you believe that you have the right to travel freely, please, go ahead and show me the a priori deduction of that from the principles of human action, or any other axiomatic truth. This has already been done by Hoppe for the right to self- ownership, as you cam see in his article "Rothbardian Ethics" and on chapter 7 (It may be chapter 8, the name is something along the lines of "The moral justification for capitalism") of his book "A theory of Socialism and Capitalism" (I still do not understand why you called the NAP vague, as Rothbard's definition is not in any way that: No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.)