Oh and what if someone was a theif years ago but they're a better person now, or they were wrongfully convicted?
So that now they canot get anyone to defend them. that's not fair at all. One thing that's actually good abou the current system is that everyone has the right to a lawyer, even if they can't afford one. We'd need something like that, for this to work fairly for everyone.
@Redstar2613 If they're really reformed, someone will take a chance on them. If they were really wrongfully convicted, they can go to a competitor of the court that convicted them, because they would LOVE to be able to show the public that their rival slipped up. If they can't afford a lawyer, they could get one on "no win, no fee", or get a loan from someone sympathetic, or get legal aid from generous, caring people like yourself who care about justice for the poor, etc.
@Redstar2613 Competition would eliminate any agency that could not tell the difference between a genuine victim and a fraudster (they'd certainly do a much better job than the State at this!). Competition would also set the level of the compensation the most appropriate level, i.e. whatever their customers feel is appropriate. See part 3 for competition about punishments.
The logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government. If something is bad then it does not matter if it is big or small because it is bad. Freedom and liberty can be protected by the people themselves through voluntary action rather than force or coercion. Government grows like a cancer, it does not matter if it starts small or can be made small at the end it will grow until is it completely removed. Anarcho Capitalism is is capitalism in its purest form.
The funny thing about anarchy is that it looks just like current government structures - the only difference really is whether someone is forced to pay at the barrel of a gun upfront.
@jaimekid2 The difference is that you are not forced but have a choice until you use aggression yourself. Now if I do not want my taxes to go to a war they will go to a war by force. It does not matter if I have used aggression or not.
just like you can't rely on government for everything, you can't rely on business for everything. Both are run by humans, humans in any situation are corruptible. It wouldn't take long for it to get to a point where one person owned most of these protection agencies through multiple sources. Just like people can take over without it really being considered a monopoly now. Just like we're supposedly suppose to be in control of our government when we aren't. We couldn't control it.
@DarkJoker7 A true monopoly is near impossible in a truly free market. Intense competition is what makes it so difficult without any subsides, bailouts or government protections/monopolies. You have to please the consumer better than anyone else to even get there. Any mistake you make is more noticed and compounded. The bigger/complex you are the more fragile you become to what is know as Black Swan events or highly unpredictable events. Corporations are invented by the government.
@grahampwright I was just discussing the idea of having private protection agencies with one of my friends, and he brought up the organziation, Academi, formally known as Blackwater, and the problems it had as one of the reasons that he thinks private security would not function well. I don't know much about this organization, but what would you say in response to that?
@cluther1114 Blackwater only exists because of government. It gets money through the government which forces people to pay taxes. In a true free market Blackwater would not be able to function like it is doing today by ripping off the tax payers.
Why the reliance on the use of force by security firms in this model? Social ostracism approaches would allow these firms to perform their roles in the market without resorting to violence.
@baggytheo One step at a time. Our enemy is the monopoly on force. Let's focus on getting rid of the monopoly first, then after that we can see whether force is needed at all or not. Right now, advocating a world without any force at all seems hopelessly utopian to most people.
this is the problem, not the solution. The problem with our justice system now is that money is too big a factor. If someone has more money they can buy better justice. Sound the same except this adds even more possibility of corruption into the mix. I would never turn my sovereignty over to a corporation, that is for damn sure.
@1freesoul2another This system would be less corrupt, all else being equal, because firms that have to compete for customers cannot afford to be as corrupt as states... their customers can go elsewhere, while state subjects have no choice. Right now, it's very easy for the rich to buy justice... it's called lobbying. It's because of the monopoly on law that the law right now so favors the rich and is so harmful to everyone else.
@grahampwright Understandable point, but anywhere there is money there is corruption. Some arbitrators would have more capital than others and be able to provide better outcomes to their customers over another arbitrator and maybe be able to pay off the overseers. Soon there would be less and less arbitrator able to compete. Similar to our huge corporations now. If you can't afford a quality arbitrator, too bad for you. The best justice system wouldn't involve money at all.
@1freesoul2another This is the real utopian proposal - suggesting that people will somehow magically ignore all rational incentives related to money. We can see how well that is working now, as corporations freely exert their influence through lobbying in our governments.
Money will *always* be an issue, whether you claim faith in the selflessness of humans or not. Maintaining law under a monopolistic government is the worst case scenario of the role of greed in politics.
@bengrabow Well maybe if lawyers were on salary rather than able to name their price that would make things more just. If laws were simplified so that it doesn't sound like jibberish to the average American, if we ended the war on drugs and had fewer laws in gereral, if we changed our election process to get rid of lobbyists and based our laws on the constitution and personal liberty rather than special interest and corporate interest than I think our justice system would be decent
@1freesoul2another The problem with your reasoning is that there is no free lunch. The money has to come form somewhere. Yes some arbitrators will be able to provide better service and make more money. This is what is suppose to happen in a free market. They are better at arbitration and others should do something that is more productive for the people. The only way this can continue is to provide the best service to the people. If the people are happy then it is all good.
@1freesoul2another The bigger you are the harder you fall. If they screw up then they would fail as there are no subsides, bailouts or special government favors or monopolies.
@bigboywasim I love Free markets, But we are talking about the justice system. You don't want justice to be subject to the ability to pay for it. If there is anything in this world that is a right and not a privilege it is justice. Justice for all. Not the entitled few. It is already bad enough with the system we have now. Justice shouldn't fall in the for sale category, just as our freedoms of speech and religion.
@1freesoul2another In this type of economic system there will be very few poor. The poor will be able to get justice through charitable arbitrators. Just like how there are many doctors right now who work at free clinics there will be many such arbitrators. Monopolized justice seems to be worse for me. Just look at how much justice minorities get in this world.
@bigboywasim When you say Monopoly that implies that the justice system should operate like a business. I don't think so. Money should not be involved in a justice system. Justice should be equal for all. I don't think you get the best healthcare in a free clinic. I am all for limiting the govt. in anyway possible, but I am not willing to substitute govt. tyranny for corporate tyranny. Money is too involved in our system now and thats why minorities get screwed.
@1freesoul2another This is the difference between a minarchist and an anarcho capitalist. We take libertarianism to its logical conclusion of no government. We take free market economics to its logical conclusion to anarcho-capitalism. Government is either good or bad. The best healthcare is in the free market. Charities are more effective and efficient than government. We do not see the free market as tyranny even in law and defense. We see it as freedom and liberty in law and defense.
@bigboywasim Even in this system you are enforcing a law using a mediator. This is a form of Government. Except it is corporate government. As long as there is a need for a mediator there is need for govt. Without govt. we would handle our own justice and there would be no laws. Justice should be a basic right, with or without government. Nobody should have to pay a dime for justice.
@1freesoul2another This is not government but the free market. The definition of government is a governing body that uses coercion to govern. The free market solution is voluntary governing. You cannot take money completely out. There is a cost for everything. Nothing is for free. Someone pays for charity and government also. Someone will be paying for the free market solution. I believe that this is a better way to get justice. The governments of the world have a bad record of justice.
@bigboywasim voluntary governing based on how much money you have. Freedom is supposed to be free. You can not separate justice and freedom. Should people who have more money have more freedom of speech or religion. Of course not. Why should it be any different for Justice. Also where is the jury in this system. The corporation is in complete control. In that case we should consider a computerized justice system that only calculates facts and evidence. Cant pay off a computer.
@1freesoul2another Again nothing is free, there is a cost for everything. Even in the current system where government runs the courts the rich and majority have a higher probability of winning. They hire the best lawyers and the probability of them getting a jury of the same race or background is higher. Everyone cannot be rich and nothing is completely fair in this world. Yes if we can get computers to make decisions better than us then I am fine with it.
@bigboywasim I know. I never said that I liked our justice system. I said money should be kept out. I think we probably have the technology to have computers make these decisions. That would keep corruption out of it. It would be nice to minimize the amount of laws needed.
@1freesoul2another We do not want tyranny at all even in law or defense. The poor would be fewer and would be taken care of better than the government. The average person in this world cares about the poor and does not want poverty for themselves or others. I think we can take better care of this problem with charity and having more of our money for charity than given it to government.
@bigboywasim I agree that charity would be much better at handling the poor than the govt. And I think without government involvement there would be much less poor, but when it comes to justice money needs to be removed from the equation. Thats all I'm saying. Otherwise it is not really justice at all.
@grahampwright I am skeptical about your model of incentives in anarcho-capitalism. Markets have defects that prevent them from working properly without management, and the incentive structure you present is too simplistic and fails to capture the complexity of reality. Do you really think it wise to advocate the dispersion of the means of violence? Anarchism must deal with law centrally and democratically to avoid the risks posed by incentives that contravene the interests of the majority
@grahampwright I have to say that I absolutely agree with your video. Laws and law enforcement are definitely possible without government and we would all probably be better off with this system. I just have a question: How would this law enforcement system deal with victimless crimes such as drunk driving, speeding, or other risky behavior? Would these only be considered crimes if someone is hurt in the process?
I have heard this thought experiment and similar hypothetical before. I will continue to view the rest of the parts as I have already saved it to my playlist for further and repeated viewing. THeir does exist serious pot holes in this and very very similar ideas. We can easily see this when you apply standard philosophical practice to these ideas. History has repeatedly shown us that this idea has holes. This idea is already played out right now in most places, Gov's are giant firms.
I'm reminded of the mafia and protection schemes. Generally, the option to switch to a lower cost provider isn't an option, though reputations does hold a high value, but generally more in the area of making examples of unfaithful customers.
A good story but I don't like how narrow it is. At several points the narrator provides alternate examples of how these things could function, but at other times he does not. For instance, what's to say that security companies won't fund rehabilitation programs for repeat offenders addicted to drugs if it saves them money in the long run to do so? Ideas like this aren't much addressed in the video, it generally sticks to a very simple model of the industry.
Fighting it out is only costly if 1) you have no sources of profit other than providing defense for your clients and 2) your forces are weak. If your security firm has a massive armed force behind it, and a source of funding for that force outside of the firm's duties itself, no one can fuck with you, even if your client is actually guilty.
If you want proof of this, look no further than your average criminal organization.
What if a person cannot pay for the subscription (widdows, orphans, single parents, disabled people, chronically ill people, homeless people, jobless people, old people)?
Can you do whatever you want with them??? They won't have Tanna Justice looking out for them, right?
@lithium0611 Absent a state, security will be much cheaper, most everyone will be better off, and charities will be more effective. The poor are likely to get a much fairer treatment absent the state. After all, it's not like states currently do a good job for the poor when it comes to security/law. States work for the rich; private security will work for the masses.
@TheHONKYLIPS A "spring board for fascism"?! Surely fascism - governmental and private power working together - is more likely now, when the machinery of subjagtion, the apparatus of the state, is in place and waiting for a tyrant to seize power, than it would be in a society that lacks that apparatus. The wannabe-tyrant would have to set up a state apparatus from scratch! So hardly a springboard. Having a state is just asking for trouble.
@grahampwright thats that is exactly whats goin on now so good point. however with no state it would be like a big feudal system with disagreeing parties who would probably go to war with each other until one sect or party took over enough to put their laws down. so i guess not a spring board but a long shitty somalia style slope. or a anarchic fallout (the game series) type world. and having humans in charge of any sort of system is asking for trouble
@TheHONKYLIPS "having humans in charge of any sort of system is asking for trouble" You might as well give up now then, because we're pretty much stuck with that. Or you could take that as a given. Assume that there will be disagreements, and evil and greedy people in the world.
Then, given that assumption, what system is best? One where the power is centralised in monopolies funded by taxation, or where it is decentralised and funded by voluntary means?
@grahampwright in a moral sense i do agree with that but judging by typical human behavior it brings me back to my last point when more and more people have a say in what goes or not the majority vote with the most power wins weather its a good idea or bad. look at america the majority of the people have decided to live an unhealthy earth destroying china funding ignorant life style so if say 1 truly righteous person had say over all would it not be better i have yet to see such a thing though
@grahampwright A democratic republic is best. Your description of the government as a "centralised monopoly" is a distortion of reality. It may be incredibly inefficient at times, but its goal is to serve the interests of EVERYONE regardless of of their wealth or income.
I have a question, so a rich person could commit a crime and say, rape someone, and they would get away with it, so long as they paid the fee as "compensation"?
@drununoctium It's far easier for a rich person to rape someone and get away with it now than it would be in a free society. After all, politicians and bureaucrats are cheap to bribe, so it's pretty easy for a rich person to bias the system in their favor. Private security/law firms live by their reputation and are at the mercy of consumers. No firm could allow a rich rapist to escape punishment and still remain in business.
@drununoctium How long you think the rich person would be rich if he was paying everyone fees when there are no subsides, bailouts or special favors/monopolies by the government. No one would want to do business with such a person.
@weurRTG It would use it's internal arbitrators, and may submit the case for external review, especially if there is an accusation of bias. TJ would not want to become known as a firm that acts unfairly when the dispute is between two of their own clients.
So in the name of liberty, you're ready to let Pinkertons have the authority to conduct criminal investigations on you? What if said Pinkertons are in the employ of a wealthy business competitor as well?
As enterprises and capitalism as well are driven by the objective of earning as money as possible: How do we do to avoid rich people from paying money to the justice firms so that their interests are favoured?
@yomartins To re-phrase your question: under which system, state or no state, will the rich have the most power to be able to get the legal system biasing them? In other words, is it easier to bribe politicians/bureaucrats/police or CEO's/executives/shareholders? Clearly the former, because they are not spending their own money, but taxpayers money. In the latter case, the bribe will have to be much higher. Bribery of the state, aka lobbying, is easier, so the rich favor the state.
What happens if I'm poor? There is no justice or security for me? As well as another thing: As there is no state, and laws don't exist, I can refuse to pay the punishment. Who are they to tell me what to do? Are they going to kill me?
@yomartins If your poor, you could sell the claim to your case to the highest bidder. And laws will exist without a state. Watch the first video in this series (and the third). If you refuse to pay, you will become an outlaw. No one will come to your defense and the victim can hire a bounty hunter.
@yomartins Not a full answer to your question about the poor, but 1) everyone will be wealthier, 2) security/justice will be cheaper, 3) charities will be more efficient, 4) no reputable security/justice firm will be biased against the poor (due to potential bad reputation), 5) "no win, no fee" options will exist, 6) security/justice firms may offer free basic services if it helps their reputation or their business model.
And 7) you imply the poor get security/justice now from the State?!
@yomartins The poor will be well protected in a free market. You still have the option of protecting yourself and your family/friends protecting you. You can join voluntary groups or charities who offer this service of protection. If you do a crime and cannot pay the fine all at once then you can pay installments or provide your services in exchange. There will be no taxes so you keep all you earn.
@bigboywasim The insurance companies would want to keep their clients safe so they will have protection for the general society as crime increases their claims.
@WintersAscension I'd like to think that force might not be necessary, i.e. that ostracism would be sufficient. That would be a polycentric voluntary legal system and would be ideal.
But one step at a time: here I show that even a legal system that uses force, i.e. a polycentric coercive system, is feasible and superior to a monopolistic coercive system.
Consequentialism is a wonderful concept. Unfortunately, few people understand it anymore thanks to government's control over every aspect of their lives.
Great idea but what happens if such a person has only the economic means to either eat or be protected? It would seem that in this case a security firm could easily frame an innocent person, find them guilty and then send them to one of their prison work camps.
1. There is no saying that if contracts on law and such are polycentric that one such contract might not a) redistribute wealth voluntarily (as now tax = charity), or b) priced progressively (the poor pay nothing to minimal fees, while the richer pay more).
2. The Agorist Konkin III model desribes a model where those found guilty but cannot pay fines, etc., the fines compound making later criminals further deters by incurred costs.
As a result the corporation would pay such extreme penalties for such a transgression that it would bankrupt them. It becomes existenial for the firm to not risk such a frame-up. Also, I think the video addresses this, but in less detail. This also works for individuals, as penalties acrued by previous offenders will make career criminality impossible. Sure, irrational actors and acts will occur by individuals and institutions, but we make no claim at utopia.
Anarchy makes no claim of curing of all lives ills. We simply assert that of evils liberty is the lesser, and of virtues liberty is the greater. In all things, liberty is preferable to monopoly, coercion, invasion, and tyranny.
If you distrust monopolies in markets (corporate) it is illogical to trust their virtues civilly (state). There is no prefered virtue of institutions, only centralized evils.
@SexDrugsFinance 1) The victim's security runs the risk of the unsecured fleeing & never recovering their costs from him. If he has no money invested in security of his own, then he has nothing to lose by turning fugitive.
2) The victim's security doesn't want to earn a reputation of penalizing defenseless people or bullying smaller firms.
Why would the agencies ever seriously consider that the accused would be innocent? Corporations exist to make money, saying "Nope, your innocent, don't pay us" goes against that axiom.
An interesting possibility for dispute resolution in a free market, similar to what is already seen in mediation and private dispute resolution, which exists even in spite of the state.
If somehow, despite market forces, some firm grew to be aggressive, forcing people to pay for or use it, monopolizing law, well, then, you've just created a state. Having a state only assures this theft and violence is directed against all it's subjects, whereas peaceful opportunities lie in a free market.
Tenna could decline arbitration and threaten war. Dawn Defense might back down in the face of it, incurring losses. Aggression has paid off, and justice was not done.
Or Tenna and Dawn could cooperate to deny the claims of all other firms, forming an arbitrary monopoly by force of arms. The society you describe is ill-suited to defend itself against such alliances, and so descent into despotism is inevitable.
this is such a flawed system, you are making too much assumptions:
1) by what is the company obligated to pay Alice?companies now look for a ton of loopholes, and only pay anything due to objective customer protection laws provided by the state, they can just get rid of Alice or force her to stfu at gunpoint please tell me what would she do then?
So what you end up with is either continual fighting between warlords, new faction leaders, etc. (Somalia again) or you get momentary periods of peace caused by a fragile balancing of powers against each other (Gaelic Ireland). In either case, you have a severely wasteful use of resources because in both cases resources are being allocated either to war or to deterrence.
Meanwhile the social state of society suffers from lack of basic infrastructure. No one wants to live in these areas.
People fear anarchy because history is replete of examples where a lack of central government causes severe strife for everyone except a handful of people running the factions. Somalia is a modern example, where warlords took over in the absence of government. Instead of working to build a better society together, they used humanitarian supplies as a form of currency to leverage power.
This always happens in one way or another. That is why we have a single government.
Does Alice pay "Dawn Defense" to be an objective force: which may or may not rule in Alice's favor in a dispute? Or does she pay Dawn Defense always to take her side? If the latter, it may not always be justice.
And what may be fairest in this world, with all its constraints, is that there must be some aggression by others. No different than humans who hunt animals for food.
@rob0is0god If entry costs are high then it means that consumers are unwilling to pay for a new startup. They must be happy enough with what they've got. Monopoly is only a problem when you have the monopolist or someone working for them using violence and threats of violence against anyone who tries to startup a new firm to compete against them. "Free market monopolies", where violence is absent, are beneficial and commonplace: the NFL is an example. Customers only want one football league.
and what about something along the lines of the power grid, there isnt room for two companies to run competing power cables across a country hence that one company has total control of the market and without some other force preventing abuse (a government) they could charge what ever they like (with limits)
i would say the NFL is not a true monopoly since there are other leisure/ sport activities to watch.
@rob0is0god Maybe it would be a waste of resources to have two power cables crossing the country doing the same service? After all, if there are two, what's to stop them colluding on prices? Don't we need three? But then we need four... hang on, where's this going to end? How do we know the optimum number of firms in an industry, without free competition revealing it to us?
You're spot on with your observation that the NFL has substitutes. Now extend this line of reasoning.
@grahampwright well for power lines you have already shown that 1 is the only number a free market can mantain since the first comp can undercut any others
problem is the 'other market overlapping' idea doesnt hold for several industries
also on a side note who would pay for street lights or inner city roads? neither can be monetized for a profit the good old free rider problem strikes again
@rob0is0god Right. So what's the problem? You have a free market, which results in one company providing a service without any direct competitors, and this is the optimal way of using resources. What would be the point in using force to introduce some arbitrary competitor, when this would be deleterious to the way resources are being used?
See my video "Funding Public Goods (by Roderick Long)". Lighthouses are mentioned and street lights are pretty similar. Think creatively.
@rob0is0god So in the extremely unlikely event that one firm achieves 100% market share, there is no problem, unless that firm then uses force to prevent anyone from competing with it. Until then, it has achieved its 100% market share honestly and that arrangement reflects the desires of consumers. At the moment it uses force, it has become a government. But like I said I consider the possibility of one firm achieving a 100% share of a significantly large territory to be very remote.
@grahampwright why would it be unlikely? since in a market with high barrier to entry (high start up costs/ technological superiority any of many mechanisms can create a monopoly) and since a company is driven by profit (and profit alone) what would prevent their abuse of their position?
also why must it be honest you're telling me companies wont collude or cheat?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Terrible analogy, this is a flawed analogy and should be thrown out immediately, you cannot possibly compare the two, and socialist food production is definitely superior.
@grahampwright Lol, never heard of the countless governments toppled by the Western World (read: capitalist exploiters). What about the problem of economic disparity under capitalism? The starvation caused by this is never cited and is infinitely times worse, I wonder why?
@m3anmik3y Starvation has largely been cured by markets, actually. In fact, famine was a universal norm with no inkling of being cured or solved in pre-market feudalism, agrarian society, and hunter-gatherer society.
Also, your point on capitalism causing starvation assumes the economic pie is finite, and that when one is made rich others necessarily are made poor. This is a common economic fallacy. The pie is in fact expanding as a longterm trend in markets. The pie shrinks as markets decline
@ProIndividual Markets are not exclusive to capitalism, nice try though. And yes , the "economic" pie is infinite, and yet the resources (which SHOULD back economies), are not. Nice try though! Next time think for yourself instead of parroting your econ 101 textbook, thanks!
@m3anmik3y Marketless economies are not capitalist...what kind of market economies are non-capitalist exactly?
Resources are not infinite...hence why space exploration and exploiting resources on the 99.9% dead planets is a necessity. You mean they are finite here, right now. That's not even an issue, since prices create supluses by making it more advantageous to produce what is scarce until it isn't anymore. Starvation is solved by capitalism and markets.
@ProIndividual Prices do not create a surplus of resources no matter the price, they just limit the amount that can be purchased, or should I say discriminate to who is able to purchase. If space exploration is so important, why is space research almost exclusively funded by the government? Terra-forming planets is definitely a top priority, but why is there several orders of magnitude more funds directed towards "short term gains"? I'll answer, it's because of capitalism.
@m3anmik3y Space exploration is stagnant precisely because of government. For a long time private enterprises were specifically FORBIDDEN to space travel. Things are slowly changing for the better luckily. Google "Space Frontier Foundation." Also check out: /watch?v=-0Da2fyzBus
The closer we are to an age of advanced life in space is the closer we get to ultimate liberty from statism.
There are infinite planets out there...most of which cannot even sustain the lowest forms of life. They still contain many resources waiting to be used without harming the world(s) we choose to live on. In our lifetimes we will import resources from space, I guarantee it.
@m3anmik3y What do you think will trigger this exploration and mining of dead planets that will cure shortages of our ever-growing population? When we grow so many that we must colonize elsewhere?
@m3anmik3y BTW, I'm an autodidact...I have no textbook. I read books, but college is for the brainwashed and lazy who wish a piece of paper to get more money in a job, not an education. I went to college, almost graduated, and then quit. I made the Dean's List every Semester...I was there on scholastic scholarship, and was a member of Phi Theta Kappa (national honor society). It's all BS if you don't question their regurgitated BS lectures. I dropped out an actually educated MYSELF.
@ProIndividual And as a side-note, do you agree that crimes in a state-less environment should just be paid off? The company will not care about retribution will they? They just want their money, yes? So this means that a person could commit any crime and just pay it off, the richer you are the more you can get away with? I don't really understand how this is a step forward from our current legal system, I realize I might misunderstand though so if you have any insight please share.
@m3anmik3y Exactly. Capitalists never take into account the complex constraints of physical reality.
And their brainless citing of the Soviet Union, thinking they've "won" the argument with a meaningless soundbite of the name of a country with anti-scientific (Lysenkoism) and ultranationalistic (kill anyone who is not sufficiently "Russian") set of laws, proves they are not mentally capable of thinking outside their restrictive paradigm.
@darris321 any successful business in laizze faire market would necessarily need to be cooperative and be willing to coordinate with other businesses, other wise they will be met with a great deal of resistance and repercussions that they will need to pay for out of their own pocket. if the majority of the human race is just a bunch of criminals at heart then I suppose there would be a great deal of cartelization.
@darris321 it's reputation toward it's other clients is a greater incentive for them to be consistent, than the incentive of only one of their clients to be specious on their behalf
@KilllaCaleb that's true. In the current system, in the US, when the state brings charges against an individual, they must prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The case must be heard by an impartial jury. The opposing sides must be allowed to cross examine witnesses.
In an anarchy, how would 'beyond a reasonable doubt' be a rule?
Wouldn't problems arise when a high profile case happens? The right thing happened when the impartial jury found Casey Anthony not guilty.
@KilllaCaleb wouldn't public opinion sway the decision of the company Tanna Defense? I feel like if the Casey Anthony case was held in an anarchy, the company would be less likely to defend her.
@darris321 you are right that public opinion influencing a dispute, but I disagree that public opinion would be arbitrary and cut throat, the majority of individuals want consistent laws that make sense and they want to know that their dispute resolution organizations will follow throw with logical proceedings they ascribed to when they first contracted with the DRO. so if the DRO abandons principals like "Innocent before proven guilty" they are likely to lose a great deal of their customers.
@KilllaCaleb We also have a jury of our peers that can nullify the law so that even if you did the crime, you won't be punished because either you were justified, or the crime shouldn't apply to you.
A jury judges the law as well as the fact (even though courts lie to them).
Would juries exist in this system? If so, how much would they be paid?
I think the majority of individuals SAY they want consistent laws. However, in the case of Casey Anthony, the majority wanted her dead.
@darris321 to be honest I am not sure on how exactly a court session would work. I would imagine that since having a jury is preferable most people will have it in their contracts with DROs that they will volunteer to be apart of a jury to reciprocate for the right to have jury at their trials if they ever have any. I would also imagine that the majority of people wanting casey anthony dead would be just a irrelevant in a ancap trial as it was with the government, the market demands consistency.
@KilllaCaleb I would not expect juries to be commonplace. In every other industry, you have specialists. Why would you want to hire the services of people picked randomly, who are completely untrained and unexperienced in evaluating evidence and judging characters and testimonies, to make crucial decisions on cases, when if they are wrong, you could be out of business?
@darris321 the presupposition you seem to have here is that public opinion is based on a collective delirium and not reason. but if that were the case, if the majority were always haphazard and devil may care then any democratic process is culpable for the same flaw you have pointed out, since public opinion is just simply majority rule anyway.
again this is an interesting video so could you give me an argument that defeats the idea that this system would not work because many people would not subscribe to a security (punishment and insurance firm) because they can rely on other people to subscribe and they still receive the benefits in that the criminals will be punished and less likely harm will come to them even though they didnt subscribe? governments exist because to provide what the majority percieve a public (nonexclusive) good.
The distinction between private goods and public goods is illusory. It is more like a scale of privateness/publicness. Security is actually a poor example of a public good as it is more towards the private end anyway. But no matter how much of a public goods character something has, it doesn't follow that government could or should step in. That would only make things worse.
See Hoppe "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security" for a full argument.
@grahampwright i'll read that pdf thanks. but with some skepticism as the free rider problem does make a lot of sense to me. but it is hard to prove in the sense that you can only measure how much a public good something is by how many people would vote for it to be provided by a government ie through force. a free rider always has the excuse that he actually doesnt consider it a good even when he does, but when faced with a government option the free rider reveals his true wants.
@grahampwright im 6 pages into it. any person that requries 20 pages of writing to proof one idea is probably not correct in that he won't have been able to simplify his understandings if it requires 20 pages. also i saw bad reasoning such as saying 'this is how it's happened historically so it must be right'... he also mentions how a public good may be viewed negatively by others... if this is the case then the new public good simply becomes that which results in it not causing negativity.
first of all, I think property rights and common defense are 2 areas where the people with more to protect will naturally subsidize the people with not so much to protect. and i think thats a good thing. There is no reason the poor should not benefit from rich people's interest in security. You should refer to david friedman's 'the machinery of freedom' if youre looking for a better answer to your question.
@oiuoiu988 it's funny i have the machinery of freedom pdf in a tab but i have yet to read it. but basically if a good is nonexcludable no rational person will work for that good when he could that good after someone else working for it. therefore no one works for it therefore all those that value the good don't get it. theoretically speaking. then all those that value it and understand it's non excludable vote for it to be made compulsory to work for it ie taxes ie governmentally provided.
@grahampwright that was well explained great work now i know we don't need any form of government. the free market will or may be the firs start in our societies.
also the free rider effect would still occur. whereby people just let other people pay for their subscription because it still results in the law breaker getting punished which is good for themselves. or perhaps the security services would allow their subscribers to publicise their subcription so as to ward off criminals. however this would increase the incentive for criminals to attack non subscribers. regardless the free rider effect would occur and the subscribers wouldnt get business. simple
so basically 'reputation' doesnt work in markets requiring force as you will need some ultimate force to actually enforce the company with good reputation. it could be a continuous process of each law maker hiring another law maker (ie everyone has their own security) to both appear peacefull (instead of doing war) and also to not lose the case which would lower it's reputation. also when a firm has far greater reputation than another firm it can afford rep loss as it's relatively small.
free market law would become a monopoly because to get a fair reputation firms would want to have same laws/punishments as other firms (majority of) so their uniqueness in the competitive market wouldnt work. 'reputation' would have to be enforced anyway. and you brought in the arbitrator of the companies bensons to do that. but tans justice could have asked for an arbitrator itself and then the bensons and other arbitrator would either agree or not and continue the process infinitely. continued
@maxgunn555 A paper company that produced paper of non-standard sizes would fail. But this does not mean the paper market is not competitive. The market finds the optimal balance between uniformity and diversity. Examples of this are everywhere.
The content of laws/punishment could be very uniform, but this would not be a monopoly. The courts would simply compete on other factors, such as their consistency in applying the law.
@maxgunn555 Do you really think this process would continue infinitely? A world war? Really? Over a mugging?
Or do you think the two firms will make it a priority to find an arbitrator they can both agree on, to prevent just this kind of escalation you're talking about? There's no point in even approaching an arbitrator unless the other side will agree to that arbitrator.
@grahampwright yeah that was a weak argument from me but thinking about it if the individuals can hire security firms why can't the individual security firms hire their own security firms. why wasnt there an arbitrator to the initial individuals involved in the mugging? but as well as that point what about the free rider problem?
If bill is working as robber then we can only pay Alice from money robbed from other victims so there will be not enough money for copensations.
furthermore if Bill was unable to find legal job before becoming criminal there is no chance he will ever find some job to repay compensation so security agency will do bankrupt.
security firm know that and wont persecute criminals who cant pay.
so lets say we all pay for our own security and roads, all the services. Add up all those bills I bet you it will be more than the taxes we pay. This is nonsense. Anarchy brings chaos. It has never worked and it never will. This is a system for the benefit of Lawyers to represent us in everything. It would be a reign of the Lawyers creating lawlessness.
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION I take it you're a communist then? After all, if a monopoly is more efficient at providing security and roads, presumably it is also more efficient at providing everything else, too?
@grahampwright I agree Monopoly is not good but who says Government runs a Monopoly. Do you know how your local government works?? Contracts and projects are bidded on and the winning bids get the contract . What part of that is communist, you labeling sob??
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION Government is a monopolist by definition, it is an organization that uses force to prevent competing providers of law/security from emerging. See video Part 1 for more on this. Can you define government for me, please, as we obviously have different definitions?
@grahampwright Just because this video calls the GOV a monopoly doesnt mean I have to comply. After all are you (an anarchist) imposing your view on me??
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION I was being somewhat facetious when I said communist. Sorry if I offended you. My point was that your saying goods A, B, C, etc should be paid for by government, while goods X, Y, Z, etc should be paid for individuals voluntarily. Why? The burden of proof is on you to explain why we have two classes of goods like this. How are A, B, C are different to X, Y, Z?
@grahampwright Thanx for the apology. It all comes down to what our view on life is. who do we really think owns everything and if an opportunity created is really one person`s or is it really one specie`s opportunity. Do we know anyone that has taken anything with them to death. If not then nothing is really our own, so we should take more responsibility to advocate sharing for the sake of Humanity, which happens to support all life forms, environment & peace. Abandoning wars to support >>>>
>>the human condition by providing basic human needs to people at the cost of all. An all for all. After all if you really want no government you can do so by going out and living out in the booney land. Have you flown in a plane before?? have you seen how many millions of miles of empty nothingness there is?? If one wants to create their own thing out there they can even now. What is holding you back??
The author of this video presents an utterly hellish and asinine scenario where "private firms" become governments, always at war with each other. It's essentially no different than the system we use now, except these organizations are called "private firms" instead of "governments" or what have you. We don't need this kind of retarded bullshit, this is the twenty-first century, not the first century. The author is describing today's world with whitewash all over it. Disgusting and stupid.
@fertilizerspike ... I am almost certain the point is to ensure "quality control" within these service. Our government is a monopoly with no means of competition.
Oh and what if someone was a theif years ago but they're a better person now, or they were wrongfully convicted?
So that now they canot get anyone to defend them. that's not fair at all. One thing that's actually good abou the current system is that everyone has the right to a lawyer, even if they can't afford one. We'd need something like that, for this to work fairly for everyone.
Redstar2613 3 days ago
@Redstar2613 If they're really reformed, someone will take a chance on them. If they were really wrongfully convicted, they can go to a competitor of the court that convicted them, because they would LOVE to be able to show the public that their rival slipped up. If they can't afford a lawyer, they could get one on "no win, no fee", or get a loan from someone sympathetic, or get legal aid from generous, caring people like yourself who care about justice for the poor, etc.
grahampwright 2 days ago
@grahampwright Ok, that sounds alright.
Although, it's still unfair for them to have to be convicted before they can have a real chance at being proved innocent
Redstar2613 2 days ago
The only thing I dont like about this, is people would see this as a way to get easy money and set people up just to get the compensation.
Some compensation is fine but what was shown here is just way to much.
Other than that, this is a great idea that, with a few changes, I would support 100%
Redstar2613 3 days ago
@Redstar2613 Competition would eliminate any agency that could not tell the difference between a genuine victim and a fraudster (they'd certainly do a much better job than the State at this!). Competition would also set the level of the compensation the most appropriate level, i.e. whatever their customers feel is appropriate. See part 3 for competition about punishments.
grahampwright 2 days ago
If the poor couldn't pay for a fair hearing for one reason or another, would they not see any justice?
Zimnyification 4 days ago
The logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government. If something is bad then it does not matter if it is big or small because it is bad. Freedom and liberty can be protected by the people themselves through voluntary action rather than force or coercion. Government grows like a cancer, it does not matter if it starts small or can be made small at the end it will grow until is it completely removed. Anarcho Capitalism is is capitalism in its purest form.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
The funny thing about anarchy is that it looks just like current government structures - the only difference really is whether someone is forced to pay at the barrel of a gun upfront.
jaimekid2 1 week ago
@jaimekid2 The difference is that you are not forced but have a choice until you use aggression yourself. Now if I do not want my taxes to go to a war they will go to a war by force. It does not matter if I have used aggression or not.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim Correct. I'm just saying that much of the structures in place will find their own fit into a voluntaryist/anarchist society.
I wonder if that is a good selling point to the non-believers? ( :
jaimekid2 1 week ago
just like you can't rely on government for everything, you can't rely on business for everything. Both are run by humans, humans in any situation are corruptible. It wouldn't take long for it to get to a point where one person owned most of these protection agencies through multiple sources. Just like people can take over without it really being considered a monopoly now. Just like we're supposedly suppose to be in control of our government when we aren't. We couldn't control it.
DarkJoker7 2 weeks ago
@DarkJoker7 A true monopoly is near impossible in a truly free market. Intense competition is what makes it so difficult without any subsides, bailouts or government protections/monopolies. You have to please the consumer better than anyone else to even get there. Any mistake you make is more noticed and compounded. The bigger/complex you are the more fragile you become to what is know as Black Swan events or highly unpredictable events. Corporations are invented by the government.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@grahampwright I was just discussing the idea of having private protection agencies with one of my friends, and he brought up the organziation, Academi, formally known as Blackwater, and the problems it had as one of the reasons that he thinks private security would not function well. I don't know much about this organization, but what would you say in response to that?
cluther1114 3 weeks ago
@cluther1114 Blackwater only exists because of government. It gets money through the government which forces people to pay taxes. In a true free market Blackwater would not be able to function like it is doing today by ripping off the tax payers.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
sounds the same (or worse) than what we already have now
jaybow1982 3 weeks ago
Why the reliance on the use of force by security firms in this model? Social ostracism approaches would allow these firms to perform their roles in the market without resorting to violence.
baggytheo 3 weeks ago in playlist Law without Government
@baggytheo One step at a time. Our enemy is the monopoly on force. Let's focus on getting rid of the monopoly first, then after that we can see whether force is needed at all or not. Right now, advocating a world without any force at all seems hopelessly utopian to most people.
grahampwright 3 weeks ago
this is the problem, not the solution. The problem with our justice system now is that money is too big a factor. If someone has more money they can buy better justice. Sound the same except this adds even more possibility of corruption into the mix. I would never turn my sovereignty over to a corporation, that is for damn sure.
1freesoul2another 3 weeks ago
@1freesoul2another This system would be less corrupt, all else being equal, because firms that have to compete for customers cannot afford to be as corrupt as states... their customers can go elsewhere, while state subjects have no choice. Right now, it's very easy for the rich to buy justice... it's called lobbying. It's because of the monopoly on law that the law right now so favors the rich and is so harmful to everyone else.
grahampwright 3 weeks ago
@grahampwright Understandable point, but anywhere there is money there is corruption. Some arbitrators would have more capital than others and be able to provide better outcomes to their customers over another arbitrator and maybe be able to pay off the overseers. Soon there would be less and less arbitrator able to compete. Similar to our huge corporations now. If you can't afford a quality arbitrator, too bad for you. The best justice system wouldn't involve money at all.
1freesoul2another 3 weeks ago
@1freesoul2another This is the real utopian proposal - suggesting that people will somehow magically ignore all rational incentives related to money. We can see how well that is working now, as corporations freely exert their influence through lobbying in our governments.
Money will *always* be an issue, whether you claim faith in the selflessness of humans or not. Maintaining law under a monopolistic government is the worst case scenario of the role of greed in politics.
bengrabow 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@bengrabow Well maybe if lawyers were on salary rather than able to name their price that would make things more just. If laws were simplified so that it doesn't sound like jibberish to the average American, if we ended the war on drugs and had fewer laws in gereral, if we changed our election process to get rid of lobbyists and based our laws on the constitution and personal liberty rather than special interest and corporate interest than I think our justice system would be decent
1freesoul2another 3 weeks ago
@1freesoul2another The problem with your reasoning is that there is no free lunch. The money has to come form somewhere. Yes some arbitrators will be able to provide better service and make more money. This is what is suppose to happen in a free market. They are better at arbitration and others should do something that is more productive for the people. The only way this can continue is to provide the best service to the people. If the people are happy then it is all good.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@1freesoul2another The bigger you are the harder you fall. If they screw up then they would fail as there are no subsides, bailouts or special government favors or monopolies.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim I love Free markets, But we are talking about the justice system. You don't want justice to be subject to the ability to pay for it. If there is anything in this world that is a right and not a privilege it is justice. Justice for all. Not the entitled few. It is already bad enough with the system we have now. Justice shouldn't fall in the for sale category, just as our freedoms of speech and religion.
1freesoul2another 1 week ago
@1freesoul2another In this type of economic system there will be very few poor. The poor will be able to get justice through charitable arbitrators. Just like how there are many doctors right now who work at free clinics there will be many such arbitrators. Monopolized justice seems to be worse for me. Just look at how much justice minorities get in this world.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim When you say Monopoly that implies that the justice system should operate like a business. I don't think so. Money should not be involved in a justice system. Justice should be equal for all. I don't think you get the best healthcare in a free clinic. I am all for limiting the govt. in anyway possible, but I am not willing to substitute govt. tyranny for corporate tyranny. Money is too involved in our system now and thats why minorities get screwed.
1freesoul2another 1 week ago
@1freesoul2another This is the difference between a minarchist and an anarcho capitalist. We take libertarianism to its logical conclusion of no government. We take free market economics to its logical conclusion to anarcho-capitalism. Government is either good or bad. The best healthcare is in the free market. Charities are more effective and efficient than government. We do not see the free market as tyranny even in law and defense. We see it as freedom and liberty in law and defense.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim Even in this system you are enforcing a law using a mediator. This is a form of Government. Except it is corporate government. As long as there is a need for a mediator there is need for govt. Without govt. we would handle our own justice and there would be no laws. Justice should be a basic right, with or without government. Nobody should have to pay a dime for justice.
1freesoul2another 1 week ago
@1freesoul2another This is not government but the free market. The definition of government is a governing body that uses coercion to govern. The free market solution is voluntary governing. You cannot take money completely out. There is a cost for everything. Nothing is for free. Someone pays for charity and government also. Someone will be paying for the free market solution. I believe that this is a better way to get justice. The governments of the world have a bad record of justice.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim voluntary governing based on how much money you have. Freedom is supposed to be free. You can not separate justice and freedom. Should people who have more money have more freedom of speech or religion. Of course not. Why should it be any different for Justice. Also where is the jury in this system. The corporation is in complete control. In that case we should consider a computerized justice system that only calculates facts and evidence. Cant pay off a computer.
1freesoul2another 1 week ago
@1freesoul2another Again nothing is free, there is a cost for everything. Even in the current system where government runs the courts the rich and majority have a higher probability of winning. They hire the best lawyers and the probability of them getting a jury of the same race or background is higher. Everyone cannot be rich and nothing is completely fair in this world. Yes if we can get computers to make decisions better than us then I am fine with it.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim I know. I never said that I liked our justice system. I said money should be kept out. I think we probably have the technology to have computers make these decisions. That would keep corruption out of it. It would be nice to minimize the amount of laws needed.
1freesoul2another 1 week ago
@1freesoul2another We do not want tyranny at all even in law or defense. The poor would be fewer and would be taken care of better than the government. The average person in this world cares about the poor and does not want poverty for themselves or others. I think we can take better care of this problem with charity and having more of our money for charity than given it to government.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim I agree that charity would be much better at handling the poor than the govt. And I think without government involvement there would be much less poor, but when it comes to justice money needs to be removed from the equation. Thats all I'm saying. Otherwise it is not really justice at all.
1freesoul2another 1 week ago
@grahampwright I am skeptical about your model of incentives in anarcho-capitalism. Markets have defects that prevent them from working properly without management, and the incentive structure you present is too simplistic and fails to capture the complexity of reality. Do you really think it wise to advocate the dispersion of the means of violence? Anarchism must deal with law centrally and democratically to avoid the risks posed by incentives that contravene the interests of the majority
feeDLIO 2 weeks ago
@grahampwright I have to say that I absolutely agree with your video. Laws and law enforcement are definitely possible without government and we would all probably be better off with this system. I just have a question: How would this law enforcement system deal with victimless crimes such as drunk driving, speeding, or other risky behavior? Would these only be considered crimes if someone is hurt in the process?
cluther1114 3 weeks ago
@cluther1114 Drunk-driving and speeding would be a matter for road owners. Optimal solutions will be found by entrepreneurs free to experiment.
grahampwright 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
cluther1114 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
cluther1114 3 weeks ago
I have heard this thought experiment and similar hypothetical before. I will continue to view the rest of the parts as I have already saved it to my playlist for further and repeated viewing. THeir does exist serious pot holes in this and very very similar ideas. We can easily see this when you apply standard philosophical practice to these ideas. History has repeatedly shown us that this idea has holes. This idea is already played out right now in most places, Gov's are giant firms.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
I'm reminded of the mafia and protection schemes. Generally, the option to switch to a lower cost provider isn't an option, though reputations does hold a high value, but generally more in the area of making examples of unfaithful customers.
SaucerheadTharp 1 month ago
What if Bill is very wealthy and buys premiums from all security firms and buys media outlets? Bill goes scot free.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
A good story but I don't like how narrow it is. At several points the narrator provides alternate examples of how these things could function, but at other times he does not. For instance, what's to say that security companies won't fund rehabilitation programs for repeat offenders addicted to drugs if it saves them money in the long run to do so? Ideas like this aren't much addressed in the video, it generally sticks to a very simple model of the industry.
FromMuToYou 1 month ago
I'm guessing the creator of this is an Anarco-Capitalist.
MMAhero97 1 month ago
Fighting it out is only costly if 1) you have no sources of profit other than providing defense for your clients and 2) your forces are weak. If your security firm has a massive armed force behind it, and a source of funding for that force outside of the firm's duties itself, no one can fuck with you, even if your client is actually guilty.
If you want proof of this, look no further than your average criminal organization.
nostalgia484 1 month ago
@nostalgia484 Sounds like we are in agreement then...
grahampwright 1 month ago
What if a person cannot pay for the subscription (widdows, orphans, single parents, disabled people, chronically ill people, homeless people, jobless people, old people)?
Can you do whatever you want with them??? They won't have Tanna Justice looking out for them, right?
lithium0611 1 month ago
@lithium0611 Absent a state, security will be much cheaper, most everyone will be better off, and charities will be more effective. The poor are likely to get a much fairer treatment absent the state. After all, it's not like states currently do a good job for the poor when it comes to security/law. States work for the rich; private security will work for the masses.
grahampwright 1 month ago
Free Society? LMFAO You think letting private businesses deciding whats going to happen to you or where you can work is freedom? LiberTARDians.
smashauthoritea 1 month ago
sounds like a spring board for fascism through one societies increased wealth power an ideals
TheHONKYLIPS 2 months ago in playlist Anarchist Society
@TheHONKYLIPS A "spring board for fascism"?! Surely fascism - governmental and private power working together - is more likely now, when the machinery of subjagtion, the apparatus of the state, is in place and waiting for a tyrant to seize power, than it would be in a society that lacks that apparatus. The wannabe-tyrant would have to set up a state apparatus from scratch! So hardly a springboard. Having a state is just asking for trouble.
grahampwright 1 month ago
@grahampwright thats that is exactly whats goin on now so good point. however with no state it would be like a big feudal system with disagreeing parties who would probably go to war with each other until one sect or party took over enough to put their laws down. so i guess not a spring board but a long shitty somalia style slope. or a anarchic fallout (the game series) type world. and having humans in charge of any sort of system is asking for trouble
TheHONKYLIPS 1 month ago
@TheHONKYLIPS "having humans in charge of any sort of system is asking for trouble" You might as well give up now then, because we're pretty much stuck with that. Or you could take that as a given. Assume that there will be disagreements, and evil and greedy people in the world.
Then, given that assumption, what system is best? One where the power is centralised in monopolies funded by taxation, or where it is decentralised and funded by voluntary means?
grahampwright 1 month ago 4
@grahampwright in a moral sense i do agree with that but judging by typical human behavior it brings me back to my last point when more and more people have a say in what goes or not the majority vote with the most power wins weather its a good idea or bad. look at america the majority of the people have decided to live an unhealthy earth destroying china funding ignorant life style so if say 1 truly righteous person had say over all would it not be better i have yet to see such a thing though
TheHONKYLIPS 1 month ago
@grahampwright A democratic republic is best. Your description of the government as a "centralised monopoly" is a distortion of reality. It may be incredibly inefficient at times, but its goal is to serve the interests of EVERYONE regardless of of their wealth or income.
KeroroGunsouTX 1 month ago
@KeroroGunsouTX How are the world's governments doing? This video is the reality.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
I have a question, so a rich person could commit a crime and say, rape someone, and they would get away with it, so long as they paid the fee as "compensation"?
drununoctium 2 months ago
@drununoctium just like american society
TheHONKYLIPS 2 months ago in playlist Anarchist Society
@drununoctium It's far easier for a rich person to rape someone and get away with it now than it would be in a free society. After all, politicians and bureaucrats are cheap to bribe, so it's pretty easy for a rich person to bias the system in their favor. Private security/law firms live by their reputation and are at the mercy of consumers. No firm could allow a rich rapist to escape punishment and still remain in business.
grahampwright 1 month ago
@drununoctium How long you think the rich person would be rich if he was paying everyone fees when there are no subsides, bailouts or special favors/monopolies by the government. No one would want to do business with such a person.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
If Alice subscribed to Tanna Justice, how would it conduct the case?
weurRTG 2 months ago
@weurRTG It would use it's internal arbitrators, and may submit the case for external review, especially if there is an accusation of bias. TJ would not want to become known as a firm that acts unfairly when the dispute is between two of their own clients.
grahampwright 2 months ago
Comment removed
weurRTG 2 months ago
So in the name of liberty, you're ready to let Pinkertons have the authority to conduct criminal investigations on you? What if said Pinkertons are in the employ of a wealthy business competitor as well?
meijiame 2 months ago
As enterprises and capitalism as well are driven by the objective of earning as money as possible: How do we do to avoid rich people from paying money to the justice firms so that their interests are favoured?
I just want to learn, I'm not being aggresive :P
yomartins 2 months ago
@yomartins To re-phrase your question: under which system, state or no state, will the rich have the most power to be able to get the legal system biasing them? In other words, is it easier to bribe politicians/bureaucrats/police or CEO's/executives/shareholders? Clearly the former, because they are not spending their own money, but taxpayers money. In the latter case, the bribe will have to be much higher. Bribery of the state, aka lobbying, is easier, so the rich favor the state.
grahampwright 2 months ago
What happens if I'm poor? There is no justice or security for me? As well as another thing: As there is no state, and laws don't exist, I can refuse to pay the punishment. Who are they to tell me what to do? Are they going to kill me?
yomartins 2 months ago
@yomartins If your poor, you could sell the claim to your case to the highest bidder. And laws will exist without a state. Watch the first video in this series (and the third). If you refuse to pay, you will become an outlaw. No one will come to your defense and the victim can hire a bounty hunter.
ErikLiberty 2 months ago
@yomartins Not a full answer to your question about the poor, but 1) everyone will be wealthier, 2) security/justice will be cheaper, 3) charities will be more efficient, 4) no reputable security/justice firm will be biased against the poor (due to potential bad reputation), 5) "no win, no fee" options will exist, 6) security/justice firms may offer free basic services if it helps their reputation or their business model.
And 7) you imply the poor get security/justice now from the State?!
grahampwright 2 months ago
@yomartins The poor will be well protected in a free market. You still have the option of protecting yourself and your family/friends protecting you. You can join voluntary groups or charities who offer this service of protection. If you do a crime and cannot pay the fine all at once then you can pay installments or provide your services in exchange. There will be no taxes so you keep all you earn.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
@bigboywasim The insurance companies would want to keep their clients safe so they will have protection for the general society as crime increases their claims.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
I agree with everything in the video except your view of security firms using force to kidnap the suspect. Other than that great job.
WintersAscension 3 months ago
@WintersAscension I'd like to think that force might not be necessary, i.e. that ostracism would be sufficient. That would be a polycentric voluntary legal system and would be ideal.
But one step at a time: here I show that even a legal system that uses force, i.e. a polycentric coercive system, is feasible and superior to a monopolistic coercive system.
grahampwright 2 months ago
Consequentialism is a wonderful concept. Unfortunately, few people understand it anymore thanks to government's control over every aspect of their lives.
CherryGanz 3 months ago
This is superlative teaching with supreme verbal and visual clarity. How do we get you to make more videos, Graham Wright?
joequirk 3 months ago
Comment removed
BigBizzE 3 months ago
this is great stuff !
dopejoel 3 months ago
Great idea but what happens if such a person has only the economic means to either eat or be protected? It would seem that in this case a security firm could easily frame an innocent person, find them guilty and then send them to one of their prison work camps.
SexDrugsFinance 3 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance There are two thoughts I have on this:
1. There is no saying that if contracts on law and such are polycentric that one such contract might not a) redistribute wealth voluntarily (as now tax = charity), or b) priced progressively (the poor pay nothing to minimal fees, while the richer pay more).
2. The Agorist Konkin III model desribes a model where those found guilty but cannot pay fines, etc., the fines compound making later criminals further deters by incurred costs.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance continuing 2:
As a result the corporation would pay such extreme penalties for such a transgression that it would bankrupt them. It becomes existenial for the firm to not risk such a frame-up. Also, I think the video addresses this, but in less detail. This also works for individuals, as penalties acrued by previous offenders will make career criminality impossible. Sure, irrational actors and acts will occur by individuals and institutions, but we make no claim at utopia.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance cont. last
As Benjamin Tucker put it (I'm paraphrasing):
Anarchy makes no claim of curing of all lives ills. We simply assert that of evils liberty is the lesser, and of virtues liberty is the greater. In all things, liberty is preferable to monopoly, coercion, invasion, and tyranny.
If you distrust monopolies in markets (corporate) it is illogical to trust their virtues civilly (state). There is no prefered virtue of institutions, only centralized evils.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@SexDrugsFinance 1) The victim's security runs the risk of the unsecured fleeing & never recovering their costs from him. If he has no money invested in security of his own, then he has nothing to lose by turning fugitive.
2) The victim's security doesn't want to earn a reputation of penalizing defenseless people or bullying smaller firms.
CherryGanz 3 months ago
Was Somalia a paradise when they had a central government?
piotrzarek 3 months ago 16
Comment removed
piotrzarek 3 months ago
This series of videos really helps explain the concepts in Nozick's book. My thanks to the person who has provided this resource.
biznor3 4 months ago
Why would the agencies ever seriously consider that the accused would be innocent? Corporations exist to make money, saying "Nope, your innocent, don't pay us" goes against that axiom.
Antamar123 4 months ago
An interesting possibility for dispute resolution in a free market, similar to what is already seen in mediation and private dispute resolution, which exists even in spite of the state.
If somehow, despite market forces, some firm grew to be aggressive, forcing people to pay for or use it, monopolizing law, well, then, you've just created a state. Having a state only assures this theft and violence is directed against all it's subjects, whereas peaceful opportunities lie in a free market.
mortivik 4 months ago
So people that can't afford any justice agency has no law protection and can be raped and robbed freely?
if you committed a crime in the past, does that also mean you deserve no legal protection because firms refuse your subscription?
KarinMikazuki 4 months ago in playlist More videos from grahampwright
Again flawed on many points.
Tenna could decline arbitration and threaten war. Dawn Defense might back down in the face of it, incurring losses. Aggression has paid off, and justice was not done.
Or Tenna and Dawn could cooperate to deny the claims of all other firms, forming an arbitrary monopoly by force of arms. The society you describe is ill-suited to defend itself against such alliances, and so descent into despotism is inevitable.
Polymeron 4 months ago
this is such a flawed system, you are making too much assumptions:
1) by what is the company obligated to pay Alice?companies now look for a ton of loopholes, and only pay anything due to objective customer protection laws provided by the state, they can just get rid of Alice or force her to stfu at gunpoint please tell me what would she do then?
anarchy will eventually lead to dictatorship...
jacobpaprotskiy 4 months ago
So what you end up with is either continual fighting between warlords, new faction leaders, etc. (Somalia again) or you get momentary periods of peace caused by a fragile balancing of powers against each other (Gaelic Ireland). In either case, you have a severely wasteful use of resources because in both cases resources are being allocated either to war or to deterrence.
Meanwhile the social state of society suffers from lack of basic infrastructure. No one wants to live in these areas.
kDest 4 months ago
People fear anarchy because history is replete of examples where a lack of central government causes severe strife for everyone except a handful of people running the factions. Somalia is a modern example, where warlords took over in the absence of government. Instead of working to build a better society together, they used humanitarian supplies as a form of currency to leverage power.
This always happens in one way or another. That is why we have a single government.
kDest 4 months ago
Does Alice pay "Dawn Defense" to be an objective force: which may or may not rule in Alice's favor in a dispute? Or does she pay Dawn Defense always to take her side? If the latter, it may not always be justice.
And what may be fairest in this world, with all its constraints, is that there must be some aggression by others. No different than humans who hunt animals for food.
mphello 4 months ago
In a truly free society Bill would have died in the original encounter.
1248dl 4 months ago
what would happen if a company managed to make a monopoly since high entry costs into the market
rob0is0god 4 months ago
@rob0is0god If entry costs are high then it means that consumers are unwilling to pay for a new startup. They must be happy enough with what they've got. Monopoly is only a problem when you have the monopolist or someone working for them using violence and threats of violence against anyone who tries to startup a new firm to compete against them. "Free market monopolies", where violence is absent, are beneficial and commonplace: the NFL is an example. Customers only want one football league.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright
and what about something along the lines of the power grid, there isnt room for two companies to run competing power cables across a country hence that one company has total control of the market and without some other force preventing abuse (a government) they could charge what ever they like (with limits)
i would say the NFL is not a true monopoly since there are other leisure/ sport activities to watch.
rob0is0god 4 months ago
@rob0is0god Maybe it would be a waste of resources to have two power cables crossing the country doing the same service? After all, if there are two, what's to stop them colluding on prices? Don't we need three? But then we need four... hang on, where's this going to end? How do we know the optimum number of firms in an industry, without free competition revealing it to us?
You're spot on with your observation that the NFL has substitutes. Now extend this line of reasoning.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright well for power lines you have already shown that 1 is the only number a free market can mantain since the first comp can undercut any others
problem is the 'other market overlapping' idea doesnt hold for several industries
also on a side note who would pay for street lights or inner city roads? neither can be monetized for a profit the good old free rider problem strikes again
rob0is0god 4 months ago
@rob0is0god Right. So what's the problem? You have a free market, which results in one company providing a service without any direct competitors, and this is the optimal way of using resources. What would be the point in using force to introduce some arbitrary competitor, when this would be deleterious to the way resources are being used?
See my video "Funding Public Goods (by Roderick Long)". Lighthouses are mentioned and street lights are pretty similar. Think creatively.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@rob0is0god So in the extremely unlikely event that one firm achieves 100% market share, there is no problem, unless that firm then uses force to prevent anyone from competing with it. Until then, it has achieved its 100% market share honestly and that arrangement reflects the desires of consumers. At the moment it uses force, it has become a government. But like I said I consider the possibility of one firm achieving a 100% share of a significantly large territory to be very remote.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright why would it be unlikely? since in a market with high barrier to entry (high start up costs/ technological superiority any of many mechanisms can create a monopoly) and since a company is driven by profit (and profit alone) what would prevent their abuse of their position?
also why must it be honest you're telling me companies wont collude or cheat?
rob0is0god 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Terrible analogy, this is a flawed analogy and should be thrown out immediately, you cannot possibly compare the two, and socialist food production is definitely superior.
m3anmik3y 4 months ago in playlist KilllaCaleb's favorites
@m3anmik3y Lol, never heard of the mass starvations in the Soviet Union? What about the problem of economic calculation under socialism?
grahampwright 4 months ago 12
@grahampwright Lol, never heard of the countless governments toppled by the Western World (read: capitalist exploiters). What about the problem of economic disparity under capitalism? The starvation caused by this is never cited and is infinitely times worse, I wonder why?
m3anmik3y 4 months ago
@m3anmik3y Starvation has largely been cured by markets, actually. In fact, famine was a universal norm with no inkling of being cured or solved in pre-market feudalism, agrarian society, and hunter-gatherer society.
Also, your point on capitalism causing starvation assumes the economic pie is finite, and that when one is made rich others necessarily are made poor. This is a common economic fallacy. The pie is in fact expanding as a longterm trend in markets. The pie shrinks as markets decline
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@ProIndividual Markets are not exclusive to capitalism, nice try though. And yes , the "economic" pie is infinite, and yet the resources (which SHOULD back economies), are not. Nice try though! Next time think for yourself instead of parroting your econ 101 textbook, thanks!
m3anmik3y 3 months ago
@m3anmik3y Marketless economies are not capitalist...what kind of market economies are non-capitalist exactly?
Resources are not infinite...hence why space exploration and exploiting resources on the 99.9% dead planets is a necessity. You mean they are finite here, right now. That's not even an issue, since prices create supluses by making it more advantageous to produce what is scarce until it isn't anymore. Starvation is solved by capitalism and markets.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@ProIndividual Prices do not create a surplus of resources no matter the price, they just limit the amount that can be purchased, or should I say discriminate to who is able to purchase. If space exploration is so important, why is space research almost exclusively funded by the government? Terra-forming planets is definitely a top priority, but why is there several orders of magnitude more funds directed towards "short term gains"? I'll answer, it's because of capitalism.
m3anmik3y 3 months ago
@m3anmik3y Space exploration is stagnant precisely because of government. For a long time private enterprises were specifically FORBIDDEN to space travel. Things are slowly changing for the better luckily. Google "Space Frontier Foundation." Also check out: /watch?v=-0Da2fyzBus
The closer we are to an age of advanced life in space is the closer we get to ultimate liberty from statism.
HolidayFortnight 3 months ago
@m3anmik3y I meant :
Resources are not finite*
There are infinite planets out there...most of which cannot even sustain the lowest forms of life. They still contain many resources waiting to be used without harming the world(s) we choose to live on. In our lifetimes we will import resources from space, I guarantee it.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@m3anmik3y What do you think will trigger this exploration and mining of dead planets that will cure shortages of our ever-growing population? When we grow so many that we must colonize elsewhere?
Prices. Profits. Markets. Capitalism.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@m3anmik3y BTW, I'm an autodidact...I have no textbook. I read books, but college is for the brainwashed and lazy who wish a piece of paper to get more money in a job, not an education. I went to college, almost graduated, and then quit. I made the Dean's List every Semester...I was there on scholastic scholarship, and was a member of Phi Theta Kappa (national honor society). It's all BS if you don't question their regurgitated BS lectures. I dropped out an actually educated MYSELF.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@ProIndividual And as a side-note, do you agree that crimes in a state-less environment should just be paid off? The company will not care about retribution will they? They just want their money, yes? So this means that a person could commit any crime and just pay it off, the richer you are the more you can get away with? I don't really understand how this is a step forward from our current legal system, I realize I might misunderstand though so if you have any insight please share.
m3anmik3y 3 months ago
@grahampwright Lol, never heard of the mass starvations in the entire world? What about the problem of economic distribution under capitalism?
I can play strawman too, faggot.
m3anmik3y 3 months ago
@m3anmik3y Exactly. Capitalists never take into account the complex constraints of physical reality.
And their brainless citing of the Soviet Union, thinking they've "won" the argument with a meaningless soundbite of the name of a country with anti-scientific (Lysenkoism) and ultranationalistic (kill anyone who is not sufficiently "Russian") set of laws, proves they are not mentally capable of thinking outside their restrictive paradigm.
mphello 4 months ago
@m3anmik3y
Ever heard of the Holodromor?
JakikoChan 4 months ago
@JakikoChan What of it?
m3anmik3y 4 months ago
and wouldn't there also be firms that help you to get away with/from stuff like crimes and punishments?
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 any successful business in laizze faire market would necessarily need to be cooperative and be willing to coordinate with other businesses, other wise they will be met with a great deal of resistance and repercussions that they will need to pay for out of their own pocket. if the majority of the human race is just a bunch of criminals at heart then I suppose there would be a great deal of cartelization.
KilllaCaleb 4 months ago
I think Tanna justice has a financial incentive to find it's clients not guilty lol
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 it's reputation toward it's other clients is a greater incentive for them to be consistent, than the incentive of only one of their clients to be specious on their behalf
KilllaCaleb 4 months ago
@KilllaCaleb that's true. In the current system, in the US, when the state brings charges against an individual, they must prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The case must be heard by an impartial jury. The opposing sides must be allowed to cross examine witnesses.
In an anarchy, how would 'beyond a reasonable doubt' be a rule?
Wouldn't problems arise when a high profile case happens? The right thing happened when the impartial jury found Casey Anthony not guilty.
darris321 4 months ago
@KilllaCaleb wouldn't public opinion sway the decision of the company Tanna Defense? I feel like if the Casey Anthony case was held in an anarchy, the company would be less likely to defend her.
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 you are right that public opinion influencing a dispute, but I disagree that public opinion would be arbitrary and cut throat, the majority of individuals want consistent laws that make sense and they want to know that their dispute resolution organizations will follow throw with logical proceedings they ascribed to when they first contracted with the DRO. so if the DRO abandons principals like "Innocent before proven guilty" they are likely to lose a great deal of their customers.
KilllaCaleb 4 months ago
@KilllaCaleb We also have a jury of our peers that can nullify the law so that even if you did the crime, you won't be punished because either you were justified, or the crime shouldn't apply to you.
A jury judges the law as well as the fact (even though courts lie to them).
Would juries exist in this system? If so, how much would they be paid?
I think the majority of individuals SAY they want consistent laws. However, in the case of Casey Anthony, the majority wanted her dead.
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 to be honest I am not sure on how exactly a court session would work. I would imagine that since having a jury is preferable most people will have it in their contracts with DROs that they will volunteer to be apart of a jury to reciprocate for the right to have jury at their trials if they ever have any. I would also imagine that the majority of people wanting casey anthony dead would be just a irrelevant in a ancap trial as it was with the government, the market demands consistency.
KilllaCaleb 4 months ago
@KilllaCaleb I would not expect juries to be commonplace. In every other industry, you have specialists. Why would you want to hire the services of people picked randomly, who are completely untrained and unexperienced in evaluating evidence and judging characters and testimonies, to make crucial decisions on cases, when if they are wrong, you could be out of business?
grahampwright 4 months ago
@darris321 the presupposition you seem to have here is that public opinion is based on a collective delirium and not reason. but if that were the case, if the majority were always haphazard and devil may care then any democratic process is culpable for the same flaw you have pointed out, since public opinion is just simply majority rule anyway.
KilllaCaleb 4 months ago
Excellent combination of visual and verbal clarity. Please make more.
joequirk 4 months ago
Make the third part of these series already!
LibertyOfExpression 5 months ago
again this is an interesting video so could you give me an argument that defeats the idea that this system would not work because many people would not subscribe to a security (punishment and insurance firm) because they can rely on other people to subscribe and they still receive the benefits in that the criminals will be punished and less likely harm will come to them even though they didnt subscribe? governments exist because to provide what the majority percieve a public (nonexclusive) good.
TheStfu1000 5 months ago
@TheStfu1000
The distinction between private goods and public goods is illusory. It is more like a scale of privateness/publicness. Security is actually a poor example of a public good as it is more towards the private end anyway. But no matter how much of a public goods character something has, it doesn't follow that government could or should step in. That would only make things worse.
See Hoppe "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security" for a full argument.
grahampwright 5 months ago
@grahampwright i'll read that pdf thanks. but with some skepticism as the free rider problem does make a lot of sense to me. but it is hard to prove in the sense that you can only measure how much a public good something is by how many people would vote for it to be provided by a government ie through force. a free rider always has the excuse that he actually doesnt consider it a good even when he does, but when faced with a government option the free rider reveals his true wants.
TheStfu1000 5 months ago
@grahampwright im 6 pages into it. any person that requries 20 pages of writing to proof one idea is probably not correct in that he won't have been able to simplify his understandings if it requires 20 pages. also i saw bad reasoning such as saying 'this is how it's happened historically so it must be right'... he also mentions how a public good may be viewed negatively by others... if this is the case then the new public good simply becomes that which results in it not causing negativity.
TheStfu1000 5 months ago
@TheStfu1000
first of all, I think property rights and common defense are 2 areas where the people with more to protect will naturally subsidize the people with not so much to protect. and i think thats a good thing. There is no reason the poor should not benefit from rich people's interest in security. You should refer to david friedman's 'the machinery of freedom' if youre looking for a better answer to your question.
oiuoiu988 4 months ago
@oiuoiu988 it's funny i have the machinery of freedom pdf in a tab but i have yet to read it. but basically if a good is nonexcludable no rational person will work for that good when he could that good after someone else working for it. therefore no one works for it therefore all those that value the good don't get it. theoretically speaking. then all those that value it and understand it's non excludable vote for it to be made compulsory to work for it ie taxes ie governmentally provided.
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
@grahampwright that was well explained great work now i know we don't need any form of government. the free market will or may be the firs start in our societies.
Tethloach1 4 months ago
You pay for insurance; you get protection.
You don't pay; you don't get protection.
Free rider problem non-existent.
Xasew 5 months ago
also the free rider effect would still occur. whereby people just let other people pay for their subscription because it still results in the law breaker getting punished which is good for themselves. or perhaps the security services would allow their subscribers to publicise their subcription so as to ward off criminals. however this would increase the incentive for criminals to attack non subscribers. regardless the free rider effect would occur and the subscribers wouldnt get business. simple
TheStfu1000 5 months ago
so basically 'reputation' doesnt work in markets requiring force as you will need some ultimate force to actually enforce the company with good reputation. it could be a continuous process of each law maker hiring another law maker (ie everyone has their own security) to both appear peacefull (instead of doing war) and also to not lose the case which would lower it's reputation. also when a firm has far greater reputation than another firm it can afford rep loss as it's relatively small.
maxgunn555 5 months ago
free market law would become a monopoly because to get a fair reputation firms would want to have same laws/punishments as other firms (majority of) so their uniqueness in the competitive market wouldnt work. 'reputation' would have to be enforced anyway. and you brought in the arbitrator of the companies bensons to do that. but tans justice could have asked for an arbitrator itself and then the bensons and other arbitrator would either agree or not and continue the process infinitely. continued
maxgunn555 5 months ago
@maxgunn555 A paper company that produced paper of non-standard sizes would fail. But this does not mean the paper market is not competitive. The market finds the optimal balance between uniformity and diversity. Examples of this are everywhere.
The content of laws/punishment could be very uniform, but this would not be a monopoly. The courts would simply compete on other factors, such as their consistency in applying the law.
grahampwright 5 months ago
@grahampwright that certainly is a good point. but what about the free rider problem as stfu1000 said?
maxgunn555 5 months ago
@maxgunn555 Do you really think this process would continue infinitely? A world war? Really? Over a mugging?
Or do you think the two firms will make it a priority to find an arbitrator they can both agree on, to prevent just this kind of escalation you're talking about? There's no point in even approaching an arbitrator unless the other side will agree to that arbitrator.
grahampwright 5 months ago
@grahampwright yeah that was a weak argument from me but thinking about it if the individuals can hire security firms why can't the individual security firms hire their own security firms. why wasnt there an arbitrator to the initial individuals involved in the mugging? but as well as that point what about the free rider problem?
maxgunn555 5 months ago
This is completely illogical.
If bill is working as robber then we can only pay Alice from money robbed from other victims so there will be not enough money for copensations.
furthermore if Bill was unable to find legal job before becoming criminal there is no chance he will ever find some job to repay compensation so security agency will do bankrupt.
security firm know that and wont persecute criminals who cant pay.
deltaxcd 5 months ago
so lets say we all pay for our own security and roads, all the services. Add up all those bills I bet you it will be more than the taxes we pay. This is nonsense. Anarchy brings chaos. It has never worked and it never will. This is a system for the benefit of Lawyers to represent us in everything. It would be a reign of the Lawyers creating lawlessness.
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION I take it you're a communist then? After all, if a monopoly is more efficient at providing security and roads, presumably it is also more efficient at providing everything else, too?
grahampwright 5 months ago
@grahampwright I agree Monopoly is not good but who says Government runs a Monopoly. Do you know how your local government works?? Contracts and projects are bidded on and the winning bids get the contract . What part of that is communist, you labeling sob??
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION Government is a monopolist by definition, it is an organization that uses force to prevent competing providers of law/security from emerging. See video Part 1 for more on this. Can you define government for me, please, as we obviously have different definitions?
grahampwright 5 months ago
@grahampwright Just because this video calls the GOV a monopoly doesnt mean I have to comply. After all are you (an anarchist) imposing your view on me??
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION I was being somewhat facetious when I said communist. Sorry if I offended you. My point was that your saying goods A, B, C, etc should be paid for by government, while goods X, Y, Z, etc should be paid for individuals voluntarily. Why? The burden of proof is on you to explain why we have two classes of goods like this. How are A, B, C are different to X, Y, Z?
grahampwright 5 months ago
@grahampwright Thanx for the apology. It all comes down to what our view on life is. who do we really think owns everything and if an opportunity created is really one person`s or is it really one specie`s opportunity. Do we know anyone that has taken anything with them to death. If not then nothing is really our own, so we should take more responsibility to advocate sharing for the sake of Humanity, which happens to support all life forms, environment & peace. Abandoning wars to support >>>>
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
>>the human condition by providing basic human needs to people at the cost of all. An all for all. After all if you really want no government you can do so by going out and living out in the booney land. Have you flown in a plane before?? have you seen how many millions of miles of empty nothingness there is?? If one wants to create their own thing out there they can even now. What is holding you back??
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
@MAZDAKPRODUCTION I take it this means you're not going to answer my questions.
grahampwright 5 months ago
Comment removed
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
where is part three????????? this is a pretty good model.
TheSwazman 5 months ago
The author of this video presents an utterly hellish and asinine scenario where "private firms" become governments, always at war with each other. It's essentially no different than the system we use now, except these organizations are called "private firms" instead of "governments" or what have you. We don't need this kind of retarded bullshit, this is the twenty-first century, not the first century. The author is describing today's world with whitewash all over it. Disgusting and stupid.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike ... I am almost certain the point is to ensure "quality control" within these service. Our government is a monopoly with no means of competition.
Competition good.
No competition bad.
Do you understand now?
LiftYourSkinnyFist 5 months ago