How Does Anarcho-Capitalism Work?

Disclaimer: This interview was produced in 2017 by the Institute For Humane Studies, prior to Students For Liberty's acquisition of Learn Liberty. The opinions of this interviewer are his own and are not that of SFL.
Anarcho-Capitalism. Prof. Bryan Caplan admits it “sounds really crazy.” Could we actually privatize law, courts, and all of government? Full interview here: • Anarcho-Capitalism, Ec...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/2dUx6wg
LEARN MORE:
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 6: Anarcho-Capitalism (video): Dr. Nigel Ashford explains the philosophies of two anarcho-capitalists, Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. • Schools of Thought in ...
How Commerce Protects Us - Deirdre McCloskey - Learn Liberty (videos): Professor Deirdre McCloskey argues that consumer protection agencies are unnecessary because businesses are incentivized to create safe products. • How Commerce Protects ...
You Are An Anarchist. The Question Is: How Often? (FEE article): Professor Ben Powell argues that some governments are so brutal, that almost everyone would agree that it would be better to have no government. fee.org/articl...
TRANSCRIPT: For a full transcript please visit: www.learnlibert...
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnlibert....

[@9thchild358]

Anarchism is just libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. Any libertarian who thinks long and hard enough will one day be an anarchist, whether he chooses to admit it to others or not.

[@right-winglibertarian3896]

9thchild Yes indeed

[@robinsss]

not me ancap is not logical wouldn't work

[@Ramezml]

yep, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

9thchild An Cap /voluntaryist for life baby

[@Ko-vb9mq]

+ONI OFFICER Multinational corporations destroy liberty.

[@JediNiyte]

This sounds like the inverse of communism.

[@birbseesall1529]

It is the inverse of socialism, not communism.

[@birbseesall1529]

@DezuBear Socialism is state owned means of production. Communism is Community owned means of production, with no state involved.

[@birbseesall1529]

@DezuBear Fascists keep capitalism mostly intact, often using capitalism to their gain. Therefore, they are not socialist.

[@birbseesall1529]

@DezuBear Fascism usually advocates the advancement of a certain group by any means necessary. This can include using the state or using Capitalism. Usually its the state, but not always. The Nazis utilized a combination of the two.

[@jc-zp1de]

Its is but in corporations control instead of goverment.

[@robertspencer5219]

No one should initiate force against peaceful people!

[@Ko-vb9mq]

Except in the case of evictions, right? It's not like the State is responsible for designating private property in the first place…. oh wait…. yes it is.

[@robertspencer5219]

There have been many far more successful private land bureaus in the US so the state is not needed there or anywhere.

[@Ko-vb9mq]

Private land bureaus?

[@sajfen]

Why would a legitimate eviction be an initiation for force?

[@AllThingsEntertaining]

@@sajfen If you're not paying your rent, or not paying the amount agreed, the owner has the right to take back his things.

[@chrissnyder3809]

The difference in libertarians (anarchists) and statists is that libertarians look to find better and more just alternatives to serious problems and injustice. Statists on the other hand don't look for answers but instead defend and promote the status quo and pretend that one more election will solve world hunger .

[@Ko-vb9mq]

I'm not convinced that total privatization is a "better and more just alternative". What exactly is "anti-statist" about a position which defends state-executed privatization policies and state-designated private property? Sounds like Caplan wants a corporatocracy, not anarchy. On the surface I would agree with your comment; but considering the context...

[@cermit2376]

@@Ko-vb9mq You do realize you copy & pasted that to multiple comments, right?

[@bagamias-hula]

@@cermit2376 trolololol lol oh robots

[@robinsss]

how would you fund the military?

[@bagamias-hula]

@@robinsss property in insurance and life insurance companies have a huge incentive to protect clientele. They would also have a greater incentive to resolve disagreements without conflict (would cost them money). Things like HOAs would also contribute to their own protection with private police/security/defense. Also, militias from private individuals with no restrictions on gun rights would protect themselves. When everyone owns tanks, rockets, etc. mutually insured destruction guarantees peaceful resolutions. Much better than an unaccountable monopoly called the state.

[@theanthologyofrhetoricandl5881]

So what would happen if arbitration fails and they can't have the third party "neutral" courts adjudicate? What happens when one group hires a huge number of mercenary private "police", and extorts or coerces others to do what they want? What if two groups gang up on another group to take their stuff or coerce them into doing what they want? It seems like anarcho capitalism is assuming that everyone will respect the rules of the game and play fair, failing to account for those who will completely disregard the rules to get what they want.

[@immanuelt613]

They still have to rely on the consumers who can decide to boycott their products like they currently do.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@immanuelt613 hard to boycott when they can hire strikebreakers with guns, and aforementioned bullets

[@supersam1914]

Insurance companies will undoubtedly in that system be much more impactful than they would be now and possibly control a lot of defense services because they would have a vested interest in doing so . If your interested I recommend Bob Murphy’s Chaos theory or Market for Liberty written by Tattunbuam . God bless

[@Jackmerius_Tacktheritrix5733]

That’s the way it is now with government

[@digaddog6099]

@@Jackmerius_Tacktheritrix5733 at least under the government, we can vote to change the laws, best case scenario with referendums. And in most democracies, in your worst case scenario you can move away. But the old company towns that we saw in the past used certain tricks so you couldn't move away, as a worker.

[@hamsterg0d]

Power and Market by Murray Rothbard

[@Ko-vb9mq]

You mean the guy who co-founded the Cato Institute with the billionaire Koch Bros? That's who working class people should be reading? Why? Because some working class idiots are under the delusional assumption that if they work hard enough, they too can become billionaires? LOL.

[@revanthelegend1129]

@@Ko-vb9mq He didn't co-found the Cato institute

[@Zorro9129]

@@Ko-vb9mq The Koch bros. betrayed Murray Rothbard. They're not actually anarcho-capitalists, they're just there for political sway.

[@lukep3022]

Mercurious Magus Rothbard called out the Koch brothers for disregarding libertarian principles

[@Ko-vb9mq]

@Doctors Office You first, billionaire bootlicker.

[@monstarchan3185]

This just seems like capitalism without government regulation

[@diazkohen2149]

More accurately: Capitalist Society without State

[@JK-gu3tl]

Free market?

[@diazkohen2149]

@@JK-gu3tl yes

[@Haris1]

and no taxes

[@Haris1]

@@Will_JC me?

[@probablynotben6288]

There are many criticisms to this ideology which I will list here. Competition isn’t guaranteed in a completely free market. Two companies that provide the same service and dominate the market can agree to not lower their prices if they are pressured to do so and both of the companies will make more money. The NAP is very vague and can be interpreted as enforcing many different things. It would be a lot easier to enforce it if we codified it into law. Almost all ideologies are based on preventing aggression, and the differences between ideologies are often based on what people consider aggression. Codifying these principles into law using a democratic process is the best way to determine law, as this created a lot of necessary regulations and laws on things that might not be considered obvious acts of aggression, such as zoning laws, environmental regulations, and labor laws. If something is privatized, that doesn’t always mean that it’s better. Just look at the dumpster fire that is private prisons, where people are kept in longer and are given harsher treatment (they also have a higher reoffending rate) because more prisoners give a prison value. This shows that privatizing things relating to the judicial process can lead to a lot of problems when the only incentive is profit. Naturally created monopolies can replace the job of governments, and this would lead to a lot of problems, because the structure of a traditional business isn’t democratic.

[@probablynotben6288]

I would like to add that the ozone layer is repaired because of government regulation, stopping people from emitting CFCs. Imagine what would happen if the judicial system was for-profit. Companies that emitted CFCs would fight tooth and nail to make emitting CFCs not punishable, and therefore not violating the NAP. Having a large organization that is based on principles that are meant to make society better will fix problems a lot faster than smaller individual courts that can be much more easily influenced or bribed. Anarcho-Capitalism wouldn’t work.

[@blue_wolfproductions12]

My thoughts exactly

[@thehorde4868]

If those 2 companies do not want to lower their prices, then a new company or companies will and their customers will flock to that or those new companies

[@Guafarina]

@@thehorde4868yeah and that new company is gonna get rekt by the 2 bigger companies by force, coercion, or simply by showing up and telling its owner that they’ll buy them out. It’s gonna become a cartel like system, “plata o plomo” (silver or lead) Pablo Escobar style.

[@Nikofran]

@@thehorde4868what stopping the two companies from just sending mercenaries there way

[@shadyparadox]

All the arguments from the naysayers boil down to "Privatized systems might eventually lead to the worst possible outcome, so we should stick with the worst possible outcome from the start like we're already doing."

[@ParkeProTennis]

The Hobbesian complex

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

No, that's a strawman. We need equal protection under the law. If criminal law is left to whoever is hired to create the law, then it is more open to corruption now, see Mexico.

[@shadyparadox]

Michael Burke The government wasn't even hired, it imposed itself upon everyone. That's worse. That's the point.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

No, it was established lawfully. If you don't like it, you can use the built-in tools to change it or leave.

[@shadyparadox]

"We need equal protection under the law." And establishing a monopolistic institution with political authority is antithetical to that sentiment. "If criminal law is left to whoever is hired to create the law, then it is more open to corruption now, see Mexico." You don't actually know that, you just think you do. "No, it was established lawfully." Circular reasoning. You have to establish what gives government its special moral status, i.e. political authority, in the first place. How can government "lawfully" give itself political authority if it has not already obtained the political authority necessary to grant itself political authority? And if it could grant itself political authority while not having it to begin with, couldn't anyone else do the same at any time? You'll find it hard to avoid begging the question here. "If you don't like it, you can use the built-in tools to change it or leave." You're implying the government has a greater claim to the land than the individual. But that is a claim that governments either have political authority (which still has not been established) or it obtained first rights to the land through means that anyone else could have had if they gotten there first. But there is no historical evidence they did so. I suggest watching the video "Political Authority - An Examination" by Academy of Ideas here on KZbin (if I post the link my comment might get shadow banned). It's under ten minutes, but it sums all this up pretty well and helps us get past the basics.

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

The absence of official govt would mean the rise of unofficial govts. Competing organisations would duke it out, or take the money from others and become the defacto govt. This is similar to the evolution of states from roving bands of tribes to city-states and empires to nation-states and international organisations.

[@norben1162]

Snd bc of this ancap makes no sense

[@flatouttruthpodcast]

No one would pay those governments or buy anything from them unless they wanted to. That is what anarcho capitalism is about. You do you, I do me.

[@TheWeakMinded]

As someone in private security, most of the people I work with are pretty incompetent compared to police. Its a 40 hour training course in California to be security...

[@JaySee5]

Government regulated private security is not the same as a free market private security. That said, how do you know police are more competent?

[@TheWeakMinded]

If you think removing government is going to magically train people more Im not sure what to say. I deal with police on almost a daily basis. Contrary to popular opinion, most know quite well how to do their jobs correctly and professionally.

[@JaySee5]

Ah, I see. You are so simple-minded that you believe things magically happen. That's not how the real world works. Cause and effect, you remove government regulation and competition flourishes to meet demand. People do not magically get trained, the demand for well-trained people pushes people to train to meet the demand. Your small anecdote of existence does not fly all across the board. Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you.

[@TheWeakMinded]

That is still expecting it to magically fix itself because you have no idea how security currently works... What government regulation is preventing the current security demands from producing more well-trained individuals? Right now the only real government control in security is: Training minimums, required interaction with police (there is a limit of force that security personnel can use and we cannot take a criminal to jail), and weapons permits (certifying a minimum standard of competency with a specific weapon).

[@IWLDELJ]

It's not expecting magic for the market to find a way. It's expecting the market to work how it already, observably works when there is no interference. Ask yourself this, what are the sheer odds that you're the only person with your concerns? If you are, it's not a problem. If you are not the only brightly shining star capable of this thought, then it's a market opportunity. You or someone who has seen the same problem, but has the intelligence and ambition to capitalize on this opportunity. It's no harder than training your guards to a higher degree, then marketing them as being the most competent choice. It's hardly magic. I say this as someone who is in a similar industry to private security. If it wasn't for state interference, I would have actually started my own private security firm already, because where you see a problem, I see an opportunity.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

this works for civil matters to a degree but criminal is another story. we cannot be equal under the law if the law isn't equal.

[@Tyler-hf4uc]

Michael Burke criminal matters would become civil matters and since you admit civil matters work then so would “criminal" matters.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

We have too many laws, this is true. But being able to buy your own justice is not equity.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

Fewer laws actually. It is an open secret that fascists/progressives like to make everyone guilty in order to keep the masses in check. With fewer and more transparent laws, our government can operate in a more equitable way that is within its delegated authority. Right now, no one knows what is legal and it makes it open to too much interpretation.

[@9thchild358]

How unimaginable. The vast majority of "criminal matters" really aren't. They are civil and made criminal. I don't see anything special about adjudication that the market couldn't handle.

[@vforveracity7487]

Apparently you haven't noticed we aren't equal under the law now. When are the wealthy ever convicted for their massive crimes against humanity? Meanwhile, there are thousands of people locked up across the country for possessing a plant. The poorer, the worse the sentence.

[@ricketycricket]

Go to 3:19 to hear him go full Elmer Fudd.

[@Will_JC]

Are you pro- or anti-anarchocapitalism?

[@LarfleezeOrangestein]

I like to hang out with ancaps, we disagree on very little, and they know what they are talking about.

[@robinthestate6548]

idk about you but for me children where I drew the line and couldn't become an ancap.

[@mrlollz1849]

You should hang out with minarchists hoppeans instead, unless you want daddy gates to do whatever he wants.

[@robinthestate6548]

@@mrlollz1849 what are you talking about

[@mrlollz1849]

@@robinthestate6548 About globalist corporations controlling every aspect of your life. This fakedemic is a great example of this.

[@robinthestate6548]

@@mrlollz1849 there's not a single libertarian, anarchocapitalist or minarchist that supports what's happening right now...

[@rileyemel9913]

Society would just burn in flames. Only the part of society that can't afford it.

[@nijario9690]

Public system is actually more expensive

[@boringpencil2271]

@@nijario9690 not if you are a poor person who doesn’t pay any taxes and can’t afford this stuff out of pocket

[@nijario9690]

@@boringpencil2271 you are poor because of the state

[@nijario9690]

Without government people would have a lot more opportunities to get out of poverty

[@boringpencil2271]

@@nijario9690 explain how I’d get out of poverty in this scenario if A. I barely pay taxes now in the first place B. I would get no government benefits as pay for roads, education, fire departments, and police protection, and healthcare entirely out of pocket. And C. I work a minimum wage job which under an a cap system, is no longer guaranteed a minimum wage anymore. Seems I’d be squeezed at all ends

[@josephreagan9545]

However, all of these security guards, private police, private courts, arbitration occur under an umbrella of government protection. All these groups know that when push comes to shove, they have to play by a specific set of external rules, or they will be fighting an entire country. So trying to compare how companies behave within a country vs how they will behave within anarchy will not give you a realistic hypothesis as to what Anarcho-capitalism will look like.

[@RL-ue4dz]

exactly what i was thinking, he doesnt take that into consideration at all

[@lukephillips1331]

yeah, they’re a trillion times worse without a government regulating them. i 100% agree.

[@2ez4m]

Government is never FREE (of charge), it costs us taxes.

[@robinsss]

not if privatized

[@robinsss]

under the current system if you don't pay taxes you go to jail under privatization of government functions the corporations and individual investors would pay for the roads

[@robinsss]

under privatization the payment by consumers is voluntary whereas under the current system it's's involuntary

[@robinsss]

a better answer is the corps pay the hefty price of building the roads while the consumers pay small amounts individually under privatization

[@anindividual4916]

@SecularDogma This is why such a change would have to be implemented (at a minimum) on a city or town level, it would require large chunks of the economy to be liberated from government to make any sense.

[@HalGailey]

This seems more like a "How could Anarcho-Capitalism come to be" rather than what it IS. There was no discussion of the foundation or philosophy behind it.

[@Ko-vb9mq]

More like, "How could a total corporatocracy come to be". Even Rothbard himself was critical of unconscionable privatization.

[@flydrop8822]

@@Ko-vb9mq we live in a corporstoracy now. If we get rid of the state it will only get better.

[@flydrop8822]

@Fk Ff it cant, because a company cant be so powerful that it wins against all competitors. There will always be competitors, and they will take a chunk of the consumers of said company. State basically makes so that they can cheat and win all the time, this is how we end up with companies worth billions of dollars.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

The foundation for large corporations is of course profits. And given who I’ve spoken to they want to return to a small society of tribal norms, instead of a body of governing laws.

[@debtpeon]

He's wrong about arbitration. Arbitration started to allow the parties to resolve the disputes to avoid the courts where the process is lengthy and costly. However the presiding arbitrator are typically retired adjudicators (i.e. judges) who have training in the law and have adjudicated actually cases in a court of law. Arbitration is much less adversarial and the hope is that by reducing the adversarial nature of the dispute, the parties can reach an agreement.

[@dasherman5150]

Bryan Caplan has the exact same cadence to his speech as David Friedman.

[@przemekwielgosz421]

he sounds like Larken Rose to me

[@chernobylcoleslaw6698]

Because they're both non-Austrian ancaps...

[@thomaspayne6866]

Jewish

[@grimm5155]

Your pfp disgusts me

[@theprophetofputdowns8114]

This comment pretty much set the cadence of this entire video.

[@dirkplankchest1796]

Policing and government arbitration are not analogous with private security and private arbitration. Thankfully a security guard can't forcibly restrain a person, and a college, business etc..can not use arbitration to imprison a person. Privatizing these kinds of activities could be extremely bad. monetarily incentivising making people criminals is very dangerous, and would require extreme government regulation and oversite, blunting the entire concept.

[@irongalleon7432]

Dirk Plankchest Which is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists are socialists categorically

[@entrainson7208]

Notice how the professor only mentions these services that benefit *consumers* and *clients* but not the workers. God forbid the government intervene to give workers better wages, protect against discrimination, and protect against unjust working conditions. A company’s employees may get paid shitty salary and work in unjust conditions while its consumers or clients are happy with these third party (non-government) regulations. Personally, a non-government third party regulation can be beneficial, but it should not be the only form of regulation.

[@xxlegend420xx4]

The market should in my opinion dictate wages as well. If a business won't provide a wage for people to work there it will fail.

[@Herikeeeee]

@@xxlegend420xx4 You forget that there are people fucked up financially that would take anything over nothing. This happens today, it has always happened along centuries. I remembered a scene from a videogame called Bioshock, where there was an auction to see who cleans the sewers faster for the lowest price. It's a videogame, but that's not far from reality.

[@xxlegend420xx4]

@@Herikeeeee its up to the people to not work there. Its not the businesses fault people are stupid and will work for less than their worth

[@Herikeeeee]

@@xxlegend420xx4 Did you read what I said? There will always be people desperate to work because they have nothing, and they will subject themselves into poor conditions, This always happened in history and happens today. If you can afford look for a better job cool, if you don't have what to eat you would do anything, and there will be people to take advantage of that because there's nothing to back them up.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Reminds me of when I worked for FedEx.

[@kendeorosz4811]

that is a spook

[@friendlyoldbum9182]

Sounds very similar to how it operated pre and in the middle ages just with more complexity. What happens when one private sector gets large enough and owns or influences everything again. People complain so they get given a level of percieved control through a vote on who is at the top representing their needs and wants and it would slowly revert to something similar to now just with different people owning everything. If you want to limit how much someone or a group can own in an attempt to stop it, who controls that.

[@robinthestate6548]

that's exactly what I've been saying. it's why I'm a minarchist.

[@tyaz6556]

That's my problem with anarcho capitalism. What is stopping someone from just using their influence to trap people in a space or just straight up buy them as slaves and create essentially neo-fuedalism

[@1mol831]

@@tyaz6556 when a private firm gets big it becomes a state. A possible solution is a revolutionary spirit to destroy or dismantle the authority once it gets too big. Technically a cycle for which a mutual consensus is held of the destruction of state every so often for a societal reset.

[@milokojjones]

@@1mol831 Oh boy that sounds like an awful system, even more awful than regular anarcho capitalism, not only would there be absolutly no rules and regulations for companies, essencially allowing them to do all sorts of horrible shit, they would also have self imposed societal reset ... you know what happens when this kind of thing occures ? - chaos - and you know what occures during chaos ? - death, suffering and destruction. Thank god we are hopefully never going to see this kind of system in action.

[@1mol831]

@@milokojjones Yeah, civil wars every 10 years, that will ensure no one gets too big and strong. And yes a lot of dead people.

[@shawnradke]

a common thing people are missing in the comments is that this so-called 'against your will' is literally how the current system works lol also the big difference is that whatever dominating entity at the time decides to be aggressive towards others simply because they have the bigger guns, is that they cannot pay for these wars as easily as a centralized govt, since they cant print the accepted money in which they do trade with also people would leave this entity far before they become like this since their track record would show signs that they are antagonistic (i.e. war wouldn't suddenly break out overnight)

[@trentbundy2296]

What would prevent anarcho-capitalism from evolving into corporate autocracy?

[@GunNr-]

@@trentbundy2296 Constant competition between businesses and companies.

[@trentbundy2296]

@@GunNr- How would that prevent monopolies/oligopolies from amassing power to coerce/dominate people, thus becoming a corporate autocracry? The private sector today is (at least ostensibly) in constant competition, and yet we see many monopolies/oligopolies impeding the development of new competitors. What would prevent anarcho-capitalism from just becoming a more extreme version of the same problems that exist today?

[@GunNr-]

@@trentbundy2296Those barriers to enter the market are created when corporations lobby the government to create regulations in their favor. Without government intervention, these corporations will have to face more competition.

[@CollinLi]

Please make a video about arachno-capitalism!

[@robinsss]

is that where spiders have so much money they start their own country?

[@NerdBallPodcast]

A liberated marketplace operated exclusively by spiders and related creatures

[@alisterfabian9991]

Now this is the perfect system

[@mann_man8556]

“How does Anarcho-Capitalism work?” Simple. It doesn’t.

[@eretna2480]

it can

[@shawnradke]

Define work?

[@kestanecihasanpubg]

@@shawnradke people not killing each other to take their stuff or hogs with the most capital not declaring themselves the governing body and sending death squads to k!ll your entire family if you dont comply? There is something wrong with your head if you think this has any chance of working

[@Mr.Witness]

@@kestanecihasanpubgthats exactly what ancap is suggesting

[@behar]

What a fantastic argument. Just say it simply does not work and that ends the debate. Fascinating.

[@wadetisthammer3612]

1:21 to 1:29 Arbitration does indeed have better laws...for the companies that pay them.

[@zadig08]

For real. I can't even conceive of the way one might conclude that this is somehow 'more just'.

[@Jazzper79]

Anarcho-capitalism does not work IRL as force needs to have objective boundaries and cannot be left up to the whim of the free market. A proper government needs objective laws and a system that project these.

[@agent99._.53]

Wrong

[@Jazzper79]

@@agent99._.53 No, I am not. Force is not the marketplace. The marketplace requires objective laws which is the essence of a proper morality.

[@imakevideos5377]

this tbh, however i would add, the free market has no goals in mind, the state (through direct democracy) has the goal of improving the livelyhood of its peoples

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@agent99._.53 elaborate please. You sound so confidentz

[@michealdopemeal9445]

I think you are confusing 'objective' with 'centralized'. A Free Market of law would have objective, not subjective laws. Subjective laws imply that each individual can interpret a law however he wants, a free market of law would imply that laws are created in private courts, upheld by indvidiual police forces that subscribe to that court's way of doing things, and that one hysical area may have several different police forces present which are upholding different and potentially conflicting laws. This is not neccesarily a bad thing, as states in the US often have different and potentially conflicting laws than the US Federal Government, and occupy the same physical space.

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

What incentive is their to honour arbitration? Just go through the motions and tire out the other party or bribe them. If arbiters have police to enforce them the arbiters are the new govt, albeit unelected except by shareholders.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

You. You get it. Private business is all well and good, but if the highest power you have to answer to is yourself, then that isn’t even a slippery slope, it’s just a cliff of bribes coercion racketeering, violence and a whole host of other things all in the pursuit of profit margins.

[@MetalCooking666]

I am pro-private security guards and arbitrators, but they have limited power compared to the state and they operate in its shadow. The state is there if things go too far. Ultimate authority still needs to be democratically accountable.

[@halykan]

How accountable do you feel our current crop of "qualified immune" thugs are? Is there a button you can press to ensure that when the cops murder someone they're actually punished for it? While I agree that private security in some ancap alternate universe would almost certainly do some shady shit on occasion, I'm not persuaded that it would be more prevalent or more heinous that what we currently endure.

[@Zorro9129]

"Democratically accountable" means a majority of people can use the power of the state against a minority they don't like.

[@johannesd.492]

I'd say, private police and judges exist today because it's not possible for a company to pay the government to have policemen or judges just work on the issues of that company. E.g., a mall can't pay two policeman so they pay two private security contractors. A credit card company can't pay for a judge only arbitrating their cases so they hire a private arbitrator. So thr conclusion is: let companies pay for exclusive government services.

[@tangentialreasoning5438]

Sounds an awful lot like feudalism.

[@Ko-vb9mq]

@Kyle D : On someone else's property, you basically have no rights. Once everything is privatized by corporations, and the last remnants of democracy are swept away, civil liberties as we know it will cease to exist. "The one with the gold makes the rules". Democracy is where people have a choice. Or at least, it would be, if our republic wasn't hijacked by billionaires and transnational corporations; who you want to give free reign to do whatever they want without any accountability, and who have no problem bankrolling you useful idiots for supporting their interests. Peasants for billionaires.

[@Zorro9129]

@@Ko-vb9mq 1) Billionaires and corporations are more powerful now because they can influence laws and politicians, vs. a private law system where everyone is on an equal playing field. 2) You already live on the "property" of the state and have no rights. If you owe $8 in taxes the government can take your $120,000 house, sell it for $24,000 and pocket the money. In private law no one can extort you.

[@Apenzuur]

@@Zorro9129 ' If you owe $8 in taxes the government can take your $120,000 house, sell it for $24,000 and pocket the money'. In what world? Seriously where in the western world does this happen?

[@theharbingerofconflation]

Cyberpunk 2077 has entered the chat.

[@standowner6979]

What does that have to do with anything?

[@theharbingerofconflation]

@@standowner6979 Dystopian future where corporations exist in place of government

[@thebigsteaks8752]

@@theharbingerofconflation There is still a government

[@theharbingerofconflation]

@@thebigsteaks8752 made up of whom?

[@jingleballs]

@@thebigsteaks8752 It might as well not exist, the Corpos in that world control literally everything on a whim

[@mondovicium]

It sounds like a great goal. My main concern is whether such a society can be stable, or continue to maintain maximal freedom, without some force (however minimal) keeping it there.

[@alexjones7845]

I'm a little suspicious when that sort of system would be taken to its extreme. However, the current system in the US is so far along the line of centralized authoritarian power that I think the society could move towards anarcho capitalism for many decades and never reach that minimalized point.

[@WhatsIQ]

Private police enforcing NAP (non-aggression principle) and a military run on donations and volunteers to defend our country from other countries is what most an-caps think for maintaining it without it being total anarchy where people murder everyone.

[@Cyborg_Lenin]

It can, in a month or so a dictator will take everything over and things will be very stable.

[@AgentSmithers]

"Maximal freedom" free for who, and what does that look like. Will lead to more inequality, less tolerance etc. No.

[@Cyborg_Lenin]

@@AgentSmithers well maximal freedom includes freedom to die homeless in the street, freedom to be denied medication or food, freedom to slave away 12 hours a day for basic subsistence.

[@jeanjiel8357]

Yeah right.The private sector looks after it’s own interests.I am against big inneffective govt,but as bad and flaed as it can be,the govt is elected and accountable.WCB is an example of what happen when the private sector police itself.One of the role of the govt is to protect the citizens against the greed and ruthlessness of the powerfull.privatize the military,and you have Blackwater.

[@explosives101]

"""the govt is elected and accountable.""" - Like Trump.

[@thelegendarywizard]

@@explosives101 never been accused of a crime with credible evidence to back it up. Two years of Muller figured that one out

[@veganmagick7251]

@@thelegendarywizard this didn't age well

[@dougnapier6441]

shut up statist

[@dougnapier6441]

@@MBasu-km8by Shut up statist

[@telecommunicationslawandre6751]

Anarcho-Capitalism means that the biggest capitalist make the rules that benefit them. This is anti competitive. A couple of of the biggest capitalist could form a cartel and suppress innovation that would threaten (perceived or otherwise) them.

[@AllThingsEntertaining]

That's not likely since people would be more then willing to dismantle oppressive monopolies. However, it's perfectly fine being against oppressive monopolies because you'd rather not have certain people corner certain markets. But be honest about it. If you're against monopolies, continue being against the current oppressive monopoly. Government doesn't have any actual powers, they're not omnipotent beings, gods, or fairy tale creatures.

[@Pepestock]

How would they suppress them without the power of the state? They can't lobby for higher minimum wages or regulation and so they can't stifle completion without breaking the NAP

[@rabidslurpy]

Mad Max times when?

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Shortly

[@plannedobsolescence2167]

Great idea. Put the health and safety into the hands of corporations. Just look at the huge success of the prison industry.

[@downnice95]

That's because it's government that gives out contracts to the highest bidder, in other words is crony capitalism. It's the same reason it's large why large corporations often want more regulation, it's too keep the smaller buisnesses down. In a true Ancap society something like private prisons in our current world wouldn't happen

[@VECtehSEC]

@@downnice95 That's true, we'd just have slavery instead

[@daltondodson8659]

@TheArtisticlittle Beetle Yes, but in the process of owning that land, another person could come and buy it for the right price. A free market never stays in the same status. It is constantly changing, anyone can overtopple someone else's success. People with no money still have the power to become successful, because in an ancap society there is no restrictions to stop them from doing so. The only thing preventing them is the will to take an opportunity and the knowledge to know what to do with it.

[@daltondodson8659]

@TheArtisticlittle Beetle So therefore if in your mind, there is no restriction to owning land in this society, then there is no restriction of taking it.

[@daltondodson8659]

@TheArtisticlittle Beetle As soon as hierarchy forms, other people have the ability to enact violence upon them. And in regards to you saying that there would be mass amounts of poor people. Once again, the only people that would be poor is the people that decided to not take an opportunity or arent trying to get out of poverty. If you look at the Industrial Revolution the working class had a higher quality of life than before the industrail revotion. That is because in the free market the person with highest quality goods and cheapest price are the most succesful. Which would mean that luxury goods, food, clothing, etc would become more widely availiable to the population. So the money they currently have could buy them much more then if the market wasnt free and the government gave them monopoly money. Also we live in modern day America; slavery and child workers are widely frowned upon. In summary, when the 1% gets richer, so does the other 99%.

[@probablysatire886]

How to get slav... uhm... unpayed lifelong employees: 1. Get a monopoly on healthcare (in an area) 2. When someone is about to die, you will only save him if he signs your "lifelong labour contract" 3. You now own a slave

[@donald347]

Much faster: just raise taxes. Now you don’t need to offer any kind of value at all! In fact your idiot slaves will think that’s PREVENTING slavery! Lol!!!

[@probablysatire886]

@@donald347 How to realize you're wrong: 1. Search the definition of slavery 2. Read it 3. Realize that paying someone money, even if unjustified (it's not), is not slavery

[@probablysatire886]

@@nathankirwan2565 1. Make a healthcare company 2. Make more profit than the other healthcare companies in your area 3. Buy them

[@Pepestock]

The only true monopoly is the State

[@peksn]

0:40 "right now there are more private security guards than police" Yes, but they always end up relying on police man if they ought to take any legal actions, plus they don't get paid to have the same responsibilities a police man does have. 0:55 "So for courts there is a huge are of private adjudication there's arbitration there's any time you have a problem with your credit card you sue the company that's involved you call the credit card company and they have their own internal adjudication system for handling things like these" I would think that if companies have these sorts of things they only do so that the matter doesn't escalate into an actual court case, see the only reason they try to "talk it out with the customer" is so that the customer doesn't eventually sue them against a more powerful administration that can actually prosecute these actions, the state. If there was no law to break against a higher power (in the case of anarcho-capitalism), there wouldn't be anyone they could go to in order to get the company sued (if it needed to be). So to summarize, the only reason they have these adjudication systems themselves is to see whether the customer's argument could lead onto an eventual court case against a higher power, if there's no higher power, there is no need to check whether they could be sued or not, because they couldn't. He then goes onto saying "this stuff is just better" not actually making any real statments one can discuss because of how general they are, he literally says "there's very good reasons why people are using these private alternatives right now which is they're better", you can't really say no to that, because he doesn't state what things *are better*, so I can't really make any more arguments as he literally starts saying nothing afterwards.

[@immanuelt613]

Companies can be boycotted by the general public if they make unjust authoritarian moves. This is what will keep them in line

[@afgor1088]

it doesn't.

[@rogernevez5187]

3:45 > "Could we get rid of the last bit." ANCAPs consider that in a specific territory there must be a *monopoly of the violence* (state)?

[@sergioforero9764]

no, o% monopolio de la violencia y legal.

[@SaltyMaud]

This guy is either a lawyer for a big company, or a economics academic. It all makes sense on paper. Libertarianism is efficient and may create the most good, but it usually ignores the fact that it's a zero sum game and it causes a lot of harm too, especially on the lower stratum. It operates under the illusion of individualism, but paradoxically creates a situation where individualism and social mobility is afforded only to those already privileged, or lucky. Capitalism is efficient and that's great, as long as it serves the people. Without checks in place keeping private companies from becoming _too_ powerful we have oligopolies if not monopolies that suppress innovation, maximize profits and serve only themselves.

[@JasleenKaur-xy1if]

finally an intellectual in these awful comments

[@SaltyMaud]

@@JasleenKaur-xy1if no u

[@immanuelt613]

It's not a zero-sum game. This notion has been disproved time and time again Jesus atleast do some research

[@GeorgWilde]

it's far from zero sum. We have trade you know.

[@andressf5]

freedom at its maximum

[@Will-JC]

Andres SF, are you okay with emailing me? There’s something I want to talk to you about privately, but if you’re too uncomfortable with emailing, then I have one NON-email option for you to consider.

[@code5829]

As privatization goes up and government regulated goes down eg government police, there much more competition hence quality goes up

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Do you honestly believe that?

[@Pepestock]

​@@highjumpstudios2384that is literally how basic economics works, so yes 😂

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@Pepestock I'm tempted not to get into an argument with a guy named pepestock who uses emojis but I'll bite. Historically as government regulation has gone down, in most cases product quality has not gone up, an large corporations leverage their immense wealth to crowd competition out of the market. So no, that's not how the economy works.

[@hanshermannhoppe6250]

he forgot about the NAP

[@plasmazulu6643]

Technically, Anarcho-Capitalism doesn’t necessarily have to be based on the NAP, although of course I’d prefer it to be.

[@Phoenix_Atlas]

I dont know how to get out of jury duty. How do you do that?

[@Nanofuture87]

Mention jury nullification.

[@Phoenix_Atlas]

@@Nanofuture87 cool. Cant you just say something racist when you go up to sign in like "well is he black, or Muslim"? Or say something like "I'm saying hes guilty cuz I'm pissed about being here"?

[@Phoenix_Atlas]

@@Nanofuture87 although I have gotten out of jury duty with the hardship clause.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Fun little thing called prison.

[@Phoenix_Atlas]

@@highjumpstudios2384 mind your business mushroom head

[@voluntarism335]

a good book for people to read for anarcho capitalism, the machinery of freedom by david friedman

[@mem7806]

yeah if you wanna become braindead

[@norben1162]

@@mem7806 how you can even find this serious. How dumb can you be to follow such dumbness. Its just exploitation in purest form. Pure slavery. Pure crapitslism. Pure cancer. No worker rights and protection of the weaker. Just the right of the stronger. No equality, but inequality. No protection against greedy organisations, people etc. And all that in the name of "total" freedom. How is this freedom? Fredom from what? Fredom from security. And dont come with this dumb freedom befor security/saftey sentence. No freedom with safety and security from evil and inequality seeking people who have too much might. Anarcho crapitalism will never work bc people will die out befor it happen, or will be willless slaves

[@mem7806]

@@norben1162 i don't agree with unrestrained capitalism lol

[@moon_nick]

Snow Crash

[@mayneiscool]

@AntiCap Atheist lmaoooooooooooo

[@ddaniels1800]

So if there is no federal government to regulate and enforce laws in the labor markets and corporations, then those corporations will not have those arbitration entities to begin with. Who's going to force them to take care of business for the employee? To take care of what needs to be done to protect the employee? What entity is going is going to make sure that every corporation has an arbitration entity that is doing the right thing for the employee at all times? Please tell me.

[@official_ebuddie-r7b]

Libertarians still believe in government. We believe in a larger state government than federal government. A libertarian president makes decisions that gives more power to either the state legislature, county legislature, companies and thus more direct to the individual. Therefore, the state or county will enforce laws. Why should a federal law for the fishing industry in Florida also be enforced in Michigan? Anarcho-libertarian ideology might also encourage seeking companies to help regulate certain industries like gun control. An example of this is PADI and NAUI certification for scuba diving. It is regulated commercially. However, those particular companies would be audited/ approved by the state government. Another example is gun control. As a libertarian, I think every citizen has a 2nd amendment right to own firearms. However, just like the military there needs to be a better screening process so the undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic psychopath doesn’t go buy them. It is too easy for people to buy guns. My solution is to have veteran run companies create more efficient in-person screening processes to both teach the common citizen gun safety, how to use a gun, background check, and more efficient psych eval. If you can’t take the time to pay the money to go through the process of gun safety, psych eval, exc, then you shouldn’t be able own a gun.

[@seanwarren9357]

So trade one supreme entity for another preferably with you at the top okay

[@donald347]

No replace it with a multitude of competitors. Watch it again lol? The hell...

[@sergioforero9764]

????

[@martymcfly1833]

Competition protects the consumer.

[@frmyt1135]

@AntiCap Atheist And that’s because of authoritarian rule in their past or because they’re under collectivist societies be it socially and/or economically

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@frmyt1135 tell that to all those company owned mining towns that ended so well.

[@frmyt1135]

@@highjumpstudios2384 Give me an example

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@frmyt1135 while I would, and probably should. I feel like you’re capable of looking that up yourself.

[@frmyt1135]

@@highjumpstudios2384 "Im not gonna argue and let my opponent learn of new information, so Im gonna tell them to do it themselves bc I cant argue" clown

[@jimpachihaihachima1753]

East India company did goverment work... Look up how good that worked out

[@revanthelegend1129]

That's because the existing Indian authorities gave the company tax raising authority. Explicitly so. It wasn't like they intended to become a branch of government. It also has to do with the British gov giving them a monopoly over indian trade. In both cases if there is no government, there is no monopoly granted.

[@Zorro9129]

The definition of a government is an entity that has a monopoly of force. The EIC had a monopoly of force and therefore was a government.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@revanthelegend1129 sounds to me like you’re just obfuscating the fact that at one point the East India company almost ran the British government instead of the other way around.

[@robinsss]

ancaps are not libertarians libertarians want to keep the government

[@LearnLiberty]

Ancaps and Libertarians are different from each other but they have a lot of common.

[@avowliberty2250]

Ehhh, too rich for my blood.

[@michealdopemeal9445]

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't require you to be rich, it is what makes you rich.

[@granienasniadanie8322]

Simple. It doesn't.

[@asoggycracker8773]

It’s not anarchy you have it obey a monopoly. The power obtained and centralized trough capitalism makes it not anarchy anymore, so in the end it’s a social contract where we all agree to stay decentralized.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

If only that. Wouldn’t be long before the big guys and the little guys start carving out their own little fiefdoms.

[@davidmacaart953]

I was quite interested in this idea as an Anarchist until it occurred to me it’s an oxymoron, capitalism is an economic system based on profit, profit requires exploitation via producers & owners, workers & bosses, Anarcho means without authority or hierarchy which is not possible within the framework of a capitalist economic system. It is therefore a grift, don’t be fooled!!!

[@Pepestock]

You cannot "exploit" me if I signed the contract for employment, have the option to leave and decide to stay 😂 what an idiot 😂

[@gustavop5706]

He just pointed that private services are better than state driven ones... but it doesn't prove the unnecessity of a state

[@sajfen]

lol what? If we know that the private sector does everything better doesn't that per definition make the state unnecessary? Unless we want bad services for some reason.

[@cermit2376]

If private services are better than state services then state services are obviously not necessary.

[@BanCommies_Fascists]

I support Classical Liberalism but Anarcho-Capitalism is kinda too much.

[@petrol_prophet]

so... can anyone tell me how this system would work with national defense? A military capable of defending the United States from invasion from say, Russia, or China, still costs billions of dollars. Who would pay for that? Everyone being defended by said military right? Sounds like taxes. Also... this guy talks about how much is privatized, like so many private security companies being used... but guess who uses those. Companies and organizations with LOTS of money. What about the lower class citizens who work hard to make enough just to eat and keep a roof over their families heads.. do you think they can hire a security company to keep them safe? Whats stopping organized gangs from sweeping through lower income neighborhoods and crushing any resistance, taking what they want, doing as they will? Sounds like paying some taxes and having a police force keeping the gangs at bay is a good idea then. Then what about roads? Who owns the roads? Who stops them from exacting excessive tolls? Another company building roads for cheaper? How are you supposed to do that if a company already built all the roads in a city? Seems like having a governing body to manage all roadways under a set of rules decided by elected lawmakers would be a good solution.

[@Zorro9129]

No one could invade the U.S. even without a military, the population is so well-armed that it would be suicide for anyone attempting it. Literally all these issues are addressed if you read books and articles about it. I highly recommend mises.org

[@user-rd5nc1nb9f]

Invasions are never stopped by the military, they can only be stopped by an armed populations. Armies are more efficient for offense.

[@user-rd5nc1nb9f]

Gangs wouldnt exist if selling drugs, prostitution and other consensual exchanges were not illegal

[@robinsss]

they could fly in and drop bombs on us

[@robinsss]

wouldn't it make more sense to try to stop or slow and invading force ?: so who is going to ensure that the armed populace has the kind of weapons that surrounding countries have ?

[@AlbornozVEVO]

why would people use private arbitration in the first place? I'm right and you're wrong. If you disagree, try arguing with my weapons arsenal.

[@cosmosaic8117]

“I’m almost looking forward to the scoffing responses from any Leftists who happen to read this one. Any “true” Anarchist surely knows that Capitalism cannot co-exist with Anarchism, right? For, Capitalism and their Overlords (capital O) are the ones the Anarchists are rebelling against! But I beg to differ. The reason being that true Anarchism needs to be based on Individualism rather than Collectivism. Why is this you ask? Because Collectivism automatically will lead to some kind of function of a State, and Anarchism by nature is a society without a State. Private Property owners are not a State. A Government is a State. A Government is unique in that it has a Monopoly on coercion through physical force. If they didn’t, then you could just choose to not pay your Taxes with no penalty. Wal Mart on the other hand, the biggest corporation in the world, has no Monopoly on coercing you through physical force to buy their products, or to work there. You can just choose to not have Wal Mart be a part of your life, with no punishment. That’s Voluntarism. In a Collectivist attempt or approach to Anarchism, you hypothetically have no State and everyone is just collectively working together in a unified Socialist/Communist community of harmony and bliss. That is, until someone steps out of line. Suddenly, someone comes along one day that doesn’t want to dance the Socialist dance anymore. Instead, he’s been reading Murray Rothbard and thinking, and has decided that he wants to start his own business. By himself. Without input from the community, and with his own resources and money. He decides to share this notion with one close friend to get a better sense if he wants to go solo or start a partnership, and in the meantime gets to work to get his small business running on the edge of town, using the funds of his basic income to do so. The friend decides to leak this news to others. Word of mouth spreads the news throughout the community. Outraged, a shadow overcomes the blissful harmonic Anarchist community. Nobody agrees with or likes this Outcast. This Traitor. Something will need to be done about this person. How selfish of him to think that he can have his own privately run business in this Collectivist community where we are all sharing and helping each other in this giant group-hug of harmony and bliss! How DARE this person be so selfish and want to strike out on his own venture, using public money for himself?! Not that it will matter. He will be shut down. Because in our community, there is no private property, or private profit. We are all in this together. And if he doesn’t shut down, then things will have to get physical. We will all make sure of that. Because Capitalism is not allowed here in any form. We are Anarchist. But, we assure you, this is a STATELESS society. Many miles away, there’s another town, known as Ancapistan, and they base their community on Individualism and Voluntarism. There is no Government here. Each person represents, governs and rules themselves and their own body, beliefs, and pursuits, and voluntarily trades with other individuals. Private property is honored here. Private businesses abound, and occasionally greedy Monopolies emerge which try to corner a specific market, but since there is so much competition, their greed puts them out of business unless they adapt to the prices and services of their competitors. Some people are overwhelmed by so much Capitalism, and so a handful of people start reading Karl Marx and decide they would rather start their own Communes on the edge of town. Their fellow Libertarians catch wind of this, shrug and say “have fun, just do not attempt to overthrow this town with your Commie crap! If you attempt to seize our private businesses, we will defend ourselves.” A few Libertarians even get intrigued enough to pop in and out of these Communes at their own will. Some decide to hang out there for good, while others get tired of the Collectivist approach and leave at their own leisure. Any Fascist authoritarian personalities who disapprove of this Communist attitude in an otherwise Libertarian society will just have to put up with it. If they attempt to shut down the Communes, they’re on their own, and the Commies have every right to defend themselves, and convince others to join in helping, although nobody has to. In this society, the Non-Aggression Principle is the only Law, which states that the only justified form of violence is self-defense. Otherwise, each person is free to live as they choose. ‘Do what thou wilt’. So what is the difference between these two societies? The difference is that if you go against the Collectivist/Socialist grain, you’re ganged up on, and will be forced to fall back in line or you will be thrown out, or worse. Physical force will ensue if necessary. If you go against the Individualist/Libertarian grain, you are free to do so, so long as you do not impose your way of life and beliefs on other individuals without their consent. If you do, then they have the right to defend themselves with physical force if necessary. The first society will gang up on you with physical force if necessary for practicing Capitalism. The second society will not gang up on those practicing Communism, but will defend themselves from aggression from the Communists if necessary. One society will violently overthrow Capitalists, while the other will merely self-defend from imposed violence from Communists. Therefore, Anarcho-Capitalism is the truly Stateless society, since it does not hold a Monopoly on coercion through physical force, also known as a State.“ chsmithe22.medium.com/anarcho-capitalism-is-real-anarchism-43f1b56337c0

[@LearnLiberty]

Thanks for your comment! I cannot agree with you about the fact that anarchism and capitalism can't exist together. What do you think, which economic system can fit anarchism better than the free market?

[@cosmosaic8117]

Please read my article a second time. The link provided might make it an easier read. I’m defending Anarcho Capitalism as the only true Anarchism.

[@cosmosaic8117]

@@LearnLiberty I think the Free Market and Anarchism are one and the same.

[@rapmasrap09]

And how easy would be access to capital?

[@roncur]

This guy thinks he's so bloody smart

[@Singulitarian]

Not working in major cities that defunded their police.

[@robertspencer5219]

Politics is Poison!

[@Ko-vb9mq]

"Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics." - International Encyclopedia of Political Science

[@cermit2376]

@@Ko-vb9mq There's no negotiating what private property is. It's obvious what private property means. How often do you ever see people disputing over what counts as their private property? Pretty much never. It's what rightfully belongs to you, not some government or collective. And people can defend what is rightfully theirs without state interference.

[@vjcodec]

What an argument! uhm......it's called self interest. What would a company withhold them of always ruling for themself? You call them up they say, go away! no laws, just company policies, real smart idea! so a 90 hour work week is fair, according to Amazon. now now don't complain, it's decide fair and square by Amazon.

[@floralkami2860]

This could work. With a population of about 100 people or so. Or actually more practically amongst tens of thousands of people. But not a collective of hundreds of millions. It would be terrible for global competition. But locally, amongst small cummunities it could work so well because the smaller your community the greater incentive you have to be honest and give actual value to that community because being a liar or greedy person would back fire on you to much in the community you live in to survive.

[@1998marcom]

Meanwhile amazon: private arbitration between seller and buyers, a market with hundreds of millions of actors. You can scale with the markets, it's just that you have to evolve with better ways to track who is honest and who is greedy. That's the point of reviews and their aggregate results, for example.

[@Mr.Witness]

It cant and it didn't

[@stevenhanson9515]

This entire clussterduck of a concept comes about because of false beliefs and a complete lack of understanding of what a human being is. Here are the main fallacies behind this abomination of a political solution: 1. "Man is not an animal". We analyze all other forms of life by identifying what they have to do in order to survive ..... EXCEPT MAN. 2. "The concept of a virtue is a moral term and therefore we must not try to identify the virtues leading to our survival because only religion defines a moral code". I posted a question on a libertarian forum:"If I am alone in the wilderness and nothing I do can affect another person, can I perform a virtue?" The answer that came beck immediately was, "No. you cannot" 3. "A virtue is an act that must benefit someone other than the actor." See the answer to #2. 4. "People are not smart enough to create their own legal system from scratch". In other words, we need to leave that to our 'betters'. 5. "The phrase 'unalienable rights' refers to something which does not exist". This ignores the fact that all human action is transitory, like lightning; like how our lives are also transitory because we are born, we live and then we die. But while we were, we existed. Why can't man's unalienable rights be THINGS WE DO in order to survive??? As such, they exist with exactly the same reality as our lives do.

[@vladimirlenin3562]

Anarcho-cringism

[@babla69420]

Another name for communism

[@vladimirlenin3562]

@@babla69420 Lolbert moment

[@XtremeQuantumSrength405]

@@vladimirlenin3562 hes right ya know

[@vladimirlenin3562]

@@XtremeQuantumSrength405 nah

[@XtremeQuantumSrength405]

@@vladimirlenin3562 MLs like you make ancoms look bad

[@betemulugeta9782]

'........rubber stamp that is it....'. what a simplistic idea for a very complicated issue .

[@4davidwestwater862]

The banks really enjoy private arbitration I think they're the only ones you like

[@Pepestock]

😂 this dude thinks banks are private institutions 😂

[@elbownio5820]

So is there a substantial way of regular people holding these privatised systems accountable for doing bad stuff?

[@testtube70]

This already exists in the free market in some forms. For example the better business bureau.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

No, actually. There isn’t. You can’t have a judge or a court. To ensure at least a semblance of impartiality, they would have to be elected to that position of impartial mediator, to have laws you have to have social bodies to enforce them. To make laws you must have people willing to obey them, and while I could go on, privatized courts will not work. Unprivatized courts will merely be dens of corruption where the Rich man hires a judge to rule in his favor, and you are by proxy fucked.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

In short, under Ancap, true ancap. There is no legal recourse for someone doing something as big as essentially enslaving you, to company stores and company debts like the olden days of mining towns, or as close and personal as raping your daughter. In this system, the only justice is what a man can take for himself.

[@jdhenge]

@@highjumpstudios2384 Why would someone go through the trouble of hiring a private judge in order to commit a crime? It's not like anyone has to obey the private judge. He only gives his opinion. He's just an individual like everyone else.

[@eretna2480]

this question sounds similar to how does the gov limit itself when it has monopoly on violance

[@madman00]

We will always need a form of government no matter what people think, Anarchy is one of the things that sounds good on paper but not in practice.

[@explosives101]

Statism sounds good on paper but always fails horribly.

[@robinsss]

he never said he supported Statism : having a government is not statism :

[@explosives101]

@@donnerwetter1905 Brainwashing.

[@official_ebuddie-r7b]

Thank you for this channel!

[@lwwkicker]

Oh wow, more Dave Rubin replays. Awesome new content.

[@jameslane2326]

3:44 Yes you can get rid of the last bit but at that point, there would be no universal consequence to doing bad things.

[@Nightshift10000]

James Lane there would be genuine self rule in that case, if you attempt to harm someone then they can defend themselves against you. Try & harm someone in an Anarcho Capitalist society & you won’t be arrest, you’ll be shot by your intended victim

[@jameslane2326]

@@Nightshift10000 this assumes that everyone is "able" to defend themselves equally which is a pretty large assumption

[@Caine830]

James Lane thinking that everyone can defend themselves equally isn’t a pretty large assumption. It’s flat out absurd. You nailed it with your statement.

[@DominionWolf]

@@Caine830 How do you define the ability to defend one's self? Let's debate this, because to me this sounds like superstition.

[@flydrop8822]

There is no universal consequence for doing bad things in our current society.

[@Somnivers]

Why not just make a Mad-Max world and cannibalize each other ?

[@anindividual4916]

The world of Statism has already created this world

[@anindividual4916]

See Detroit

[@tyaz6556]

@@anindividual4916 Detroit fell apart because capitalist companies moved overseas to pay lower wages lol

[@anindividual4916]

@@tyaz6556 maybe they wouldn't have left if regulation hadn't made it unprofitable to operate. Also there is a mass exodus of California because of mismanagement during this covid cricis. Same is true of new York.

[@Pepestock]

​@@tyaz6556GEE, I WONDER WHY THEY DID THAT?😂

[@mercury000]

Is it wrong that I can identify both bottles of alcohol tactfully turned around in the background?

[@martymcfly1833]

Hornitos and Bombay??

[@rickmcguire1761]

Anyone that thinks anarcho capitalism has never been tried should read the voluntary city. Police, city planning, healthcare, roads lol, and even the justice system have all been privatized in the past

[@robinsss]

all at the same time?

[@Ko-vb9mq]

To expand on robinsss' question: All at the same time, and without the backing of the State?

[@lasonn4127]

a voluntary society is not capitalist. Cooperation, cooperatives are socialist in conception and practice. A voluntary society may not have an official body like a government, to organize, administer and protect, but it is still a social and socialized activity/ group to perform the same functions. Voluntary activity will in time become obligatory and paid, when people become busy -- then you will have some type of government with paid work. Capitalism is always obligated to make a profit, and to compete for market share.

[@steptb]

key word: city

[@ayo564]

so ancap is on big homeowners association

[@1232bluejays]

Too dumb to get out of jury duty lol🤣🤣🤣

[@shout6892]

libright happy

[@Will_JC]

Are you pro- or anti-anarchocapitalism?

[@shout6892]

@@Will_JC I would say it could never work.

[@XX-bz1wk]

I can't believe anyone takes this stuff seriously.

[@XX-bz1wk]

@Vinicius Rios Yes

[@XX-bz1wk]

@Vinicius Rios Well, I don't think governments are inherently good. I just don't think they are inherently bad either. How are things down there now that Lula is free?

[@XX-bz1wk]

@Vinicius Rios I don't believe that taxation is taking property illegitimately. Property is a creature of law, and if the law requires paying taxes, that isn't theft. What makes property "yours" to begin with? The law, right? In terms of efficiency, I believe the government can certainly do some things more efficiently than private competitors - roads, referenced in the video, are a clear example. Is there any real question that a powerful sovereign can, for example, lay out a city better than private competitors? Compare Paris to London. One is orderly and navigable, the other is chaotic. One is laid out by a government planner, the other just happened over the years...

[@XX-bz1wk]

@Vinicius Rios I think that property is a product of political negotiation. Realistically, in my view, politics and the law makes property rights. No need to apologise for your grammar. I just started a Spanish class, and you second language is better than mine (so far)!

[@XX-bz1wk]

@Vinicius Rios I'm just saying you are better at your second language (which is English) than I am at my second language (which is Spanish)

[@yigithan.kilinc]

it does not

[@yourstruly3746]

It doesn't

[@agent99._.53]

Wrong

[@yourstruly3746]

@@agent99._.53 No, it wouldn't, actually. Please do inform me on how giving corporations access to military arsenal and ownership of practically every aspect of living wouldn't have the state become a Totalitarian regime? And that's not even delving into how capitalism literally needs the state beyond military and law enforcement to function....please do indulge me on how it would work "correctly".....

[@Pepestock]

​@@yourstruly3746😂 this dude thinks the government can be trusted to look after our best interests 😂

[@coupergore1427]

Why is there a need to privatise everything? Why not have these government services available while still having a lot of these private companies?

[@joseluispcr]

because taxes are theft and only when the servie is voluntarily bought like you WANT that school you have the natural incentives to investment. Goverments can make incompetent services and charge you the prices they want and you need to buy. There is no end for investment on healthcare for example if is with stolen money but if you have a house you decide the level of investment on healthcare that is needed. No one should have to pay for YOU to study. If you want to study thats is your problem, not your right and therefore society duty to give to you.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@joseluispcr I’m disgusted that you could, yet intrigued that you may.

[@mauriciorv228]

@@joseluispcr Ah yes, the communist on its flip side. Keep dreaming that Utopia

[@mrpopo4294]

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator" -Benito Mussolini

[@Ko-vb9mq]

Certainly true in the case of ancaps. They're 100% pro-dictatorship so long as it is privately designated.

[@AllThingsEntertaining]

@@Ko-vb9mq Yes, because letting you do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone, is a dictatorship.

[@AllThingsEntertaining]

Sincerely, an actual dictator.

[@Ko-vb9mq]

@@AllThingsEntertaining If you're an owner maybe. Everyone else would be subject to concentrated privatized jurisdictions, and would basically have no rights. Of course, private property only exists b/c of govt anyway, so ancapism is a contradiction right out the gate.

[@AllThingsEntertaining]

@@Ko-vb9mq The contradiction in the first sentence is quite baffling. Your entire argument stems from the initiation of force. However, you've decided to, in one fell swoop, make whatever anti-libertarian argument you could possibly construct utterly meaningless. You've admitted that if a business does not initiate force then there's no rights being taken, and it's therefore not a dictatorship. However, let's fancy this little piece of projection. Just because you might roll over to big entities doesn't mean the vast majority will. Your whole premise also stems from the notion that everyone is completely helpless or at the very least won't do anything about the situation they're in if they dislike it. You really believe that no one, in the face of a tyrannical leadership aimed to subjugate people's inalienable rights, wouldn't attempt to fight back? Do you have any regard for history at all? All this proves is that you don't know what a right actually is and you're mostly oblivious as to what history actually talks about. Rights exist in a negative context, which implies they negate what others can do to you. You have the freedom of speech, but no one is obligated to listen to you. You have the freedom to own a gun, but you cannot force someone to purchase or steal a gun. You don't need a government to allow you to protect yourself, speak, write articles, surf the internet, receive healthcare, travel to different nations, to protest, assemble etc. You can't force people to give you those things. If a private owner acquires land and sells it to me, how is the government involved in any way? If I buy a house from a private owner, how is the government responsible for providing me a land someone else already owns? The government cannot provide in which it doesn't already take from someone else. You're against monopolies but support the largest monopolies on planet earth, governments. Also, saying that's just how it is isn't an argument as to why it should stay that way. Anarcho-capitalism isn't against a governing system, but that system must be voluntary. They're against government regulation in all forms both economic and social.

[@davidleventhal4914]

Watched an entire video and I still dont know what the hell it is

[@bjarnehansen1101]

Anarchist-> No government Capitalist-> Every Instituten private because like said, no government But to quote Rothbard himself: everything "anarcho" is not real anarchism.

[@davidleventhal4914]

@@bjarnehansen1101 Alright cool thanks

[@highjumpstudios2384]

That’s kinda the point, these guys want to abolish law and the courts and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Do not be taken in by these two timing fools. The rich elites, Bourgeoisie if you’re inclined, would want this system so they don’t have to treat their workers ethically. The regular people like you and me who think they want this believe that they can climb up to the rank of wealthy elite without the government hampering them. Rationalizing away the fact that they have traded one tyrant for an infinitely worse one.

[@bjarnehansen1101]

@@highjumpstudios2384 Im ancap myself and what you are saying is utter trash. Anarcho Capitalism gives every single human to start their own life and control it how ever they want. A company that does not treat its workers ethically would not stay around for a long time. And not even because of NAP but because the workers would leave even faster. And then also because of the NAP

[@davidleventhal4914]

@@highjumpstudios2384 So am I a libertarian?

[@leaderunith4l324]

Anarcho-Capitalists don’t really seem to grasp that what’s profitable is rarely ever what’s moral

[@xspartan346x]

here's a great video on this subject! kzbin.info/www/bejne/gonXiKKDjNebbMk

[@IWLDELJ]

What the fuck? That's straight up the opposite of the truth. What is profitable in the long run is relatively consistently moral. You have a VERY poor understanding of economic history if you don't understand that reality. I make profit by maintaining and sailing boats. People can't afford or can't be bothered to invest in the maintenance or skills required to sail, so I do that part, and they reap the reward. Where is the immorality? Start listing professions, then we'll weigh out which ones are immoral at all, let alone inherently immoral.

[@eretna2480]

morality and ethics are the reasons why transactions happen whether the incentive is money, power or whatever Law defines public morals And we people agree to obey to it And we punish those who dont thats how society works

[@Pepestock]

😂😂 literally the opposite of truth. To get rich I need to improve someone's life in exchange for money.

[@ezradelsman6743]

ELI5, if you are arested by private police. do you even have to go? like if there is a warrant for your arrest for police hired my one company, do you even have to go?

[@irongalleon7432]

ezrub dell They would use violence to arrest you, same way as it is now. The only difference is that there isn’t any sort of public institution to protect civil liberties, so whatever company you work for or has the police has a monopoly on violence (or, private companies become the government). Without getting too into the weeds, anarcho-capitalism is just feudalism with extra steps.

[@Pepestock]

The rule you broke would be a breaking of the NAP by definition as there are no victimless crimes in ANCAP, meaning you can be met with force and subdued. You would then face the consequences the community has in place, if you flee you will not be allowed back in and areas can communicate with eachother just like jurisdictions now but without the legal bullshit of state lines, the police would work together to get you to face the consequences as they want their people to be safe.

[@JB-rl8tf]

"Prof. Bryan Caplan admits it 'sounds really crazy.' "

So it is just hardcore liberalism. Anarchism would imply even the absence of private property, hence the death of capitalism

[@Pepestock]

😂 private property is the backbone of ANCAP, wtf are you talking about? 😂

Which is controversial by nature. Who would grant private property if not an authority?

[@Pepestock]

@ me, with my gun and the contracts I sign

Yeah right. Your contract is worth nothing unless there's a state, a court system and enforcement agencies. This is far away of anarchism

[@Pepestock]

@ there is a court system and enforcement agencies? And what would the state have to do with it? I will protect my property and family with firearms, just try and steal from me

[@katiebarron4706]

Until we have a good way of dealing with positive externalities (free loader effect) in that type of system we will always need the public sector with taxing authority. Many transactions that are possible and necessary now will cease to exist in anarcho capitalist society due to positive externalities.

[@Pepestock]

There are literally millions of freeloaders on welfare right now 😂

[@tomhorth899]

It doesnt.

[@jackdaniel3135]

Let’s privatize the military guys! The Shoguns did a great job in Japan and definitely didn’t use their unchecked power to take over the country for a time. Right?

[@AusUFCCards]

300 million armed citizens would be the biggest army ever seen

[@Ellipsis115]

This is interesting, let me take notes This applies to more than just an anarcho capitalist society but this applies right now

[@nestalgia81]

This guy is super high. I agree with both being super high and what he is saying.

[@Will_JC]

Your comment is confusing Are you pro- or anti-government?

[@pujabelgian]

in other words choose libertarianism. Tell that to the fatted masses dining at the tax payer funded trough.