You seem to be talking about either Anarcho-capitalism (which is so stupid, and unpopular that a youtube video refuting it would be an unnecessary waste of time) or a kind of anti-authoritarian market socialism that Proudhon advoctated, but that never caught mass appeal in the popular classes either.
Market Anarchy? What the hell are you talking about?
You don't understand that there are several "sects" of anarchism. Furthermore the broad tradition of anarchism, Anarcho-Communism has always found markets, capitalism, class divisions to be exploitative! Read some Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc.
essentially anarchy is already in existence but our society blinds us to it....there is no physical law except that of relativity (what i mean by this is that i can do what ever i feel like be it walking down the street or killing my neighbor regaurdless of moraity, you may think it right to punish me for certain actions but in reality a mind exists in a state of anarchy)...laws are only ideas created by us and so are rights
@Ameriwannica you say you cant stand anarchists....do you believe in god? god is an anarchist because it exists outside of a culturized system....there for you hate god....if youre a christian i would watch what you say and say it very carefully
@Ameriwannica further more law is NOT needed as an idea of our minds to exist only morality is and the natural morality of man is good ....believe it or dont , however if you dont then you are truly naive because ever one has something they love be it physical or be it mentally
@MrsUncontroversial Is a silly statement, not many people can intiate force inside a prison can they? They may have done it once to get there, but they wont be doing it again for a long time.
@mrcropper, the world has already seen the results of an Anarchy model, see Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, specifically the German 'Holy Roman Empire'
@vafgod Anarchy is just the default state of nature. 50,000 years of thriving humans before the first state. States are just like convenient stores, not the grand public institutions they claim to be.
@MrsUncontroversial The default state of nature sucks, you go live in your hunter gather tribe where you live for a few dozen years if you're lucky, barely scraping by while dealing with all sorts of crap if you want.
Personally I don't want to live in your chaotic world, lifes tough enough as it is without making it harder to stand by some stupid principles that mean nothing to anyone except people like you.
Except for the tiny fact that there is no government to to subsidize and pay for these organizations to remain in business when there consumer base takes there business to a competitor. The Free market is not perfect, its simply the system that allows for the highest amount of freedom and the lowest amount of violence.
I swear you anarchists are retarded. First you benefit from our status by having this tube, then you have this cyber revolt and then, if you ever get your anarchism, you will be crying on how the world is going to hell. Pure and simple.
Law and government creates market? Wrong, regular people buying and selling create market. There always has been and always will be market with or without government. The ONLY thing a government should be involved in is to protect against threat of physical harm, NOTHING else.
@BadassBigBoss Actually tell that to 1920 when there was another stock crash and they'll believe him. The stock crash of 1929 lasted way longer than it should have due to an excess of "government intervention", where the lesser known stock crash used the opposite method and had a much shorter duration.
@MISTERWONKA7 The intervention that the republican government that past through their self-proclaimed laissez-faire was due to the freedom of the market going out of hand by 1929 and comparing it to 1920 one is stupid. That, is not deniable and the fact that the government should be blaimed is simply because they, the likes of Hoover and other winged politicians, simply sucked at their job and had no qualifications for doing such things.
@BadassBigBoss I'll agree with your final clause, however "market freedom" did a better job in dealing with the crash of 1920 which happened to be a bigger dip than 1929. If you can't compare them you can at least contrast the severity of the former, how it was handled, and how long it lasted.
@MISTERWONKA7 The sole reason why it was handled better was because it was not a bending intrument, but a badly forged one that would make an efficient collapse. I see no reason why it should be put on the show as a demonstration that government is bad.
Anarchism is so flawed. Anarchistic logic: We want more freedom, therefore lets get rid of the mechanism (the state) that provides us with the most freedom.
To the Anarchist: You cannot have personal liberty, without other people being constrained and/or punished.
@DesBlackmore The state does not provide freedom, the state enforces its laws. Statist logic: People are bad so we need a government made up of people.
@dcjeffers02 The state enforces it's laws, which in turn makes more people free. Since law is designed to constrain people. If I am constrained against harming you, than you are more free. "People are bad so we need a government made up of people." Governments are also made up of laws, not just people.
@DesBlackmore "The state enforces it's laws, which in turn makes more people free." You mean like the laws made by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the U.S.A.'s racist past, North Korea, or Middle Eastern dictatorships that kill civilians for minor dissent? More free indeed. Governments and laws are force, and there is not much, if any, freedom in force.
"Governments are also made up of laws, not just people." No, those people make the laws, governments are just made up of people.
If you're telling me that governments have been used to wrongly suppress individual freedom, than your right, they have been. But that does not mean we should get rid of government, because certain governments have acted poorly.
People do make laws, of course, but laws are not like people, they are unbiased, unemotional, they are meant to apply to everyone equally.
What is your alternative to government? What do you propose?
@DesBlackmore That's how laws should be, but there is always a bias in making them, interpreting them, and enforcing them. I'm not really advocating the abolition of the state, we are a group so we need to have some sort of collectivism. Whether or not private businesses would be a better alternative to the state is debatable. What we have now is garbage, though. What do our elected neighbors have that makes them have more authority than you or me? Rhetoric and a skilled tongue.
"What's going to stop them from taking more territory? And indeed, what's going to stop them from plundering."
Have you figured out how to stop the state from doing that? : )
We live in a failed anarchy when we live under a state since we are subject to one violent gang which has conquered all other modes of governance in a territory. Creating a successful anarchy amounts to finding ways to solve this problem of governance through the initiation of force & limiting it to defensive only.
The market itself is flawed. The market is a creature of disorder. Though he doesnt touch on left anarchists, I still agree with all of his points. A government is extremely hard to do without. Left wing anarchists trust that people dont need governments or corporations an that everyone can be a big happy sharing family. In reality we would have people running rampant forming groups and militias eventually taking over and forming their own government. Again.
0:35 ALWAYS by ANY anarchist? quite a claim, well no i dont, i believe the law of nature to be a somewhat fair judge while bipolar, and sometimes illogical, it isnt corruptible, and i dont trust capitalism at all
4:00 i agree, ancho-capitalism and its variants would end in mafia wars, but srsly read into topics before u start throwing the word "all" around
Your whole premise dies on the fact that as anarchists we aren't antilaw. Read Lysnader Spooner, the most influential American anarchist of the 19th century. He was a "Natural Lawyer", ala Natural Law Theory. Some are Utilitarianism. Also, there are MORE private security cops right now in the USA than govt cops. Regions are irrelevant, as states cooperate with each other volu7ntarily...used to be you ran to another state you got away from the warrant. Cooperation of private law is natural too.
"Anarchy is the true nature of all things. Monarchy, democracy, communism, all useless forms to control the human mind. But a mind cannot be control. It cannot be restrained. It has no boundaries. It has its will. Anarchy is the true nature of all things... "
you sir are rediculous.lol your shallowness hasnt allowed you to think beyond the society you live in. but that answer to your "kill all question is": the people, the society. if the people belive that a monopoly has been created the people will dismantle it. now go take your blood pressure pills lol..
There has to be a government to retaliate against the initiation of force.
unless of course ways of interacting are presented that supersede those based on coercive violence. Until then, any entity designed to respond to coercive violence WITH coercive violence will at best do nothing but eat resources better spent else where, and at worst exacerbate any issue they involve themselves within.
Derive the principle of an organic functioning market by means of the Austrian axioms, huh?
Well, you're certainly much smarter than I am, as I can barely make out the question, and, as everyone knows, obfuscating colloquial axioms via esoteric linguistic structures ensures intellectual status.
The market simply means the voluntary interactions between adults. The market necessarily comes before the state, or else the state would have nothing to leach off of. I would encourage you to read Hans Hoppe's "the private production of defense" and listen to some Stefan Molyneux videos on DROs. You seem like an intelligent guy, so it is shocking to see you propagate the idea that violence must be used to create peace. Cheers
There are several problems with your logic but lets start small. This whole "we can't have anarchy because a state will form" is ridiculous. That is equivalent to saying "I will not get rid of my cancerous tumor because a new tumor might come back". Why wouldn't defense agencies kill each other? because it is bloody expensive and they are spending their own money!
"The market is a creature of law, created by law for the society..."
What the FUCK are you talking about? The market existed BEFORE the first law was ever created, before society as we know it existed, and before human beings walked the face of the earth.
Market forces are what have been driving the evolution of the planet.
No, it's not magic, but YES IT DOES EXIST. It's very simple - there are limited resources, so you compete for them, either by FORCE (statism) or by COOPERATION (anarchism)
Anarchism is the default position. If you are going to VIOLATE people's rights, the onus is on you to justify that violation.
Statism is the idea that God, or democracy, or the republic, or the majority, or some other myth is itself a justification for violating other people's rights.
NO ANARCHIST is saying that rights shouldn't be protected. They are just saying that they shouldn't be VIOLATED in the name of the glorious, all-mighty state.
it always makes me laugh when people blindly mistake anarchism for "anarcho-capitalism" (which is not actually anarchism). as a true anarchist (libertarian socialist), i would strongly suggest investigating what it really means to be an anarchist. take care and keep questioning :)
Oh god I'm only a minute in and this is stupid as shit. I can't watch any longer. You really think people can't deal with crime themselves? What gives a cop more authority to deal with a crime than anyone else in an anarchic society? Come on.
You are very good at predicting what will happen if we govern ourselves. Any proof of these disastrous conclusions of yours? So your solution is continued theft of people's money through violence? How is that working for us?
Your understanding of anarchy is poor. You asked "What is the difference between a gov`t and a business entity that protects your rights?" Answer: Initiation of Force (Violence) vs. Voluntary Association (Volanteerism). In an anarchist society, such an organization would not receive the funding to obtain the resources required to take over another geographic region. Such an organization would act in the capacity of peace officers not soldiers. Anarchists do not advocate violence.
You are under the impression that no one is going to use violence to get what they want...how naive. If you dont have soldiers then others will move in to take what you have, mere peace officers would offer little to no resistance to a well trained group of soldiers.
@TheShadowOfHumanity The idea applies to the human race. If no nation existed (state), such an army would have to be created voluntarily and funded voluntarily. By those means, no army would have the support neccessary to wage a war.
@vegetta00 You honestly think that is possible? are you high?
Governments would be formed as well as armies then your pathetic society would be easy pickings since your army would be underfunded and unable to protect its citizens from much larger armies. You dont seem to understand war and conquest very well.
@TheShadowOfHumanity Yes, you`re right. Not everyone thinks like I do. That`s the whole point of the anarchist movement. To educate the masses into realizing that statism is evil. 2000 years ago, it was a given that females were property. 200 years ago, it was a given that man could own another man. We laugh at the silly superstitions of the archaic civilizations. As we educate society, someday we will look back at governments the same way we do with slavery and religions.
@vegetta00 LMAO oh educate society what you are saying is brainwashing. You want to brainwash people into sharing your beliefs. I call your dreams pathetic as they are, it is a fact. You clearly are an idiot if you think for one second that everyone all over the world will ever want your shitty society. You are either delusional or just stupid, no matter how you dress it, your ideal world is impossible. Go ahead and have your little dreams and fantasize all you want.
@TheShadowOfHumanity While you are "educating" the world so they all believe in your bullshit anarchist society why dont you tell rapists that they shouldnt rape, and pedos not to touch kids and murders not to kill....oh wait that wont work, you dont get it do you? You cant just "educate" people and then the world is all fine and dandy, fact is an anarchist society would never last since it would be supported by few only and easily conquered.
@TheShadowOfHumanity Furthermore, you again use adjectives to describe my position. "pathetic dreams" Understand that when you are debating with me, you are entering the academic arena. Your rebuttles have come from a position of ignorance of the principals of anarchism. You cannot argue against something you do not understand. I happen to understand statism very well. In fact, I understand the biology in the brain behind violence, i.e. war. (continued)
@TheShadowOfHumanity (continued) You are fear mongering when you bring up war and conquest. If the principles of anarchism are understood globally, by the vast majority of the human population, then government would have no power. An army would never be created through volunteerism. I will not continue this discussion with you any further unless you demonstrate that you have studied anarchism further. You cannot say I am wrong if you do not know what I am saying.
Anarchists battling eachother for land?You have to do a realitycheck,we are not driven by selfishnes as you are and therefore you will never be able to understand our ideology.So plz stop trying.Use your time you have in this life for something else,you are wasting it
It doesnt matter if you would not try to take land others will. Hell anyone with a want for your land will then take it. This is not some fluffy idealistic reality. Real life if you dont have a strong government with a good army to protect you then your lands will be taken as well as citizens or your weak society. You want Anarchy? then move to Burma and you will see why your ideals are foolish.
@TheShadowOfHumanity You are calling these ideals "foolish", be careful. Such statements only serve to discredit your rebuttles. Anarchists don`t look to take a single geographic location and liberate it, we`re talking about a world wide movement to realize that statism is a fairytale. The more people that understand that the state has no more power than what is given to it, then the less power it will have. I recommend you check out a video titled How To Win Political Arguments by stefbot.
You dont understand your pathetic dream world can not exist since the world does not all think like you. The only way your society would work is if everyone agreed to it and that is a statistical impossibility. Think for one moment if you dont have an army protecting you then whats to stop a group of people with guns from coming in and taking over your society and forcing all of you into slavery or prostitution?
@TheShadowOfHumanity Oh i have perfect solution for that problem, why dont we do the same as you fascistpigs tried to do with us, exterminate everylast one of you. Destroy in order to create,this way we can be sure that our "week" little society can be left in peace.
How will you do that with your week volunteer army? Also it doesnt matter even if you do since others will be born who dont like how your shitty society is and attack your pathetic society. So unless you plan to kill every single person you think may rebel against you, then you will have to deal with people taking your food and other valuables since you have no police force at all and your volunteer army idea would not work either. So basically your idea is completely stupid.
@TheShadowOfHumanity Do not confuse us (anarchists) with those kids in high school who sear the A symbol and call themselves anarchists. They only know and understand it as much as you do.
Capitalism is nothing more than the use of capital for mutual benefit through the creation of services and goods. Free-Market Capitalism differs from State Capitalism(socialism) in that their is no institution using force or claiming monopoly over that power in order to influence society(government). Stop throwing the word capitalism around if you don't even know what it means, "MrCropper".
I support freedom as it makes life a lot more fun. It's also a much more productive basis for an economic system. And there's more to it than that, of course.
But we're social and even if anarchists swear off violence, non-anarchists won't. And just like you anarchists TODAY pay your taxes and speeding tickets because you have to, so would you lose your freedom to an invading army and/or violent gangs within your community.
The reason anarchy won't work is so obvious it boggles the mind to have to explain it.
Violence.
Anarchists talk about how the state's laws are enforced by violence. This is true. But in a democracy, they are CHOSEN by peaceful consent of the majority, hopefully as constrained by a principled constitution.
But if I am not part of your anarchist cult and I roll up with a mechanized core of heavy infantry and artillery, you will do what I say...or fight COLLECTIVELY.
History has shown that mercenaries have their use, but break rank when the chips are down. Profit is a great motive, but not so much when facing nearly certain death, since this is the antithesis of profit.
Protecting one's people, one's friends and family and the people of one's group, whatever that may be, who one feels an affinity with is what people will fight to the death to defend.
Warriors have an ethic anarchist will never understand.
Government isn't over profit, haha. Funny. Government is business, it's the biggest business. The market is man conducting trade or business with other men. If to regulate business or men because of corruption, then the regulators would have to be non men entities. And thank God for the current government today which has done so well for us.
Security has become a monopoly because the service of security doubles as the enforcement. In order for the wheat farmer to have a monopoly on wheat, he would have to hire an army. But what if the army starts to overcharge him. He has no recourse because he is a wheat farmer, not the army. This historical reality does not change the economical truth that monopolies lower quality and increase price. It applies to ALL goods and services. Read David Friedman's work on law and efficiency.
Governments don't create markets and are not responsible for their existence. As long as people want things and are willing to exchange things they have for the things they want, there will be a market. That's all you need. Also, no competent economist that I know of would be stupid enough to commit the gross error in reification that you seem to think is being made. The term "the market" is used to denote the sum total of all INDIVIDUAL exchanges. It is NOT an entity in itself.
As soon as you said that all anarchists advocate rights being protected by private companies you failed. Learn about LEFT ANARCHY before you make a video about anarchy at all.
Before I decided to stop watching your video, you were talking about regions attacking 1 another. First of all, the only way Anarchy could work is if the entire world were in on it. That would eliminate all threat from major armies attacking you. Otherwise, eventually we'd no longer be in a state of Anarchy. Where you're wrong about Anarchy though, is your belief that people would actually GROUP together to attack smaller areas.
So if we were in a state of Anarchy, people would not group together, UNLESS they're just doing it for the joy of killing 1 another. There's no reason a group of people would attack towns for the benefit of the territory, because they would have no relation with that small army and would not care about their benefit. Maybe you'd see something like the Hatfields and the McCoys on a global level, but not small armies attacking one another.
btw, the usa has been ran by private police forces before.
The state cannot prevent the initiation of force by default, since it initiates force against anyone who wouldn't pay them their protection money/taxes.
2. The market was not created by governments, it is the combined interactions between people.
3. Anarchism is not about what "works", but what is moral. Anarchy is moral, state is immoral. Moral arguments always trump consequentialist arguments. Your lack of understanding of anarchy and the voluntary society is shown in your weak arguments.
I'm pretty sure consequentialist arguments are about morality as well, so how does that work?
I notice from your little text that you probably take as an axiom for morality the non-aggression principle. Your entire argument is based on this idea, there are many people who do not agree with the NPA though, so don't act as if you're stating an undeniable truth when you're only deducing from a view some people hold.
@recencyeffect Consequentialist arguments can be about morality, but they aren't always. I do subscribe to the NAP, but I did not deduce my arguement from a mere view that people hold, i deduced it from and undeniable truth - that people own themselves. Any consequestialist argument that violates this truth is not a moral argument. Statist consequestialist arguments do not pass the moral test, and should be rejected. Only consequentialist arguments that pass the moral test should be considered.
"I own myself therefore people should not initiate force upon me" does not compute with me. There's nothing wrong with holding to the NAP, but at the end of the day it's still no more rational than say, utilitarianism. An utilitarianist btw would say that the non-initiation of force when it would lead to great misery and suffering, is immoral. You judge consequentialist arguments from your point of view and they will do the same from theirs.
Also, the people would only choose the company that they feel provied the best quality service for the lowest price. What this means is that if the different companies start fighting each other then all the people need to do is stop supporting them, that way they can't finance fighting.
What you fail to realize is that the government is the most violent institution man has ever created. I'm not convinced.
property rights answers this question. it matters what "type of anarchist" you are addressing, as it matters for any individual, because each person's problems are unique to them. what generally unites people under the banner of anarchy is the illegitimacy of the state and the inherent exploitation. this does not mean all anarchists analyze the problems correctly or that they have a solution. states do not exist by the consent of the governed - that is the issue. how to organize is the question.
What are you talking about? Private companies protecting rights? Have you ever read anything about anarchy? I've never heard of an anarchist advocating any privatized organization, of course besides those pesky anarcho-capitalists. You say that these private companies would plunder and steal and kill. That's exactly what your cherished government forces do. This argument is riddled with misconceptions and profound ignorance.
Private courts and contracts. You are an idiot, the first market was the first time one person decided to trade with another for something he owned. Law did not create the "market." I'm not an anarchist, but they aren't the idiots here, have you even studied economics, law, or the market? I ask because you don't seem to have the basest understanding of either.
Alright. This is a much better argument. Still, anarchy has never been implemented effectively in a nation. Never. From tribalism to nationalism, rule of force has existed. Nature itself is a hierarchy. You said it yourself. Looking to animals for lessons is fine, as long as the lessons are LOGICAL.
Saying that you lack critical thought is not "annoying bullshit" it's an observation. Be critical of your own arguments. Forge them in the fires of doubt. It will do you much good.
"If some super species came and invaded the planet, would you consider them rulers, or enemies?"
Umm, if they ruled I'd probably call them rulers. As for your precious bees, they're a terrible argument for anarchy. Queens fight to the death (competition) to dictate (rule) genetic make up of the entire colony. Imagine if Americans adopted this system. Would it be anarchy? Nope. Anti nature as in anti HUMAN nature. forget bees. They arent doing you any good.
No you clearly misunderstood my point. Food chains are hierarchies correct? Do bees that have keepers have anarchy? Does their incredible lack of HUMAN government imply that humans can exist with a system created by insects? No, while you were pile driving straw men I was stating that it is far from foolish to see nature as a hierarchy of scale.
Also you are flat out wrong. Do some research on how new queen bees are crowned.
Would you consider the food chain a hierarchy? Let's not jettison nature in our pursuit of utopia.
Anarchy is an idiotic anti-nature pipe dream. That's all this vid was commenting on. If your definition of the concept is a little different, it doesn't change the hypothetical one iota.
It's as though this thing called school was just to good. I mean, I look around now and all I see is squandering of time, even in myself, but now it's as though everyone doesn't see the picture. I blame it really on the public schools. Teach a child F-A-C-E but when it's come time for the real face face value, the kids are leaving college all Pretty, Happy and Dumbed up. What happened to the self? What happened to the self-governance of man as opposed to all. For even law now is utter confusion!
...Or look at the Zapatistas' (EZLN) in Mexico. Anarcho-communist/Libertarian Socialist group that has controlled the state of Chiapas since 1994, with no sign of letting up or failing.
I'm an anarchist, and I agree with you. Market anarchy would totally suck. Libertarian socialism, and other forms of social anarchism would work, have worked, and never haven't worked. Spainish revolution, anarchists controlled most of Spain, improved education, the economy, and the overall standard of life. They reduced 'crime rate' (although there is no such thing as a crime), came up with better alternatives to defend citizens from 'crime.'
Laughable. Libertarian socialism "never hasnt worked" huh? What about all the states that do not use the system? Let me guess, when you said "never" you meant when it is confined to places where the system HAS actually worked.
You don't believe in law or crime. What about murder, rape and arson? Show me a society that doesnt have laws against these things. Zapatistas have laws, so do Spanish SOCIALISTS. The tyranny (marx's words) of the proletariat is not the same thing as lawlessness.
Zapatistas do have laws. Anarchism can have laws. 1936-1939 in Spain, those people were anarchists. They claimed to be, they had no gov't, no laws, cops or anything. And your first argument made no sense at all.
People need to realize that they are lucky to even be able to speak out against their Government. In some countries you'll be murdered for it. To be honest, I believe Americans have it good.
The "criminal underworld of North America" is controlled through Bronfman family corporate subsidiaries. The"leading lights" of the Zionist lobby are traitors to America ("Contemporary Benedict Arnolds.)
For that matter, Turks are not Arabs and neither are Iranians. The Ottomon Turks and Seljuk Turks were not Arabs either. Kurds are not Semites. All of these cultures are not Semites.
Oh, so now you are being anally retentive about the term "anti-semite". You know what I mean. I mean anti-jewish. Ashkenazi's *are* jews. Stop paraphrasing wikipedia and being an idiot. Bjerkness is an anti-jewish moron, which is not a fallacious ad hominem, because he really *is* an anti-jewish moron (and a conspiracy lunatic on top of that).
Zionism is not Judaism. It is a ideology born in the mind of the British elite and British East India Company secret intelligence director Lord Palmerston to establish a religious state in the Turkish region of Palestine to be used as a wedge against Pan-Arabism, the unification of the Arab States. It is merely Divide et Impera.
The British Empire was a merely a vehicle for the City of London's worldwide propagation of Zionism.
The International Drug Syndicate is a byproduct of a phenomenon of which can only be characterised as the "British-Zionist Organism.
These Brtiish Zionist and Anglican Christian financiers, often a product of Intermarriage, are part of Single Family Operation, whose members take critical roles in furthering and directing the Opium Trade.
Canaanites were Phoenician (Punici) as well, a great Semitic maritime culture, which eventually established a north African colony known as Carthage. The Romans referred to the Carthaginians as Punici, finally supplanting Carthage in the Punic Wars and establishing the ancient Roman Province of Africa Proconsularis.
Einstein is perhaps the 21st century's most celebrated and filthy plagiarist. During his distinguished career it is estimated Einstein plagiarised Olinto De Pretto, Hendrik Lorentz, James Maxwell, Henri Poincaré, Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and his wife, Mileva.
In 1953 Sir Edmond Whitaker published, "History of the Theories of the Aether and Electricity, Volume II", wherein he indicated Einstein's grand plagiarism on his chapter, "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz."
This is way, way too simple AWP. Lorentz himself attributed special relativity to Einstein, though he himself has been very important in developing the theory.
Poincaré never developed a coherent relativity theory. Max Born said this:
"Although I was quite familiar with the relativistic idea and the Lorentz transformations, Einsteins reasoning was a revelation to me which had a stronger influence on my thinking than any other scientific experience."
Aside from many contributions made by Einstein (he has been at the forefront of both the relativity and the quantum revolution in the beginning of the 20th century) his crowning jewel was undoubtedly General Relativity, which was *not* developed by Hilbert first (Einstein gave *him* lectures, after which *he* published first). Mileva hadn't anything to do with all of this, neither did Maxwell, who was the greatest physicist of the 19th century famous for his developement of electromagnetism.
Olinto de Pretto mistakingly believed that the universe was filled with aether, a belief common in those days, which *ended* with Einstein's relativity theory. Furthermore, Einstein's deduction of the mass-energy equivalence was very different from de Pretto's (who's deduction was not only naive but false). Marcel Grossman only pointed to the importance of non-euclidean geometry. One could just as easily say Einstein ripped of Riemann, which would be equally false.
This was a very good response; however I am still not convinced of Einstein's originality. It has been speculated that Einstein plagiarized many of the contemporaries especially David Hilbert, and also his wife, Mileva; and his 4 seminal essays on quantum mechanics were plagiarized while working as a clerk in a Swiss Patent Office in Bern in 1905.
Which you fail to deliver. Your comment is nothing but guilty by suspicion.
Whay your basic error boils down to, is that you mistake influence & inspiration for plagiarism. Show me a completely original man, and I show you Pope Boniface VIII in Dante's Paradiso.
The theory of Einstein's ostensible plagiarism is the cynosure of many books, including, "Einstein, the Incorrigible Plagiarist" by Christopher Bjerknes, and many others.
Right, Bjerknes. While I'm not making an ad-hominem here, I do think it's useful to contemplate the man's motives. He wrote this:
"The political Zionists, Albert Einstein chief racist among them, embraced the myth that anti-Semitism is the salvation of the "Jewish race", in that it forces Jews to segregate against their will and better natures. Einstein hated non-racist Jews, though he himself had married a non-Jew."
I suggest you read John Stachel's review of his horrible book.
Bjerkness is also a conspiracy lunatic, which is probably why you admire his book so much:
tinyurl com/yhq7d72
Most probably he is an anti-semite:
"In the Jewish dominated media of today, we find many Jews preaching to the public that the end times are coming and that Christians ought to view their own destruction in a positive light as if it were the divine fulfillment of Christian and Jewish prophecy. Many Christians have been duped by these charlatan..
the destruction of the world and its nations is occurring as the result of the deliberate intervention of immensely wealthy Jews and not as the result of God's will. These Jewish leaders view the Hebrew Bible as a plan, which they are deliberately fulfilling."
This could be taken straight out of the protocols of Zion. I see his work on Einstein in accordance with the Nazi concept "Jüdische Physik".
Semitic peoples originated in the Arabian Peninsula and later migrated into the Nile Delta, Palestine, East Africa, and Mesopotamia. Semitic cultures are laregely extinct and include Arabs, Sephardic Jews, Phoenicians, Arameans, Canaanites, Tigrinya, and Maltese.
Ashkenazis are not Semites nor do they speak a dialect from the Semitic language family but rather a Turkic Central Asian Mongoloid people known as Khazars, which converted to Judaism in the 8th and 9th centuries.
You still have failed to explain your banal accusations. The audacious platitude your comments live by, are more than just astounding, Anonymous Xanthochroid.
Obama's ideas on population were not wholly original but owe debt to Malthus who plagiarised them from Venetian Monk, Giammaria Ortes in his 1790 publication, Riflessioni Sulla Popolazione Delle Nazioni.
Properly, none of those efforts can be considered seriously original; the doctrine was already spelled out in detail as the population policies embedded in the decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.
Obama's Euthanasia Healthcare Policy too is a virtual copy of Adolf Hitler's policy, T4 or Tiergartenstaße instituted from August 1939 to September 1941, which mandated Gnadentod or Mercy Killings for the elderly in the form of palliative care.
Contrary to Obama's testimony, it is also not supported by the AARP.
Not all advanced technologies come from the state. Advanced technologies that are the result of public sector research first has to be confiscated from private citizens and corporations in the form of tax monies. One could argue that in the absence of the state, such confiscations would cease, and corporations, both large and small, could then develop advanced technologies unhindered.
What you're talking about isn't anarchism but market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, which is some sort of perverted concoction of objectivism, right-wing libertarianism and individualist anarchism. Anarchism in its traditional, mainstream form is and always was socialist philosophy, opposed to all hierarchies that cannot justify their existence, including the state and above all capitalism because of its exploitative nature. Read on Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Goldman for true anarchism!
You seem to not understand the difference between people who claim to be libertarians in the sense of the american libertarian party, anarcho-capitalists, and such other brands and anarchists that are not against state, but against hierarchy.
And calling your video "Anarchy is Stupid" does one of two things. It either shuts down debate completely or puts it into full gear. And you're never around for that fully geared debate, are you?
"I just don't see why that wouldn't happen",says Mr.Cropper. Well, I'm the complete opposite, I fail to see why that would happen. Why would a corporation risk losing customers by attacking rival corporations with advanced technologies and superior numbers of men only to be seen by others for what it truly is, a corporation bent on monopolistic control of policing services?Btw, advanced technologies came from where exactly?Superior numbers of men appeared out of where exactly?
Anarchy is not something will emerge in our species. Statism and capitalism is something we will grow out of through the advancement of science and technology in transhumanist society.
The entire argument against private police falls apart when you consider private security is a business and that there is no profit in revenge. The other important bit about private v state police is that private police are hired by people for protection while the state police threaten you with violence if you don't pay them.
You seem to be talking about either Anarcho-capitalism (which is so stupid, and unpopular that a youtube video refuting it would be an unnecessary waste of time) or a kind of anti-authoritarian market socialism that Proudhon advoctated, but that never caught mass appeal in the popular classes either.
caseyjmartinson 5 days ago
Market Anarchy? What the hell are you talking about?
You don't understand that there are several "sects" of anarchism. Furthermore the broad tradition of anarchism, Anarcho-Communism has always found markets, capitalism, class divisions to be exploitative! Read some Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc.
caseyjmartinson 5 days ago
You present nothing new with your arguments. Typical statist.
crothersdaniel 1 week ago
essentially anarchy is already in existence but our society blinds us to it....there is no physical law except that of relativity (what i mean by this is that i can do what ever i feel like be it walking down the street or killing my neighbor regaurdless of moraity, you may think it right to punish me for certain actions but in reality a mind exists in a state of anarchy)...laws are only ideas created by us and so are rights
Ameriwannica 1 week ago
@Ameriwannica you say you cant stand anarchists....do you believe in god? god is an anarchist because it exists outside of a culturized system....there for you hate god....if youre a christian i would watch what you say and say it very carefully
Ameriwannica 1 week ago
@Ameriwannica further more law is NOT needed as an idea of our minds to exist only morality is and the natural morality of man is good ....believe it or dont , however if you dont then you are truly naive because ever one has something they love be it physical or be it mentally
Ameriwannica 1 week ago
Hey MrCrapper. I am above the law. How you like them apples?
MrsUncontroversial 2 weeks ago
@MrsUncontroversial Yeah? Try saying that while you're getting bundled into the back of a police car for breaking it.
BeardedBill86 1 week ago
The government does NOT stop the initiation of force, EVER.
MrsUncontroversial 2 weeks ago
@MrsUncontroversial Is a silly statement, not many people can intiate force inside a prison can they? They may have done it once to get there, but they wont be doing it again for a long time.
BeardedBill86 1 week ago
The market exists because different people have different abilities. You trade abilities. Law is not needed.
MrsUncontroversial 2 weeks ago
@MrsUncontroversial Law is needed to regulate exchange, to make things fairer so people can't screw each other over so easily.
Your world of chaos just makes it easier for the selfish and dishonest and ruthless to exploit others.
BeardedBill86 1 week ago
@mrcropper, the world has already seen the results of an Anarchy model, see Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, specifically the German 'Holy Roman Empire'
vafgod 2 weeks ago
@vafgod Anarchy is just the default state of nature. 50,000 years of thriving humans before the first state. States are just like convenient stores, not the grand public institutions they claim to be.
MrsUncontroversial 2 weeks ago
@MrsUncontroversial The default state of nature sucks, you go live in your hunter gather tribe where you live for a few dozen years if you're lucky, barely scraping by while dealing with all sorts of crap if you want.
Personally I don't want to live in your chaotic world, lifes tough enough as it is without making it harder to stand by some stupid principles that mean nothing to anyone except people like you.
BeardedBill86 1 week ago
Except for the tiny fact that there is no government to to subsidize and pay for these organizations to remain in business when there consumer base takes there business to a competitor. The Free market is not perfect, its simply the system that allows for the highest amount of freedom and the lowest amount of violence.
MrPumkin404 3 weeks ago
Voluntary exchange isn't created by law.
SecondAgeOfReason 1 month ago 2
I swear you anarchists are retarded. First you benefit from our status by having this tube, then you have this cyber revolt and then, if you ever get your anarchism, you will be crying on how the world is going to hell. Pure and simple.
BadassBigBoss 1 month ago
Market anarchism is just one type of anarchism.
maartenMLMS 1 month ago
Law and government creates market? Wrong, regular people buying and selling create market. There always has been and always will be market with or without government. The ONLY thing a government should be involved in is to protect against threat of physical harm, NOTHING else.
choosetolivefree 1 month ago
@choosetolivefree Tell that to 1929 and have it laugh its arse off.
BadassBigBoss 1 month ago
@BadassBigBoss Actually tell that to 1920 when there was another stock crash and they'll believe him. The stock crash of 1929 lasted way longer than it should have due to an excess of "government intervention", where the lesser known stock crash used the opposite method and had a much shorter duration.
MISTERWONKA7 4 weeks ago
@MISTERWONKA7 The intervention that the republican government that past through their self-proclaimed laissez-faire was due to the freedom of the market going out of hand by 1929 and comparing it to 1920 one is stupid. That, is not deniable and the fact that the government should be blaimed is simply because they, the likes of Hoover and other winged politicians, simply sucked at their job and had no qualifications for doing such things.
BadassBigBoss 4 weeks ago
@BadassBigBoss I'll agree with your final clause, however "market freedom" did a better job in dealing with the crash of 1920 which happened to be a bigger dip than 1929. If you can't compare them you can at least contrast the severity of the former, how it was handled, and how long it lasted.
MISTERWONKA7 4 weeks ago
@MISTERWONKA7 The sole reason why it was handled better was because it was not a bending intrument, but a badly forged one that would make an efficient collapse. I see no reason why it should be put on the show as a demonstration that government is bad.
BadassBigBoss 4 weeks ago
Anarchism is so flawed. Anarchistic logic: We want more freedom, therefore lets get rid of the mechanism (the state) that provides us with the most freedom.
To the Anarchist: You cannot have personal liberty, without other people being constrained and/or punished.
DesBlackmore 1 month ago
@DesBlackmore The state does not provide freedom, the state enforces its laws. Statist logic: People are bad so we need a government made up of people.
dcjeffers02 1 month ago
@dcjeffers02 The state enforces it's laws, which in turn makes more people free. Since law is designed to constrain people. If I am constrained against harming you, than you are more free. "People are bad so we need a government made up of people." Governments are also made up of laws, not just people.
DesBlackmore 1 month ago
@DesBlackmore "The state enforces it's laws, which in turn makes more people free." You mean like the laws made by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the U.S.A.'s racist past, North Korea, or Middle Eastern dictatorships that kill civilians for minor dissent? More free indeed. Governments and laws are force, and there is not much, if any, freedom in force.
"Governments are also made up of laws, not just people." No, those people make the laws, governments are just made up of people.
dcjeffers02 1 month ago
@dcjeffers020
If you're telling me that governments have been used to wrongly suppress individual freedom, than your right, they have been. But that does not mean we should get rid of government, because certain governments have acted poorly.
People do make laws, of course, but laws are not like people, they are unbiased, unemotional, they are meant to apply to everyone equally.
What is your alternative to government? What do you propose?
DesBlackmore 1 month ago
@DesBlackmore That's how laws should be, but there is always a bias in making them, interpreting them, and enforcing them. I'm not really advocating the abolition of the state, we are a group so we need to have some sort of collectivism. Whether or not private businesses would be a better alternative to the state is debatable. What we have now is garbage, though. What do our elected neighbors have that makes them have more authority than you or me? Rhetoric and a skilled tongue.
dcjeffers02 1 month ago
LOL'd @ 'there has to be a government to retaliate against the initiation of force'... so the gov would retaliate against itself roflcopter...
ritherz 2 months ago
"What's going to stop them from taking more territory? And indeed, what's going to stop them from plundering."
Have you figured out how to stop the state from doing that? : )
We live in a failed anarchy when we live under a state since we are subject to one violent gang which has conquered all other modes of governance in a territory. Creating a successful anarchy amounts to finding ways to solve this problem of governance through the initiation of force & limiting it to defensive only.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
The market itself is flawed. The market is a creature of disorder. Though he doesnt touch on left anarchists, I still agree with all of his points. A government is extremely hard to do without. Left wing anarchists trust that people dont need governments or corporations an that everyone can be a big happy sharing family. In reality we would have people running rampant forming groups and militias eventually taking over and forming their own government. Again.
AppleFritterMLP 2 months ago
@AppleFritterMLP Well said.
DesBlackmore 1 month ago
0:35 ALWAYS by ANY anarchist? quite a claim, well no i dont, i believe the law of nature to be a somewhat fair judge while bipolar, and sometimes illogical, it isnt corruptible, and i dont trust capitalism at all
4:00 i agree, ancho-capitalism and its variants would end in mafia wars, but srsly read into topics before u start throwing the word "all" around
monkyyy0 2 months ago
Your whole premise dies on the fact that as anarchists we aren't antilaw. Read Lysnader Spooner, the most influential American anarchist of the 19th century. He was a "Natural Lawyer", ala Natural Law Theory. Some are Utilitarianism. Also, there are MORE private security cops right now in the USA than govt cops. Regions are irrelevant, as states cooperate with each other volu7ntarily...used to be you ran to another state you got away from the warrant. Cooperation of private law is natural too.
ProIndividual 2 months ago
The true definition of anarchy, Anarchy: a bunch of dumb faggots who think there baddass enough to live without a goverment.
MrLizzardman 3 months ago
@MrLizzardman If you're going to troll, at least TRY to make it less obvious.
jeffsandychelsea 3 months ago
@MrLizzardman WRONG. We believe in self government, douchenstein.
ProIndividual 2 months ago
YA' GAWDDANG ANARCHISTS! GIT OFF MA' LAWN!!! WHERES MY ASPIRIN?
MrRyanholder 4 months ago
This is fucking laughable!
mox1211 4 months ago
"Anarchy is the true nature of all things. Monarchy, democracy, communism, all useless forms to control the human mind. But a mind cannot be control. It cannot be restrained. It has no boundaries. It has its will. Anarchy is the true nature of all things... "
alexstore1 4 months ago
market is not a creation of law...people want stuff and other people sell it to them it's simple...
the creation of law is paper money or "legal tender" as it's name states
metamaggot 4 months ago
you sir are rediculous.lol your shallowness hasnt allowed you to think beyond the society you live in. but that answer to your "kill all question is": the people, the society. if the people belive that a monopoly has been created the people will dismantle it. now go take your blood pressure pills lol..
edchaos2 4 months ago
It might be stupid, but it certainly carries some advantages over authoritarian governement.
zadeh79 7 months ago
There has to be a government to retaliate against the initiation of force.
unless of course ways of interacting are presented that supersede those based on coercive violence. Until then, any entity designed to respond to coercive violence WITH coercive violence will at best do nothing but eat resources better spent else where, and at worst exacerbate any issue they involve themselves within.
HotaruZoku 7 months ago
Ayn Rand believed in a private police force and yes she was a loon.
attemptingtobehumble 7 months ago
@kristopheraugust
Derive the principle of an organic functioning market by means of the Austrian axioms, huh?
Well, you're certainly much smarter than I am, as I can barely make out the question, and, as everyone knows, obfuscating colloquial axioms via esoteric linguistic structures ensures intellectual status.
Am I carrect or am I cawrong?
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
The market simply means the voluntary interactions between adults. The market necessarily comes before the state, or else the state would have nothing to leach off of. I would encourage you to read Hans Hoppe's "the private production of defense" and listen to some Stefan Molyneux videos on DROs. You seem like an intelligent guy, so it is shocking to see you propagate the idea that violence must be used to create peace. Cheers
lukebessey 10 months ago
There are several problems with your logic but lets start small. This whole "we can't have anarchy because a state will form" is ridiculous. That is equivalent to saying "I will not get rid of my cancerous tumor because a new tumor might come back". Why wouldn't defense agencies kill each other? because it is bloody expensive and they are spending their own money!
lukebessey 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"how would they stop a new monopoly of force..."
So the biggest problem with having no government is that you would end up having.... A GOVERNMENT?
Isn't that like saying the biggest problem with having no cancer is that you would end up have another kind of cancer?
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you just say that you need a government to STOP the initiation of force? Government IS the initiation of force.
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
Comment removed
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
Comment removed
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
"The market is a creature of law, created by law for the society..."
What the FUCK are you talking about? The market existed BEFORE the first law was ever created, before society as we know it existed, and before human beings walked the face of the earth.
Market forces are what have been driving the evolution of the planet.
No, it's not magic, but YES IT DOES EXIST. It's very simple - there are limited resources, so you compete for them, either by FORCE (statism) or by COOPERATION (anarchism)
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
Anarchism is the default position. If you are going to VIOLATE people's rights, the onus is on you to justify that violation.
Statism is the idea that God, or democracy, or the republic, or the majority, or some other myth is itself a justification for violating other people's rights.
NO ANARCHIST is saying that rights shouldn't be protected. They are just saying that they shouldn't be VIOLATED in the name of the glorious, all-mighty state.
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
it always makes me laugh when people blindly mistake anarchism for "anarcho-capitalism" (which is not actually anarchism). as a true anarchist (libertarian socialist), i would strongly suggest investigating what it really means to be an anarchist. take care and keep questioning :)
megaminxmaster 10 months ago
Oh god I'm only a minute in and this is stupid as shit. I can't watch any longer. You really think people can't deal with crime themselves? What gives a cop more authority to deal with a crime than anyone else in an anarchic society? Come on.
HumanaeAdAstra 11 months ago
You are very good at predicting what will happen if we govern ourselves. Any proof of these disastrous conclusions of yours? So your solution is continued theft of people's money through violence? How is that working for us?
AndyWright68 11 months ago
Your understanding of anarchy is poor. You asked "What is the difference between a gov`t and a business entity that protects your rights?" Answer: Initiation of Force (Violence) vs. Voluntary Association (Volanteerism). In an anarchist society, such an organization would not receive the funding to obtain the resources required to take over another geographic region. Such an organization would act in the capacity of peace officers not soldiers. Anarchists do not advocate violence.
vegetta00 1 year ago
@vegetta00
You are under the impression that no one is going to use violence to get what they want...how naive. If you dont have soldiers then others will move in to take what you have, mere peace officers would offer little to no resistance to a well trained group of soldiers.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity The idea applies to the human race. If no nation existed (state), such an army would have to be created voluntarily and funded voluntarily. By those means, no army would have the support neccessary to wage a war.
vegetta00 1 year ago
@vegetta00 You honestly think that is possible? are you high?
Governments would be formed as well as armies then your pathetic society would be easy pickings since your army would be underfunded and unable to protect its citizens from much larger armies. You dont seem to understand war and conquest very well.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity Yes, you`re right. Not everyone thinks like I do. That`s the whole point of the anarchist movement. To educate the masses into realizing that statism is evil. 2000 years ago, it was a given that females were property. 200 years ago, it was a given that man could own another man. We laugh at the silly superstitions of the archaic civilizations. As we educate society, someday we will look back at governments the same way we do with slavery and religions.
vegetta00 1 year ago
@vegetta00 LMAO oh educate society what you are saying is brainwashing. You want to brainwash people into sharing your beliefs. I call your dreams pathetic as they are, it is a fact. You clearly are an idiot if you think for one second that everyone all over the world will ever want your shitty society. You are either delusional or just stupid, no matter how you dress it, your ideal world is impossible. Go ahead and have your little dreams and fantasize all you want.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity While you are "educating" the world so they all believe in your bullshit anarchist society why dont you tell rapists that they shouldnt rape, and pedos not to touch kids and murders not to kill....oh wait that wont work, you dont get it do you? You cant just "educate" people and then the world is all fine and dandy, fact is an anarchist society would never last since it would be supported by few only and easily conquered.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity Furthermore, you again use adjectives to describe my position. "pathetic dreams" Understand that when you are debating with me, you are entering the academic arena. Your rebuttles have come from a position of ignorance of the principals of anarchism. You cannot argue against something you do not understand. I happen to understand statism very well. In fact, I understand the biology in the brain behind violence, i.e. war. (continued)
vegetta00 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity (continued) You are fear mongering when you bring up war and conquest. If the principles of anarchism are understood globally, by the vast majority of the human population, then government would have no power. An army would never be created through volunteerism. I will not continue this discussion with you any further unless you demonstrate that you have studied anarchism further. You cannot say I am wrong if you do not know what I am saying.
vegetta00 1 year ago
Anarchists battling eachother for land?You have to do a realitycheck,we are not driven by selfishnes as you are and therefore you will never be able to understand our ideology.So plz stop trying.Use your time you have in this life for something else,you are wasting it
Anarhist4 1 year ago
@Anarhist4
It doesnt matter if you would not try to take land others will. Hell anyone with a want for your land will then take it. This is not some fluffy idealistic reality. Real life if you dont have a strong government with a good army to protect you then your lands will be taken as well as citizens or your weak society. You want Anarchy? then move to Burma and you will see why your ideals are foolish.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity You are calling these ideals "foolish", be careful. Such statements only serve to discredit your rebuttles. Anarchists don`t look to take a single geographic location and liberate it, we`re talking about a world wide movement to realize that statism is a fairytale. The more people that understand that the state has no more power than what is given to it, then the less power it will have. I recommend you check out a video titled How To Win Political Arguments by stefbot.
vegetta00 1 year ago
@vegetta00
You dont understand your pathetic dream world can not exist since the world does not all think like you. The only way your society would work is if everyone agreed to it and that is a statistical impossibility. Think for one moment if you dont have an army protecting you then whats to stop a group of people with guns from coming in and taking over your society and forcing all of you into slavery or prostitution?
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity Oh i have perfect solution for that problem, why dont we do the same as you fascistpigs tried to do with us, exterminate everylast one of you. Destroy in order to create,this way we can be sure that our "week" little society can be left in peace.
Anarhist4 1 year ago
@Anarhist4
How will you do that with your week volunteer army? Also it doesnt matter even if you do since others will be born who dont like how your shitty society is and attack your pathetic society. So unless you plan to kill every single person you think may rebel against you, then you will have to deal with people taking your food and other valuables since you have no police force at all and your volunteer army idea would not work either. So basically your idea is completely stupid.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
No one really believes in anarchy, they just say that to try and be rebels...its fucking pathetic they are conforming to a belief to rebel.
TheShadowOfHumanity 1 year ago
@TheShadowOfHumanity I'd be curious to know how many pro-state people leave all of their money to the government when they die.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago 2
@TheShadowOfHumanity Do not confuse us (anarchists) with those kids in high school who sear the A symbol and call themselves anarchists. They only know and understand it as much as you do.
vegetta00 1 year ago
Capitalism is nothing more than the use of capital for mutual benefit through the creation of services and goods. Free-Market Capitalism differs from State Capitalism(socialism) in that their is no institution using force or claiming monopoly over that power in order to influence society(government). Stop throwing the word capitalism around if you don't even know what it means, "MrCropper".
Volomonoh 1 year ago
Humans are a social species.
I support freedom as it makes life a lot more fun. It's also a much more productive basis for an economic system. And there's more to it than that, of course.
But we're social and even if anarchists swear off violence, non-anarchists won't. And just like you anarchists TODAY pay your taxes and speeding tickets because you have to, so would you lose your freedom to an invading army and/or violent gangs within your community.
The way to stop that is...collective.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
The reason anarchy won't work is so obvious it boggles the mind to have to explain it.
Violence.
Anarchists talk about how the state's laws are enforced by violence. This is true. But in a democracy, they are CHOSEN by peaceful consent of the majority, hopefully as constrained by a principled constitution.
But if I am not part of your anarchist cult and I roll up with a mechanized core of heavy infantry and artillery, you will do what I say...or fight COLLECTIVELY.
Those are the choices.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
History has shown that mercenaries have their use, but break rank when the chips are down. Profit is a great motive, but not so much when facing nearly certain death, since this is the antithesis of profit.
Protecting one's people, one's friends and family and the people of one's group, whatever that may be, who one feels an affinity with is what people will fight to the death to defend.
Warriors have an ethic anarchist will never understand.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
Stolen concept or property is theft?
cineasta71 1 year ago
Government isn't over profit, haha. Funny. Government is business, it's the biggest business. The market is man conducting trade or business with other men. If to regulate business or men because of corruption, then the regulators would have to be non men entities. And thank God for the current government today which has done so well for us.
Blastfimus777 1 year ago
Security has become a monopoly because the service of security doubles as the enforcement. In order for the wheat farmer to have a monopoly on wheat, he would have to hire an army. But what if the army starts to overcharge him. He has no recourse because he is a wheat farmer, not the army. This historical reality does not change the economical truth that monopolies lower quality and increase price. It applies to ALL goods and services. Read David Friedman's work on law and efficiency.
guyjohn59 1 year ago
How naive are you?
Anarchy doesn't necessarily the presence of said what some people call 'anarchy' but they're wrong what they think of anarchy is actually total chaos.
Anarchy is actually the just the lack of Rulers, leaders, governmental control, and religious leadership
colen147 1 year ago
Governments don't create markets and are not responsible for their existence. As long as people want things and are willing to exchange things they have for the things they want, there will be a market. That's all you need. Also, no competent economist that I know of would be stupid enough to commit the gross error in reification that you seem to think is being made. The term "the market" is used to denote the sum total of all INDIVIDUAL exchanges. It is NOT an entity in itself.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
As soon as you said that all anarchists advocate rights being protected by private companies you failed. Learn about LEFT ANARCHY before you make a video about anarchy at all.
ErrolSaid 1 year ago
You have too much faith in law.
Before I decided to stop watching your video, you were talking about regions attacking 1 another. First of all, the only way Anarchy could work is if the entire world were in on it. That would eliminate all threat from major armies attacking you. Otherwise, eventually we'd no longer be in a state of Anarchy. Where you're wrong about Anarchy though, is your belief that people would actually GROUP together to attack smaller areas.
Next comment for the conclusion.
chadd990 1 year ago
So if we were in a state of Anarchy, people would not group together, UNLESS they're just doing it for the joy of killing 1 another. There's no reason a group of people would attack towns for the benefit of the territory, because they would have no relation with that small army and would not care about their benefit. Maybe you'd see something like the Hatfields and the McCoys on a global level, but not small armies attacking one another.
btw, the usa has been ran by private police forces before.
chadd990 1 year ago
The state cannot prevent the initiation of force by default, since it initiates force against anyone who wouldn't pay them their protection money/taxes.
crazypants88 1 year ago
jesus fucking christ.
whats going to stop the state from plundering and invading and so forth?
Atleast private industries are smaller and easier to deal with.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
1. The state IS the initiation of force.
2. The market was not created by governments, it is the combined interactions between people.
3. Anarchism is not about what "works", but what is moral. Anarchy is moral, state is immoral. Moral arguments always trump consequentialist arguments. Your lack of understanding of anarchy and the voluntary society is shown in your weak arguments.
rowandy85 1 year ago
@rowandy85
"Moral arguments always trump consequentialist arguments."
I'm pretty sure consequentialist arguments are about morality as well, so how does that work?
I notice from your little text that you probably take as an axiom for morality the non-aggression principle. Your entire argument is based on this idea, there are many people who do not agree with the NPA though, so don't act as if you're stating an undeniable truth when you're only deducing from a view some people hold.
recencyeffect 1 year ago
@recencyeffect Consequentialist arguments can be about morality, but they aren't always. I do subscribe to the NAP, but I did not deduce my arguement from a mere view that people hold, i deduced it from and undeniable truth - that people own themselves. Any consequestialist argument that violates this truth is not a moral argument. Statist consequestialist arguments do not pass the moral test, and should be rejected. Only consequentialist arguments that pass the moral test should be considered.
rowandy85 1 year ago
@rowandy85
"I own myself therefore people should not initiate force upon me" does not compute with me. There's nothing wrong with holding to the NAP, but at the end of the day it's still no more rational than say, utilitarianism. An utilitarianist btw would say that the non-initiation of force when it would lead to great misery and suffering, is immoral. You judge consequentialist arguments from your point of view and they will do the same from theirs.
recencyeffect 1 year ago
Governments are also driven by profit.
Also, the people would only choose the company that they feel provied the best quality service for the lowest price. What this means is that if the different companies start fighting each other then all the people need to do is stop supporting them, that way they can't finance fighting.
What you fail to realize is that the government is the most violent institution man has ever created. I'm not convinced.
Paddis92 1 year ago
anarchy =/= no laws
anarchy = no territorial violent monopoly on governance and law
know the difference, it can save your life! woo woo
x0TheJackal0x 1 year ago 3
I think you are confusing two things: Anarchy is not the absence of law. That would be Anomie.
Faulgor 1 year ago
property rights answers this question. it matters what "type of anarchist" you are addressing, as it matters for any individual, because each person's problems are unique to them. what generally unites people under the banner of anarchy is the illegitimacy of the state and the inherent exploitation. this does not mean all anarchists analyze the problems correctly or that they have a solution. states do not exist by the consent of the governed - that is the issue. how to organize is the question.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@MrCropper "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "-Voltaire
ligerman30 1 year ago
societal law, agreements between individuals and trade also precede the State.
Chrisnoscrub047 1 year ago
What are you talking about? Private companies protecting rights? Have you ever read anything about anarchy? I've never heard of an anarchist advocating any privatized organization, of course besides those pesky anarcho-capitalists. You say that these private companies would plunder and steal and kill. That's exactly what your cherished government forces do. This argument is riddled with misconceptions and profound ignorance.
drukqsi 1 year ago
Private courts and contracts. You are an idiot, the first market was the first time one person decided to trade with another for something he owned. Law did not create the "market." I'm not an anarchist, but they aren't the idiots here, have you even studied economics, law, or the market? I ask because you don't seem to have the basest understanding of either.
raider6504 1 year ago
Alright. This is a much better argument. Still, anarchy has never been implemented effectively in a nation. Never. From tribalism to nationalism, rule of force has existed. Nature itself is a hierarchy. You said it yourself. Looking to animals for lessons is fine, as long as the lessons are LOGICAL.
Saying that you lack critical thought is not "annoying bullshit" it's an observation. Be critical of your own arguments. Forge them in the fires of doubt. It will do you much good.
Emperordante 1 year ago
You lack critical thought...
"If some super species came and invaded the planet, would you consider them rulers, or enemies?"
Umm, if they ruled I'd probably call them rulers. As for your precious bees, they're a terrible argument for anarchy. Queens fight to the death (competition) to dictate (rule) genetic make up of the entire colony. Imagine if Americans adopted this system. Would it be anarchy? Nope. Anti nature as in anti HUMAN nature. forget bees. They arent doing you any good.
Emperordante 1 year ago
No you clearly misunderstood my point. Food chains are hierarchies correct? Do bees that have keepers have anarchy? Does their incredible lack of HUMAN government imply that humans can exist with a system created by insects? No, while you were pile driving straw men I was stating that it is far from foolish to see nature as a hierarchy of scale.
Also you are flat out wrong. Do some research on how new queen bees are crowned.
Emperordante 1 year ago
Would you consider the food chain a hierarchy? Let's not jettison nature in our pursuit of utopia.
Anarchy is an idiotic anti-nature pipe dream. That's all this vid was commenting on. If your definition of the concept is a little different, it doesn't change the hypothetical one iota.
Emperordante 1 year ago
It's as though this thing called school was just to good. I mean, I look around now and all I see is squandering of time, even in myself, but now it's as though everyone doesn't see the picture. I blame it really on the public schools. Teach a child F-A-C-E but when it's come time for the real face face value, the kids are leaving college all Pretty, Happy and Dumbed up. What happened to the self? What happened to the self-governance of man as opposed to all. For even law now is utter confusion!
combustible420 1 year ago
...Or look at the Zapatistas' (EZLN) in Mexico. Anarcho-communist/Libertarian Socialist group that has controlled the state of Chiapas since 1994, with no sign of letting up or failing.
DontEatEggs666 1 year ago
I'm an anarchist, and I agree with you. Market anarchy would totally suck. Libertarian socialism, and other forms of social anarchism would work, have worked, and never haven't worked. Spainish revolution, anarchists controlled most of Spain, improved education, the economy, and the overall standard of life. They reduced 'crime rate' (although there is no such thing as a crime), came up with better alternatives to defend citizens from 'crime.'
DontEatEggs666 1 year ago
Laughable. Libertarian socialism "never hasnt worked" huh? What about all the states that do not use the system? Let me guess, when you said "never" you meant when it is confined to places where the system HAS actually worked.
You don't believe in law or crime. What about murder, rape and arson? Show me a society that doesnt have laws against these things. Zapatistas have laws, so do Spanish SOCIALISTS. The tyranny (marx's words) of the proletariat is not the same thing as lawlessness.
Emperordante 1 year ago
Zapatistas do have laws. Anarchism can have laws. 1936-1939 in Spain, those people were anarchists. They claimed to be, they had no gov't, no laws, cops or anything. And your first argument made no sense at all.
DontEatEggs666 1 year ago
People need to realize that they are lucky to even be able to speak out against their Government. In some countries you'll be murdered for it. To be honest, I believe Americans have it good.
XxDeadlyNinjaxX 1 year ago
Zionism has an exhaustive Shit-Stained History.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "criminal underworld of North America" is controlled through Bronfman family corporate subsidiaries. The"leading lights" of the Zionist lobby are traitors to America ("Contemporary Benedict Arnolds.)
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Most Jews are not Semites.
For that matter, Turks are not Arabs and neither are Iranians. The Ottomon Turks and Seljuk Turks were not Arabs either. Kurds are not Semites. All of these cultures are not Semites.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I find it funny and humorous that you do not believe in Conspiracies when all of human history is actually based on Conspiracies.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Oh, so now you are being anally retentive about the term "anti-semite". You know what I mean. I mean anti-jewish. Ashkenazi's *are* jews. Stop paraphrasing wikipedia and being an idiot. Bjerkness is an anti-jewish moron, which is not a fallacious ad hominem, because he really *is* an anti-jewish moron (and a conspiracy lunatic on top of that).
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
Zionism is not Judaism. It is a ideology born in the mind of the British elite and British East India Company secret intelligence director Lord Palmerston to establish a religious state in the Turkish region of Palestine to be used as a wedge against Pan-Arabism, the unification of the Arab States. It is merely Divide et Impera.
The British Empire was a merely a vehicle for the City of London's worldwide propagation of Zionism.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The International Drug Syndicate is a byproduct of a phenomenon of which can only be characterised as the "British-Zionist Organism.
These Brtiish Zionist and Anglican Christian financiers, often a product of Intermarriage, are part of Single Family Operation, whose members take critical roles in furthering and directing the Opium Trade.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Canaanites were Phoenician (Punici) as well, a great Semitic maritime culture, which eventually established a north African colony known as Carthage. The Romans referred to the Carthaginians as Punici, finally supplanting Carthage in the Punic Wars and establishing the ancient Roman Province of Africa Proconsularis.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Anarchy is ostensibly the worst form of ungovernment.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Who are you?
Pope Boniface VIII?
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Anarchy - Tetrarchy - Heptarchy + Hierarchy + OIigarchy + Timocracy X Democracy X Aristocracy)3² = E=mc²
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Ah, your comment shows a clear opposite trend apropos of the Lorentz contraction.
Use the Klein-Gordon equation instead, you may have more succes with that.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
Einstein is perhaps the 21st century's most celebrated and filthy plagiarist. During his distinguished career it is estimated Einstein plagiarised Olinto De Pretto, Hendrik Lorentz, James Maxwell, Henri Poincaré, Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and his wife, Mileva.
In 1953 Sir Edmond Whitaker published, "History of the Theories of the Aether and Electricity, Volume II", wherein he indicated Einstein's grand plagiarism on his chapter, "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz."
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
This is way, way too simple AWP. Lorentz himself attributed special relativity to Einstein, though he himself has been very important in developing the theory.
Poincaré never developed a coherent relativity theory. Max Born said this:
"Although I was quite familiar with the relativistic idea and the Lorentz transformations, Einsteins reasoning was a revelation to me which had a stronger influence on my thinking than any other scientific experience."
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 2
Aside from many contributions made by Einstein (he has been at the forefront of both the relativity and the quantum revolution in the beginning of the 20th century) his crowning jewel was undoubtedly General Relativity, which was *not* developed by Hilbert first (Einstein gave *him* lectures, after which *he* published first). Mileva hadn't anything to do with all of this, neither did Maxwell, who was the greatest physicist of the 19th century famous for his developement of electromagnetism.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 2
Olinto de Pretto mistakingly believed that the universe was filled with aether, a belief common in those days, which *ended* with Einstein's relativity theory. Furthermore, Einstein's deduction of the mass-energy equivalence was very different from de Pretto's (who's deduction was not only naive but false). Marcel Grossman only pointed to the importance of non-euclidean geometry. One could just as easily say Einstein ripped of Riemann, which would be equally false.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 3
This was a very good response; however I am still not convinced of Einstein's originality. It has been speculated that Einstein plagiarized many of the contemporaries especially David Hilbert, and also his wife, Mileva; and his 4 seminal essays on quantum mechanics were plagiarized while working as a clerk in a Swiss Patent Office in Bern in 1905.
The evidence for this is overwhelming.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
"The evidence for this is overwhelming."
Which you fail to deliver. Your comment is nothing but guilty by suspicion.
Whay your basic error boils down to, is that you mistake influence & inspiration for plagiarism. Show me a completely original man, and I show you Pope Boniface VIII in Dante's Paradiso.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
* What
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
Another excellent reply.
The theory of Einstein's ostensible plagiarism is the cynosure of many books, including, "Einstein, the Incorrigible Plagiarist" by Christopher Bjerknes, and many others.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Right, Bjerknes. While I'm not making an ad-hominem here, I do think it's useful to contemplate the man's motives. He wrote this:
"The political Zionists, Albert Einstein chief racist among them, embraced the myth that anti-Semitism is the salvation of the "Jewish race", in that it forces Jews to segregate against their will and better natures. Einstein hated non-racist Jews, though he himself had married a non-Jew."
I suggest you read John Stachel's review of his horrible book.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Bjerkness is also a conspiracy lunatic, which is probably why you admire his book so much:
tinyurl com/yhq7d72
Most probably he is an anti-semite:
"In the Jewish dominated media of today, we find many Jews preaching to the public that the end times are coming and that Christians ought to view their own destruction in a positive light as if it were the divine fulfillment of Christian and Jewish prophecy. Many Christians have been duped by these charlatan..
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 2
the destruction of the world and its nations is occurring as the result of the deliberate intervention of immensely wealthy Jews and not as the result of God's will. These Jewish leaders view the Hebrew Bible as a plan, which they are deliberately fulfilling."
This could be taken straight out of the protocols of Zion. I see his work on Einstein in accordance with the Nazi concept "Jüdische Physik".
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 2
But pointing me towards books is not evidence, AWP. I could point you to a lot of books claiming UFOs exist. But then, perhaps so do you.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 2
Semitic peoples originated in the Arabian Peninsula and later migrated into the Nile Delta, Palestine, East Africa, and Mesopotamia. Semitic cultures are laregely extinct and include Arabs, Sephardic Jews, Phoenicians, Arameans, Canaanites, Tigrinya, and Maltese.
Ashkenazis are not Semites nor do they speak a dialect from the Semitic language family but rather a Turkic Central Asian Mongoloid people known as Khazars, which converted to Judaism in the 8th and 9th centuries.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Monarchy - 1 = Anarchy
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
You are Professor Emeritus.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
I knew it! So, Mengele *has* reincarnated Hitler in the form of a half-blood caucasian/african male! Genius, AWP.
However, how does this relate to anarchism? I await patiently for another miracle of your intellectual acrobatics.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 3
Anarchism is a Tetrarchy minus 4.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
If you would have said Heptarchy minus 7 you would have been more accurate.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago 3
Heptarchy - 7 + Tetrarchy - 4 = Anarchy.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
You still have failed to explain your banal accusations. The audacious platitude your comments live by, are more than just astounding, Anonymous Xanthochroid.
Excremental Detritus.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
The United States is a newer, modernized, upgraded, industrialized version of... the Roman Empire.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Uhmm... there are interesting similarities.
What has that got to do with anarchism?
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama's ideas on population were not wholly original but owe debt to Malthus who plagiarised them from Venetian Monk, Giammaria Ortes in his 1790 publication, Riflessioni Sulla Popolazione Delle Nazioni.
Properly, none of those efforts can be considered seriously original; the doctrine was already spelled out in detail as the population policies embedded in the decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Obama's Euthanasia Healthcare Policy too is a virtual copy of Adolf Hitler's policy, T4 or Tiergartenstaße instituted from August 1939 to September 1941, which mandated Gnadentod or Mercy Killings for the elderly in the form of palliative care.
Contrary to Obama's testimony, it is also not supported by the AARP.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Anarchism is the Perfect Oligarchy.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Primitive Communism.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Anarchy is a return to the early Neolithic Period.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
No, that would be anarcho-primitivism, though some primitivist argue against agrarian societies as inherently oppressive (Zerzan et al.)
I'm not aware of anarchist wishing a return to the Neolithic, nor does abolishing the state bring us there. I don't see how this follows at all.
Why do I have to stumble on your naive posts everywhere I go, AWP?
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
Your for anti-statist philosophy verges on existentialism.
Anarchic systems in all forms produce one plausible outcome, Feudalism.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Not all advanced technologies come from the state. Advanced technologies that are the result of public sector research first has to be confiscated from private citizens and corporations in the form of tax monies. One could argue that in the absence of the state, such confiscations would cease, and corporations, both large and small, could then develop advanced technologies unhindered.
globbo100 2 years ago
What you're talking about isn't anarchism but market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, which is some sort of perverted concoction of objectivism, right-wing libertarianism and individualist anarchism. Anarchism in its traditional, mainstream form is and always was socialist philosophy, opposed to all hierarchies that cannot justify their existence, including the state and above all capitalism because of its exploitative nature. Read on Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Goldman for true anarchism!
Grindermetalhead 2 years ago
You seem to not understand the difference between people who claim to be libertarians in the sense of the american libertarian party, anarcho-capitalists, and such other brands and anarchists that are not against state, but against hierarchy.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago 2
And calling your video "Anarchy is Stupid" does one of two things. It either shuts down debate completely or puts it into full gear. And you're never around for that fully geared debate, are you?
globbo100 2 years ago
"I just don't see why that wouldn't happen",says Mr.Cropper. Well, I'm the complete opposite, I fail to see why that would happen. Why would a corporation risk losing customers by attacking rival corporations with advanced technologies and superior numbers of men only to be seen by others for what it truly is, a corporation bent on monopolistic control of policing services?Btw, advanced technologies came from where exactly?Superior numbers of men appeared out of where exactly?
globbo100 2 years ago
Advanced technologies came from the state sector funded research.
Grindermetalhead 2 years ago
Comment removed
PsykodelikCyoldier 2 years ago
Anarchy is not something will emerge in our species. Statism and capitalism is something we will grow out of through the advancement of science and technology in transhumanist society.
Eldel15 2 years ago
well that hurt back to brainpolice2
AnarchoBlackCrust 2 years ago
Anarchy is stupid.
BrettDunbar 2 years ago 2
So there can't be voluntary trade unless there is forceful trade? Why?
andersoncouncil1968 2 years ago
Huumm sounds more like Libirtarians not anarchists.
danbagheri 2 years ago
The entire argument against private police falls apart when you consider private security is a business and that there is no profit in revenge. The other important bit about private v state police is that private police are hired by people for protection while the state police threaten you with violence if you don't pay them.
Gammaclipper 2 years ago