@MrSteventodd Well in a democracy, they should theoretically be protected because the "constitution" says so (LOL), or if the majority votes to allow them to be protected. Segregation was state-enforced and costly.
i dont really understand your arguement. all of things you said about the TSA, about war as a racket, they just ponted out that the state does a poor job defending the people. however if the state is not there, wouldnt it just be even worse? it makes me think of this metaphor: the state is a filter, it stops things we dont want from getting to us(other governments, terrorists, disease, etc.). yes the filter has hole, but how does that justify removing the filter?? please explain.
Hitler could have walked into The UK Any time he wanted, He choose not to, You also have to remember they were quite advanced at the time, Jet fighter planes, V2 rockets and near atomic weapons, If he did invade the UK, The USA Could not have prepared for D Day From their shores, As we know from history, We got lucky, He went East
The title here is misleading. At no point in this video did you explain how a "stateless" society is going to protect itself. Second, your example of employees taking over after the "Managers" left and still ran the company is also misleading. The company wasn't run without managers. Individual employees BECAME the managers. It would be no different than if you fired a manager and hired another. This video is a big fail.
But that argument, "A state is needed to protect one from another state," troubles me. How is an anarchist society supposed to arise, even given the popular support, if other states still exist willing to exploit the lack of united arms?
@failedassassin There is no good answer to that question in my opinion.. But I'm a minarchist of course.. I'm awaiting an answer to your question as well!
I THINK, they suppose that there is little or no need for others to invade since the resources are so spread. No rule over taxation, no true rule over the people. Also, PMC's are supposed to pop up, how they would compare to the military, is questionable at the least.
I think anarchism is great but should stop its anti religion attitude. I mean I think the only time to attack a religious group is if they are extremly hostile. Now if they just worship and do that I dont see why the leaders and people should suffer.
I am aware that there are theists anarchists. I said Organized Religion is authority. Priests, Bishops, Pope, all in authority such as a premier, president, or prime minister.
Please, you need to read a bit slower before opening your gob. Organized religion, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity and so on are hierarchical but the people in that hierarchical system are in a position of authority. I never said that Organized religion adopted ideals such as authoritarianism.
@wizkid2000 The Pope is a pedophile enabler and a Nazi collaborator. El Presidente Hussein Osama is an islamo-marxist that worships a raghead pedophile. Woody Allen is a subhuman degenerate Marxist pedophile.
Capitalism enslaves people. Everything costs money you so are forced by defalt into submitting to labour and work for your keep. In the old days it was the slave owners responsibility to feed and house his slaves. Now days the masters make you feed and house your self. Thats the illusion of capitalism. The slaves (working people) falsely believe that since they can "choose" what ever job they want they, cease to be slaves. Its a grand illusion.
so, having private property right is the same as being owned and controlled by another.... your a fucking moron!
Slaves cant own property... Your advocating slavery yourself.
"Everything costs money" So people should spend there time and energy producing the things you want and need for free?
You imply without capitalism we wouldn't need to work. This is nonsense, we must work to provide the things we need to live and there are things we want that we are willing to work for.
@wizkid2000 Finally! Someone else who understands! Capitalists and Nationalists are ironically less authoritarian and more anti-state than left-anarchists who are often the first to pander to the nanny state while at the same time preaching an ethos of sacrifice and altruism (which is basically an authoritarian construct). Also, the term "selfish sheep" is an oxymoron. Sheep have no sense of identity, hence, no sense of self.
Mortgage, Insurance, utilities ,paying for food, medicine are all necessities that keep the slaves going back to work everyday or die.
People need to work to survive and while apologists of capitalism will claim that it was voluntary, its not really when its either work for someone else in a company you don't really support to generate the profit (and be paid a fraction of it) or die. And yes its bad (for 90% of the population, that is)
It was believed that advancements in productivity and technology would lead to more leisure time. High productivity would lead to near perpetual full employment with high wages for workers and only one worker per household would be more than able to comfortably support a family of four.
However, the government bound and determined to do what it has done over those 50 years kept outpacing the advancements in productivity and technology so that today we have less leisure time and 2 workers per household have difficulty supporting a family of three.
Can I download this video and put it onto a DVD for a friends who don't have much access to the internet? (I like some of your other vids too, is it ok to download others if I want to?) Please keep up the good work against tyranny.
Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB.
have to disagree on the hitler thing. hitler would have won eventually, and hitler would have wanted to continue and reform the world. he was not a rational human being, so america could be a target. now, we're not. im not saying we needed the state to see that, but i am saying that defense doesn't mean waiting for them to show up. btw, hitler declared war on us after we declared on japan after pearl harbor. should have just had more bastards...
let's be honest, where did governments come from? a few people got together with weapons, enslaved some other poor people, put them to work farming and mining, turned it into a franchise, started paying people and expanding their army, and called it a state to legitimize their acts of robbery and slavery..
that's only natural because people are greedy.
people will still be greedy even after all your libertarian reforms.
in your capitalist society, private warlord armies would run amok and states would exist in all but name (if not reappear to solidify the private interests of wealthy individuals and cliques!)
i'm a communist and i apparently understand human nature much better than you!
if the disappearance of central government (look at early 20th century china) has led to warlordism in the past, why wouldn't it again?
there's only one body that should be armed.. and that's the working class.
in a democratic society, which can only be a socialist society (because what is democracy if it doesn't extend to the economy?), the function of police and armies will be similar to that in primitive human societies: virtually none.]
why go through the medium of supply and demand (where middlemen can take root) when you can just VOTE?
Eh.... not to justify the wholesale murder of civilians (I'll leave that to those who believe that society must be dominated by thugs), but Roosevelt's policies towards Japan (whether you like them or not) were an important factor in the Japanese reaction.
I'm right there with you through most all your videos and most all of your points BUT
while you're right that the alleged hijackers are all from Saudi Arabia and that makes a more logical target considering the stated reasons for an invasion, I can't believe that anyone still considers 9 11 to be anything other than an inside job. Perhaps I need to check through your newer videos but this 'stuck in my craw'.
ALSO
Osama never took credit for 9 11 in fact her denied involvement
The state has proven it's self to be terrible at just about everything it does and is making its self more and more obvious about the fact that it is a greed driven monster that has run amuck . However the anarchist idea does little to enforce my confidence in a profitable and entirely defensive private army. Being that preparedness for even a truly defensive war is extremely costly and will never be universally accepted I don't see a way for this to work.
One key point is that in an anarchy, there is no "nation" to defend. The point of war from the perspective of a war-making state is to decapitate the leadership of the existing gov't and army and take over the central power.
But anarchic societies are horizontal rather than vertical, so the invader must take each territory and impose total control. There would likely be a network of local volunteer militia to fight. Think of Afghanistan. Two superpowers have not been able to control it.
The problem with this philosophy is that it depends on people acting rationally. You think that an invader will say "we can't commit the resources to secure each territory, so we'll back off"? What's _really_ stopping them from marching into Maryland, killing the local militia, and burning down someone's house with impunity? Keep this objection in mind while watching a lot of his other videos. He constantly makes bad assumptions about how people will act within his system.
Every system "depends on people acting rationally," that is, in their own subjective self-interest. Rulers understand and manipulate incentives to achieve conformity.
An anarchist system requires a free market, a prevailing libertarian ethic, and strong institutions. The difficulties are not different in kind from any other social system. It's the easiest system to start from scratch, but perhaps the hardest to transition to without a revolution in thinking. All states do is exercise force.
And regarding defense, how can you deny that an invader does not count the cost? That's the oldest rule in warfare. Jesus even mentions it in a parable.
The Japanese rejected an invasion due to the fact that Americans were armed to the teeth. They understood that the guerilla warfare of an armed populace is extremely costly.
There is always room for "national defense" in a highly decentralized system. It would have to be worked by agreement. I don't think it would vanish.
That sounds like the perfect system to switch to if we want to be taken over tomorrow.
Also, you're wrong about nations fighting only for control of other nations.
Nations fight for control of resources. We don't care about running Iraq, we just want to get our companies in there (accomplished) so that they'll be a reliable source of oil.
Nations do fight for control of other nations. They always topple the existing gov't in order to take control. That control may be military rather than civilian, but so what? Then they usually install a puppet regime. The US is very good at propagandizing their puppet states as somehow independent, but that's hardly the case.
Yes, the goal is stealing resources, of course!
But the means to this is taking over gov't structure.
The only power with the manpower to invade the US, even as an anarchic society (especially with all of the left over military hardware and people who know how to use it) would be China, and I don't see that happening for some unknown reason.
someone in the TSA is resposible for writing the SOP... what you are arguing here is bad management by a few persons and you blame it on an entire system...
If the state is such a good system, than shouldn't such incompetence be isolated? And could it possibly be THIS bad? No, the state is not incompetent at murdering and pillaging and stealing, but at doing something productive to society...
the state is a form that all societies will ultimately come to.. even if you have a anarchist society, people with similar interests will come together to suppress and control the smaller groups... the state is inevitable..
So you admit that states are based off of violent subjugation of one group by another... so much for legitimacy.
Also, defenders in any given conflict will always have the advantage, and when a vast majority of the population is armed, putting down resistance by numbers would be difficult.
"Defense" would never work in an anarchist society. Because defense encompass preempting, which involves shooting a suspected enemy before he shoots you. That is where chaos step in.
Of course states are predicated on violence, human society is predicated on violence. I don't think subjugation is accurate; I don't feel like a slave, maybe you do. Anyway that's a relative view, to each his own.
But show me an anarchist society, and I'll show you a place that either had a central government materialize, warlord takeover, or was conquered.
moral relativism isn't a great escape route. Frankly, I don't feel like a slave, because for the most part, I'm left alone. That however, does not negate the fact that we are already in a society run by gangs and warlords with nicer clothes and dispositions than their city oriented counterparts.
Society is predicated on survival, violence being a component needed to defend the institutions of society at times. But unlike the state, society isn't based on violence, it is based on cooperation.
Yes, the masses are generally "stupid," but they do conform to whatever system prevails. It isn't necessary for everyone to be a philosopher. You don't need a majority to achieve liberty any more than you need one to achieve tyranny.
Anyway, if you say people are too stupid to "rule themselves," then you undercut your own position. I'm sure you think you rule yourself quite well - at least well enough. Everyone else does too. We just need to be allowed to create free institutions.
We need to have webcams in all of our government offices. We need to see what they are doing at all times. It is only fair, they see what we doo at all times already.
wait, you're criticizing the Iraq War and World War I because they were driven by private bankers and corporations, but under Anarcho-Capitalism, private bankers and defense contractors would be fighting wars instead of the State anyway?
If there were companies that specialized in waging war they could just as easily start wars for profit and force people to fight with their own employees. They could essentially become their own state.
no, because if defense companies were voluntary funded and voluntary to work for, people would choose not to fight in or pay for a war hungry company, and would look elsewhere for defense. I don't think that the creation of the biggest monpoly possible ( a state monopoly) is justified because it prevents a free market monopoly which is much less likely.
Two outcomes could come out of your theory: the employees could either ignore morals and simply fight for the sake of providing income, or they could simply not fight and thus make the idea of these companies useless. Employees won't pick and choose which products make them money if they still have the power to make it happen. Basically having private armies running around would just revert us back to the dark ages without any central governments or stablility.
The only reason PMCs exist in the combat capacity is because the government gives them the blank cheque with little in the way of repercussions.
Waging a private war is simply irrational from a business point of view, since it drives your own cost of production so high as to make it a completely self-destructive action. As a customer, what would compel you to shop at a grocery store that is often filled with gunfire as a result of a private war waged on a competing grocery store?
But in this world we are theorizing, where there is no strong central government and you have private armies running around, how is that any different from the Feudal ages?
I think you should read a little more about history. The "dark ages" is an intellectually bankrupt concept born out of renaissance idolization of latin antiquity.
First of all though, there was no such thing as "private armies" in the feudal ages. There was an upper warrior class and then the remainder was conscripted from the peasantry in times of war. In this theorhetical world, security contractors aren't swearing fealty to their respective "lords." Il Princip says what about mercenaries?
You are making the mistake of thinking there would be stability in a stateless society. Warlords takeover everywhere in the world where no stronger warlord (government) exists. The only exceptions are sparsely populated areas with a history of pacifism (Iceland). If you think it would work in America, you're delusional.
When you said if one private army tryed to tax the population they would just have competition from another private army I instantly thought of Somalia & Liberia and all those other fucked up failed state's is how you want to make the world a better place? With gang's of thug's constantly fighting over the street's and being able to do what ever the fuck they want to anyone? No thank's man, no thank's.
Could you use some thought.Our society is 3000% different than an african one.I for one respect your right to make that decision,all I ask is the return of respect when I say I dont want to be apart of your group-you would probably say ok.The problem is when I dont participate("license",taxes,regulations..) your deputy runs around using violent coersion to try and force an Identity(citizen) on me.
Question-How much physical force is acceptable to you to get a man to pay taxes or pay for a road?
"Our society is 3000% different than an african one."
Don't kid your self for a second that's not african behavior you see in africa it's human behavior, if & when the whole house of card's come's crashing down it will be every man for himself.
"Question-How much physical force is acceptable to you to get a man to pay taxes or pay for a road?"
Simple, non but at the end of the day might still make's right. If a mugger's holding a knife to your ball's your not gona argue...
Just because you have a gun doesn't give you a right to anything.If a mugger holds a knife to my balls-It doesn't give him the right to my balls....no,no,no, when someone uses violence it's cause he is an egotistical antisocial psychopath who doesn't get his way.That's how the mafia operates.
That's not all human behaviour.Our atititudes,values,and morals are COMPLETLY DIFFERENT THAT AFRICAN ONES.
Continued...But you'v got just as much right to resist as someone else has to rob you, thing's get alittle more complicated in a cooperative like a small town where people have to depend on each other though. That's how I see it anyway.
Look at reality.The "State" is in reality just a group of men and women providing(supposed to)a service.Free market enterprise also consists of groups of men and women providing services.They are both the same(quit looking at the word)except one is does business voluntarily,the other has to use force for it's exsistence.
So,what's the difference between which group of men and women provide the service? Violence.
AntonBatey: You can always point at security breaches and say "failure!", but I must disagree with you on this point.
National defense is one of a few jobs that must be centered on the national government. I agree with you on education, welfare, unions and just about everything else, but national defense is a job of Government.
Two main reasons I believe the government must raise and maintain the military.
1) Oath of loyalty. You can't guarantee that the enemy won't outbid you for your own companies services.
2) Corruption is natural, and when guns are involved, absolute power becomes an easy matter. Who will control a company, especially if it transitions leadership?
1. This problem exists in a state as well. There are many examples in history of the military siding with the aristocratic elite, or the majority over a minority.
The beautiful thing about anarcho-capitalism is that multiple defense agencies would be competing. If you are concerned with your defenders being bought out, invest in multiple. You can also include in your contract a requirement for extensive investigations by a third party to make certain your defender is not betraying you.
Regarding your first point, I know of no example that you speak of other than civil wars fought in France and Russia. Those are civil wars. The government has already broken down.
Strategically, the more companies competing the more holes in the defense. If I wanted to destroy a bunch of anarchists, I would only have to get them not to trust each other and kill themselves. I love freedom, but I disagree on this one point.
Every dictatorship in Africa, the Nazis, Stalin's political murders, France and the Huguenots, Rome and Christians, Medieval Europe and non-Christians, many more...
Your next point exists in a state as well! In our current system, we have women vs. men, blacks vs. whites, Muslims vs. Christians, Republicans vs. Democrats. People are pitted against each other in order to justify violence by the government. The only way to solve this is to eliminate the right for ANYONE to use violence.
Its not clear to me your point regarding Rome etc. Please explain.
Yes, lets discuss my second point. Companies grow and cross borders. Currently, we sell very powerful aircraft to our allies, but modified such that we can defeat them. If a company in a completely free society were to get a better offer from another government, what is to stop them from doing business with them? Power corrupts. They have physical power, now they are getting money as well. What will keep them honest? Loyalty?
Germany under the lowlife Nazi scum inflicted massive damage in a relatively short amount of time.
Although they couldn't conquer Britain, because it was an island, with out the US the rest of Europe would have been left in the dark.
Socialism, Nazism, Militarism, Fascism, etc needed to be put down. Hitler commonly expressed desire to conquer the world. Over time the Axis might have conquered most of the world.
First you agree they couldn't conquer Britain, and then you say that they would conquer the world. Doesn't make much sense. All those isms that you mention destroy themselves pretty well. Remember the USSR? They destroyed themselves.
Yeah, its not as if the threat of the most powerful army on the planet and thousands of nuclear warheads prevents someone declaring war on America, especially considering that it is all united and could react quickly via oversea bases and satellites, these things mean nothing, they are just all sleeping in their homes, especially poor countries exploited by the US/its corporations, yeah, they are just forgiving, not fearful.
Also, after Rome, no DROs (knights) made a monopoly in Europe. /sarcasm
You would need allot of money and you would not only have to spend as little as possible in order to profit from it but you would have to convince said army to die for capital that they may only get a portion of. So they will demand more money and every time a soldier of yours dies the price for employing a new one will go up. You could not pay me enough to die/kill for capital of any kind or any amount and I don't think many other people would either. Brainwashing is about your only option.
Right but the state is simply another customer that they can refuse sevice to. Competition between nations is not much different from competitions between capitalist enterprises.
no it really really doesn't. competition between companies is nothing like competition between states except to the extent that companies can use the state.
The reason is cost-shifting. If a company wants a war, it has to pay for it itself. If a state wants a war, it just taxes or inflates. This is why companies don't go to war. It is also why barriers to entry ("regulations") which benefit large companies must be enforced by the state: it is an act of war.
Yeah, cos mercenery armies never sprung up, nor did criminal gangs, yeah, they are non-existant. And there is no such thing as a massive company with tonnes of cash.
And? Its as if you are saying that since crime might happen in a free market thats all the more reason to criminally retard the free market. Its not like there aren't mercenaries, gangs and mafias now, is it?
No, but it would be far worse, like after Rome fell, we went into the feudal system, wihch was FAR worse, which, while aided by the church, was still made bad by the dictatorship and something similiar would (probaly) happen nowadays. I'm not saying no to anarchy(ism?) because of crime, but because of crime being like a dictatorship, like under Milo and Clodius in Rome.
You can't guarantee that it would be like that, Iceland was an anarchy for something like 250 years. I think the same mechanism that would even out the power amongst the people is the same mechanism that would resist it. Besides to keep power like the government in place makes certain that our empire murders thousands without impunity and the amount of crime is far worse than any rising dictator may have. Just my take on it.
Well, I'll bring it back to the medieval countries. Why would they subject themselves to feudlism, basically, the DROs, ie the knights took over the country and made themselves dictators. Also, when anarchy effectively took hold in Rome, two large DROs (Clodius and Milo) demanded money from people, and no competition came to stop their oligopoly.
I suppose anything can happen. You have examples of takeovers and I have examples of it working. I am just of the opinion that government fucks up allot more than they would ever fix and they steal from everyone all the time so I am opposed to them, just like I would be opposed to a smaller group doing so. I suppose I am just trying to be consistent and oppose all force. I think there are a great number of people who could live in such a society and should strive for it, don't you think?
Maybe not, because there will always be people willing to abuse it, especially when you consider some religions. If it were possible to only have 'true' libertarian free-thinkers you could have an anarchic society, but just logistically, its impossible.
So you think we shouldn't strive for true peace and freedom since someone might take it away? Besides, look at exactly the case we have now only its a huge monopoly and it runs our lives down to who we can enter into contracts with, marry, put in our bodies. If you oppose this you should oppose it in all forms big or small.
Well, at least we can sort of come together on that. Maybe if we get small gov we can experiment with no gov? I would like to see that one day but I am not holding my breath! :)
but then who protects minorities & political victims?
MrSteventodd 6 months ago
@MrSteventodd Well in a democracy, they should theoretically be protected because the "constitution" says so (LOL), or if the majority votes to allow them to be protected. Segregation was state-enforced and costly.
jeffsandychelsea 3 weeks ago
The soudis work with the u.s to capture terrorists, if you talk about money imagine what soudi Arabia has to lose we are its biggest consumer of oil.
pboisei 6 months ago
i dont really understand your arguement. all of things you said about the TSA, about war as a racket, they just ponted out that the state does a poor job defending the people. however if the state is not there, wouldnt it just be even worse? it makes me think of this metaphor: the state is a filter, it stops things we dont want from getting to us(other governments, terrorists, disease, etc.). yes the filter has hole, but how does that justify removing the filter?? please explain.
Paramore4Sure1 7 months ago
Hitler could have walked into The UK Any time he wanted, He choose not to, You also have to remember they were quite advanced at the time, Jet fighter planes, V2 rockets and near atomic weapons, If he did invade the UK, The USA Could not have prepared for D Day From their shores, As we know from history, We got lucky, He went East
xmoroseguyx 8 months ago
There is now way how a stateless society can win a war against an equal sized state.
If the U.S. would "disolve" a medium sized European country could take other the country. The points you make against it are invalid.
mahakar11 1 year ago
Invading Saudi Arabia would be just another genocide!
PrimateDynasty 1 year ago
The title here is misleading. At no point in this video did you explain how a "stateless" society is going to protect itself. Second, your example of employees taking over after the "Managers" left and still ran the company is also misleading. The company wasn't run without managers. Individual employees BECAME the managers. It would be no different than if you fired a manager and hired another. This video is a big fail.
realman1000000000000 1 year ago
"Spontaneous Order". Its a fact anti-anarchist propaganda has tried so hard to suppress, and has for the most part.
The4LA2Baker0 1 year ago 4
america supported britain and the soviet union with so many supplies it's ridiculous
DID YOU MISS THE BATTLE FOR THE ATLANTIC SOMEHOW?
noobler9 1 year ago
But that argument, "A state is needed to protect one from another state," troubles me. How is an anarchist society supposed to arise, even given the popular support, if other states still exist willing to exploit the lack of united arms?
failedassassin 1 year ago
@failedassassin There is no good answer to that question in my opinion.. But I'm a minarchist of course.. I'm awaiting an answer to your question as well!
I THINK, they suppose that there is little or no need for others to invade since the resources are so spread. No rule over taxation, no true rule over the people. Also, PMC's are supposed to pop up, how they would compare to the military, is questionable at the least.
Clyaton 1 year ago
Great video!
chuska8383 1 year ago
Comment removed
fairiebee 1 year ago
Great videos !
jaminunit 1 year ago
lol, very inspiring for terrorists:D
ForestFay 1 year ago
I think anarchism is great but should stop its anti religion attitude. I mean I think the only time to attack a religious group is if they are extremly hostile. Now if they just worship and do that I dont see why the leaders and people should suffer.
Solutionstoourworld 2 years ago
Organized religion is Authority. That's why many Anarchists are anti-theist.
IronColumnAnarchism 2 years ago 12
ummm no, there are theist anarchist. Religion is not authority... its a choice. you must believe in wageslavery too.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
I am aware that there are theists anarchists. I said Organized Religion is authority. Priests, Bishops, Pope, all in authority such as a premier, president, or prime minister.
And yes, wage slavery still exists.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
oh god your one of those.
no organized religion is not authoritarian... unless churches have started putting guns to peoples heads and telling them they must join or die.
Your mistaking hierarchical with authoritarianism.
whats more, wage slavery can only exist to the degree that the state infringes on the free market. wage slavery isn't possible on a free market.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
Please, you need to read a bit slower before opening your gob. Organized religion, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity and so on are hierarchical but the people in that hierarchical system are in a position of authority. I never said that Organized religion adopted ideals such as authoritarianism.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
@IronColumnAnarchism Dealing with you people makes my brain cells hurt.
Your the one that compared popes to presidents. Popes authority is voluntary, the presidents{the state) is not.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
@wizkid2000 The Pope is a pedophile enabler and a Nazi collaborator. El Presidente Hussein Osama is an islamo-marxist that worships a raghead pedophile. Woody Allen is a subhuman degenerate Marxist pedophile.
IggyHazard 1 year ago
Capitalism enslaves people. Everything costs money you so are forced by defalt into submitting to labour and work for your keep. In the old days it was the slave owners responsibility to feed and house his slaves. Now days the masters make you feed and house your self. Thats the illusion of capitalism. The slaves (working people) falsely believe that since they can "choose" what ever job they want they, cease to be slaves. Its a grand illusion.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
so, having private property right is the same as being owned and controlled by another.... your a fucking moron!
Slaves cant own property... Your advocating slavery yourself.
"Everything costs money" So people should spend there time and energy producing the things you want and need for free?
You imply without capitalism we wouldn't need to work. This is nonsense, we must work to provide the things we need to live and there are things we want that we are willing to work for.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
@wizkid2000 Finally! Someone else who understands! Capitalists and Nationalists are ironically less authoritarian and more anti-state than left-anarchists who are often the first to pander to the nanny state while at the same time preaching an ethos of sacrifice and altruism (which is basically an authoritarian construct). Also, the term "selfish sheep" is an oxymoron. Sheep have no sense of identity, hence, no sense of self.
IggyHazard 1 year ago
I implore you, read a fricken book, and stop watching mr1001nights and buddhagem.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
Mortgage, Insurance, utilities ,paying for food, medicine are all necessities that keep the slaves going back to work everyday or die.
People need to work to survive and while apologists of capitalism will claim that it was voluntary, its not really when its either work for someone else in a company you don't really support to generate the profit (and be paid a fraction of it) or die. And yes its bad (for 90% of the population, that is)
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
It was believed that advancements in productivity and technology would lead to more leisure time. High productivity would lead to near perpetual full employment with high wages for workers and only one worker per household would be more than able to comfortably support a family of four.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
However, the government bound and determined to do what it has done over those 50 years kept outpacing the advancements in productivity and technology so that today we have less leisure time and 2 workers per household have difficulty supporting a family of three.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
Wage Slave is just another Chattel slave.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
Thank you for your . . . rebuttal.
IronColumnAnarchism 1 year ago
@IronColumnAnarchism well spoken comrade! though I am deist, and Socialist. But still.
starwarsgeek8 8 months ago
TSA is a fucking joke
milkweed1989 2 years ago
Can I download this video and put it onto a DVD for a friends who don't have much access to the internet? (I like some of your other vids too, is it ok to download others if I want to?) Please keep up the good work against tyranny.
LuqmanNaq 2 years ago
Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
well said, fact over fiction.
The "terrorism" threat is just propaganda that the government uses to gain power to "protect us" or to make wars more relevant.
SKUNKBALLScom 2 years ago
have to disagree on the hitler thing. hitler would have won eventually, and hitler would have wanted to continue and reform the world. he was not a rational human being, so america could be a target. now, we're not. im not saying we needed the state to see that, but i am saying that defense doesn't mean waiting for them to show up. btw, hitler declared war on us after we declared on japan after pearl harbor. should have just had more bastards...
4lifejackhammer 2 years ago
let's be honest, where did governments come from? a few people got together with weapons, enslaved some other poor people, put them to work farming and mining, turned it into a franchise, started paying people and expanding their army, and called it a state to legitimize their acts of robbery and slavery..
that's only natural because people are greedy.
people will still be greedy even after all your libertarian reforms.
thus states will reappear.
soakchips 2 years ago
greed can be changed its social evolution and it could be changed
freebird199 2 years ago
in your capitalist society, private warlord armies would run amok and states would exist in all but name (if not reappear to solidify the private interests of wealthy individuals and cliques!)
i'm a communist and i apparently understand human nature much better than you!
if the disappearance of central government (look at early 20th century china) has led to warlordism in the past, why wouldn't it again?
but maybe that's what you want?
soakchips 2 years ago
fuck this!
fuck blackwater!
there's only one body that should be armed.. and that's the working class.
in a democratic society, which can only be a socialist society (because what is democracy if it doesn't extend to the economy?), the function of police and armies will be similar to that in primitive human societies: virtually none.]
why go through the medium of supply and demand (where middlemen can take root) when you can just VOTE?
soakchips 2 years ago
The point at the end of private armies was pretty good.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Pretty much the only U.S. war that was defensive (to my knowledge) was the American Revolution.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Oh yeah, we totally attacked Japan first.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
So I guess our blockade of Japan and our sinking a Japanese sub had nothing whatsoever to do with that...
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Eh.... not to justify the wholesale murder of civilians (I'll leave that to those who believe that society must be dominated by thugs), but Roosevelt's policies towards Japan (whether you like them or not) were an important factor in the Japanese reaction.
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
Exactly one year anniversary for this video. :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
I'm right there with you through most all your videos and most all of your points BUT
while you're right that the alleged hijackers are all from Saudi Arabia and that makes a more logical target considering the stated reasons for an invasion, I can't believe that anyone still considers 9 11 to be anything other than an inside job. Perhaps I need to check through your newer videos but this 'stuck in my craw'.
ALSO
Osama never took credit for 9 11 in fact her denied involvement
chatdusucre 2 years ago
what's up with showing the blackman on poster as representing TSA?
In your last videos you show black teachers as the opponent of education?
Your still talking about people(white) owning private property and the means of productions, so your only beef is that you want more money?
1studentoftruth 2 years ago
YouTube cut off the last second or so of your video.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
The state has proven it's self to be terrible at just about everything it does and is making its self more and more obvious about the fact that it is a greed driven monster that has run amuck . However the anarchist idea does little to enforce my confidence in a profitable and entirely defensive private army. Being that preparedness for even a truly defensive war is extremely costly and will never be universally accepted I don't see a way for this to work.
nlarrew614 2 years ago
One key point is that in an anarchy, there is no "nation" to defend. The point of war from the perspective of a war-making state is to decapitate the leadership of the existing gov't and army and take over the central power.
But anarchic societies are horizontal rather than vertical, so the invader must take each territory and impose total control. There would likely be a network of local volunteer militia to fight. Think of Afghanistan. Two superpowers have not been able to control it.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
The problem with this philosophy is that it depends on people acting rationally. You think that an invader will say "we can't commit the resources to secure each territory, so we'll back off"? What's _really_ stopping them from marching into Maryland, killing the local militia, and burning down someone's house with impunity? Keep this objection in mind while watching a lot of his other videos. He constantly makes bad assumptions about how people will act within his system.
frother 2 years ago
Every system "depends on people acting rationally," that is, in their own subjective self-interest. Rulers understand and manipulate incentives to achieve conformity.
An anarchist system requires a free market, a prevailing libertarian ethic, and strong institutions. The difficulties are not different in kind from any other social system. It's the easiest system to start from scratch, but perhaps the hardest to transition to without a revolution in thinking. All states do is exercise force.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
And regarding defense, how can you deny that an invader does not count the cost? That's the oldest rule in warfare. Jesus even mentions it in a parable.
The Japanese rejected an invasion due to the fact that Americans were armed to the teeth. They understood that the guerilla warfare of an armed populace is extremely costly.
There is always room for "national defense" in a highly decentralized system. It would have to be worked by agreement. I don't think it would vanish.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
That sounds like the perfect system to switch to if we want to be taken over tomorrow.
Also, you're wrong about nations fighting only for control of other nations.
Nations fight for control of resources. We don't care about running Iraq, we just want to get our companies in there (accomplished) so that they'll be a reliable source of oil.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
Nations do fight for control of other nations. They always topple the existing gov't in order to take control. That control may be military rather than civilian, but so what? Then they usually install a puppet regime. The US is very good at propagandizing their puppet states as somehow independent, but that's hardly the case.
Yes, the goal is stealing resources, of course!
But the means to this is taking over gov't structure.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
By who? Canada? Mexico?
The only power with the manpower to invade the US, even as an anarchic society (especially with all of the left over military hardware and people who know how to use it) would be China, and I don't see that happening for some unknown reason.
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
But warlords already do. And if you think they've got it better than us, than I've heard all I need to know.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
oops i thought this is confederalsocialist's channel..
ogapadoga 2 years ago
someone in the TSA is resposible for writing the SOP... what you are arguing here is bad management by a few persons and you blame it on an entire system...
ogapadoga 2 years ago
If the state is such a good system, than shouldn't such incompetence be isolated? And could it possibly be THIS bad? No, the state is not incompetent at murdering and pillaging and stealing, but at doing something productive to society...
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
the state is a form that all societies will ultimately come to.. even if you have a anarchist society, people with similar interests will come together to suppress and control the smaller groups... the state is inevitable..
ogapadoga 2 years ago
So you admit that states are based off of violent subjugation of one group by another... so much for legitimacy.
Also, defenders in any given conflict will always have the advantage, and when a vast majority of the population is armed, putting down resistance by numbers would be difficult.
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
"Defense" would never work in an anarchist society. Because defense encompass preempting, which involves shooting a suspected enemy before he shoots you. That is where chaos step in.
ogapadoga 2 years ago 2
??? Your logic confounds my infantile mind.
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
Of course states are predicated on violence, human society is predicated on violence. I don't think subjugation is accurate; I don't feel like a slave, maybe you do. Anyway that's a relative view, to each his own.
But show me an anarchist society, and I'll show you a place that either had a central government materialize, warlord takeover, or was conquered.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
moral relativism isn't a great escape route. Frankly, I don't feel like a slave, because for the most part, I'm left alone. That however, does not negate the fact that we are already in a society run by gangs and warlords with nicer clothes and dispositions than their city oriented counterparts.
Society is predicated on survival, violence being a component needed to defend the institutions of society at times. But unlike the state, society isn't based on violence, it is based on cooperation.
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
Definitely. People are wayyy wayyy wayyy too stupid to rule themselves. That's why a republic works while a democracy is mob rule.
frother 2 years ago
Yes, the masses are generally "stupid," but they do conform to whatever system prevails. It isn't necessary for everyone to be a philosopher. You don't need a majority to achieve liberty any more than you need one to achieve tyranny.
Anyway, if you say people are too stupid to "rule themselves," then you undercut your own position. I'm sure you think you rule yourself quite well - at least well enough. Everyone else does too. We just need to be allowed to create free institutions.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
What we focus on GROWS...Focus on LOVE not anything else...
joelito101 2 years ago
We need to have webcams in all of our government offices. We need to see what they are doing at all times. It is only fair, they see what we doo at all times already.
joelito101 2 years ago 2
wait, you're criticizing the Iraq War and World War I because they were driven by private bankers and corporations, but under Anarcho-Capitalism, private bankers and defense contractors would be fighting wars instead of the State anyway?
Albyiscool 2 years ago
There would be no incentive to fight a war because it allocates resources from goods to "bads" that will and can only be used once.
D34thSetX 2 years ago 2
because if there were no state these people couldn't force everyone to pay for their wars
ilikadapepsi 2 years ago 2
If there were companies that specialized in waging war they could just as easily start wars for profit and force people to fight with their own employees. They could essentially become their own state.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
no, because if defense companies were voluntary funded and voluntary to work for, people would choose not to fight in or pay for a war hungry company, and would look elsewhere for defense. I don't think that the creation of the biggest monpoly possible ( a state monopoly) is justified because it prevents a free market monopoly which is much less likely.
ilikadapepsi 2 years ago
Two outcomes could come out of your theory: the employees could either ignore morals and simply fight for the sake of providing income, or they could simply not fight and thus make the idea of these companies useless. Employees won't pick and choose which products make them money if they still have the power to make it happen. Basically having private armies running around would just revert us back to the dark ages without any central governments or stablility.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
The only reason PMCs exist in the combat capacity is because the government gives them the blank cheque with little in the way of repercussions.
Waging a private war is simply irrational from a business point of view, since it drives your own cost of production so high as to make it a completely self-destructive action. As a customer, what would compel you to shop at a grocery store that is often filled with gunfire as a result of a private war waged on a competing grocery store?
No1118117 2 years ago
But in this world we are theorizing, where there is no strong central government and you have private armies running around, how is that any different from the Feudal ages?
Albyiscool 2 years ago
I think you should read a little more about history. The "dark ages" is an intellectually bankrupt concept born out of renaissance idolization of latin antiquity.
First of all though, there was no such thing as "private armies" in the feudal ages. There was an upper warrior class and then the remainder was conscripted from the peasantry in times of war. In this theorhetical world, security contractors aren't swearing fealty to their respective "lords." Il Princip says what about mercenaries?
No1118117 2 years ago
You are making the mistake of thinking there would be stability in a stateless society. Warlords takeover everywhere in the world where no stronger warlord (government) exists. The only exceptions are sparsely populated areas with a history of pacifism (Iceland). If you think it would work in America, you're delusional.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
"If you think it would work in America, you're delusional."
Well, the American warlords don't like anyone asserting their liberty, but hopefully that can change.
Pennsylvania did not have a central gov't for a while during the Colonial period. The "wild west" lacked state/federal warlord domination for a time.
There was stability in semi-anarchic medieval Iceland for what, 300 years or so?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Iceland was a pacifist country? Bother to cite anything?
Can you explain how sparse population was a factor in the success of Icelandic anarchism?
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
Not just that,but the physical immpossabilty that you could protect everything!
Just use logic and reason guys,HOW ON EARTH COULD 500 CONGRESSMAN SPEAK FOR 300 MILLION?
THAWK3 2 years ago
Anton-Watch Marc Stevens and listen to his show.He destroys the "State" in court!
THAWK3 2 years ago
When you said if one private army tryed to tax the population they would just have competition from another private army I instantly thought of Somalia & Liberia and all those other fucked up failed state's is how you want to make the world a better place? With gang's of thug's constantly fighting over the street's and being able to do what ever the fuck they want to anyone? No thank's man, no thank's.
kingsman565 2 years ago
Could you use some thought.Our society is 3000% different than an african one.I for one respect your right to make that decision,all I ask is the return of respect when I say I dont want to be apart of your group-you would probably say ok.The problem is when I dont participate("license",taxes,regulations..) your deputy runs around using violent coersion to try and force an Identity(citizen) on me.
Question-How much physical force is acceptable to you to get a man to pay taxes or pay for a road?
THAWK3 2 years ago
Comment removed
kingsman565 2 years ago
"Our society is 3000% different than an african one."
Don't kid your self for a second that's not african behavior you see in africa it's human behavior, if & when the whole house of card's come's crashing down it will be every man for himself.
"Question-How much physical force is acceptable to you to get a man to pay taxes or pay for a road?"
Simple, non but at the end of the day might still make's right. If a mugger's holding a knife to your ball's your not gona argue...
kingsman565 2 years ago
Just because you have a gun doesn't give you a right to anything.If a mugger holds a knife to my balls-It doesn't give him the right to my balls....no,no,no, when someone uses violence it's cause he is an egotistical antisocial psychopath who doesn't get his way.That's how the mafia operates.
That's not all human behaviour.Our atititudes,values,and morals are COMPLETLY DIFFERENT THAT AFRICAN ONES.
THAWK3 2 years ago
Continued...But you'v got just as much right to resist as someone else has to rob you, thing's get alittle more complicated in a cooperative like a small town where people have to depend on each other though. That's how I see it anyway.
kingsman565 2 years ago
Look at reality.The "State" is in reality just a group of men and women providing(supposed to)a service.Free market enterprise also consists of groups of men and women providing services.They are both the same(quit looking at the word)except one is does business voluntarily,the other has to use force for it's exsistence.
So,what's the difference between which group of men and women provide the service? Violence.
Why the "State"?
By the way,it doesn't even exist.
THAWK3 2 years ago
AntonBatey: You can always point at security breaches and say "failure!", but I must disagree with you on this point.
National defense is one of a few jobs that must be centered on the national government. I agree with you on education, welfare, unions and just about everything else, but national defense is a job of Government.
Goohuman 2 years ago
Two main reasons I believe the government must raise and maintain the military.
1) Oath of loyalty. You can't guarantee that the enemy won't outbid you for your own companies services.
2) Corruption is natural, and when guns are involved, absolute power becomes an easy matter. Who will control a company, especially if it transitions leadership?
Goohuman 2 years ago
1. This problem exists in a state as well. There are many examples in history of the military siding with the aristocratic elite, or the majority over a minority.
The beautiful thing about anarcho-capitalism is that multiple defense agencies would be competing. If you are concerned with your defenders being bought out, invest in multiple. You can also include in your contract a requirement for extensive investigations by a third party to make certain your defender is not betraying you.
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
Regarding your first point, I know of no example that you speak of other than civil wars fought in France and Russia. Those are civil wars. The government has already broken down.
Strategically, the more companies competing the more holes in the defense. If I wanted to destroy a bunch of anarchists, I would only have to get them not to trust each other and kill themselves. I love freedom, but I disagree on this one point.
Goohuman 2 years ago
Every dictatorship in Africa, the Nazis, Stalin's political murders, France and the Huguenots, Rome and Christians, Medieval Europe and non-Christians, many more...
Your next point exists in a state as well! In our current system, we have women vs. men, blacks vs. whites, Muslims vs. Christians, Republicans vs. Democrats. People are pitted against each other in order to justify violence by the government. The only way to solve this is to eliminate the right for ANYONE to use violence.
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
Its not clear to me your point regarding Rome etc. Please explain.
Yes, lets discuss my second point. Companies grow and cross borders. Currently, we sell very powerful aircraft to our allies, but modified such that we can defeat them. If a company in a completely free society were to get a better offer from another government, what is to stop them from doing business with them? Power corrupts. They have physical power, now they are getting money as well. What will keep them honest? Loyalty?
Goohuman 2 years ago
I have to disagree with your view on WW2.
Germany under the lowlife Nazi scum inflicted massive damage in a relatively short amount of time.
Although they couldn't conquer Britain, because it was an island, with out the US the rest of Europe would have been left in the dark.
Socialism, Nazism, Militarism, Fascism, etc needed to be put down. Hitler commonly expressed desire to conquer the world. Over time the Axis might have conquered most of the world.
alphafirewolf 2 years ago
First you agree they couldn't conquer Britain, and then you say that they would conquer the world. Doesn't make much sense. All those isms that you mention destroy themselves pretty well. Remember the USSR? They destroyed themselves.
Crazypower274 2 years ago
I disagree with Afghanistan being defenseless. remember who supplied them when the sovs invaded?
QuarantaSette47 2 years ago
you say that germany couldnt even conquer britain as if we arnt capable of fighting an effective war
quigglebert 2 years ago
I brought a knife, an actual fucking folding knife, on a plane on accident, in my bag. I was kind of nervous.
doinblow 2 years ago 4
I accidentally brought my pocket knife onto a plane.
I was also nervous that they were going to use force against me if someone spotted it.
Anon1696 2 years ago 2
@doinblow I've never been on a plane, but I know its easy to get on a train without being searched.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
‹:)›
lionessimba 2 years ago
Yeah, its not as if the threat of the most powerful army on the planet and thousands of nuclear warheads prevents someone declaring war on America, especially considering that it is all united and could react quickly via oversea bases and satellites, these things mean nothing, they are just all sleeping in their homes, especially poor countries exploited by the US/its corporations, yeah, they are just forgiving, not fearful.
Also, after Rome, no DROs (knights) made a monopoly in Europe. /sarcasm
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
And remember that it doesn't take a lot of money to pay thugs, look at the Mafia.
jackriter 3 years ago
So what if I want to higher a private army to put my competitors out of business?
jackriter 3 years ago
You would need allot of money and you would not only have to spend as little as possible in order to profit from it but you would have to convince said army to die for capital that they may only get a portion of. So they will demand more money and every time a soldier of yours dies the price for employing a new one will go up. You could not pay me enough to die/kill for capital of any kind or any amount and I don't think many other people would either. Brainwashing is about your only option.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
Blackwater anyone?
jackriter 3 years ago
Yes, they are paid by the state. Good point.
fringeelements 3 years ago
Right but the state is simply another customer that they can refuse sevice to. Competition between nations is not much different from competitions between capitalist enterprises.
jackriter 3 years ago
no it really really doesn't. competition between companies is nothing like competition between states except to the extent that companies can use the state.
The reason is cost-shifting. If a company wants a war, it has to pay for it itself. If a state wants a war, it just taxes or inflates. This is why companies don't go to war. It is also why barriers to entry ("regulations") which benefit large companies must be enforced by the state: it is an act of war.
fringeelements 3 years ago
No, higher taxes hurt the economy, which hurt future income, plus anger citizens.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
Yeah, cos mercenery armies never sprung up, nor did criminal gangs, yeah, they are non-existant. And there is no such thing as a massive company with tonnes of cash.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
And? Its as if you are saying that since crime might happen in a free market thats all the more reason to criminally retard the free market. Its not like there aren't mercenaries, gangs and mafias now, is it?
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
No, but it would be far worse, like after Rome fell, we went into the feudal system, wihch was FAR worse, which, while aided by the church, was still made bad by the dictatorship and something similiar would (probaly) happen nowadays. I'm not saying no to anarchy(ism?) because of crime, but because of crime being like a dictatorship, like under Milo and Clodius in Rome.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
You can't guarantee that it would be like that, Iceland was an anarchy for something like 250 years. I think the same mechanism that would even out the power amongst the people is the same mechanism that would resist it. Besides to keep power like the government in place makes certain that our empire murders thousands without impunity and the amount of crime is far worse than any rising dictator may have. Just my take on it.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Well, I'll bring it back to the medieval countries. Why would they subject themselves to feudlism, basically, the DROs, ie the knights took over the country and made themselves dictators. Also, when anarchy effectively took hold in Rome, two large DROs (Clodius and Milo) demanded money from people, and no competition came to stop their oligopoly.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
I suppose anything can happen. You have examples of takeovers and I have examples of it working. I am just of the opinion that government fucks up allot more than they would ever fix and they steal from everyone all the time so I am opposed to them, just like I would be opposed to a smaller group doing so. I suppose I am just trying to be consistent and oppose all force. I think there are a great number of people who could live in such a society and should strive for it, don't you think?
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Maybe not, because there will always be people willing to abuse it, especially when you consider some religions. If it were possible to only have 'true' libertarian free-thinkers you could have an anarchic society, but just logistically, its impossible.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
So you think we shouldn't strive for true peace and freedom since someone might take it away? Besides, look at exactly the case we have now only its a huge monopoly and it runs our lives down to who we can enter into contracts with, marry, put in our bodies. If you oppose this you should oppose it in all forms big or small.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
No, I want to shrink the pain of government, but not remove it, for fear of an even bigger one coming along.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
Well, at least we can sort of come together on that. Maybe if we get small gov we can experiment with no gov? I would like to see that one day but I am not holding my breath! :)
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Let us hope for the day of small (or no) government!
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
Great video.
XericJager 3 years ago
Law enforcement was not weak in the "wild west". Most towns had harsher anti-gun laws than our society has today, for example.
Bellator656 3 years ago
"Most towns had harsher anti-gun laws"
What are you basing this on? Just everybody knows BS or do you have some examples?
XericJager 3 years ago
Great video!
joels344 3 years ago