Actually, both scenarios you mentioned are highly plausible, and scenarios similar to your "statist apocalypse" have happened multiple times. In fact, by portraying anyone who points out the dangers of your system as crazy, you're using one of the primary tactics of the statists.
@LibertyIsNotGiven I'm not sure what you're referring to. Your main point seems to be that scenarios involving a failure in an anarchist system aren't legitimate. All I'm saying is that you need to address perfectly plausible scenarios which could occur under such a system and explain how you'd avoid them.
The burden of proof is also on statists to explain how we are to avoid a slide into fascism, which is the direction we're going.
"Your main point seems to be that scenarios involving a failure in an anarchist system aren't legitimate."
No, that isn't the point, nor is the point in this particular video to address each and every possible scenario. I've done that before, in many other videos.
See, this is why most of those videos have been removed and why I generally eschew political discourse on YouTube these days. People don't listen. I can't say why that's the case, but they don't.
I love when people whip out the ol ' oh nos public schools destroyin yer kids' crap. Yes, let's go back to the days when we taught kids whatever the hell we wanted, which usually meant the world was flat and evolution was satan's lie
@ashleypoo1319 You need to research education in ancient Athens. They made some of the greatest advances ever in science and philosophy in a system in which the government played absolutely no role in schooling.
At by the way, what about the government teaching kids that we're on the verge of apocalypse thanks to adding microscopic amounts of carbon (Which we breathe out) to the atmosphere.
@Pericles461 I assume you are talking about climate change, although i've never heard it referred to as an apocalypse before. It's not the government teaching these kids that climate change is real, it's the scientists. You know, those people actually qualified to tell you about it, not pundits or supposed scientists hired by Exxon. When the vast majority of scientists turn against climate change, maybe i'll actually worry about it being taught.
@ashleypoo1319 I'm not sure how else to describe environmentalist predictions of the polar ice caps melting, the sea rising up and flooding the world, and massive storms throughout the whole process. Seriously, that would wake a good end of the world movie, but I'd hardly call it reliable science.
Weren't the "scientists" behind this scam busted a year ago? People are still trying to ignore the Climategate E-mails, but the fact is, they show that their studies were deliberately rigged.
Ah, the cherished "[insert country]: love it or leave it" argument. Again, what relevance that has to my opinion of your death cult remains an utter mystery.
The relevance is this: you pay your tax which contributes to "my death cult". And you did not answer my question; have you ever been to another country? Canada does not count, either does Mexico for spring break.
Governments cage and murder people who don't pay on demand, so it's not as if there's any other option. I do pay as few taxes as possible, but that still isn't relevant to my opinion. I could be posting this from the heart of D.C., and it would have no bearing on anything.
I think you feel stupid for that first comment, which was rudely thrown back in your face, so now you'll do anything to change the subject, including posting and rating with sock accounts. Seriously, go bother someone else.
"please don't drape the flag that way it offends me!" Why would I be embarrassed by this comment? I served in the military, my wife serves in the military, my grandfather served in the military. Disrespecting the flag offends me.
Upset? What? You posted on my video, whining about an upside-down flag. I merely told you that I see no reason to care since your death cult offends me equally if not more so. Why you persist with this inane hilarity is a puzzle for the ages.
If I were to come to your house, point a gun to your head, take your money, then use it to kill and or rob someone else, than are you responsible. Also, does it make any sense to move to another house at great expense, only to be robbed by another guy whose stolen goods are used to kill and rob OTHER people.
So, basically, whereas the statists are suggesting that we create an imperfect system, accountable and democratic system, and try to perfect it, the anarcho-capitalists are suggestings, explicitly, that we create a system which could easily give birth to nightmarish private tyrannies and would have no restrictions on their private power (i.e. no regulation by democratically accountable states).
Don't be so hard on yourself. You just missed the point, i.e. most of the crap in the article has happened or is happening, whereas all you have is angry speculation. Calm down. It's not worth an aneurysm.
It's pretty hilarious that you'd flood my video with accusations of slippery slope fallacies, while using a slippery slope fallacy to make your bogus point.
If you abolish the democratic state and outsource enforcement to unregulated, unaccountable, secretive private defense agencies, you would soon have tiny private states, and then you'd have private oppression, private taxes and private war. We've had private states before, we had kingdoms and chiefdoms, we had the USSR, which was the most privatized state ever, controlled entirely by unregulated and unaccountable elites. We've had Empires run by kings and queens. They weren't that nice at all.
Absolutely pathetic. Fucking hilarious slippery-slopism. While its true that states can fail: we statists, such as myself, do not propose that we establish states that only seek to oppress and plunder, we support democratic states, where as Anarcho-capitalists are suggesting that we outsource law enforcement to purely profit seeking, unregulated, unaccountable private tyrants, who would work for the highest bidder. Soon, you'd have slaver run factories with private guards from such organizations
I'd ask myself, "What would Jesus do?" If that didn't work, I'd ask myself, "What would Steven Seagal do?" You can get yourself out of almost any bind using either Christ method or Seagal method (depending on the type of situation).
my question would be how a company or organization that wasn't the state use force to control someone? People wouldn't by products or services from such corporations if given a choice. So if someone invades you they're not likely to get very far as no one else would desire to do business with them. So any use of force is probably going to get you screwed in the long run. Anybody trying to use force to create cartels would just make it more likely for someone to undercut their cartel
Suppose one agrees that we have achieved 80% or greater of the facts hypothecized in your scenario. Does that contradict the (in my opinion) high probability of the likelihood of the other simpler scenario presented? The description presented in this video puts me closer to the belief that we are doomed, because it is a mostly factual representation of the present, and the other scenario, I believe, is inevitable and certain based on history and human nature.
I guess I just don't see that. If it is a valid criticism, the fact that there are valid criticisms of other things doesn't remove the argument's validity unless nullifies means something that I don't understand. The fact that statism is bad and works poorly doesn't show that anarchy will work at all.
**"The fact that statism is bad and works poorly doesn't show that anarchy will work at all."**
If you'll point out where I said that, it'd be great. This video is not a defense of anarchism, but a rebuttal of one particular claim.
If a criticism is simply an appeal to the human condition, it's not really a criticism. That was Zhwazi's point, and if you're that worked up over it, take it up with him. Blog link in the description.
It seemed to me that the ultimate point of it all is to support anarchy, and if the human condition won't allow for anarchy, then I don't see what arguing for anarchy is about. Sorry if my questions angered you.
The point is that if the human condition creates tyranny anarchy, it's just as unlikely to create tyranny in statism. The scenarios are just ridiculous.
I have no idea what portion of that article suggested to you that it is anything other than a specific response to a specific criticism.
It's not that the human condition won't allow anarchy; it's that the same human condition applies to statism. No offense, but you have a penchant for either missing or misconstruing the point.
Actually, both scenarios you mentioned are highly plausible, and scenarios similar to your "statist apocalypse" have happened multiple times. In fact, by portraying anyone who points out the dangers of your system as crazy, you're using one of the primary tactics of the statists.
Pericles461 1 year ago
@Pericles461
I think you completely missed the point, which is baffling, because the point is pretty obvious.
LibertyIsNotGiven 1 year ago
@LibertyIsNotGiven I'm not sure what you're referring to. Your main point seems to be that scenarios involving a failure in an anarchist system aren't legitimate. All I'm saying is that you need to address perfectly plausible scenarios which could occur under such a system and explain how you'd avoid them.
The burden of proof is also on statists to explain how we are to avoid a slide into fascism, which is the direction we're going.
Pericles461 1 year ago
@Pericles461
"Your main point seems to be that scenarios involving a failure in an anarchist system aren't legitimate."
No, that isn't the point, nor is the point in this particular video to address each and every possible scenario. I've done that before, in many other videos.
See, this is why most of those videos have been removed and why I generally eschew political discourse on YouTube these days. People don't listen. I can't say why that's the case, but they don't.
LibertyIsNotGiven 1 year ago
@LibertyIsNotGiven So what is your main point supposed to be?
Pericles461 1 year ago
I love when people whip out the ol ' oh nos public schools destroyin yer kids' crap. Yes, let's go back to the days when we taught kids whatever the hell we wanted, which usually meant the world was flat and evolution was satan's lie
ashleypoo1319 2 years ago
@ashleypoo1319 You need to research education in ancient Athens. They made some of the greatest advances ever in science and philosophy in a system in which the government played absolutely no role in schooling.
At by the way, what about the government teaching kids that we're on the verge of apocalypse thanks to adding microscopic amounts of carbon (Which we breathe out) to the atmosphere.
Pericles461 1 year ago
@Pericles461 I assume you are talking about climate change, although i've never heard it referred to as an apocalypse before. It's not the government teaching these kids that climate change is real, it's the scientists. You know, those people actually qualified to tell you about it, not pundits or supposed scientists hired by Exxon. When the vast majority of scientists turn against climate change, maybe i'll actually worry about it being taught.
ashleypoo1319 1 year ago
@ashleypoo1319 I'm not sure how else to describe environmentalist predictions of the polar ice caps melting, the sea rising up and flooding the world, and massive storms throughout the whole process. Seriously, that would wake a good end of the world movie, but I'd hardly call it reliable science.
Weren't the "scientists" behind this scam busted a year ago? People are still trying to ignore the Climategate E-mails, but the fact is, they show that their studies were deliberately rigged.
Pericles461 1 year ago
I was unaware qtronman was an advocate of statism.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
I'm not sure how one might honestly reach any other conclusion, though I grant he's a minimal statist in many respects.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Wow, LING, you get a LOT of dumb people making coments on here.
-Gendou
gendou57 3 years ago
LING that's cute.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
I'm more inclined to believe you posted that, then rated yourself with socks. Well done.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Please don't drape the flag like that it is offensive to me.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
The murderous organization represented by that particular flag is offensive to me, so I guess we're even.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Where do you live? I bet you $500 you live in the US.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
As though the accent isn't a dead giveaway. What bearing that has on my opinion of your revered death machine, I do not know.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Why don't you move somewhere else? Have you EVER been out of the US?
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
Ah, the cherished "[insert country]: love it or leave it" argument. Again, what relevance that has to my opinion of your death cult remains an utter mystery.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
The relevance is this: you pay your tax which contributes to "my death cult". And you did not answer my question; have you ever been to another country? Canada does not count, either does Mexico for spring break.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
Governments cage and murder people who don't pay on demand, so it's not as if there's any other option. I do pay as few taxes as possible, but that still isn't relevant to my opinion. I could be posting this from the heart of D.C., and it would have no bearing on anything.
I think you feel stupid for that first comment, which was rudely thrown back in your face, so now you'll do anything to change the subject, including posting and rating with sock accounts. Seriously, go bother someone else.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
"please don't drape the flag that way it offends me!" Why would I be embarrassed by this comment? I served in the military, my wife serves in the military, my grandfather served in the military. Disrespecting the flag offends me.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
Ah, so you perhaps actively participated in the death cult, beyond merely voting for it and offering apologia. Nice.
Why I should care that an upside-down flag offends you continues to elude me, however.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
What exactly is upsetting you? Let's maybe focus on one issue instead of responding to your deflections.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
Upset? What? You posted on my video, whining about an upside-down flag. I merely told you that I see no reason to care since your death cult offends me equally if not more so. Why you persist with this inane hilarity is a puzzle for the ages.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
You can't do it! I thought maybe you had a brain in your head for a second.
CensorThisPlease 3 years ago
Can't do what? Entertain a troll? True, I confess a decisive lack of tolerance in that area.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
"Please don't drape the flag like that it is offensive to me."
Heh, slaves make me laugh, crying about the US Corporate flag.
Sepero1 3 years ago
If I were to come to your house, point a gun to your head, take your money, then use it to kill and or rob someone else, than are you responsible. Also, does it make any sense to move to another house at great expense, only to be robbed by another guy whose stolen goods are used to kill and rob OTHER people.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
So, basically, whereas the statists are suggesting that we create an imperfect system, accountable and democratic system, and try to perfect it, the anarcho-capitalists are suggestings, explicitly, that we create a system which could easily give birth to nightmarish private tyrannies and would have no restrictions on their private power (i.e. no regulation by democratically accountable states).
Bellator656 3 years ago
**"we create a system which could easily give birth to nightmarish private tyrannies"
Didn't you just make this unsubstantiated claim in your last two comments?
mises org/journals/scholar/Hoppe pdf
**"Absolutely pathetic. Fucking hilarious slippery-slopism."**
Don't be so hard on yourself. You just missed the point, i.e. most of the crap in the article has happened or is happening, whereas all you have is angry speculation. Calm down. It's not worth an aneurysm.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
It's pretty hilarious that you'd flood my video with accusations of slippery slope fallacies, while using a slippery slope fallacy to make your bogus point.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
If you abolish the democratic state and outsource enforcement to unregulated, unaccountable, secretive private defense agencies, you would soon have tiny private states, and then you'd have private oppression, private taxes and private war. We've had private states before, we had kingdoms and chiefdoms, we had the USSR, which was the most privatized state ever, controlled entirely by unregulated and unaccountable elites. We've had Empires run by kings and queens. They weren't that nice at all.
Bellator656 3 years ago
**"tiny private states, and then you'd have private oppression, private taxes and private war."
Didn't you just make this unsubstantiated claim in the last comment?
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Absolutely pathetic. Fucking hilarious slippery-slopism. While its true that states can fail: we statists, such as myself, do not propose that we establish states that only seek to oppress and plunder, we support democratic states, where as Anarcho-capitalists are suggesting that we outsource law enforcement to purely profit seeking, unregulated, unaccountable private tyrants, who would work for the highest bidder. Soon, you'd have slaver run factories with private guards from such organizations
Bellator656 3 years ago
**"Soon, you'd have slaver run factories with private guards from such organizations"
Yawn. This has been addressed repeatedly by any number of anarchists, which anyone with a mediocre understanding of the subject should know. Sorry.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Thanks man. ^^
Zhwazi 3 years ago
All thanks to the author. Cheers.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
I'd ask myself, "What would Jesus do?" If that didn't work, I'd ask myself, "What would Steven Seagal do?" You can get yourself out of almost any bind using either Christ method or Seagal method (depending on the type of situation).
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Nice.
lukeev 3 years ago
Patty Hearst RULES!
StuartGalore 3 years ago
ahahaaha
Oh man, absolutely brilliant. The worst part is that its almost true of today's 'first world'.
Individualism101 3 years ago
my question would be how a company or organization that wasn't the state use force to control someone? People wouldn't by products or services from such corporations if given a choice. So if someone invades you they're not likely to get very far as no one else would desire to do business with them. So any use of force is probably going to get you screwed in the long run. Anybody trying to use force to create cartels would just make it more likely for someone to undercut their cartel
McDicker96 3 years ago
That white bag they found... was my ashes!
What bothers me right now and feeds what you said is... only a small % of people can actually understand what was offered up. Great vid!*****
Thanks AzraelsJudgement for sending it to me.
TheBigHo111 3 years ago
Suppose one agrees that we have achieved 80% or greater of the facts hypothecized in your scenario. Does that contradict the (in my opinion) high probability of the likelihood of the other simpler scenario presented? The description presented in this video puts me closer to the belief that we are doomed, because it is a mostly factual representation of the present, and the other scenario, I believe, is inevitable and certain based on history and human nature.
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago
It doesn't necessarily contradict any manner of possibility, but rather nullifies it as a valid criticism.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
I guess I just don't see that. If it is a valid criticism, the fact that there are valid criticisms of other things doesn't remove the argument's validity unless nullifies means something that I don't understand. The fact that statism is bad and works poorly doesn't show that anarchy will work at all.
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago
**"The fact that statism is bad and works poorly doesn't show that anarchy will work at all."**
If you'll point out where I said that, it'd be great. This video is not a defense of anarchism, but a rebuttal of one particular claim.
If a criticism is simply an appeal to the human condition, it's not really a criticism. That was Zhwazi's point, and if you're that worked up over it, take it up with him. Blog link in the description.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
It seemed to me that the ultimate point of it all is to support anarchy, and if the human condition won't allow for anarchy, then I don't see what arguing for anarchy is about. Sorry if my questions angered you.
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago
The point is that if the human condition creates tyranny anarchy, it's just as unlikely to create tyranny in statism. The scenarios are just ridiculous.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago
I have no idea what portion of that article suggested to you that it is anything other than a specific response to a specific criticism.
It's not that the human condition won't allow anarchy; it's that the same human condition applies to statism. No offense, but you have a penchant for either missing or misconstruing the point.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
I've posted a video response (but put it as a respone to qtronman). Maybe I got it better there.
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago
If, based on the ridiculous assumptions you statists make, anarchism work, the point is government cannot either - and will fare even worse.
Moragauth 3 years ago
cannot work*
Moragauth 3 years ago
No just vote for the smooth sounding puppet and everything will be super good then.
That is a great piece of writing I am checking out his blog.
AzraelsJudgement 3 years ago 5
that graphic is awesome
napalmtube 3 years ago
VOTE COZMIKZEN 2012!!!
cozmikzen 3 years ago