Why Anarcho-capitalism? (my reasons)

[shmee10]

What about injustice inflicted for capitalistic gain? Don't forget that the majority of the labor that takes place on this Earth is the product of sweatshop/child/slave labor.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@shmee10 How can injustice be a gain to those it is inflicted upon?

Yes, under a state, it would be impossible for there not to be slavery, since that's precisely what taxation is: forcing others to work and taking the product of their labor. (slavery by definition)

Another YouTube AnCap did a fairly in-depth video on this: watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

If one were to label my position now, I'd use the term voluntaryist, since it's more descriptive. (def. = only voluntary interactions are legitimate)

[sstearns34]

@shmee10 I don't know a lot about how things work in other countries, but I think the fact that here it was government goons killing people for not sending their kids into coal mines that was what was part of the reason unions were created is a pretty good indicator that governments don't care more about a parent's children than the parent

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@shmee10

But why are billions of people in the third world eagerly flocking into sweatshops, away from all other available productive activities?

Compared to societies with hundreds of years of accumulated capital- and empathy under relatively liberal states, sweatshops are unthinkably horrible. But in societies with next to no capital accumulation or economic liberalism, where the alternatives are usually heavily taxed subsistence farming or prostitution, sweatshopping is the bee's knees.

[shogu666]

@PanzerDivisionBOM

", where the alternatives are usually heavily taxed subsistence farming or prostitution, sweatshopping is the bee's knees."

I can say exactly the same think about slaves.

It is better to have a master and be able to eat , then to starve.

Slavery is good then huh?

[SanguineBullet667]

@shmee10 you can leave the job at any time. nobody is forcing people to work in sweatshops.

[spartacandream]

Perhaps I'm not using the same definition of state as you are, but I'm for a state that is noncoercive in nature. It's ruled by a government, and the state itself is a territory marked under that govenrnments jurisdiction.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@spartacandream Definitely using a different definition.

The anti-statist definition oscillates around the core definition: a state = a coercive monopoly extortion racket. They/we are simply defining what it is that we're against, and that was the closest English language term available.

Nowadays I go by the label "voluntaryist" for my position on all relationships, personal *and* political, as it's perhaps the most descriptive and the least likely to run into confusions in terminology.

[spartacandream]

@GabrielKoulikov For my definition, a state in which you are a part of, whether you were born there or not, that doesn't coerce you into anything but just protects liberty. And there is no taxation unless people personally choose to opt into such, as the government can't force people to do such. What would you call such a government?

[GabrielKoulikov]

@spartacandream I would call that a stateless society.

It sounds like what you support has been called alternatively emergent governance and polycentric law. (Google!) This is not a state as anti-statists define it, so what you are describing is a stateless, or voluntaryist society, i.e. one with no legitimized coercion, "crime" being coercion which is treated as illegitimate.

Payment that is chosen by the person paying can only ever be a bill, a gift, or a donation. Why call it a tax?

[spartacandream]

@GabrielKoulikov Because it's the same in almost every way to a tax except you decide whether to take part in it, how its spent, etc....

I agree there, that it would be a voluntaryist society.

[MirageScience]

COMMON LAW

nice video.

[FatGermanBastard]

One thing I don't agree with - and to be honest: that I think you know is not true - is that less taxation would allow more social justice. You are arguing if I need to pay less taxes I can then spend more on social justice. We all know that many people don't care at all about the social system and even if all the people who do care would give their whole money to social justice the system would receive less funds.

Now if you just don't give a crap that's fine but at least be honest about it.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@FatGermanBastard Theft enforced by a death threat by the agency responsible for the most injustice in all of human history-- or, more accurately, a bribe paid to stave off such theft-- *that* is the greatest social injustice, as it is the lie that taxation is something other than coercion from which this agency of greatest social injustice, the state, gets the funding to perpetrate its atrocities.

That is why I oppose taxation, as it is violence against you used to fund even greater violence.

[FatGermanBastard]

The funny thing about anarcho capitalism is that it's proponents would usually be FUCKED in anarcho capitalism. Take XOmniverse for example. He is hunting bugs for a job. Let's be nice and assume that he makes 20.000 Dollars a year. That is not even closely the amount he would have to come up with in market anarchism to keep himself shitting. I mean if he had to pay a DRO and insurance for everything and shit. Some people don't realize how much they profit from the state and taxation.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@FatGermanBastard I entirely agree. The vast majority of the proponents of market anarchy live almost completely at odds with what they advocate, though I would not call this a "profit," but rather a crutch that keeps them from using their leg muscles, and so therefore they can't run. If they give up the crutch, if they stop paying taxes and learn to make their own way, they'd be able to keep up with actual agorist markets.

"Capitalism is a conspiracy to drive all profits to zero." Well said!

[jaminunit]

Great video! Please keep making more :) I Also agree that Anarcho Capitalism is the best option for green issues, social justice issues and for a safer society.

[curiositygun93]

i don't like how you attribute the anarcho capitalism to religion the laws of the market & sociology stand whether a god or gods exist or not

my religion is alcoholism(which means i don't take religion seriously) if your a scientist that understands natural selection & economics that means you'll probably believe in some market & anti-gov't ideas not necessarily free market or libertarian views but close to it

please don't use religion it allows for straw men arguments

[GabrielKoulikov]

@curiositygun93 Where have I used either religion or straw man arguments in this video?

The reason I believe anarcho-capitalism (voluntaryism) is because it is the only coherent political/economic view.  I hope that general thrust is at least clear in the video, and if not, at least clear now.

I'll post more updated/detailed vids of my views-- this was posted shortly after I became convinced of AnCap; my views are more surgically precise now, though this is still a good approximate overview.

[curiositygun93]

@GabrielKoulikov actullay just ignore what i said i felt very critical that day

sorry about the confusion but i said other people would use strawmen arguments

[JacobSpinney]

While I don't really make a distinction between state and government, I totally agree with you. My explanation of ancap - watch?v=u6tUaqJtVCo

[Sunoco]

Brilliant argument. Thanks for making this video.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

The commenters on here are correct. "Anarcho"-capitalism isn't anarchism AT ALL.

watch?v=yrQObaYFmaw

[GabrielKoulikov]

@juliaisafilmbuff123 The creator of this video uses voluntary interaction (no one is forcing us to watch his video) to critique voluntary interaction (contradiction). Likewise, if the alien drove prices down and productivity up as he suggests, then people would be willingly working in wonderful conditions the smallest fraction of the year for a continually improving paradise. And this = slavery?

What is forcing everyone not to interact voluntarily but the most totalitarian state imaginable?

[GabrielKoulikov]

@juliaisafilmbuff123 Likewise, the key element for a state is missing: the pro-state ideology. See how long a tyranny of one lasts with no one agreeing to it.

Also, the video implies that people would be stupid if they only interacted voluntarily; odds are, they'd be entrepreneurs. If they started to fear the alien, even if it offered better services, they could simply *voluntarily* trade/buy/sell amongst themselves until the alien was in productive poverty, or else self-supporting solitude.

[lostsurfc0]

Anarcho-Capitalism is in essence the purest form on Anarchy. People are idiots and don't understand that "Capitalism" does not mean "Corporatism" and it becomes an argument of semantics. I agree with you man!

[ugotpimp]

amenn brother !!

just turn up the volume!

[fulsomstryk]

"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't anarchism!

[GabrielKoulikov]

I'm fine with people who have trouble with the word "anarchism" to call this political position "non-hypocritical libertarianism," or "voluntaryism."

But, semantically, an-archism and archism are mutually exclusive. How would one describe an anti-state position using English words other than an-archism (Greek: "not"-"ruler/authority")? To claim it's not is to claim anti-statism is pro-statism, in which case the using of words to label political positions becomes meaningless.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@fulsomstryk

So I don't understand; what are you talking about here?

[sharperguy]

The biggest reason I can see for why a state cannot easily re-arise in a stateless society, is that the state can only ever exist when it is considered to be legitimate.

In order to have the state again, a large majority of people must be convinced to support it's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. And, of course, the less people agreeing with the state would mean more visible coercion, which would make the legitimacy harder to believe.

[tpsisokayiguess]

For the sake of clarity and understanding, I would just drop the "government" altogether and use different terms. Personally, I cannot support any kind of government because it is equated with the state so regularly.

Anyways; great video! And great realisations!

You seem to be a very bright guy. :)

[DonKhoi]

Perhaps "Management" would sound better? You can change the name, but the substance is till the same. Doesn't the entrepreneur *govern, dictate, rule, manage, manipulate,...* HIS employees? Employees have no AUTONOMY, but FREEDOM to work for a Capitalist or STARVE TO DEATH. Conversely, the capitalist also needs the workers, without the worker, the Capitalist is NOTHING.

[GabrielKoulikov]

Capitalists can still work for themselves. Whenever you weed a garden you have planted, you need not higher another worker. Same if I sewed clothing, and sold it to others.

In these two cases, I am working for myself, and therefore do have (some) autonomy, as we're all constrained by nature.

Brian Tracy teaches we should all see ourselves as the CEO of our own personal services company, because we all sell our services to others. The employer is actually the customer one sells a service to.

[eskthecoffeeaddict]

Gabe, you should make a video regarding the alternative to not paying taxes. This is a huge reason why I think many people who might actually agree with your position would not be able to be pro-active about it...they would be too scared of being arrested for tax evasion. You really should do a video of how to practically live out the anarcho-capitalist mindset (if that is even possible).

[GabrielKoulikov]

@eskthecoffeeaddict visit agorism (dot) info until I post some stuff on my own-- it has plenty of articles and reading materials describing black and grey market alternatives to the "white market" most people are used to interacting in. In short, grey markets are the optimal place to begin operating as you minimize/eliminate your "white market" footprint, as they let you work off the grid without what you're doing being "illegal."

[GabrielKoulikov]

@eskthecoffeeaddict Once there is larger-scale coordination of market anarchists (it's ridiculous to me that there is not), arrests may be used as forms of education/activism, but at the moment, willing individuals still need to better organize and live less hypocritically; like Operation Rescue, they are largely still too "connected to the system," and so have much to lose were agents of the state to seek their elimination.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@eskthecoffeeaddict in final reply, it is this conflict of interest keeps such people from taking action and better organizing, and even thinking through the implications of their own actions, and being better *example entrepreneurs in their own revolutionary field*. I am now in the process of changing my life to live such a minimal example, and writing/communicating a foundation that anyone can apply to their life circumstances.  I'll at YT and FB as I have time.

[junior00bacon00chee]

wow spot on.

maybe the whole government vs. state thing should be pointed out more often, that really brings it home. anachism is so often conflated with "no rules" or "no laws"...

statists are like intelligent design proponents but they extort you for money.

[GabrielKoulikov]

I call the government the "state-run government" when a state is running it. In a stateless society, it would be free market government (maybe there's a better name?), to indicate choices, competition, voluntariness, ability to defend yourself, etc. (i.e. no one has a coercive monopoly)  This helps further the distinction when conversing about it, and seems to make people less defensive.

[Sean2046]

fuckin awesome video. i came to many of the same conclusions which tipped me from an anarchy-curious libertarian to an anarchist. and i love how you separate the word "government" from the state. you are absolutely right when you say the state is the enemy of real government. this is a good point i should probably bring up with more statists i debate. would probably be a more effective approach.

[vidfreak56]

So we all volunteer to pay for courts? Who gets to decide the laws for the courts to uphold? Easy. Those that

have the money do. And those with even more can easily buy their way out. What about those that cant afford to goto court?Sorry, no "justice" for them. Also how do you take money from me, if say I hit you with my car, and you want restitution? By force! Youd have to force money from my person to yours. How does this make anarcho-cap better than government?

[GabrielKoulikov]

You are confusing the State with government. (equivocation)

Yes, law enforcement sometimes requires force. That's why it's called en-*force*-ment.

What you have described is the way the system currently (mal)-functions, not anarcho-capitalism. Your arguments commit the straw man fallacy.

Did you watch any of the videos linked to in the description? Those videos and channels address the points you've brought up in depth, many of them with links to economic and political studies.

[vidfreak56]

Law enforcement doesnt sometimes require force, it always requires force to ensure that everyone is covered w/o favoritism. A state is a local sovereign administrative district, which is what our country was supposed to be. We have mostly nation-states now. You say that everything should be voluntary, but I say that you cant volunteer to enforce law. Its either enforced or its not. I dont need propaganda btw to understand what anarchism is about.

[vidfreak56]

Privately funded social justice is nothing more than purchased justice. If we all were able to "fund" what we believe is just then you're saying that hitmen and private police/armies are acceptable. Also realize that capitalism wont exist(and never has) w/o some form of centralized law because the key to its existence, in free market form, are property rights. W/O that, private enterprise, will pay for private protection of property, and hence will have power to tyrannize with impunity.

[GabrielKoulikov]

Anarcho-capitalism minimizes violence and coercion compared to other economic/political systems, not completely eliminates it. Coercive monopolies increase the likelihood of corruption, and decrease the likelihood that people will successfully oppose them, therefore eliminate coercive monopolies. This both practical and realistic.

Private hitmen are murderers, and would be treated as such under anarcho-capitalism since people tend to oppose their own murder more than they want to kill others.

[vidfreak56]

Minimizes? Thats impossible to prove. Id say if law were voluntary, you wouldnt minimize anything. Especially if people can just choose to not follow it with impunity. Take the rich choosing to forgo the law because there is no accountability...that happens even now.

Private hitmen are murders, yes, but would they be jailed? Would the local population that opposed them pay to stop them? If so, that is privately funded law enforcement for private reasons. How does that apply to all?

[SoundOffBuncombe]

ummmm?

confused here....

[GabrielKoulikov]

Can you be more specific?