Anarchist-Minarchist Debate | David Gordon

[@ihateyankees3655]

Socialist: Hey Murray Rothbard! If the free market is so good, then why shouldn't we privatize everything? Murray Rothbard: 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 Socialist: wait no stop it

[@cagedblaze]

And the Paleolibertarians were born.

[@karlkartoffel294]

@@cagedblaze more like the ancaps

[@cagedblaze]

@@karlkartoffel294 Rothbard was a paleo-libertarian

[@karlkartoffel294]

@@cagedblaze that doesnt contradict with ancapism

[@cagedblaze]

@@karlkartoffel294 yeah ik it doesn't. I never said it did. They are different ideologies though.

[@shmutz6051]

set playback speed to x1.25 so he talks normal

[@thomasclark7383]

Nice 👍

[@banderfargoyl]

See what you did? Now everyone's going to be setting to .75x etc.

[@protoxus8186]

x1.5 for me

[@uffemerrild4282]

What David says must not be said too fast, otherwise you risk missing his points. Of course that could also just be a problem I face, because I am a slow learner :)

[@EthanNoble]

YES HAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT LOL I DID THIS BEFORE READING THIS COMMENT KNEW I COULDN"T BE THE ONLY ONE HAHAHAHA

[@dailyrants33]

Wanna see actual debate.

[@smorrow]

facebook.com/AP4Liberty/posts/1523492847709690/

[@jdk370]

Here you go man.... an actual debate.... enjoy... kzbin.info/www/bejne/mafSXqx7rtKBq7M

[@dailyrants33]

Great.Thank you.It would be nice if Mises media sparks up their presentations format so people don't fall asleep. Something like this:kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4nKlad-mtx6iJI

[@michaelrochelle6456]

Minarchists don’t believe that the state should have a monopoly on said services do they?

[@MBarberfan4life]

Monopoly or not, it wouldn’t be a free market...even if minarchists allowed for private security (and private military contractors, etc.) to exist alongside the state.

[@michaelrochelle6456]

How would it not be a free market if they were forced to compete on an equal playing field?

[@asmadasmadeus3743]

@@MBarberfan4life we(minarchist) say "Defence, Protection and justice cant be private. Because two private police companies may fight each other and it's risky. But state have 3 Monopolies. And these are Defence(From enemey nations), Protection (From criminals) and justice (for be sure there is no illegal things)

[@Cacowninja]

Yeah they do. They still support a government which itself is a monopoly on force and arbitration. It makes the laws, it must be paid, it must be in control.

[@Cacowninja]

@@asmadasmadeus3743 And why does state monopoly or any monopoly help? What stopping the state from being an violent monopoly which it already is? Also if the state is so untrustworthy why even give it a little power. The state is just a waste.

[@tytly-ro7vt]

The only thing needed by the state is enforcement of justice, for instance breach of contract or fraud

[@Cacowninja]

You don't need a state for even that, you can private courts for example.

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@artisanmage5378]

@@jaisbrennan7696 lol, right. Anarchy understander joined the chat

[@prayerjoseph9776]

@@Cacowninja What happens when you can't afford private courts?

[@Cacowninja]

@@jaisbrennan7696 That makes no sense. Anarchist believe in self defense including deadly force so they aren't pacifists. Minarchist believe in reducing government to minimum capability so they aren't revolutionaries.

[@franklinfalco9069]

These are the only two viewpoints they allow at the mises institute.

[@armchairrockstar186]

I hope you didn't xpect them having fascists or totalitarians there lol

[@hermittraveler2163]

'allow'. Attract is the right word.

[@tigerstyle4505]

Or... neither? Why look to anticapitalist individualist anarchists for answers on this one question? Perhaps they can answer far more than that. Perhaps we can have a stateless society, free markets and participatory enterprises. It blows my mind that people can apply all these arguments to the state then utterly fail to apply them to the totalitarian institutions of capital. Consistency is not something you deal in at that point. Cognitive dissonance and dishonesty is.

[@electroguy2007]

LMFAO how is someone having more money than you "totalitarian". Freedom does NOT equal free shit BTW

[@morningstarx5340]

David Gordon is definitely one of the most underappreciated geniuses over there at the mises institute. The man is brilliant, and retains knowledge like nobody I've ever listened to.

[@goranugrinoski]

At least, people at MI give him a ton of credit.

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@morningstarx5340]

@@jaisbrennan7696 I'm an ancap and definitely not a pacifist but good luck with that stereotype. I was literally just talking about how brilliant a man was and you took it to space cadet level 7000 so good luck with that. Bet I have more fivepointfivesix than you in my closet

[@jaisbrennan7696]

@@morningstarx5340 Anarcho-Capitalists don't want to prohibit theft and murder because that would take away the "rights" of thieves and murderers. Minarchists believe thieves and murderers don't have rights.

[@explosives101]

@@jaisbrennan7696 """Anarcho-Capitalists don't want to prohibit theft and murder because that would take away the "rights" of thieves and murderers.""" You're a liar and making stuff up. Cite a source for this or you're a liar. """Minarchists believe thieves and murderers don't have rights.""" More stupidity. Even under the constitution, criminals have a right to a speedy and fair trial, and a right to not be punished cruelly and unusually.

[@brianbob7514]

29:20 We don't need a state we need "an agreement on a system of rights and laws" Wait a minute, that sounds like a constitution. You know what those lead to?

[@austinhenning6271]

Laws require consistent enforcement as well

[@Bsknten]

Sounds like a “contractural” agreement between people

[@Welleher]

@EcoAnarchist lol, you do realize you are the result of your ancestors evil acts, right? See how stupid this argument is? Yes, we did evil. Yes, we can do better. No, our entire history and society cannot be entirely thrown away because of the sins of our fathers.

[@koekiejam18]

@EcoAnarchist this is a very stupid argument, the constitution took hold because america became an independant country. The blood spilled before during and after isnt related to the constitution. Besides, the only reason those natives wouldve survived till now is if nobody outside of america wouldve set foot there. Because the majority of deaths were caused by diseases that the natives didnt have any defense against

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@ChitranjanBaghiofficial]

If two individual has resources they can either trade or steal. Depending upon the cost of doing so different individual may prefer different ways of achieving it. Trade is only possible when cost of stealing and violence is more than the cost of trade. But if cost of trade is high then stealing and violence would be best bet to achieve the resource. This is individual level but even a group of individual may form ties with trade such that among themselves cost of trading is way less because of commonality, while with other group cost of trading is high as there is no commonality and trust. So what is true at individual level is also true at group level. Thus when there will be competition among groups, it is inevitable that within groups there will be hierarchy, which will set the leader and thus the political structure. Other specializations like army chief or finance minister are just optimization of same structure for optimal performance against other groups. Thus there will always be a government no matter how small but it will always be there. The only sustainable model anarchism can achieve is small anarchy groups competing against other anarchy groups with their own small political system. And people are free to leave and join different groups as per their wants and needs. But even that system will require some rules for leaving, thinks will be mess if one takes debt and loan in one group and enjoys it and then when it comes time to pay leaves the group to join the other, Thus this idea of hopping groups is also needed to be solved.

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@davidhunt7427]

What is the essential function of government that only government can serve and no other form of social organization. I believe it is more useful to think in terms of what unchosen, positive duties must be observed by everyone in order for a free society to function well. Consider... *The Anarchist’s Constitution* 1. *There is no Sovereign Immunity.* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition. 2. *The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule.* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial. 3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules. 4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will. Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply. To be very clear,... I conceive of a positive, unchosen duty to be a duty that everyone *MUST* observe and submit to, and, if someone ignores their allegiance to a positive, unchosen duty, socially sanctioned initiatory violence may be, and will be, used to make moral free riders comply. Anarchists insist that they want a society that consists of _rules without rulers_ but then seem to insist that no one can know what those rules are until afterwards,... which, understandably, sounds fairly frightening to most folks who want more reassurance about how socially sanctioned initiatory force will work in the future. It would seem that the only unchosen, positive duty recognized by libertarians/anarchists is the duty of _if you break it, you must fix it_ . But in an ideal libertopia, how would even this single duty be enforced, if not by someone using retaliatory violence to protect value, or to regain coercively a value stolen. How would an ideal society do this; what socially recognized due process of law would be constructed to do so. The problem with the Non Aggression Principle is that it offers no help in what action to take when others ignore it. Or consider Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle at www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle as showing the NAP as being insufficient. And might there not be other unchosen, positive duties? If an abandoned infant will likely die without aid (locked in a hot car, for instance), must not action be taken to save it's life; otherwise it's death by neglect. What could be done by society if society objects to women having abortions performed upon themselves? Would abortifacients be outlawed? Would miscarriages be investigated as being possibly deliberately self-induced? What would be the agreed upon liability for giving heroin to small children? Could heroin be sold out of vending machines? Should businesses be allowed to create additional risks for the public that live around them without either informing or otherwise compensating the public for such addtional risks (progressive.org/dispatches/fukushima-nightmare-gets-worse/ )? Does a man have to pay child support for a child he did not consent to having, but was spermjacked so as to produce the child? What amount of violence is appropriate to use against someone who gratuitously harms animals? Is it to be permitted for someone to destroy the last members of a living species, just because they own them? How should Improperly disposed of plastics, which. when ingested. kill millions of wild animals, be dealt with? What actions can be compelled in order to deal with C02's contribution to Global Climate Change? In Les Misérables, Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. Are property rights something held absolutely above the preservation of life? How does the interpretation of the NAP vary during emergencies? Is it okay to shoot suspected looters during a riot or natural disaster? Are there statutes of limitations on criminal acts? How are they determined? What actions follow when different actors disagree upon whether or not a criminal is now essentially free of the consequences of their prior criminal actions? Would it be okay for private actors to own military grade weapons? Including biological and nuclear weapons? Who pays to keep habitual criminals incarcerated? Who is liable to victims for crimes of habitual criminals who have been mistakenly released? All mathematics depend upon sets of axioms which are universally accepted as being self-evidently true statements that require no further proof. Until human moral philosophers can come up with such a set of moral axioms for humanity at large,... governments in practice will, necessarily, continue to serve as our only practical alternative. Please consider my statements/questions and leave your comments. What _rules without rulers_ do you think must apply, even without individual consent, in order for a free society to function well? I emphatically agree that democracy sucks. Let's discuss alternatives, and why others must comply with such alternatives,... or else face violent results. If it's any help,... I consider myself to be 90% convinced of anarcho-capitalism, and have been so since I first become libertarian back in 1982 when I was 27 years old. But I also take the matter, of when there is to be a use of socially sanctioned initatory violence allowed and how it is regulated, very seriously. I have always very much wanted to be convinced of an-cap,... so help me if you will. I very much consider my *Anarchist's Constitution* to be a work in progress. Please help me in filling it out. Does the truth derive from authority or Does authority derive from the truth? Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear? Is it easier to effectively organize people using voluntary association or threats of violence? If it is wrong for the strong to exploit the weak,... how is it not wrong for the weak to exploit the strong also? Does equality under the law mean equal process under the law, or equal outcomes by law? What unchosen, positive duties must a free people submit to in order for a society to be just and prosperous? Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists would seem to recognize _if you break it, you must fix it_ as such an unchosen, positive duty that all free people must comply with regardless of individual consent or not. While this one unchosen, positive duty is necessary, is it sufficient? Remember that every unchosen, positive duty necessarily grants the state (or whatever serves the coercive function of the state) the duty to use socially sanctioned initiatory violence in order to make moral free riders comply. While there are many things free people *should* do, what things *must* a free people do?

[@davidhunt7427]

@@ibra1616 Actually this example is one of the poorer objections I've heard. Primarily using only small arms, both Afghanistan and Vietnam were unconquerable by foreign powers. Militias may not win wars (certainly not offensive wars,.. which is one big reason Anarchists prefer them) but they can make a territory uncontrollable at any reasonable cost for the conqueror. Switzerland has been able to remain neutral for 500+ years in the middle of Europe,.. primarily because everyone can carry arms,.. and their geography also certainly helps.

[@davidhunt7427]

@@ibra1616 I consider myself to be 90% convinced of Anarcho-Capitalistic Libertarianism (which still leaves me a reluctant minarchist) because of problems I see in pure anarchy (criminal search warrants for instance),.. and I've had this stance since I first became Libertarian back in 1982 at the age of 27. I fear runaway budget deficits far more than Climate Change, and *Urgent: Horrifying Repatriation of 50 North Korean Defectors To Death by the Chinese Communist Party* kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4eXpIepe7eXjdE is something I am seeing the West turn into with _woke_ culture run amok. I strenuously support charter schools over the government propaganda centers the government schools have become. It sickens me that BLM Democrats burn down American cities throughout the 2020 Summer,.. and are then rewarded for their criminality,.. all while claiming January 6th was an attempted coup. Rapes of white women by Muslim refugees in Europe go unreported while everyone pretends it isn't happening. Anarchism isn't without rules,.. only without rulers,.. like natural language, mathematics, and much of science. Perhaps it's not the answer,.. but what we are doing right now doesn't work and only seems to be getting worse. I fear for the West, not because of foreign enemies, but because all our established institutions are irredeemably cynical and power mad with utter contempt for the ordinary citizen. I fear rule by unaccountable technocratic philosopher kings far more than I fear self-rule. And the worse symptom of our demise is the false hope that if we just vote in the right people,.. it could all fix itself. Our leaders will never rescue us; we must rescue ourselves if Liberty, much less prosperity, is to survive.

[@davidhunt7427]

@@ibra1616 If multiple trillion dollar deficits are part of rescuing anyone,.. it's a cure worse than any disease.

[@nextsc4663]

​@@ibra1616 Having a weak government politically is not the same to having a weak military. On matters of efficiency, for basically all of history, mercenaries have been very deadly, if not better than traditional armies. Today, with the rise of PMCs, we are seeing that PMCs work hand in hand with government militaries and often for less. I personally am a minarchist, due to the problems of justice, but even then, the defence of personal property/the nation's sovereignty does not require a government to take charge of it. Like 99% of the tasks in society, it is done best via the free market. Just as government can't plan an economy (socialist calculation problem), it similarly cannot distribute scarce resources effectively to accomplish the goal of "winning the war". Should I send more bullets to this frontline or that? Should I put more steel into producing tanks or ships? Should I buy more planes or guns? These are the questions that arise with scarce resources that have alternate uses. The market is ultimately the best way to handle wars. No central planner can know the answers to these questions above, yet the market easily solves similar questions in the world today? A firm knows to use steel instead of copper because of the prices that allocate resources. It is as easy as looking at the prices. It is either impossible by axiom or by all realistic standards for a government to allocate its resources correctly, leading to gross inefficiencies, even if the final objective is the same (winning the war). It's quite obvious that people would not want to get invaded by China or Russia, and an anarchist/minarchist peoples would like to get invade less so. Under these circumstances, is it unreasonable to say that people will pay a defence company/PMC to defend them? Is it not more likely that an insurance company would serve these purposes, or that some sort of contract could be brokered where a PMC would offer its protection in the form of a subscription? The false dichotomy between security and freedom is one used to further the destruction of liberty, and to advance the ever encroaching authoritarian state. I don't mean to use 1984s perpetual wars as an example, but they seem fitting in this example. After all, it does ring surprisingly close to America's foreign policy today. In reality, the private sphere is able to do things, including security, far better than the government can, from an efficiency standpoint. And there doesn't seem to be a moral reason as to why the common defence MUST be provided by a strong government. These defence companies can take on roles similar to modern militaries, with power projection and all, allowing their clients both freedom and security.

[@nextsc4663]

@@ibra1616 So to stop mercenaries from supposedly internally taking over, we should pre-emptively internally keep tyrants in power? Your argument is rejecting one band of conquerors for another. And your scenario of mercenaries running amok doesn't seem likely. Perhaps it may happen, but there are several reasons as to why it won't. For starters, there would be other PMCs able to fight them. And all this is assuming they would even have the incentive of doing this, especially given the deterrence of other PMCs. Furthermore, it would stand to reason that from the economics aspect, a society that is free/free market is far better economically speaking. A PMC is still a company, at the end of the day, and no company wants to create an atmosphere that would stifle its own growth, as creating a dictatorship would. Even the richest in North Korea would not compare to the level of technology afforded in the USA and other developed countries.

[@alexgibson2871]

How much of our social systems are the result of biology or evolution? the rationalist schools justify using logic and rights, but is the failure to implement an ancap system due to something rational or evolutionary? How do concepts of human nature feature in a cap literature? Any reading recommendations? Thanks.

[@Welleher]

I believe it is down to human emotion, namely that of the lust for revenge in the case of a death of a friend, or loved one. Before the ancient Greeks started their city states, they had a system that was a mix of ANCAP and Feudalism. Without a central judicial system," justice" was done by individuals, and this led to horrific blood feuds. Eventually, the patriarchs came together and elected a group of men to administer justice and lead the community, thereby making the state the arbiter of justice, and ending the blood feuds.

[@alexgibson2871]

@@Welleher this sounds plausible, although I have time for Rothbards view of the state as a dominant marauder-band, at least in practice if not in origin. Although a state monopoly on violence seems important for civilisation. So no room for Dawkins in your understanding of human nature? I wonder at which point emotions became a key driver in human history over biology, if indeed they are seperable!

[@Welleher]

@@alexgibson2871 I am a Christian Evolutionist, so I do not know much of Dawkins, but I do respect him for what he does (challenge us to come up with better arguments). I believe that emotion and biology are strongly linked, although it cannot explain all of human nature, such as love and human morality. I think part of our longing for revenge comes from God's longing for justice, which is perverted by our selfishness into revenge and hatred. God appointed the government of the Hebrews to specifically provide justice and stop violence. Whenever justice wasn't being done, His anger was stirred and He punished those who didn't give justice to the victims. In the end, I believe that government is required because we are all sinful, and if we had ANCAP, it would devolve into total anarchy, then end up as feudalism.

[@alexgibson2871]

@@Welleher interesting stuff, I'll give it some thought!

[@alexgibson2871]

@@Welleher Christian evolution - does that accept carbon dating, and evolution as a god guided process? As opposed to the shorter 5000 Yr estimate?

[@jamie59685]

If your hoping for a fair and balanced debate weighing up the points between minarchisim and anarchism then you'll be disappointed. The video should be titled "in defence of anarchism, a critique of the minarchist objections".

[@supersam1914]

“Government as such is not only not an evil , but the most necessary and beneficial institution. As without it no lasting cooperation and no civilization can be developed and preserved. “- Ludwig von Mises

[@t.a.4356]

Yes, but...

[@Cacowninja]

Well he couldn't be more wrong considering free market economics is what really gets society going plus government is the biggest doer of injustice.

[@LibertyAnd1776]

@@Cacowninja Mises was a minarchist so he was trying to make the case for minarchism. There is still plenty free-market economics in minarchism, just that the stuff that require a final authority (like courts) don't have them. The free market is a good thing for most things but having multiple courts from different agencies with conflicting decisions complicates stuff and makes it hard to know which one is legitimate.

[@Cacowninja]

@@LibertyAnd1776 And why would you have out of all things the courts be public? That how they are now and they suck because of it. Also you'd only have one private court at a time for decisions. Plus since you're worried about conflicting decisions consider the fact states argue between each other and the government all the time. Look at marijuana for instance. Legal in one state, illegal in the other and still illegal on the federal level! Also that whole thing about concealed carry reciprocity? That's dealing with the same concept! Also to truly be free market you have to have NO government period. None, zip, zero. Just companies plain and simple.

[@TheKyfe]

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with the defense of Minarchy isn't the flaws within their arguments, but the flaws in the choice of arguments. Why get so complicated when the easiest arguments are the simplest? Argument #1 (National Defense) - As long as the ENTIRE WORLD is not anarchist, other states will be looking to exert their influence/power over others. In the supposedly "most free" country in the world (USA), 90%+ of the population wants to exert their influence/power over others (and then this 90% is then split in half (Republicans vs Democrats)). Until the number of people who do not wish to use force to exert control equals close to 100% (a far cry from the current numbers), then national defense is absolutely necessary. Argument #1(A) (National Defense cannot be provided privately) - Those that argue FOR private national defense take for granted that those paying for the service are rational actors, which flies in the face of ALL Austrian Economic Theory. Those paying for the service are NOT rational. In a situation where they do not see a need for immediate national defense, the vast majority of funds will not be made available to those people providing the service. This will prevent those people from properly training and equipping themselves. Once an immediate need for national defense is presented, the populace will find themselves with an under-equipped, under-trained, non-cohesive force up against a properly-equipped, fully-trained, cohesive force that will utterly devastate any attempts of resistance. Argument #2 (Private use of the initiation of force is an Oxymoron) - The Free Market and anarchism fundamentally entails not using force. Privately providing use of force is a contradiction that I have not seen an adequate argument for. Argument #3 (A private company dealing with the initiation of force that out-competes competition BECOMES the State) - In a society where the free market provides the services of Defense, Police, and Justice, there WILL be companies that out-compete others for various reasons just like in every other market. In a market that does not involve force, once a company that out-competes the competition turns away from those practices, then they will no longer out-compete the competition and will lose their market share. In a market that does involve force, once a company that out-competes the competition turns away from those practices, then they will use force to suppress their competitors, thus BECOMING the state. Human nature necessitates that this is an inevitable outcome.

[@coletrain5667]

"In a situation where they do not see a need for immediate national defense" Who are these people? I'm pretty sure everyone understands you need the ability to defend yourself. This is a typical hand wavy argument from statists that rest on baseless presuppositions like "people will not see a need for national defense" Argument #3 is just presupposing that monopolies form naturally in markets without state involvement. This is just not true, again it is another baseless presuppositions with no historical evidence.

[@TheKyfe]

Your refutation of Argument #3 is laughable. When did I ever say it was a monopoly? When did I ever say that monopolies form naturally? You want some historical evidence? "By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88 percent of the refined oil flows in the United States." Quick google search of Standard Oil and reading the Wiki page. Just because it's not 100% doesn't mean it wasn't a significant portion. A company selling private use of force would not need to get 100%, not even close. And to think so is very naiive. "I'm pretty sure everyone understands you need the ability to defend yourself. This is a typical hand wavy argument from statists that rest on baseless presuppositions like 'people will not see a need for national defense.'" This is a cop-out, non-answer. Not even close to an even decent attempt at a refutation. You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about here, or the Austrian School's stance on rational behavior. Let me educate you a little bit. The Austrian School says that there is no rational or irrational behavior in human action. Every action is towards a goal, thus IS rational. Keynesian and Mainstream Economists say people ARE rational, and that they always make the most logical decision (you're argument falls into that category, because you're argument is literally "obviously people see the need and thus will pay for it.") The problem is, as the Austrians show, something that appears rational to a 3rd party observer does not always appear rational to the party in question who is trying to attain a specific goal. In comes the Subjective Value Scale. An easy example (which I believe was given by this exact presenter in this video, David Gordon) is water. Somebody in their house in a city with a paid water bill who has easy access to clean water has a very low Subjective Value of water. They will not give somebody an ounce of gold for some water; However, that exact same person walking through the desert with an empty water canteen has an extremely high subjective value of water. They will give ALL the gold for some water. Translate that into Defense. Somebody living in a peaceful environment with nobody threatening aggression has a very low Subjective Value for Defense. Do they ascribe a value to Defense? Of course! Does it come in at the top of their priorities? Not even close. Somebody living in a war-torn environment, or who has an aggressive army marching towards them has an extremely high Subjective Value for Defense. They will want to put as many resources towards Defense as humanly possible. This is where my argument comes in. Now pay attention, because I understand you have a hard time grasping concepts that aren't explicitly stated for you. I said (you can go back up and read it again), that people who do not currently have a need (read: High Subjective Value) for Defense will not put ENOUGH resources towards it. I never said it would be ignored completely. My exact wording was "the vast majority of funds will not be made available to those people providing the service," because other needs higher on the Subjective Value Scale take priority. This will lead to a defeated attempt of resistance. And stop trying to put the "statist" label on me. That's awfully presumptuous of you. People like you who claim anyone who isn't a 100% total Anarchist must be a statist are loathsome idiots who do more harm than good to the Liberty movement. And don't come back with "but I never said YOU were a statist." A Third Grader could tear that argument apart. It was apparent in your implication.

[@alterach6128]

Great arguments, amazing delivery, very logical and understandable.

[@josephtoscano7398]

TheKyfe I have a question for you. Can it be stated as a fact that any peaceful country can expect other countries to invade them? I look at countries today like Canada or the Scandanavian states as peaceful countries who don't really bother anyone, and nobody really bothers them. The same can be said of Australia, can it not? I expect the answer may be that the USA and NATO would not stand for attacks on those countries. If say the USA became an anarchist space, free market and peaceful, trading with all and warring with none, do you suppose other countries would be planning attacks on them within 100 years? Honest question.

[@twinviper3698]

This is a bit of a late response, but here goes: Response to Argument #1 (National Defense) - Your argument assumes that people are not capable of getting into groups to defend themselves. The defensive in any war always has the advantage because they know their geography the best and other variables. Your numbers are also wrong. 40% of Americans are independent. 60% belong to the duopoly. You also assume that society would still have to feel the same way about politics as they do now. Which is false, as anarchy could only be achieved with the spread of ideas and a large group of civil disobedient people. Also, every year the number of americans in the major parties are declining, and polls have shown that distrust in the government is at an ever increasing pace. Response to Argument #1(A) (National Defense) - Your argument here is the worst one, and is so ridiculous I don't think i need to address it in dept. The private defense is supposed to be an agency of insurance and or self defense. It is their job to be prepared for such things. Evidence to show they would be prepared is; certain people are attracted to certain occupations. People that like to shoot guns and play paintball are much more likely to join then a computer geek or a banker. Not only could they practice for fun, but if there happens to be a thief or murderer, they may get the chance to use their skills. Response to Argument #2 (Oxymoron) - Self defense is the only acceptable use of force, if you even consider it one, the protection agency or defense agency is only tasked with defending property rights. Property rights meaning your you (because you own yourself) and your property. To call a protection agency that only defends rights a contradiction is showing complete lack of knowledge on the idea of the non aggression principle. The non aggression principle states that nobody may be the first to initiate force, but they can counter force with the necessary amount of self defense needed. Response to Argument #3 (Becoming the State) - There are two major problems with your argument. In the free market certain agencies will succeed, while others will have to adapt or fail. Yes we can agree this happens in every industry. However certain companies out competing other companies is in no way a monopoly. There will be a limited amount of services in an area, due to population restrictions. It can be assumed that in cities like new york or atlanta there will be much more of a variety of options, while rural areas like idaho will have less. Lets say a area of 30,000 has three defense agencies. The defense agency will likely have a location which it can serve. This is not to say the other defense agency cannot also at the same time be there. So this area has three agencies to choose from. Just like any other industry certain ones will go out of business, and certain ones will expand and become very popular. The food industry has certain big name places you can eat at. Like mcdonalds and burgerking, but there also happen to be more local options as well. Mcdonalds has certainly out competed many companies, but they have not established a monopoly. The second problem with your argument is you don't for see other defense agencies grouping together to prevent one agency taking over all the others. Citizens are also capable of overthrowing a local institution, either by paying another company or making an assembly to do so.

[@Wookie.Boogie]

0:30 Anarchism does not accept property rights. Anarchism makes a clear distinction between personal and private property. For anarchism personal property (your clothes, items, home, furniture etc) is fine, but private property (ownership on means of production, like land, production machinery, whole factories etc with the goal of making profit) is not. One of the first philosophical claims of anarchism was the famous "Property is theft" argument, which still hasn't been properly rebutted by any private property defender. Nevertheless, basing a lecture on a false premise, does not help with the credibility of anything else this lecture pretends to analyze.

[@fredericktarr8266]

I support the free market because it is efficient at allocating resources, not because I care about "rights". Therefore I support minarchism with an absolute monarchy.

[@Don71i]

You cannot support free market capitlaism without supporting individual rights. Capitalism is a social system as well as an economic one. It’s firstly predicated off of individualism and voluntaryism. Also a minarchist-monarchy would have to be a constitutional monarchy.

[@fredericktarr8266]

@@Don71i 'Capitalism' is a deliberately nebulous word invented by Marxists which has no solid definition, it just means whatever you want it to mean. If you want to make some kind of critique or argument please either define what you mean by 'capitalism' or just be specific. Yes I do support both individual rights and a free market, and this does not at all preclude the existence of an absolute monarch in charge of the small state restricted to law and order, no 'constitutional' monarchy would be necessary.

[@koekiejam18]

@@fredericktarr8266 thats very much false, coming from someone who read marx, either you dont know what you are talking about, or all the marxists in the world dont... Marx even supported gunrights, did you know that?

[@psyskeptic9979]

monarchy? I would prefer a decent constitution instead--like the US's

[@enjoiskaterguy]

David Gorden isn't exactly the best lecturer to keep you alert, awake and intrigued.

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@anancapcat4221]

@@jaisbrennan7696 Where'd you get that idea, ancaps support private gun ownership and defensive gun use including deadly force. They are most certainly NOT pacifists especially since they support the non-aggression principle which permits self defense. Also mincaps aren't really that revolutionary since they still support a government and the tired elections that come with it. They still want votes, they still want power, they still want to hang around at other people's expense, that's like the the 2 party system just watered down.

[@konberner170]

"Both accept individual rights, including property rights and want a free market economy." This already glosses over the fact that both property rights and free market economy are utterly unclear concepts that require substantial definition before proceeding. Sorry, David, but this error alone make it impossible for me to follow the rest. For me this is like trying to teach addition in math without ever explaining what adding is. Certainly if you want to presume your definitions are the right ones, then everything becomes very clear (in your own mind only).

[@josephtoscano7398]

No it's more like, this is learning division and multiplication. You need to have already gone through the more simple math courses before moving on to this one to have a full understanding. Why spend a talk on those definitions when you should know them before entering this discussion?

[@Wookie.Boogie]

@@josephtoscano7398 Well anarchism is explicitly against private property. So it's more like teaching imaginary numbers and equations, without properly defining and/or using the Real and Imaginary number systems.

[@Max-nc4zn]

You can't have a free market and a state.

[@mikehoot3978]

Agree. But Monaco is very fine to me.

[@Minarchiste]

You can't have a free market without a state.

[@Don71i]

The guaranteed protection of individual rights is only possible with a state that has a legal monopoly on force. The basis of how an cap works stems from self ownership which has many problems.

[@Cacowninja]

@@Minarchiste A free market is without a state. It's just people buying and selling as they please. A state isn't required for me to give this to someone to get that from them.

[@electroguy2007]

@@Minarchiste *Laughs in black market

[@asmadasmadeus3743]

Ancap: we made a company who sell children! Yeeey Minarchy: What? it's out of ethcy! it should be banned! Because it violates human rights! Ancap: what! You violate my right about selling children Yeah, this's what ancap and minarchism is...

[@anancapcat4221]

Ancaps acknowledge that people aren't property period so that wouldn't be allowed in an ancap society. People would be morally allowed to rescue children from said company. Ancaps could act much faster to save the children than mincaps ever could so based on all this you really shouldn't be making this strawman argument.

[@theprodigy2186]

All sides of this debate (as presented) seem to agree to the premise that private security agencies would be law creator, interpreter, and enforcer all in one. The solution would necessitate that there exist Governance Service Providers that offer packages at varying prices, including security and arbitration, which would be carried out by security agencies and arbitration agencies that are hired and fired by the Governance Service Provider.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Private security agencies would not be the creators of law or the interpreter's of law, but only the enforcer of established laws that protect individual liberty. If they don't do that job well,---we can fire them. In that free market environment, and established law based on natural law, security agencies would strive to uphold liberty in order to have clients. If the court system does not uphold individual liberty as the highest standard, we can fire them too, and file criminal charges.

[@chaddad1236]

@@EarthSurferUSA the same way we can fire Google?

[@starwarslegendsbrasil]

@@EarthSurferUSA then again, who would establish these laws?

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@MBarberfan4life]

No they aren’t. That’s a complete strawman. I’m an anarcho-capitalist, and I would kill in self defense.

[@jaisbrennan7696]

@@MBarberfan4life You believe in force. That makes you a statist.

[@chaddad1236]

The DPA sounds expensive.

[@jaisbrennan7696]

Anarcho-Capitalists are the equivalent of pacifists. Minarchists are the equivalent of revolutionaries.

[@electroguy2007]

@@jaisbrennan7696 Anarchists are not pacifists, they accept the use of violence in self-defence. And both are revolutionary due to the fact the status quo in the US is a liberal democratic mixed economy, not libertarian of ANY stripe

[@senselessnothing]

Thankfully it does not seem like we need to take a position on the matter because its so far away.

[@antipositivism3128]

Tasos Obscure That’s definitely not true.

[@ConsciousOne369]

The minarchist argument for a small limited government is because the people can vote and elect representatives that can carry out the defense program that the people would like. However if it were private we would be buying defense for money which knowing humans tends to make a lot of people think that there would be chaos.

[@uffemerrild4282]

Sure, people can vote all they want. In the meantime their overlords can pass any law they see fit, and the electorate would simply have to accept these laws, and hope to be able to elect better people in the next election. But this simplified view of democracy and voting is not very useable. Please have 2 minutes to review Kenneth Arrows theorem of the impossibility of rationality of democratic voting. You simply cannot select the best option using this method. There are internal flaws in the system which make it practically and theoretically impossible. There are other problems too, how can you allow people to vote, if they are not paying for the things they vote for? That's possible in a democracy, you can vote for high income taxation for high earners, being a medium or low earner yourself, and avoid the onerous taxation. Then vote to spend the money for your own protection service, which will be very expensive, but you don't have to bear the costs of it yourself. The market has its drawbacks as well, but certainly these are confined to how to provide income for all members of society in the amount which is socially optimal, which can be solved by private charities providing less well off people with an additional income to sustain their life and well-being. If people have enough income to buy protection on the market, then I don't see any problem with the market. (Income re-distritbution through voluntary charity is the way to go - systematizing theft and corruption isn't a good thing, keep the government out of it)

[@sgt.squirtle2528]

This argument(elections, voting, representation) was torn to shreds by Lysander Spooner.

[@senselessnothing]

How do you defend an anarchist nation against insidious forces like china?

[@senselessnothing]

So you think the typical libertarian conception of a society puts enough emphasis on the right to disassociate to do that? I severely doubt it.

[@senselessnothing]

People naturally have many highly erroneous beliefs, the fact that china is "becoming a market economy" is enough for most libertarians to become soft on them.

[@Minarchiste]

We do have examples of anarchist societies : Talibanistan, Somalia and tribal societies. Great success ....

[@googleminus1442]

Taliban controlled areas are far from being anarchist. Individual freedom is pretty much nil, thanks to the talibans enforcing their archaic laws.

[@Cacowninja]

Those aren't ancap societies AT ALL. They have government.

[@electroguy2007]

ALL of those listed societies had governments, how are they anarchist again???

[@FerociousPhilosophy]

true anarchists are not libertarians. what an insult to logic and reason. fail.

[@senselessnothing]

You've won a free helicopter ride!

[@juanandresrodriguezpedreir8922]

Yes they are.

[@mikehoot3978]

Commie detected.

[@franklinfalco9069]

What about a medium-sized government?

[@christianhinojosa848]

That's vague and will probably grow yo have too much coercive power OR already have coercive power.