I can hardly wait until enough peons understand that. When horizontal enforcement in defense of the state is seen as laughable and insane as throwing virgins into volcanoes to ensure this years' crop.
I´m not defending statism (I dislike every -"ism"), I just think your dichotomy doesn´t work. There´ll always be social hierarchy, which in result is always political. And the powers that be always want to keep the status quo, so institutional structures emerge. Call them "government" if you like...
@SynapticTransmission Maybe. I stopped worrying about myself, I´ll get through tough times, but I´m still empathic with all the poor kids that are exposed to this bullshit world. The adults should at least have had the time to learn what´s actually going on and draw theri consequences.
Abandoning government through collapse or revolution would cost a lot of people´s lives and slowly building down governments to something constitutional will be very hard.
I don't get it. Libertarians hodl the founders to a very high esteem, and yet even though they believed in a small and limited government, they all believed--both federalists and republicans--that a central government is necessary. How can you be an anarcho-capitalist and still respect the constitution?
@regelemihai Well because look how rapidly government has grown since it's inception by the founders in the 18th century, is it not better to abolish the "cancer" instead of giving a piece of paper that says" don't grow"? There will always be individuals who look to exploit via authority, remove their power.
@TheHomoludens Libertarianism doesn't advocate elimination of the state, it advocates the minimization of the state to the powers enumerated in the original constitution. When you talk about elimination of the state, you are talking about anarchy. There's a gigantic difference between elimination of the state and minimizing the state. The first 100 years or so of our country's federal government is more or less an example Libertarian philosophy probably is most like.
@MrTheKatalyst "The first 100 years or so of our country's federal government is more or less an example Libertarian philosophy probably is most like."
Yeah, great, so let´s get back to slave labour and killing millions of natives!
You're just demagogueing now. No matter how small we make the government, slavery is not going to return, and there's no "natives" to kill. Be realistic, not idealistic.
@MrTheKatalyst "No matter how small we make the government, slavery is not going to return"
It´s never been gone, specially when you take a look at the intenational working conditions involved in production. People today spend more time "working" than even in the feudal middle age. Of course the material wealth has gone up, but: how long can this be sustained, when this wealth is built on burning finite resources like oil and gas?
@MrTheKatalyst And I´ve given up taking one specific political position (minimal state/capitalist vs. welfare state/socialist), because imho most importantly, before a workable public decision can take place, most people would need to be aware of al relevant information and have to give up their illusions.
Unfortunately this seems very unlikely to happen, so I´ll rather see more ideologically lead people push their "truth" and "solution"...
@TheHomoludens You realize how ridiculous and pointless that sounds right? Ideologically arguments are useless if nothing practical comes of them, as is the case with left-wing rhetoric and a large portion of right wing "conservative" rhetoric. They preach nice sounding things, but they offer very little substance. If you want to have an ideological or philosophical argument, at least TRY and make it practically applicable. Otherwise it's useless.
@TheHomoludens You really need to think about what you're saying before you say it. Every single concept and philosophy starts with some type of idealistic concept. The founding fathers were extremely idealistic, they were just intelligent enough to understand how to implement that ideal into reality. The problem with most pro-state ideals is they focus on ideals that sound good strictly as ideals but rarely ever work the same way in reality. They usually just lead to oppression.
@TheHomoludens I really don't get it. You defend statism and bash libertarian style minimalist government, but then say that you consider unchecked power to be the greatest threat to freedom. I absolutely do not understand what you are getting at. It would seem as though you are just trying to argue for the sake of it. My comment on ideologies was worded incorrectly, I understand what a philosophy is. My point is that mostly every movement is driven ideologically.
@TheHomoludens And I will continue to patronize you because I really don't believe you know what you're talking about. Being older then me does not automatically make your statements more valid. If anything, it makes them less. The current generation of young people will be the generation likely hit the hardest by whatever consequences come as a result of whatever path we take in the near future. I think my opinion should matter quite a bit.
@TheHomoludens There's a lot of perfectly reasonable arguments you can make in defense of a non-minimalist state (welfare/regulated). The return of slavery is not one of them.
@TheHomoludens Sounds like some of that liberal selective history-remembering again. Capitalism depends on people to act as rational actors in a free market of voluntary exchange--where the exchange of both labor and goods is voluntary. It was the capitalist, industrialized north who destroyed the feudal, agrarian south; it is a ridiculous straw man to attempt to paint capitalism as a proponent of slavery or coercion.
"people aren´t rational": of course, they´re "rational", too, but not 100% of the time and without 100% consequence.
Btw, new studies in the field of neuroscience imply that pure "left-brain" rationality is less effective than "holistic" thinking involving intellect and emotions (e.g. "EQ" by Goleman).
If your starting premises are wrong (idealized "homo oeconomicus"), all deductions will be, too, no matter how correct the reasoning is otherwise.
@Keeban3 I´ve been trying to argue with libertarians for a while. most won´t answer questions, that go against their ideology.
Imho "libertarianism" is pushed forward by plutocratic "elites", because it´s useful in order to both critizise the obviously flawed status quo and still push people to obey economics as only organizing principle.
I can reckognize that concerning organization a negative definition of freedom ("freedom from...") can make sense, but as a general definition I find that too narrow.
People organize themselves. Little to no coercion is necessary. What makes it an organizing principle is the less coercion the better. But when you look into it, you'd be surprised what the market can take care of. You'd be even more surprised at what your compatriots thought the market could not take care of at different times in different locations (for example, socialists that claimed libertarians wanted to get rid of religion because we removed government sponsorship).
The market is whatever interactions free people make in trade. And it does provide everything. If I want to eat, I go buy food. If I want a phone, I go buy it.
If you want it, it behooves someone to make it. So in that sense, yes it provides everything.
That´s why your ideas make you autistic. You only consider what can be traded.
I´ve grown up in a family where growing one´s own food has been tradition and find a lot of eatable stuff in nature, so I don´t go along your perspective.
And i think that any political system should consider more aspects of life than "economics".
Well, then Mr. Self-sustainability, just how long could you live without anyone to trade with. Sure you can grow your own food, but think of building a house without nails or a hammer? Though I do approve of you not trading. It would bar you from the internet.
Economics covers all human action. Surely a political system should not cover more than that.
And I already told you what freedom is: non-coercion (or more specifically non-initiation of force).
@Keeban3 Medieval Iceland, Medieval Ireland, English Common Law, Early Pennsylvania, the American Old West - all examples of fully-functioning legal systems emerging independent of the state (some of which lasted for centuries).
The first two have a central authority which decides law, and judiciary. I don't see what makes this not government, unless you define government as collecting taxes. I can easily imagine a taxless state, but I cannot imagine functioning without any central authority to decide what law is. Likewise the old West seems like local governance. But Pennsylvania is certainly an interesting case. Thank you for showing me where to start looking.
Here is quote from the Mises Institute on Iceland: "If a dispute was not settled by the private courts, the dispute would go up the ladder to the next highest court until the dispute was resolved." And the cheiftans of the Godards met to decide law. I was wrong saying this is a central authority, instead it is a collection of nine authorities which you can choose which one you follow. If this isn't correct, you can correct me in a PM, so we don't have to deal with char lim
That's my guys. I'm in this. That's the street corner of 3900 block of Forbes Avenue in Pittsburgh during the G20. Never expected to see MYSELF in this video lol.
With all respect to Murray Rothbard, that's really not the "crippling & parasitic blight of state power". That's providing protection for the leaders of the worlds most powerful 20 nations & preventing a bunch of unskilled, uninformed, dirtball malcontents (& many onlookers) from interjecting themselves into the process.
But I get it. They needed a clip of cops in riot gear for the illustration.
Fact is tho.. the police didn't go into anyone's neighborhood, or go out looking for trouble - much less look for ppl to oppress - which is NOT something that any of the black masked anarchist bolsheviks in that crowd can say
Most of 'em imported from the left coast & the UK w the sole idea of causing destruction & mayhem. Yeah.. they jacked up the police mini station because nobody was in it, b thats it
"Private Persons" the videos says. But without the state, who says what is private and what isn't. Under state laws/constitutions, you have private property rights. Without it, you just have property that you can guard with your life because there would be no Law prohibiting me from taking your property, or you having the option of calling Law Enforcement.
@StatelessLiberty It still doesnt work.Rights Enforcement Company A doesnt necessarily have commitments with Companies E-Z. This is an assumption made byFriedman.If the above assumption is untrue, he is left with infinite levels of arbitration. This is obviously inefficient.Then, David commits the same fallacy as zeitgeist. How is every individual to know whether or not a law may be positive or negative? Also this measure is subjective rather than objective thus unscientific
Bastiat makes the same point in the Law, i.e. that society and the state are 2 different things and statists confuse the two as one. Society exists first and the state/government is created by society in order to protect the rights of the individuals.
Parasite was the word I was thinking of just before the narrator said it. Our govt acts and functions very much like the mafia. Extorting money from people with the threat of violence and handing some of it back to the unwashed masses to curry favor with them. Disgusting.
@atticusdeep What is your so called 'new perspective'? Reversion to primitive social systems is no answer. The problem isn't with the system but with the people, and by people I mean the citizens or really humans in general. Your solution is what?
To all statists: If government represents the majority of the people, then why do we need government to complete tasks that would already be in favor with the majority of the people?
If the people support educating the poor (if you can call it education), then it would make sense that they would all be willing to pay for public education, correct? Then at which point do we need the govt to do this?
Murray Rothbard killed the argument as it was presented, but what would Rothbard say if the same argument were presented but included in it the fact that human beings are violent by nature, the state is violence incarnate, therefore because humans are violent by nature, the state is required by human nature because of the fact that we're constantly looking for an excuse to exercise some kind of violence on someone else.
I imagine he would argue, as Frederic Bastiat did in "The Law," that if you cannot trust Men to be civilized in society, why in the world would you trust Men with power over others in the form of government?
@atticusdeep I'm not saying that you should trust men in government, I'm saying that government is required by human nature because we're violent by nature.
"I'm saying that government is required by human nature because we're violent by nature."
And where do you think the most violent and controlling of people will try to work? Perhaps, the government? Where they will have power over police forces and armies?
If people are violent and controlling by nature, then we shouldn't we work to deny them the avenues of power that a government provides?
@jarvy251 I'm not saying we shouldn't work to prevent it (because actually violent means are the only means that have any significant effect), I'm saying that because of the violent nature of human beings, and because human beings are always looking for means by which to enact this violence, the State will always exist because there's no real way of getting rid of it in any long-term capacity.
Ah, yes. I have similar concerns. We're in a cycle.
As we're given freedom, we become more prosperous. As we become more prosperous, we begin to question the need for masters. The masters then tighten the leash in a desperate attempt to keep control, and it all comes crashing down.
I'm hoping that miracles like the internet will help break the cycle once and for all, but I'm not optimistic.
@MrGreeneggsnham And I'm posing a counter-argument to Rothbard's response that because the government is violence, and humans are violent by nature, government is therefore required by human nature.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 You have not solved anything. You just create a privledged class that can use limitless amounts of voilence. The only difference is that the government voilence is socially acceptable and private voilence is not.
@MrGreeneggsnham "You have not solved anything. You just create a privledged class that can use limitless amounts of voilence."
I don't think you're getting the argument. Because of the fact that the State is violence, and human beings are violent by nature, the State will therefore always exist because humans on the whole are always looking to enact some sort of violence on each other.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 I understand it's just a YouTube handle, but if you are a Satanist, how can you justify Statism? Satanism is a philosphy of pure individualism.
@anarchoutis I am a Satanist, but I'm also a realist. The reality is simple; human being are too violent for the State not to exist. It usually comes about through violent means, and the means it uses are always violent.
Satanism is NOT a philosophy of "pure individualism". Satan's plan is to create a counterfeit system that attempts to mimic the perfection of God's
Make no mistake, Satan uses selfishness, stupidity, & envy to accomplish his plans, but in his heart he HATES the worthless unsteady corrupt imperfect dupes who follow him. He sees them for what they are, & is ashamed. In his heart, he wants to create something beautiful & "worthy" of himself - his ends are4pure totalitarian order
@mredstriumph You're mistaken. I was referring to Satanism, as in Anton La Vey's Church of Satan, which, despite it's name, has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology. Do a Google search. The more you know!
@mredstriumph And that is proof of nothing. Even if there was video footage of what this person claims happened, people say all sorts of crazy shit on their deathbed (not to mention when they are alive). Considering he didn't worship Satan, as LaVey Satanism is not a theistic religion, but an egoist philosophy, I think you are missing the point. Anyway, this has nothing to do with this Rothbard video. Go and research the Church of Satan. It's nothing to do with Devil worshipping.
@mredstriumph Eh? What exactly do you think I took personally? We were having a discussion, and I simply used sarcasm to express how you lack basic debating skills. Nothing personal about it. Just saying what I see.
My point being, that you gave no evidence for your assertion that LaVey 'repented' his 'sinful' ways at the time of his death. Because, bottom line, your opinion doesn't matter. It's the facts that count.
That is an interesting philosophy, I've not researched this yet but when he says 'Quite the contrary' in terms of the states... state among us, What I'm getting is that it isn't natural from his perspective, Unless I'm reading that out of context, is man not naturally communal (we'll ignore war and crime for this example)
He's saying that society and government are irrelevant; two completely separate things. For instance, everyone I know eats food. If the government reflected society then surely the government would make food for us, but this is obviously not the case. We don't need the government to make our food because we can make it ourselves. Apply this same argument to everything the government does: that's the point of the video.
@cinqueleon You can do this yourself. Male a list of all the things the state does, then go through it and imagine another way that thing could be accomplished. For instance building roads, providing schooling, etc. There are historical examples that can be found with a little research. When you come across something that only the State can do, like waging war, remove it from the list. When finish the list you will have a description of a Stateless society.
@gigahertz123 Haha Exactly! People unable to imagine anything different desperately cling to status quo. Thankfully, many of our ancestors were not so close-minded.
@cinqueleon Interesting phrasing. Could you please tell us what society "looks like" right now. "Ummm tall buildings... colorful billboards...street lights..." Yah, that's what it would look like! Only without the large God-like statues of previous rulers.
No, it begins with the concept that the evil of non-state actors can be checked more easily than the evil of state actors because of the absence of a recognized monopoly on force.
Polycentric Law is what man naturally gravitates toward the concept of a monopoly state has to forced on the people as a religion generation after generation.
Can you do me a huge favour though? I've never seen that chart before, starting at 1:29, but it looks fascinating. I was wondering if you know of a link to it anywhere, or at least what it's called.
@MeanEyedCats It looks fascinating? I cried when I saw it because I know people study that stuff. I feel bad for them, it was painful to look at. lol.
@Zimnyification Do you mind explaining? From what I can tell, all it is is a chart which tracks ruling regimes by region and time period, and having that all visually organized would be eminently useful for any thinking person.
The question is if all govt ceases what would become of corps, because govt disappears does not mean corps disappear, nor does wealth, organization. structure eg Somalia when without govt per-se there still were mini war lord states. Corps do not have to be the pretty things we are fooled to think they are today existing hand in hand with govt, they can be warlord corps along the lines of PIRATES, plantations, govt has been attack for a variety or reasons not always good ones.
Government does not precisely equal a state (monarch) corporations (corporate states) viewed structurally as states within states (governments) not merely society, corps
can take many forms East Indian Co. West India Trading Co.where they administrate territories, own slaves, constitute local govt, the economy, wage wars, arbitrate issues
of "law", have armies to enforce decisions, punish violators, run hospitals and schools (also there is also the MODERN STATE which is different.
Sometimes I wonder if libertarianism is nothing more than delusional idealism.
The confirmation bias, the bold generalizations without supportive argumentation, and the abject certainty on display in this clip are perfect examples.
@thraxman The irony being of course that you haven't supported anything you've said. All you've done is spout a bunch of meaningless buzzwords.
Are we even watching the same video? Very clear argumentation was made to support each point. Still, this is just a very short extract from a larger body of work, and you expect it to be a complete argument against the state? I think you're the one with confirmation bias.
"Delusional idealism" - the favourite ad-hom of stupid people everywhere.
@thraxman "delusional idealism" As if peoples' hopes and dreams for what would be accomplished through government and socialism was not "delusional." The only thing delusional here is that people still support the same philosophies regarding government that have always failed and repeatedly resulted in the mass slaughter of human beings.
A new perspective on the role of government is necessary to avoid the same pitfalls of history, and it is "crazy" to ignore this fact.
Dear Fucking anarchists and right-wing libertarians, I don't as some suggest gullible to believe accept or otherwise as you slanderous suggest believe government can resolve all problems but then again realistically looking at corporations how they behave act, I am not a fool as you to believe you can prevent them without a counter society organization which in itself would constitute also a state as what you present as libertarians is the corporate delusion of a soft white under belly.
@AndrewStergiou PS most anarchy are lame self-serving dogmatists of the libertarian kind who talk petty bourgeois anarcho trash right before they awkwardly quote Robert's rules of order (eg. IWW SPUSA SDS etc et al et seq or use force to express themselves) get rid of the agents in your midst and we can talk.
@PluralOfEverything you now switch arguments, when the questions originally posed by libertarians and anarchists as they do not believe in a state as intrinsically bad "evil" so you bait and switch, as if reality can be separated from fact without creating fiction,supposing "private wealth can be mastered" in what often overshadows government and communities, often surpassing in wealth and resources, what
communities must master to survive with autonomy.anarchy libertarianism = BOGUS
@AndrewStergiou I've never said anything to you before, so how can I be switching arguments? I was just telling you that government is the reason corporations have become the monsters they are today, and in the absence of government, they would most likely disappear.
@PluralOfEverything yeah right tag team match you say, NO corps will not disappear which was my point exactly stated many posts ago, without a state society most likely would fragment, and corporations as part thereof would attempt to survive existing in a
hypothetical fiction of Mad Max meets feudalism as an Asian autarchy Godfather remix as material wealth equals energy in E=MC2 not merely mass as convertible in a meltdown so corps won't just go away Anarcho losers
@AndrewStergiou That's quite an imagination you have there. I wish I could understand what you're saying, but your replies are a jumble of disjointed thoughts. I can't untie them very well, but from what I think I understand, you're saying that government is all that stands between society and chaos. I think you're wrong. I think things would only get better with no government.
@PluralOfEverything government does not precisely equal a state (monarch) corporations (corporate states) can be viewed structurally as states withing states (governments) not merely society, corporations can take many forms East Indian Company, West India Trading Company, where they administrate territories, own slaves, constitute the government and the economy, waging wars, in the local administration of "law" and have armies to enforce it, execute violators, also there is the MODERN STATE.
@AndrewStergiou I am against any organization that is funded with money taken from people under the threat of violence. It doesn't matter what the money is used for or what the appropriation of the money is called. Stealing is wrong. I'm also against organizations that train people to become killers and then send them all over the world to kill people. Killing is wrong.
@PluralOfEverything well then you are pathetically full of it life is a constant life if you want safety go to Mars or Venus or die you might be safe as dead.
I am a stronger believer in the Hayekian argument on this topic. In order to stop one from coercing another, society must have an instrument of coercion, solely dedicated to coercing those who wish to coerce others. I also prefer Locke's theories of governance. Locke in essence states that while governance is not natural, it is necessary to avoid a state of perpetual war. I am not saying Rothbard is a bad guy, but I do believe the state is necessary for a free society.
I never said that. I said that if I'm starving or poor you cannot say that my actions are free or voluntary, no more that you can say that my actions are free or voluntary if you point a gun to my head.
Economic power is a power. A power capable of coercing other people in the same way as any political power.
Everybody exerts influence over everyone else by virtue of living in society. If I produce something you want, then you are compelled by your desires to offer something to exchange. I have influenced you, but not subjugated you. In fact, I have made you better off.
Simply by having wealth per se, a rich person hasn't enslaved anyone.
Coercion is aggressive violence, any other definition leads to absurd conclusions - like that inanimate natural forces are "coercive".
The reason why it is absurd to describe natural forces as coercive is because they describe behaviors and not prescribe them. Economic laws on the other hand fall both under descriptive and prescriptive. We know it is prescriptive because we can argue on how they should be and not only how they are. Denying this would lead to absurd conclusion like a sort of Platonism of economics.
There is a difference between desire and NEED. While the first you can refute it, the second you cannot, it's literally blackmailing. And I don't have many possibilities as we don't live in simply the natural order but in a cultural constructed order. Yet I never chose to enter the contract of society, I was thrown into it and people enforce it with weapons.
@StatelessLiberty, agreed. I'm often bewildered by those on the left and sometimes right who don't seem to grasp the simple conceptual difference between coercion and persuasion. I still run into people convinced that commercials "force" people to buy their consumer goods rather than simply making an appealing offer, an option, to a free, thinking individual. 'Mind-blowing.
"I said that if I'm starving or poor you cannot say that my actions are free or voluntary,"
The only way that your actions would not be voluntary is if you reacted by stimuli, like an animal. Even a person suffering from hunger has to make a decision between different available options, i.e. to steal something to eat or NOT to steal something to eat. You may say that those are lousy choices but choices they are nonetheless.
This is equivocation. A person of greater economic means still has to engage in exchange within voluntary participants. If a person resorts to violence, then he is NOT engaging in economic exchange, thus your argument falls flat.
"A power capable of coercing other people in the same way as any political power."
Economic power does not coerce. This is an oxymoron, D. Coercion is violence, not economics or exchange.
I disagree. If you are poor, you are still free, and your actions are voluntary. What you can do is limited, but you are free to do whatever you want with the options you have. In a free society where the economy is working, it is entirely possible for you to find work such that you will give yourself a measure of financial security. Once poor, not always poor.
@mmille10@ftorresgamez IF your argument is correct then you are always free no matter the conditions are. Even a man in prison is still free, "he can do whatever he wants, his options are limited but he is still free".
Even businesses today are free: if they don't want to pay taxes they don't have to. Markets are already free.
@derriderrida No, didn't say that. Being poor is not the same as being in prison. In prison you live the way *someone else* wants you to. Your options are only what you are *given*. Just because you do not have unlimited options out in society, which you are responsible for finding for yourself, does not equate to being in prison. Your statement about business and taxes is inaccurate. They don't get to not pay just because they don't want to.
@mmille10 I don't see the difference. If I'm poor I have less options available for me and if I'm in prison I have less options available too.
If I'm poor I can't live in a manhattan loft, if I'm in prison I can't live in a manhattan loft.
You say "yes but if you are poor you can move and live where you want" yes and so you can ask for cell transfer in most prisons, and hey you are always free to evade from prison and live in the woods, what stops you?
@mmille10 and of course companies don't get not to pay taxes just because they want to. Poor people don't get to be successful just because they want to, they have to use their talents and ingenuity to become successful. So do company: they have to be smart to evade taxes and not get caught, but they are totally free to do that.
@derriderrida There is a big difference between "economic power" and "political power". The difference lies in that economic power arises from entrepreneurs that best catter to consumers needs, so their power really derives from the consumer´s patronage on the first place. Political power is no different than criminal activity, the difference is that this is legally sanction and justified by the state itself.
"Yes, it is certainly peaceful and voluntary when you starve me to death."
If you starve because I refuse to give you what you want, how is this different from starving because what you want is 3000 miles away? What would stop you from applying labor to obtain nourishment, be it through an exchange of goods or by direct gathering from nature? You cannot avoid applying labor to SOMETHING, as there is no Paradise of superabundance.
@ftorresgamez There is a difference between something that I desire and something that I need to survive. There is a difference between my desire for an Ipod and my need for a medical cure that will permit to live a normal life.
I can renounce the first, but you can blackmail me into submission with the second: if you are the one possessing it no matter how high is your price I will accept it or I won't be able to live.
"There is a difference between my desire for an Ipod and my need for a medical cure that will permit to live a normal life."
The difference resides in your subjective value judgment of the two. If I am not sick, for me that cure will be worthless. You cannot ascribe a moral value on either the iPod or the cure because people value things differently.
Rwegarding the blackmail issue, I can still choose to go without the cure. I still have choice.
@ftorresgamez It was to make understand the difference between something that you need and something that you desire. Some things are a precondition to a person partecipation on the market.
If even as black mailed a person is still free, than one is always free, this means that even businesses are always free and thus there is no reason to liberalize the market.
"It was to make understand the difference between something that you need and something that you desire."
There's no real difference - that's the point. You cannot presume to know what I need. What I need depends on my subjective valuation. You might say "You need food!" and give me a sandwich, when in fact *I* need a wrench to finish install a new pipe.
Again, the judgment is in the person that persists on the aggressive action i.e. the government.
@derriderrida Freedom is intrinsic to the conscience of an individual,but the inability to realize it as the result of actions taken by another entity defeats it in that way. so prisoners are NOT free.
sex cannot be consensual AND rape. You and I can lay down to make love or I can throw across a dining table and rape you and say that it was consensual(though it wasn't).
@ftorresgamez I'm not complaining about the existence of work. I'm pointing out that economic inequalities are inequalities in power that make the asymmetric the contractual power on prices.
Only the belief that the market price is always the correct price can justify this situation. But that situation is only post-hoc. We build it after the fact. We say that the market price contains information yet it is only a quantitative information and not a qualitative. This is why needs to be balanced.
"Only the belief that the market price is always the correct price can justify this [inequality]."
This is an absurd argument. It's like saying that the reliance on a ruler justifies the height of a person's house. NO, it doesn't - prices merely convey information, just like the ruler conveys it. Just because you change the ruler does not make your house any taller than before. ACCURATE prices give you an ACCURATE picture of reality, that's the bottom line.
@ftorresgamez It's just saying that measuring books on page numbers does make some shitty literature.
An accurate price may be a signal expressing an accurate facet of reality, but not give an accurate picture of reality. Even physics is not beyond some skepticism thus certainly economic is not anymore certain since its epistemological grounds are pretty shitty.
This sound like the cato institute's libertarian home course not out right rothbardianism
KitSerrone 1 hour ago
"It's not Left vs Right. It's the state vs YOU!"
I can hardly wait until enough peons understand that. When horizontal enforcement in defense of the state is seen as laughable and insane as throwing virgins into volcanoes to ensure this years' crop.
SynapticTransmission 2 days ago
@SynapticTransmission "It's not Left vs Right. It's the state vs YOU!"
So, who´s "the state"?
Politicians? Bureaucrats? Policemen? Judges? Tax payers?
I´m not defending statism (I dislike every -"ism"), I just think your dichotomy doesn´t work. There´ll always be social hierarchy, which in result is always political. And the powers that be always want to keep the status quo, so institutional structures emerge. Call them "government" if you like...
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens The state is nothing more than a protection racket.
SynapticTransmission 2 days ago
@SynapticTransmission Maybe. I stopped worrying about myself, I´ll get through tough times, but I´m still empathic with all the poor kids that are exposed to this bullshit world. The adults should at least have had the time to learn what´s actually going on and draw theri consequences.
Abandoning government through collapse or revolution would cost a lot of people´s lives and slowly building down governments to something constitutional will be very hard.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@SynapticTransmission But to make a pretty unphilosophic statement:
I´m so fucking tired of corporatism!
It´s been growing worse every year since I started thinking!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@SynapticTransmission Otoh, What choice is there?
The EU is turning into a fascist undemocratic superstate, the US constitution is spat upon by a the US government...
But the worst part of alll the bullshit is people´s willful ignorance!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SynapticTransmission "The state is nothing more than a protection racket."
Let´s bring it down!
I´ll still disagre with many libertarian positions though...
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
what is this anarchy?
defgill 3 days ago
Right now we are ruled by Exxon, Chase bank , and the state.( simplified ) Eliminate the state, and look what we got left.
wotan237 5 days ago
@wotan237 The power of large corporations derives from state privilege.
StatelessLiberty 3 days ago 9
@StatelessLiberty I can't believe that more people don't get this. Amen.
RJordan0220 21 hours ago
I don't get it. Libertarians hodl the founders to a very high esteem, and yet even though they believed in a small and limited government, they all believed--both federalists and republicans--that a central government is necessary. How can you be an anarcho-capitalist and still respect the constitution?
regelemihai 5 days ago
@regelemihai Well because look how rapidly government has grown since it's inception by the founders in the 18th century, is it not better to abolish the "cancer" instead of giving a piece of paper that says" don't grow"? There will always be individuals who look to exploit via authority, remove their power.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 5 days ago
@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX And you really think that by removing "government" you automatically remove hierarchy, too?
Calling that pov optimistic would be a mild judgement imo.
Besides, what´s bad about "authority" (if based on skills)?
And how come you "libertarians" have your "authorities", too?
TheHomoludens 5 days ago
@TheHomoludens Libertarianism doesn't advocate elimination of the state, it advocates the minimization of the state to the powers enumerated in the original constitution. When you talk about elimination of the state, you are talking about anarchy. There's a gigantic difference between elimination of the state and minimizing the state. The first 100 years or so of our country's federal government is more or less an example Libertarian philosophy probably is most like.
MrTheKatalyst 4 days ago
@MrTheKatalyst "The first 100 years or so of our country's federal government is more or less an example Libertarian philosophy probably is most like."
Yeah, great, so let´s get back to slave labour and killing millions of natives!
That´ll surely prepare us for the 21. century.
TheHomoludens 4 days ago
You're just demagogueing now. No matter how small we make the government, slavery is not going to return, and there's no "natives" to kill. Be realistic, not idealistic.
MrTheKatalyst 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTheKatalyst "No matter how small we make the government, slavery is not going to return"
It´s never been gone, specially when you take a look at the intenational working conditions involved in production. People today spend more time "working" than even in the feudal middle age. Of course the material wealth has gone up, but: how long can this be sustained, when this wealth is built on burning finite resources like oil and gas?
TheHomoludens 4 days ago
@MrTheKatalyst And I´ve given up taking one specific political position (minimal state/capitalist vs. welfare state/socialist), because imho most importantly, before a workable public decision can take place, most people would need to be aware of al relevant information and have to give up their illusions.
Unfortunately this seems very unlikely to happen, so I´ll rather see more ideologically lead people push their "truth" and "solution"...
TheHomoludens 4 days ago
@TheHomoludens You realize how ridiculous and pointless that sounds right? Ideologically arguments are useless if nothing practical comes of them, as is the case with left-wing rhetoric and a large portion of right wing "conservative" rhetoric. They preach nice sounding things, but they offer very little substance. If you want to have an ideological or philosophical argument, at least TRY and make it practically applicable. Otherwise it's useless.
MrTheKatalyst 4 days ago
@MrTheKatalyst Capitalism is an idealistic concept (based on the idea of rational "homo oeconomicus").
Reality doesn´t submit to concepts.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens You really need to think about what you're saying before you say it. Every single concept and philosophy starts with some type of idealistic concept. The founding fathers were extremely idealistic, they were just intelligent enough to understand how to implement that ideal into reality. The problem with most pro-state ideals is they focus on ideals that sound good strictly as ideals but rarely ever work the same way in reality. They usually just lead to oppression.
MrTheKatalyst 2 days ago
@MrTheKatalyst "You really need to think about what you're saying before you say it."
I do and you should stop patronizing, young fool!
"They usually just lead to oppression."
I consider unchecked power to be the greatest threat to freedom.
Like I already wrote, I don´t submit to any ideology, reality doesn´t either...
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@MrTheKatalyst "Every single concept and philosophy starts with some type of idealistic concept"
Wrong! That statement describes ideologies.
True philosophy starts with questions like:
"what´s there and why?" and "what can I be sure of?"
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens I really don't get it. You defend statism and bash libertarian style minimalist government, but then say that you consider unchecked power to be the greatest threat to freedom. I absolutely do not understand what you are getting at. It would seem as though you are just trying to argue for the sake of it. My comment on ideologies was worded incorrectly, I understand what a philosophy is. My point is that mostly every movement is driven ideologically.
MrTheKatalyst 2 days ago
@MrTheKatalyst "You defend statism"
Bullshit, you have you read my comments that weren´t adressed to you?
You´re really just a young angry fool.
And no, I don´t consider age to be of any importance, but I neither tried to impose my "truths" on anyone.
Fucking read what I wrote before you atttack me without good reason!
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
@TheHomoludens And I will continue to patronize you because I really don't believe you know what you're talking about. Being older then me does not automatically make your statements more valid. If anything, it makes them less. The current generation of young people will be the generation likely hit the hardest by whatever consequences come as a result of whatever path we take in the near future. I think my opinion should matter quite a bit.
MrTheKatalyst 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens There's a lot of perfectly reasonable arguments you can make in defense of a non-minimalist state (welfare/regulated). The return of slavery is not one of them.
MrTheKatalyst 4 days ago
@TheHomoludens Sounds like some of that liberal selective history-remembering again. Capitalism depends on people to act as rational actors in a free market of voluntary exchange--where the exchange of both labor and goods is voluntary. It was the capitalist, industrialized north who destroyed the feudal, agrarian south; it is a ridiculous straw man to attempt to paint capitalism as a proponent of slavery or coercion.
Success0527 2 days ago
@Success0527 "Capitalism depends on people to act as rational actors"
That´s why it´s flawed: people aren´t "rational"!
Besides, can you even define "rational"?
"it is a ridiculous straw man to attempt to paint capitalism as a proponent of slavery or coercion."
No, it´s not. I´ve never had the choice to not live under "capitalistic" conditions!
No coercion? Yeah, keep your blinders on, shield yourself from anything contradicting your ideology!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@Success0527 I should have been more precise:
"people aren´t rational": of course, they´re "rational", too, but not 100% of the time and without 100% consequence.
Btw, new studies in the field of neuroscience imply that pure "left-brain" rationality is less effective than "holistic" thinking involving intellect and emotions (e.g. "EQ" by Goleman).
If your starting premises are wrong (idealized "homo oeconomicus"), all deductions will be, too, no matter how correct the reasoning is otherwise.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
In the words of Vito Corleone: Never trust a jew.
TradingTutor 1 week ago
aw shucks i hoped it was Rothbard with a Bazooka.
AdurianJ 1 week ago 10
There´s no "necessity of a society", Rothbard is commiting a non-sequitur here.
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
Where has a country made laws without a government?
Keeban3 1 week ago
@Keeban3 I´ve been trying to argue with libertarians for a while. most won´t answer questions, that go against their ideology.
Imho "libertarianism" is pushed forward by plutocratic "elites", because it´s useful in order to both critizise the obviously flawed status quo and still push people to obey economics as only organizing principle.
"the market will take care of that" - mantra...
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens
Freedom is an organizing principle.
Keeban3 1 week ago
@Keeban3 I strongly disagree.
To me it feels completely different.
I can reckognize that concerning organization a negative definition of freedom ("freedom from...") can make sense, but as a general definition I find that too narrow.
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens
People organize themselves. Little to no coercion is necessary. What makes it an organizing principle is the less coercion the better. But when you look into it, you'd be surprised what the market can take care of. You'd be even more surprised at what your compatriots thought the market could not take care of at different times in different locations (for example, socialists that claimed libertarians wanted to get rid of religion because we removed government sponsorship).
Keeban3 1 week ago
@Keeban3 Yeah, again the same libertards´ slogan:
"the market takes care of everything"
What is the "market"? and "everything"?
I´m not interested in your metaphysical concepts...
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens
The market is whatever interactions free people make in trade. And it does provide everything. If I want to eat, I go buy food. If I want a phone, I go buy it.
If you want it, it behooves someone to make it. So in that sense, yes it provides everything.
Keeban3 1 week ago
@Keeban3 "in that sense"
That´s why your ideas make you autistic. You only consider what can be traded.
I´ve grown up in a family where growing one´s own food has been tradition and find a lot of eatable stuff in nature, so I don´t go along your perspective.
And i think that any political system should consider more aspects of life than "economics".
What´s your idea of "freedom"?
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens
Well, then Mr. Self-sustainability, just how long could you live without anyone to trade with. Sure you can grow your own food, but think of building a house without nails or a hammer? Though I do approve of you not trading. It would bar you from the internet.
Economics covers all human action. Surely a political system should not cover more than that.
And I already told you what freedom is: non-coercion (or more specifically non-initiation of force).
Keeban3 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Keeban3 "Economics covers all human action. Surely a political system should not cover more than that."
No, it doesn´t. How about health? How about traing something like Tai Chi? Walking in the sun? How about relationships in general?
"And I already told you what freedom is: non-coercion (or more specifically non-initiation of force)."
1. no, you didn´t.
2. That´s a too narrow definition for me.
Your thinking is autistic.
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@Keeban3 Medieval Iceland, Medieval Ireland, English Common Law, Early Pennsylvania, the American Old West - all examples of fully-functioning legal systems emerging independent of the state (some of which lasted for centuries).
StatelessLiberty 1 week ago 11
@StatelessLiberty
The first two have a central authority which decides law, and judiciary. I don't see what makes this not government, unless you define government as collecting taxes. I can easily imagine a taxless state, but I cannot imagine functioning without any central authority to decide what law is. Likewise the old West seems like local governance. But Pennsylvania is certainly an interesting case. Thank you for showing me where to start looking.
Keeban3 1 week ago
@Keeban3 "The first two have a central authority which decides law, and judiciary."
Really? That's not how I understood their legal systems to function. Could you provide a source for that?
StatelessLiberty 1 week ago
@StatelessLiberty
Here is quote from the Mises Institute on Iceland: "If a dispute was not settled by the private courts, the dispute would go up the ladder to the next highest court until the dispute was resolved." And the cheiftans of the Godards met to decide law. I was wrong saying this is a central authority, instead it is a collection of nine authorities which you can choose which one you follow. If this isn't correct, you can correct me in a PM, so we don't have to deal with char lim
Keeban3 1 week ago
Comment removed
zbyszanna 1 week ago
HOLY SHIT!
That's my guys. I'm in this. That's the street corner of 3900 block of Forbes Avenue in Pittsburgh during the G20. Never expected to see MYSELF in this video lol.
With all respect to Murray Rothbard, that's really not the "crippling & parasitic blight of state power". That's providing protection for the leaders of the worlds most powerful 20 nations & preventing a bunch of unskilled, uninformed, dirtball malcontents (& many onlookers) from interjecting themselves into the process.
mredstriumph 1 week ago
@mredstriumph
But I get it. They needed a clip of cops in riot gear for the illustration.
Fact is tho.. the police didn't go into anyone's neighborhood, or go out looking for trouble - much less look for ppl to oppress - which is NOT something that any of the black masked anarchist bolsheviks in that crowd can say
Most of 'em imported from the left coast & the UK w the sole idea of causing destruction & mayhem. Yeah.. they jacked up the police mini station because nobody was in it, b thats it
mredstriumph 1 week ago
"Private Persons" the videos says. But without the state, who says what is private and what isn't. Under state laws/constitutions, you have private property rights. Without it, you just have property that you can guard with your life because there would be no Law prohibiting me from taking your property, or you having the option of calling Law Enforcement.
cupocity303 2 weeks ago
@cupocity303 I'd recommend watching this video: /watch?v=Yz0AvdqRVnI to understand how the proposed free market stateless legal system might work.
StatelessLiberty 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StatelessLiberty It still doesnt work.Rights Enforcement Company A doesnt necessarily have commitments with Companies E-Z. This is an assumption made byFriedman.If the above assumption is untrue, he is left with infinite levels of arbitration. This is obviously inefficient.Then, David commits the same fallacy as zeitgeist. How is every individual to know whether or not a law may be positive or negative? Also this measure is subjective rather than objective thus unscientific
cupocity303 2 weeks ago
Bastiat makes the same point in the Law, i.e. that society and the state are 2 different things and statists confuse the two as one. Society exists first and the state/government is created by society in order to protect the rights of the individuals.
BrooklynAnna 2 weeks ago
Parasite was the word I was thinking of just before the narrator said it. Our govt acts and functions very much like the mafia. Extorting money from people with the threat of violence and handing some of it back to the unwashed masses to curry favor with them. Disgusting.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 3 weeks ago
@atticusdeep What is your so called 'new perspective'? Reversion to primitive social systems is no answer. The problem isn't with the system but with the people, and by people I mean the citizens or really humans in general. Your solution is what?
thraxman 3 weeks ago
To all statists: If government represents the majority of the people, then why do we need government to complete tasks that would already be in favor with the majority of the people?
If the people support educating the poor (if you can call it education), then it would make sense that they would all be willing to pay for public education, correct? Then at which point do we need the govt to do this?
zdrux 3 weeks ago
Praxeology, son. Stick to it. Best get your mind right.
aretlev 3 weeks ago
Murray Rothbard killed the argument as it was presented, but what would Rothbard say if the same argument were presented but included in it the fact that human beings are violent by nature, the state is violence incarnate, therefore because humans are violent by nature, the state is required by human nature because of the fact that we're constantly looking for an excuse to exercise some kind of violence on someone else.
TheManiacalSatanist6 3 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
I imagine he would argue, as Frederic Bastiat did in "The Law," that if you cannot trust Men to be civilized in society, why in the world would you trust Men with power over others in the form of government?
atticusdeep 3 weeks ago
@atticusdeep I'm not saying that you should trust men in government, I'm saying that government is required by human nature because we're violent by nature.
TheManiacalSatanist6 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheManiacalSatanist6
"I'm saying that government is required by human nature because we're violent by nature."
And where do you think the most violent and controlling of people will try to work? Perhaps, the government? Where they will have power over police forces and armies?
If people are violent and controlling by nature, then we shouldn't we work to deny them the avenues of power that a government provides?
jarvy251 3 weeks ago
@jarvy251 I'm not saying we shouldn't work to prevent it (because actually violent means are the only means that have any significant effect), I'm saying that because of the violent nature of human beings, and because human beings are always looking for means by which to enact this violence, the State will always exist because there's no real way of getting rid of it in any long-term capacity.
TheManiacalSatanist6 2 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
Ah, yes. I have similar concerns. We're in a cycle.
As we're given freedom, we become more prosperous. As we become more prosperous, we begin to question the need for masters. The masters then tighten the leash in a desperate attempt to keep control, and it all comes crashing down.
I'm hoping that miracles like the internet will help break the cycle once and for all, but I'm not optimistic.
jarvy251 2 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 The arguement is that we need a government to use violence in order to prevent people from using violence.
MrGreeneggsnham 2 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham And I'm posing a counter-argument to Rothbard's response that because the government is violence, and humans are violent by nature, government is therefore required by human nature.
TheManiacalSatanist6 2 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 You have not solved anything. You just create a privledged class that can use limitless amounts of voilence. The only difference is that the government voilence is socially acceptable and private voilence is not.
MrGreeneggsnham 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGreeneggsnham "You have not solved anything. You just create a privledged class that can use limitless amounts of voilence."
I don't think you're getting the argument. Because of the fact that the State is violence, and human beings are violent by nature, the State will therefore always exist because humans on the whole are always looking to enact some sort of violence on each other.
TheManiacalSatanist6 2 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 I understand it's just a YouTube handle, but if you are a Satanist, how can you justify Statism? Satanism is a philosphy of pure individualism.
anarchoutis 2 weeks ago
@anarchoutis I am a Satanist, but I'm also a realist. The reality is simple; human being are too violent for the State not to exist. It usually comes about through violent means, and the means it uses are always violent.
TheManiacalSatanist6 2 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 So, are you trying to justify it's existance, or just saying it is inevitable?
anarchoutis 2 weeks ago
@anarchoutis Just saying it's inevitable, given the contradiction of Human Nature.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 week ago
@anarchoutis
Satanism is NOT a philosophy of "pure individualism". Satan's plan is to create a counterfeit system that attempts to mimic the perfection of God's
Make no mistake, Satan uses selfishness, stupidity, & envy to accomplish his plans, but in his heart he HATES the worthless unsteady corrupt imperfect dupes who follow him. He sees them for what they are, & is ashamed. In his heart, he wants to create something beautiful & "worthy" of himself - his ends are4pure totalitarian order
mredstriumph 1 week ago
@mredstriumph You're mistaken. I was referring to Satanism, as in Anton La Vey's Church of Satan, which, despite it's name, has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology. Do a Google search. The more you know!
anarchoutis 1 week ago
@anarchoutis
Well I do make mistakes, but I don't think this was one of them..
Why? Anton La Vey:
w w w -DOT- youtube -DOT- com/watch?v=8nWt_U2gEEI
w w w -DOT- youtube -DOT- com/watch?v=zuQlu6EkeX4
mredstriumph 1 week ago
@mredstriumph And that is proof of nothing. Even if there was video footage of what this person claims happened, people say all sorts of crazy shit on their deathbed (not to mention when they are alive). Considering he didn't worship Satan, as LaVey Satanism is not a theistic religion, but an egoist philosophy, I think you are missing the point. Anyway, this has nothing to do with this Rothbard video. Go and research the Church of Satan. It's nothing to do with Devil worshipping.
anarchoutis 1 week ago
@anarchoutis
yeah..
That's what La Vey thought too.
mredstriumph 1 week ago
@mredstriumph Good argument. Your logic is impeccable.
anarchoutis 1 week ago
@anarchoutis
Boy.. you REALLY take things personally, don't you?
mredstriumph 1 week ago
@mredstriumph Eh? What exactly do you think I took personally? We were having a discussion, and I simply used sarcasm to express how you lack basic debating skills. Nothing personal about it. Just saying what I see.
My point being, that you gave no evidence for your assertion that LaVey 'repented' his 'sinful' ways at the time of his death. Because, bottom line, your opinion doesn't matter. It's the facts that count.
anarchoutis 1 week ago
@anarchoutis
That "La Vey repented" wasn't what I said or asserted at all, but I've already devoted enough time to this.
mredstriumph 1 week ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6
That's more of a grasp for straws, really.
I fap a lot, other people fap a lot, therefore the state is required because we're constantly looking for an excuse to fap a lot.
fountainherz 2 weeks ago
@fountainherz That's a stawman. The state isn't connected to fapping in any way.
TheManiacalSatanist6 2 weeks ago
@LucisFerre1 Sorry, but I am sorta confused, what fact supports what result/ prediction?
thraxman 3 weeks ago
That is an interesting philosophy, I've not researched this yet but when he says 'Quite the contrary' in terms of the states... state among us, What I'm getting is that it isn't natural from his perspective, Unless I'm reading that out of context, is man not naturally communal (we'll ignore war and crime for this example)
markpharchezzi 3 weeks ago
@markpharchezzi
Nono, your definitely misunderstood the video.
He's saying that society and government are irrelevant; two completely separate things. For instance, everyone I know eats food. If the government reflected society then surely the government would make food for us, but this is obviously not the case. We don't need the government to make our food because we can make it ourselves. Apply this same argument to everything the government does: that's the point of the video.
anonymous8261631 3 weeks ago
@anonymous8261631 Oh. Well goodness, thank you.
markpharchezzi 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Could you please tell us what Society without State would look like ? I'm interesting in hearing some more bullshit.
cinqueleon 3 weeks ago
@cinqueleon "Bullshit" Oh noes! You just totally debunked libertarianism! I look forward to more of your insightful, intelligent comments.
(Prediction: You're an over-opinionated economic illiterate, who doesn't realise that many economists share my views)
StatelessLiberty 3 weeks ago 29
@cinqueleon You can do this yourself. Male a list of all the things the state does, then go through it and imagine another way that thing could be accomplished. For instance building roads, providing schooling, etc. There are historical examples that can be found with a little research. When you come across something that only the State can do, like waging war, remove it from the list. When finish the list you will have a description of a Stateless society.
offramp100 3 weeks ago
@cinqueleon You 400 years ago:
Could you please tell us what Society without a King would look like?
I'm interested in hearing more bullshit.
gigahertz123 3 weeks ago
@gigahertz123 Haha Exactly! People unable to imagine anything different desperately cling to status quo. Thankfully, many of our ancestors were not so close-minded.
atticusdeep 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
atticusdeep 3 weeks ago
@cinqueleon Interesting phrasing. Could you please tell us what society "looks like" right now. "Ummm tall buildings... colorful billboards...street lights..." Yah, that's what it would look like! Only without the large God-like statues of previous rulers.
atticusdeep 3 weeks ago
@cinqueleon I would recommend getting an education in economics my friend. It not as boring as it sounds. Believe me.
NEGCOB 3 weeks ago
@StatelessLiberty hey Stateless I was just wondering what you think of the term Autarchy? Would you be inclined to use it over the term anarchy?
CloverfieldMonster95 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from StatelessLiberty
So this is where it all begins: The falsely dichotomous crackpot idea that the state can only do evil whereas non-state actors can only be virtuous.
fuzzyone99 4 weeks ago
@fuzzyone99
No, it begins with the concept that the evil of non-state actors can be checked more easily than the evil of state actors because of the absence of a recognized monopoly on force.
Aphoresis 4 weeks ago
Good job and thanks for posting this excellent video with links. I love mises DOT org.
magentawave 1 month ago
Polycentric Law is what man naturally gravitates toward the concept of a monopoly state has to forced on the people as a religion generation after generation.
Luigi84289 1 month ago
Good video. Thanks for uploading it.
Can you do me a huge favour though? I've never seen that chart before, starting at 1:29, but it looks fascinating. I was wondering if you know of a link to it anywhere, or at least what it's called.
MeanEyedCats 1 month ago
@MeanEyedCats See description!
StatelessLiberty 1 month ago 3
@StatelessLiberty Thank you, sir! I should have been more thorough. :)
MeanEyedCats 1 month ago
@MeanEyedCats It looks fascinating? I cried when I saw it because I know people study that stuff. I feel bad for them, it was painful to look at. lol.
Zimnyification 1 week ago
@Zimnyification Do you mind explaining? From what I can tell, all it is is a chart which tracks ruling regimes by region and time period, and having that all visually organized would be eminently useful for any thinking person.
MeanEyedCats 1 week ago
The question is if all govt ceases what would become of corps, because govt disappears does not mean corps disappear, nor does wealth, organization. structure eg Somalia when without govt per-se there still were mini war lord states. Corps do not have to be the pretty things we are fooled to think they are today existing hand in hand with govt, they can be warlord corps along the lines of PIRATES, plantations, govt has been attack for a variety or reasons not always good ones.
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
Government does not precisely equal a state (monarch) corporations (corporate states) viewed structurally as states within states (governments) not merely society, corps
can take many forms East Indian Co. West India Trading Co.where they administrate territories, own slaves, constitute local govt, the economy, wage wars, arbitrate issues
of "law", have armies to enforce decisions, punish violators, run hospitals and schools (also there is also the MODERN STATE which is different.
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
lets get high and talk about how the government is keeping us down man
Duffblue 1 month ago
@Duffblue Or we could get sober and talk about the systematic chaos caused by central planning.
StatelessLiberty 1 month ago 3
Sometimes I wonder if libertarianism is nothing more than delusional idealism.
The confirmation bias, the bold generalizations without supportive argumentation, and the abject certainty on display in this clip are perfect examples.
thraxman 1 month ago
@thraxman The irony being of course that you haven't supported anything you've said. All you've done is spout a bunch of meaningless buzzwords.
Are we even watching the same video? Very clear argumentation was made to support each point. Still, this is just a very short extract from a larger body of work, and you expect it to be a complete argument against the state? I think you're the one with confirmation bias.
"Delusional idealism" - the favourite ad-hom of stupid people everywhere.
StatelessLiberty 1 month ago 25
@thraxman
delusional idealism? No you're thinking of Socialism, including closeted Socialism which is the most common variety.
Aphoresis 4 weeks ago
@thraxman Actually libertarianism is probably the most fact supported approach out there.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
atticusdeep 3 weeks ago
@thraxman "delusional idealism" As if peoples' hopes and dreams for what would be accomplished through government and socialism was not "delusional." The only thing delusional here is that people still support the same philosophies regarding government that have always failed and repeatedly resulted in the mass slaughter of human beings.
A new perspective on the role of government is necessary to avoid the same pitfalls of history, and it is "crazy" to ignore this fact.
atticusdeep 3 weeks ago
Dear Fucking anarchists and right-wing libertarians, I don't as some suggest gullible to believe accept or otherwise as you slanderous suggest believe government can resolve all problems but then again realistically looking at corporations how they behave act, I am not a fool as you to believe you can prevent them without a counter society organization which in itself would constitute also a state as what you present as libertarians is the corporate delusion of a soft white under belly.
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou PS most anarchy are lame self-serving dogmatists of the libertarian kind who talk petty bourgeois anarcho trash right before they awkwardly quote Robert's rules of order (eg. IWW SPUSA SDS etc et al et seq or use force to express themselves) get rid of the agents in your midst and we can talk.
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou Governments created corporations, and it is from governments that corporations get a lot of their power.
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
@PluralOfEverything you now switch arguments, when the questions originally posed by libertarians and anarchists as they do not believe in a state as intrinsically bad "evil" so you bait and switch, as if reality can be separated from fact without creating fiction,supposing "private wealth can be mastered" in what often overshadows government and communities, often surpassing in wealth and resources, what
communities must master to survive with autonomy.anarchy libertarianism = BOGUS
sophistry
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou I've never said anything to you before, so how can I be switching arguments? I was just telling you that government is the reason corporations have become the monsters they are today, and in the absence of government, they would most likely disappear.
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
@PluralOfEverything yeah right tag team match you say, NO corps will not disappear which was my point exactly stated many posts ago, without a state society most likely would fragment, and corporations as part thereof would attempt to survive existing in a
hypothetical fiction of Mad Max meets feudalism as an Asian autarchy Godfather remix as material wealth equals energy in E=MC2 not merely mass as convertible in a meltdown so corps won't just go away Anarcho losers
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou That's quite an imagination you have there. I wish I could understand what you're saying, but your replies are a jumble of disjointed thoughts. I can't untie them very well, but from what I think I understand, you're saying that government is all that stands between society and chaos. I think you're wrong. I think things would only get better with no government.
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
@PluralOfEverything government does not precisely equal a state (monarch) corporations (corporate states) can be viewed structurally as states withing states (governments) not merely society, corporations can take many forms East Indian Company, West India Trading Company, where they administrate territories, own slaves, constitute the government and the economy, waging wars, in the local administration of "law" and have armies to enforce it, execute violators, also there is the MODERN STATE.
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou I am against any organization that is funded with money taken from people under the threat of violence. It doesn't matter what the money is used for or what the appropriation of the money is called. Stealing is wrong. I'm also against organizations that train people to become killers and then send them all over the world to kill people. Killing is wrong.
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
@PluralOfEverything well then you are pathetically full of it life is a constant life if you want safety go to Mars or Venus or die you might be safe as dead.
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou Is english your first language? I'm really having trouble deciphering what you're saying.
Are you saying that life is all about stealing and killing?
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
@PluralOfEverything you are a baseless artificial twat what drugs you take this morning
DUDE YOU WANT UTOPIA FIND IT GO THERE BE MY GUESS LEAVE CAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING DELUSIONAL cruel cruel world yes yes I know
AndrewStergiou 1 month ago
@AndrewStergiou I'm glad you're a statist. I'd hate to have someone like you on my side.
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
Great use of footage here!
OBQM 1 month ago
So you're saying you don't want giant mutant radioactive kittens? Why do you hate America?
BLARGHALT 1 month ago
It's mah freedom as an american to take this toxic waste and dump it into the drinking water of the orphanarium/sad kitten depository
BLARGHALT 1 month ago
@BLARGHALT Obvious troll is obvious.
dyne313 1 month ago 3
I am a stronger believer in the Hayekian argument on this topic. In order to stop one from coercing another, society must have an instrument of coercion, solely dedicated to coercing those who wish to coerce others. I also prefer Locke's theories of governance. Locke in essence states that while governance is not natural, it is necessary to avoid a state of perpetual war. I am not saying Rothbard is a bad guy, but I do believe the state is necessary for a free society.
willden15 1 month ago
Yes, it is certainly peaceful and voluntary when you starve me to death.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@derriderrida
Another freedom equivocator. Freedom ≠ free stuff.
/watch?v=ZBQPwF5OmRI
StatelessLiberty 1 month ago
@StatelessLiberty
I never said that. I said that if I'm starving or poor you cannot say that my actions are free or voluntary, no more that you can say that my actions are free or voluntary if you point a gun to my head.
Economic power is a power. A power capable of coercing other people in the same way as any political power.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@derriderrida
Everybody exerts influence over everyone else by virtue of living in society. If I produce something you want, then you are compelled by your desires to offer something to exchange. I have influenced you, but not subjugated you. In fact, I have made you better off.
Simply by having wealth per se, a rich person hasn't enslaved anyone.
Coercion is aggressive violence, any other definition leads to absurd conclusions - like that inanimate natural forces are "coercive".
StatelessLiberty 1 month ago 12
@StatelessLiberty
The reason why it is absurd to describe natural forces as coercive is because they describe behaviors and not prescribe them. Economic laws on the other hand fall both under descriptive and prescriptive. We know it is prescriptive because we can argue on how they should be and not only how they are. Denying this would lead to absurd conclusion like a sort of Platonism of economics.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@StatelessLiberty but going back on topic.
There is a difference between desire and NEED. While the first you can refute it, the second you cannot, it's literally blackmailing. And I don't have many possibilities as we don't live in simply the natural order but in a cultural constructed order. Yet I never chose to enter the contract of society, I was thrown into it and people enforce it with weapons.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@StatelessLiberty, agreed. I'm often bewildered by those on the left and sometimes right who don't seem to grasp the simple conceptual difference between coercion and persuasion. I still run into people convinced that commercials "force" people to buy their consumer goods rather than simply making an appealing offer, an option, to a free, thinking individual. 'Mind-blowing.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@derriderrida,
"I said that if I'm starving or poor you cannot say that my actions are free or voluntary,"
The only way that your actions would not be voluntary is if you reacted by stimuli, like an animal. Even a person suffering from hunger has to make a decision between different available options, i.e. to steal something to eat or NOT to steal something to eat. You may say that those are lousy choices but choices they are nonetheless.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@derriderrida,
"Economic power is a power."
This is equivocation. A person of greater economic means still has to engage in exchange within voluntary participants. If a person resorts to violence, then he is NOT engaging in economic exchange, thus your argument falls flat.
"A power capable of coercing other people in the same way as any political power."
Economic power does not coerce. This is an oxymoron, D. Coercion is violence, not economics or exchange.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
@derriderrida
I disagree. If you are poor, you are still free, and your actions are voluntary. What you can do is limited, but you are free to do whatever you want with the options you have. In a free society where the economy is working, it is entirely possible for you to find work such that you will give yourself a measure of financial security. Once poor, not always poor.
mmille10 1 month ago
@mmille10 @ftorresgamez IF your argument is correct then you are always free no matter the conditions are. Even a man in prison is still free, "he can do whatever he wants, his options are limited but he is still free".
Even businesses today are free: if they don't want to pay taxes they don't have to. Markets are already free.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@derriderrida No, didn't say that. Being poor is not the same as being in prison. In prison you live the way *someone else* wants you to. Your options are only what you are *given*. Just because you do not have unlimited options out in society, which you are responsible for finding for yourself, does not equate to being in prison. Your statement about business and taxes is inaccurate. They don't get to not pay just because they don't want to.
mmille10 1 month ago
@mmille10 I don't see the difference. If I'm poor I have less options available for me and if I'm in prison I have less options available too.
If I'm poor I can't live in a manhattan loft, if I'm in prison I can't live in a manhattan loft.
You say "yes but if you are poor you can move and live where you want" yes and so you can ask for cell transfer in most prisons, and hey you are always free to evade from prison and live in the woods, what stops you?
derriderrida 1 month ago
@mmille10 and of course companies don't get not to pay taxes just because they want to. Poor people don't get to be successful just because they want to, they have to use their talents and ingenuity to become successful. So do company: they have to be smart to evade taxes and not get caught, but they are totally free to do that.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@derriderrida,
"Even a man in prison is still free,"
He still has free will, derrida. The difference is in the actions of the jailer, which are to be judged, but not the prisoner's.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
@derriderrida There is a big difference between "economic power" and "political power". The difference lies in that economic power arises from entrepreneurs that best catter to consumers needs, so their power really derives from the consumer´s patronage on the first place. Political power is no different than criminal activity, the difference is that this is legally sanction and justified by the state itself.
megatherium100 1 month ago
@megatherium100 One could easily say that the electors are the consumers of the product politics.
derriderrida 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@derriderrida,
"Yes, it is certainly peaceful and voluntary when you starve me to death."
If you starve because I refuse to give you what you want, how is this different from starving because what you want is 3000 miles away? What would stop you from applying labor to obtain nourishment, be it through an exchange of goods or by direct gathering from nature? You cannot avoid applying labor to SOMETHING, as there is no Paradise of superabundance.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
@ftorresgamez There is a difference between something that I desire and something that I need to survive. There is a difference between my desire for an Ipod and my need for a medical cure that will permit to live a normal life.
I can renounce the first, but you can blackmail me into submission with the second: if you are the one possessing it no matter how high is your price I will accept it or I won't be able to live.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@derriderrida,
"There is a difference between my desire for an Ipod and my need for a medical cure that will permit to live a normal life."
The difference resides in your subjective value judgment of the two. If I am not sick, for me that cure will be worthless. You cannot ascribe a moral value on either the iPod or the cure because people value things differently.
Rwegarding the blackmail issue, I can still choose to go without the cure. I still have choice.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
@ftorresgamez It was to make understand the difference between something that you need and something that you desire. Some things are a precondition to a person partecipation on the market.
If even as black mailed a person is still free, than one is always free, this means that even businesses are always free and thus there is no reason to liberalize the market.
derriderrida 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@derriderrida,
"It was to make understand the difference between something that you need and something that you desire."
There's no real difference - that's the point. You cannot presume to know what I need. What I need depends on my subjective valuation. You might say "You need food!" and give me a sandwich, when in fact *I* need a wrench to finish install a new pipe.
Again, the judgment is in the person that persists on the aggressive action i.e. the government.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
@derriderrida Freedom is intrinsic to the conscience of an individual,but the inability to realize it as the result of actions taken by another entity defeats it in that way. so prisoners are NOT free.
sex cannot be consensual AND rape. You and I can lay down to make love or I can throw across a dining table and rape you and say that it was consensual(though it wasn't).
Ravengaurd6 1 month ago
@ftorresgamez I'm not complaining about the existence of work. I'm pointing out that economic inequalities are inequalities in power that make the asymmetric the contractual power on prices.
Only the belief that the market price is always the correct price can justify this situation. But that situation is only post-hoc. We build it after the fact. We say that the market price contains information yet it is only a quantitative information and not a qualitative. This is why needs to be balanced.
derriderrida 1 month ago
@derriderrida,
"Only the belief that the market price is always the correct price can justify this [inequality]."
This is an absurd argument. It's like saying that the reliance on a ruler justifies the height of a person's house. NO, it doesn't - prices merely convey information, just like the ruler conveys it. Just because you change the ruler does not make your house any taller than before. ACCURATE prices give you an ACCURATE picture of reality, that's the bottom line.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
@ftorresgamez It's just saying that measuring books on page numbers does make some shitty literature.
An accurate price may be a signal expressing an accurate facet of reality, but not give an accurate picture of reality. Even physics is not beyond some skepticism thus certainly economic is not anymore certain since its epistemological grounds are pretty shitty.
derriderrida 1 month ago