Anarchy and Economy p1: basic concepts

[Pi11z3ury]

You are a naive and flawed narrator lol

[JesseForgione]

I thought this would be great at first. At the beginning you say things about economics that are quite profound. But it's Statism that is a naive and flawed ideology. And you could not know what "market growth" is if you can call the goal of maximizing it "short-sighted." Market growth is specifically the improvement of future conditions (satisfaction of human wants) through the investment of present capital and labor. It's defining requirement is far-sightedness.

[kutthroat84]

anachro-capitalism is by-far an oxymoron..

[elpapaya94]

I don't quite understand anarcho-communism. Communist ideology obviously states that production should be equally distributed among laborers working in a union of market and state. Altering the concept of communism to fit the principles of anarchist economy completely changes the purpose of communism itself. I thought that the only anarcho-communism and most other forms of communism where only related when it comes to economy, but apparently, i'm wrong.

[Thebeatinginmyheart]

why compare it to religion? :S

[amgervinus]

I'd like to say, A.Smith was an idiot..sorry, but that's the truth.

[mikeyooh7]

Have you even read The Wealth of Nations?

Everything in it makes perfect sense and seems to be natural inherent. Smith was not an market anarchist and cared greatly about the struggle of the poor created during the industrial revolution. He believed that the government had an obligation to the poor affected by capitalism. You should really read it he is one of the brightest men to every write about economics and uses simple examples that the ordinary person understands.

[wowtrax]

You can't have read any of Smith's work and have that opinion. Just look at how many subjects his writings have covered:

Economics, history, law and government, language and the arts, astronomy, ancient logics and metaphysics. In addition to tihs he was also arguably the first classical economist, who was years before his time.

[princessotto]

justification?

[DoomHippie]

Yes, she was an Anarcho-Communist. But Anacho-Communist beliefs are way different then what most people today think of as "communism."

[DoomHippie]

Um, Emma Goldman was an anachist, not a communist.

[teewillis1981]

Emma Goldman was a communist.

[Therojo]

This saga of videos is about anarchcapitalism

[KommanderWill]

The government solution to a problem is not always, and usually isn't, the best solution. Even in terms of contract enforcement and law.

[KommanderWill]

other party would go to the agency for compensation. The agency could then blacklist the breaching party, refusing to insure any more contracts with them. They could share/sell this info to other agencies. With contracts insured and adequate records kept, parties could be protected from breaches of contract, and there would be a deterrence to breach. A business would step in the middle, assuming the risk for a profit. On a market, this would probably prevail over bloodshed.

[KommanderWill]

There are many novel ideas in regards to the workings of an anarcho-capitalist society. Here is one: contract enforcement. IN anarchy, there is no state to enforce contracts on breaching parties.So the anarchist comes to a dilemma, how do you enforce contracts in anarchy? Private firms could bust down doors and make people fufill thier contracts, this would be the strict privitization of the government. Or, agencies could insure contracts. If a party didn't perform...continued

[audiorob]

Having read David Friedman, the clearest flaw with the theory of anarchy is the inability of the market to provide public goods, especially military defense, but also street lights, the regulation of pollution etc.

[agenttachyon]

My worry is that rather than seeking to improve their products to comply with the demands of the consumers companies would rather lie and cheat and circumvent the rules (get their buddies in the media to endorse products, industrial espionage ect).

[MicheasTheMighty]

Those are good points, and ones which anarchists and laissez-faire capitalists have hardly scratched the surface of. Especially the whole issue of regulating emissions and companies dumping hazardous waste wherever it's convenient. Look no further than General Electric and its contamination of the Hudson River with PCBs before the state stepped in. Issues like these keep me from embracing a freer system than our current mixed economy.

[therrydicule]

If we look at Friedman, the best economy in the world should be HK...

[Libertarian333]

Well considering that the goal of anarchists is NOT maximizing economic growth, but rather maximizing individual liberty, and that economic growth is just a nice bonus, there's no point in continuing with the rest of this series of videos. Since you've started with such a faulty foundation, any truth there may be to your conclusion must be purely accidental.

[AlanCom1]

Also, I agree with you. Regulation is bad! Very bad.

[AlanCom1]

Also how can you administer justice under such circumstances? What if the private court says: you should pay up 10,000 and you say that you don't recognize the legitimacy of the tribunal?

Also, what if an evil country to the south gets 1000 tanks and attacks you.

In an anarchist country, nobody would own a tank, since it's not necessary.

Also, how do you deal with the free-rider problem, if you don't believe in compulsion? Some people would use your services and not pay up.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

If you actually read the work of your role model's son, you might have understood every single one of your questions.

[AlanCom1]

I am a libertarian. My role model is Milton Friedman - libertarian, not his son, David Friedman - anarcho-capitalist.

Is neotropic a socialist as it appears on the main page, or an anti-socialist?

If the govt is really small and dealing only with: Police, courts, Army, we can pay 5% taxes and do whatever we want. The rest can be supplied by the market. Also when the govt is so small, voters can easily monitor the activity of the govt and push out lazy or corrupt politicians.

[sugarpuddin88]

Money runs society

The private bankers at the Federal Reserve Bank own us -- They have run societies & civilizations as far back as Julius Caesar

Caesar was able to take control of the money back from these private bankers - And was thus able to build many remarkable public works projects

Today we owe them 10 Trillion dollars - And they continue to print 3 billion dollars a day out of thin air

[slagathor23]

I'm completely torn when it comes to economic politics. It seems like giving the government control of certain parts of the economy is a good idea, but for the past hundred years or so it seems that the government has been using market control to mainly subsidise large corporations, which seems to have created a strong bond between large corporations and government, giving the corporations political power. We've gone to war so many times now mainly because of corporate interests-

[slagathor23]

And in a truely free market economy the government would have no right to subsidise corporations or invade other countries for corporate interests or economic interests if we believed in non intervention. What's your opinion on this?

[slagathor23]

And in a truely free market economy the government would have no right to subsidise corporations or invade other countries for corporate interests or economic interests if we believed in non intervention. What's your opinion on this?

[slagathor23]

And in a truely free market economy the government would have no right to subsidise corporations or invade other countries for corporate interests or economic interests if we believed in non intervention. What's your opinion on this?

[NYYankeeHater66]

Why did you include a picture of Emma Goldman in this video? She has nothing to do with market anarchism.

[neotropic9]

I haven't watched the video since I made it so I don't know what you're talking about.

[NYYankeeHater66]

Eh, okay. Nevermind then.

[BrightHelmVellas]

Emma Goldman was an anti-authoritarian Marxist. She would be rolling in her grave if she knew she was being connected in any way with this neo-liberal brand of fake anarchism.

[subach]

It was great, right up until the end...

Let me ask you this, have any business committed genocide, started wars, or taken liberty? Governments do it everyday. though I'm not a complete anarchist, I believe the government's only function is keep law and order and provide for the common defense. Anything else is group of people who use government to impose their will on others, and that's no better than religion. That's also why we worry when religion get's ahold of a government.

[ThomasLocke1789]

So how do you figure anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly laws?

anarchism = totalitarianism

within the totally free market conglomerates form, and not only will they become monopolistic but they will surely be totalitarian.

[Nolimit75]

monopolies have never been formed in the free market, every monopoly has been the result of government restricitions(IE Postal service, AT&T monopoly) there will always be someone to undercut the market leader and there will always be nichers, barring government restriction, rendering monopoly impossible in market anarchy. Go read a feraking economics 101 textbook, the intelligence level of youtube scares me sometimes

[anarkoFred]

So how do you figure anti-global government laws?

Global-Government = Totalitarianism.

With government, privates conglemerates are formed anyways, and even faster and more easily than without government. Without the American' state, no corporation could make this much profit. Corporation need the state to make profit on tax payer' back.

[neotropic9]

"Global-Government = Totalitarianism"

this is a premise of yours, not a conclusion.

[anarkoFred]

I know, It was a response to ThomasLocke1789.

Saying

"anarchism(assuming that it lead to monopoly for whatever reason) = totalitarianism"

has not more sens than

"Global-Government(Which would be a legalized monopoly with potentialy unlimited power) = Totalitarianism"

[anarkoFred]

Even if there's McDonalds everywhere in NewYork I still can refuse to eat at McDonald or go eat somewhere else a block further. But in the case of the state I can't refuse the services or refuse to pay for its services no matter if I want to use it or not. And if I want to get services from an other state, I have, not just to go a hundred of miles aways, but to go live in an other state.

STATE = LEGALIZED MONOPOLY

[neotropic9]

"STATE = LEGALIZED MONOPOLY"

this is a point of view, not a fact.

[anarkoFred]

Monopoly:"Situation of market characterized by the presence of a unique seller of good or services." Essentialy the state is the unique seller of political services, banking, laws and regulations, and it has the exclusive power of taxation. If you have those powers you can control a LOTS of others things. It's not just a point of view, the state is in fact a legalized monopoly.

[neotropic9]

I suppose if you believe that the government is "selling" governing then you are right, but as I understand it we vote for politicians in a democracy, and the system is built on equality of opinion, not cash payments.

Would you have us release the production of laws and regulations to market forces? what about police, firefighters, and military?

[anarkoFred]

We do have international laws and cross-law arragement despite the fact that we don't have 1 single planetary government and 1 single planetary system of laws. There's no more reason to create monopolies of law than there's reason to create a monopoly on food, car etc. I see no reason why the provision of law could not be provided by some free-association (democratic management) along with some private companies (profit motive).

[anarkoFred]

The provision of law right now is very expensive, it not free at all, and we pay it one way or an other. Voting don't give real power, buying or boycotting give even more power than voting. The system is on equality of null opinion and on hiden cash payments.

[erkd1]

Excellent video!

[ArchonAlarion]

yeh, but if they coerce you than aren't they iniating aggression?

Secondly, the ghettos are caused by drugs laws (cocaine costs less than sugar to produce, so it isn't lucrative when legalized) and the state welfare sytem.

I would think since you just made a video about non coercion principle you'd remember that.

[johnnyfarragut]

There's enough competition in today's highly intervened market to drive anyone crazy.What would happen if we ever allow market anarchy to take over?

[kurtilein3]

easy to answer.... anarchy is what you will get ^^

i guess it would be somewhere between civil war and armageddon.

[anarkoFred]

Competition is not a problem, why would it drive peoples crazy?

[kurtilein3]

a great introduction, cant wait for the videos :)

at the moment i oppose market anarchism and all that stuff, just because all of them failed to explain to me how the society they envision should work. most of them dont even come up with something, and if they do then i can debunk it with common-sense arguments and they fail to adress those points. its like christians talking about heaven, surely its beautiful to them, but they fail to explain it.

[Luke12000]

The society will do business around the non-aggression principle. Please point out to me where you debunked this.

[kurtilein3]

why should they?

reality tells me that companies do business around principles of getting money.

you need to make a point before i can debunk it, give us reasons why they should behave this way, and then prove that the non-agression principle leads to an optimal moral system.

[Questionablescum]

So are you supposing the Hobbesian state of nature? If so, what makes policy makers more effective? If you are taking more of a meritocratic approach, there is the problem of establishing the meritocracy objectively. You have to presuppose a central insitution that can judge objectively based upon merit.

[stratvic]

Consumers define and reward merit in a free market economy.

[Questionablescum]

I remember you were influenced by Kant, and in many ways the categorical imperative reflects the same aesthetic as the non-aggression principle. Aggression constitutes using a person as a means to an end, and thus it is a violation of human autonomy and dignity.

[shjelleg]

If you come up with good arguments they insult you, delete your comments and block you, that's what libertyisnotgiven did to me. I think Inmendham is right, these market anarchists probably have ulterior motives: bigotry, racism, sexism, etc...Why else would people believe in something so obviously preposterous?

[Questionablescum]

Wow, just wow. Consider your life, how much of it is controlled by the state? I presume not that much of it. All that market anarchists are saying is that it is plausible, to have a society founded on uncoerced relations. And we get really tired of the same arguments being used over and over again. For an example of a highly unregulated market look at ebay. I have yet to hear any person come up on youtube come up with an ethical argument that challenged the NAP.

[kurtilein3]

you will need to deal with the same arguments over and over again, because for a rational person those arguments are enough to completely debunk your anarcho-crap.

really, education, how would it work? i can tell you how it works: companies that need highly educated professionals will leave your system and go to countries where people have a good education. and then the few people that are high-skilled will leave your country to go where the companies that need such people are.

[Questionablescum]

You just debunked your own argument. The free market promotes entrepeneurship and business, so the idea of businesses leaving is laughable. Also, you would have to prove your presumption that an anarchic system cannot provide education. You are assuming that the government has mystical abilities and when they intervene a wonderful education system occurs.

[kurtilein3]

i went to public education.

and its just like you said: the gouvernment pulls an education-system out of thin air, sets it up, this is how it works.

the burden of proof is on you. we already know that gouvernments can actually provide free high-quality education for everyone. you need to show how this would work in anarchy.

[Luke12000]

Kurtilein: you comment makes no sense, all "anarchy" implies is choice, market anarchism is a system that encompasses yours...You asking: "how would choice create education"?!?! oh, and education isn't currently free...remember taxes?

[anarkoFred]

1-No government can pulls an education-system out of thin air. Your teacher are paid, the buildings cost something, nothing free even if the state provide it "freely".

2-How education would work in market-anarchy? The same way, why would it be diferent?

3-The way to pay it would be diferent but, you have to pay your education anyway even if it appears to be free. You will pay it later with you taxs and it's not so different from paying a debt.

[anarkoFred]

You may think that your canadian state is not necessarily greately coercing you but, ask a Quebecker Seperatist what he think about paying tax to the federal government, ask someone who would like to protect his environment while his tax are used to subsidize Albertan oil's companies.

[Shezmu]

While I do agree with some of anarchist views (probably because I'm a libertarian =p), I just don't see a fair, organized, and functional legal system or a good supply of missiles and other weapons of war that the market wouldn't necessarily care for happening without some sort of nation-wide organization. Therefore I can't agree with anarchy.

[TheSockWithNoName]

Courts and Police provided by the market? LOL! That sure would work! Just buy a couple of thugs and judges, and you're on your way to justice -- or at least YOUR version of it! Hahaha!

[neotropic9]

To be fair, you can already pay for personal police, and legal representation is privatized. It seems do be working okay -but I suppose whether it actually is working okay is another question.

[TruthDevours]

What are the standards for "working okay"?

[neotropic9]

That's another question. I suppose "reducing violence" and "keeping society in order" are what most people would have in mind for the job that police and the legal system are supposed to do.

[TruthDevours]

I think TristanPEJ refuted that notion in his "Dear Americans..." video. I believe the best way to reduce violence is to alleviate economic deficits. So far, countries with the lowest crime rates are either authoritarian or somewhat socialist, i.e. countries in the Socialist International. Most of the crime committed is profit motivated. Demotivating criminals with equal economic participation is the most self-sustaining way to end violent crime.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"To be fair, you can already pay for personal police, and legal representation is privatized"

Yes, but the private police is, in a sense, subordinate to the public police (since it doesn't override them nor can it go against it). And privatized representation is not the same as privatized courts.

I don't know, but I'm yet to see good arguments on how Anarchy could be anything but gang warfare.

[Shezmu]

To be fair, I don't see how *our* state is keeping us from devolving into gang warfare. I mean, I'm pretty sure that 290 million people can easily take on the 10 million that makes up our government, police force, and army. Perhaps its because the people just don't want gang warfare. =9

[TheSockWithNoName]

"Perhaps its because the people just don't want gang warfare"

Or maybe because the gov. has nukes! Hahaha!

Seriously though, the people who make up the army and the police are highly trained, fit, specialized, well armed, (and most importantly) organized and disciplined males.

Of the 290 mil., they're either: 1) women 2) unfit (too old, too young, too fat, disabilities, etc.) 3) unarmed (or otherwise outgunned) 4) untrained (let alone specialized) 5) unorganized.

[TheSockWithNoName]

Surely 30 to 1 seems like good odds... until you take into account those pesky details I just listed.

Further more, if you abolish the government tomorrow, the arm and the police is actioned to the highest bidder; soldiers and policemen become thugs for hire at the same time that there's no else to enforce any law against them.

So there you go, that's why anarchy = gang warfare while current state = not gang warfare.

[Shezmu]

"Of the 290 mil., they're either: 1) women"

The feminist in me wants to bash you in the face. =9

"3) unarmed (or otherwise outgunned) 4) untrained (let alone specialized) 5) unorganized."

These could be fixed by training in secret and stealing from the government (which is pretty easy these days =/).

[Shezmu]

"Further more, if you abolish the government tomorrow,.... enforce any law against them."

Maybe I'm playing semantics now, but I do believe that anarchists believe in having law with order coming about automatically. As for policeman becoming thugs, I'm willing to bet that they'd more likely just become a bounty hunter/private protection hybrid organization.

[neotropic9]

Further, there are subsets of American society that are anarchist. In many ghettos around the world there are huge underground economies that are completely untaxed. Guess what happens? Well, the tough guys form gangs with hierarchies. you have to pay to get into a low level membership and the afforded protection (and possibility for advancement). It's not a good idea, if by good you mean "reduces death and suffering".

[Questionablescum]

Your epicurean perspective confuses the good with the pleasant. And the aimless liberal hedonism that stems from it will lead to a society in which one must presuppose virtuous leaders to have desirable ends in that society. In which case what eventually occurs is the nightmare portrayed by Aldous Huxley.

[LaughingMan0X]

I must admit laughed when I read this, good show.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"I do believe that anarchists believe in having law with order coming about automatically."

Hehehe... I love that bit: "coming about automatically". Coming about automatically how? And from where? Magically, from Neverland?

"they'd more likely just become a bounty hunter/private protection hybrid organization."

Now you're playing semantics indeed. I don't see the difference. Except maybe you're presuming these would be magically incorruptable orgs.

[TheSockWithNoName]

"The feminist in me wants to bash you in the face."

Wow, that's really feminist, bashing a girl in the face.

"These could be fixed by training in secret and stealing from the government (which is pretty easy these days =/)."

Hehehe... nice try.

[Shezmu]

"Hehehe... I love that bit: "coming about automatically". Coming about automatically how? And from where? Magically, from Neverland?"

Um, law makes order or better yet, law is order. That's the point I was trying to make. I should have articulated that better.

[Shezmu]

"Now you're playing semantics indeed. I don't see the difference. Except maybe you're presuming these would be magically incorruptable orgs."

Well, the police would also be subject for one thing, so they couldn't just kill people and such. Also, they'd be paid for protecting people and sending criminals to the courts for judgment. Thus, I don't see police being corrupted, especially more than they are today.

[Shezmu]

"Wow, that's really feminist, bashing a girl in the face."

Self-hated, eh? Me no touch that. =9

"Hehehe... nice try."

I guess you haven't watch enough liberal news to see all the stories of people taking millions of dollars worth of property and money that happens all the time. Especially the ones that happen in the middle east. =9

[yourboyken]

Zeitgeist the movie, watch it!