State or Private Law Society? (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)

[DieTheDeath]

nielsio how did you get able to upload videos an hour long?

[Nielsio]

@DieTheDeath The reason I can upload longer videos is because I have an old-style Directors Account. I got lucky getting here early.

[DieTheDeath]

@Nielsio oh i see, thanks

[WarToRock]

Greets from Germany. Nice vod. Well done. Lets create a way more cooler society.

[frostbytet17]

Whats the other language they are speaking other than English?

[frostbytet17]

@frostbytet17 oh nvm he just said portugese

[natritious1]

this was excellent!

[ecnerwal999]

@KrugmanTheCharlatan Many monarchies have ruled for hundreds of years without being overthrown even when they were bad rulers. A Libertarian Monarch would ensure everyone was wealthy, through free market ideology, and so no one would have the incentive to overthrow the king. In contrast, Anarcho-capitalism, I believe, even with a society of libertarians wouldn't work because the protection agencies always have the incentive to monopolize and then kick out any new competitors.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 Not at all, if the protection agencies moved towards monopolization the people would quickly switch or cut off their paying, remember that these people won't have the illusion of governmental benevolence, so people will be much more suspicious.

Also your arguement by itsself doesn;t make sense: A system where one firm rules over everyone else would be good, but a system where amny firms compete would neccessarily corrupt and turn bad, when one firm takes voer and rules everyone?

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 "if the protection agencies moved towards monopolization the people would quickly switch or cut off their paying, remember that these people won't have the illusion of governmental benevolence". The tendency will still be towards monopolization because there is no incentive for the agencies to compete.

Also, the people would not stop paying the agencies because they would support the agency that robbed the rich the most since it is in their self-interest.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 "agency that robbed ... the most since it is in their self-interest."

No it's not in your self interest to support an agency that robs people! Have you never read that poem by the Catholic priest about Nazi Germany? Firs they go for the Cripples, then the Jews, then the Gypsies, THEN HIM.

The whole foundation of his idea for a market in security is that people understand the NAP and are against theft.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 "The whole foundation of his idea for a market in security is that people understand the NAP and are against theft." I understand that but I still think it won't work. Most liberals and socialists are actually nice people, believe it or not. I bet the majority of people wouldn't steal from a typical store even if they knew they wouldn't get caught. That said, for some reason there is always a tendency in a democracy for socialists and wealth redistributors to get elected.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 If you want, you should read my full article at: libertarianmonarchy . com/whylibertarianmonarchy.htm

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 "libertarianmonarchy . com/whylibertarianmonarchy.htm­"

If you can't grant him a society in which people understand that theft is wrong, how can anyone possibly grant you a King who'se family will always be libertarian? It seem to me far more likely that people would realize theft to be wrong then that a King and his family would remain Libertarian after everyone gave them all the guns.

Also a king destroys the refinement and bettering mechanism of competition.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 If you read my article you would realize that the type of monarchy I suggest is one where each Libertarian king would not pass the throne onto his children but rather the most revolutionary austro-libertarian. So, in the case of the United States it would have been George Washington, then let's say umm Andrew Jackson, then maybe Carl Menger, eventually Mises and Rothbard, etc.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 That isn't monarchy then its something between monarchy and a republic.

I saw this talk as a hypothetical and only potentially real with a near unanimous common belief in libertarianism.

"tendency in a democracy for socialists and wealth redistributors to get elected."

I think it comes from a lack of understanding of property rights, economics, the market and a social atmosphere of pro-socialism. If people were educated better they would see through it.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 "I saw this talk as a hypothetical and only potentially real with a near unanimous common belief in libertarianism." That's disappointing. Even with my doubts and concerns I would love to see anarcho-capitalism in action. But unanimous belief seems really unlikely.

[ecnerwal999]

"I think it comes from a lack of understanding of property rights, economics, the market and a social atmosphere of pro-socialism. If people were educated better they would see through it." Maybe, but when the United States was founded there was a very libertarian-minded population. They were better educated, were more inclined towards free market economics and weren't in a socialistic atmosphere. Yet, they still, granted over time, elected leaders that would redistribute wealth.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 Which is why we aren't going to have a political system or a fixed king who has to keep the people on his side, Hoppe advocates a system where there is free competition, which includes starting your own protection agency.

Imagine if voting for Ron Paul switched to subscribing to his agency so it ment him starting up a rival protection agency instead of virtually nothing? We wouldn't be in a libertarian utopia but we would be much better off.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 You make good points, but we're arguing in circles. If anarcho-capitalism was possible then why isn't there a single country in the world where there are two or more governments that compete and leads to secure property rights. It just isn't stable.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 There have been in the past, Roderick Long talks about it in this video:

watch?v=OMw8kl2kcZY

Also less then 300 years ago all societies had slavery, did the fact that slavery had always existed mean that it was a permanent part of society?

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 There has never een a libertarian king either, so you arguement is as strong against your own system as it is against mine.

[cabgt]

@ecnerwal999 We can probably never eliminate murder, but does that mean we shouldn't aim for 0% murder?

[ecnerwal999]

"Also a king destroys the refinement and bettering mechanism of competition." That is my point. I do not want competition in the production of coercion. Competition leads to efficiency and innovation which is not good when it comes to the production of "bads"(as Hans would say).

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 Your assuming that law enforcement will be as stupid and hostile as it is now under government management. In anarcho-capitalism you can set the laws on your own territory as long as they align with the Non-Agression Principle.

With no state licensing and censoring of the media we will porbably get some decent reporting too.

[ecnerwal999]

@KrugmanTheCharlatan I believe that an ideal society would have zero coercion. But since someone has to coerce people into not coercing eachother the solution is to have the least amount of people with the ability to coerce. Which would be exactly one person, the king. In Hoppe's ideal world anyone with a company could use coercion which is less ideal than the extremely limited coercion held only by the king.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 "least amount of people with the ability to coerce. Which would be exactly one person, the king."

That makes no sense, the king isn't patroling around the land stopping all crime, he delegates his power to officers, which is how we got police to start with.

Hans isn't proposing a system with more coercive people, he is just saying that there should be competing groups employing the same amount of coercive people, with them competing to be as effective and limited as possible.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 " the king isn't patroling around the land stopping all crime, he delegates his power to officers, which is how we got police to start with." That's a good point in response to my statement that we should restrict coercion as much as possible. However, I still think, as you mentioned, that the police only have power that is delegated to them from the supreme coercive authority. So the question is do you want one coercive authority or a bunch run by self-interested businessmen.

[ecnerwal999]

@Hashishin13 Now, I understand, and sympathize, with the argument that Hans Hermann Hoppe is making. His logic is that if we have lots of competition in security then everyone will be secure. My problem with that logic is that if you swap the word "security" for "coercion" then it leads to an extremely dangerous conclusion. A lot of competition in the production of coercion will make anarcho-capitalism look like a typical dictatorship.

[Hashishin13]

@ecnerwal999 Your missing the point, people aren't going out and paying someone to coerce them, a security firm isn't going to get powerfull by abusing their customers, just the opposite. The competition isn't in who can be the biggest and meanest its who can satisfy the customers.

These companies aren't like the government that can just steal your house or bank account at will, any actions like that would destroy their reputation and cost them huge money, the incentives are entirely different.

[ecnerwal999]

@KrugmanTheCharlatan "In any case, both sides are at least taking society somewhat in the right direction ;)

" We can definitely agree on that.

[ecnerwal999]

@KrugmanTheCharlatan I agree most governments will eventually become totalitarian except the type I suggest a Monarchy headed by a Libertarian. Libertarianmonarchy . com

My main argument against Anarcho-capitalism is that competition will increase production, efficiency and innovation which is good when things we like are produced but bad when it comes to the production of coercion. Anarcho-capitalism would resemble dictatorships.

[ecnerwal999]

@KrugmanTheCharlatan If we could convince most of society to be moral than we wouldn't even need a political system. People are not moral. People are self-interested and are generally willing to do anything, no matter how immoral, to satisfy their desires.

[pipobun]

"i want to be a law abiding criminal so from now on i will steal without using weapons!" lol ... imagine that coming out of the mouth of a gang leader :D

[rsobies]

greate lecture

[hiphopsocnroc]

thanks

[datalorez]

He's basically paraphrasing Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" with the Crusoe analogy. If it's interesting, go get the book.

[Doublicon]

Thanks for the awesome video, Nielsio.

[ecnerwal999]

Hoppe is wrong. Competition is only good when consumer goods are being produced. However, the government produces coercion and so competition will only increase efficiency and innovation in the production of coercion. A monopoly is preferable when it comes to the production of coercion. This is why I believe a Libertarian monarchy is the greatest political system. Check out libertarianmonarchy . com /whylibertarianmonarchy . htm

[grahampwright]

@ecnerwal999 On your website, you confuse coercion with aggression, government with law, and anarchism with pacificism. Libertarianism implies anarcho-capitalism; monarchy, while preferable to democracy, is still anathema to liberty.

[ecnerwal999]

@grahampwright Libertarianism in no way implies anarcho-capitalism. The fundamental principle of Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. In anarcho-capitalism the private governments are allowed to use force. Aggression and force, in an ideal world, should never be used. This is why I, as a Libertarian, believe that anarchy(as defined by a system of zero aggression) is ideal. Since this is not a practical solution, the next best thing is to restrict coercion as much as possible.

[grahampwright]

@ecnerwal999 Again, you're confusing aggression with force/coercion. The NAP forbids aggression, which is the INITIATION of force/coercion. Defensive force/coercion, such as the force used by private security agencies in anarcho-capitalism, is not a violation of the NAP. Your "libertarian monarchy" necessarily violates the NAP; it must tax, which is aggression, and it must aggress against any potential competitors in the provision of security/law that may emerge.

[ecnerwal999]

@grahampwright I understand your argument now. I was using the terms "aggression" and "coercion" interchangeably which was a mistake. However, I don't think that coercion is morally right EVEN if it's for self-defense. Under no circumstances should you have the right to restrict someone's freedom. An ideal society would have no coercion whatsoever. In this scenario the concept of self-defense would be superfluous. And therefore, philosophically the private governments would not be justified.

[grahampwright]

@ecnerwal999 Don't worry it's a common mistake. A society with no coercion whatsoever would be a pacifistic society. It's ideal, yes, but also obviously utopian; there will always be people who aggress.

If you really believe that self-defense is immoral you are a pacifist. Pacifism is really incompatible with libertarianism, because property rights are meaningless without the right to defend your property (including your body).

[ecnerwal999]

@grahampwright Interesting.I don't think self-defense is immoral but I don't think it's moral either.The problem of self-defense only emerges after aggression has been committed. For example, let's say you steal from me, and so I steal it back. What makes the latter theft any different from the former? It's the exact same action. So it's not morally wrong nor morally right. The answer is that the initial theft should never have taken place. This is y I don't distinguish between coercion & aggre.

[grahampwright]

@ecnerwal999 If you own it, and I use coercion to take it from you, yes that's theft, stealing, aggression. But if you then use coercion to take back your own property, that's not theft. That is defensive (or retaliatory) coercion by you, not aggressive (or initiated) coercion, which is what I did. Given that I have stolen from you, do you have the right to use retaliatory coercion against me to retake your property, or not? Are you a libertarian or a pacifist?

[ecnerwal999]

@grahampwright I love the forums of the Mises institute. I'm sure we'll speak there some other time. Now let me see what Roderick Long has to say.

[ecnerwal999]

@grahampwright My previous statements were written hastily and I will continue to think it over. Regardless, I am convinced that Anarcho-capitalism could never work. What if all the poor(majority) decide to start stealing from the rich(minority), would it be profitable for a company to side with the rich? Private governments would be in the production of coercion and they will be very tempted to use coercion as aggression instead of just self-defense. They could easily monopolize the industry.

[grahampwright]

@ecnerwal999 Check out 'Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections' by Roderick Long. He deals with several of your objections very succintly.

If you want a longer discussion, I am a regular poster at the friendly Mises Institute community forum. Be good to see you there!

[ecnerwal999]

@grahampwright ...Normally, in the free market, when companies try to monopolize they draw in competition, because of economic profits, and end up losing money in the long run. However, if governments monopolize they can then restrict any competitors from entering in. The more competition the more ruthless the government will be.

[batmanthe]

@ecnerwal999 Interesting way of looking at it but I do not agree. The ONLY way to come to Anarcho-capitalism is with a large amount of Anarcho-capitalists and Anarcho-capitalists have a strong belief in the non-aggression principle. As soon as a security agency or "voluntary government" overstepped it's bounds, people would not give them money and they could not function. Now your theory may have some merit, if..

[ecnerwal999]

@batmanthe The solution is to convince the majority of the population to become Anarcho-capitalists, so that we can have Anarcho-capitalism?That is so ridiculous. If Anarcho-capitalism actually worked then it would already be prevalent. There is plenty of competition between governments yet all we see is democracies and dictatorships, which fits my theory much better than Hoppe's. There isn't a single industrialized country that has competing governments. My theory explains why, Hoppe's doesn't.

[batmanthe]

@ecnerwal999 "If Anarcho-capitalism actually worked then it would already be prevalent."

Your claim is violently hollow. NEVER in the history of humanity can you point to such a group where a large % of people have ever had a goal of Voluntaryism. People have to break the chains of SIX THOUSAND+ years of statist indoctrination that says "governments are needed". Culture, child raising and real education is key. What keeps government's chains; would also keep the state from reemerging.

[ecnerwal999]

@batmanthe My argument is not hollow. There is so much competition between governments. Look at dictatorships in Africa. The dictators are constantly being fought by rebel(competing) governments. The most ruthless dictator is the one that remains in power. People should not have to voluntarily support a system for it to work. Humans act based on self-interest and a proper political system needs to be able to support that. Check out libertarianmonarchy . com / whylibertarianmonarchy . htm

[batmanthe]

..say the FreeStateProject is a success and they are so successful that other states see it and decide to succeed also and abolish their governments. A non-libertarian society trying to emulate a libertarian society from a distance may suffer from what you are talking about..

[greenghost2008]

1:30 I post this so you can click on it.

[rumco]

The State's days are numbered, not many left! :)

[Esoparagon]

@rumco Really? I would think there's about 100 years left. :(

[SunBeamsan]

@Esoparagon I give it about another 20 years if the states are lucky before they totally collapse or phase out.

[Esoparagon]

@SunBeamsan I hope you're right.

[niklasbastholmhansen]

Thanks for providing this video, and for providing the annotation to the start of Hoppes' part :)

[2010xxyyzz]

Hans The Great.