Michael Malice Explains Why He's An Anarchist

Watch the full episode here - • Michael Malice - Conne...
Michael Malice explains his political viewpoint of anarchism. Why is he an anarchist? What is anarchy? How similar is Antifa to Michael's view of anarchism? Is violence necessary? Is it a realistic way to run a government? Does Malice believe in the police?
From Modern Wisdom Podcast #277 | Michael Malice - Connecting The Dots Of Chaos.
#michaelmalice #anarchism #politics
-
Listen to all episodes online. Search "Modern Wisdom" on any Podcast App or click here:
iTunes: apple.co/2MNqIgw
Spotify: spoti.fi/2LSimPn
Stitcher: www.stitcher.c...
-
Get in touch in the comments below or head to...
Instagram: / chriswillx
Twitter: / chriswillx
Email: [e-mail]

[@pod9363]

Anarchy clicked for me when I realized that any relationship where consent isn't respected is a breeding ground for abuse.

[@OOJokerOO1991]

this

[@DD-jm5ug]

This 👆 👌

[@Jake-cy7to]

But if nobody protects your consent, then there's also breeding ground for abuse

[@joefization]

It's the DEFINITION of abuse

[@peterfrance702]

The joy of community.

[@noyb154]

@4:03 "We tend to be peaceful for the simple reason--not because people are basically good, but because violence is expensive."

[@ChrisWillx]

Such a mic drop that.

[@Menaceblue3]

Ferengi rule of acquisition: Rule # 34: War is good for profit Rule # 35: Peace is good for profit

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

The old line that human nature is evil is wrong. Perhaps male nature is, but the male is not default. That's another comment though. :-) What the quote describes is the reason a sociopath doesn't typically get violent outside of a war setting created by collectivist power mongers. Good people don't start shit because it is wrong and they know it is wrong and they have consciences they actually listen to.

[@em3sis]

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Your comment is all over the place making very big claims. Human nature tilts to be self-interested. The reason that collectivists exist is because its beneficial to them, not because they give a shit about the other guy. You don't have to teach a child to lie or steal. They do so instinctively. The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it?

[@magx01]

He's wrong though. Humans are like any other animal. Place us in certain conditions where resources are limited and there's a density of population and disconnection from others and you will see more violence. However, in limited, communal living with high interconnectivity we are remarkably peaceful. This is borne out in both past and present societies which have been extensively studied anthropologically. Hobbes was wrong about history being nothing more than a brutish nightmare.

[@colleenemmerson5973]

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do” -Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[@m.hughes8605]

@@colleenemmerson5973 I think it's called free will Colleen & your fave author just dressed it up.

[@geekvinos]

Glad to be reading this. Fleshes out some strongly held, un-articulated convictions.

[@gn0015]

Anarchists believe in not detangling your earphones cord.

[@rotoninja]

LMAO.

[@crosselen9766]

chaotic evil

[@kellyhoffmann1]

It’s ideas like that that got me on board.

[@gwho]

@@crosselen9766 chaotic neutral.

[@mdgraystone]

Why can't I reach into the screen and take care of that?

[@insertnamehere8121]

“ *The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater* .” - Frank Zappa

[@profk3742]

Great quote from my favorite musician, and who may be the most inspiring man who ever lived.

[@bitrudder3792]

Insert name here - Best user name ever!

[@bitrudder3792]

And the quote is awesome, thank you I had not heard that before.

[@blazingswayze5518]

And if you resist, you will be put up against that wall.

[@gloryrow100]

They started taking down the scenery when they moved 25,000 armed troops on a ,permanent basis around the "Peoples House" Nancy P. = stage manager.

[@bolo2393]

Glad he called it by its name: Corporatism. At this point the corporations own the state

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

Most folks don't understand that a corporation is a government created entity if you don't have government you won't have corporations

[@MundaneThingsBackwards]

@@jthemagicrobot3960 That's hilariously silly. A corporation is a business. It doesn't even have to be large.

[@gmsllc]

Govts are corporations.

[@Hibernial]

@@MundaneThingsBackwards State courts are what give corporations the legal status of an individual as a business entity, when otherwise they ought to be regarded as capital resources which leaves an individual owner or shareholder as the legal party. Corporations and corporatism in that sense are an issue regardless of the size of a business; subsidized corporations don’t control the nation-state governments, when they’re arms of nation-states through government monopoly on courts, and IP enforcement. And running a business that’s labeled as a corporation means that the State court views running a business as a privilege, because the distribution of wealth and resources is a role legislators claim a false right to.

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

@@MundaneThingsBackwards reread what I wrote and then go look up the definition of what a corporation is - see Blackstone's legal dictionary or you can try Wikipedia the answer is very similar in both

[@8d4o0c4]

"I'm gonna listen to the Cure, write in my diary with fingerless gloves..." Cannot. Stop. Chuckling.

[@marcv2648]

I still like The Cure.

[@Doobie603]

Right? Why is it that people who advocate for anarchy are the exact same people that couldn't last a day in anarchy?

[@marcv2648]

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Hahaha I'll pass on the fingerless gloves.

[@aestheticbeatz5700]

Right but the Cure is incredible and so are those gloves lol

[@8d4o0c4]

@@marcv2648 You get much better feel on the trigger with fingerless. ;)

[@themadmattster9647]

I’m realizing I might be going the anarchist route myself

[@budgibson185]

Lol it’s fake and doesn’t work! Go your own route don’t join this twats tribe..

[@SnakeWasRight]

Welcome, bruv

[@SnakeWasRight]

@@budgibson185 even though the vast majority of all relationships are anarchist, and the others are completely corrupt.

[@maychiu1419]

@@SnakeWasRight you don't need anarchISM to participate in anarchy. Anarchists follow the Ism of Anarchism, I prefer being a Anarchyist myself...

[@eurethnic]

There would be a rapid consolidation of power among the super rich. We'd be living under a techno fudalism. I situation we have some chance of avoiding with democracy.

[@nick_ashley]

Loved this one. You did a great job getting him to elaborate and explain his positions, your questions are always on point

[@dylanl7073]

I watched the full interview the other day but seeing this clip pop up brought me back, hungry for more! Keep up the great work. Really been enjoying your interview.

[@ChrisWillx]

Thank you Dylan. I like taking the best bits from episodes & posting them too - some people won’t commit to a full episode without a taster first!

[@emersonsimmo90]

@@ChrisWillx good idea, best to get these videos to as many people to see them as possible and some people don’t have the concentration or patience for a whole episode.

[@redarmysoja]

@@ChrisWillx Hard to go wrong with Michael Malice, he's always a good interview.

[@Brandonnutley]

@@ChrisWillx I'll add that I didn't know about this channel until now and more videos equals more notifications/possible reccomendations by the algorithm. I subbed, looking forward to more content

[@theQiwiMan]

There are no words for how much I love Michael Malice ❤️

[@ChrisWillx]

Podcasting with Malice feels like BJJ rolling with a black belt - no joke.

[@johnmaxwell1750]

I am worried about you if you feel that any anarchist like Malice has anything positive and worthwhile to say about human society.

[@theQiwiMan]

@@johnmaxwell1750 Just because you are far too stupid to see the value in ideas that haven't been spoon-fed to you since your childhood does not mean value isn't there, you're just too dumb to see it. Take care.

[@staticGenerator4You]

Genuine concern coming from John Maxwell here. NO anarchist LIKE Malice could have ANYTHING positive AND worthwhile to say about human society. NOTHING...AT...ALL. Sheez, that’s brilliant stuff there.

[@johnmaxwell1750]

@@theQiwiMan - There are NO positive values inherent in anarchism. It is about selfishness and self-centeredness. It results in destruction and death. In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, "Au revoir, Gopher!"

[@fettel1988]

Btw, why do we fear a term our would-be victim made up for us? "Anarchy" is something the government worked very hard to stigmatize. Because without stigma, we wouldn't fear doing it to get rid of them.

[@Tryalittlebit]

It’s because insurrectionism has been practiced by known anarchists in the past.

[@ct00001]

Same as the term "conspiracy therorist", a term literally invented by the CIA. Same as the word "marijuana", invented by government for the same reason, to stigmatize and control behavior. They first tried "loco weed" but that one didnt stick.

[@tarajoyce3598]

How do you get rid of authoritarians?

[@fairplayer7435]

@@tarajoyce3598 Walk away and build your own power.

[@tarajoyce3598]

@@fairplayer7435 Works on a personal level but not on a nationwide scale apparently. Seems like it works the same as school bullies. Too many people are cowards and just go along hoping to avoid being a target.

[@KenMabie]

I can not stand government, rules, and fetters. I can't stand caged animals, People must be free. As for politics, I am an Anarchist. -Charles Chaplin I do not wish to rule or be ruled. I am an Anarchist. If you are hungry I will feed you If you are cold I will clothe you If you are sad I will listen If you are happy I will celebrate with you I do not do these things under threat of fines or imprisonment I do them simply because they are the right thing to do I am an Anarchist I am Free. We are all stardust, Looking back at the stars, trying to understand itself. -Kenneth Mabie

[@donaldstrubler3870]

Violence IS expensive. Unless youre the consistent winner. Issue with anarchism is most people pre-disposed to violence as a solution also dont worry about the future cost of it, even in the face of losing. Warlordism exists for a reason

[@Somberdemure]

Irrelevant. You STILL don't have the right to rule others

[@fleebojenkins]

The problem is his analogies is they always predict an ideal social reaction to issues like the bartender kicking you out, he assumes people will just leave voluntarily, and two people fighting, he assumes people will break it up.

[@bbb911]

those analogies do in fact happen

[@LambertBowden56]

​@@bbb911They don't always happen.

[@bbb911]

@@LambertBowden56 yet they do happen, and when they do what do you think the reasons are when they do happen?

[@julianbirke]

The problem is when you have two neighboring "bars" that have a dispute, without anyone higher to mediate. It will inevitably devolve to tribal warfare. Whoever has the biggest stick wins.

[@VueiyVisarelli]

I get the impression that Michael has a pretty good grasp on what's _wrong_ with the current system in the US...but I don't know that either his analysis of _why_ it's wrong or how to _fix_ it is either correct or feasible. In fact, it feels more like he's using his own personal *interpretation* of what "anarchy" is, such that most people will misunderstand what _he_ means by it simply by default (b/c his definition is _not_ what's in the dictionary). I get that "anarchy" is such an extreme notion that it gets people's attention, but b/c it has such a negative connotation, he'd do better to come up w/ a _different_ term for his ideas if he wants them to gain more traction.

[@mwBZA]

This is a very good comment and very astute

[@Itsmespiv4192]

Nowadays liberals appropriated the word anarchism to justify and perpetuate the capitalist structure

[@therunawayrascal]

14:45 focus on your local community, your direct sphere of influence. turn that anxiety into building up and sowing into your local life. because in any terrible circumstances, with the State intact or not, if your local community falters then none of the macro stuff matters much anyways.

[@jdt2003]

We don't have to funnel every decision through DC - Let individuals or localites work out what's best for them

[@veryfitting]

Sometimes they're too stupid to do good things for themselves.

[@umwha]

‘Localities’. How will localities figure out what’s best? Maybe by talking amongst community leaders and having a vote? That’s politics

[@brianomoli4]

Washington inserts itself into everything. It makes itself unavoidable.

[@colinburgess4316]

No one is more qualified to live your life than you.

[@jdt2003]

@@umwha If you own a business and your locality dictates a minimum wage you can possibly move nearby or attend the council meeting. If DC (or eventually a world gov't) mandates a minimum wage it's much harder to move or change.

[@jacklonergan9991]

Make your mark on the world and find your bliss.....you’ve been lied to your whole life by the state. At 56 it’s never too late to take in Michaels message; great interview. Thanks 👍👍

[@cedricpod]

How about 69

[@rudyinthesky4967]

@@cedricpod is that a reference to age or a sex act?

[@rexmann1984]

@@rudyinthesky4967 obviously both, he's 12 and saying 69 is hilarious.

[@freeriding666]

The Capitalist Church is also bigger than the state. Same for its lies.

[@BitterTast3]

Marshall Rosenberg's NVC is a great compliment to the anarchist perspective and it's good for overcoming your reliance on the state.

[@jordylybeck6551]

It's a bold misreading of classic anarchist thinkers to revise their critiques of capitalism as simply disdain of corporatism alone. The anarchist critique of capitalist markets has to do with the degree to which they limit your experience in this world through coercion. Anarcho-capitalists seem to be adverse to engaging with the long history of anarchist thought. I will say I was surprised he did not refuse Marxist and anti-capitalist history in anarchism and gave this view its due, but the lack of engagement with these ideas is disappointing.

[@himarei]

People tend to use the word anarchy when they mean that something is chaotic. I waste no time correcting them.

[@ozarkrenew1019]

Authoritarians are commenting who dismiss anarchism as childish and dismiss Mr.Malice as not having thought out his views are assuming or merely trolling. Either way doesn't prove their assertions. I have lived independently. And I have lived in collectives. Independence provides freedom. Collectives tend to rob from the productive and give privileges to the managers. I'd rather work for myself. Anecdotal, yes, but in America still, I can have my own life, thank you very much.

[@destinal_in_reality]

@Ghost 3 Delta exactly, most of the defense of government uses the word ideally, like well we know the state commits all these atrocities but really we just need to vote in better people, LOL.

[@jeffcrist2977]

I would drop the bar fight example. Nobody jumps in to break one up. Free entertainment!

[@jeffcrist2977]

@Jeff Whitman What is with all the ad hominem strawmen on the web lately? I like Mike. Ease up.

[@LambertBowden56]

Exactly. Cops are called because many people don't want to get involved either.

[@cheryllocallaghan4217]

I love his point about how weak the “cathedral” showed itself. They want us believe how strong they are to keep their power, but they are extremely weak.

[@m.hughes8605]

That statement is illusory, patently false & does not match reality though it may give some a false sense of comfort. They have taken over your institutions of education, culture, sports & entertainment, law & government & just shut down an American president from speaking freely. How much more flexing of their power do u require to be convinced of their strength & who is in charge. Sigh..

[@MicahMicahel]

@@m.hughes8605 it's like the billy story. if the victims united they could overpower the bully. If they never figure this out, the actual strength is an illusion... like relying on a talking frog to save the day.

[@JakeWitmer]

If they're weak you should take their power away from them.

[@thebiowatchlist]

They are powerful beyond words....that entire area has soldiers everywhere and they would have been at the back of the rioters. They let those morons do what they did because it sealed the deal on ending Trump's time in power. At any moment, they could have ended that 'riot.' People in power are smarter than that. They know they don't need to shoot a small unarmed group like that with a gun. It's more effective to shoot them with a camera.

[@cheryllocallaghan4217]

@@m.hughes8605 don’t believe what they are trying desperately to convince you to believe. They are desperate and trying everything they can to show power that they don’t have.

[@paulamorris1713]

I feel so seen. This is the first time I’ve EVER found someone have the exact same worldview as me.

[@petereames3041]

Read Ayn Rand

[@Liberty-rn4wy]

Yes, Michael, anarchism does exist among nations. And nations also invade other nations, starve other nations, and drop bombs on other nations. I think if states had a long history or not warring it would be a better example. Japan in 1937 settled its anarchist dispute with China in pretty horrible ways.

[@xFlRSTx]

thats because states use other peoples money and other peoples lives, if it was the leaders lives on the line, and the leaders money, the incentives would be totally different

[@blnd_9689]

Chinese Communists and Mao killed 50 million Chinese people of their own country.

[@robcfc400]

All animals are equal ,but some animals are more equal than others.

[@vinfreeman1602]

Anarchy means without Government. That results in voluntary association without the threat of state Violence. With a true free market as the means to an end.

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

Amen

[@praz7]

@Sam Smith it can. For example you can trade wheat for rice. Money is nothing but a commodity. Barter system is capitalism of ultimate form.

[@whitehavencpu6813]

@@praz7 Correct, further more you'd have a free market of various currencies rather than one enforced and regulated by the state.

[@Composer19691]

“Anarchism just means voluntary association”. Really? That’s it?

[@SausageFingers420]

Yup.

[@SpunkyMcGoo]

Yes.

[@Composer19691]

@@SpunkyMcGoo Vague and sophomoric.

[@SpunkyMcGoo]

@@Composer19691 You're very smart.

[@djxandros9915]

It needs to be a more set goal.. like for example illegal surveillance is definitely a cause to fight for because of the unethical injustice involved

[@apelincoln1616]

The problem with the Anarchy argument is the person giving it is either crazy or talks out of both sides of their mouth. And they rarely go into detail on how society would function afterwards

[@pedronobrega7693]

Yes, they talk in relatively vague terms but no actual detailed practical application taking in account the complexity of societies these days. Sounds good in theory and utopian terms.

[@thesilverfish]

For A New Liberty. Murray Rothbard. 432 pages of details.

[@Somberdemure]

Irrelevant. You have no right to rule others. The problem with people like you is that you expect everyone to do your thinking for you.

[@raimondsrainskis8966]

The example of countries being in anarchy with one another is not a great one if you're looking to sell the idea of anarchism. I doubt you'd want to have a relationship with your neighbour akin to that of India and China.

[@lolypopNL]

Doesn't anarchism completely remove the social contract though? By removing the state they are removing the guarentee that the social contract will be upheld and without the social contract isn't it just a free for all.

[@AnuarK94]

From what I understand (I may be wrong), anarchists don't need a social contract per se - as these are in place to limit government power over people. Anarchocapitalists are pro the non-aggression principle, which means that no one should hurt another or there will be retaliation. Moreover, anarchocapitalists believe in 3 inalienable rights: to life, freedom (as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life plan/freedom) and private property. Anarchism just means "ruled by no one" - at least almost all anarchists agree on this. But this doesn't mean that people can't live in a civilized way - just that they don't need a daddy/mommy state dictating how they should behave and think. In any case, I recommend doing your own research haha😅 Take care!

[@joshduhclueless]

@@AnuarK94 People need a central foundation(if you want the benefits of civilization that is), now the question and struggle is who should it be, how much power it has or authority and a plethora of other things. If you could whip up a perfect system in a matter of years we would have one. Current govs are based off ones literally built in antiquity lmao.

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

Please provide a copy of said social contract

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

@@joshduhclueless you realize that's like telling an atheist they need God to be moral

[@joshduhclueless]

@@jthemagicrobot3960 How so? If Hunter gatherers and Nomads abided by familial structure, it would only support the idea people need a central foundation... Also most atheists could use God, regardless if its nonsense living in bliss is prefered for most people.

[@dru4670]

Propaganda has really led people to believe they can't exist in a civil society without governments 😂. For the longest part of human history we lived in anarchy.

[@BigPoppa-Monk]

Wrong, every tribe had a ruler and form of ruling class.

[@gmsllc]

@@BigPoppa-Monk every one? That is a pretty high standard to defend.

[@SausageFingers420]

@@BigPoppa-Monk Did they? Or did they just have smart, organized people that others followed and respected? There's a difference between a ruler and a leader.

[@baconboi4482]

Malice needs to interview Eric D July

[@SausageFingers420]

I would enjoy that very much.

[@botep5529]

I'm reading Malice's book "Dear Reader" never thought someone could make reeducation camps and struggle sessions sound like a good thing! Love the guy and his dark sense of humor.

[@Wokeupinthetwilightzone]

This was brilliant to watch. I'm newish to the channel and also Michael Malice and I'm so grateful and impressed by this conversation, it's depths and the listening and questions by the host were something I was blown away by. Amazing interview! 🙌🏻🙌🏻 Thank you to you both!

[@libernesia]

We're new to Michael Malice as well. Care to connect and discuss some ideas? We've just started an anarcho-capitalist "country", if you can forgive the contradiction, and we're debating what's the best way to make it work.

[@almas3427]

His last name doesn’t ring a bell to all you idiots 😂

[@almas3427]

He’s promoting Globalist a agenda to get Americans to embrace Anarchy which will then make an excellent case for a totalitarian government

[@almas3427]

Both the far left and the far right have the same ultimate goal. The only difference is HOW they get to the ultimate goal (Totalitarianism) Although counterintuitive, the only way to fight Globalist Agenda is to be in the middle of the political spectrum and never allow the power to shift too far in any direction.

[@raimondsrainskis8966]

Haven't really heard anarchists put forward that many actionable proposals, so the question about transitioning to anarchism was really on point.

[@TrueFork]

asking anarchists to tell you what to do :D

[@SeanRyno]

@@TrueFork no kidding. "Someone tell me how to live! If you can't do that, then I'll just let a corrupt gang of political elites paid by the super rich tell me how to live!"

[@Smerpyderp]

@@TrueFork it’s not the telling that we object to, it’s the coercion. We don’t appreciate being chained to some capitalist lord being told to make him rich or else we don’t get to eat. We should own the product of our own labor, decide things democratically, and abolish any coercive hierarchy that fails to justify its existence.

[@plusixty8992]

@@Smerpyderp too bad malice is ancap

[@Smerpyderp]

@@plusixty8992 ye I realized that later on :( sad

[@johnludtke1447]

One of the few things I disagree with Malice about. Those that wish to force their will upon you wish to be your ruler. Therefore they cannot be anarchists by definition

[@mattf2545]

Well said. Gonna remember this point.

[@fiat2496]

the only thing worse than the government is no government

[@Somberdemure]

Your logic: "The only thing worse than slavery is no slavery." 🤡

[@ryangoddard9991]

It’s hard to distinguish his interruption of a archaism and some factions of libertarianism, with the exception that there is an underlying theme is anti-assembly or anti-collectivism.

[@VideoMagician77]

Michael Malice is naively taking the safety of his world for granted. Since he observed that people in his environment trend towards peace, he's come to the conclusion that this is what human nature is. What he doesn't realize is that if it weren't for the existence of government, people would not trend towards peace since doing so doesn't make sense from a game theory perspective. If you are in an anarchic society, violence and distrust is the most optimal strategy since you can't trust with a high-degree of certainty other human beings. Government and law has created conditions where violence is expensive and cooperation is rational which is why Michael is lucky enough to observe humans as being generally peaceful. He needs to think more deeply.

[@Kirkwoodclay]

I ate Doritos for breakfast and now I can’t feel my arms.

[@bluemm2852]

Maybe you had too much crack

[@Kirkwoodclay]

I think it’s the combination.

[@gmsllc]

Sounds like a voluntary and not a coerced decision.

[@PonyFoot123]

Try drinking Mountain dew to go with that

[@Kirkwoodclay]

@@PonyFoot123 This is a good addition to my life choices, I will update.👍🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@bobjames1992]

Michael just gave the best explanation why Anarchism is a terrible idea....... "Every county is in a state of Anarchy towards every country" How do you think this is working out Michael? or has ever worked out? Bloody Hell dude, it just becomes whoever wields the most power! .... can't he see that?

[@julianbirke]

Right. He basically is advocating for tribal warfare to be the norm 😅

[@รารา-ฝ5ต]

This is a beautiful explanation.

[@johnmaxwell1750]

No, this is a garbage explanation. It totally rejects the establishment of a social contract between individual human beings and the larger human society.

[@รารา-ฝ5ต]

@@johnmaxwell1750 hey, i disagree with Malice too. Find it quite fanciful some of it. I like his point that most disputes most of the time are solved without state intervention. Its a little cause for optimism.

[@johnmaxwell1750]

@@รารา-ฝ5ต - Not only is Malice fanciful, he's an impractical dreamer. Like most egghead anarchists, Malice perceives our world and human behavior unrealistically. The Lord of the Flies is a story that Malice should read. It sets forth the most likley outcome for a human society which devolves into complete anarchy. Anarchy facilitates the rise of a totalitarian strongman who rules by force. The imposed regime inevitably destroys intellectuals and decent people who don't kowtow to dictatorial commands. .

[@UmaROMC]

I'm convinced that the only way big business can exist is through the state. Voluntarism would naturally limit the size of companies and probably de-emphasise the idea of a "corporation", since many of their problems are analogous. If you own your company, the incentives are clear. If you hire someone to manage your company, their incentives are much less clear. If your company "goes public", or even just has a board of shareholders or directors, what happens to the incentives then?

[@rudyinthesky4967]

The Capitol mob was hardly met with actual resistance (hence hardly a blow to big govs legitimacy).

[@8d4o0c4]

If that is the level of protection afforded the Capitol during one of the most tense times in recent memory, then I think it might demonstrate the incompetence of the state (if not the impotence of the state).

[@willwalker6894]

@@8d4o0c4 Seeing the law makers that have made people’s lives a living hell throughout 2020. It was absolutely liberating to see those same tyrants cowering in their chamber room on January 6th. I don’t particularly care how or why it happened but I still to this day could give two chits about it happening to them. Many of the decrees they passed and allowed to happen affected me personally and many other people I know. No sympathy for the devil.

[@646oleg]

natural human condition is to create social groups as family, tribe, city, country and more and more complicated social structures. Human history is the example of it

[@nerif2849]

And it is human history to also destroy those things. How can you ignore that equal factor?

[@646oleg]

@@nerif2849 correct, destroy old and create new.

[@UserName-ii1ce]

8:35 "Anarcho-capitalists think Antifa doesn't have THE RIGHT to call themselves anarchists." Ironic.

[@hamizanyunos1502]

Well Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists since they reject the state but support capitalism and private property rights. Original anarchists were very clearly anti-capitalists and socialists so of course they would be against Fascism. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4ScaoSfqt2rmJo

[@UserName-ii1ce]

@@hamizanyunos1502 thx dude

[@hamizanyunos1502]

@@UserName-ii1ce Yeah I find it funny how anarcho-capitalists want steal the term anarchists for themselves as their property. In rebuttal to this Proudhon words to them is that: "property is theft!". Note: I am not an anarchist but it is funny and pointing out the obvious contradiction,

[@VigilantAnarchism]

@@hamizanyunos1502 Capitalism is the private ownership of goods/services, and the voluntary exchange of those good/services…so how exactly does that come into conflict with Anarchism? 🤔 Read some Rothbard or Hoppe too.

[@hamizanyunos1502]

@@VigilantAnarchism Simple capitalist private property necessitates wage labor thus creating a hierarchal relationship between managers/bosses/owners and workers. Anarchists argue that this is unjust hierarchy.

[@RuleRsofTheGame]

@13:44 - No the imagery can't ever be unseen. And that's the point. Because now that imagery is being used to argue that something has to be done. And it will be done against the private individual and their liberties.

[@neue01]

As an anarchist myself, this was explained very well

[@surplusdivision2461]

As a wealthy person myself, if anarchy happens I will hire a private army, become a warlord and control large areas of land.

[@panprd]

@@surplusdivision2461 As another wealthy person with some more wealthy friends, I will ask them to unite our armies against you. Eventually, you will burn your money, or your mercenaries won't even sign a contract to fight for you against stronger armies. Or they'll leave, terminate the contract. Hiring well-trained soldiers would be expensive; not many people will risk their lives voluntarily. Of course, in some decades, the war will be machines and technology, so have fun trying to be a wealthier authority than a free-market society. Finally, have fun conquering lands without any info about the inhabitants, which now lies in the government's databases. Never know where something will start firing at you from anywhere. No info about their numbers, their wealth, guns registries, you know nothing. Learning it will cost you a lot of money. Not learning it means each squared meter is an unknown place for your soldiers to die, step on the mine, get fired at, and all that. To keep your conquered lands, you must constantly defend them; people used to freedom will not start obeying for fun on day one.

[@diashetv7719]

@@surplusdivision2461 Then you´re a stupid wealthy person, not doing that now when you have the chance since its literally the status quo but waiting in order to do so till people won´t be under opression and free to create wealth, defend their rightly earned land against you and your ex-monopoly.

[@samkellogg2805]

@@panprd As another wealthy man, with wealthy friends, good luck doing any such a thing in America anytime soon.

[@neologian1783]

I love Michael Malice. I find a million things to agree with him on and he opens my mind to a great many new ideas and concepts but I have to disagree that the default human condition is "peace". Violence is only expensive when there can be a proportional response....when the respective individuals, tribes, villages, cities, or countries are relatively evenly matched in terms of their ability to project and respond to force. But as often as not, that relationship is deeply disproportionate....making violence significantly less costly for the dominant side, or permitting the dominant side to offset the costs through plunder and enslavement. As a result, the book of human history is riddled with examples of the strong ignoring the supposed cost of violence and exerting force to exploit the weak......at every scale....individual, tribe, village, city, nation/state. I'm intrigued by anarchism and think it has a sound foundational argument, but it does the theory a huge disservice to respond to some of it's deepest challenges with a utopian misrepresentation of human nature.

[@andaneo2063]

oh jeez is so cringe to see someone calling themselves anarchist and thinking that not political, it gives me the vibes of "i can't be bothered to look up the term to see what anarchy or governing policy" means. an arkos meaning without rulers not without organization or rules (morality, rational laws etc.). policy means rules. Anarchists are without government not without governance, and believe all of us can establish common ground rules on how to live but from the bottom up and to decentralize all aspects of government into the hand of people, more like self-determination rather than being dictated upon from above.

[@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581]

I am not familiar with Mr. Malice, but his idea does intrigue me (well, I'm sort of an anarchist to begin with) so I might look him up later. One thing that does come across, though, is that he seems to intuit that a government is some sort of abstract immutable entity -- which is untrue because a government is still people. It may not represent all the people it governs, but some people are in it, so it's malleable. He also seems to assume a certain relationship between a government and its citizen, which is not necessarily true. Both a government, what it does, and its relationship with its people are all unique to the jurisdiction and are all negotiable. It's typically hard for citizens to change the status quo due to systematic roadblocks but with good organization and (a hell lot of) patience, its possible.

[@artemiasalina1860]

A government is an abstract concept. It is not sane to think that one can have a relationship with an abstraction.

[@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581]

@@artemiasalina1860 That is an idea of someone who has not thought of looking under the hood of the proverbial car and see how things work. Have you never thought of what the government should be doing for you or your community? Or likewise, what is the government should be taking or not taking from your? If you are driving on a road you have a relationship with a body government -- local or otherwise.

[@artemiasalina1860]

@@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581 >Have you never thought of what the government should be doing for you or your community? Government should not be violating individual rights, correct? Can government exist without violating rights?

[@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581]

@@artemiasalina1860 Those are different points. Personally, I don't care for things that don't have a practical purpose. So if a practical question cannot be be answered first, I don't care for philosophical ones. In other words, if a government can be replaced by other more practical organizations that serves the community's needs better, ditch the thing. Individual rights is for when we right the rules. And let's not forget that there are societies out there that don't place high value in individual rights, and that is also their choice to setup their governance in that way.

[@artemiasalina1860]

@@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581 > So if a practical question cannot be be answered first, I don't care for philosophical ones. I see things the other way around. I think that you can't ask proper practical questions until philosophical questions are answered first. >And let's not forget that there are societies out there that don't place high value in individual rights, and that is also their choice to setup their governance in that way. Any society that thinks it's conducive to civilization for people to force their opinions on each other is a society that doesn't place a high value on individual rights. That's what democracies are, systems where people force their opinions on each other via voting and government violence.

[@aindriubradleymarshall6226]

"Delegitimising the state" crucial point.

[@joedavis4150]

... The norm among people is peace. Yes.

[@pipsantos6278]

Those who argue against anarchism don't know Pascal's Principle (in fluid mechanics) applied to human interaction. If our society is built without this suffocating power structure pressuring everyone, our interactions will be different. That pressure from the government backed by violence seeps through every facet of society. The chain of command effects the chain of artificial hostile interactions.

[@hendrixgryspeerdt2085]

“ And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes, and by your thousands.” KJV Samuel 10:19

[@slice1208]

I think this person underestimates how much I want his stuff , and if his stuff is worth more than the "cost of violence" that's called profit . Good laws seat us free . Bad laws enslave us .

[@jabrokneetoeknee6448]

Exactly. Malice himself says that international-relations are in essence anarchic, because there is no greater political authority which two nations can appeal to and resolve conflict peacefully. Knowing that, take a look at history and you find countless examples of empires invading smaller countries and stealing their land or resources. The US still does it today in the Middle East. Obviously, profit was the motive for the violence every time.

[@waketfup8864]

@@jabrokneetoeknee6448 the US it's an Empire and it's empires and only empires who invade other countries. There has been a lot of peaceful and prosperous countries, but school history Focus of course on wars and kings that Made wars because that fits the narrative. It's all a big well thought out lie.

[@jabrokneetoeknee6448]

@@waketfup8864 what narrative is that? Also, no, not just empires. Political units much smaller than empires fight offensive wars as well: nation states, city states, tribes, clans. Were there also peaceful groups? Yes. But our point is specifically regarding the ones that aren’t. There is nothing stopping a superior armed force from forcibly taking your stuff away if they choose. The state of nature is brutish and short… there’s no good reason to return to those days

[@RKPT9]

What is the mechanism for a call for action?

[@Joshologic]

maybe i dont understand but im not all the way with him i also hate govt but how can we acknowledge that people arent good, then depend on them to be able to handle anarchism on such a massive scale? sounds like another theory that is not practical or realistic

[@TrueFork]

the idea is that it would still be better than putting those wicked people in positions of power and authority

[@dustinabc]

Do you have a channel on any other video platforms, like lbry?

[@newyorknole2225]

I dont understand the analogy he uses where he and the interviewer have an anarchist relationship. If they are at the bar and get into a fight, one could shove a broken bottle into the other person's eye causing perminant damage. What is the solution to that in an anarchist relationship? How does one get justice/reparation without the state as a mediator? His whole philosophy hinges on the ideal that all people will operate with the same mental clarity and code of ethics. It's a pipe dream.

[@Pau11Wa11]

Good questions, New York Nole. I’ll do my best to answer. For starters, Anarchism does not “hinge on the ideal that all people will operate with the same mental clarity and code of ethics.” Anarchism hinges on voluntary interactions, which is something 99.9% of people already partake in exclusively and have for their entire lives. That same 99.9% of people recognize others’ and their own property rights, buy what they want where they want and voluntarily enter into contractual agreements with employers to work where they want for an agreed upon price. These are all things anarchists do. Most people are anarchists and don’t know it. They’ve been brainwashed to see government as exempt from the same moral standards individuals are held to. I think this is what Michael was trying to show in his relationship example. The only time they aren’t anarchists is when they get in a voting booth. Anarchists abide by the non-aggression principle (NAP). Since they believe the world is best ordered through voluntary cooperation, they only use force in self-defense or in defense of someone incapable of defending themselves. This is why they correctly recognize government as the largest human rights violator. After all, everything government enforces is done so with the threat of fine, jail or death and funded through entirely through extortion. To quote Nietzche, “everything [government] has is stolen.” To answer your question about finding justice for criminal behavior in a stateless society, there would be private arbitration or private courts. To quickly summarize, unlike the current legal system, the competition for legal services in a stateless society would necessarily raise the standard of services, in both cost and fairness. Politics and legislation is downstream from culture. Cultural norms already accepted by most people are what lead to laws. A fellow anarcho-capitalist by the name of Bob Murphy, PhD has made a pretty concise video explaining how law would work without the state: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWO6maGFfaijgdU If you yearn to get a better grasp of what anarchism is and how it’s possible, I highly recommend the free documentary, “The Monopoly on Violence.” They provide past and present real-world examples: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/joikdn6Hn7Ngr68

[@Somberdemure]

Every heard of self defense? 🤯

[@newyorknole2225]

@@Somberdemure ever heard of random acts of violence?

[@Somberdemure]

@@newyorknole2225 Self-,defense isn't a "random act of violence." Even if you strawman argument were to actually happen, it doesn't give anyone the right to rule others!

[@newyorknole2225]

@@Somberdemure no I'm not saying that self defense isn't a random act of violence. I'm saying that if you are assaulted without the opportunity to defend yourself (in a random act of violence) then there would be no reprocussions for that act in an anarchist society.

[@l0pster]

Anarchy does not mean "voluntary association" it means "without Rulers". not sure where he got his definition

[@Uppernorwood976]

“The norm of humanity is peace” The norm of humanity is to create a system to maintain societal order, to which everyone is answerable. Chiefs, tribal elders, shaman, royalty, religious leaders, government. If you created an anarchist system it would very quickly disappear. It’s not a stable state in mathematical terms.

[@broluxgigantos89]

what about hermits? who they answer to? the norm of humanity is to seek freedom while enslaving oneself to oneself.

[@lorettagreen6794]

I wouldn’t compare indigenous social practices to civilizations with top down authority. An elder is not the same thing as a governor.

[@Uppernorwood976]

@@lorettagreen6794 no, they are on the same spectrum though. Neither is Anarchy.

[@broluxgigantos89]

@Patsy Decline Uh, when you write a rule, everything must conform to it. The rule: "The norm of humanity is to create a system to maintain societal order, to which everyone is answerable." if I state a square is a parallelogram with 90 degree angles and equal sides, you cannot have a triangle be a square it violates the rule. Hermits are not answerable to anyone. They can go live in Antarctica. Before there were countries, they could live on any land and not be answerable to anyone.

[@Composer19691]

Exactly. Hierarchical systems play out in all species everywhere.

[@trentbundy2296]

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

[@tjams99]

The people not supporting those corporations. Government is a tool of corporations and we don't have an "opt-out" from govt. Defense contractors, big pharma...etc. LOVE big government. And the millionaires in congress LOVE collecting big fat checks from those same corporations. Politicians get rich and corporations squeeze out competition. Win-win! We can choose our relationship with companies. We have no choice when it comes to govt.

[@iivarilappalainen9836]

if anarchy was viable "as political system", we would have it somewhere. but unfortunately its not, not unless you count some amazonian tribe. And its not going to get more common unless for some reason we backpedal alot on tech level and number of ppl on this rock. even then its just matter of time until pretty much any other bigger and more unified group comes by and sweeps the anarchos away. anarchism in itself limits the number of ppl/groups that it can "govern". my point being, we dont live in the hunter-gatherer days anymore and we wont be returning to those days unless there is some big rock dropping down from space or nuclear war etc. while i understand why many people find anarchy interesting - its really easy enough to read some history about the rise (and fall) of nations and empires and see why wide scale anarchy really doesnt stick around.

[@rlibby404]

@Vebunkd to be fair, some anarchists probably do get it, and then they’re not anarchists anymore. The only “real” anarchists that remain are the followers that see anarchy as a means for revolution and the leaders that see the followers as useful idiots that will help them gain power. I mean neither the leaders nor followers are wrong, but being honest with themselves was never a top priority. There are many vectors for revolution; anarchy is just the one that doesn’t hurt the followers’ brains to think about, so it only follows that they would be less inclined to think about any alternative consequences other than what they’re being sold by the leaders. And then there’s people who do it for the clicks...

[@Somberdemure]

For generations, people have been under mind control. The belief in government is generational deep and people are psychological infants.

[@PH4RX]

6:30 "I don’t know how phone companies work or interact in a different existing system but will use that as proof for a different thing totally working in a different system." How do you know that your security firm would have the honest goal to provide security and generate revenue through that? In order to provide security you REQUIRE threats you can protect against or you are obsolete. Also why do you believe that independent companies would peacefully resolve it if they can through sheer force? Why would you trust companies with processes unknown to you to have your interest in mind instead of banding together and extracting the most out of you?

[@theemperorstarwarslegends8075]

- - - This is why Anarchy doesn't work - - - Barry: Hi my names Barry and I work at the nuclear power plant. I mean I'm all for Anarchy, but someones gonna have to help feed me and my team if we are gonna spend our time up there making sure the rods are cooled. Otherwise all life in a wide diameter will end. Anarchist 1: Oh... Uh... well that's fair I suppose. Everyone should give Barry and his team food as he won't be able to till the land and provide for his family. It's only fair. Anarchist 2: But how do we tell who works at the powerplant? Anarchist 1: Okay... Well uh... someone will just have to make shirts for the guy that works at the power plant. Will you do it? Anarchist 3: Fine. I'll do it. But how do we know that people won't just copy my shirts and use it to get free food? Not to mention, since I'm gonna be working, I'm also going to need some food. Anarchist 1: Alright alright... I guess I'll be the Shirt Inspector. But I'm also gonna need some food too. Anarchist 5: So your a cop???! Kill him! Anarchist 1: *dies horribly* Anarchist 3: Seriously guys. I'm not the only one that's gonna be making shirts. And even if we tried to keep this secret, well then we'd be essentially creating a system we run by, which we are ideologically against. Anarchist 5: Huh... Uh... You could be the instpector? Anarchist 3: *Points to Anarchist 1* Anarchist 5: Wait your a cop?! Kill him! Anarchist 3: Wait wha- *dies even more horribly* Barry: Hey guys I know this is a bad time, but me and my team are gonna need food as we will be preoccupied with pouring water on the rods intermitently so life can go on. Anarchist 2: But wait... how do we tell who works at the powerplant? --- From The Whitest Kids You Know (kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJrFdYGte52VoNU)

[@liquidsnake6879]

I personally just think that politics are subjective and that not every community wishes to be governed the same way that's why most revolutions are for self-determination which is ultimately what every community wants, but we're still herd creatures, we need communities very few would survive and/or be happy on our own as hermits. So my philosophy would be for people to just decentralize and accept that some communities will have their own laws, their own customs, their own rules, which is why i'm heavily opposed to both the far-right and the far-left as both of them insist on forcing their rules on everyone. My city can govern itself with more direct democracy than a country could, and the accounting for a city is far easier to understand than the accounting for a whole country, so i say do away with the concept of countries, make them simply alliances of city-states doing business with one another.

[@richardlyon67]

If they ever came to power, enthusiasm would disappear around day three of empty supermarket shelves. Somewhere, an adult has to show up and do stuff.

[@destinal_in_reality]

Anarchists don't "come to power.' that's the point. They abolish the state, they don't become the state.

[@rexmann1984]

Statism is a Religion.

[@sonofwotan]

..but they would just rebuild it. How do anarchists not see that? Humans form into groups for the same reason people join gangs in prison--safety from other groups. Not only in an anarchist world would hard viking men like myself jack you and take your shit at any opportunity, but in a world of nation states.. well, prepare to be crushed. You'll put up no defense in a completely disunited system. Malice himself has mentioned this objection in the past, saying he's not "so sure anymore" about the anarchism stuff. I feel like anarchism is kind of a kid's idea, along the lines of a teenager screaming as he slams shut his bedroom door, "You can't tell me what to do, man!" They just don't get the harsh reality of violence, or the futility of breaking down a system that would just be rebuilt in 5 minutes.

[@rexmann1984]

@@sonofwotan name fits

[@rexmann1984]

Literally as original as "What are you gonna do about evil corporations?" "For one thing, I wouldn't give them a government to run."

[@hustlehustlehustle]

Has he read 'War - What Is It Good For' by Ian Morris and 'The Better Angels Of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker?

[@realCharAznable]

Still think anarchism is childish bullshit but you did a great job with the interview and getting him to elaborate on his positions

[@bengsynthmusic]

Hi. May I ask your reasons against anarchism?

[@Composer19691]

@@bengsynthmusic Read Lord Of The Flies.

[@Somberdemure]

That's ironic. You are relying on mommy and daddy government for your well-being.

[@rivasimri]

Anarcho--capitalism is not anarchism - just a reactionary belief that capitalism would be better free reign. Also, private firms running all facets of security would not secure peace. Many times, private corporations have been the masterminds of war itself. I'm not saying rely on the state, but that same relationship with domination from big government is present of private power too. A true anarchist would not distinguish simply because the label or owners from oppression change. A state is a state is a state.

[@geehothi4318]

Malice hits the nail on the head when he said at the end of the film "you're being silly, errrrrrrrrrr this is teenage nonsense".

[@kenelkind1857]

Groovism is the belief in our musical instincts to proliferate us. Anarchistic power is in the known common good. The need for billions to become entrained, demands the population to Be educated, Groovism & entrainment aware. This brings us all to raise all others to entrainment potential.

[@ddylla85]

Michael Malice is Ron Swanson without the butch 😉

[@MrPSaun]

I self-describe as an anarchist because I believe in a world of "no rulers" and reject the modern form money and currency have taken, but I have thought much about the social implications as well and see the contradictions in the context of modernity. The conclusion I have come to is that anarchism is incompatible with the type of modern lifestyle of convienance we take for granted and enjoy. A negation of the corporate-state apparatus would have to be paired with a simultaneous negation of the oil-technological paradigm, since they are symbiotic. People are not ready for that kind of change. It would be a full negation of our notions of progress in the modern world a return us to the cyclical worldview of an agrarian society. Such a stateless world provides the type of freedom-that-matters, but when I discuss anarchism with others it seems they are stuck in the false consciousness of having the freedom-that-matters at the same time as having all the good bits of modernity. These don't exist in union. The post-left and anarcho-primitivists understand this best, but even still, the post-left is surrounded by an impenetrable cloud of cigarette smoke and the primitivists romanticize a mythological past. While I can hunt and provide for myself, which is why I maintain my anarchist label, most can't and haven't thought through the real implications of the type of societal negation they tend to idealize and wax on about.

[@fanooch1]

"Government" serves a very necessary purpose. We hire people to do the things we dont want to do and we all pitch in "taxes". What we need is smaller government, not no government.

[@timothyblazer1749]

You are forgetting that the basic function of a government is a monopoly on violence. That alone will inevitably create totalitarianism. There is no such thing as "small" government. The USA started with the articles of confederation. The founders were unhappy with that because it made the federal government too weak. So they created the constitution. This gave them the power they needed to put down the whiskey rebellion which was, ironically, a tax rebellion. Since then the federal government has only grown larger. It will not stop getting larger.

[@timothyblazer1749]

@Grandfather_Din_Racket What, precisely, is "false" about what I said? You are going immediately into things I did not say, nor implied, and using it to say I said something... false... In addition, you are making claims that you cannot back up such as saying without evidence that anarchism is "non viable". It isn't. I can say why I think so as well. Because every nation on earth exists in anarchy with each other, and most of the daily interactions you and I have are anarchical. Unless you explain why, and what you mean, and what precisely is "false", Im afraid I'll have to assume you didn't even read my statement. In addition, I am not M. Malice so all of that rhetoric is useless.

[@JakeWitmer]

@@timothyblazer1749 "What, precisely, is "false" about what I said? ": "You are forgetting that the basic function of a government is a monopoly on violence." This is not "the basic function" of a proper government. By giving the definition of a corrupted government, you say nothing about the definitional goals of a proper government. Indeed, even the current government lacks "a monopoly on violence." Indeed, this mindlessly copied phrase reeks of Randian orthodoxy. Further, to even be 'optimally-stated-but-still-incorrect' you'd have had to say, "a monopoly on _defensive_ violence." As it stands, your statement is a straw man. ...In the American system (as designed), anyone is allowed to use defensive violence, and in many states, this condition is still respected to varying degrees. ...In court cases where the judge demands the jury find a corpus comprised of both "injury" and "intent," the government is acting in accord with its basic function of "protecting individual rights." (This doesn't happen any more, because _this_ government is corrupted and ruined. But the argument for minarchism is capable of producing corrective motion, and the argument for anarchism is not. This is the same as it was in the abolitionist times, and when the USA was reversing alcohol prohibition.) Anarchism isn't non-viable in the sense that it would produce a bad result if it were to be obtained, it's non-viable because political strides toward it cannot be made if that is the stated goal. Indeed, most actions are "anarchical," and America was designed to be an "anarchic republic." However, the entire purpose of government is not to govern most actions, it's to retaliate("govern") only actions that violate individual rights. (Indeed, even an inanimate centrifugal governor on a motor only reduces speed above a speed threshold. It isn't triggered to act until the threshold approaches "undesirable" levels of speed. All proper governance is "feedback and correction" based, including self-governance. Many sociopaths generally refuse to "self-govern" in any system. Ergo, all systems of governance are primarily concerned with poorly-controlled irresponsible sociopaths.) For over a century, Americans made progress toward reducing government power, even as totalitarian Christianity worked to counteract that progress (within ten years after the Civil War, the founder of the Republican Party stated that there was no longer any purpose to the Republican Party unless it switched its focus to prohibitionism ...so, American political agitators have very often striven to oppose freedom as easily as they've striven to expand it). Even so, the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution's construction once allowed Spooner to successfully claim "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" and dramatically reduce cooperation with slavery, and with the Fugitive Slave Law. Spooner's model works equally well today, when and where applied. Spooner himself was not an anarchist, as is popularly claimed by his less well-read supporters. Spooner was a classical liberal. He desired reinstatement of proper courtroom function, already being attacked in his day. The way that society changes is via overt political realignment and influence. If you go out onto the street recruiting for anarchism, you will recruit people who personally think realignment and influence is worthless. Really, though, they will simply be "contrarians and cynics who refuse to work with other people." Thus, you will have a small, impotent, powerless group of people who in no way threaten the status quo. I despise the status quo, so I don't want to be part of a tiny, impotent group. I'd rather be able to reduce the power of the oppressor, rather than have my rights violated, and have the rights of millions of innocents violated right along with my rights, as the whole nation drowns in red tape. In the past, it's been possible to dramatically reduce that red tape. In the present, "anarchists" (ironically) make that reduction "less likely than it would be without them." In the past, it hasn't been possible to reduce government by claiming you entirely wish to get rid of it. This is partly because people are "poorly-educated, and don't value the anarchic." But Stanley Milgram's argument works better: People understand that the base level of organization physically possible ("anarchism") allows new extremes of sociopathic dominance, in the absence of an organized retaliatory power. (Yes, this is the "Nature abhors a power vacuum" argument.) Ironically, this is the one area in which the public seems to understand that incentives operate on sociopaths, as well as "empaths" or "regular people," even if those incentives are different and must be more extreme to influence sociopaths. (Several serial murderers have been caught after years of evading police. Anarchists did not catch them. The public remains overwhelmingly in favor of having a number to call when you smell rotting corpses near someone's house, or discover human remains in a trash bag, etc. Or, when you see a van haul away a kidnap victim. ...Most people don't think about these things until they hear the term "anarchism" ...at which point they think of systemic effects. Then, it's right back to ignoring systemic effects and what the major systemic effects actually are.) I know exactly how much "anarchism" people will embrace. They will embrace nearly all of it, as long as you agree that the people currently catching serial murderers should continue operating. However, the vast majority of people believe that "eliminating this last 1% of government's operation" would be unwise. Ergo, if you take such a message out onto the streets you will not get 25-50 new adherents by the end of each day. Were you to be building a political party out of such adherents, you would fail to get paid (major and minor parties will pay $5 per new registration, especially in contested districts, and sometimes upwards of $20). Moreover, those 25 new adherents would not do anything: People only continuously act in the political domain out of "self-interest + a collectively-interested larger goal." Without one or the other of the prior, they will soon abandon "jury rights activism" in front of the courthouse or anything else anarchists agree with minarchist libertarians about.

[@JakeWitmer]

The typical jagoff "anarchist" response to the prior is "yeah, anarchists don't want to build a political party because doing so is ineffective" ...but then what do they want to do that's effective? Nothing. The answer is always "nothing" or it's "stupid bullshit that changes nothing" or it's "smart non-political things that can be done simultaneously with effectively changing political things as well, within a minarchist framework." (Want to get good with guns? Have zero faith in government? Great! You can do that while voting for minarchists and the rare government-reducing political actions! ...If you say you're an anarchist while doing so, you simply 'slightly reduce your effectiveness.' Moreover, if you convince other people to call themselves anarchists, you simply increase them feeling OK with their decision to stay home on election day...which puts more people in prison...and is therefore the opposite of "anarchism"...it's totalitarianism.) Black markets don't need Konkin's "counter-economic principles" to operate. Indeed, such principles reduce their effectiveness, and make apprehension more likely. (And I approve of black markets.) The prior statements are facts of reality. "Anarchy" is untenable because it cannot make daily progress to its stated goal of "an altered political reality with zero government." Moreover, all of the things that people claim are "incrementally anarchic" are things that can be better accomplished within a minarchist framework that pays people for doing the work necessary to achieve them. With respect to _this_ government, I'm far more of an anarchist than anyone who calls themselves an anarchist, because I actually know how to abolish _this_ government, and have striven to do so in numerous small-population states. Indeed, I succeeded at a rate of about 25 per day, and 150 petition signatures on tax-cutting initiatives, and initiatives to abolish government functions. The anarchists I've met have all gone on to do absolutely nothing to oppose this rotten government. Moreover, in the time while I myself was making the best anarcho-capitalist arguments I could come up with, I came to realize that I was simply delaying the progress I sought. This was not the fault of anything except the term "anarchism" ...my arguments stayed the same, except for changing the stated end-goal. Once my goal was claimed as "reducing government power" and "reinstating the Bill of Rights" people were immediately far more open to 1) refusing to punish "victimless crime offenders" for actions that are technically non-crimes I totally understand that nearly all current advocates for minarchism are worthless pieces of shit. This is because nearly all human beings (especially those in a philosophically-illiterate and philosophically-bankrupt Prussian-style "government-educated" society like the German Weimar, or the current USA) are worthless pieces of shit. If you doubt this, investigate how likely it was for a Jew to find someone who would shelter them in Nazi Germany. Bigotry has one again returned to a dominant state in the USA. This bigotry (against drug users, tax non-payers, innovators, and gun owners) is now enforced by a central bank (as per George Selgin's reporting). Take your anarchist message to the streets. It will fail simply because the term's desired goal itself is indeterminate. It's a loser term, because anarchism actually does open up a power vacuum, whereby a person with lots of men with machine guns can instantly become "the new criminal government." (As bad as the current government is, we saw what happened when Al Capone became the government in Cicero, IL. Tribal strongmen are no better than this criminal government, and they are what results from "a power vacuum.") The same is not true within a paradigm where police are forced to incrementally reduce their purview to only focus on criminals, and where legitimate police (similar to John Douglas, author of Mindhunter, and creator of the ISU within the FBI, which refocused the FBI on serial murderers) are championed. The latter has happened several times in modern US history. The former has not happened anywhere in the world, in modern times, because it's unattractive to the general public. The "anarchic system" in ancient Ireland that Rothbard liked to refer to was the product of a slow evolution toward a guild-based system. Indeed, the guilds ("tuatha") became "the government." Indeed, once a proper minarchist system was reinstated, most anarchists would proclaim it to be "a victory for anarchism." Freedom is anarchic. Freedom is not "anarchy" nor is it "anarchism." Freedom is the knowledge that sociopaths remain a threat, whether they are inside government, or outside of it. This "eternal vigilance" is indeed the price of freedom. Anarchists are not willing to pay the price of vigilance. ...They can't be bothered. This lack of willingness to reduce government power is the only thing that the common man needs to see: a group of people who are arguing for a word, instead of a result. The common man knows it only takes 10,000 votes to win sheriff or state legislator, which would allow any "anarchist" to achieve the result they wished to achieve on the local scale. ...But they can't be bothered. This is a strong signal that they don't actually hold their ideals strongly enough to implement them, or even try to implement them. If it were not for "anarchists" within the libertarian movement, libertarians would already be a major force in US politics. It is only "anarchists" within the LP which keep the LP membership from discovering the large numbers of police informants now running their party. (When the goal is effective organizing, anarchists disappear. This is because they really don't have the stomach to convince stupid mainstreamers of their arguments.) This is the case because "anarchists" don't actually want political success enough to obtain it, nor do their arguments lend themselves toward political success. Instead, anarchist "arguments" lead to: perpetual domination by the status quo. If you care enough about anarchism to actually try to implement it, the very first thing you should do is stop calling yourself an anarchist. Even 12 hours of interacting with the general public would show you that this is true, but let's say it was a full week of 13-hour days (7 x 12 = 84 hours of work). If you compared the results of that week of work, to one where you were claiming to restore the Bill of Rights, the "BoR week" would dramatically outperform the "anarchist" week. At that point, you'd have to ask yourself how many more Ross Ulbrichts you wanted to imprison to keep your precious label. Outside a courthouse, it's possible to reduce successful prosecutions by a few per week with FIJA.org pamphlets, until a 5% threshold makes it impossible to enforce "victimless crime" laws in that courthouse. (Usually the judge and prosecutor threaten you long before this happens, and most anarchists will simple leave, since they're overwhelmingly cowards. Indeed, historically, nobody who isn't paid lasts a full year. ...And it's anarchists who've made sure that the LP is no longer hiring, and that, since it's dominated by federal informants, it chooses to hire anti-libertarian mainstream democrats to accomplish its work.) The prior isn't an argument for anarchism, it's an argument for doing what works: Self-financing minarchist activism until the LP can be rewired, or Ron Paul republicans can take over the D or R parties in sufficient numbers in local areas. Or, we can just continue to be enslaved and our economy crippled and slowed to a protectionist crawl.

[@timothyblazer1749]

@@JakeWitmer you're fighting with shadows, friend. I don't label myself anything other than "human". I never said I identified as an anarchist or agorist. I, in fact agree with some things you said or implied about people who do identify that way. When I said that a government is "a monopoly on violence" I didn't say that is ALL that it is. I said that is "what" it is, at it's core, essentially. And that is what i, from an basic operand position, believe is what makes it impossible to stop becoming tyrannical, given what I know about human nature. I'd ask that you please argue with me, and not the shadow you are casting over me. :-) you have, by now, said so many things I find it impossible to respond meaningfully, which saddens me because I want to commiserate with you. You are a strong believer, and in arguing with people like you honestly I have learned the best things I know.

[@davidhunt313]

How do search warrants work under anarchy? Child and animal protective services? Prohibition of the use and manufacturing of chlorofluorocarbons for use as refrigerates? Politics is the means by which socially sanctioned initatory violence is created and restrainted by society. Can anarchism work without Politics?

[@Queijogostoso]

Anarchism is anti-polity form. We reject politics. But we also reject the reactionary entryism of Michael Malice, who is a paid actor and not an actual anarchist.

[@davidhunt313]

@Queijogostoso What is _entryism,_ and why is it rejected by anarchists?

[@Queijogostoso]

@@davidhunt313 basically Entryism is a political tactic to infiltrate movements by pretending to be on the same team by agreeing with certain things but ultimately having a different end goal and disregarding or misrepresenting the more important tenets of said movement Michael Malice isn’t an anarchist because he identifies as a capitalist. Anarchist theory for almost 200 years has always regarded capitalism as an economic system which functions due to state intervention and exploitation of the working class. What Michael does is claim he is anti-state, while disregarding the rest of anarchist theory in terms of the boss/employee relationship as well as private property rights and hierarchies. Anarchists reject the power a boss has over employees, they reject private property, and we reject all hierarchies

[@ScandinavianHeretic]

@@Queijogostoso The irony of say "we" about anarchists and pretending you speak for the whole concept.

[@Queijogostoso]

@@ScandinavianHeretic so you’re saying that anarchists, who are anti-government, think it’s ok to participate in politics? You haven’t thought any of this through I can speak for all anarchists because as an anarchist, I’ve read anarchist theory for almost a decade and am well studied in every school of anarchist thought. And guess what? They all say the same thing, where they differ is on revolutionary struggle or not, and markets or not.

[@devinmichaelroberts9954]

I like how it starts out by basically showing hes not an anarchist. He's an abstraction of what he thinks an anarchist is. This is what I love about him, he is basically a Troll.

[@JLuisCastaneda]

I’ve watched this and several other Michael Malice videos several times, during which I replayed some parts over and over again. I really wanted to give it a chance but I don’t believe that Michael Malice has made any coherent point in support of his “ anarchist philosophy” and what that world would look like. It’s all conjecture, assumptions, if, ands, and buts. He should get a set of those Critical Thinking cards.

[@julianbirke]

I'm right there with you. I've watched so much of his stuff, thinking I'm just stupid or missing the point. Turns out it's just nonsense

[@dallasboringnews8193]

You should join the Anarchists Against Anarchy. I give them a AAA rating.

[@marciefinney6066]

"Find your bliss" ~ Malice ends with a Joseph Campbell quote. The Anarchist referencing a Catholic anthropologist. Kind of beautiful, actually.

[@surplusdivision2461]

This is why the age to vote and go to war should be at least 28.

[@thetavibes9021]

Got to get em when they're young, dumb, and full of animosity.

[@jamesharper8373]

The problem isn't the age. The problem is where our young people lie at the age of 18. By 18, you should be a fully functioning, grounded, inciteful, level headed individual. You know many 18 year olds like that? Because I don't, but I know who is to blame.

[@davidhunt313]

Before people dismiss Anarchism too quickly, consider that natural languages all work under a continuously changing set of rules that are informally enforced non-violently, as in, rules without rulers / violence. Mathematics is also a universal system of rules without rulers / violence that the entire world depends upon working well and correctly. Why can't Humanity be ruled as well as mathematics routinely functions without violent dissonance?

[@Raidoton]

Because unlike numbers, we have emotions.

[@MrMarmalizer]

Wasn’t there anarchy in the Wild West? Wasn’t it a bit...wild?

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

In some locations yes - agreed bottom up goverance (rules) in other locations they were very socialist (top down) - see gun control in the west

[@martinn111111]

There is a book Not so wild, Wild West

[@gmsllc]

They also call it the department of defense. What are they defending in Yemen and Somalia?

[@stacybigfoot4801]

"Deadwood" is anarchy in effect.

[@judahbrutus]

I like a lot about anarchy but what stops China from conquering us after our military goes away? I do believe crime would be MUCH higher also. Not the rural communities but in urban areas.

[@Somberdemure]

Ever heard of self defense? 🤯

[@pgottsha84]

I like Malice but I don't think his utopian vision is any different from that of the communists and would almost certainly play out similarly in practice, and i don't think he would necessarily disagree

[@pgottsha84]

@Grandfather_Din_Racket lol, opinion noted

[@ancom_kc]

Anarchists are not opposed to political activity, we are opposed to hierarchical power structures that are involuntary/rely on coercion.

[@Somberdemure]

Political activity is, by definition, not anarchism.

[@ancom_kc]

@@Somberdemure you may be using an etymological fallacy here… I would imagine that anarchism and political activity are not mutually exclusive by most people’s definition of the latter. Anarchism is undeniably a political position/stance after all, so wouldn’t activity related to anarchism be political activity?

[@Somberdemure]

@@ancom_kc Wrong. Anarchy is lack thereof. By definition. No one is voting in an anarcho society. 🤯

[@Somberdemure]

@@ancom_kc Wrong. 1520s, "science and art of government," from politic (n.) "the political state of a country or government (early 15c.), from Old French politique and Medieval Latin politica; see politic (adj.). The plural form probably was modeled on Aristotle's ta politika "affairs of state" (plural), the name of his book on governing and governments, which was in English mid-15c. as (The Book of) Polettiques or Polytykys. Also see -ics.

[@Somberdemure]

Anarchism is the lack thereof. You don't have political parties in anarchy. You don't have government in anarchy.

[@1979ce]

What stops me an my 50 friends from killing our rivals and taking over a section of a city in anarchy? What stops a neighboring country from invading? Anarchy is weak. That's why it is extinct.

[@Somberdemure]

5000 armed residents not taking your shit.. 🤡

[@lucarich8711]

Wrong, many modern examples of communities employing private security and mercenaries.

[@RyanPedersen]

Only a person that has never lived in anarchy would ever seek it out.

[@nustada]

Anarchy is is every moment of your life not under coercive violence.

[@RyanPedersen]

@@nustada When in history has a lack of strong authority resulted in Utopia as you suggest? Without the great Leviathan as Thomas Hobbes writes human society quickly devolves into bands of competing warlords.

[@nustada]

@@RyanPedersen ​ @Ryan Pedersen When has anything led to Utopia, what a fucking dumb argument. I never suggested it either you dishonest piece of shit. " society quickly devolves into bands of competing warlords." So your argument against removing the state, is we will end up with a state? Sounds like there is nothing to lose in trying. If a society lost tolerance to rulers to the point of removing them, then warlords would have no means to gain power. Hobbes said nothing of value. He asserts everyone are sociopaths. Even if that were true, that is an argument against she state, not for i it. If everyone is evil, then giving evil people more power than what is natural is a dire mistake. Further all people cannot be sociopaths, if violence was the means to wealth and honor, then every battle would have a non-marginal chance of mortal injury. Sociopaths would get weeded out of a free society quickly; the state allows sociopaths to thrive.

[@missc2742]

​@@RyanPedersenDid Thomas Hobbes conduct anthropological or ethnographic research? Because many, if not most, pre-industrial human societies are not as he describes. Many African and Amazonian communities as well as historical Native American communities are pretty democratic. You don't have to believe me. Look up the Iroquoi confederation, the lifestyle of the Arawak indians, etc. There are still many places in the world not under state control where the people are pretty chill. Also, no anarchist that i know of claims that they can build a "utopia". Just wanting to make the world a less shitty place doesn't automatically mean someone thinks the world can be perfect.

[@ijclark]

I think you mean “anarchist” rather than anarchist.

[@Icarusdecending82]

Anarchy could never could be successful because despots would spontaneously exist. Within our current system they exist, we call them gangs.

[@richierich8245]

despots are called the government.

[@philippriestman8516]

Anarchism means without government...end of, read kropotkin

[@lukebaker5135]

Read Hoppe

[@lukebaker5135]

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Who?

[@lukebaker5135]

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Lol too long didn’t read

[@krissyramsey3934]

The most rational and relevant political discussion I've heard in 10 years! Perfectly articulated. Totally agree. In the past year. I've gone from being a lifelong Constitutionalist conservative to bring an anrcho-capitalist. Antics suck totally, but it's also true that statism is unsustainable and opposed to human existence. My political party? I do what's good for me. Glad I found your channel. Rick on!

[@libernesia]

Care to connect and discuss some ideas? We've just started an anarcho-capitalist "country", if you can forgive the contradiction, and we're debating what's the best way to make it work.

[@justjoking5841]

Mutualism hopefully lol

[@adamfish2997]

There is so much wrong with the ideas put forward from this guy, he must be a very insular person

[@deedeeequestrian8482]

can one be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time? May I define myself as majority capitalist, tempered by a heavy dose of libertarianism and anarchy? What is the difference between libertarianism and anarchism?

[@edfost5734]

Absolutely you can be anarcho-capitalist. Freedom and property rights go hand in hand.

[@onlyonestarwarsfan5337]

Libertarianism doesn’t outright reject the need of a governmental body in every situation. An idealistic libertarian wants enough government to preserve their tenants of “liberty,” whatever said tenants may be. This of course harkens the fact that one man’s idea of “liberty” is not always equal to another’s.

[@andrewofaiur]

Libertarians believe in at least some government for functions of national defense, law enforcement, cultural preservation like public museums. You'll have to reconcile these differences if you subscribe to anarchocapitalism

[@TraditionalAnglican]

@@andrewofaiur - Capitalism is essentially a set of voluntary associations. That’s very anarchistic.

[@_.Jon._]

@@andrewofaiur Incorrect. You are describing merely one wing of libertarianism. There are many wings. It's a large umbrella term. Anarcho-capitalism is a significant wing of libertarianism. @dee dee equestrian Read Rothbard.

[@felixflitou]

"the original anarchists were violently anti-capitalist" why original ? A capitalist anarchist is like a capitalist communist : it's an illusion.

[@Scratcherzzz]

Where is the podcast you did with Jordan Peterson