This is a great video. I plan on linking somewhere here that has been needling me on whether or not Iceland was a good example of an anarchic society or of polycentric law.
@darris321 Even in today's system, it would take a very long time for anyone to realize anything was amiss, and if you did have witnesses, they would obviously say that you did commit the crime. The punishment is a very difficult matter, because of his hermit nature, but the man's life was indeed stolen from him against his will, and there would probably be a punishment for that alone.
however, they had no problem with slaves, while they trained for WAR, and putting down any rebellions, they trained for WAR, and they engaged in WAR
period.
I mean WOW, talk about economics, lol
as a matter of fact, the greek city states were made because when society wasn't run centrally and strongly, the greeks suffered immensely, through the dark ages just after the Mycenaean kingdom fell
the content of values are given, it requires a value free science to analyze them.
again, it's hard to level criticisms when you have absolutely no clue what austrian economics says or how it applies to understanding reality. nuff said.
but I don't care what austrian economics says, unless it deals with values and how they affect the world, because my values affect my economic choices, as do many others', that's how identity advertising works on teenagers, for instance
well of course they do! that is the entire premise, that people's subjective values determine the course of actions. people act with the belief that, according to their own subjective values, the state of their affairs will be "improved" (improved there again, being a subjective term). it is all analyzed objectively with value free analysis.
if you aren't interested in learning about economics then i have nothing further to say. again, i cannot get caught up in these endless convos.
that's fine, but I'm going to keep posting about the issues I see, values might be subjective, but economics wasn't what caused 9/11, as the most prominent current example
furthermore, values are what led to greeks fighting the persians together and winning
and of course, sparta, so there's clear examples where values really matter
like i said, i'm not interested in debating with someone who is completely unfamiliar with praxeology and economics. of course economics MUST be a value free science, b/c values are subjective! we are talking about the formal logical implications of the existence of deliberate action, about how prices emerge, interest rates, production, wealth creation, etc.
once you've got that down, then you can go about arguing according to people's values.
I find most of your issues to be akin to that of communism, and the hippy movement, I did a side by side comparison of the issues, and quite honestly, the decried ones were the same
the prescribed method of getting there was only slightly different, and everything else was the same
and of course beatniks, those obscure little things
I have yet to figure out what specifically makes a corporation different from a government aside from one's territory is "imaginary" and the other's not
austrian economists are radically opposed to communism. i don't think what i am advocating could be further from state communism.
look, all i can tell you is that if you are really interested start looking into austrian economics, maybe starting with economics in one lesson by h. hazlitt.
i can't go back and forth endlessly w/every last person on the internet in comment sections, i would get absolutely nowhere. i've got to prioritize.
in canada, the professionalism of government workers is equal to that of a corporation's workers mostly, the reason is pretty simple, the same types of people flock to the same types of jobs usually, you can think of oil well workers, and whether they're government or corporately employed they are usually roughly the same kind of person in comparison
no, once again, it is the overall culture of the group that matters
i doubt walmart could compete in a stateless society w/o all of its special privileges, and of course blackwater would absolutely not exist, the state is pretty much their only customer.
i derive my conclusions from praxeology and economics, and in those sciences the content of people's values is unimportant b/c they are subjective.
this is impossible to explain unless a person is genuinely interested and is driven to study austrian economics.
I mean, would you ever dream of citing personal reasons to your boss? well, some of them yes, and some of them no, however the same works with police, despite whatever loony rants otherwise, at least here in canada, the cops in many places are fairly reasonable
this changes when you encounter police in more dangerous and stressful environments, however this is pretty natural
anyways, corporations' loyalty is to their stockholders, not their customers
furthermore, the corporation is not a democratic governing body, it is an oligarchical one, not an aristocratic one at least, but still oligarchic, in which the rich are the only ones with power, and if it weren't for the laws that get in the way of abuse by higher ups that inevitably happen, a lot of people would be even worse off under them than before
corporations are as close to fascism as you can get without being fascism
corporations and the state are like two peas in a pod. sure, towards the public they play a game like pro wrestling, where they fake fight, but in reality they are best buds.
the bargaining power of corporations in terms of the conditions of labor is greatly enhanced by the state. corps write laws and lobby politicians to pass them which appear "anti-corp" but which really are designed to make competition from the little guy much more difficult.
part of the problem is that the US government backed up corporations, now this could be seen as an argument for liberatarianism, until you realize that no socialist wants to see big corporations backed up, they want to see small ones backed up, for the most part, a forced equalizing effect, it's not 100% effective, and socialists are fine with that, it keeps the playing field more even after one or two businesses go global and massive
corporations are governing bodies too, without borders
corporations are fictional legal entities which are created, defined, and enforced through the state. this is only possible through the state's monopolization of law and justice.
also, you're forgetting the culture of the US, it's very different from many other countries, canada for instance, is more "socialist" and it has far fewer issues
a lot of the factor comes down to cultural attitudes, this is not really within the control of the state too much, well it is, but control is so unwieldly you might as well say they don't have it
no, far bigger is the international corps, it's walmart keeping the US afloat after the US government let corps run wild and cause issues
hmmm, you're comparison of the US is terrible, see... the US isn't using what it could, as a fan of studying history, for all the friendly fire, and my disbelief in marine myths, the US is one of the least friendly fire, and collateral damage oriented militaries in the history of the earth
the only reason they're being beaten about is because they didn't go russian on georgia style
if they really wished to they could enforce so much it's ridiculous
well, i suppose that all depends. medieval ireland was eventually conquered by england, altho it took 500 years to accomplish.
i think modern technology has rendered takeovers through force obsolete. just look at how the mightiest military force in history, the US, cannot bring under control two small third world nations. with guns and guerilla warfare the resistance only grows stronger and more entrenched over time, until the attacking state finally has economic collapse.
i could not possibly know. but certainly we can see just how much "justice" cost in current state societies. just take the US, which has more people in prison per capita than any other country in history, over 50% are in for nonviolent crimes, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. it would cost far, far less w/o a state, and instead of focusing on punishment, it would focus on restitution to the victims.
merchant law doesn't work when a group decides to steal everything instead of trade fairly
especially when it finds a plot of land
basically, if a government doesn't exist that's not willing to step on people's toes occasionally to get the job done, someone who is willing to to get any job done, will
hmmm well it worked for hundreds of years before essentially being hijacked by the state. you deal with those people through ostracism.
and i don't even know what your second paragraph means. in a stateless society ostracism could potentially be enforced violently. the state is nothing but a monopoly which goes around and steals everything instead of trading fairly. not exactly a solution the your alleged problem, is it?
I can't find a YT "anarchist" who had great videos on this topic, but his account was suspened. I know I know, but AfroSchmuck that's every YT "A..." I know he has accounts somewhere. I guess I just have to keep searching :(
@AfroSchmuck I'm going to guess you are talking about Ryan Faulk. Also known as Fringeelements, Stodles, Confederalsocialist (also CSMirror).
Hope that helps, google any of that and you should quickly find his website (that's disappearing soon though) his accounts where he posts info, etc.
Also, apparently he was a White nationalist at one point, under his "stodles" account. Not relevant, but it shocked me when I found out, so I figured I should just mention that.
Google the phrase, freeman on the land. Merchant law cannot be applied without your consent. They just got clever at getting your consent. I've seen this proven with my own eyes. I watched commercial courts bitch slapped trying to get jurisdiction, which as it turns out, they do not automatically have. Research this, it might help ya, especially if you want to live in an anarchic way. Live as a freeman, or a sovereign,
Google the phrase, freeman on the land. Merchant law cannot be applied without your consent. They just got clever at getting your consent. I've seen this proven with my own eyes. I watched commercial courts bitch slapped trying to get jurisdiction, which as it turns out, they do not automatically have. Research this, it might help ya, especially if you want to live in an anarchic way. Live as a freeman, or a sovereign,
Google the phrase, freeman on the land. Merchant law cannot be applied without your consent, they just got clever at getting your consent. I've seen this proven with my own eyes. I watched commercial courts bitch slapped trying to gain jurisdiction, which as it turns out they do not automatically have. Research this, it might help ya, especially if you would like to live in an anarchic way. Live as a freeman, or a sovereign.
I would disagree and ask for clarification on what you mean by spontaneous emergence of law and cooperative customs, as well as their claim to increasing social cooperation. I think you may be overlooking how much force was implemented in the early stages of human political systems, and overstating how much of this was through freewill. I agree to a certain point that distributive systems existed without true 'partisan' coercion, but these systems were almost all co-opted by specific interests
The 'natural selection' framework here isn't accurate because it doesn't operate for everyone's benefit, but of the differential benefits of the individuals. Individuals, families, classes, throughout history have coopted cultural systems into systems of force to further their own aims. While these may induce more complexity of interactions between and within populations is do not imply greater cooperation, because that concept implies more free will.
Humans cooperate b/c they believe they will stand to benefit from a trade. There is no zero sum going on here, both parties can definitely benefit in a trade. Thus, everyone acting in their own individual self-interest will cooperate with others (since cooperation has the potential to enormously benefit everyone involved). Cooperation means peace and prosperity.
That is crudely abstract and ignores most of the power relations that occur throughout history. States enforce class inequalities, but class inequalities arise in pre-state societies. The complex social structure of trade is not the same thing as natural cooperation. Complex trade usually requires positions of authority and redistribution, and is almost never based on an equal access to resources. Again what do you mean by 'spontaneous', isn't everything 'spontaneous'?
I wish those of your persuasion would moreso embrace economics. I actually have come to realize that i dont disagree with the idea that authoritarian relationships are unhealthy, but they must be considered as a different breed than real slavery, ie, statism.
Class conflict should be reserved for the objective, readily verifiable reality that the state extorts people for money.
What i see arising is a sea of small investors and small businesses. Technology vastly compounds the possibilities.
The merchant law of Europe cannot be divorced from the society it came from, and medieval commerce was riddled with guilds, monopolies, non-compete regulations and simple corruption (inevitably backed up by political connections).
As far as medieval Iceland goes, the same caveat has to be applied. It's society was world's apart from ours, and its socioeconomic system can only work with in a medieval norse framework.
We also know virtually nothing about medieval icelandic history and life.
For example, what happened in the real world with the elaborate system you describe? The simple answer to that is: we don't really know. The sources aren't there, or at least aren't exhaustive enough to show a living, breathing society in action.
Try to graft even the theoretical framework of the medieval Icelandic system onto modern life, and I can come up with more than a few pratfalls it will almost certainly face :-)
dude, it's just to show that stateless societies are possible given the historical facts, i have no interest in trying to graft their entire society onto ours. clearly a modern stateless society will take on its own shape.
Indeed, but we have to go back to why we want a stateless society, or whether or not these historical examples were deliberately stateless. Presumably abolishing the state isn't just done for no reason, and I would hold that in stateless societies (whatever that is supposed to mean) coercion, waste, violence, oppression and injustice are just as prevalent in statist ones.
Is anarchism just an end in itself, or is it a means to an end?
stateless means that there is no established group who can acquire property in a manner deemed criminal for others to engage in.
that is what lies at the heart of the state....the empowering of an arbitrary group of people.
the only way to understand the full effects is to understand economic science. otherwise there is no point in even discussing this. my goal is to spread the scientific revolution to those who are willing to free themselves from a dying mindset....
Economic science (or one school of it) says that competition is good. But the nature of competition is for someone to win, & to the winner go the spoils. The spoils can end up in an unhealthily small numer of hands, as happened in late-19thC USA, & the people with the wealth often used it to block competitors &/or subvert the freedoms of others.
This was why the modern state came into being. Bad behaviour of successful capitalists. John Galt was fictional. JP Morgan wasn't. Sound familiar? :-)
ive never read ayn rand, im not concerned with ideology. im concerned with an objective understanding of economic phenomena. the laws of economics apply regardless of anyone's values or beliefs.
competition is not a good in and of itself. the degree of competition is necessarily constrained by the scarcity of economic resources. further constraints are the willingness of entrepreneurs to enter markets (and also the valuing of leisure).
What exactly does JP Morgan have to do with free markets? JP Morgan is one of the most notorious monopoly men in history, he even played a vital role in the establishment of the current central bank. Monopoly men rely upon the state's unique ability to confiscate wealth and use thinly veiled death threats in order to artificially make competition (market entry) more difficult so as to protect certain interests.
As far as other schools of economics go, there is only one that can be called "economic science." all other schools besides the austrian school have no real knowledge basis. the austrian school is unique in that its proponents understand that economics is not a natural science, it is a logical science like mathematics or geomtry. the reasons for this are clear.
1. there is no possible measuring stick with which to measure increases or decreases in happiness. prices, for example, are merely ratios between various economic goods and the medium of exchange. they represent past value judgments, and cannot be quantified in any manner since they are formed through a qualitative process. therefore, since there can be no real measurement in economics, it cannot be a natural science (which requires observation, measurements, etc.).
2. the human brain contains a 100 trillion synapses all communicating simultaneously. we cannot isolate the facts of one value judgment, alter one element, and, all things being equal, observe the changes, much less try to comprehend billions of people making trillions of complex value judgments. such phenomena are on an order of complexity that is unfathomable.
humans are not billiard balls that can be understood mechanically.
I agree 100%. How this leads to any -ism is something I find unclear; quite the opposite, for the matter of that. People are different, and -isms are generalizations - generalizations that ultimately result in excluding certain segments of society. If we can come up with an -ism that doesn't create square pegs (or unilaterally decide that some people are square pegs whether they see themselves or not) I am all ears. Unfortunately, -isms in their very nature fail this litmus test :-)
JP Morgan was a successful capitalist who - among all the other Robber Barons - became what Queen Elizabeth I might have termed an "overmighty subject" in that their power threatened to eclipse that of the state. Their abuses created a revolutionary impetus among their victims, which in many cases advocated the abolition of private property. Either the state acted or the bolsheviks acted, and the state chose to act.
JP Morgan utilized the state to artificially make market entry more difficult, thus diminishing competition. Shielded from the threat of competition, an entity will be less subject to profit and loss, and thus can usually raise prices whilst providing less satisfactory services.
And I don't disagree. But his victims had no way of legally dealing with his abuses, and the extra-legal methods they used (or people feared they would use) could have brought down the entire edifice of capitalism. The choice was between the Progressives and the revolutionaries. I'll take Teddy Roosevelt, TUVM :-)
Well, it could be so argued, but it was eventually the state that took down the Robber Barons, and there is no evidence that they could have been dealt with any other way. Once again, reality and an -ism clash here. Even in hindsight, it is hard to imagine the situation being equitably resolved, don't you think? Whose fault it all is won't deal with the real problem.
Yes, but all that that seems to do is apportion blame. That's why I refer to the pointless tendency to scapegoat - which IMO is where all ideologies fall down. This scapegoating is theoretically no biggie, but when we are dealing with real-world attempts to enable an ideology and run into the "whose fault is this?" issue, a sadly common solution is for the "right" people to start coercing the "wrong" people. Marxism's problems were the fault of "capitalist remnants" etc, not the ideology per se.
i'd say the real problem is that the concept of the state is still taken seriously. if you are saying that ultimately no one person is really to blame, then i agree, but the beast can only continue so long as the ideologies prevail over rationality.
i too am against the use of violence to achieve political ends, i think it is completely unnecessary and only reflects the statist mentality.
Anekantavad - the state took down the Robber Barrons, and then became the New Robber Barrons, determining who's at fault reguires someone to be accountable for their actions.
@caveden Most were criminals, but yes slavery existed. In states as well.
I do not think that either Icelandic nor Gaelic law should be fully transcribed to today, but they can be used as models to more quickly build efficient law systems bottom-up.
The fact that slavery is now recognized as a crime(a basic violation of self-ownership and nonagression) meant any slaver would not only be ostracized as a criminal, but forceful action against them taken.
I just wanted to confirm that. I was doubting a medieval society could be that free after all.
Supporters of a non-coercive law should always remember not to cite this medieval societies as the example of free society. They are just a good example on how can law and justice exist without a violent monopoly.
@ThePintsizeslasher I think that the issue of slavery is an example of how medieval iceland was an "apple" and today's postmodern society is an "orange". The medieval icelandic mind would today seem utterly alien to homus modernus, and yet his economic system (like all socioeconomic systems) cannot be divorced from the social mores and folkways that it evolved in. One could almost say that the medieval norse lived in a totally different universe than we do.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video omits some facts. Note that the "sources" provided as "evidence" are not facts of Icelandic history, they are papers and articles written by fellow converts to JBC's little cult.
Real Icelandic history of this time period features frequent blood feuds and clan warfare. Then of course they were dominated and Christianized.
He might seem harmless because the whole idea is wacko loony, but it is poisonous to tell people to fear their government b/c it steals their power over it.
The icelandic civil war took place once the commonwealth was dying, and even then it was remarkable for the low casualty rate, which can largely be attributed to the legal code inherited from the commonwealth.
Before that there was wars for sure, but the history isn't "full" of them. It was usually too expensive.
Those aren't reliable statistics, they are vague guesses. Significant difference.
Loftsson himself implies that the low estimates he uses hinge not on the "legal code" but on the blood-feud mentality. I guess that you are using these terms interchangeably.
If the victims of revenge attacks and blood feuds were included in the total, any estimated casualty rate would skyrocket, but since these are not counted as battle deaths they allow already vague estimates to be skewed even further.
I use the terms interchangeably for the reasons in the video, laws are essentially customs and traditions and general codes of conduct.
If you have any better guess then what has been estimated by historians, then please elaborate, but still, these are estimates of casualties of war in the Sturlung era, after the Commonwealth.
It really depends on the purpose. If the purpose is to use vague and unreliable numbers to provide a broad picture of life at a time for which no reliable statistics are available, then that's fine.
If the goal is to use unreliable and vague stats from prechristian Iceland to claim that a legal system based on the blood feud would operate smoothly in the modern world, then that's not fine.That's your deliberate distortion supported by totally unreliable numbers, and it isnt Loftsson's fault.
Well yeah, obviously, but I'm quoting Loftsson (which is the only real stats I can find) so it's not my distortion, and since Loftsson does not (I assume) support a return to the legal order of the commonwealth, I doubt it's his either.
I could find you "many people" who think the moon landing was faked or that they have 72 virgins waiting for them.
JBC's little cult, the Mises morons, are absolute wackjobs. Murray Rothbard supported a Klan member (David Duke) for president. He was a goddamn segregationist pig.
Like any cult members, you and JBC believe bizarre shit, such as wanting to return to 13th century Iceland and live by the blood feud...oh wait that's what this video is all about.
This video is about "anarchic vs statist" law/justice. The flaws in prechristian Iceland are not limited to the number of "Chieftans."
This society featured several aspects--i.e. debt slavery, generational clan feuding--that are unappealing to rational humans but oddly appealing to freemarkiteers.
Freemarkiteers have crashed the modern Icelandic economy as well and cannot be trusted.
The fact that prechristian Iceland is your model should underscore just how fucking nuts this idea is.
So you, like Rothbard and Rockwell, believe that a KKK leader should be elected President of the US.
That was the "view" and the "belief" you have been convinced by after all. That is what they believed.
This is why I refer to the Mises nutjobs as cult members. If your social/economic philosophy leads you to believe that Jim Crow laws are a good idea, you have had waaaay too much kool-aid.
Also, right-wing populism doesn't mean rampant racism and religious bigotry. We already have that now. There are programs and laws privileging particular races over others through the use of force. Right wing populism just means people are allowed to associate as they choose. I am not racist and neither is Rothbard. Racist people aren't criminal unless they initiate force to act on their racist beliefs, which is what the state does RIGHT NOW to privilege only SOME races.
When the topic of racism comes up, your first reaction is to think of affirmative action and anti-segregation laws. That backwards view is a clear indicator of very strong racist bias and/or historical ignorance in you.
You use euphemisms ("associate"), but in defending the KKK you (and MR) are defending lynch mobs, murderous cross burners.
We are all racists to one degree or another in the US. You are an overt racist. Its a sickness. There is still time to heal yourself with education.
I do not defend the KKK or murder. I am not a racist either. I haven't claimed any of these things, so I don't know where you're getting your ideas. You're the one advocating coercion to arbitrarily exempt certain races of individuals from certain things.
I am not advocating coercion that you do advocate. I only advocate the use of force as long as it is being used to defend from aggression.
You are the racist who thrives on using violence as a means to your ends.
Repeating that you arent a racist is easy to do, but its not convincing in light of your support for Duke. People who arent racist dont write articles that support the KKK's racist ideology, which Rothbard did.
MR's "right wing populist agenda" in support of Duke's presidential run was openly racist and Rothbard was a filthy bigot scumbag. Have you even read it?
I give a shit what name you want to use. Anarchist, paleo-con or libertarian. Dishonest racist scumbags is what you are.
I never claimed to support Duke either. You are making tons of assumptions. Like I explained earlier, the ideology isn't inherently racist. Just because people aren't forced to integrate doesn't mean it's racist. I have read it, and I told you, I see where you're straw-manning and making assumptions. I believe you have read it also, but are just too irrationally afraid of racism to actually see it as it is. I haven't once been dishonest or racist here.
So we agree that Rothbard was WRONG when he did in fact support David Duke.
You have no idea how segregation works. All segregation is by its very nature coercive, certain folks are prevented from having that job or living in that area by other folks. You don't have segregation without coercion.
Im not afraid of racism in the least. You are the one chanting stupidly that you arent a racist. We're all racist in the US; some of us recognize it while others would rather lie, deny and ignore it.
And no, segregation that happens naturally due to peoples' choices isn't coercive. If there is state segregation, then yes it is coercive. State INTEGRATION is also coercive. Both policies are racist. If someone wants to be stupid and go an be racist through how they hire people, they will be hurt if they choose the dumber person just because the smarter/more efficient person is a race they don't like. You don't have to enforce against peoples' stupidity.
not at all. What your are describing is the formation of laws. State laws were not formed spontaneously, they evolved in the very process you mentioned and then are put in to law. They also have the ability to change as we've seen in prohibition of alcohol, civil rights for minorities, etc.
You even draw a map of the boundaries in which these tribal fiefdoms existed. This would be impossible if they didn't control the area indicated.
no, the need for law and contracts evolve from the bottom up, and are then enforced from the top. For example Enron resulted in new accounting regulation...designed by accountants, put into law, and enforced by government. General accounting principles (GAP) are written by the industry, but have no enforcement mechanism until enacted into law.
I think I can assist in providing some clarity here. Those within current government have seen the advantage in "harvesting" the life energy of it's subjects as being more efficient that producing it themselves. Therefore, they add and cement themselves into the process deeply to harvest, convincing all on the outside through false logic and threat of force without defence, that they would have to pay for the protection of that law.
yeah if you are politically well connected then you need not worry about "laws." the legislation today is nothing but a control mechanism, a way for the rich and politically well connected to force their interests onto the rest of society. then we're supposed to prance around and marvel at how "free" we are. hell, the pre-WW2 germans thought they were free too.
that is what has come of this world today........hell America they are so powerful because they collect the debt of other countries and then add interest to them. as a result, causing them to become third world nations. now tell me who the real criminals are in the world...
how does one get wealthy in capitalism? by offering a good or service. how does one get rich in a government? you get into office, tax people or, if you have buisness connections, you start a war and stay there for 6 years, making profit from the profit they are getting, while taking money from me and you whether we like it or not. and nixon avoided any jail through PRESIDENTIAL pardon, so ya, it worked for nixon.
Offering a good or service is not the only way to get rich in Capitalism, there is also investment. Assuming that only 'ethical' business practices are profitable is fallacious. There are many examples to the contrary.
-Conflict of interest is not exclusive to government. It should not be allowed plain and simple. However, it is a conservative belief that it should, what is more capitalist then buying a vote?
how does unethical treatment exist? through no competition. in a true free-market system, the entrepenuer has as much problems keeping wages high enough and work places well enough for workers while keeping prices low for his product or service so that it sells. as for investments, people only invest in goods or services that they believe will turn a profit. and also, for unethical behavior, in a true free market, there is too much competition to get a bad rep.
By this reasoning the modern idea of statehood is the naturally occurring result of millenia of human interaction.
As far as having private law enforcement, how do you think we ended up with realms and kingdoms in the first place?
These societies don't really sound stateless either, just small and weak states. The performance or justness of these societies isn't discussed either.
Ireland was eventually crushed by it's statist neighbour. Is that anarchistic success?
well considering the irish were massively outnumbered, and also it took 500 years for the english to finally break them. what really destroyed anarchic ireland wasn't their inability to defend themselves, but the slow perversion of their institutions into english-like lordships.
In principle, if poeple wanted to run an anarchistic society I'm sure it would work on a smaller scale. I'm still pretty sceptical as to how effective it really was.
What really destroys the idea is fact states are far more effective in leveraging the strength of multiple communities. Defacto agreements are also limited to a community's sphere of influence. I just don't see this type of structure defending itself well from organised outsiders.
how can third world iraqis form a prolonged resistance against the mightiest military machine on earth? a guerilla resistance can be very effective, especially in the age of technology.
besides, organized military machines are the creation of the state. it is the state which extorts, which drafts, and which inflates to provide the people and the weapons.
Guerilla resistance can sucessful if you lower your standards to being violently masacred 100 times over by professional soldiers before political pressure takes it's toll on the agressor.
A military machine with supremacist values would have annihilated the Iraqi population in weeks, then divided the land amongst themselves. It's happened countless times before.
If the ararchistic model could compete in this regard there is no reason why it should have died out.
What is your standard? the Vietnamese were slaughtered in the millions fighting for the socialist administration of the north. Your state militia wiped the floor with them, remember?
The state isn't just a capital or house of parliment. Many societies have retained cohesion after losing their capitals. The Roman state reformed many times moving capitals.
"Nazi-Germany was a statist society.."
No shit, the last time I checked it wasn't beaten by an army of self interested anarchists.
I'm talking about the tactic of guerilla warfare. You are including civilian deaths. The US is stifled in iraq just like they were in vietnam. Short of nuking them into oblivion it is impossible to stamp out a resistance, especially with the rise of technology, ie, guns, communications, etc.
Also another thing to consider is the resistance in Iraq is not stateless. Most of the fighters are simply proxies armed by foriegn states. The weapons they use are a result of state interest in waging war and most of the fighters are interested in establishing a theocracy.
Anyway, I don't think it's much of stretch to say a stateless realm has no chance of military success against a state with a full time army and expansionist values.
I hope the USA becomes an anrikie so that Britain can take it over of our selves! USA as soon as you become an anarkie expect to see the UK as your master!
The same way the Taliban and the Vietcong have done. Air strikes have some pretty obvious limitations and evading and defending isn't too complex of an affair.
1. who's going to fund the research to defend against other people's nukes? Not private companies b/c there wouldn't be any private companies (since no law would give them property rights).
2. I have no idea what your point is about the mayans and incas. "Pre-civilization humans weren't productive enough to support the parasite of the state, thought the Maya and Inca were - and see what happened to them" You're right and we're post-civilized humans and that's why we WANT a state.
wait, did you watch the vid? my main point is that law (eg, property rights) must arise in concert with the market economy in order determine which laws will actually function to enhance social cooperation. government laws are arbitrary and in no way are determined by real world demand.
It seems like a big part of your anarchy idea involves the rules/enforcement being voluntary. Being a citizen of the USA is voluntary, and you can leave whenever you want.
You have also cherry-picked the best examples of anarchy. Remember that America was anarchistic for a LONG time. Remember the Indians? Guess what happened to them. In a vacuum, anarchy might actually work, but this world is not a vacuum. For this simple reason, we NEED a government to protect us from other governemnts.
strictly speaking this has nothing to do wtih voluntarism, the greater degree of voluntary relationships is just an effect.
the main point is that it is totally backwards to have a monopoly on law and justice. the state is just a bunch of random people, why would we prefer one arbitrary group over another?
watch part 3 for greater detail in this area. the problem is that the state is totally isolated from competition so there is no experimentation process, which is absolutely essential.
You start out with a straw man. It's extraordinarily unlikely that if I drop a deck of card it wont stack itself into a house but not impossible. To say it's necessary that a state exist in order to have law and order isn't what anyone is saying. But if you drop a deck of cards it won't build itself into a house, the same is true when it comes to driving blind in terms of law and order.
You are implying then that law and order w/o a state is extremely unlikely? Based upon what?
Where there is a demand for law and order there will be a potential profit for those who can provide it well. The existence of the demand is implied in the fact that people put up with the state b/c they think w/o it chaos would ensue. Classic government propoganda.
"Oh my god, no one with a monopoly on violence and theft, oh my!"
Your video begins with a straw man, assuming that statists think it's "impossible" rather than "extremely unlikely". And you haven't considered the possibility that many or even most people might want more than simple law and order. I also don't see anarchism as removing these monopolies you speak of. Capitalist anarchists don't use scientific arguments, they merge means with ends. Like trying to stop violence simply by saying "we will agree to be non-violent", sorry, that's not a plan.
Okay. So people want more than law and order. That still doesn't explain why an arbitrary group of regular people is privileged to have a coercive monopoly, or to steal from others through taxation in order to fund whatever services you want.
Why do you expect the state to provide you with satisfactory services when they obtain economic resources from you through the threat of force?
The value of money is determined intersubjectively not subjectively. Deviations from this intersubjectivity are hidden forms of inflation and deflation. The wealthy primarily control this hidden inflation and deflation because they have more money. Without creating a communist state that totally freezes the economy, taxation is the best method for putting money back generally where it came from, the working class.
If the value of money can only be determined intersubjectively, whether gold or paper, why can the wealthy steal from working class people by deviating from this standard and subjectively polluting it's value through inheritance, and exploitation? That's just as hidden a tax as fiscal or monetary policy! But I guess it's ok if the wealthy do it, right? Fuck that.
Inflation is the expansion of the money supply. Rising prices are the effect. The state capitalists use legal tender laws to enforce the dollar hegemony, and to maintain their monopoly on counterfeit. They can spend money be debasing the currency.
"totally freezes the economy"....how, a nuclear holocaust? you can't stop people from interacting and trading.
I don't see how this has anything to do with the points I just made. Even with no government interference and a gold standard, money is still entirely relative to its intersubjective value. Those who deviate from it, by things such as inheritance and exploitation are TAXING the working class.
You cannot have monopoly pricing power without forced barriers to entry. I dont know what you are trying to say with the inheritance and exploitation thing, what specifically are you talking about? The "wealthy" cannot set the value of money. They can debase it if they force people to accept it as repayment of debt, and if they physically force the competition out and auction off their goods. But w/o these forced barriers they would be powerless to control money.
I am discussing INTERSUBJECTIVE value of currnecy in contrast with the SUBJECTIVE value of currency. Are we having two different conversations here? Why don't you look up what the difference between subjective and intersubjective is, then read my comments again.
well let's see. you started off with a metaphor about how you think law and order cannot arise without a state. when i asked why you shifted and said people want more than law and order. then you accused me of straw manning, and then you proceeded to straw man me saying i think everyone must agree to nonviolence.
then YOU randomly shift over to money, and still have yet to explain what you mean by inheritance and exploitation. be specific and stop jumping around.
The card metaphor implies that law and order is highly unlikely to arise without a state, not that it can't. And people wanting more than law and order is one of the reasons why law and order can't exist without a state (how is this shifting?). I said you were straw manning with this video because you started with a straw man I already pointed out and which you can read in the comments section and respond to with a defense.
I brought up the topic of money because you asked why I expect a state to provide me with services when they are attained by threat of force. If you ask me a question it wouldn't make sense for me not to respond with an answer. Stealing from a thief is not stealing in my book. Inheritance and exploitation are the primary ways the wealthy deviate from the intersubjective valuation of currency.
unfortunately those little experiments usually end up being ruined by the govt. i know free state project is trying something a little different but similar.
i think the only way may be to start trying to use anonymous and encrypted browsing to start engaging in black market activities online. could try to replace the functions of the state and make their forced barriers ineffective.
VonSchnutze,poor APE!VonSchnutze,POOR IDIOT! IDIOT^^Hahahaaaaaaaaaa:D hahahaaaaaaaaa,VonSchnutze,poo r APE!VonSchnutze,POOR IDIOT! VonSchnutze,POOR COPYCAT! VonSchnutze,BYNATURE IDIOT^^Hahahaaaaaaaaaa:D ^^ U NEVER WIN TO ME,COS U RE BY NATURE IDIOT,BUT IAM BY NATURE KINDOF GENUIS!!Hahaha!!!VonSchnutze! WHAT U DID ARE WORST CRIMINAL!!!VON! GO TO POLICE!VON! THIS APE!!!HAHAaaaaaaaaa:D weak man!chicken,copycat!!!;D I HAVE THE PROOF ENOGH! VON YOU DID WORST CRMINAL!
VonSchnutze,poor APE!VonSchnutze,POOR IDIOT! IDIOT^^Hahahaaaaaaaaaa:D hahahaaaaaaaaa,VonSchnutze,poo r APE!VonSchnutze,POOR IDIOT! VonSchnutze,POOR COPYCAT! VonSchnutze,BYNATURE IDIOT^^Hahahaaaaaaaaaa:D ^^ U NEVER WIN TO ME,COS U RE BY NATURE IDIOT,BUT IAM BY NATURE KINDOF GENUIS!!Hahaha!!!VonSchnutze! WHAT U DID ARE WORST CRIMINAL!!!VON! GO TO POLICE!VON! THIS APE!!!HAHAaaaaaaaaa:D weak man!chicken,copycat!!!;D I HAVE THE PROOF ENOGH! VON YOU DID WORST CRMINAL!
VonSchnutze,poor APE!VonSchnutze,POOR IDIOT! IDIOT^^Hahahaaaaaaaaaa:D hahahaaaaaaaaa,VonSchnutze,poo r APE!VonSchnutze,POOR IDIOT! VonSchnutze,POOR COPYCAT! VonSchnutze,BYNATURE IDIOT^^Hahahaaaaaaaaaa:D ^^ U NEVER WIN TO ME,COS U RE BY NATURE IDIOT,BUT IAM BY NATURE KINDOF GENUIS!!Hahaha!!!VonSchnutze! WHAT U DID ARE WORST CRIMINAL!!!VON! GO TO POLICE!VON! THIS APE!!!HAHAaaaaaaaaa:D weak man!chicken,copycat!!!;D I HAVE THE PROOF ENOGH! VON YOU DID WORST CRMINAL!
1) You've done a lot of research for this. Thanks first for that effort. But I think your conclusions are based on samples that are too small to be of use in comparison with states that administer manifold cities, each of which is larger and more complex than the entire Icelandic or Irish populations you describe.
2) Your descriptions of the surety systems refer to the administration of contractual obligations and cooperation between landowners. Peasants had to rely on the largess of landowners and submit themselves to the "law" of their Lords.
3) Icelandic and Irish law as described here seem to have concerned themselves solely with commerce. The human beings who actually produced the objects of commerce (foodstuffs, clothing, etc.) had no say in the operation of the system nor in the benefit they might receive from the fruits of their labor. In disputes between them they could go to the landowner's courts. But if they were abused by landowners themselves, they had no recourse - no court to which they could appeal.
4) I realize I'm skipping ahead here (I've seen the first 3 of your excellent videos), but I want to put this all in the context of your comments on law and justice. How would your ideal "spontaneously emergent" laws deal with gangs, murder, rape and child abuse (not that the current system does that very well)? Perhaps you will address this in parts 4 and 5. I won't even get into the problem of drug abuse, which has been around since the discovery of fermented drinks.
well i will eventually do a video on the war on drugs. gangs are in fact mostly a result of the war on drugs (prohibition hugely drives up the price of drugs and makes criminals very wealthy so they can fund their street wars.)
all criminal acts would be dealt with through restitution and ostracism....
i hope that answers your questions. parts 4 and 5 mainly deal with statism and response to common objections. let me know if you have further inquiries.
Well the Icelandic outlaw didn't just lose protection from the law, it meant you were being hunted down to be killed for honor.
TheOneCalledSloth 1 week ago
This is a great video. I plan on linking somewhere here that has been needling me on whether or not Iceland was a good example of an anarchic society or of polycentric law.
ProIndividual 2 months ago
The state always demonizes the society that created it to try and instill a feeling of validity towards it's existence.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
what if something happens in which there is no longer a victim?
like if i murder a man with no family or friends
darris321 5 months ago
@darris321 Even in today's system, it would take a very long time for anyone to realize anything was amiss, and if you did have witnesses, they would obviously say that you did commit the crime. The punishment is a very difficult matter, because of his hermit nature, but the man's life was indeed stolen from him against his will, and there would probably be a punishment for that alone.
jeffsandychelsea 4 months ago
Great Video.
ANARCHISM DOES NOT IMPLY NO LAW. YOU CAN EVEN HAVE POLICE IN AN ANARCHIST SOCIETY (although not very likely.)
Onepretentiousdude 5 months ago
Thank you for your great efforts!
I apologize for all the mind numbingly stupid comments below me :/
KingLeon1daz 8 months ago in playlist Voluntaryism/ Anti-Statism
Amazing vid. Now I can show all my friends who can't imagine private law.
ajnako12 1 year ago
however, they had no problem with slaves, while they trained for WAR, and putting down any rebellions, they trained for WAR, and they engaged in WAR
period.
I mean WOW, talk about economics, lol
as a matter of fact, the greek city states were made because when society wasn't run centrally and strongly, the greeks suffered immensely, through the dark ages just after the Mycenaean kingdom fell
they gradually got into one country, greece
it's just how it is, dude
noobler9 1 year ago
I already know about economics, lol...
but values are something of another beast, the spartans were VERY anti-money
noobler9 1 year ago
the reason I mention ancient greece, is because...
well, to be fair, libertarianism only exists because of the traditions that came down that were started, by them in the first place
GO FIGURE
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
the content of values are given, it requires a value free science to analyze them.
again, it's hard to level criticisms when you have absolutely no clue what austrian economics says or how it applies to understanding reality. nuff said.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 5
@junior00bacon00chee
but I don't care what austrian economics says, unless it deals with values and how they affect the world, because my values affect my economic choices, as do many others', that's how identity advertising works on teenagers, for instance
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobl
well of course they do! that is the entire premise, that people's subjective values determine the course of actions. people act with the belief that, according to their own subjective values, the state of their affairs will be "improved" (improved there again, being a subjective term). it is all analyzed objectively with value free analysis.
if you aren't interested in learning about economics then i have nothing further to say. again, i cannot get caught up in these endless convos.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 4
so until you account for what you call subjective things, and how they affect reality, you're never going to be close to understanding reality
noobler9 1 year ago
that's fine, but I'm going to keep posting about the issues I see, values might be subjective, but economics wasn't what caused 9/11, as the most prominent current example
furthermore, values are what led to greeks fighting the persians together and winning
and of course, sparta, so there's clear examples where values really matter
noobler9 1 year ago
then you have a problem, discounting people's values is an absolutely surefire way to be wrong
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
like i said, i'm not interested in debating with someone who is completely unfamiliar with praxeology and economics. of course economics MUST be a value free science, b/c values are subjective! we are talking about the formal logical implications of the existence of deliberate action, about how prices emerge, interest rates, production, wealth creation, etc.
once you've got that down, then you can go about arguing according to people's values.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 5
I find most of your issues to be akin to that of communism, and the hippy movement, I did a side by side comparison of the issues, and quite honestly, the decried ones were the same
the prescribed method of getting there was only slightly different, and everything else was the same
and of course beatniks, those obscure little things
I have yet to figure out what specifically makes a corporation different from a government aside from one's territory is "imaginary" and the other's not
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
austrian economists are radically opposed to communism. i don't think what i am advocating could be further from state communism.
look, all i can tell you is that if you are really interested start looking into austrian economics, maybe starting with economics in one lesson by h. hazlitt.
i can't go back and forth endlessly w/every last person on the internet in comment sections, i would get absolutely nowhere. i've got to prioritize.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
in canada, the professionalism of government workers is equal to that of a corporation's workers mostly, the reason is pretty simple, the same types of people flock to the same types of jobs usually, you can think of oil well workers, and whether they're government or corporately employed they are usually roughly the same kind of person in comparison
no, once again, it is the overall culture of the group that matters
take walmart, and take blackwater
take children's hospitals, and take army
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
i'm not sure what you are getting at.
i doubt walmart could compete in a stateless society w/o all of its special privileges, and of course blackwater would absolutely not exist, the state is pretty much their only customer.
i derive my conclusions from praxeology and economics, and in those sciences the content of people's values is unimportant b/c they are subjective.
this is impossible to explain unless a person is genuinely interested and is driven to study austrian economics.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
I mean, would you ever dream of citing personal reasons to your boss? well, some of them yes, and some of them no, however the same works with police, despite whatever loony rants otherwise, at least here in canada, the cops in many places are fairly reasonable
this changes when you encounter police in more dangerous and stressful environments, however this is pretty natural
anyways, corporations' loyalty is to their stockholders, not their customers
noobler9 1 year ago
furthermore, the corporation is not a democratic governing body, it is an oligarchical one, not an aristocratic one at least, but still oligarchic, in which the rich are the only ones with power, and if it weren't for the laws that get in the way of abuse by higher ups that inevitably happen, a lot of people would be even worse off under them than before
corporations are as close to fascism as you can get without being fascism
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
corporations and the state are like two peas in a pod. sure, towards the public they play a game like pro wrestling, where they fake fight, but in reality they are best buds.
the bargaining power of corporations in terms of the conditions of labor is greatly enhanced by the state. corps write laws and lobby politicians to pass them which appear "anti-corp" but which really are designed to make competition from the little guy much more difficult.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
part of the problem is that the US government backed up corporations, now this could be seen as an argument for liberatarianism, until you realize that no socialist wants to see big corporations backed up, they want to see small ones backed up, for the most part, a forced equalizing effect, it's not 100% effective, and socialists are fine with that, it keeps the playing field more even after one or two businesses go global and massive
corporations are governing bodies too, without borders
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
corporations are fictional legal entities which are created, defined, and enforced through the state. this is only possible through the state's monopolization of law and justice.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
also, you're forgetting the culture of the US, it's very different from many other countries, canada for instance, is more "socialist" and it has far fewer issues
a lot of the factor comes down to cultural attitudes, this is not really within the control of the state too much, well it is, but control is so unwieldly you might as well say they don't have it
no, far bigger is the international corps, it's walmart keeping the US afloat after the US government let corps run wild and cause issues
noobler9 1 year ago
hmmm, you're comparison of the US is terrible, see... the US isn't using what it could, as a fan of studying history, for all the friendly fire, and my disbelief in marine myths, the US is one of the least friendly fire, and collateral damage oriented militaries in the history of the earth
the only reason they're being beaten about is because they didn't go russian on georgia style
if they really wished to they could enforce so much it's ridiculous
but they don't...
noobler9 1 year ago
secondly, what does libertarian society do about stronger, statist groups who wish to take over?
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
well, i suppose that all depends. medieval ireland was eventually conquered by england, altho it took 500 years to accomplish.
i think modern technology has rendered takeovers through force obsolete. just look at how the mightiest military force in history, the US, cannot bring under control two small third world nations. with guns and guerilla warfare the resistance only grows stronger and more entrenched over time, until the attacking state finally has economic collapse.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
well, I guess it could be enforced violently
here's the trick though
just how many resources would it take to do that in a libertarian society?
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
i could not possibly know. but certainly we can see just how much "justice" cost in current state societies. just take the US, which has more people in prison per capita than any other country in history, over 50% are in for nonviolent crimes, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. it would cost far, far less w/o a state, and instead of focusing on punishment, it would focus on restitution to the victims.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
merchant law doesn't work when a group decides to steal everything instead of trade fairly
especially when it finds a plot of land
basically, if a government doesn't exist that's not willing to step on people's toes occasionally to get the job done, someone who is willing to to get any job done, will
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
hmmm well it worked for hundreds of years before essentially being hijacked by the state. you deal with those people through ostracism.
and i don't even know what your second paragraph means. in a stateless society ostracism could potentially be enforced violently. the state is nothing but a monopoly which goes around and steals everything instead of trading fairly. not exactly a solution the your alleged problem, is it?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
I used violence and bypassed every single argument in this
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9
huh?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
I like it! Thumbs up and sub'd.
chuska8383 1 year ago
@chuska8383
cool man thx i been subbed to ya for a while.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
I can't find a YT "anarchist" who had great videos on this topic, but his account was suspened. I know I know, but AfroSchmuck that's every YT "A..." I know he has accounts somewhere. I guess I just have to keep searching :(
AfroSchmuck 1 year ago
@AfroSchmuck I'm going to guess you are talking about Ryan Faulk. Also known as Fringeelements, Stodles, Confederalsocialist (also CSMirror).
Hope that helps, google any of that and you should quickly find his website (that's disappearing soon though) his accounts where he posts info, etc.
Also, apparently he was a White nationalist at one point, under his "stodles" account. Not relevant, but it shocked me when I found out, so I figured I should just mention that.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google the phrase, freeman on the land. Merchant law cannot be applied without your consent. They just got clever at getting your consent. I've seen this proven with my own eyes. I watched commercial courts bitch slapped trying to get jurisdiction, which as it turns out, they do not automatically have. Research this, it might help ya, especially if you want to live in an anarchic way. Live as a freeman, or a sovereign,
theemurf 1 year ago
Google the phrase, freeman on the land. Merchant law cannot be applied without your consent. They just got clever at getting your consent. I've seen this proven with my own eyes. I watched commercial courts bitch slapped trying to get jurisdiction, which as it turns out, they do not automatically have. Research this, it might help ya, especially if you want to live in an anarchic way. Live as a freeman, or a sovereign,
theemurf 1 year ago
Google the phrase, freeman on the land. Merchant law cannot be applied without your consent, they just got clever at getting your consent. I've seen this proven with my own eyes. I watched commercial courts bitch slapped trying to gain jurisdiction, which as it turns out they do not automatically have. Research this, it might help ya, especially if you would like to live in an anarchic way. Live as a freeman, or a sovereign.
theemurf 1 year ago
I would disagree and ask for clarification on what you mean by spontaneous emergence of law and cooperative customs, as well as their claim to increasing social cooperation. I think you may be overlooking how much force was implemented in the early stages of human political systems, and overstating how much of this was through freewill. I agree to a certain point that distributive systems existed without true 'partisan' coercion, but these systems were almost all co-opted by specific interests
Grayto 2 years ago
The 'natural selection' framework here isn't accurate because it doesn't operate for everyone's benefit, but of the differential benefits of the individuals. Individuals, families, classes, throughout history have coopted cultural systems into systems of force to further their own aims. While these may induce more complexity of interactions between and within populations is do not imply greater cooperation, because that concept implies more free will.
Grayto 2 years ago
Humans cooperate b/c they believe they will stand to benefit from a trade. There is no zero sum going on here, both parties can definitely benefit in a trade. Thus, everyone acting in their own individual self-interest will cooperate with others (since cooperation has the potential to enormously benefit everyone involved). Cooperation means peace and prosperity.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
That is crudely abstract and ignores most of the power relations that occur throughout history. States enforce class inequalities, but class inequalities arise in pre-state societies. The complex social structure of trade is not the same thing as natural cooperation. Complex trade usually requires positions of authority and redistribution, and is almost never based on an equal access to resources. Again what do you mean by 'spontaneous', isn't everything 'spontaneous'?
Grayto 2 years ago
I wish those of your persuasion would moreso embrace economics. I actually have come to realize that i dont disagree with the idea that authoritarian relationships are unhealthy, but they must be considered as a different breed than real slavery, ie, statism.
Class conflict should be reserved for the objective, readily verifiable reality that the state extorts people for money.
What i see arising is a sea of small investors and small businesses. Technology vastly compounds the possibilities.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Grayto - great points!
you might be interested -
"The Nine Stages Of American Auto Genocide"
"An Address To The Dead" and last
cafr1/dot/com
"The Biggest Game In Town" by: Walter Burien
So Much For Cooperation?
ngonea 1 year ago
The merchant law of Europe cannot be divorced from the society it came from, and medieval commerce was riddled with guilds, monopolies, non-compete regulations and simple corruption (inevitably backed up by political connections).
As far as medieval Iceland goes, the same caveat has to be applied. It's society was world's apart from ours, and its socioeconomic system can only work with in a medieval norse framework.
We also know virtually nothing about medieval icelandic history and life.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
For example, what happened in the real world with the elaborate system you describe? The simple answer to that is: we don't really know. The sources aren't there, or at least aren't exhaustive enough to show a living, breathing society in action.
Try to graft even the theoretical framework of the medieval Icelandic system onto modern life, and I can come up with more than a few pratfalls it will almost certainly face :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago
dude, it's just to show that stateless societies are possible given the historical facts, i have no interest in trying to graft their entire society onto ours. clearly a modern stateless society will take on its own shape.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Indeed, but we have to go back to why we want a stateless society, or whether or not these historical examples were deliberately stateless. Presumably abolishing the state isn't just done for no reason, and I would hold that in stateless societies (whatever that is supposed to mean) coercion, waste, violence, oppression and injustice are just as prevalent in statist ones.
Is anarchism just an end in itself, or is it a means to an end?
Anekantavad 2 years ago
stateless means that there is no established group who can acquire property in a manner deemed criminal for others to engage in.
that is what lies at the heart of the state....the empowering of an arbitrary group of people.
the only way to understand the full effects is to understand economic science. otherwise there is no point in even discussing this. my goal is to spread the scientific revolution to those who are willing to free themselves from a dying mindset....
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Economic science (or one school of it) says that competition is good. But the nature of competition is for someone to win, & to the winner go the spoils. The spoils can end up in an unhealthily small numer of hands, as happened in late-19thC USA, & the people with the wealth often used it to block competitors &/or subvert the freedoms of others.
This was why the modern state came into being. Bad behaviour of successful capitalists. John Galt was fictional. JP Morgan wasn't. Sound familiar? :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago
ive never read ayn rand, im not concerned with ideology. im concerned with an objective understanding of economic phenomena. the laws of economics apply regardless of anyone's values or beliefs.
competition is not a good in and of itself. the degree of competition is necessarily constrained by the scarcity of economic resources. further constraints are the willingness of entrepreneurs to enter markets (and also the valuing of leisure).
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
What exactly does JP Morgan have to do with free markets? JP Morgan is one of the most notorious monopoly men in history, he even played a vital role in the establishment of the current central bank. Monopoly men rely upon the state's unique ability to confiscate wealth and use thinly veiled death threats in order to artificially make competition (market entry) more difficult so as to protect certain interests.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
As far as other schools of economics go, there is only one that can be called "economic science." all other schools besides the austrian school have no real knowledge basis. the austrian school is unique in that its proponents understand that economics is not a natural science, it is a logical science like mathematics or geomtry. the reasons for this are clear.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
1. there is no possible measuring stick with which to measure increases or decreases in happiness. prices, for example, are merely ratios between various economic goods and the medium of exchange. they represent past value judgments, and cannot be quantified in any manner since they are formed through a qualitative process. therefore, since there can be no real measurement in economics, it cannot be a natural science (which requires observation, measurements, etc.).
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
2. the human brain contains a 100 trillion synapses all communicating simultaneously. we cannot isolate the facts of one value judgment, alter one element, and, all things being equal, observe the changes, much less try to comprehend billions of people making trillions of complex value judgments. such phenomena are on an order of complexity that is unfathomable.
humans are not billiard balls that can be understood mechanically.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I agree 100%. How this leads to any -ism is something I find unclear; quite the opposite, for the matter of that. People are different, and -isms are generalizations - generalizations that ultimately result in excluding certain segments of society. If we can come up with an -ism that doesn't create square pegs (or unilaterally decide that some people are square pegs whether they see themselves or not) I am all ears. Unfortunately, -isms in their very nature fail this litmus test :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago
JP Morgan was a successful capitalist who - among all the other Robber Barons - became what Queen Elizabeth I might have termed an "overmighty subject" in that their power threatened to eclipse that of the state. Their abuses created a revolutionary impetus among their victims, which in many cases advocated the abolition of private property. Either the state acted or the bolsheviks acted, and the state chose to act.
As I said, in a competition someone wins :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago
JP Morgan utilized the state to artificially make market entry more difficult, thus diminishing competition. Shielded from the threat of competition, an entity will be less subject to profit and loss, and thus can usually raise prices whilst providing less satisfactory services.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
And I don't disagree. But his victims had no way of legally dealing with his abuses, and the extra-legal methods they used (or people feared they would use) could have brought down the entire edifice of capitalism. The choice was between the Progressives and the revolutionaries. I'll take Teddy Roosevelt, TUVM :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago
So the problem is indeed the state which enabled JP Morgan to do what he did.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Well, it could be so argued, but it was eventually the state that took down the Robber Barons, and there is no evidence that they could have been dealt with any other way. Once again, reality and an -ism clash here. Even in hindsight, it is hard to imagine the situation being equitably resolved, don't you think? Whose fault it all is won't deal with the real problem.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
If these so-called robber barons are state-enabled then w/o the state the problem would have never arisen in the first place.
nothing has changed. to this day business interests use the state to cripple competition.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Yes, but all that that seems to do is apportion blame. That's why I refer to the pointless tendency to scapegoat - which IMO is where all ideologies fall down. This scapegoating is theoretically no biggie, but when we are dealing with real-world attempts to enable an ideology and run into the "whose fault is this?" issue, a sadly common solution is for the "right" people to start coercing the "wrong" people. Marxism's problems were the fault of "capitalist remnants" etc, not the ideology per se.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
i'd say the real problem is that the concept of the state is still taken seriously. if you are saying that ultimately no one person is really to blame, then i agree, but the beast can only continue so long as the ideologies prevail over rationality.
i too am against the use of violence to achieve political ends, i think it is completely unnecessary and only reflects the statist mentality.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Quite. OTOH, imagine what would happen if everyone started thinking for themselves ;-)
Oops .... My arrogance is showing.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
Anekantavad - the state took down the Robber Barrons, and then became the New Robber Barrons, determining who's at fault reguires someone to be accountable for their actions.
"The Biggest Game In Town" By: Walter Burien
cafr1/dot/com
ngonea 1 year ago
Wasn't there slavery in medieval Ireland?
caveden 2 years ago
@caveden Most were criminals, but yes slavery existed. In states as well.
I do not think that either Icelandic nor Gaelic law should be fully transcribed to today, but they can be used as models to more quickly build efficient law systems bottom-up.
The fact that slavery is now recognized as a crime(a basic violation of self-ownership and nonagression) meant any slaver would not only be ostracized as a criminal, but forceful action against them taken.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
Ok.
I just wanted to confirm that. I was doubting a medieval society could be that free after all.
Supporters of a non-coercive law should always remember not to cite this medieval societies as the example of free society. They are just a good example on how can law and justice exist without a violent monopoly.
Thanks
caveden 2 years ago
@ThePintsizeslasher I think that the issue of slavery is an example of how medieval iceland was an "apple" and today's postmodern society is an "orange". The medieval icelandic mind would today seem utterly alien to homus modernus, and yet his economic system (like all socioeconomic systems) cannot be divorced from the social mores and folkways that it evolved in. One could almost say that the medieval norse lived in a totally different universe than we do.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video omits some facts. Note that the "sources" provided as "evidence" are not facts of Icelandic history, they are papers and articles written by fellow converts to JBC's little cult.
Real Icelandic history of this time period features frequent blood feuds and clan warfare. Then of course they were dominated and Christianized.
He might seem harmless because the whole idea is wacko loony, but it is poisonous to tell people to fear their government b/c it steals their power over it.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
The icelandic civil war took place once the commonwealth was dying, and even then it was remarkable for the low casualty rate, which can largely be attributed to the legal code inherited from the commonwealth.
Before that there was wars for sure, but the history isn't "full" of them. It was usually too expensive.
Loserido 2 years ago
Where are these casualty rates you have found from Iceland in 1262?
I'm also interested in hearing where you got this data on the relative frequency of clan wars and blood feuds in Iceland during pre-christian times.
Did they come straight out of your butt?
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
According to Icelandic Historian Birgir Loftsson.
Same as above.
No.
Loserido 2 years ago
Those aren't reliable statistics, they are vague guesses. Significant difference.
Loftsson himself implies that the low estimates he uses hinge not on the "legal code" but on the blood-feud mentality. I guess that you are using these terms interchangeably.
If the victims of revenge attacks and blood feuds were included in the total, any estimated casualty rate would skyrocket, but since these are not counted as battle deaths they allow already vague estimates to be skewed even further.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
I use the terms interchangeably for the reasons in the video, laws are essentially customs and traditions and general codes of conduct.
If you have any better guess then what has been estimated by historians, then please elaborate, but still, these are estimates of casualties of war in the Sturlung era, after the Commonwealth.
Loserido 2 years ago
It really depends on the purpose. If the purpose is to use vague and unreliable numbers to provide a broad picture of life at a time for which no reliable statistics are available, then that's fine.
If the goal is to use unreliable and vague stats from prechristian Iceland to claim that a legal system based on the blood feud would operate smoothly in the modern world, then that's not fine.That's your deliberate distortion supported by totally unreliable numbers, and it isnt Loftsson's fault.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Well yeah, obviously, but I'm quoting Loftsson (which is the only real stats I can find) so it's not my distortion, and since Loftsson does not (I assume) support a return to the legal order of the commonwealth, I doubt it's his either.
Loserido 2 years ago
The claims in your comment are only backed up by articles and papers written by wacko loony cultists.
*REFUTED*
Anon1696 2 years ago
Dipshit my source is the same one that baconchee used to put this video together. That was the whole freaking point.
You have failed.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
They aren't written by "converts to JBC's little cult."
This view of emergentism is held my many people.
Fuckin troll.
Anon1696 2 years ago
I could find you "many people" who think the moon landing was faked or that they have 72 virgins waiting for them.
JBC's little cult, the Mises morons, are absolute wackjobs. Murray Rothbard supported a Klan member (David Duke) for president. He was a goddamn segregationist pig.
Like any cult members, you and JBC believe bizarre shit, such as wanting to return to 13th century Iceland and live by the blood feud...oh wait that's what this video is all about.
How fucking dumb are you again?
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
No, that's not what it's about at all.
It's about bottom-up emergent organization of society, and Iceland and Ireland are used as examples.
He even pointed out that Iceland was not good because keeping 39 chieftans was a barrier to entry which led to it's failure.
No, that's not what this video is all about - you aren't getting anywhere by straw-manning.
Anon1696 2 years ago
This video is about "anarchic vs statist" law/justice. The flaws in prechristian Iceland are not limited to the number of "Chieftans."
This society featured several aspects--i.e. debt slavery, generational clan feuding--that are unappealing to rational humans but oddly appealing to freemarkiteers.
Freemarkiteers have crashed the modern Icelandic economy as well and cannot be trusted.
The fact that prechristian Iceland is your model should underscore just how fucking nuts this idea is.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
HAHA, I read Rothbard's views on David Duke, and you strengthened my beliefs even further.
Nice try.
Anon1696 2 years ago
So you, like Rothbard and Rockwell, believe that a KKK leader should be elected President of the US.
That was the "view" and the "belief" you have been convinced by after all. That is what they believed.
This is why I refer to the Mises nutjobs as cult members. If your social/economic philosophy leads you to believe that Jim Crow laws are a good idea, you have had waaaay too much kool-aid.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
I am anti-state - why would I want anyone to be president if I'm anti-state?
Murray Rothbard is ALSO anti-state.
Bringing up David Duke was his way of beginning to discuss Right-wing Populist government, if there had to be a state.
He was also explaining how the controversy about it is stupid.
Anon1696 2 years ago
Right wing populism...which means rampant racism and religious bigotry.
The "controversy" about David Duke and the KKK is not "stupid." Rothbard and his drones are just too "stupid" to understand the issue.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Yeah, what is wrong about discussing it?
Anon1696 2 years ago
Also, right-wing populism doesn't mean rampant racism and religious bigotry. We already have that now. There are programs and laws privileging particular races over others through the use of force. Right wing populism just means people are allowed to associate as they choose. I am not racist and neither is Rothbard. Racist people aren't criminal unless they initiate force to act on their racist beliefs, which is what the state does RIGHT NOW to privilege only SOME races.
Anon1696 2 years ago
When the topic of racism comes up, your first reaction is to think of affirmative action and anti-segregation laws. That backwards view is a clear indicator of very strong racist bias and/or historical ignorance in you.
You use euphemisms ("associate"), but in defending the KKK you (and MR) are defending lynch mobs, murderous cross burners.
We are all racists to one degree or another in the US. You are an overt racist. Its a sickness. There is still time to heal yourself with education.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
I do not defend the KKK or murder. I am not a racist either. I haven't claimed any of these things, so I don't know where you're getting your ideas. You're the one advocating coercion to arbitrarily exempt certain races of individuals from certain things.
I am not advocating coercion that you do advocate. I only advocate the use of force as long as it is being used to defend from aggression.
You are the racist who thrives on using violence as a means to your ends.
Anon1696 2 years ago
Repeating that you arent a racist is easy to do, but its not convincing in light of your support for Duke. People who arent racist dont write articles that support the KKK's racist ideology, which Rothbard did.
MR's "right wing populist agenda" in support of Duke's presidential run was openly racist and Rothbard was a filthy bigot scumbag. Have you even read it?
I give a shit what name you want to use. Anarchist, paleo-con or libertarian. Dishonest racist scumbags is what you are.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
I never claimed to support Duke either. You are making tons of assumptions. Like I explained earlier, the ideology isn't inherently racist. Just because people aren't forced to integrate doesn't mean it's racist. I have read it, and I told you, I see where you're straw-manning and making assumptions. I believe you have read it also, but are just too irrationally afraid of racism to actually see it as it is. I haven't once been dishonest or racist here.
Do you have to get so butthurt about it?
Anon1696 2 years ago
So we agree that Rothbard was WRONG when he did in fact support David Duke.
You have no idea how segregation works. All segregation is by its very nature coercive, certain folks are prevented from having that job or living in that area by other folks. You don't have segregation without coercion.
Im not afraid of racism in the least. You are the one chanting stupidly that you arent a racist. We're all racist in the US; some of us recognize it while others would rather lie, deny and ignore it.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
No, sir. I'm really not racist.
And no, segregation that happens naturally due to peoples' choices isn't coercive. If there is state segregation, then yes it is coercive. State INTEGRATION is also coercive. Both policies are racist. If someone wants to be stupid and go an be racist through how they hire people, they will be hurt if they choose the dumber person just because the smarter/more efficient person is a race they don't like. You don't have to enforce against peoples' stupidity.
Anon1696 2 years ago
Also, Murray isn't a segregationist pig. He was totally against forced segregation for the same reasons he was against -forced integration-.
U haz lotz o' straw-menz, or you clearly aren't familiar with his political stance.
Anon1696 2 years ago
1....not spontaneously...they evolved and evolution is NOT spontaneous.
2. Tribes are in fact 'mini-states'.
3. What your describing IS a state. Iceland was not even close to as prosperous as the modern US. Civil war is not the ONLY measure of success.
4. Your advocating religious cults?? There was constant tribal warfare in Celtic society.
-You fail to mention the treatment of individuals within any of these societies. there were no prisons because the unwanted were killed or exiled.
verstwo2 2 years ago
the rule of law arises as the result of disputes. you seem to want to dictate how law and contracts should be from the top down.
the iraqi conflict is a result of arbitraryily drawn lines with arbitrarily formed states + of course the US invasion.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
not at all. What your are describing is the formation of laws. State laws were not formed spontaneously, they evolved in the very process you mentioned and then are put in to law. They also have the ability to change as we've seen in prohibition of alcohol, civil rights for minorities, etc.
You even draw a map of the boundaries in which these tribal fiefdoms existed. This would be impossible if they didn't control the area indicated.
verstwo2 2 years ago
no, the need for law and contracts evolve from the bottom up, and are then enforced from the top. For example Enron resulted in new accounting regulation...designed by accountants, put into law, and enforced by government. General accounting principles (GAP) are written by the industry, but have no enforcement mechanism until enacted into law.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Junior, great post!
I think I can assist in providing some clarity here. Those within current government have seen the advantage in "harvesting" the life energy of it's subjects as being more efficient that producing it themselves. Therefore, they add and cement themselves into the process deeply to harvest, convincing all on the outside through false logic and threat of force without defence, that they would have to pay for the protection of that law.
Forceofg 2 years ago
Justice? Law? Yea Ok. i find it such bullshit
Law is for the poor - if you're poor you have to obey it. and Justice is a myth propagated by the rich, the lucky and the ignorant.
that's my theory on justice and law
PRIDEFC17 2 years ago
yeah if you are politically well connected then you need not worry about "laws." the legislation today is nothing but a control mechanism, a way for the rich and politically well connected to force their interests onto the rest of society. then we're supposed to prance around and marvel at how "free" we are. hell, the pre-WW2 germans thought they were free too.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
that is what has come of this world today........hell America they are so powerful because they collect the debt of other countries and then add interest to them. as a result, causing them to become third world nations. now tell me who the real criminals are in the world...
PRIDEFC17 2 years ago
"if you are politically well connected then you need not worry about "laws." "
-didn't quite work for Nixon.
HOw in a stateless society is the power of the wealthy kept in check?
verstwo2 2 years ago
how does one get wealthy in capitalism? by offering a good or service. how does one get rich in a government? you get into office, tax people or, if you have buisness connections, you start a war and stay there for 6 years, making profit from the profit they are getting, while taking money from me and you whether we like it or not. and nixon avoided any jail through PRESIDENTIAL pardon, so ya, it worked for nixon.
4lifejackhammer 2 years ago
Offering a good or service is not the only way to get rich in Capitalism, there is also investment. Assuming that only 'ethical' business practices are profitable is fallacious. There are many examples to the contrary.
-Conflict of interest is not exclusive to government. It should not be allowed plain and simple. However, it is a conservative belief that it should, what is more capitalist then buying a vote?
verstwo2 2 years ago
how does unethical treatment exist? through no competition. in a true free-market system, the entrepenuer has as much problems keeping wages high enough and work places well enough for workers while keeping prices low for his product or service so that it sells. as for investments, people only invest in goods or services that they believe will turn a profit. and also, for unethical behavior, in a true free market, there is too much competition to get a bad rep.
4lifejackhammer 2 years ago
By this reasoning the modern idea of statehood is the naturally occurring result of millenia of human interaction.
As far as having private law enforcement, how do you think we ended up with realms and kingdoms in the first place?
These societies don't really sound stateless either, just small and weak states. The performance or justness of these societies isn't discussed either.
Ireland was eventually crushed by it's statist neighbour. Is that anarchistic success?
Chinomareno 2 years ago
well considering the irish were massively outnumbered, and also it took 500 years for the english to finally break them. what really destroyed anarchic ireland wasn't their inability to defend themselves, but the slow perversion of their institutions into english-like lordships.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
In principle, if poeple wanted to run an anarchistic society I'm sure it would work on a smaller scale. I'm still pretty sceptical as to how effective it really was.
What really destroys the idea is fact states are far more effective in leveraging the strength of multiple communities. Defacto agreements are also limited to a community's sphere of influence. I just don't see this type of structure defending itself well from organised outsiders.
Chinomareno 2 years ago
how can third world iraqis form a prolonged resistance against the mightiest military machine on earth? a guerilla resistance can be very effective, especially in the age of technology.
besides, organized military machines are the creation of the state. it is the state which extorts, which drafts, and which inflates to provide the people and the weapons.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Guerilla resistance can sucessful if you lower your standards to being violently masacred 100 times over by professional soldiers before political pressure takes it's toll on the agressor.
A military machine with supremacist values would have annihilated the Iraqi population in weeks, then divided the land amongst themselves. It's happened countless times before.
If the ararchistic model could compete in this regard there is no reason why it should have died out.
Chinomareno 2 years ago
Nazi-Germany was a statist society..
Also France..
Rome..
Poland..
What is a standard?
I admire people who fight for their own liberty. Defeating people with a statist delusion is as simple as a game of "capture the flag [capital]".
The people in Vietnam had some backbone.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
What is your standard? the Vietnamese were slaughtered in the millions fighting for the socialist administration of the north. Your state militia wiped the floor with them, remember?
The state isn't just a capital or house of parliment. Many societies have retained cohesion after losing their capitals. The Roman state reformed many times moving capitals.
"Nazi-Germany was a statist society.."
No shit, the last time I checked it wasn't beaten by an army of self interested anarchists.
Chinomareno 2 years ago
My standard is Liberty 1st. You remember the US MILITARY withdrew?
The state is a group of people who assume authority over others. People who are spineless submit to them.
Who is the government of the governments?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I'm talking about the tactic of guerilla warfare. You are including civilian deaths. The US is stifled in iraq just like they were in vietnam. Short of nuking them into oblivion it is impossible to stamp out a resistance, especially with the rise of technology, ie, guns, communications, etc.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Also another thing to consider is the resistance in Iraq is not stateless. Most of the fighters are simply proxies armed by foriegn states. The weapons they use are a result of state interest in waging war and most of the fighters are interested in establishing a theocracy.
Anyway, I don't think it's much of stretch to say a stateless realm has no chance of military success against a state with a full time army and expansionist values.
Chinomareno 2 years ago
Great video, I hope you stay objective even if/when you become more popular.
Mattprole 2 years ago
I hope the USA becomes an anrikie so that Britain can take it over of our selves! USA as soon as you become an anarkie expect to see the UK as your master!
conrad4ever 2 years ago
Private citizens made alliances and formed militias to fight off the British.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
you will lack the cordanation of a proper army. I wonder how your militias will stand up to an airstrike!
conrad4ever 2 years ago
The same way the Taliban and the Vietcong have done. Air strikes have some pretty obvious limitations and evading and defending isn't too complex of an affair.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
1. who's going to fund the research to defend against other people's nukes? Not private companies b/c there wouldn't be any private companies (since no law would give them property rights).
2. I have no idea what your point is about the mayans and incas. "Pre-civilization humans weren't productive enough to support the parasite of the state, thought the Maya and Inca were - and see what happened to them" You're right and we're post-civilized humans and that's why we WANT a state.
rmbd2b12 2 years ago
wait, did you watch the vid? my main point is that law (eg, property rights) must arise in concert with the market economy in order determine which laws will actually function to enhance social cooperation. government laws are arbitrary and in no way are determined by real world demand.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"there wouldn't be any private companies (since no law would give them property rights)."
Oh buddy :/
hydralisk125 2 years ago
1. nuclear weapons research comes from state-funded research
2. Yes and the mayans and incans couldn't withstand other states since they didn't have their own
rmbd2b12 2 years ago
@rmbd2b12 Last I checked the mayans were an empire
dffykvn 10 months ago
It seems like a big part of your anarchy idea involves the rules/enforcement being voluntary. Being a citizen of the USA is voluntary, and you can leave whenever you want.
You have also cherry-picked the best examples of anarchy. Remember that America was anarchistic for a LONG time. Remember the Indians? Guess what happened to them. In a vacuum, anarchy might actually work, but this world is not a vacuum. For this simple reason, we NEED a government to protect us from other governemnts.
rmbd2b12 2 years ago
strictly speaking this has nothing to do wtih voluntarism, the greater degree of voluntary relationships is just an effect.
the main point is that it is totally backwards to have a monopoly on law and justice. the state is just a bunch of random people, why would we prefer one arbitrary group over another?
watch part 3 for greater detail in this area. the problem is that the state is totally isolated from competition so there is no experimentation process, which is absolutely essential.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
merchant law.. sure if someone ripped off an italian, they'd hear about it in norway.. through the what, horse phone? lol
TheDentist27 2 years ago
You start out with a straw man. It's extraordinarily unlikely that if I drop a deck of card it wont stack itself into a house but not impossible. To say it's necessary that a state exist in order to have law and order isn't what anyone is saying. But if you drop a deck of cards it won't build itself into a house, the same is true when it comes to driving blind in terms of law and order.
aloookz 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but vague metaphors are not arguments.
You are implying then that law and order w/o a state is extremely unlikely? Based upon what?
Where there is a demand for law and order there will be a potential profit for those who can provide it well. The existence of the demand is implied in the fact that people put up with the state b/c they think w/o it chaos would ensue. Classic government propoganda.
"Oh my god, no one with a monopoly on violence and theft, oh my!"
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Your video begins with a straw man, assuming that statists think it's "impossible" rather than "extremely unlikely". And you haven't considered the possibility that many or even most people might want more than simple law and order. I also don't see anarchism as removing these monopolies you speak of. Capitalist anarchists don't use scientific arguments, they merge means with ends. Like trying to stop violence simply by saying "we will agree to be non-violent", sorry, that's not a plan.
aloookz 2 years ago
Okay. So people want more than law and order. That still doesn't explain why an arbitrary group of regular people is privileged to have a coercive monopoly, or to steal from others through taxation in order to fund whatever services you want.
Why do you expect the state to provide you with satisfactory services when they obtain economic resources from you through the threat of force?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
The value of money is determined intersubjectively not subjectively. Deviations from this intersubjectivity are hidden forms of inflation and deflation. The wealthy primarily control this hidden inflation and deflation because they have more money. Without creating a communist state that totally freezes the economy, taxation is the best method for putting money back generally where it came from, the working class.
aloookz 2 years ago
If the value of money can only be determined intersubjectively, whether gold or paper, why can the wealthy steal from working class people by deviating from this standard and subjectively polluting it's value through inheritance, and exploitation? That's just as hidden a tax as fiscal or monetary policy! But I guess it's ok if the wealthy do it, right? Fuck that.
aloookz 2 years ago
Inflation is the expansion of the money supply. Rising prices are the effect. The state capitalists use legal tender laws to enforce the dollar hegemony, and to maintain their monopoly on counterfeit. They can spend money be debasing the currency.
"totally freezes the economy"....how, a nuclear holocaust? you can't stop people from interacting and trading.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I don't see how this has anything to do with the points I just made. Even with no government interference and a gold standard, money is still entirely relative to its intersubjective value. Those who deviate from it, by things such as inheritance and exploitation are TAXING the working class.
aloookz 2 years ago
You cannot have monopoly pricing power without forced barriers to entry. I dont know what you are trying to say with the inheritance and exploitation thing, what specifically are you talking about? The "wealthy" cannot set the value of money. They can debase it if they force people to accept it as repayment of debt, and if they physically force the competition out and auction off their goods. But w/o these forced barriers they would be powerless to control money.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I am discussing INTERSUBJECTIVE value of currnecy in contrast with the SUBJECTIVE value of currency. Are we having two different conversations here? Why don't you look up what the difference between subjective and intersubjective is, then read my comments again.
aloookz 2 years ago
well let's see. you started off with a metaphor about how you think law and order cannot arise without a state. when i asked why you shifted and said people want more than law and order. then you accused me of straw manning, and then you proceeded to straw man me saying i think everyone must agree to nonviolence.
then YOU randomly shift over to money, and still have yet to explain what you mean by inheritance and exploitation. be specific and stop jumping around.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
The card metaphor implies that law and order is highly unlikely to arise without a state, not that it can't. And people wanting more than law and order is one of the reasons why law and order can't exist without a state (how is this shifting?). I said you were straw manning with this video because you started with a straw man I already pointed out and which you can read in the comments section and respond to with a defense.
aloookz 2 years ago
I brought up the topic of money because you asked why I expect a state to provide me with services when they are attained by threat of force. If you ask me a question it wouldn't make sense for me not to respond with an answer. Stealing from a thief is not stealing in my book. Inheritance and exploitation are the primary ways the wealthy deviate from the intersubjective valuation of currency.
aloookz 2 years ago
Why don't you create a web site where a small community could try out something like this?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
unfortunately those little experiments usually end up being ruined by the govt. i know free state project is trying something a little different but similar.
i think the only way may be to start trying to use anonymous and encrypted browsing to start engaging in black market activities online. could try to replace the functions of the state and make their forced barriers ineffective.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
This is probably the most under-watched video on youtube
ModelAnarchist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nademochizou 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nademochizou 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nademochizou 2 years ago
1) You've done a lot of research for this. Thanks first for that effort. But I think your conclusions are based on samples that are too small to be of use in comparison with states that administer manifold cities, each of which is larger and more complex than the entire Icelandic or Irish populations you describe.
Largo64 2 years ago
2) Your descriptions of the surety systems refer to the administration of contractual obligations and cooperation between landowners. Peasants had to rely on the largess of landowners and submit themselves to the "law" of their Lords.
Largo64 2 years ago
3) Icelandic and Irish law as described here seem to have concerned themselves solely with commerce. The human beings who actually produced the objects of commerce (foodstuffs, clothing, etc.) had no say in the operation of the system nor in the benefit they might receive from the fruits of their labor. In disputes between them they could go to the landowner's courts. But if they were abused by landowners themselves, they had no recourse - no court to which they could appeal.
Largo64 2 years ago
4) I realize I'm skipping ahead here (I've seen the first 3 of your excellent videos), but I want to put this all in the context of your comments on law and justice. How would your ideal "spontaneously emergent" laws deal with gangs, murder, rape and child abuse (not that the current system does that very well)? Perhaps you will address this in parts 4 and 5. I won't even get into the problem of drug abuse, which has been around since the discovery of fermented drinks.
Largo64 2 years ago
well i will eventually do a video on the war on drugs. gangs are in fact mostly a result of the war on drugs (prohibition hugely drives up the price of drugs and makes criminals very wealthy so they can fund their street wars.)
all criminal acts would be dealt with through restitution and ostracism....
i hope that answers your questions. parts 4 and 5 mainly deal with statism and response to common objections. let me know if you have further inquiries.