If the axe murderer makes it back to his own property after committing the murders, would he be plucked off his property or would we just contain him to his property?
@stalrunner It depends, if the person who was murdered held some weird religious forgiveness type belief and stated it in a will or some other trustworthy type way then maybe the murderer would be allowed back on his property and everyone without the forgiveness belief would ostracize him. If the murderer killed anyone else though, that would be grounds for a just invasion of his property with the intent of bringing him to justice. Borders determine ownership, not justice.
@stalrunner I think of it more like exile, because he might be able to get a helicopter or something to fly him somewhere, but he couldn't come on anyone's land who didn't want him, which would probably be almost everyone.
@Hashishin13 No the state gives them money from taxes for housing the prisoners. It varies per state, in Texas I think its like $300 a day per prisoner
If you pay someone (a corporation) for security, in at least a certain % of the times all the enemy has to do is pay security company (or head thereof) more. Not to actively turn their "guns" on you, but too just look away at the right moment. Also who regulates what insurance company gets to have S.A.M.s , land mines and such? Can I just start an " insurance company" and have such things?
sure, if you can afford it. most won't be able to. Plus, already established companies will be watching their potential competitiors and have their own arsenals and so forth, along with trade associations that will survey and rate companies and alert each other to potential renegades. one person couldn't bribe an entire company, it would be too risky for their main business to take bribes here and there, and individual agents will be fired
First, corporations do not exist in the absence of a state to maintain them. Companies do.
Even if you do not find our specific answers to your questions very satisfactory, please realize that the main reason why governments get to have all those things is because people place undue authority in them. For an anti-statist, it is this unearned legitimacy which defines a government, and distinguishes it from a company or a corporation.
asks the same questions as you have. And on the day when the first wave of security companies come offering insurance contracts, people will be asking them even more intently. Every economist, analyst, commentator and their grandmother will be practicing their long-neglected talents for beautiful, rational skepticism in full, and the companies which structure and limit themselves so as to best allay their fears will be the ones which end up attracting customers and setting industry standards.
The vision of anarchocapitalist society being many times more wealthy thus being able to fight of well organised totalitarian state is just BS. In the end of cold war European states were many times more wealthy but if Soviet Russia wanted they would run over Europe with tanks and troops. It's not like free society would instantly develop terminators and deflector shields while all the world would stick to troops and firearms.
@Marine475 How long do you suppose their troops would want to face guerila warfare when their government lacks the funds to pay or provide what those armed forces need?
@dirtbagstatus Long enough. Just look what happened in Poland during WW2. Entire elite of the nation was exterminated and Germans actually profiteered of genocide by creating massive death factories. In places like Auschwitz people were first striped of their possessions, next killed in gas chambers, all of their golden dental fillings removed and corpses were often processed to obtain leather, soap and cement. In the end it didn't really matter that Germany was bankrupt.
If I'm living in anarchy and private firm A says I'm not allowed to do X and firm B says I'm obliged to do X, and they both rock up at my door to fine me for my transgression (I have to break at least one set of laws) (and the fine of course goes to them as revenue) then I'm screwed.
How can two sets of contradictory laws operate in the same place at the same time?
This is why I (and everyone else) need a govt with objective laws. Obejctive law is necessary (not sufficient) for just law
What do you guys think of time banking or anything that represents labour/energy or a product of energy/production. I mean I think if the government or the banks are involved with the monetary system they should have gold/ silver backing to control their over issuance and debauchery of money, but is commodity money the only way to go? What about production/energy/labour backed time banking money? I think the true problem is how money is generated fraudulently. Just curious on your thoughts?
@charronfamilyconnect Commodity money isn't the only way to go. In a free society people could use whatever type of money they desire and use exchanges if they need to for payment.
Personally I wouldn't use the time banking money because it would remove the a lot of the benefits of self investment and working harder.
I do however like the concept of energy backed money, such as kWh of electricity.
Is any of what Murphy has described actually happening in Somalia? Nope. Gangs are just fighting each other. And the "competition" betweeen them isn't leading to gentler gangs and wiser judges.
@richardcadbury The gang warfare in Somalia is mostly a result of UN intervention. If Somalia were left alone by overwhelming military forces it would get better.
@richardcadbury Somalia is in dire straits because the british kept invading them and interfering in their sovereign affairs. Ironically, Somalia has no riots or fires, yet cities in britain do.
@tacotank10 No he doesn't really address it. He says that it's hardly surprising anarchy hasn't made things perfect overnight (agreed) and that Somalia is more of a shithole (agreed).
But in production, things **get better** (not instantly perfect) from wherever they start from. But with "competition" in violence things aren't getting better.
@richardcadbury I don't think you're going to find any ancaps defending Somalia because it's in no way an example of what we envision. Is the US intervening in Somalia? Is the UN? Are other African states? Are Somalians free to transact their business in gold or whatever other money they want? Is Somalia truly stateless, or is it just a fractured state that descended into civil war, as Murphy describes? It's not like everyone there read Rothbard and decided to overthrow the government.
@tacotank10 Well indeed! The people of Somalia are probably the least free on earth. But it seems to me you've hit the crux of the matter. It seems anacap advocates suggest that when there's no state and ppl are being horrible to each other then it's just a fractured state and civil war, but they call it "free market anarchy" if there's no state and ppl are being nice to each other.
@richardcadbury Warlords are the government there,as they have the monopoly on force in their arbitrarily controlled areas. In an anarcho-capitalist society no one would have a monopoly because everyone has free choice. As peoples demands for their society change so will the goods and services that entrepreneurs provide,and the ones that best reflect what people want will survive while those that don't will fail.
Arguably 20 years of anarchy in Somalia. Higher life expectancy, GDP/capita almost 200% higher, higher lteracy rates, lower infant mortality, etc... Of course all of this misses the point. The argument isn't that anarchy produces utopia, the argument is that imposing a government on an existing society will not benefit that society. Remember when Somalia still had a well-defined state? What a success story that was...
Somalia has the private law system that Robert Murphy described with private arbitration, and insurance of people against criminal liabiltiy and it does lead to gentler gangs and wiser judges. These gangs provide schools and hospitals for their community.
I would have to add that contemporary offensive force deployments by state militaries rely on central planning and are therefore incredibly wasteful of both materiel and lives. Ancap soldiers would deploy to the areas where they were most able to leverage their firepower because they aren't bound by arbitrary chains of command and would therefore be far more effective in smaller numbers.
A careful study of Sun Tzu's the Art of War sheds light on why that is.
Ayn Rand debunked AnaCap decades ago (The Nature of Gov't 1963).
(If you're going to reply, please play the ball and not the man. That is, address her points, don't just dish out an ad hominem. (It's sad that this needs to be added nowadays...)
@richardcadbury And Jarret Wollstein, the Tannehills, David Friedman, Ed Stringham and a hundred other real scholars refuted Ayn Rand. And before she was born, William Godwin, Gustave de Molinari, Josiah Warren. I pity you.
I think military would be largely done through charity. Not exclusively but by a large amount.
Also I am strictly against the death penalty when the offender does not admit to crimes. The possibility that the verdict was wrong is too much a risk. If there is a psychopath that would just be a waste of space in a prison and it is practically certain they are a savage murderer, it may be wise to kill the person.
I agree that the court system should be run by the free market. However, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM STILL DOESN'T WORK. Private defense agencies would just monopolize and competition between governments would lead to more coercion.
@misesownskeynes "I didn't bother clicking the link, because "libertarian monarchy" is as oxymoronic as "efficient government"."
It's not an oxymoron. Libertarians believe in the least amount of coercion as possible. The only way to have no coercion would be to restrict the ability to coerce to one person(preferably zero but still). In anarcho-capitalism, there's always the tendency for private agencies to monopolize and as they compete the surviving ones will be ruthless and socialistic.
@ecnerwal999 precisely because of this imagined tendency, the market will erect barriers to such outcomes through specific clauses in contracts for transparency and independent third-party inspections, so that no private defensive agency may build a secret panzer division in its backyard
Brilliant
dubified89 1 week ago
I dont understand how would the private prisons make money, do the criminals pay premiums to be in this prison?
PenguinJr1994 1 month ago
If the axe murderer makes it back to his own property after committing the murders, would he be plucked off his property or would we just contain him to his property?
stalrunner 4 months ago
@stalrunner
Which sort of legal arrangement in society are you living with? Depends on that.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@stalrunner It depends, if the person who was murdered held some weird religious forgiveness type belief and stated it in a will or some other trustworthy type way then maybe the murderer would be allowed back on his property and everyone without the forgiveness belief would ostracize him. If the murderer killed anyone else though, that would be grounds for a just invasion of his property with the intent of bringing him to justice. Borders determine ownership, not justice.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 Sure, but imprisoning him on his land is one way we could serve justice.
stalrunner 1 month ago
@stalrunner I think of it more like exile, because he might be able to get a helicopter or something to fly him somewhere, but he couldn't come on anyone's land who didn't want him, which would probably be almost everyone.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 No the state gives them money from taxes for housing the prisoners. It varies per state, in Texas I think its like $300 a day per prisoner
andycc08 3 weeks ago
with all the fucked up things that the police do I think private security would be better. Police get away with murder.
Devious2323 5 months ago 2
Great.
Now all I can think about is 18 midgets armed with broadswords leaping out of a plane.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago 4
Bob Murphy and Stefan Molyneux are so cool that my teenage cousin wants their haircut. :-)
totustuus11 6 months ago
i have to say, this was hard to watch and i'm an austrian. damn.
denisonM 6 months ago
More Bob Murphy please.
suereed 6 months ago 3
I'm so glad I can hear the rest of this after I only heard the opening bit about private law at porcfest.
LUEDisgruntled27 6 months ago
Murphy is the evidence that some American academics do have a sense of humour and practise an irony after all!
SvrchovaneCechy 6 months ago
Girl Power
Kblues80 6 months ago
Loving this!
Kblues80 6 months ago
If you pay someone (a corporation) for security, in at least a certain % of the times all the enemy has to do is pay security company (or head thereof) more. Not to actively turn their "guns" on you, but too just look away at the right moment. Also who regulates what insurance company gets to have S.A.M.s , land mines and such? Can I just start an " insurance company" and have such things?
WALLEYEHAMMER1911 6 months ago
@WALLEYEHAMMER1911
sure, if you can afford it. most won't be able to. Plus, already established companies will be watching their potential competitiors and have their own arsenals and so forth, along with trade associations that will survey and rate companies and alert each other to potential renegades. one person couldn't bribe an entire company, it would be too risky for their main business to take bribes here and there, and individual agents will be fired
klined 6 months ago
@WALLEYEHAMMER1911
First, corporations do not exist in the absence of a state to maintain them. Companies do.
Even if you do not find our specific answers to your questions very satisfactory, please realize that the main reason why governments get to have all those things is because people place undue authority in them. For an anti-statist, it is this unearned legitimacy which defines a government, and distinguishes it from a company or a corporation.
Everyone who ever hears of private law
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 6 months ago
-
asks the same questions as you have. And on the day when the first wave of security companies come offering insurance contracts, people will be asking them even more intently. Every economist, analyst, commentator and their grandmother will be practicing their long-neglected talents for beautiful, rational skepticism in full, and the companies which structure and limit themselves so as to best allay their fears will be the ones which end up attracting customers and setting industry standards.
PanzerDivisionBOM 6 months ago 2
32:53 "Recidivism" +1 vocabulary.
jtropeano 6 months ago
I can't help but look at Bob and think of his zombie performance or his "Sweet Caroline!"
Glad he's not in only a Speedo!
trashdance1992 6 months ago
@trashdance1992 Where's the Sweet Caroline video?!
jtropeano 6 months ago
@jtropeano I get an error trying to post the link. Search Sweet Caroline Bob Murphy Fly by Radio on YouTube search.
trashdance1992 6 months ago
The vision of anarchocapitalist society being many times more wealthy thus being able to fight of well organised totalitarian state is just BS. In the end of cold war European states were many times more wealthy but if Soviet Russia wanted they would run over Europe with tanks and troops. It's not like free society would instantly develop terminators and deflector shields while all the world would stick to troops and firearms.
Marine475 6 months ago
@Marine475 How long do you suppose their troops would want to face guerila warfare when their government lacks the funds to pay or provide what those armed forces need?
dirtbagstatus 6 months ago
@dirtbagstatus Long enough. Just look what happened in Poland during WW2. Entire elite of the nation was exterminated and Germans actually profiteered of genocide by creating massive death factories. In places like Auschwitz people were first striped of their possessions, next killed in gas chambers, all of their golden dental fillings removed and corpses were often processed to obtain leather, soap and cement. In the end it didn't really matter that Germany was bankrupt.
Marine475 6 months ago
Will this ever happen?
Of course it will.
mouser98k 6 months ago
absolutely fantastic sir!
damonthemoney93 6 months ago
If I'm living in anarchy and private firm A says I'm not allowed to do X and firm B says I'm obliged to do X, and they both rock up at my door to fine me for my transgression (I have to break at least one set of laws) (and the fine of course goes to them as revenue) then I'm screwed.
How can two sets of contradictory laws operate in the same place at the same time?
This is why I (and everyone else) need a govt with objective laws. Obejctive law is necessary (not sufficient) for just law
richardcadbury 6 months ago
My favorite Austrian economist!
DeanApril14 7 months ago 5
What do you guys think of time banking or anything that represents labour/energy or a product of energy/production. I mean I think if the government or the banks are involved with the monetary system they should have gold/ silver backing to control their over issuance and debauchery of money, but is commodity money the only way to go? What about production/energy/labour backed time banking money? I think the true problem is how money is generated fraudulently. Just curious on your thoughts?
charronfamilyconnect 7 months ago
@charronfamilyconnect Commodity money isn't the only way to go. In a free society people could use whatever type of money they desire and use exchanges if they need to for payment.
Personally I wouldn't use the time banking money because it would remove the a lot of the benefits of self investment and working harder.
I do however like the concept of energy backed money, such as kWh of electricity.
lambedan 6 months ago
Is any of what Murphy has described actually happening in Somalia? Nope. Gangs are just fighting each other. And the "competition" betweeen them isn't leading to gentler gangs and wiser judges.
richardcadbury 7 months ago
@richardcadbury The gang warfare in Somalia is mostly a result of UN intervention. If Somalia were left alone by overwhelming military forces it would get better.
reapfreak 7 months ago
@richardcadbury Somalia is in dire straits because the british kept invading them and interfering in their sovereign affairs. Ironically, Somalia has no riots or fires, yet cities in britain do.
order9066 7 months ago 6
@richardcadbury If you bothered to watch the video, Murphy addresses your objection starting at 41:18. Watch that and then get back.
tacotank10 6 months ago
@tacotank10 No he doesn't really address it. He says that it's hardly surprising anarchy hasn't made things perfect overnight (agreed) and that Somalia is more of a shithole (agreed).
But in production, things **get better** (not instantly perfect) from wherever they start from. But with "competition" in violence things aren't getting better.
richardcadbury 6 months ago
@richardcadbury I don't think you're going to find any ancaps defending Somalia because it's in no way an example of what we envision. Is the US intervening in Somalia? Is the UN? Are other African states? Are Somalians free to transact their business in gold or whatever other money they want? Is Somalia truly stateless, or is it just a fractured state that descended into civil war, as Murphy describes? It's not like everyone there read Rothbard and decided to overthrow the government.
tacotank10 6 months ago
@tacotank10 Well indeed! The people of Somalia are probably the least free on earth. But it seems to me you've hit the crux of the matter. It seems anacap advocates suggest that when there's no state and ppl are being horrible to each other then it's just a fractured state and civil war, but they call it "free market anarchy" if there's no state and ppl are being nice to each other.
richardcadbury 6 months ago
@richardcadbury Warlords are the government there,as they have the monopoly on force in their arbitrarily controlled areas. In an anarcho-capitalist society no one would have a monopoly because everyone has free choice. As peoples demands for their society change so will the goods and services that entrepreneurs provide,and the ones that best reflect what people want will survive while those that don't will fail.
dirtbagstatus 6 months ago
@richardcadbury
Arguably 20 years of anarchy in Somalia. Higher life expectancy, GDP/capita almost 200% higher, higher lteracy rates, lower infant mortality, etc... Of course all of this misses the point. The argument isn't that anarchy produces utopia, the argument is that imposing a government on an existing society will not benefit that society. Remember when Somalia still had a well-defined state? What a success story that was...
Xasew 6 months ago 3
@Xasew In the same time eastern block countries like Czech Republic or Poland managed 6000% growth of GDP per capita.
Marine475 6 months ago
@Marine475
Yeah, getting rid of communism does that.
Xasew 6 months ago
@richardcadbury
Somalia has the private law system that Robert Murphy described with private arbitration, and insurance of people against criminal liabiltiy and it does lead to gentler gangs and wiser judges. These gangs provide schools and hospitals for their community.
metriodshine 6 months ago
I would have to add that contemporary offensive force deployments by state militaries rely on central planning and are therefore incredibly wasteful of both materiel and lives. Ancap soldiers would deploy to the areas where they were most able to leverage their firepower because they aren't bound by arbitrary chains of command and would therefore be far more effective in smaller numbers.
A careful study of Sun Tzu's the Art of War sheds light on why that is.
Helionaeic 7 months ago 2
Ayn Rand debunked AnaCap decades ago (The Nature of Gov't 1963).
(If you're going to reply, please play the ball and not the man. That is, address her points, don't just dish out an ad hominem. (It's sad that this needs to be added nowadays...)
richardcadbury 7 months ago
@richardcadbury And Jarret Wollstein, the Tannehills, David Friedman, Ed Stringham and a hundred other real scholars refuted Ayn Rand. And before she was born, William Godwin, Gustave de Molinari, Josiah Warren. I pity you.
DoctorMurky 7 months ago
@DoctorMurky And the ad hominems start...
richardcadbury 7 months ago
I think military would be largely done through charity. Not exclusively but by a large amount.
Also I am strictly against the death penalty when the offender does not admit to crimes. The possibility that the verdict was wrong is too much a risk. If there is a psychopath that would just be a waste of space in a prison and it is practically certain they are a savage murderer, it may be wise to kill the person.
god0fgod 7 months ago
I agree that the court system should be run by the free market. However, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM STILL DOESN'T WORK. Private defense agencies would just monopolize and competition between governments would lead to more coercion.
libertarianmonarchy . com/whylibertarianmonarchy.htm
ecnerwal999 7 months ago
@ecnerwal999 truth :)
richardcadbury 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardcadbury "truth :)" You agree with me?
ecnerwal999 7 months ago
@ecnerwal999 yeah okay, because 'you just know it will happen'.. you don't need to elaborate or provide any evidence.
siftyfour 7 months ago
@ecnerwal999
That's correct...anarcho-capitalism does NOT work when you have governments that can rig the game. Hence, the ANARCHO part. You're not listening.
I didn't bother clicking the link, because "libertarian monarchy" is as oxymoronic as "efficient government".
misesownskeynes 6 months ago
@misesownskeynes "I didn't bother clicking the link, because "libertarian monarchy" is as oxymoronic as "efficient government"."
It's not an oxymoron. Libertarians believe in the least amount of coercion as possible. The only way to have no coercion would be to restrict the ability to coerce to one person(preferably zero but still). In anarcho-capitalism, there's always the tendency for private agencies to monopolize and as they compete the surviving ones will be ruthless and socialistic.
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
@ecnerwal999 precisely because of this imagined tendency, the market will erect barriers to such outcomes through specific clauses in contracts for transparency and independent third-party inspections, so that no private defensive agency may build a secret panzer division in its backyard
Arjozof 6 months ago
I say we settle it by dueling, let the bullets say who is right. :)
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 Or anarchy, as it's also known, lol...
richardcadbury 7 months ago
Great video primer for this topic! Helped me get a lot of thoughts in order.
derekaiton 7 months ago
robert's been listening to stefbot, and doing his own thinking
excellent lecture!
galikazoid 7 months ago
Bob Murphy: THA BAUS!!!!
Leofus1986 7 months ago 20
Robert Murphy is one of my favorites!
bobsacamano1 7 months ago 22