What is perfect liberty? To act on whatever whim seizes you at the moment? Or to act as someone in authority wishes you to act? As the world advances economically the necessity for more government increases. An inventor who wants to profit by his inventions must patent them. Patenting requires red tape by definition. If there is no bureaucracy there is no way to safeguard the patent as the bureaucracy is how the patent is safeguarded. As capitalism advances the State must grow.
@perdondaris I am quoting the capitalist Adam Smith who is known as the father of modern economics and capitalism, who states that the capitalist system cannot work unless there is perfect liberty. We of course are nowhere near this. I think the statement reveals it can't work. My point is to go with systems that have democratic "outcomes" as opposed to systems that have tyrannical outcomes and need democracy, or liberty to keep it in check.
@NocheezRecords Lmao, your a poor fella man. You shop at walmart and so does your wife Crystal. I've went with you and my sister Crystal a few times to Walmart to get things for her house. Lol, I even remember going there with you to buy that chicken you love to eat all time. Your such a liar, and a poser. Since you have control over your wife's Facebook, why dont you put a real actual picture up there of you two. Your wife is black right? Does she even know you've been controlling her account?
How is one individual's property (inequality & privilege) going to be protected without the State? You do understand why the police respond faster to crime in rich areas than poor areas don't you? Armed conflict is based on the accumulation of property (power). This is why nations invade other nations. It is why America invaded Iraq (oil) and continues to occupy Afghanistan (a pipeline is being built there). It is the Genesis of every Empire and the justification of all slavery & genocide:greed.
@perdondaris - That's the problem with capitalism, it needs the state to survive otherwise it collapses or if it runs free things start looking like under developed countries. No country has every become prosperous without state capitalism. The flaw I think is capitalism. As Adam Smith stated, capitalism can only work under perfect liberty.
I have only one question, (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash Anarcho-Capitalism, I think your arguments for it were very well thought out) but what's stopping corporations in an Anarcho-Capitalist society from growing so large that they turn into multi-billionaires and begin monopolizing industry and buying out small businesses? Won't this just create hierarchy and consequentially creating law? It seems to contradict anarchism in this way.
Anarcho-capitalism is feudalism. Without a strong central government intervening in the market there are no rich people. The wealthy would have to sink the majority of their capital in mercenaries. The more money you have the more capital you would have to invest in mercenaries. Anarcho-capitalism has already been tried. It was called the Dark Ages.
@perdondaris the dark ages did not exeplify any semblance of a free market- in anarcho-capitalism there would BE NO mercenaries to hire- people would be happy and affluent and less jealous of one another- no one would be willing to hire mercenaries and no one would be willing to be employed as one- feudalism and anarchocapitalism dont have much in common. And we certainly do not live under capitalism today- we live under the socialist collectivist corporatist joke masking itself as capitalism
@aliaandreadi LamentationsEnd analysis is accurate. I think the idea that mercenaries wouldn't be hired is highly flawed since the main institutions would still be top down run business and owners. Those institutions are juxtaposed to democracy. It actually makes no sense. You can't have tyrannical business models and expect liberty to come out of it. If you do what traditional anarchism does which is have labor controlling production then the outcomes could be different.
And who cares if Anarcho Capitalism goes against "traditional" anarchism? Terms and ideas are constantly changing. Liberal meant something else a long time ago. Libertarianism meant something else a long time ago. Anarchism is simple.....I do whatever I want to do under any circumstance. I cooperate with who I want to. I buy from what companies I want to. It is simple....there are no rules in anarchism.
@gigliottius I can explain, meanings do change however, anarcho capitalism adheres to top down tyrannical institutions and owners. Anarchism does not. That is what I have a problem with. Anarcho capitalism is not democratic and it's institutions are completely juxtaposed to democracy. Point being you will still end up with powerful institutions over people. There has never been a successful completely unregulated capitalist developed country.
@NocheezRecords continued: The closer we get to unregulated capitalism the worse off we are. US history shows us when we were less regulated we had robber barons and the worst slums in US history. Does coercion suck? Absolutely, and that's why we need a horizontal based democracy where life and the ecosystem that supports it is of utmost importance.
@gigliottius Also, anarchism does have a social contract. It's about choosing ones oppression. You do not get to do whatever you want if it effects others liberty.
If you dont like Walmart, dont buy their products. No one is forcing you to shop there or anywhere else. If you voluntarily get enough people to agree with you that Walmart sucks, people will stop buying their products and they will go out of business. The consumer has all the control, not the business unless it is supported by the government through forces like taxation.
@gigliottius Your comment about Walmart shows you have no idea on the real life effects of these corporations. Walmart drives down local economies, has government subsidy etc. They race to the bottom lowering wages and offering cheaply made products. Walmart drives down local economies. Poor people have no choice but by from them and local small businesses cannot compete. To say the consumer has all the control in the real world shows a massive amount of ignorance on your part.
@gigliottius Let me give you one of the million examples of deregulation. Cosmetics are not monitored or regulated. Finally, truth revealed recently that over 300 hundred types of lipstick have lead in them, including L'oreal, one of the worst. These are the people you want to free up? Scum will always take advantage of no social contract. Many situations are found out much to late by the population who suffers massively from these instances.
@NocheezRecords Lmao, your a poor fella man. You shop at walmart and so does your wife Crystal. I've went with you and my sister Crystal a few times to Walmart to get things for her house. Lol, I even remember going there with you to buy that chicken you love to eat all time. Your such a liar, and a poser. Since you have control over your wife's Facebook, why dont you put a real actual picture up there of you two. Your wife is black right? Does she even know you've been controlling her account?
Love, peace, helping people, caring, nurturing, also all human nature. Good people fight for those virtues to enter the public conscious to evolve, to progress and make systems that create better lives for humans. And you find something wrong with this? We should give in to the negative traits?
We formed groups, enslaved you, and traded your wives for mammoth meat like 30,000 years ago. What they believe goes against all human nature and common sense. They talk about "peace" Who chooses peace? So we formed rules. See, ever since the dawn of our existence, humans found forming groups to take things like land, women, and things worked very well. You have to talk to these people as if they're little children who don't understand the reality of human existence.
@NocheezRecords Continued: we are a young species and can come up with much better systems to serve humans, unlike capitalism that serves the powerful minority, and profit over people. People like Seravat are so simple they don't even understand that if you deregulate everything and leave non democratic institutions like corporations in place you get tyranny. It's so obvious there is no need to explain further. Surely Seravat will disagree yet not be able to explain how this would be averted.
@NocheezRecords Ahhh, you people with your buzz words and slogans who literally have no idea how the system you claim you love works. So funny to watch. Just a moment of thought and scratching the surface shows how vacuous anarcho-capitalism is. There has never been a successful unregulated capitalist country, and every country that has severely reduced regulations has suffered massively. Regulated capitalism is also a failure.Wake up and realize that capitalism is not the system for the ages.
There is no such thing as "anarcho"-capitalism. It doesn't exist, and is an oxymoron as anyone with any knowledge of anarchism is fully well aware. Not an issue.
@kropotkinbeard1 Exactly. It's sad to see people don't see that a wage slave is just a slave. They gave slaves food and board and the majority pray they can get a job from a rich fellow so they can pay for room and board. Top down run power centers with people who acquire massive wealth which equals power, has nothing to do with Liberty.
@NocheezRecords The primary reason that they don't see something as blatant as renting oneself out for another to profit off of is that their religious faith in capitalism and the market reigns supreme. It's like talking to most any devout follower of religion, though tending toward the extreme fundamentalist side. And you're correct that this has nothing to do with "liberty". This is why they invest so much effort into concocting ruses disguised to hide the fact of what they're actually up to.
@NocheezRecords So, they talk a lot about "self-ownership" which sounds all nice and fuzzy, after all, who could possibly be against owning themselves (actually a nonsense concept), but which is actually intended to arrange the game so that selling your labor to another and allowing yourself to be exploited isn't really what it is, but rather it's your supposed "freedom" over yourself to work for someone else. They do this with most every reasonable sounding concept. They lie ruthlessly.
@NocheezRecords Oh, and one more thing, at least chattel slaves had a more stable position and were usually kept and cared for for a time. The owners of wage slaves have no such investment or concern. So, actually, they are even worse. This being the obvious case, it's necessary to try and divert attention away from the depravity by devising word games which make it seem reasonable. You just say that those renting themselves are not slaves, but rather persons exercising their "self-ownership".
@kropotkinbeard1 There is some truth, of course chattel slaves were a horrible thing, and maybe if employment is available now you can achieve a bit more, but the premise is the same. We need to work fervently toward horizontal democracy, labor controlled production and give all people a chance to develop themselves.
If you want land ownership, you should be prepared to defend its legitimacy. Just like the government should prove its legitimacy, otherwise we need to assume they have none. If their actions are illegitimate, they are coercive.
So, unless you can defend why you should have the right to deny people access to land and resources, your action of denying them access is forceful.
This is why anarcho-capitalism is as forceful as the state, IMO.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH So if I break into some bed ridden elderly woman's house and steal all of her stuff it's not coercion because she can't defend herself.
"Anarchy is only possible through capitalism." This is obviously false, since there are many forms of anarchy where private property rights are not recognized. The converse is true though, as applying the non-aggression and voluntary trade principles of capitalism necessarily entail the absence of a coercive state (a state funded through voluntary donations could exist, however).
i agree with every thing u say mike but i don't understand why u wont vote, i mean would u rather have obama or Ron Paul as president? would u rather have a socialism or a small constitutional republic? i get that u want nothing to do with the system but we NEED Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in office because there the closest to making us free there the closest to having a anarchy so please vote Ron Paul in the primary and if he doesn't get the nomination then please vote Gary Johnson. Thank you
@sassmaster8 I just can't believe how you ppl keep buying it. I have lost my faith in politicians a long time ago. I hope you are right but I seriously doubt it. Then again this's just only my opinion.
@Terzos92 yes i agree with u, i have also lost faith in gov. and politicions., but im just saying, who would u rather have as presedent mitt romney who wants to continue the drug war the war on terror and all the regulations or ron paul who want to decrease taxes, pul out of every country, end the drug war, eliminate regulations and just stop
@Terzos92 and shrink goverment to a minimum. i would rather have ron paul in office, i get the cycle, even if we have a very small gov. like said in the constatution it will always end up the biggest, i get tht gov. can not produce freedom but there is a better gov. than wat we have now, im an anarcho capitilist but i would like to see us return to the constatution so we have the most freedom we can get out of gov.
@sassmaster8 If we were able to shrink the government to a minarchy we should then seek to abolish it. But I'm gonna support libertarian candidates as long as they still have the guns to our heads.
@dubified89 idk if your being sarcastic but libertarians are all about no violence, to leave the people alone, just like anarchist, i am an anarchisy my self and i no voting is not productive but i would rather be left alone then being told wat i can and cant do, i no anarcho capitalism is no doubt the best system but in our current era it would only work on a global scale cause if the "united states" becomes an anarchy we would be invaded no doubt,
@sassmaster8 Anarcho capitalism really goes against traditional anarchism which is Libertarian socialism. Let me explain why it is totally contrary. Anarchism uses methods that are based in horizontal democracy, this is what frees people up, by making every voice important. Anarcho-capitalism holds onto to hierarchical power centers run top down which instantly gives power to a few certain voices. It contradicts the whole notion of anarchism. It makes no sense really.
This is nonsense. Capitalism requires a state to function. Historically speaking, it's quite demonstrable that massive state interventions such as protectionist tariffs, anti-labor laws, and common land enclosure served to jump-start capitalist industries. And time has proven that the social relations that capitalism creates can only be maintained by sustained threat and force. The lack of a state allows for many types of economic arrangements, but capitalism isn't one of them.
@walkthejosh1 Not if everyone in the trade business understands what anarchism is in the 1st place. Kind of the whole "I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me" thing, tu save? If someone demonstrates a lack of business ethics, their business will go the way of the dinosaur. Hence, the free market will work naturally on it's own due course. Believing that we need a governing body to make things fair is an ideal that is programmed, not demonstrated.
@turbofritz2 yea but having the gold itself doesn`t do anything and you are reach, you need to sell those and under anarchocapitalism you will sell it for profit, that`s how you will start creating poverty. And definitely corporate owners are not acting themselves, they have people below them who work for them for low income right? If someone gets all the wealth of a coporation and the workers get just enough, then you do create poverty.
@hellerase i don't create poverty by selling stuff.
People who desire my stuff buy it from me. If i sell bad stuff my buisness will get bad rumbor and eventualy fail.
Employees do work for companies under free will. UNder free market and anarchy such employes will have chances to start their own company if they are dissatisfied.
No special protection is for cooperation under anarchy.
@hellerase Freemarket and anarchy is NOT the "only the stron survive"
People and humankind is developed and under freemarket people trade to get a WIN WIN situation . It's not an accepted behaviour to tear up the weak and step on them - IT's not an accepted moral behaviour anyhow.
Thank you for spreading awareness! People gotta know what we're up against. Check out my video, boll weevil, about tearing the military, prison and financial industrial complex apart from the inside out.
There's a fine line between love and hate. There will be no debate, love will penetrate the hateful mind state.
@antidote7 - I'm Clifton Allen Ford Who is married to Lorry Pantoja Ford. Crystal Ford Neuhouser's (your wife's) brother. LMFAO! antidote7??? Whatever Ron C NeuBrowser!! What happened to NocheezRecords???
@NocheezRecords- You responded to all these people, so why dont u respond to me? You Bitch! I can't believe how long you've been argueing with these people! For over a year? Your unbelievable! That's what your doing all day long? You can't even give my sister a baby! You sorry excuse of a man. What? Am I lying? Prove me wrong..
@BboyArpeggios The cyber stalking continues. Actually, what you claim isn't true because I do work, and I get to teach guitar which I love. You have a strange obsession with me, it's incredibly odd. Why would I have to prove you wrong? Who exactly are you?
@NocheezRecords- So thats your new thing huh? Argueing with people on facebook doesnt seem to be getting you no where, so youtube is your new spot now. Why dont you work? How do you expect to make a living with out working? You dont even leave your house, you stay in your man cave venting all day while my sister is at work struggling to keep a roof over your head. You use people, and i see right threw you. Its funny because i always did, i was just to young to explain myself.
government=force....I don't care what the proper "definition" of anarchy is, but I do think that putting guns to people's heads is always morally wrong and I will fight against a society which accepts such practices
anarchy in an international sense is nationalism rather than allying nation against each other in parasitig predatory nations exploiting other nations with treaties special rights and trade bans.
Anarchy in the private sense is offcourse getting rid of statism and burocracy, laws.
After that little speech I would like to say one last thing. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that think we have to oppress ourselves to like peacefully and I find that strange.
*(our) ~ current jobs, such as taxes on our land and the regulation on creating our own services and the lack of employment due to the fact that several people are muscled out of business by more taxation and regulation from the heavily corporatist state. When people talk about Anarcho-Capitalism they don't just say we should remove one thing and then it will all be perfect. We simple say that we should remove the violent force over us that makes us choose from whats left.
~ human law. Other people benefit when we achieve out own goals. If own company is corrupt then there is a market for a competitive company. Without regulation anyone can do this, without all the large sums of money needed. This has gone a little off the subject that anyone can quit there jobs and are free to choose their employer , however to put it simply. Under our current system , yes it is difficult if not impossible to do this , but only because of out forced obligations to need our~
~ it means that everyone will have a chance , and because everyone will be able to keep there own money , they can spend it how they wish. Including on the charities of there choice or even start there own. The service of police protection will not go away, we will simply have a choice of which police service to pay for , much in the same way you choose an internet service provider. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't a utopia where everyone looks out for one another , it works because it follows natural ~
@MrPratman I don't think it would work at all. In fact it hasn't been tried. Traditional anarchism has been tried and worked often. Traditional anarchism is Libertarian socialism, came out of the enlightenment.
~ and held fundraisers every week raising thousands for local charities. All that is gone now. Our father started his own construction company before I was born and was crushed under the taxes before he had a chance. He was stopped on the way home one day by IRS and told him to give whatever he had on him to start the payments. He was literally in a shake down for his money by governmental officials. Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't mean everyone will be a millionaire over night,it means so much more~
~to pay for insurance , medical bills (not just for me but my family) , and even security from a private firm. That is just me , my 4 other brothers are all working just to support my family. That is another 5 thousand for one of my brothers and the other three work for more than minimum wage , so they would have that much more. Not to mention that but our family business was bled dry by taxes and regulation on something simple as a pizza place. We contributed over 20 jobs on main street~
If there were no regulation there would be as many jobs needed to ensure employment for everyone because if someone is in need of something then a service can be provided. A free market can sustain an infinite number of people because if there are more people than more services are required. You say people can't simply leave there jobs for whatever reason (Nocheez Records) however were it not for the taxes on my minimum wage check I would have an extra 5 thousand dollars a year,more than enough~
I don't agree, I think we can return this government to its proper place of constitutional republic. The biggest problem is the income tax and fiat money. If we return to a gold standard or competing currencies and are able to opt out of government it will give the federal government much less power
@tommy35ss You can return this government to slavery?!? That is what a Constitutional Republic kept around. Why would you want to keep government slavery around at all?!? All government has is aggressive violence on peaceful people who simply disagree. Why keep around violence on peaceful people?!? Why not allow Freedom instead of the Constitution?!?
@mikeshanklin because if a national government is restricted to its constitutional (if its a good constitution) boundaries then it protects the rights of people. It protects the life, liberty, and property of individuals by giving them rights. The only problem is we haven't perfected it and have moved very far away from that. Right now we are in economic slavery, and rapidly losing our other rights. The problem with anarcho capitalism is people's rights are not protected
@tommy35ss LOL, good statism... too funny! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD STATISM SLAVERY! Either you are free, or you have statism (which include constitutions). You cannot have both... they are a dichotomy.
@mikeshanklin explain to me how in anarchy my right to my life, liberty, and property are given to me? Almost every historical example those 3 things can't be met
@mikeshanklin it doesn't matter anyway I suppose. When the dollar collapses we will all get our taste of anarchy and the free market will take over despite any price or wage controls the government tries to impose. We will start trading in gold and silver as the middle class is wiped out. Hopefully the anarchy-capitalism will take over in that short period until a new, stricter constitutional republic will be made that further limits a central government
@L337M4573rL4rg0 As I explained to mikeshanklin other states can infringe on them, gangs, warlords, people of bad morals, someone's private police force. Consider me liberal but for the poor who can't buy their own police force what are they to do? Do you get less protection for paying less money? anarchy is not the answer and will not work for long in today's world
@mikeshanklin If someone or some organization wants something from somebody and is very powerful they can take away people's rights lives, liberty, and property with no consequences if they are powerful enough. Africa has had anarchy through parts of this last century and it has not worked well. Sure you don't have the Stalins or Hitlers but you have warlords that gain power. Then you also have the problem of foreign governments. What will you do when they invade? I don't think it works
I have a question. Where can I read more on this subject? Are you suggesting a general anarchy with no government at all? Or just a market free from the control of whatever government happens to be in place? I have only heard of this "anarcho-capitalism" as of about two hours ago; so please excuse my total ignorance. I am intrigued.
@mba2ceo FACT: In capitalism, no one can enslave anybody. Capitalism does not mean you can chain up people... that is the opposite of capitalism, that is statism.
I like everything about Anarcho-Capitalism except the name, because in my idea form of Anarchy, people who disagree with me about markets would still be perfectly free to set up collectivist social arrangements as long as they were voluntary. I think the term Anarcho-Capitalism is why most other anarchists get hung up. Maybe we should call ourselves Voluntaryists, or Panarchists?
@RationalDischarge You will never rid yourself of market forces, they are all around you, because YOU ARE the market. Capitalism is simply voluntary markets, which can include voluntary collectives... even if you aren't using currency, you are still selling something... in this case it just happens to be your friendship, or your goodwill, or your good feeling inside.... but there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. Even Mother Teresa did what she did to feel better inside.
@mikeshanklin Bro, as cynical as that sounds, that is EXACTLY what I had been saying since I was like 13 years old. Every interaction people have that is non coercive is based entirely on one's own best interest. Even when you feed the homeless or hang out with your best friend, that is based solely on some sort of personal gain. i.e. They don't treat you like crap, so you get something for that. There is some benefit. That's just a fact, cynical as it sounds. It's truth, indisputable.
You're getting really hung up on terms here... Just so ya know, it's the general use of a term that most people Identify with that creates the common definition. The common definition of "capitalism" is what the US has today. That's what you're all taught in school. Most people see it like that, and they will tune you out as if you were a nut if you try to tell them otherwise. I agree with RationalDischarge, You should call it something else. Loaded terms won't do you any favors.
@L337M4573rL4rg0 If you can't even get people to understand the true definition of capitalism, then you will never get them to understand the rest of it. It's not that hard to educate people out of false terminology, I have unbrainwashed thousands and thousands of people myself... and I still have 50 years left. Don't give up on facts...
Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property.As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property).
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.
@AngryScissor How are persuasion (voluntary) and coercion (involuntary) exactly the same?!? How are two things that are by definition different, not different?!?!?
@mikeshanklin Oxford American Dictionary: to persuade by use of force or threats. Persuasion is connotation neutral, not necessarily voluntary. And force is ambiguous by definition. A gun is definitely coercion. But is a marketing campaign that tries to manipulate people's insecurities so they buy a product really persuasion, or coercion? I wouldn't find it reasonable to claim psychological coercion doesn't exist, but it's still perfectly legal in anarcho capitalism.
@TheStrangerInTheRye The threat of social ostracism is a good example of something very non-physical that can be used to "persuade." This would satisfy that definition of coercion.
@AngryScissor ostracism requires no force/coercion... sure, it can persuade people to voluntarily act in a certain fashion (to change behaviors) but it does not hold a gun up to their head and make threats of force... it does not use force or threats, hence it is not coercion.
@mikeshanklin I don't think anybody in practical terms defines coercion so narrowly. If your wife says, "Take me to the Bahamas or I will divorce you and tell your friends you have a small penis," that is coercion in my book, and I hate to invoke a silent majority, but I honestly doubt many people would disagree.
@AngryScissor It is only coercion if he really has doesn't have a small penis and she lied/frauded people.. besides, this happens statism or not... I personally discourage this type of bribery, but what does that have to do with voluntaryism?!? Seriously, great point... but does that somehow justify violence on people? If anything, I hope you help me educate people on why this woman's actions are not wise and why she should be ostracized peacefully.
@mikeshanklin How would an anarcho-capitalist society deal with the problem of private actions that don't necessarily harm other people, but put other people at risk of being harmed?
@ryan84160 The argument he is making is that a top/down hierarchical coercive statist monopoly is immoral and therefor, unnecessary. How could he then propose a top down solution for all persons or areas. How will you solve the problem of private actions that put others at risk?
Is the company performing said action putting others at risk? Is that not an initiation of force? It sounds like one would be within their rights to repel the force or coercion that is taking place. Always.
@ryan84160 But you're really begging the question here... how does the statist monopoly solve these problems today? The answer is that they do not. So if there is a coercive monopoly that is failing to solve the problem, and generally does exactly what you question, it is KNOWN, not hypothesized, to be violent and coercive. It is KNOWN to cause harm to society. So what is the free market solution? ALTER OR ABOLISH. I choose abolish, but I would never force you to choose otherwise. I ask the same
@getsetrecords "Is the company performing said action putting others at risk? Is that not an initiation of force? It sounds like one would be within their rights to repel the force or coercion that is taking place." Every action any individual or company takes has the potential cause unintended harm to others. In an ancap society, who would get to determine what risk are acceptable and which ones aren't?And how exactly would one go about "repeling the force" if you can even call a risk "force".
"The answer is that they do not." That's not true. In many instances it fails, but in many other instances is actually does protect people from the potential harm of risky behaviour of other people.
@ryan84160 Then that's not freedom. Period. Freedom means the freedom to fail. If someone hurts you, then they are initiating force against you and you have the right to respond with sufficient force to end the incursion against your life, liberty or property.
There's nothing you would have the State do that a free market can't do better, cheaper and without robbing, kidnapping or murdering to do so.
@AngryScissor So if I persuade a woman to have sex with me through being sexy, that's the same as someone holding a knife to a woman's throat to make them have sex?
@AngryScissor First, semantic arguments are easily one of the weakest and meaningless arguments one can make. Secondly, by all standard acceptable definitions coercion and persuasion are definitely NOT the same.
A free market would automatically emerge in an anarchist society. The first time I trade some eggs for some apples, there's the free market. A true free market in an anarcho-capitalist society would police itself. If I cheat people and mistreat them, they won't buy from me. And no gov't will bail me out.
@Myrkman hahaha, barbarian hord ...that sounds like the gvmt of today :D
BTW: I'll have a shack too, and while I respect private property, I know not everyone will. The thing is if society is voluntary, there will be necessary services like police and courts, but they will not be revenue generators for the state. They would actually protect and serve if I opted into their service. Similar to I have a choice to buy an alarm system.
There is no utopia , but lets stop licking the boots of gvmt.
Continued: So the corporation is obviously non democratic and abusive to labor, and stakeholders but beholden to minority rich share holders, and yes, is in collusion with government. The problem with anarcho-capitalists is they actually believe the fairy tale that these entities owned by the rich and powerful would behave if freed up, lol. The stupidity of that is mountainous. The rich owners would still be rich owners and run amok over the poor. If you don't get that you aren't a thinker.
@FreeMarketForces 1. Owners would be prosperous because they already have the money and land. Are you proposing taking money away from everyone and starting over? 2. Owners with money wouldn't have the government to protect them, that is correct, but having money and land and being in league with other owners would. 3. Greed is not good ever. 4. Owners or representative government means minority rule. One man one vote doesn't mean 51 percent, a mass would not continually vote against itself.
@FreeMarketForces There has to be a community aspect since no one can do everything alone. Unless this person uses zero of the resources the community has, such as highways, schools, police protection, fire protection, air transportation and on and on. I really dont think you've thought this through on a deeper level, your offerings are a bit thin because I can already see massive problems wiht all the ideas you put forth because they will reduce liberty.
@NocheezRecords My point stands as corporatism would not thrive without force.
People not gvmt should decide what money is. Infrastructure can make society more productive but people not using the resource should not get taxed.
I would much rather see schools, police, fire, and especially transpiration in the peoples hands. Gvmts cannot even provide honest courts, at this point I'd rather have third party mediation.
What reduces liberty is having a blind faith that gvmt. There is no utopia.
@FreeMarketForces It wouldn't thrive without force, however, if you still have owners and a huge disparity in wealth their would be force, owners/rich would hire mercenary armies to fight for their interests. It's already done, there are examples so your theory falls flat. That's why anarcho-capitalism makes no sense and is not traditional anarchism which is Libertarian socialism. Total different set of values.
Maybe I am NOT greedy for hiring people, but my goal is to profit from their work while providing them opportunity. It only works when balanced with risk. I risk loosing an employee if I don't pay enough. I risk employees destroying my capital if I hire under qualified. I don't need gvmt regulating division of labor.
Employment is a voluntary contract. The division of labor in capitalism offers opportunity for all, and nobody is forced to do anything. People are motivated by opportunity.
It's not worth speaking to people who can't understand that corporations are not democratic establishments, they are establishments of power that have been legislated to be unaccountable tyrannies. Example, the Enron scandal, people were prosecuted because they stole from the corporation but Enron and 10 other companies were never charged for stealing multi-millions from the California population. Corporations can kill yet only receive fines because the legal fake entity can't be imprisoned.
Good God this system actually has a chance at working and there are so many idiots on here that seem to like bending down and sucking on the cock of law and government, Why?
I think we will never achieve an ideal society, because each person has their own view of life, some people like capitalism some people don't, some people like equality, some people like inequality, therefore conclusion is we will never get to a point of a consensus this will go on till the end of the world !
@mclarenf45 I could careless about ideal societies, I just want people to stop using aggressive violence on peaceful people. That is all... call that ideal, but I think it is actually quite possible.... once enough people are educated into the nonaggression principle. You can call it whatever you want... I am just asking for individual choice and peace (not that it will ever be truly reached, but it can be a LOT better than the world we live in today).
@shogu666 I think you have a point, but it is corporate oligarchies w/gvmt protection and subsidies (corporate welfare). It is so bad small business cannot even get off the ground much less be competitive.
I don't agree that we live in a capitalist society, as capitalism creates a division of labor that provides opportunity for everyone to prosper. Capitalism rewards merit, and does not bailout failures.
The con is corporatism, if we had capitalism the market would set rates not the FED.
@auroraglacialis I agree that cooperation would be better for society as a whole if we could agree on the "best path for us all" and cooperate to acheive it. And therein lies the problem...
@Ainznando The "best path for us all" is allowing peaceful people to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on others. That enables people to do whatever they want as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. The nonaggression principle is "the best path". You cannot centrally plan individuals to prosperity.
@mikeshanklin Good in theory, but impossible in practice. How can society enforce the "don't infringe on others" precept? Regular "sheep" won't risk themselves to catch & punish infringers, so they will naturally cluster into "tribes" to defend themselves from the "wolves", and in doing so appoint leaders & authorities that support their interests, e.g. nation states. How can law & order be maintained in a decentralized system? That's the problem with pure anarchy.
What is perfect liberty? To act on whatever whim seizes you at the moment? Or to act as someone in authority wishes you to act? As the world advances economically the necessity for more government increases. An inventor who wants to profit by his inventions must patent them. Patenting requires red tape by definition. If there is no bureaucracy there is no way to safeguard the patent as the bureaucracy is how the patent is safeguarded. As capitalism advances the State must grow.
perdondaris 1 week ago
@perdondaris I am quoting the capitalist Adam Smith who is known as the father of modern economics and capitalism, who states that the capitalist system cannot work unless there is perfect liberty. We of course are nowhere near this. I think the statement reveals it can't work. My point is to go with systems that have democratic "outcomes" as opposed to systems that have tyrannical outcomes and need democracy, or liberty to keep it in check.
NocheezRecords 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NocheezRecords Lmao, your a poor fella man. You shop at walmart and so does your wife Crystal. I've went with you and my sister Crystal a few times to Walmart to get things for her house. Lol, I even remember going there with you to buy that chicken you love to eat all time. Your such a liar, and a poser. Since you have control over your wife's Facebook, why dont you put a real actual picture up there of you two. Your wife is black right? Does she even know you've been controlling her account?
BboyArpeggios 2 days ago
How is one individual's property (inequality & privilege) going to be protected without the State? You do understand why the police respond faster to crime in rich areas than poor areas don't you? Armed conflict is based on the accumulation of property (power). This is why nations invade other nations. It is why America invaded Iraq (oil) and continues to occupy Afghanistan (a pipeline is being built there). It is the Genesis of every Empire and the justification of all slavery & genocide:greed.
perdondaris 1 week ago
@perdondaris - That's the problem with capitalism, it needs the state to survive otherwise it collapses or if it runs free things start looking like under developed countries. No country has every become prosperous without state capitalism. The flaw I think is capitalism. As Adam Smith stated, capitalism can only work under perfect liberty.
NocheezRecords 1 week ago
I have only one question, (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash Anarcho-Capitalism, I think your arguments for it were very well thought out) but what's stopping corporations in an Anarcho-Capitalist society from growing so large that they turn into multi-billionaires and begin monopolizing industry and buying out small businesses? Won't this just create hierarchy and consequentially creating law? It seems to contradict anarchism in this way.
LamentationsEnd 1 week ago
@perdondaris LOL!!!
CloverfieldMonster95 1 week ago
Anarcho-capitalism is feudalism. Without a strong central government intervening in the market there are no rich people. The wealthy would have to sink the majority of their capital in mercenaries. The more money you have the more capital you would have to invest in mercenaries. Anarcho-capitalism has already been tried. It was called the Dark Ages.
perdondaris 1 week ago
@perdondaris the dark ages did not exeplify any semblance of a free market- in anarcho-capitalism there would BE NO mercenaries to hire- people would be happy and affluent and less jealous of one another- no one would be willing to hire mercenaries and no one would be willing to be employed as one- feudalism and anarchocapitalism dont have much in common. And we certainly do not live under capitalism today- we live under the socialist collectivist corporatist joke masking itself as capitalism
aliaandreadi 1 week ago
@aliaandreadi LamentationsEnd analysis is accurate. I think the idea that mercenaries wouldn't be hired is highly flawed since the main institutions would still be top down run business and owners. Those institutions are juxtaposed to democracy. It actually makes no sense. You can't have tyrannical business models and expect liberty to come out of it. If you do what traditional anarchism does which is have labor controlling production then the outcomes could be different.
NocheezRecords 1 week ago
wow this guy has it right
morgunism 2 weeks ago
And who cares if Anarcho Capitalism goes against "traditional" anarchism? Terms and ideas are constantly changing. Liberal meant something else a long time ago. Libertarianism meant something else a long time ago. Anarchism is simple.....I do whatever I want to do under any circumstance. I cooperate with who I want to. I buy from what companies I want to. It is simple....there are no rules in anarchism.
gigliottius 3 weeks ago
@gigliottius- Agreed.
BboyArpeggios 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gigliottius I can explain, meanings do change however, anarcho capitalism adheres to top down tyrannical institutions and owners. Anarchism does not. That is what I have a problem with. Anarcho capitalism is not democratic and it's institutions are completely juxtaposed to democracy. Point being you will still end up with powerful institutions over people. There has never been a successful completely unregulated capitalist developed country.
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
@NocheezRecords continued: The closer we get to unregulated capitalism the worse off we are. US history shows us when we were less regulated we had robber barons and the worst slums in US history. Does coercion suck? Absolutely, and that's why we need a horizontal based democracy where life and the ecosystem that supports it is of utmost importance.
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
@gigliottius Also, anarchism does have a social contract. It's about choosing ones oppression. You do not get to do whatever you want if it effects others liberty.
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
If you dont like Walmart, dont buy their products. No one is forcing you to shop there or anywhere else. If you voluntarily get enough people to agree with you that Walmart sucks, people will stop buying their products and they will go out of business. The consumer has all the control, not the business unless it is supported by the government through forces like taxation.
gigliottius 3 weeks ago
@gigliottius Your comment about Walmart shows you have no idea on the real life effects of these corporations. Walmart drives down local economies, has government subsidy etc. They race to the bottom lowering wages and offering cheaply made products. Walmart drives down local economies. Poor people have no choice but by from them and local small businesses cannot compete. To say the consumer has all the control in the real world shows a massive amount of ignorance on your part.
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
@gigliottius Let me give you one of the million examples of deregulation. Cosmetics are not monitored or regulated. Finally, truth revealed recently that over 300 hundred types of lipstick have lead in them, including L'oreal, one of the worst. These are the people you want to free up? Scum will always take advantage of no social contract. Many situations are found out much to late by the population who suffers massively from these instances.
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
No one forces you to buy anything from a company so the consumer has the control. Government forces you to buy products like healthcare.
gigliottius 3 weeks ago
@gigliottius "No one forces you to buy anything from a company so the consumer has the control."
Wow, you certainly haven't thought this out very well. Educate yourself.
NocheezRecords 2 weeks ago
@NocheezRecords Lmao, your a poor fella man. You shop at walmart and so does your wife Crystal. I've went with you and my sister Crystal a few times to Walmart to get things for her house. Lol, I even remember going there with you to buy that chicken you love to eat all time. Your such a liar, and a poser. Since you have control over your wife's Facebook, why dont you put a real actual picture up there of you two. Your wife is black right? Does she even know you've been controlling her account?
BboyArpeggios 2 weeks ago
Love, peace, helping people, caring, nurturing, also all human nature. Good people fight for those virtues to enter the public conscious to evolve, to progress and make systems that create better lives for humans. And you find something wrong with this? We should give in to the negative traits?
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
We formed groups, enslaved you, and traded your wives for mammoth meat like 30,000 years ago. What they believe goes against all human nature and common sense. They talk about "peace" Who chooses peace? So we formed rules. See, ever since the dawn of our existence, humans found forming groups to take things like land, women, and things worked very well. You have to talk to these people as if they're little children who don't understand the reality of human existence.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 1 month ago
Comment removed
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
@NocheezRecords Continued: we are a young species and can come up with much better systems to serve humans, unlike capitalism that serves the powerful minority, and profit over people. People like Seravat are so simple they don't even understand that if you deregulate everything and leave non democratic institutions like corporations in place you get tyranny. It's so obvious there is no need to explain further. Surely Seravat will disagree yet not be able to explain how this would be averted.
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NocheezRecords Ahhh, you people with your buzz words and slogans who literally have no idea how the system you claim you love works. So funny to watch. Just a moment of thought and scratching the surface shows how vacuous anarcho-capitalism is. There has never been a successful unregulated capitalist country, and every country that has severely reduced regulations has suffered massively. Regulated capitalism is also a failure.Wake up and realize that capitalism is not the system for the ages.
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
Comment removed
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
There is no such thing as "anarcho"-capitalism. It doesn't exist, and is an oxymoron as anyone with any knowledge of anarchism is fully well aware. Not an issue.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Exactly. It's sad to see people don't see that a wage slave is just a slave. They gave slaves food and board and the majority pray they can get a job from a rich fellow so they can pay for room and board. Top down run power centers with people who acquire massive wealth which equals power, has nothing to do with Liberty.
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
@NocheezRecords The primary reason that they don't see something as blatant as renting oneself out for another to profit off of is that their religious faith in capitalism and the market reigns supreme. It's like talking to most any devout follower of religion, though tending toward the extreme fundamentalist side. And you're correct that this has nothing to do with "liberty". This is why they invest so much effort into concocting ruses disguised to hide the fact of what they're actually up to.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@NocheezRecords So, they talk a lot about "self-ownership" which sounds all nice and fuzzy, after all, who could possibly be against owning themselves (actually a nonsense concept), but which is actually intended to arrange the game so that selling your labor to another and allowing yourself to be exploited isn't really what it is, but rather it's your supposed "freedom" over yourself to work for someone else. They do this with most every reasonable sounding concept. They lie ruthlessly.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@NocheezRecords Oh, and one more thing, at least chattel slaves had a more stable position and were usually kept and cared for for a time. The owners of wage slaves have no such investment or concern. So, actually, they are even worse. This being the obvious case, it's necessary to try and divert attention away from the depravity by devising word games which make it seem reasonable. You just say that those renting themselves are not slaves, but rather persons exercising their "self-ownership".
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 There is some truth, of course chattel slaves were a horrible thing, and maybe if employment is available now you can achieve a bit more, but the premise is the same. We need to work fervently toward horizontal democracy, labor controlled production and give all people a chance to develop themselves.
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
@NocheezRecords Agreed.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
If you want land ownership, you should be prepared to defend its legitimacy. Just like the government should prove its legitimacy, otherwise we need to assume they have none. If their actions are illegitimate, they are coercive.
So, unless you can defend why you should have the right to deny people access to land and resources, your action of denying them access is forceful.
This is why anarcho-capitalism is as forceful as the state, IMO.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH So if I break into some bed ridden elderly woman's house and steal all of her stuff it's not coercion because she can't defend herself.
dubified89 1 month ago
@dubified89
What? Please explain that comparison, because I don't see it.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
"Anarchy is only possible through capitalism." This is obviously false, since there are many forms of anarchy where private property rights are not recognized. The converse is true though, as applying the non-aggression and voluntary trade principles of capitalism necessarily entail the absence of a coercive state (a state funded through voluntary donations could exist, however).
IvesRogne 1 month ago
you don't know what you're talking about and you need to stop posting videos you're full of it anarchy is anarchy and you're ignorant
Lmiller63 1 month ago
i agree with every thing u say mike but i don't understand why u wont vote, i mean would u rather have obama or Ron Paul as president? would u rather have a socialism or a small constitutional republic? i get that u want nothing to do with the system but we NEED Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in office because there the closest to making us free there the closest to having a anarchy so please vote Ron Paul in the primary and if he doesn't get the nomination then please vote Gary Johnson. Thank you
sassmaster8 2 months ago
@sassmaster8 I just can't believe how you ppl keep buying it. I have lost my faith in politicians a long time ago. I hope you are right but I seriously doubt it. Then again this's just only my opinion.
Terzos92 1 month ago
@Terzos92 yes i agree with u, i have also lost faith in gov. and politicions., but im just saying, who would u rather have as presedent mitt romney who wants to continue the drug war the war on terror and all the regulations or ron paul who want to decrease taxes, pul out of every country, end the drug war, eliminate regulations and just stop
sassmaster8 1 month ago
@Terzos92 and shrink goverment to a minimum. i would rather have ron paul in office, i get the cycle, even if we have a very small gov. like said in the constatution it will always end up the biggest, i get tht gov. can not produce freedom but there is a better gov. than wat we have now, im an anarcho capitilist but i would like to see us return to the constatution so we have the most freedom we can get out of gov.
sassmaster8 1 month ago
@sassmaster8 If we were able to shrink the government to a minarchy we should then seek to abolish it. But I'm gonna support libertarian candidates as long as they still have the guns to our heads.
dubified89 1 month ago
@dubified89 idk if your being sarcastic but libertarians are all about no violence, to leave the people alone, just like anarchist, i am an anarchisy my self and i no voting is not productive but i would rather be left alone then being told wat i can and cant do, i no anarcho capitalism is no doubt the best system but in our current era it would only work on a global scale cause if the "united states" becomes an anarchy we would be invaded no doubt,
sassmaster8 3 weeks ago
@sassmaster8 Anarcho capitalism really goes against traditional anarchism which is Libertarian socialism. Let me explain why it is totally contrary. Anarchism uses methods that are based in horizontal democracy, this is what frees people up, by making every voice important. Anarcho-capitalism holds onto to hierarchical power centers run top down which instantly gives power to a few certain voices. It contradicts the whole notion of anarchism. It makes no sense really.
NocheezRecords 3 weeks ago
This is nonsense. Capitalism requires a state to function. Historically speaking, it's quite demonstrable that massive state interventions such as protectionist tariffs, anti-labor laws, and common land enclosure served to jump-start capitalist industries. And time has proven that the social relations that capitalism creates can only be maintained by sustained threat and force. The lack of a state allows for many types of economic arrangements, but capitalism isn't one of them.
walkthejosh1 2 months ago
@walkthejosh1 Not if everyone in the trade business understands what anarchism is in the 1st place. Kind of the whole "I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me" thing, tu save? If someone demonstrates a lack of business ethics, their business will go the way of the dinosaur. Hence, the free market will work naturally on it's own due course. Believing that we need a governing body to make things fair is an ideal that is programmed, not demonstrated.
critter505 2 months ago
Very, very nice. Thank you for helping spread the words of freedom
TheSilligirl 2 months ago
the richest people are not politicians... but corporate owners...
hellerase 2 months ago
@hellerase yeah so?
To be rich doesn't mean that you automaticaly create poverty among others unless we have a central planed banking system.
If i go out and hunt for Gold it doens't mean that i'm hindering others to do the same or that i automaticaly will keep others poor.
turbofritz2 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@turbofritz2 yea but having the gold itself doesn`t do anything and you are reach, you need to sell those and under anarchocapitalism you will sell it for profit, that`s how you will start creating poverty. And definitely corporate owners are not acting themselves, they have people below them who work for them for low income right? If someone gets all the wealth of a coporation and the workers get just enough, then you do create poverty.
hellerase 2 months ago
@hellerase i don't create poverty by selling stuff.
People who desire my stuff buy it from me. If i sell bad stuff my buisness will get bad rumbor and eventualy fail.
Employees do work for companies under free will. UNder free market and anarchy such employes will have chances to start their own company if they are dissatisfied.
No special protection is for cooperation under anarchy.
turbofritz2 2 months ago
@hellerase Freemarket and anarchy is NOT the "only the stron survive"
People and humankind is developed and under freemarket people trade to get a WIN WIN situation . It's not an accepted behaviour to tear up the weak and step on them - IT's not an accepted moral behaviour anyhow.
turbofritz2 2 months ago
why do they make those wars? maybe oil, resources etc? and WHO take those resources? maybe just MAYBE some corporations ?
hellerase 2 months ago
Thank you for spreading awareness! People gotta know what we're up against. Check out my video, boll weevil, about tearing the military, prison and financial industrial complex apart from the inside out.
There's a fine line between love and hate. There will be no debate, love will penetrate the hateful mind state.
harlequinopaleye 2 months ago
Comment removed
CNeuhauser100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NocheezRecords- lol, you're 50 so you must be screwed! lmao, no wonder you never leave your house.
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Comment removed
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Onset schizophrenia for males usually takes place from the age of 25-30.
NocheezRecords 2 months ago
Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder that makes it difficult to:
•Tell the difference between real and unreal experiences
•Think logically
•Have normal emotional responses,
•Behave normally in social situations
NocheezRecords 2 months ago
Comment removed
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Comment removed
NocheezRecords 2 months ago
Comment removed
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Comment removed
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antidote7 - I'm Clifton Allen Ford Who is married to Lorry Pantoja Ford. Crystal Ford Neuhouser's (your wife's) brother. LMFAO! antidote7??? Whatever Ron C NeuBrowser!! What happened to NocheezRecords???
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Comment removed
NocheezRecords 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NocheezRecords- You responded to all these people, so why dont u respond to me? You Bitch! I can't believe how long you've been argueing with these people! For over a year? Your unbelievable! That's what your doing all day long? You can't even give my sister a baby! You sorry excuse of a man. What? Am I lying? Prove me wrong..
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
@BboyArpeggios The cyber stalking continues. Actually, what you claim isn't true because I do work, and I get to teach guitar which I love. You have a strange obsession with me, it's incredibly odd. Why would I have to prove you wrong? Who exactly are you?
antidote7 2 months ago
Comment removed
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Shared!
DavesFavVideos 2 months ago
@NocheezRecords- So thats your new thing huh? Argueing with people on facebook doesnt seem to be getting you no where, so youtube is your new spot now. Why dont you work? How do you expect to make a living with out working? You dont even leave your house, you stay in your man cave venting all day while my sister is at work struggling to keep a roof over your head. You use people, and i see right threw you. Its funny because i always did, i was just to young to explain myself.
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
Comment removed
BboyArpeggios 2 months ago
@RMJChannel
A fantasy worth living
LibertyRealm 2 months ago
government=force....I don't care what the proper "definition" of anarchy is, but I do think that putting guns to people's heads is always morally wrong and I will fight against a society which accepts such practices
culvereric 3 months ago
You're deluded.
EmotionalIntrovert 3 months ago
you do know that most every major anarchist thinker ever hated capitalism and was a socialist right?
wbhyatt 3 months ago
@turbofritz2 you're a crazy person.
CloverfieldMonster95 3 months ago
anarchy in an international sense is nationalism rather than allying nation against each other in parasitig predatory nations exploiting other nations with treaties special rights and trade bans.
Anarchy in the private sense is offcourse getting rid of statism and burocracy, laws.
turbofritz2 3 months ago
Hitler was a anarchist. An anarchist against the globalist. Hitler gave a punch to the international burocracy.
Globalism<Nationalism<Anarchy
Hitler tried to take the first step to get us liberated from the international bankers.
turbofritz2 3 months ago
@turbofritz2 - Hitler was not an anarchist, he was a fascist, an imperialist, and a tyrant. Oh, and sociopath nut job.
NocheezRecords 3 months ago
After that little speech I would like to say one last thing. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that think we have to oppress ourselves to like peacefully and I find that strange.
MrPratman 3 months ago
*(our) ~ current jobs, such as taxes on our land and the regulation on creating our own services and the lack of employment due to the fact that several people are muscled out of business by more taxation and regulation from the heavily corporatist state. When people talk about Anarcho-Capitalism they don't just say we should remove one thing and then it will all be perfect. We simple say that we should remove the violent force over us that makes us choose from whats left.
MrPratman 3 months ago
~ human law. Other people benefit when we achieve out own goals. If own company is corrupt then there is a market for a competitive company. Without regulation anyone can do this, without all the large sums of money needed. This has gone a little off the subject that anyone can quit there jobs and are free to choose their employer , however to put it simply. Under our current system , yes it is difficult if not impossible to do this , but only because of out forced obligations to need our~
MrPratman 3 months ago
~ it means that everyone will have a chance , and because everyone will be able to keep there own money , they can spend it how they wish. Including on the charities of there choice or even start there own. The service of police protection will not go away, we will simply have a choice of which police service to pay for , much in the same way you choose an internet service provider. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't a utopia where everyone looks out for one another , it works because it follows natural ~
MrPratman 3 months ago
@MrPratman I don't think it would work at all. In fact it hasn't been tried. Traditional anarchism has been tried and worked often. Traditional anarchism is Libertarian socialism, came out of the enlightenment.
NocheezRecords 3 months ago
~ and held fundraisers every week raising thousands for local charities. All that is gone now. Our father started his own construction company before I was born and was crushed under the taxes before he had a chance. He was stopped on the way home one day by IRS and told him to give whatever he had on him to start the payments. He was literally in a shake down for his money by governmental officials. Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't mean everyone will be a millionaire over night,it means so much more~
MrPratman 3 months ago
~to pay for insurance , medical bills (not just for me but my family) , and even security from a private firm. That is just me , my 4 other brothers are all working just to support my family. That is another 5 thousand for one of my brothers and the other three work for more than minimum wage , so they would have that much more. Not to mention that but our family business was bled dry by taxes and regulation on something simple as a pizza place. We contributed over 20 jobs on main street~
MrPratman 3 months ago
If there were no regulation there would be as many jobs needed to ensure employment for everyone because if someone is in need of something then a service can be provided. A free market can sustain an infinite number of people because if there are more people than more services are required. You say people can't simply leave there jobs for whatever reason (Nocheez Records) however were it not for the taxes on my minimum wage check I would have an extra 5 thousand dollars a year,more than enough~
MrPratman 3 months ago
pure capitalism is pure anarchism, who didnt know it ? its logic
TheAmericanFreeBird 3 months ago
I don't agree, I think we can return this government to its proper place of constitutional republic. The biggest problem is the income tax and fiat money. If we return to a gold standard or competing currencies and are able to opt out of government it will give the federal government much less power
tommy35ss 3 months ago
@tommy35ss You can return this government to slavery?!? That is what a Constitutional Republic kept around. Why would you want to keep government slavery around at all?!? All government has is aggressive violence on peaceful people who simply disagree. Why keep around violence on peaceful people?!? Why not allow Freedom instead of the Constitution?!?
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin because if a national government is restricted to its constitutional (if its a good constitution) boundaries then it protects the rights of people. It protects the life, liberty, and property of individuals by giving them rights. The only problem is we haven't perfected it and have moved very far away from that. Right now we are in economic slavery, and rapidly losing our other rights. The problem with anarcho capitalism is people's rights are not protected
tommy35ss 3 months ago
@tommy35ss LOL, good statism... too funny! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD STATISM SLAVERY! Either you are free, or you have statism (which include constitutions). You cannot have both... they are a dichotomy.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin explain to me how in anarchy my right to my life, liberty, and property are given to me? Almost every historical example those 3 things can't be met
tommy35ss 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin it doesn't matter anyway I suppose. When the dollar collapses we will all get our taste of anarchy and the free market will take over despite any price or wage controls the government tries to impose. We will start trading in gold and silver as the middle class is wiped out. Hopefully the anarchy-capitalism will take over in that short period until a new, stricter constitutional republic will be made that further limits a central government
tommy35ss 3 months ago
@tommy35ss
from whom should rights be protected if there is no state to infringe them?
L337M4573rL4rg0 3 months ago
@L337M4573rL4rg0 As I explained to mikeshanklin other states can infringe on them, gangs, warlords, people of bad morals, someone's private police force. Consider me liberal but for the poor who can't buy their own police force what are they to do? Do you get less protection for paying less money? anarchy is not the answer and will not work for long in today's world
tommy35ss 2 months ago
@mikeshanklin If someone or some organization wants something from somebody and is very powerful they can take away people's rights lives, liberty, and property with no consequences if they are powerful enough. Africa has had anarchy through parts of this last century and it has not worked well. Sure you don't have the Stalins or Hitlers but you have warlords that gain power. Then you also have the problem of foreign governments. What will you do when they invade? I don't think it works
tommy35ss 3 months ago
@tommy35ss
If you could opt out it wouldn't be a government.
L337M4573rL4rg0 3 months ago
@L337M4573rL4rg0 The first 126 years of this country we were opted out, there can be a government for personal liberty
tommy35ss 2 months ago
I have a question. Where can I read more on this subject? Are you suggesting a general anarchy with no government at all? Or just a market free from the control of whatever government happens to be in place? I have only heard of this "anarcho-capitalism" as of about two hours ago; so please excuse my total ignorance. I am intrigued.
saintoccasionally 3 months ago
Capitalism is Institutional slavery.
mba2ceo 3 months ago
@mba2ceo slavery is one of the 1st thisngs that capitalism destroy, its just contradictory.
Learn and read some books about that.
TheAmericanFreeBird 3 months ago
@TheAmericanFreeBird ... not true ... FACT: Capitalism RICH enslave the POOR.
mba2ceo 3 months ago
@mba2ceo yeah whatever good 4 u, im not going to argue.
TheAmericanFreeBird 3 months ago
@mba2ceo FACT: In capitalism, no one can enslave anybody. Capitalism does not mean you can chain up people... that is the opposite of capitalism, that is statism.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin ... not all chains are made of metal.
mba2ceo 3 months ago
@mba2ceo Never said that all chains were made of metal.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
I like everything about Anarcho-Capitalism except the name, because in my idea form of Anarchy, people who disagree with me about markets would still be perfectly free to set up collectivist social arrangements as long as they were voluntary. I think the term Anarcho-Capitalism is why most other anarchists get hung up. Maybe we should call ourselves Voluntaryists, or Panarchists?
RationalDischarge 4 months ago 2
@RationalDischarge You will never rid yourself of market forces, they are all around you, because YOU ARE the market. Capitalism is simply voluntary markets, which can include voluntary collectives... even if you aren't using currency, you are still selling something... in this case it just happens to be your friendship, or your goodwill, or your good feeling inside.... but there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. Even Mother Teresa did what she did to feel better inside.
mikeshanklin 4 months ago 2
@mikeshanklin Bro, as cynical as that sounds, that is EXACTLY what I had been saying since I was like 13 years old. Every interaction people have that is non coercive is based entirely on one's own best interest. Even when you feed the homeless or hang out with your best friend, that is based solely on some sort of personal gain. i.e. They don't treat you like crap, so you get something for that. There is some benefit. That's just a fact, cynical as it sounds. It's truth, indisputable.
getsetrecords 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin
You're getting really hung up on terms here... Just so ya know, it's the general use of a term that most people Identify with that creates the common definition. The common definition of "capitalism" is what the US has today. That's what you're all taught in school. Most people see it like that, and they will tune you out as if you were a nut if you try to tell them otherwise. I agree with RationalDischarge, You should call it something else. Loaded terms won't do you any favors.
L337M4573rL4rg0 3 months ago
@L337M4573rL4rg0 If you can't even get people to understand the true definition of capitalism, then you will never get them to understand the rest of it. It's not that hard to educate people out of false terminology, I have unbrainwashed thousands and thousands of people myself... and I still have 50 years left. Don't give up on facts...
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@RationalDischarge a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
ryan84160, "Public Nuisance" doctrine has long been a common law tort.
DejaBlu269 4 months ago
Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property.As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.
infoshop dot org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF1
37butterflyprincess 4 months ago
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property).
37butterflyprincess 4 months ago
Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.
37butterflyprincess 4 months ago
Stopped watching when he pretended persuasion and coercion were different.
AngryScissor 4 months ago
@AngryScissor How are persuasion (voluntary) and coercion (involuntary) exactly the same?!? How are two things that are by definition different, not different?!?!?
mikeshanklin 4 months ago 12
@mikeshanklin Oxford American Dictionary: to persuade by use of force or threats. Persuasion is connotation neutral, not necessarily voluntary. And force is ambiguous by definition. A gun is definitely coercion. But is a marketing campaign that tries to manipulate people's insecurities so they buy a product really persuasion, or coercion? I wouldn't find it reasonable to claim psychological coercion doesn't exist, but it's still perfectly legal in anarcho capitalism.
AngryScissor 4 months ago
@AngryScissor Where do you get this from?!?
"to persuade by use of force or threats." what word in the Oxford American Dictionary is this describing?
mikeshanklin 4 months ago 5
@mikeshanklin "coerce"
AngryScissor 4 months ago
@AngryScissor How is taking advantage of people's insecurities and false assumptions persuasion by use of force or threats?
TheStrangerInTheRye 4 months ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye The threat of social ostracism is a good example of something very non-physical that can be used to "persuade." This would satisfy that definition of coercion.
AngryScissor 4 months ago
@AngryScissor ostracism requires no force/coercion... sure, it can persuade people to voluntarily act in a certain fashion (to change behaviors) but it does not hold a gun up to their head and make threats of force... it does not use force or threats, hence it is not coercion.
mikeshanklin 4 months ago
@mikeshanklin I don't think anybody in practical terms defines coercion so narrowly. If your wife says, "Take me to the Bahamas or I will divorce you and tell your friends you have a small penis," that is coercion in my book, and I hate to invoke a silent majority, but I honestly doubt many people would disagree.
AngryScissor 4 months ago
@AngryScissor It is only coercion if he really has doesn't have a small penis and she lied/frauded people.. besides, this happens statism or not... I personally discourage this type of bribery, but what does that have to do with voluntaryism?!? Seriously, great point... but does that somehow justify violence on people? If anything, I hope you help me educate people on why this woman's actions are not wise and why she should be ostracized peacefully.
mikeshanklin 4 months ago
@mikeshanklin How would an anarcho-capitalist society deal with the problem of private actions that don't necessarily harm other people, but put other people at risk of being harmed?
ryan84160 4 months ago
@ryan84160 The argument he is making is that a top/down hierarchical coercive statist monopoly is immoral and therefor, unnecessary. How could he then propose a top down solution for all persons or areas. How will you solve the problem of private actions that put others at risk?
Is the company performing said action putting others at risk? Is that not an initiation of force? It sounds like one would be within their rights to repel the force or coercion that is taking place. Always.
getsetrecords 3 months ago
@ryan84160 But you're really begging the question here... how does the statist monopoly solve these problems today? The answer is that they do not. So if there is a coercive monopoly that is failing to solve the problem, and generally does exactly what you question, it is KNOWN, not hypothesized, to be violent and coercive. It is KNOWN to cause harm to society. So what is the free market solution? ALTER OR ABOLISH. I choose abolish, but I would never force you to choose otherwise. I ask the same
getsetrecords 3 months ago
@getsetrecords "Is the company performing said action putting others at risk? Is that not an initiation of force? It sounds like one would be within their rights to repel the force or coercion that is taking place." Every action any individual or company takes has the potential cause unintended harm to others. In an ancap society, who would get to determine what risk are acceptable and which ones aren't?And how exactly would one go about "repeling the force" if you can even call a risk "force".
ryan84160 3 months ago
"The answer is that they do not." That's not true. In many instances it fails, but in many other instances is actually does protect people from the potential harm of risky behaviour of other people.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Then that's not freedom. Period. Freedom means the freedom to fail. If someone hurts you, then they are initiating force against you and you have the right to respond with sufficient force to end the incursion against your life, liberty or property.
There's nothing you would have the State do that a free market can't do better, cheaper and without robbing, kidnapping or murdering to do so.
getsetrecords 3 months ago
@AngryScissor So if I persuade a woman to have sex with me through being sexy, that's the same as someone holding a knife to a woman's throat to make them have sex?
DoctorCapitalist 4 months ago 3
@AngryScissor First, semantic arguments are easily one of the weakest and meaningless arguments one can make. Secondly, by all standard acceptable definitions coercion and persuasion are definitely NOT the same.
MatthewPotter8 4 months ago
@AngryScissor Too bad you missed the main point... the only ethical system is through the education of the free mind.
goldeneggify 4 months ago
A free market would automatically emerge in an anarchist society. The first time I trade some eggs for some apples, there's the free market. A true free market in an anarcho-capitalist society would police itself. If I cheat people and mistreat them, they won't buy from me. And no gov't will bail me out.
backwoodsninja 4 months ago
@Myrkman hahaha, barbarian hord ...that sounds like the gvmt of today :D
BTW: I'll have a shack too, and while I respect private property, I know not everyone will. The thing is if society is voluntary, there will be necessary services like police and courts, but they will not be revenue generators for the state. They would actually protect and serve if I opted into their service. Similar to I have a choice to buy an alarm system.
There is no utopia , but lets stop licking the boots of gvmt.
FreeMarketForces 5 months ago
Continued: So the corporation is obviously non democratic and abusive to labor, and stakeholders but beholden to minority rich share holders, and yes, is in collusion with government. The problem with anarcho-capitalists is they actually believe the fairy tale that these entities owned by the rich and powerful would behave if freed up, lol. The stupidity of that is mountainous. The rich owners would still be rich owners and run amok over the poor. If you don't get that you aren't a thinker.
NocheezRecords 5 months ago
@NocheezRecords I agree with some of your post but it's out of context.
You are coming from the false premise that these crony-corporate oligarchies would be prosperous in an anarcho-capital environment.
With anarcho-capitalism there would be no corporate protection from gvmt. There would be no bailouts or rewarding failure.
Greed is Good, when balanced with the risk of failure.
All democratic process are mob rule where 51% controls the other 49%. 99% should not control 1 individual.
FreeMarketForces 5 months ago 4
@FreeMarketForces 1. Owners would be prosperous because they already have the money and land. Are you proposing taking money away from everyone and starting over? 2. Owners with money wouldn't have the government to protect them, that is correct, but having money and land and being in league with other owners would. 3. Greed is not good ever. 4. Owners or representative government means minority rule. One man one vote doesn't mean 51 percent, a mass would not continually vote against itself.
NocheezRecords 5 months ago
@FreeMarketForces There has to be a community aspect since no one can do everything alone. Unless this person uses zero of the resources the community has, such as highways, schools, police protection, fire protection, air transportation and on and on. I really dont think you've thought this through on a deeper level, your offerings are a bit thin because I can already see massive problems wiht all the ideas you put forth because they will reduce liberty.
NocheezRecords 5 months ago
Comment removed
FreeMarketForces 5 months ago
@NocheezRecords My point stands as corporatism would not thrive without force.
People not gvmt should decide what money is. Infrastructure can make society more productive but people not using the resource should not get taxed.
I would much rather see schools, police, fire, and especially transpiration in the peoples hands. Gvmts cannot even provide honest courts, at this point I'd rather have third party mediation.
What reduces liberty is having a blind faith that gvmt. There is no utopia.
FreeMarketForces 5 months ago 5
@FreeMarketForces It wouldn't thrive without force, however, if you still have owners and a huge disparity in wealth their would be force, owners/rich would hire mercenary armies to fight for their interests. It's already done, there are examples so your theory falls flat. That's why anarcho-capitalism makes no sense and is not traditional anarchism which is Libertarian socialism. Total different set of values.
NocheezRecords 5 months ago
Maybe I am NOT greedy for hiring people, but my goal is to profit from their work while providing them opportunity. It only works when balanced with risk. I risk loosing an employee if I don't pay enough. I risk employees destroying my capital if I hire under qualified. I don't need gvmt regulating division of labor.
Employment is a voluntary contract. The division of labor in capitalism offers opportunity for all, and nobody is forced to do anything. People are motivated by opportunity.
FreeMarketForces 5 months ago 20
It's not worth speaking to people who can't understand that corporations are not democratic establishments, they are establishments of power that have been legislated to be unaccountable tyrannies. Example, the Enron scandal, people were prosecuted because they stole from the corporation but Enron and 10 other companies were never charged for stealing multi-millions from the California population. Corporations can kill yet only receive fines because the legal fake entity can't be imprisoned.
NocheezRecords 5 months ago
Comment removed
NocheezRecords 5 months ago
Good God this system actually has a chance at working and there are so many idiots on here that seem to like bending down and sucking on the cock of law and government, Why?
Nightshift10000 5 months ago
I think we will never achieve an ideal society, because each person has their own view of life, some people like capitalism some people don't, some people like equality, some people like inequality, therefore conclusion is we will never get to a point of a consensus this will go on till the end of the world !
mclarenf45 5 months ago
@mclarenf45 I could careless about ideal societies, I just want people to stop using aggressive violence on peaceful people. That is all... call that ideal, but I think it is actually quite possible.... once enough people are educated into the nonaggression principle. You can call it whatever you want... I am just asking for individual choice and peace (not that it will ever be truly reached, but it can be a LOT better than the world we live in today).
mikeshanklin 5 months ago
Author of video sucks.
Int is not that bureaucrats and governments are good and capitalists are bad.
It is that governments are OWNED BY THE BIGGEST CAPITALISTS.
Yes we live under capitalism , in the last stage of it deterioration to be precise , where the richest( the most successful capitalists) rules all.
THE ULTIMATE MONOPOLY.
shogu666 6 months ago
@shogu666 I think you have a point, but it is corporate oligarchies w/gvmt protection and subsidies (corporate welfare). It is so bad small business cannot even get off the ground much less be competitive.
I don't agree that we live in a capitalist society, as capitalism creates a division of labor that provides opportunity for everyone to prosper. Capitalism rewards merit, and does not bailout failures.
The con is corporatism, if we had capitalism the market would set rates not the FED.
FreeMarketForces 5 months ago
Capitalism is the BEST!!!
TheBoxxylol 6 months ago
@auroraglacialis I agree that cooperation would be better for society as a whole if we could agree on the "best path for us all" and cooperate to acheive it. And therein lies the problem...
Ainznando 6 months ago
@Ainznando The "best path for us all" is allowing peaceful people to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on others. That enables people to do whatever they want as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. The nonaggression principle is "the best path". You cannot centrally plan individuals to prosperity.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin Good in theory, but impossible in practice. How can society enforce the "don't infringe on others" precept? Regular "sheep" won't risk themselves to catch & punish infringers, so they will naturally cluster into "tribes" to defend themselves from the "wolves", and in doing so appoint leaders & authorities that support their interests, e.g. nation states. How can law & order be maintained in a decentralized system? That's the problem with pure anarchy.
Ainznando 6 months ago
@Ainznando you are right.that is why we have nation states today.
cassidy99ful 6 months ago