Obliterating Statist Myths Episode One: Anarchic vs. Statist Law and Justice (Part 2 of 5)

[meadowsirl]

conservatives always look to the past for answers rather than the science and the future

[ShwangShwing]

How did it happen that all this stateless societies disappeared? It would suggest that they are not stable on the long term.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@ShwangShwing

their political system was basically infiltrated and warped by the english over the course of 500 years. so, a vastly larger state was able to corrupt them over the course of five centuries, as far as i understand anyway.

i don't think the modern state will be able to survive for much more than a decade in a world with the internet however.

[ShwangShwing]

@junior00bacon00chee When I see all those examples of stateless societies, and how they all came to an end I can't help but feel that this system is unstable. And how did it came that everywhere in the planet earth states formed? And still all the Earth is covered with states... And by the way the modern states are taking a lot more in taxes (as prercentage) than the ancient states. And sure, the states fall all over the history, but they rise again and again. How do you explain all that?

[junior00bacon00chee]

@ShwangShwing

states began as outgrowths of religion. the power of the state is vested in people's perception of it, as long as people believe in the necessity and legitimacy of states, states will continue to rise and fall.

it is statism that leads to the disastrous collapse of civilizations. for example, medieval iceland only descended into civil war after taxes were instituted and the number of chieftans was set by law.

[mmeziere]

@ShwangShwing States consisting of nearly every type of gov have failed in the past as well. The current form of government in the western world is only a few hundred yrs old, there is no telling how sustainable it is. The world is an unstable place and unless human nature changes into some Utopian society, there will always be external forces attempting to change what political system is in place. Just because we do not have a stateless society right now does not mean it is not a viable option.

[JacobSpinney]

I think they're called bre-hens. ;-)

[JacobSpinney]

@JacobSpinney erm, breh-hen

[philateliceun]

I agree that Anarchism would gives us all alot more freedom. But I still can't see how it doesn't induce conflict. I mean when there is no governing body to define rules people would have their own morals and norms but we all know how these things collide with other morals. There must be set morals that everyone follows by. In an anarchy society it would still be wrong to kill, I think. There would still be a national governing body that sets rules based on cultural morality.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@philateliceun

there is a natural desire to cooperate peacefully even amongst people who might be violent brutes because of the division of labor. the benefit of engaging in the division of labor is enormous, ie, you'd have to make everything yourself w/o it. so, there would be a huge incentive to not be ostracized. those who still are unruly can be dealt with through ostracism or force if necessary.

the problem with top down legislated morality is that it always leads to corruption.

[caemgen51]

Actually Brehon law existed for thousands of years, not just one thousand years. Great video though.

[verstwo2]

sure...the 'protestant' state and the 'catholic populace...back when religion and state were one in the same, but the Catholics were stateless...and resorted to terrorism...when they joined the state the violence was replaced with reasonable debate .  Sure I like Dawkins, but didn't mention him...whats your point?

[verstwo2]

Catholic and protestant terrorism was also a clever stateless way to address grievances in Ireland.

Again, what you are describing IS a state. Evolution is rising complexity over time. What your describing is a less complex form of a state. Exile from a society is the same as prison or death sentence. These also were still legal monopolies. There was no alternative to the existing legal system.

you say that England was 'another state'. What made this state able to conquer the Celts?

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

They really didn't give out any PUNISHMENT except for ostracizing criminals. Exile is not the same as prison or death sentence. Where is your logic?

They were not legal monopolies. You were not forced to associate with them.

[verstwo2]

ostracizing and exile, ARE punishments! Exile from society was a sever punishment at the time. If these were not legal monopolies they could not exile or ostracize criminals, they would not have the authority. IF you wanted to be a part of society you were forced to associate with them, if you didn't mind livin gby yourself in the wilderness then you were free to do so...the problem is there isn't anywhere to exile people to these days. everywhere that can be populated - IS.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

You don't understand.

The Brehon legal system was basically a group of people that others in a community respected because of their reputation for just rulings.

If a person has been ostracized, it basically means that they are labeled a "criminal" or something. The community agrees to not do any business with people that are ostracised and the ostracized people would have no legal protections.

[verstwo2]

I do understand.

Just because it was comprised of respected people doesn't mean they had a legal monopoly. If they didn't their ruling would have no effect. Were they formally elected? If not how do you know they actually respected by the entire community?

not to mention this is a medevil tribal society we're talking about.

Ostracizing people is still a punishment and doing "business" effect everything from where you live to what you eat.

this is still a state, in a different form.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

They were DIRECTLY elected.

A Brehon was entrepreneur. You would subscribe to a Brehon that you wanted.

Define "tribal".

A state is an organization that uses coercion to control its subjects. Choosing who you want to do business with does not make you a state.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@OutdoorsBlackMan

i wouldnt waste my time with verst, he does nothing but regurgitate all the BS garbage he has been conditioned to believe like everyone else. he clings to fairy tales like a child and will never let them go.

ive decided no longer to tolerate people of that level of retardation, people who have clearly been so damaged by public schools that they can barely articulate a coherent thought that isnt strewn with political speak and bullshit. he has been blocked.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@verstwo2

you will no longer be spewing your recycled garbage on my channel.

[DW01]

So punishment for a child abuser would be ostracism & no protection from the Law? Not really a good deal is it? What if said person refused to attend a meeting with the victim and these Brehons? Who could force them to attend? This is a ridiculous system. You can argue all you like about anarchic ireland or whatever but what you're forgetting is that people were killed for crimes by others without proof. Innocent people included. You need a justice system to enforce laws or there would be chaos.

[junior00bacon00chee]

ultimately everything is backed by force, but ostracism was used as a first means b/c it is less costly than violence.

that does not mean there can't be violent enforcement in an anarchy.

all im saying is that it is retarded to have a monopoly on law and justice. all that does is eliminate competition and force people to pay for things they probably dont want to. if one group of arbitrary people can do something, why cant another?

[DW01]

But who has the right to commit force against someone else, especially as there are no laws to break, nobody would have the right or authority to carry out acts of 'force' against another as punishment. If someone committed a 'crime' and was then punished by someone else who is simply their equal, then it could be a never ending circle. Multiply this by the number of crimes committed everyday and you would have large scale mayhem and violence. This is one reason why anarchy wouldn't work.

[junior00bacon00chee]

1. laws do not give people rights

2. humans desire social cooperation for mutual benefit. if we were doomed to a never ending circle of violence then it would happen whether we had a state or not.

the difference is that in an anarchy violence is disincetivized b/c it is very costly. in a statist society violence is incentivized for those in power b/c they can get away with it since everyone, yourself included, is so hopelessly brainwashed by statist propoganda.

[DW01]

I made a comment but it did not post...

In short, how would you deal with someone that had just raped one of your relatives? Ostracise them? Is that practical?

[junior00bacon00chee]

okay, im only going to answer this one more time.

anarchism is not necessarily an advocation of ostracism. ostracism ends up being used insofar as it serves whatever demand exists, ie, dealing with some social problem.

if someone raped my relative i would shoot them in the face.

what you dont understand is that justice would arise as a complex interplay of competing courts and insurance agencies. nothing would be written in stone like it is now.

[DW01]

'complex interplay of competing courts and insurance agencies'

No wonder anarchy will never prevail in a modern western World. You can never have a peacefull society when people have different, and sometimes no, morals. Order can only be attained through Law and Enforcement. Boundaries have to be laid by authority not joe bloggs from down the street. You have not explained anything about 'how' anarchy could work when you have so many criminals around.

[junior00bacon00chee]

haha...jesus, did you even watch the videos??

"Boundaries have to be laid by authority not joe bloggs from down the street."

what, pray tell, is the difference between the two? they are both random fucking people, one happens to belong to an arbitrary group and another does not.

[junior00bacon00chee]

the point is that the demand for law and justice will exist in the absence of the state (why else would we put up with the state if people didnt think it was necessary for these things?)

therefore, there will obviously be a profit incentive for people to provide these things. free enterprises would compete for VOLUNTARY consumers (as opposed to being forced by one entity, the state) in these markets.

why should we assume that one arbitrary group (the state) will be better than another?

[junior00bacon00chee]

your problem is a common one.  you see a person with a badge and a costume and all of the sudden you feel all warm and safe. the fact is that those who make up the state are NO DIFFERENT from anyone else, so there is no justification for thinking that they will provide superior service and must therefore maintain a forced monpoly from which you cannot opt out.

[junior00bacon00chee]

if you were honestly interested in anarchism there are plenty of resources to get these questions answered, i cant sit here and breast feed people this stuff over and over.  its why i make fucking videos. here are some sites:

mises (dot) org

lewrockwell (dot) com

stop bothering me with questions that have already been answered, i am not here to do your research for you.

[DW01]

OK no need to get tetchy, thanks for your understanding?!?

If you make videos you are going to get queries from curious minds - this is me researching and questioning. Fine, if you do not wish to defend your beliefs yet come out with half responses to questions then so be it. I often come across people like you on videos that defend religion. I shall take my research and debate elsewhere as you clearly cannot be bothered with simpletons like myself.

[junior00bacon00chee]

no, it is not that i am umwilling to argue, it is that i am unwilling to rehash the same points over and over again to so many people. i am limited by time and space. the questions you ask have answers which are easily accessible. if it were something you could not for the life of you figure out i would be glad to help.

yes, please go elsewhere, i have no desire to communicate with good little doggies such as yourself.

[DW01]

"Good little doggie" ???

If you only wish to communicate with bad little doggies who believe in the same as yourself then fine, i will go elsewhere.

You need to get a grip mate, it's only a debate. Anarchy, like Religion, is fantastic on paper, but i reality is a farce.

Now i'm gonna be a good little doggy and ask the same questions to someone else. Shame, as your vids provoked some of my interest.

[junior00bacon00chee]

well i hope u got my pm.

ne way, i see statism as a religion, considering the state is fundamentally a religious entity. you verify that by having all this praise of the "brave police authorities" who are nothing more than people w/badges.

but dont let me destroy anarchism for you. ideas should be separated from those who possess them. if u are truly interested i will be no blockade to you.

[DarthKazi]

The difference between private people and public people, is the "authority" given by the ALMIGHTY STATE OF GAWD.

As soon as a private person (one with a family, the majority of which are good, honest people that want to be left to their own business) dons a badge and "official status", this person tends to become a violent egomaniac who actually believes they are above the citizen.

Amazing phenomenon.

[DarthKazi]

Ohhh, come on. When is religion ever good on paper?

Jeeez.

[DW01]

If everyone followed the 10 commandments the World would be a better place, would it not? Law works in a similar way. However there are always people that refuse to follow laws and bring crime and misery to others.

BTW i'm Agnostic not religious before you categorise me as being a loony religious nutter.

[DarthKazi]

Sure, if they followed those basic ideas by voluntary ideology. Most people, my friend, actually do adhere to them, whether religious or not. It is the imposition of The Almighty State and their protection/violent racket, that creates inequities by intervention in markets and enforcing said laws for force.

Humans are naturally tribal groups with family units who generally like to be left alone. The concept that "humans are inherently violent and warlike" is nonsense.

[DW01]

Where has all of this 'violent racket' stuff come from? You must live in some dodgy places if law is enforced through violence. Normally if someone breaks a law in the UK and they are caught (lets say burglary) then they get a small fine and community services. If they are prolific they get a light prison sentence where they have access to counsellors and skills training. More serious criminals (killers, etc) receive lenthier sentences. Where is all of this violence you talk of?

[DarthKazi]

Ever heard of the DEA busting into people's houses in the middle of the night with paramilitary gear on for a guy growing pot in his basement... or worse, they get the wrong house and kill innocent people?

This is the madness of "prohibition".

[verstwo2]

"or worse, they get the wrong house and kill innocent people?"

-I'm sure this happens all the time. Legalizing pot would not require dismantling the government.

[verstwo2]

"If everyone followed the 10 commandments the World would be a better place,.. "

I'm willing to bet you cannot even name the 10 commandments OR the punishments the "loard" commanded for those who disobeyed. IF you did, you would not make such a foolish comment. Look them up dude, you'd be surprised how bad they are. I certainly was.

[DW01]

I think you should re-read the statement:

"IF EVRYONE followed the 10 commandments..."

No mention if most, or a few, but 'all'. Obviously this is impossible and unrealistic due to Human nature, but it makes sense that if all followed them the World would be better.

(and this from an Agnostic, myself)

[verstwo2]

I still don't see it.

How could not creating images make everyone better off.

[DW01]

I cannot answer the question as i am not a religious person, or educated that much in it. To me, religion is all false, but my perspective sees benefits to society for following the commandments.

Put it this way, why would you want to create an image of a God? What benefit does it have? To me religion has no place in my life or everyday thoughts. To me, that particular rule is nonesense, but if we did follow it, then maybe there would be less people devoting time to bloody religion anyway.

[DW01]

If i see a police man i automatically give him/her respect as they are an authority, a representative of the laws of the land, and also they are people that are risking their lives to maintain a lawfull society (when used correctly, unlike corrupt cops). On the other hand security guards do not get much respect as they are simply a commercial entity upholding law/policies. So in a world without a national police force who is some private person to tell me what i can and cannot do?

[junior00bacon00chee]

"If i see a police man i automatically give him/her respect as they are an authority"

that's because you are a good little sheep.

"and also they are people that are risking their lives"

cop death rates are very low relative to other occupations.

"So in a world without a national police force who is some private person to tell me what i can and cannot do?"

they aren't. it's called freedom, it's an interesting concept.

[Lamnont]

Then I'm not an anarchist, because I believe everyone should be their own nation, with their own laws!

[deliciousonionsoup]

Did the forming of a state / states in England, Scotland and Wales (even Britain) make the anarchist existence in Ireland as no longer viable - because of military attacks, colonisation, etc? Even the Romans if they had got as far as Ireland would have probably concquored the Island of Ireland much earlier. Not that states are better but maybe they are often militarily stronger, etc. Does that mean state violence trumps a neighbouring anarchy? Not that it's better...

[deliciousonionsoup]

Could an anarchy like what was Ireland and like what was Iceland, survive let alone compete with neightbouring states?

[doogal66]

The british "invasion" of Ireland took 300 years. At first irish armies routed the invaders. Then the irish Kings made a "deal" and went into exile. Immediately british colonists took up landholdings but went "feral" and became brehon loving irish. The settlers gladly accepted the Brehon social structure. It was case of a more hospitable social culture than that found in Britian or Europe. Serfdom did not exist in brehon ireland. ..............

[doogal66]

The british crown found the brehon culture totally unmanageable and ungovernable under British common law. The earlier british settlers took up arms against any infringement activity by stationed british officials. Finally the ultimate solution was mas slaughter of some 1.5 mill ? ppl in 1670 by Cromwell thus bringing the direct influence of brehon law to an end. It is a fascinating and insightful historical example of a clash of culture, laws and social organisation.

[DW01]

And a proof that without a solid structure of government and military, then every anarchic land would be overrun/enslaved/conquered by a nation with a structure.

[volition22]

Love this video, can't wait for the next videos in the series

[rickysles]

Great stuff man! I would really like to see a voluntarist do a video on how we can practically implement a voluntary society with the threat of states all around us, i.e. Somalia and how the UN is forcefully trying to implement government there. Much like how Ireland fell to a state.

[dakshinamurti]

very well done :)

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Absolutely fantastic series so far. I'm very much looking forward to the next installments.

Just FYI --- tuatha is pronounced "too-ah," with emphasis on the first syllable (as is the case with most Irish words).

[UcanbeGOD]

Its so strange how clear this is yet, I only recently knew about it or accepted it. Its not fun being lied to. Can't wait for 3 and 4.

[EdwardMandellHouse]

Excellent.