@DavidJohnWellman i would post a link but I can't but what you can do is go to irs(dot)gov do a search for expatriation. If you don't file Form 8854 you have to pay a $10,000 fine. At least the form is free.
@Coteincdr Which one? The one where he presents a comprehensive list of logical fallacies by example, or the one where he presents a fictional economic history of the last three thousand years?
@DavidJohnWellman hahahaha, I think some one easy like For a New Liberty and then Man, Economy and State. I have a question, what logical fallacies are you talking about? and What is your political leaning?
NO, he obviously speaks about the one in which Rothbard says that its ok sell your child, and that its also the parents option to let the child die if they dont want it.
@MasterChifa Well alot of libertarians here on youtube are also market anarchists. To me it almost seems like the two words are becoming synonymous here on youtube.
@crazypants88 It's not a uniquely YT phenomenon. I have a recording of a libertarian strategist who examines the concept of anarchy, and concedes that libertarianism is indeed a form of anarchy. He goes on to advise people not to actually *say* that, but when confronted with the question, to say something like "What we have TODAY is anarchy -- government-caused anarchy!" thus avoiding the issue to make libertarianism more palatable to outsiders.
2:30 If the civil war was illegitimate then the American Revolutionary War was also. The difference was merely that one revolution was able to be suppressed and the other was not.
@LibertarianOnline The Civil War was not a revolution - it was an attempt by one part of the country to break away and form a separate country. A revolution would have involved all or most of the country - not just a specific region of the country fighting the federal government. In addition, a revolutionary movement seeks to overthrow a government. The states that made up the confederacy did not seek to over throw the federal government, but to break away from it's control & form a new country.
1. The American Revolution was an attempt by the American Colonies to break away from the British Empire and form a separate country (USA). The Civil War was an attempt by the Southern States to break away from the Union and form a separate country (Confederacy).
2. The American Colonies were a small part of the British Empire in population and land area. The South's population was much smaller than the North's, land area was about equal. Neither involved all or most of the country.
The Civil War was a "Southern Revolution" in the same way the "American Revolution" was a revolution. Both split from larger entities. One was militarily successful and one was not. It is not necessary for you condone or approve of the Confederacy to see that it can legitimately be called a revolution, and to see that it was hypocritical of the United States Government to invade the Confederacy. History is written by the victors. A good historian looks at both sides without prejudice.
@LibertarianOnline As I said though, a revolution by its nature seeks to overthrow a government - the colonial governments were done away with and new government instituted during the revolutionary war. The south did not seek to over throw the US government, only to break away from its control and form a new country. Also there would be a difference between a colony breaking away and part of a country itself breaking away.
@xexixk The Colonies had no intention of overthrowing the entire British Monarchy. I see your distinction but it does not apply. In both cases the seceding entities wanted to peacefully separate and both formed recognized governments during the wars. There is no difference in principle.
No there is no difference in principle whether the seceding entity is called a "colony" or not. It is part of the country. That's all that matters.
@LibertarianOnline Oh I do see a difference between say a state trying to leave the union and let's say Puerto Rico becoming an independent state as Puerto Rico may be a US territory, but it is not a state.
Because you haven't, ever. You were responding to "Even if you would defend someone I not sure you can stand against all homophobic bigots in the area" when you said that. If you think it us never be the case that the bigotry of a majority could not suppress the rights of a minority then, sorry, you are friggin ignorant . Human history is replete with examples.
@PostITnoteGUY "Leave your life" is not a valid point, considering you would call legitimate a property owner forcing a man who lived on that property his whole life to leave it. That aside, your view of fairness is suspect to me. What do you consider fair?
I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand, the zero aggression principle or deontological libertarianism. However Legitimacy is popular acceptance, nothing more. The State is an initiation of of force, as is property. The whole thing boils down to state's original ownership being derived from majority rule, to justify the right of the majority its "might makes right". Thus your whole notion of legitimacy is built on the foundation of "might makes right". So fuck the notion of legitimacy.
@Caveman135 "The State is an initiation of of force, as is property."
Not so for property. The concept of initiated force *presupposes* the existence of legitimate property claims, since initiated force is the violation of property rights. Property is conceptually prior to aggression. So the claim that property is the initiation of force is false, and an example of the stolen concept fallacy.
@bitbutter It depends upon what concept of initiation of force you're using. I disagree that the every concept of aggression depends on some prior concept of property.
@Caveman135 If the sense of initiated force you're using does not take property rights into account, i'm curious how you can detect that force has actually been initiated.
@bitbutter I get the sense that agression is ultimately intuitively defined, but I think most people would recognize by experience certain acts commited outside the context of self-defence; acts such as of homicide, rape, assault, as agression. These acts could be commited in a total vacuum of property.
@Caveman135 "These acts could be commited in a total vacuum of property."
imo the concept of physical assault implicitly depends on the assumption that people own their bodies, and that that right can be violated. Without a prior concept of property rights, and specifically self ownership, I'm not sure how we could discern that assault has actually occurred.
A surgeon cuts me, a mugger does the same. How do we conclude that only the latter is assault w/o property rights?
lol so suddenly because there is no state people won't demand any form of protection? and you'll go out raping and pillaging? dude i'm pretty sure you wouldn't even make it up the stairs to my apartment.
@DavidJohnWellman whoever is willing to provide it, there's nothing distinct about the provision of defense that somehow a government monopoly is the only and most efficient way to provide it. if the government grew apples for everyone would you wonder about who would grow apples if there was no government?
@MOONDOGGIESWTF If a society is large enough to avoid the problem I mentioned in this video, then it cannot be privatized or it would suffer the free rider problem.
@bitbutter And with that the end of rule of law. There will be no in real law and your access to this protection will be based on your private cash because nothing in society is reharded to belong to a society no more. Plutocracy
@bitbutter A society needs a common public law to make order ( or else a sharia court a stalinist court etc will exist in the same area) and it needs to blind from income. It is a public matter as part of the rule of law.
@PostITnoteGUY How many people have died at the hands of people ? How many have died at the hands of companies ? And what about states that hardly ever kill people where executions are ilegal ? Also what inforces the banned on slavery ? The state does by law and juridctory and police force.
@PostITnoteGUY No, you only pay rent when you come of age or get a job. You have about 18 years to depart. Maybe you sjould actually read. Not ony that, but apparently you're unaware that representative democracy is democratic. Around the time you begin to pay taxes, you are eligible to vote. Because of this, the adult collective is a major part of the government. This is why left wing statists (me) support unions and vote for benefits. We actually try to use the system instead of destroying it.
"So evreyone rents their right to live within the country?"
in a manner of speaking, yes. If you want the benefits of living in this country, ie. roads, the electrical grid, the big military that stop other countries from waltzing over and declaring your shit theirs, etc. then you have to pay for them; otherwise you can withdraw from your contract.
@blackplatypus "If you want the benefits of living in this country,"
A landlord cannot rent out property he does not own, this is true even if he has 'improved' the accommodation in various ways. By what theory of property rights does it follow that the state is the legitimate owner of the land that you believe it is offering for 'rent'?
@bitbutter Well it is the state that defines and made propety rights in the first place and it exist for similear reasons.
The state inforces propety rights by law as defined by the juridictiory as defined by the state. Without law private propety does not exist in the real sense as it did not exist in the earliest cultures.
@Eopyk "Well it is the state that defines and made propety rights in the first place and it exist for similear reasons."
More baseless assertions. The state is a territorial monopolist on the right to initiate force, and a serial violator of property rights. It's bordering on the insane to suggest that this, and only this entity, can enforce property rights. Again: read up on stateless legal orders, you'll learn something I promise.
@bitbutter No because it is trough this so called ''nitiate force'' that propety rights exists. Just like all rights. And btw I can also argue that propety of land is theft and coercian you prevent me to acces certain wild life and areas. If I wanna go there you will be happy to use and force and violance against me.
In the early days of Sumer it was the state that protected farmers from semi nomoads and other threats etc and protected the ''propety of people''
@Eopyk "No because it is trough this so called ''nitiate force'' that propety rights exists."
You have it exactly back to front. The initiation of force is only comprehensible *in the context of a system of property rights*: because without those rights it would not be possible to identify 'initiation of force'. Same with the claim that 'property is theft'. Both commit the stolen concept fallacy. Let me know if any of that was too dense and you'd like to me to explain in more detail.
@PostITnoteGUY "Contracts made by one's parents are not valid when you become an adult" So when you join the military before you are of the age of consent and have your parents sign for you, you can leave the military on your 18th birthday, no problem? A car loan that you got when you were 16 that your parents co-signed is invalid on your 18th birthday? You live in a fantasy world bud, there's no logical, realistic way for you're worldview to be put into effect.
@DavidJohnWellman Yes I do. You can say it was a revolution, but then it was also secession. Of course if the revolution/secession failed, it would had been called something else.
"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
That would be the position of Randroids as far as I can gather. We have stuff like social contracts (ie. laws) tostop me from waltzing over and "conquering" my neighbour's property.
@DKshad0w It was considered so, up until the 20th century. I consider the US ownership of conquered territories to be legitimate in the present day because universal status quo ante bellum is prohibitively impractical.
I am all for your critique, Objectivists need it, but you're making a few mistakes here. 1. Objectivism is NOT Libertarianism. They are not the same. Ayn Rand had an instrumental impact on the Libertarian movement, but Objectivism and Libertarians are very different, and often differ on many issues. 2. Ayn Rand rejected Anarchy, and stated that the only role of the state is to protect the individual rights of the people. I'd recommend reading more about Objectivism so your critique is accurate.
@PostITnoteGUY If you're born in a house that your mother is renting, and the landlord agrees to let your mother shelter you in his house, you will not pay rent until you come of age. You come of age, your mother dies, and you feel you should not pay the rent just because you live with your mother, but you want to live there anyway. You will be kicked out of the house for not paying, and the landlord might take you to court. Or, you can fucking leave. I don't see how this is an injustice.
@PostITnoteGUY Well there we see a clear diffrence beetwen us I am more of consequentialist in that I care more about consequencies then ideas in of it self. I am talking about consequences
@PostITnoteGUY My point was that in your society all freedom will be soley determined by wealth.
Well I was talking about a scenaro in a very religous community where homophobia is strong. The person in question does not have wealth so protection from the fundies cannot be given because no police is private and anyones acces to it is determined by price of cash like all other markets. Even if you would defend someone I not sure you can stand against all homophobic bigots in the area.
@Eopyk "My point was that in your society all freedom will be soley determined by wealth."
False. Of course wealth will help people live the kind of life they'd like to live, just as it does now. But 'freedom' is also a function of the availability of high quality justice. We can expect a competitive system of justice provision to outperform a monopoly on law in terms of aligning with the values of 'the people'. Look up 'polycentric law', 'private law society' for more information.
@bitbutter Well Butter you need wealth to get any so called justice in your society you need cash.
High quality justice ? Should be indipendent from wealth be blined and protect all citizens ( that doesn ot exist in your society ) no matter income nor circumstans. And protect rule of law and the democratic will of the people.
@Eopyk "Well Butter you need wealth to get any so called justice in your society you need cash."
Not necessarily. Charity exists. And if you're seriously interested in learning about this topic look up how law functioned in medieval iceland--specifically how those without means could 'buy' justice without cash.
"High quality justice?"
You understand how a competitive system can be expected to deliver a higher quality product at a lower price than a coercive monopoly, right?
@bitbutter P 1 Seesh i see your an extreme free market extremist.
Yeah and you still need cash... and when everyday folk pay for in your society everything in need like healthcare, education ( parents sending children to learn creationism makes me cringe) infrastructure etc tohave enough to give money for all in need. It is a plutocratic society you promote with a strong wealthy elite.
As a Scandinavian I get pissed at this always mentioning Iceland that was more proto-state that took
@bitbutter I have read about many times in the past. I think you and your like show your ingnorance of Scandinavian culture. For an example the lowest basis of court in modern Sweden are '' tingsrätt'' tings right'' and in Norway the parliement is also called ting a ting is a political and juridical councill Iceland was the first with a central ting to make laws.
@bitbutter Yeah I have checked it a bit first of idealogical writtings I am very sceptical of. How justice was made here back in old Germanic and norse societies for your knowlage was primarly revenge. Eye for an eye revenge the norse and Icelanic sagas are often about revenge because there societies where largley based on revenge.
If your burnt down my house then I burnt down your house , the local ting would have also for the most declared such punishement sometimes even strange ones
@bitbutter Yes old Germanic cultures are defentilify the standard we ought to use build law... If you strike me i strike you. you take money of me then your doomed to lose money to me. If you kill my parents then I kill yours. They where also sometimes very tribe based especialy later on. Geats hade special laws for geats that often benifed Geats over smallanders that hade to pay more for a similear crime in fee.
The fact that they mentioned ANglo-Saxon makes me shrugg.. Revenge culture ?
@bitbutter May I also say that in societies with surplus an a larger demographic preassure with specilization and complex political and economic culture anarchy cannot work nor sustain it self. Also there is no proof what so ever to your knowlage that no state societies are better or less brutall. In fact unless they are small hunter gather socities ( that can be brutal in there way ) violance and brutality tends to get higher and honor cultures tends to devolop over time with exeptions to rule
@bitbutter The last comment, One thing that has been great with Scandinavian ting system is the consensus thinking it has survived after that time a long time in our culture. Consensus is the basis of democracy.
@bitbutterYeah because a society where money will everything where the vote means nothing and all freedom and all acces to anything is soley based on cash. That means rich people will have 100 % power.
What you want is plutocracy. Rule of money. I want democracy rule of the people. I want everyone to get healthcare, education,basic public transport basic infrastructure, Not like in Somalia where the infrastructure collapses only rich kids go to school etc.
@bitbutter Bottom line is all society rights are protected by law and state for everyone despite condition and income.
Since rights are only concepts they often need to be reinforced with what you label force ( unless it is about propety rights your ilk likes for some reason put a diffrent standard on that )
P 2 The Scandinavian ting system ( councills ) and made a system of all incomposing parliament .
Scandinavia like Sweden at the time would have been more anarchist but it clan conflicts and that was common the clans where like mafias that you joined and left.
Iceland though is often said to be the oldest still running democracy and there is some truth to that overall.
@Eopyk I'll make it super easy for you: Google "PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE". In there you'll find a historical precedent for how a private law system can accommodate the poor, and make justice available to them.
@bitbutter Yeah because the ones who have the highest wealth in numerical might have the right to decide and controll more of society because of that ? That is real tyranee power to the people. Democracy likei t or not is the best system we have tried overall with the best results.
In the last video you equated the government to the mafia and in that same context said "I'd think it'd be better to get rid of the mafia than move away."
And here's another lie you constantly use. You claim force has been initiated on you to join the contract. Can you show some battle scars from that fight you had?
@PostITnoteGUY What if I want to walk that forest road that is someone elses propety what if I really want it . And what if I need it as well. Then I will forced not to go there. That forest road that I wish and need to go. I am alwasy stoped. Using your argument against you I am forced in gun point not to go there.
Also is one more free not afording protection, no rule of law and no acces to anything unless they have wealth. Where for an example a gay man could and would be beaten up in the bible belt not havinh cash and this no protection if now the companies would want to help him in the first place.
How is the end result in your society that will lead to plutocracy , freedom, it is for me insanity to asume that a plutocratic society is freedom.
@PostITnoteGUY Eqaully oen could argue that private propety is force. Your forcing me not be able to acces land at my own will. That is cohersion using your logic.
Let me ask you in hunter gather societies one collects food , you rthen obligated to share that food with you tribe if yoru selfish and claim finders keepers then you will be kicked of the group in some cases. What is ethicaly right acording to you ?
@PostITnoteGUY Didn't we go over this in the last video's comments?
You agree to the contract when deciding to stay here and whine instead of leaving or trying to change it.
Wherever you live if there are enough people around you they will form a social contract of some sort, whether written or spoken, but in all cases - enforced. If you want not to be in any social contract (as you previously said you want it removed entirely), then you can seclude yourself in a mountain with no tourists.
So yeah abolish the state and pay your police, the firemen, your social security et. all out of your own pockets and have everything run by giant firms, lets see how long it takes for some Repro Men to come to your house and take your stuff because you forgot a payment. You replace one horror scenario (the state coming to get taxes) with another one (the corporation coming to collect due payments). And this makes me more free somehow?
A system that would have no laws and no regulations whatsoever, something that just screams to be exploited by those companies that make the most profit and quickly dominate everything. The end result would mega-corporation controlling everything and that is better then a state? What difference does it make if I am oppressed by a state or by a mega-corporation?
Not only that but you honestly believe that humanity as a whole would be ready for a stateless society, where everything runs on the goodwill of the people, a system that cannont work for the reasons that humans are assholes and will always find ways to screw each other over, no matter what. You want a system where everything runs on a donation base with a complete free market.
@PostITnoteGUY Its a false analogy and you know it. You have the right to move out of your country and live elewhere but because there is no libertarian utopia anywhere, you rather complain about the state and the force it applies to keep things going in comment sections of YouTube videos. Are you even doing anything to make that libertarian utopia come true that way? No you dont. You are wasting everyones time with this by asking the same questions over and over again.
As I sit here listening my mind wonders to all the nasty shit the State has done, even right now in Libya it seems the "new" government may not be completely legit, that is I wonder how much we've already positioned ourselves in their ranks to assure an even friendly government to so called US interests. Regardless, the history is clear, this so called Social Contract does not apply to higher ups therefore it is void. So that really only leaves one option.
"but all other countries have the same basic system of illegitimate ownership, with a few exceptions like Somalia, and I wouldn't want to live in shit holes like that." Well, there you go.
You seem to confuse Anarcho-Libertarians with Minarchist-Libertarians.
Cozmolyne 2 months ago
Sure the government allows you to leave you just have to pay taxes for the next 5 years (maybe it was 10) to the US for all income earned.
alita589 11 months ago
@alita589 Source?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago 5
@DavidJohnWellman i would post a link but I can't but what you can do is go to irs(dot)gov do a search for expatriation. If you don't file Form 8854 you have to pay a $10,000 fine. At least the form is free.
alita589 11 months ago
hahahahahahaha, please read Murray Rothbard!!!!
Coteincdr 11 months ago
@Coteincdr Which one? The one where he presents a comprehensive list of logical fallacies by example, or the one where he presents a fictional economic history of the last three thousand years?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago 6
@DavidJohnWellman hahahaha, I think some one easy like For a New Liberty and then Man, Economy and State. I have a question, what logical fallacies are you talking about? and What is your political leaning?
Coteincdr 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman @Coteincdr
NO, he obviously speaks about the one in which Rothbard says that its ok sell your child, and that its also the parents option to let the child die if they dont want it.
gulbirk 3 months ago
I endorse DJW for the position of Lord Humungus in the New Libertarian World (dis)order.
ShadowPa1adin 11 months ago
You should take Libertarians out of the title as these critiques are not related to libertarians
MasterChifa 11 months ago
@MasterChifa Well alot of libertarians here on youtube are also market anarchists. To me it almost seems like the two words are becoming synonymous here on youtube.
crazypants88 11 months ago
@crazypants88 It's not a uniquely YT phenomenon. I have a recording of a libertarian strategist who examines the concept of anarchy, and concedes that libertarianism is indeed a form of anarchy. He goes on to advise people not to actually *say* that, but when confronted with the question, to say something like "What we have TODAY is anarchy -- government-caused anarchy!" thus avoiding the issue to make libertarianism more palatable to outsiders.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
2:30 If the civil war was illegitimate then the American Revolutionary War was also. The difference was merely that one revolution was able to be suppressed and the other was not.
Long live the Queen!
LibertarianOnline 11 months ago
@LibertarianOnline The civil war wasn't a revolution.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Yes it was
LibertarianOnline 11 months ago
@LibertarianOnline Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@LibertarianOnline The Civil War was not a revolution - it was an attempt by one part of the country to break away and form a separate country. A revolution would have involved all or most of the country - not just a specific region of the country fighting the federal government. In addition, a revolutionary movement seeks to overthrow a government. The states that made up the confederacy did not seek to over throw the federal government, but to break away from it's control & form a new country.
xexixk 8 months ago
@xexixk
1. The American Revolution was an attempt by the American Colonies to break away from the British Empire and form a separate country (USA). The Civil War was an attempt by the Southern States to break away from the Union and form a separate country (Confederacy).
2. The American Colonies were a small part of the British Empire in population and land area. The South's population was much smaller than the North's, land area was about equal. Neither involved all or most of the country.
LibertarianOnline 8 months ago
@xexixk
The Civil War was a "Southern Revolution" in the same way the "American Revolution" was a revolution. Both split from larger entities. One was militarily successful and one was not. It is not necessary for you condone or approve of the Confederacy to see that it can legitimately be called a revolution, and to see that it was hypocritical of the United States Government to invade the Confederacy. History is written by the victors. A good historian looks at both sides without prejudice.
LibertarianOnline 8 months ago
@LibertarianOnline As I said though, a revolution by its nature seeks to overthrow a government - the colonial governments were done away with and new government instituted during the revolutionary war. The south did not seek to over throw the US government, only to break away from its control and form a new country. Also there would be a difference between a colony breaking away and part of a country itself breaking away.
xexixk 8 months ago
@xexixk The Colonies had no intention of overthrowing the entire British Monarchy. I see your distinction but it does not apply. In both cases the seceding entities wanted to peacefully separate and both formed recognized governments during the wars. There is no difference in principle.
No there is no difference in principle whether the seceding entity is called a "colony" or not. It is part of the country. That's all that matters.
LibertarianOnline 8 months ago
@LibertarianOnline Oh I do see a difference between say a state trying to leave the union and let's say Puerto Rico becoming an independent state as Puerto Rico may be a US territory, but it is not a state.
xexixk 8 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY So all variations on A:B::C:D are invalid because A=/=C and B=/=D? I hope you didn't pay for that education, buddy.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY They didn't. They provided a representative legislature and a Constitutional amendment process.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY So it's a difficult choice. But why is it unfair?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY An ultimatum is a demand. The United States is not demanding that you stay.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY You did, by electing to stay when you came of age.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PostITnoteGUY
You:
"Even if you would defend someone I not sure you can stand against all homophobic bigots in the area""
If this. If that. I can also invent scenarios that favour my position.
Dashes000 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"Why?"
Because you haven't, ever. You were responding to "Even if you would defend someone I not sure you can stand against all homophobic bigots in the area" when you said that. If you think it us never be the case that the bigotry of a majority could not suppress the rights of a minority then, sorry, you are friggin ignorant . Human history is replete with examples.
Dashes000 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY "Leave your life" is not a valid point, considering you would call legitimate a property owner forcing a man who lived on that property his whole life to leave it. That aside, your view of fairness is suspect to me. What do you consider fair?
Sabohaque 11 months ago
I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand, the zero aggression principle or deontological libertarianism. However Legitimacy is popular acceptance, nothing more. The State is an initiation of of force, as is property. The whole thing boils down to state's original ownership being derived from majority rule, to justify the right of the majority its "might makes right". Thus your whole notion of legitimacy is built on the foundation of "might makes right". So fuck the notion of legitimacy.
Caveman135 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Caveman135 "The State is an initiation of of force, as is property."
Not so for property. The concept of initiated force *presupposes* the existence of legitimate property claims, since initiated force is the violation of property rights. Property is conceptually prior to aggression. So the claim that property is the initiation of force is false, and an example of the stolen concept fallacy.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter It depends upon what concept of initiation of force you're using. I disagree that the every concept of aggression depends on some prior concept of property.
Caveman135 11 months ago
@Caveman135 If the sense of initiated force you're using does not take property rights into account, i'm curious how you can detect that force has actually been initiated.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I get the sense that agression is ultimately intuitively defined, but I think most people would recognize by experience certain acts commited outside the context of self-defence; acts such as of homicide, rape, assault, as agression. These acts could be commited in a total vacuum of property.
Caveman135 11 months ago
@Caveman135 "These acts could be commited in a total vacuum of property."
imo the concept of physical assault implicitly depends on the assumption that people own their bodies, and that that right can be violated. Without a prior concept of property rights, and specifically self ownership, I'm not sure how we could discern that assault has actually occurred.
A surgeon cuts me, a mugger does the same. How do we conclude that only the latter is assault w/o property rights?
bitbutter 11 months ago
lol so suddenly because there is no state people won't demand any form of protection? and you'll go out raping and pillaging? dude i'm pretty sure you wouldn't even make it up the stairs to my apartment.
MOONDOGGIESWTF 11 months ago
@MOONDOGGIESWTF From whom would they demand the protection?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman whoever is willing to provide it, there's nothing distinct about the provision of defense that somehow a government monopoly is the only and most efficient way to provide it. if the government grew apples for everyone would you wonder about who would grow apples if there was no government?
MOONDOGGIESWTF 11 months ago
@MOONDOGGIESWTF If a society is large enough to avoid the problem I mentioned in this video, then it cannot be privatized or it would suffer the free rider problem.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Commercial providers of protection most likely.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter And with that the end of rule of law. There will be no in real law and your access to this protection will be based on your private cash because nothing in society is reharded to belong to a society no more. Plutocracy
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "There will be no in real law"
Empty assertion. Did you look up polycentric law and private law society already? It would be a good idea if you did.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter A society needs a common public law to make order ( or else a sharia court a stalinist court etc will exist in the same area) and it needs to blind from income. It is a public matter as part of the rule of law.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY How many people have died at the hands of people ? How many have died at the hands of companies ? And what about states that hardly ever kill people where executions are ilegal ? Also what inforces the banned on slavery ? The state does by law and juridctory and police force.
Your argument is a bit flat if you ask me.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY No, you only pay rent when you come of age or get a job. You have about 18 years to depart. Maybe you sjould actually read. Not ony that, but apparently you're unaware that representative democracy is democratic. Around the time you begin to pay taxes, you are eligible to vote. Because of this, the adult collective is a major part of the government. This is why left wing statists (me) support unions and vote for benefits. We actually try to use the system instead of destroying it.
Sabohaque 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"So evreyone rents their right to live within the country?"
in a manner of speaking, yes. If you want the benefits of living in this country, ie. roads, the electrical grid, the big military that stop other countries from waltzing over and declaring your shit theirs, etc. then you have to pay for them; otherwise you can withdraw from your contract.
blackplatypus 11 months ago
@blackplatypus "If you want the benefits of living in this country,"
A landlord cannot rent out property he does not own, this is true even if he has 'improved' the accommodation in various ways. By what theory of property rights does it follow that the state is the legitimate owner of the land that you believe it is offering for 'rent'?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Well it is the state that defines and made propety rights in the first place and it exist for similear reasons.
The state inforces propety rights by law as defined by the juridictiory as defined by the state. Without law private propety does not exist in the real sense as it did not exist in the earliest cultures.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "Well it is the state that defines and made propety rights in the first place and it exist for similear reasons."
More baseless assertions. The state is a territorial monopolist on the right to initiate force, and a serial violator of property rights. It's bordering on the insane to suggest that this, and only this entity, can enforce property rights. Again: read up on stateless legal orders, you'll learn something I promise.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter No because it is trough this so called ''nitiate force'' that propety rights exists. Just like all rights. And btw I can also argue that propety of land is theft and coercian you prevent me to acces certain wild life and areas. If I wanna go there you will be happy to use and force and violance against me.
In the early days of Sumer it was the state that protected farmers from semi nomoads and other threats etc and protected the ''propety of people''
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "No because it is trough this so called ''nitiate force'' that propety rights exists."
You have it exactly back to front. The initiation of force is only comprehensible *in the context of a system of property rights*: because without those rights it would not be possible to identify 'initiation of force'. Same with the claim that 'property is theft'. Both commit the stolen concept fallacy. Let me know if any of that was too dense and you'd like to me to explain in more detail.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
The claim that property is theft does not commit the stolen concept fallacy. Individual property is indeed theft from the collective property.]
How is this a stolen concept?
blackplatypus 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackplatypus "The claim that property is theft does not commit the stolen concept fallacy."
I just explained exactly how it does. If you didn't understand any of the specifics, ask for clarification.
"Individual property is indeed theft from the collective property."
If this was really the case, and if property was really theft, then the collective property would also be theft. The whole idea is nonsensical.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY "Contracts made by one's parents are not valid when you become an adult" So when you join the military before you are of the age of consent and have your parents sign for you, you can leave the military on your 18th birthday, no problem? A car loan that you got when you were 16 that your parents co-signed is invalid on your 18th birthday? You live in a fantasy world bud, there's no logical, realistic way for you're worldview to be put into effect.
TZ3k 11 months ago
The United States was created from secession btw.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Wrong. It was created from revolution.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman It seceded from British rule. The British disagreed with that course of action.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Certainly the British disagreed, but it was not secession.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman The Colonies were parts of British territory. It was an successful attempt at secession.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w No, it was a successful attempt at revolution. Do you honestly not know the difference?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Yes I do. You can say it was a revolution, but then it was also secession. Of course if the revolution/secession failed, it would had been called something else.
"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
-Sir John Harrington.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w Evidently, no, you don't know the difference.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Evidently, you think you do.
DKshad0w 11 months ago
So conquest is legitimate if successful?
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w
That would be the position of Randroids as far as I can gather. We have stuff like social contracts (ie. laws) tostop me from waltzing over and "conquering" my neighbour's property.
blackplatypus 11 months ago
@DKshad0w It was considered so, up until the 20th century. I consider the US ownership of conquered territories to be legitimate in the present day because universal status quo ante bellum is prohibitively impractical.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Replace "country" with "apartment" and "social contract" with "lease," and you'll see the flaw in your logic.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY What's it called when I cannot grow some food on "property" that someone else "owns?"
MinervaInTheBrain 11 months ago 3
@PostITnoteGUY
"I can also invent scenarios that favour my position."
INVENT scenarios?? Read a history book, fool!
Dashes000 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Consider yourself warned for tone.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Who the hell am I to tell people what social contract they have to live by? I'm someone who can read, that's who.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Why is it not a fair choice?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
I am all for your critique, Objectivists need it, but you're making a few mistakes here. 1. Objectivism is NOT Libertarianism. They are not the same. Ayn Rand had an instrumental impact on the Libertarian movement, but Objectivism and Libertarians are very different, and often differ on many issues. 2. Ayn Rand rejected Anarchy, and stated that the only role of the state is to protect the individual rights of the people. I'd recommend reading more about Objectivism so your critique is accurate.
seanthedonconsidine 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY If you're born in a house that your mother is renting, and the landlord agrees to let your mother shelter you in his house, you will not pay rent until you come of age. You come of age, your mother dies, and you feel you should not pay the rent just because you live with your mother, but you want to live there anyway. You will be kicked out of the house for not paying, and the landlord might take you to court. Or, you can fucking leave. I don't see how this is an injustice.
Sabohaque 11 months ago
@Sabohaque *lived with your mother
Sabohaque 11 months ago
Libertarianism: Wtf America, seriously.
dookiecheez 11 months ago
Dude...is that your "hunk-of-the-month" calendar behind you? ;^)
Theophage 11 months ago
@Theophage More accurately, it's Mrs. DJW's hunk-of-the-month calendar.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Well there we see a clear diffrence beetwen us I am more of consequentialist in that I care more about consequencies then ideas in of it self. I am talking about consequences
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY My point was that in your society all freedom will be soley determined by wealth.
Well I was talking about a scenaro in a very religous community where homophobia is strong. The person in question does not have wealth so protection from the fundies cannot be given because no police is private and anyones acces to it is determined by price of cash like all other markets. Even if you would defend someone I not sure you can stand against all homophobic bigots in the area.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "My point was that in your society all freedom will be soley determined by wealth."
False. Of course wealth will help people live the kind of life they'd like to live, just as it does now. But 'freedom' is also a function of the availability of high quality justice. We can expect a competitive system of justice provision to outperform a monopoly on law in terms of aligning with the values of 'the people'. Look up 'polycentric law', 'private law society' for more information.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Well Butter you need wealth to get any so called justice in your society you need cash.
High quality justice ? Should be indipendent from wealth be blined and protect all citizens ( that doesn ot exist in your society ) no matter income nor circumstans. And protect rule of law and the democratic will of the people.
I have no respect for plutocracy.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "Well Butter you need wealth to get any so called justice in your society you need cash."
Not necessarily. Charity exists. And if you're seriously interested in learning about this topic look up how law functioned in medieval iceland--specifically how those without means could 'buy' justice without cash.
"High quality justice?"
You understand how a competitive system can be expected to deliver a higher quality product at a lower price than a coercive monopoly, right?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter P 1 Seesh i see your an extreme free market extremist.
Yeah and you still need cash... and when everyday folk pay for in your society everything in need like healthcare, education ( parents sending children to learn creationism makes me cringe) infrastructure etc tohave enough to give money for all in need. It is a plutocratic society you promote with a strong wealthy elite.
As a Scandinavian I get pissed at this always mentioning Iceland that was more proto-state that took
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk Sure. I'm a 'free market fundamentalist' if it makes you feel better.
"As a Scandinavian I get pissed at this always mentioning Iceland"
Did you look it up yet? Do you have any plans to? or are you only intersted in point scoring rather than learning?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I have read about many times in the past. I think you and your like show your ingnorance of Scandinavian culture. For an example the lowest basis of court in modern Sweden are '' tingsrätt'' tings right'' and in Norway the parliement is also called ting a ting is a political and juridical councill Iceland was the first with a central ting to make laws.
Again plutocracy is not freedom.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "I have read about many times in the past."
So why are you ignoring that part that explains how justice was made available to the poor in a stateless system of law?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Yeah I have checked it a bit first of idealogical writtings I am very sceptical of. How justice was made here back in old Germanic and norse societies for your knowlage was primarly revenge. Eye for an eye revenge the norse and Icelanic sagas are often about revenge because there societies where largley based on revenge.
If your burnt down my house then I burnt down your house , the local ting would have also for the most declared such punishement sometimes even strange ones
Eopyk 11 months ago
@bitbutter Yes old Germanic cultures are defentilify the standard we ought to use build law... If you strike me i strike you. you take money of me then your doomed to lose money to me. If you kill my parents then I kill yours. They where also sometimes very tribe based especialy later on. Geats hade special laws for geats that often benifed Geats over smallanders that hade to pay more for a similear crime in fee.
The fact that they mentioned ANglo-Saxon makes me shrugg.. Revenge culture ?
Eopyk 11 months ago
@bitbutter May I also say that in societies with surplus an a larger demographic preassure with specilization and complex political and economic culture anarchy cannot work nor sustain it self. Also there is no proof what so ever to your knowlage that no state societies are better or less brutall. In fact unless they are small hunter gather socities ( that can be brutal in there way ) violance and brutality tends to get higher and honor cultures tends to devolop over time with exeptions to rule
Eopyk 11 months ago
@bitbutter The last comment, One thing that has been great with Scandinavian ting system is the consensus thinking it has survived after that time a long time in our culture. Consensus is the basis of democracy.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk "Again plutocracy is not freedom."
I agree. Plutocracy is precisely what we have now, and the inevitable result of statism.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutterYeah because a society where money will everything where the vote means nothing and all freedom and all acces to anything is soley based on cash. That means rich people will have 100 % power.
What you want is plutocracy. Rule of money. I want democracy rule of the people. I want everyone to get healthcare, education,basic public transport basic infrastructure, Not like in Somalia where the infrastructure collapses only rich kids go to school etc.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@bitbutter Bottom line is all society rights are protected by law and state for everyone despite condition and income.
Since rights are only concepts they often need to be reinforced with what you label force ( unless it is about propety rights your ilk likes for some reason put a diffrent standard on that )
Eopyk 11 months ago
P 2 The Scandinavian ting system ( councills ) and made a system of all incomposing parliament .
Scandinavia like Sweden at the time would have been more anarchist but it clan conflicts and that was common the clans where like mafias that you joined and left.
Iceland though is often said to be the oldest still running democracy and there is some truth to that overall.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@Eopyk I'll make it super easy for you: Google "PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE". In there you'll find a historical precedent for how a private law system can accommodate the poor, and make justice available to them.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@Eopyk "the democratic will of the people."
Weasel words! Numerical might makes right: That's an extremely ugly sentiment.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Yeah because the ones who have the highest wealth in numerical might have the right to decide and controll more of society because of that ? That is real tyranee power to the people. Democracy likei t or not is the best system we have tried overall with the best results.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Here I catch you in a lie.
In the last video you equated the government to the mafia and in that same context said "I'd think it'd be better to get rid of the mafia than move away."
And here's another lie you constantly use. You claim force has been initiated on you to join the contract. Can you show some battle scars from that fight you had?
Don't answer that.
coladict 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coladict "You claim force has been initiated on you to join the contract"
See my latest video for an explanation of how any contract joined with a state is done so under duress.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY What if I want to walk that forest road that is someone elses propety what if I really want it . And what if I need it as well. Then I will forced not to go there. That forest road that I wish and need to go. I am alwasy stoped. Using your argument against you I am forced in gun point not to go there.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY If you belive one can have your society withouit any form of force what so ever then your idealogicaly diluded.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Also is one more free not afording protection, no rule of law and no acces to anything unless they have wealth. Where for an example a gay man could and would be beaten up in the bible belt not havinh cash and this no protection if now the companies would want to help him in the first place.
How is the end result in your society that will lead to plutocracy , freedom, it is for me insanity to asume that a plutocratic society is freedom.
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Eqaully oen could argue that private propety is force. Your forcing me not be able to acces land at my own will. That is cohersion using your logic.
Let me ask you in hunter gather societies one collects food , you rthen obligated to share that food with you tribe if yoru selfish and claim finders keepers then you will be kicked of the group in some cases. What is ethicaly right acording to you ?
Eopyk 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Didn't we go over this in the last video's comments?
You agree to the contract when deciding to stay here and whine instead of leaving or trying to change it.
Wherever you live if there are enough people around you they will form a social contract of some sort, whether written or spoken, but in all cases - enforced. If you want not to be in any social contract (as you previously said you want it removed entirely), then you can seclude yourself in a mountain with no tourists.
coladict 11 months ago
So yeah abolish the state and pay your police, the firemen, your social security et. all out of your own pockets and have everything run by giant firms, lets see how long it takes for some Repro Men to come to your house and take your stuff because you forgot a payment. You replace one horror scenario (the state coming to get taxes) with another one (the corporation coming to collect due payments). And this makes me more free somehow?
LtHavoc1983 11 months ago
A system that would have no laws and no regulations whatsoever, something that just screams to be exploited by those companies that make the most profit and quickly dominate everything. The end result would mega-corporation controlling everything and that is better then a state? What difference does it make if I am oppressed by a state or by a mega-corporation?
LtHavoc1983 11 months ago
Not only that but you honestly believe that humanity as a whole would be ready for a stateless society, where everything runs on the goodwill of the people, a system that cannont work for the reasons that humans are assholes and will always find ways to screw each other over, no matter what. You want a system where everything runs on a donation base with a complete free market.
LtHavoc1983 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Its a false analogy and you know it. You have the right to move out of your country and live elewhere but because there is no libertarian utopia anywhere, you rather complain about the state and the force it applies to keep things going in comment sections of YouTube videos. Are you even doing anything to make that libertarian utopia come true that way? No you dont. You are wasting everyones time with this by asking the same questions over and over again.
LtHavoc1983 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Ah yes the old Strawman of "State is a religion!" Shows how quickly you ran out of good arguments.
LtHavoc1983 11 months ago
As I sit here listening my mind wonders to all the nasty shit the State has done, even right now in Libya it seems the "new" government may not be completely legit, that is I wonder how much we've already positioned ourselves in their ranks to assure an even friendly government to so called US interests. Regardless, the history is clear, this so called Social Contract does not apply to higher ups therefore it is void. So that really only leaves one option.
DiwataMan 11 months ago
@DiwataMan Revolt? Well, you know where the Capitol is.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY In other words, "IS NOT!! IS NOT!! IS NOT!!"
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago 2
@PostITnoteGUY Buying a new car is harder than keeping your current car. The point is you have a choice.
Presumably 98% of Americans would be sufficient to amend the Constitution out of existence, if they felt that strongly about it.
By choosing to stay in America when you come of age, you choose to keep the contract in play.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY "What if 98% of Americans said they reject the social contract? Would they ALL have to leave or stfu?"
If 98% agreed with the 'Randroids' society would change, but given that it is more like 5% is that example really valid?
"Contracts made by one's parents are not valid when you become an adult."
That depends heavily on the type of contract.
1stCainite 11 months ago
"but all other countries have the same basic system of illegitimate ownership, with a few exceptions like Somalia, and I wouldn't want to live in shit holes like that." Well, there you go.
1stCainite 11 months ago
Libertarians are like anarchists but than only for rich people.
IAmDonar 11 months ago
I love your quick tounge and your ability to say how it is basicly so well in such a quick time .
All love and respect from me Jasmine
Eopyk 11 months ago