What violence? You guys sound crazy when you say this crap. Our gov is totally neutered and can barely mace a protestor without getting the third-degree. What they do to other countries is a different story. If you want the wars to end or a change in policy then you must do a sit-down strike to scare the elite. If you want "no gov" (of this current variety) then you must setup alternative institutions. Destroying gov without any thought behind it will lead to chaos and misery.
the question becomes what does humankind melt down to without government? I mean the celts didn't know the native american and the eskimo's didn't know the vikings probably. So.. what's the form of government that seems to have always worked? Tribal. period. that's the reason we all did it for thousands of years and the people actually got cared for, women were respected and had laws that ruled over certain areas of men..and men were respected in their tent/home. you didn't have marital affairs.
@snowfallzz If you were handicapped or old..you got cared for. Don't give me the old man or child left in the snow BS. Some tribes did that ya bust most of them no. not true. If you were able to work..you fucking worked..and no man was better than another, or "usury" to rob someone of their shit. it was fair trade. Recently, the Arabs have started doing free-trade again under the old law in the Middle East.. the U.S. finds the markets and raids them.
You know what stops bad people with weapons? Good people with more/better weapons. With the one exception of protecting us from other countries, i cant really think of something positive a government should do. Having said that, i cant see how anarchy can protect a state from a rival state...
@IntenseSapience What's to stop them, other than the tens of millions of people who don't want to have their property taken from them? Those people, who are armed with who-knows-what? Do you think they would just allow a group to claim their property and then abide by its rules without putting up any kind of fight?
@jeffsandychelsea Whether one puts up a fight or not is moot if a group has the ability to project their will. Like it or not, there will ALWAYS be a government entity, official or de facto. Anarchy is just a power vacuum.
So, what's your alternative to government, if it's always bad? Anarchy, like in Somalia, is obviously working so much better for their citizens than government over here. I don't see how a larger proportion of the American population isn't better off than they would be in an ungoverned, lawless society.
@dhicks3 Somalia is not anarchy, they just escaped 50+ years of communism... Not only that, they have the UN, the WTO, NATO,... not to mention their "transitional federal government". The little bit of Freedom that might have come out of Somalia was through Xe'er law. Unfortunately, too many people still believe in statism slavery (violence on peaceful people)... and governments still rule the world... for now. The alternative is DROs, dispute resolution organizations.... through choice.
@LandlessPeasantFuck You believe in myths,... you want this violent monopoly to do all those "good things", which means you are not realistic. Why am I a jackass for pointing out facts?
@mikeshanklin7:20...are you seriously comparing having government to rape and murder?
"and we have to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as good violence on peaceful people, and that is all that government truly is"
I dont think thats a real sentence. It doesnt make sense. Its a disjointed sentence and teh subject of the first part of the sentence does not relate to the second part about government.
@mikeshanklin you need to learn how to construct proper arguments..seriously!!!
I think you might be mentally retarded...im sorry..I feel really sorry for you but obviously the chemtrails or the fluoride in water has given you braindamage or something....i fucking hate the bastards who have braindamaged you..please see a doctor.
@LandlessPeasantFuck How can you in the same breath of telling someone to construct a good argument, do you call them "mentally retarded" and "fucking hate bastards"?
@dhicks3 Somalia was the worst third world shithole on the planet at the time Barre was ousted from power. If you want to compare the conditions in post-Barre Somalia to conditions in another country, without engaging in blatant intellectual dishonesty, try comparing it to another third world shithole in the same region, not the wealthiest first world country on the planet.
@Libertarian333 Wow, you don't really sould like someone it would be possible to have an 'intellectual' discussion with anyways, even if one could even be had over Youtube comments. In any case, the US in terms of GDP per capita, isn't the wealthiest country in the world at all. It's behind many of these apparently terribly misguided high-tax, pro-government services countries in, gasp, socialist Europe! It's probably just the fault of those citizens you imported from 'shithole' Africa, right?
In 1872, a revolutionary society was formed un der the simple name "The Organization," which had a super-secret circle chillingly called "Hell." Though its goals have continued to be pursued for well over a century by groups which continually change their names, its existence has been unknown to the outside world.
Soviet historians have dared to write about the ac tivities of "Hell," a forerunner of the Russian Commu nist Party, only as recently as 1965, ninety-three years after its format
There wasn't some grand scheme by some cloak and dagger organization to enslave us. The truth is a lot more sobering. The policies of government reflect the philosophical zeitgeist of a culture, if people hold reason as an absolute, and the individual life as a standard of value, they discover a limited constitutional government. If they hold whim and faith as absolute and hold God or the race/collective/the environment as the moral standard, they get fascism/socialism/totalitarianism.
You treat the state as some disembodied, almost mystical entity, that holds a quivering impotent populace under its invincible thumb. The truth is government, no matter how big and how oppressive is always a government of and by the people. That is it is always an aggregate of individuals that either endorse its policies openly, or go along with it passively. Or the flee, or they revolt. There will always be evil people. But as Ayn Rand would say, evil requires the sanction of the victim.
Not to create a straw man, but I simply cannot see any other reason for this animosity toward a monopoly on the defining of and dispensing of retaliatory force as such. Even when its properly and objectively defined specifically to protect your rights. The only thing it 'deprives' you of the liberty of using force against others when ever you feel like it.
What is it that a government (voluntarily funded) whose sole purpose is to objectively define and protect individual rights, depriving you of? What is it that these so called private security forces can offer you that a single all encompassing government (within some geographical area) cannot? Options on how YOU want to define the propriety of force? To use force as YOU see fit?
@liltimy1850 Where is this voluntarily funded government you refer to, who's sole purpose is to objectively define and protect individual rights? I can't follow your statement because I don't know what group is in possession of these traits.
Well, you keep on making arguments against goverment but a perfect, good goverment is as much of a utopia as is a peaceful, nice anarchy and complete freedom?
You cant change the human nature, there will always be people who will turn against other, and abuse whatever system or situation they are at.
People will always form societies, and when they grow big enough it'll turn into a goverment. The problems only start showing up when the people lose interest on keeping the leaders in check.
@Foksuh " when they grow big enough it'll turn into a goverment."
~That is not true, once people understand governments are simply threats of aggressive violence on peaceful people, they won't have enough support. In fact, once governments are ended, they will not come back again, just like you will never seen widely accept chain slavery ever again. We continue to grow, and more and more people see the fact that violence on peaceful people is against civilization, not civilization itself.
What is the world without goverments like then? I want to know how people live and get along? How different is it from our current lives? What would change on everyday life?
And I want the big picture, not just the positive things you keep bringing up.
I know you've spent way more time thinking about this whole subject so you must see the negative things that'll follow aswell?
The positive ones must outweight them though, so why dont you tell about it? Make a vid?
@luciusETRUR I argue we have never truly seen anarchy... that the statist mindset of unethical infringement has ruled humanity from the start, and that only as humanity continues to evolve and advance will we be able to create a more voluntaryist society.
well i do admire people who can do peaceful resistance, but honestly sometimes you gotta smack the goverment in the face, dont get me wrong i consider myself a anarcho capitalist to, but i feel like peaceful protest only gets you so far
Mike - Apologies if you've answered this question before (as we're sure you have), but what is your def. of gov't.? Are you only concerned with the relatively new notion of the state, or are you speaking in broader terms? If it's the latter, since humans have always organized themselves into groups, families, tribes etc. for their own collective good, when does that collective become a government in your opinion? when it goes from being democratic to being representative?
"There is no such thing as good violence on peaceful people."
A constitutional government cannot inflict violence on peaceful people. They can only use force on people who use force against others. They have no power on economics to influence markets, so they cannot create monopolies. They're merely there to protect individual rights and the law of the land.
I think it's you that doesn't understand because you've never seen a constitutional government. We have a fascist government instead.
@jjenson2006 Obviously a constitutional government can inflict violence on peaceful people. In fact, how will it be funded without involuntary taxation?!? Technically, the Constitution does have taxation, it does have "common good" statist phrases, and it does have monopolies built inherent in it.... ALL governments are against individual Freedom/choice... Constitutional government is no different.
@mikeshanklin The "common good" phrases that you mention, such as the general welfare clause are not interpretted the way they were originally written. The Liberals like to change the meaning of these clauses to make their "point". General welfare does not mean welfare checks to individuals. It means things such as military for defense of the country; yes we do need one or we would be taken over by other nations. Income tax is unconstitutional. Tax should only be collected from sales revenue.
@jjenson2006 let me ask you this: WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION? THE CONSTITUTION IS WHAT POLITICALLY ORIENTED PEOPLE CALL A "SOCIAL CONTRACT." in short, a social contract binds us to the state, allowing it to have "justifiable" reign over us (of course "justifiable" is a bunch of bs.) by definition, a state is a geographical monopoly over a certain community. therefore, a state can NEVER be libertarian(because it is monopolistic, it can do whatever it pleases) as you ignorantly suggest.
@megaminxmaster A constitution is a legal document that limits the power of government and protects our inalienable rights. Sadly we are not following the constitution any more.
A state CANNOT do whatever it wants. It's powers are limited to what is written in the constitution.
You need to research the word Libertarian. It means "limited government", not "no government" (Anarchism) as YOU ignorantly suggested.
@jjenson2006 my goodness....where to begin. there is virtually nothing historically or philosophically accurate in this comment. it is quite humorous lol. but anyways, i will say this again: the state has unlimited power in every aspect. IT IS A MONOPOLY ON YOUR LIFE AND SOCIETY. the constitution is a piece of paper that is worthless. its purpose is to give the illusion of statist restraint, that's all. i could burn it and it wouldnt make a difference (wouldnt that be a treat :) ). CONTUINUED
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... "sadly we are not following the constitution anymore" this basically proves my point. as far as the definition of the word Libertarian goes, you have no clue as to what it means or how it came to be what it is today (in both the US and the rest of the world). let me give you some definitions and some history: Libertarian is defined as "one who advocates freedom of action and thought." CONTINUED...
@jjenson2006 the reason people consider libertarianism to mean what it does is because we live in a nation of mostly uneducated people. its not my fault that people dont read history. im sorry i use it in the correct manner.
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... it was first used in 1789 by William Belsham, but wasnt used by anarchists until the late 1850's. anarchists became the primary users of the word and are considered the original users of the word today (except in the US but i will get to that later). in the 1880's and 1890's, French anarchists started using it due to anti-anarchist laws. they started referring to themselves as "libertarian socialists" as the word "socialist" gives a positive connotation. CONTINUED...
@megaminxmaster "French anarchists started using it due to anti-anarchist laws. they started referring to themselves as "libertarian socialists" "
So they incorrectly used the word to hide the fact that they are anarchists. Similar to the modern liberals who continued to call themselves liberals even though their ideology greatly differs from classical liberals.
@jjenson2006 clearly you still dont understand what libertarianism is. the French anarchists used the word libertarian as it is defined. consider these definitions:
LIBERTARIAN:one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
these two definitions together yield: "a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... as an anarchist, i know all about anarchism as well as libertarianism. anarchism is not "no government" as you said. anarchism is LACK OF HIERARCHY. all societies have governments, even anarcho-primitivist societies. (not that you would know anything about anarchism considering you are a conservative moron LOL)
@megaminxmaster " all societies have governments, even anarcho-primitivist societies."
Which contradicts the OP's video entitled, "There is no such thing as Good Government".
You just can't help showing your arrogance, can you. LOL
I'm not conservative at all, in fact I hate conservatives even more than liberals. I'm an Ayn Rand individualist. Something you know absolutely nothing about. People resort to calling others morons when they realize they have no counter-argument. Good day!
@jjenson2006 it does contradict this video, but what is being discussed in this video is mostly nonsense (other than the fact that states possess full control over their societies). if are not aware, mikeshanklin is not an anarchist, even though he says he is (i would classify him as a Rothbardian Propertarian). i can agree that there is no such thing as "good government" but you can have a government that is totally decentralized, like in a libertarian socialist society. CONTINUED...
@jjenson2006 as far as me not knowing about objectivism, how do you know? YOU DONT. in fact, i like you was once an objectivist. when it comes to politically oriented things i do tend to get arrogant, but its only towards people like you who dont have an open mind and cant admit when they might have something wrong. i have studied politics for almost 7 years now, and i have changed philosophies 6 times. i have learned to be truly open to the possibility that i may be wrong. CONTINUED...
@jjenson2006 I think your idea of how government should work is inline with how anarchists believe DROs and PDAs should work. We can agree that the constitution did not stop us from having "a fascist government". It seems good in theory but we need to get rid of the government. But I think almost all anarchists are against chaos. It is important to note that anarchy will achieve freedom not chaos.
@rjnrf then go forth and spread anarchy....if anarchy is the way, the truth and the light then you should have no problem...you as a leader taking action should build up a gathering of followers desperate to free humanity from the tyranny of pension funds, food stamps and the department of agriculture.
@mikeshanklin hey mike I just came back from a child labor video and the top comment was about how not all work is voluntary without government because Ford paid thugs to beat up workers or something or other. How would you respond to that and what would happen in that situation. How we would avoid that without a government?
@CloverfieldMonster95 Ford paid a very high wage and there was a lot of competition for the jobs at his factory - this was the beginning of the industrial revolution that changed our world for the better - not to say that it is a perfect system. In a truly free market anyone who wanted a job, would have one - that in turn creates a more competitive market for labor, allowing workers to pick and choose their employers, thus making employers behave well and increasing wages to keep good workers.
No matter the system, there will always be petty jealousy and immoral behavior. There is no perfect system that can make all men as true equals. But when we put man over man by allowing top-down government monopoly on the use of coercive violence, we are sending a clear, albeit subconscious message to people that group violence is okay. IMO, this leads to where we are today.
If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one. -Robert LeFevre
Government is impossible to eliminate in any social organization. State and government are not the same thing. A state necessarily has borders, however a state can be lawless, and a state can change governments. Government or more precisely governance is completely unavoidable. Let's assume you have an anarchist system. Any time murder, rape, theft, etc. is committed people will fill the roles of law enforcement, executive/legislative/judicial force. That is still government.
There is no such thing as no government. A democracy is intended to keep government in check. Without such a control, you have a Despotism of the most powerful.
i am wondering, how do you propose preventing monopolies in a completely free market, with no regulation? also, to say there is no good government is to say there is no good people. basically, all government is is people and money. this is the same with businesses and homes. the only difference is how the people act and spend the money.
@RyanLaneGreenwood Monopolies are "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." That is only possible WITH government coercion/interventionism. In freedom, no person has a right to exclusive possession or control over an entire industry... there is always the threat of competition. Exclusive possession monopolies are impossible in Freedom, as anybody can compete in that industry at anytime.
@RyanLaneGreenwood It is true that governments are people, but mafias are people too... that doesn't mean that mafias can be good (or they wouldn't exist). It's the same thing for government. Government is simply a collection of control freaks... that believe they have the right to control other people. THAT is why government is bad, because its only difference between freedom is that it wants to control peaceful people AND is willing to use coercion to do so.
" that doesn't mean that mafias can be good (or they wouldn't exist). "
You advocate having protection services instead of government. The mafia offers protection services as well. How are these protection services any different than the mafia? If you don't subscribe to them, who is going to prevent them from breaking your legs?
@RyanLaneGreenwood There are already ample lectures and papers written on monopolies. There would be no monopolies unless someone was producing the best product for a price no one could compete with. Hence it would be beneficial for the consumer. The only way to have a monopoly that is bad for consumers is with government... think Federal Reserve, post office, or rating agencies. Then partial monopolies through regulation given to association. Most of the monopolies are partial or Rackets.
@djdk89 You should google Wild West myth. You will see that the Wild West actually had one of history's lowest murder rates per capita. Besides, governments have always been around, so the ideal that the decade you stated (not century, as century would be all the 1800s) was somehow government free completely is bunk. If anything it was only around the Industrial Revolution years previous that humanity started to truly break away from govts.
I think the only reason we have governments is because society needs to be structured and ordered. Not the new world order, but a set of rules everyone has to follow in order for all to be able to enjoy freedom without infringing on someone else's freedom. Our system of travel is a perfect example of this. What would the highways be like without traffic lights or stop signs? The system isn't perfect, but at least we all have a small measure of freedom.
@psxwarrior So you're saying that Freedom won't have stoplights?!?!? I mean, just listen to yourself. If I owned a road, I would have to put up stop signs and stoplights or else I risk injury claims through dispute resolution organizations... not to mention loss of customers. The nonaggression principle is the only law we need. Every aggressive infringement extends out of that.
@jjenson2006 The people/company/firm that operates that road... they would have private security guards just like millions of businesses today.... but unlike statism slavery, they would not have victimless crimes and security guards would be under strict scrutiny from DROs for aggressive behavior.
@mikeshanklin What do they do when someone goes through a stop sign or through a light or speeds? What happens when there's a hole or rock in the road and someone loses control of their vehicle, crashes into yours and you lose an arm. Where is your due process? Do you just say, "Oh well, at least I still have the other arm"? The owner of the road will say it's the fault of the two cars. The driver of the other car will say it's the hole in the road and you will say its his fault. Blind justice.
Everything in this world is liable to excess. The gov't's good is limited, it still has a good to perform. The mere fact that the state's power to punish those violate the rights of others can itself be abused doesn't mean it should not be allowed at all. That is like saying that b/c money can be used for evil, it should be outlawed for all people, or that since guns can be used in crimes, no one should be allowed to own guns.
@VictorLepanto Money is not the outright violation of Freedom... government is. Money is simply a medium of exchange and is more efficient than barter. People are free to use, or not to use money in choice/Anarchy/Freedom.
@mikeshanklin: In point of fact, people are NOT free to not engage in trade as they need to have things to live. At the very least, even the most self sufficient of us (a very small minority) would be miserable in total self reliance.
As far as the freedom to rape, rob & murder is what is being violated, such violations are a good thing. People will always commit crimes, a livable world requires some means of stopping them, that means is called the state.
That statement is full of holes. The logic of your statement is in a sentence, "Because people commit crimes, we must form a coercive geographical monopoly on committing crimes and acts of violence..."
sorry but you would have a MUCH easier time trying to justify the mafia than you do government- since they are essentially the same thing
@swu880: You will have a mafia, whether you have a state of not. What is needed is a force capable of countering violence of the mafia. The only way that people can safely go about the business of peacably creating wealth is if they are free from being constantly harrassed by gangsters. You need something that will create a monopoly of force in a region & won't use its power to abuse most peaceful civil people. That is called the state, it really is that simple.
also i should point out you are guilty of committing over a dozen logical & economic fallacies in your couple of statements. First being what is otherwise known as the diamond water fallacy
The diamond water paradox goes something like this:
in our normal day to day lives, why is water priced so low per quantity as compared to diamonds? Even though water is "essential" for life but one could go his whole life without seein a single diamond?
why? well yes in our day to day lives, relatively speaking, water is often times valued less than diamonds.
However, if you a ton of diamonds and are stranded in the middle of the Sahara with nothin to drink, just how valuable are those diamonds to you then?
See the water diamond paradox really aint a paradox- its a FALLACY. its an economic & logical fallacy neglecting the notion of marginal cost and marginal utility
NO PERSON EVER EXCHANGES CLASSES OF GOODS! u never really exchange all water for all diamonds. nor do you exchange half water for half diamond- what you exchange is margins of time & margins of space!
if u exchange 1 diamond for gallon of water, than u value that gallon of water more than that 1 diamond AT THAT VERY INSTANCE OF TIME(that is marginal time). u trade very specific instances of space-
u trade not just any diamond for any gallon of water but that very specific diamond for that very specific gallon of water.
Same thing with justice & laws & protection as with food, clothing shelter etc. Nobody EVER exchanges classes of goods. Moreoever, these so called 'essential' things are not really essential- they ARE NOT REAL!
What is "food"? What is "clothes"? I have NEVER in my entire life seen something called "food" or "clothes"- nor has anyone around me.
What i do have is MY SHIRT, MY PANTS, MY SHOES that i am wearin right now. These are all REAL goods- instances of goods not some abstract undefined class
statism is plain dead- the logic, economics, the whole INCENTIVES structure - its dead. Its got holes the size of a blackhole in it
The second fallacy u commit is 2 parts
1) the false assumption that ONLY a coercive monopoly called government could provide justice.
yes i know that is what im trying to get at. i was replying to victorleponzo who apparently is a statist and committed the fallacy of disregarding marginal cost & utility in law, justice & protection. Often times when you hear people talk of classes of goods ie. food, water, shelter, clothes- being 'essential', it is obvious that they have committed the fallacy
Marginal utility is very straightforward. No person values anything or any class constantly (well its impossible to value a 'class' since "classes" of goods dont exist in the real world). Value is determined marginally - at a very specific instance of space & time. And it is always dynamically changing. A value which doesn't change is essentially not a value
I should also point out that victorleponto by saying such classes are "essential", also committed the fallacy of confusing the REAL with the illusionary non-existing 'things'.
Justice & protection is a totally arbitrary illusionary abstract meaningless thing. Well its not even a thing. IE, what is the thing called "protection" exactly? what exactly is "justice"? & how is it possible to even value such a "thing"?
What is real is me havin my 9mm on my side & being trained in something like krav magav or wing chun etc. What is real is just how easy it is to corrupt centralized coercive power - ie the corrupt police & the corrupt judicial system.
Mike I apologize if my words aren't as eloquent right now- kinda getting late. Well btw thanks for making the video. i appreciate what you are doing :)
Moreover, statists such as victorleponzo believe in unicorns- they believe that magical omniscient & incorruptible angels descend from heaven filling each & every seat of government
1. There are varying degrees of "violence" not all of which are necessarily bad if used appropriately depending on the situation.
2. Not all "peaceful" activities are beneficial to their participants.
3. Nobody has all relevant information available to them to perform the task demanded of them which means without some sort of "official" standard which right now comes from the government, you're asking for shoddy quality products and services.
@technatezin He specified several times, "violence on peaceful people" not just all violence.
People can learn for themselves which activities are beneficial to them. I think you're talking about drugs? A blanket drug restriction for everybody is completely unnecessary. Some may find certain drugs beneficial(artists, people with cancer, etc) some may not. No need for rules.
Non-government "standards" already exist and people learn which certifications equal quality.
@hawbster "He specified several times, "violence on peaceful people" not just all violence."
The greatest harm to people comes not just only from violence, but lies, deception and witholding of vital information. I can for example harm you either intentionally or inadvertently by witholding vital information that you need.
Also, all people learn about their environment through somehow experiencing events through their 5 senses (less than 5 if you've got an impairment).
@hawbster (cont.) What does my previous statements mean when it comes to "anarchy" which some people advocate as the solution to social problems?
It means it's an unrealistic pipe dream at best and a nightmarish free-for-all selfish Hobbesian society where people use whatever means at their disposal including lies, slanders, half-truths and up to and including violence when there's a possibility of personal success using those methods.
@hawbster (cont.) Further, Nobody likes to take the blame for own failings which inevitably means in "anarchy" nobody wants to be accountable for any disasters which means 2 things:
1. nobody would likely take any risks or decisions to do anything because with no rules people might simply kill or injure you if you mess up not take you to an impartial arbiter or court or law
2. There's nobody to enforce safety standards in anything which means consumer purchases would be a dangerous adventure
@hawbster (cont.) Don't get me wrong or misunderstand me. I'm fully aware that there are very, very bad things that government can do, but getting rid of an official institution (government) that claims to be a neutral referee or arbiter to set minimum standards of human behavior, professional competence and consumer safety in favor for a "anarchic" and "free" society is asking for trouble.
There are alternatives to the present government, but anarchy is simply destructive, suicidal and stupid.
@technatezin That is the joke, that government is somehow neutral... it is a monopoly with an agenda also, so don't EVER suspect that governments are neutral. They aren't even neutral towards your freedom... unlike DROs which have an incentive to rule correctly or receive less business and take a horrible hit in the consumer reports.
@mikeshanklin I said it claims to be neutral not that it actually is. There could be governments that are outright dictatorships and discard with the pretense entirely, but that's not I'm talking about.
Also, who writes the consumer reports? Another business that has an incentive from earning (or receiving) money? The problem seems deeper than just government which can have at least some manner of popular opinion and control in simpler times. Relying on private business isn't going to solve it
Politics aside, you are horrible with rhetoric. Almost everything you say is vastly oversimplified and barely coherent. When you talk about "good" and "evil" constantly, it comes across as condescending. I honestly hope my feedback helps.
why dont you all go to some island and start your own anarchy society then? Get out of america, we have government here and thats not gonna change. But wait, you wont because you guys love complaining lol
@ventures58 Without government, we might have had the internet centuries ago... just think of all the progress it stunts through its corporate oligopolization and interventionism.
Terrance keally debunks the false presumption that 'govt funded the internet and thus --> implies there would not be ANY internet." This is a FALSE assumption. It ignores all historical context and the countless other network protocols that were simultaneously available
laws police and justice system . is one of biggest problem on earth .laws try to solve the problem after the fact ,use fear, and the are prejudice .take advantage of the poor people and the mental-ill people .they use financial loss ,mental anguish, slavery,torture and killing .when they are used on the middle class for no reason then they are bad. it OK for the poor and mental-ill people . equally enforced human rights helps all people. laws protect the real cooks cops and leader .
@snowwhite923 So what should happen to me?!? Now that I have committed treason... Who did I infringe on? What individual person's Freedoms did I infringe on?!? Where is the victim? Isn't treason also a victimless crime that should be abolished? Are you saying you want me dead?
@mikeshanklin calm down there little one. Im just saying you would have no chance at surviving if you were alive in the past. Get it right, miss 'crying wolf'
@snowwhite923 If voluntaryists/Freedom spanned the globe years ago... I would have stood a better chance. The reason it was horrible was because it was laced in even more statism than the mindsets of most people today. What have I ever cried wolf about? All I have are facts... that government is a version of slavery. What do you have to bring to the table?!?
@mikeshanklin Youre insane and have no life. Get off your mommies couch. You wouldnt have been able to survive because you would actually have to work and be a contributing member of scociety...thats what i bring to the table. But i know youll keep spewing your nonsense...so go ahead, make yourself look even more stupid then i already think you are lol
@linuxpowerification equally enforced human rights helps all people. enforced it not anarchy .it means cops who beat people would loses their jobs and get some real treatment. cops would ware cameras at all time .their bosses would have to give all orders in writing . people would get real treatment for their problems. help and treatment not punishment . punishment = torturer and fear
Sooo, you propose society without a democratic state to stand between capitalist ruling classes and the people? What exactly do think that would achieve? The capitalists would have all the power and because you don't see them as a class, but as individuals, you don't understand how that is in a sense a monopoly, or just as bad. The democratic state redistributes power, away from the material basis of power over others, accumulated capital, through democratic processes, welfare & public services.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the government is not a monoply its does not control the country its based on a voting styem your fucking retard if you belive our government is a monoply i hate poeple like you who "clam" or country is bad lol shut the fuck up you faggot
@Germany981 Government is the only institution that has the right to use threats of violence on peaceful people who simply disagree. These are facts, and although I am not a faggot, what if I was?!? What's it to you? ALL countries are against Freedom... its a fact. Go study dispute resolution and arbitration, voluntary protection services.... something.
@mikeshanklin Don't even give credence to idiot trolls, Mike. Good video (though you could upgrade your equipment) and good message. You are nothing if not consistant. Keep fighting for a better world bro (Yes I do consider you family). Tom D.
@mikeshanklin >.< your so corrupt if you honestly think all countrys are against freedom lol i think your definition of freedom is way diffrent then the real definition of freedom please define freedom to me
@Germany981 Gee, Germ, you're a real good representative for the kind of genius who believes in the State. Thanks for your cogent arguments.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." ~ Josef Stalin
@Germany981 fucking retard .... money buys vote vs people give lead nothing but their worship = fool when you hate ,it your hate you think any one can feel what in side you . or care that you hate . love help you and other people .hate will eat you up .all you will see is hate and everything will give you a reason to hate . it leads to emptiness.
Do not blame the truck when the driver runs it off the road. Isn't the real problem how crap normal people are at dealing with the far too prevalent groups of psychopaths spreading their sickness further?
@mikeshanklin sadly, proud of it, flag waving ones at that. Not surprising when the the mechanisms that our worlds are driven by are designed by the deseased to spread their deseases further.
no such as a good gov. really did u just figured that out there was never a good government thats why i say fuck the government that means politicians and police
The idea that good government exists is a laughable theory. Oh if only my favorite psychopath was in power there would be real change. "Good" government is a comedy of errors at best.
What violence? You guys sound crazy when you say this crap. Our gov is totally neutered and can barely mace a protestor without getting the third-degree. What they do to other countries is a different story. If you want the wars to end or a change in policy then you must do a sit-down strike to scare the elite. If you want "no gov" (of this current variety) then you must setup alternative institutions. Destroying gov without any thought behind it will lead to chaos and misery.
tstruss912 4 weeks ago
the question becomes what does humankind melt down to without government? I mean the celts didn't know the native american and the eskimo's didn't know the vikings probably. So.. what's the form of government that seems to have always worked? Tribal. period. that's the reason we all did it for thousands of years and the people actually got cared for, women were respected and had laws that ruled over certain areas of men..and men were respected in their tent/home. you didn't have marital affairs.
snowfallzz 1 month ago
@snowfallzz If you were handicapped or old..you got cared for. Don't give me the old man or child left in the snow BS. Some tribes did that ya bust most of them no. not true. If you were able to work..you fucking worked..and no man was better than another, or "usury" to rob someone of their shit. it was fair trade. Recently, the Arabs have started doing free-trade again under the old law in the Middle East.. the U.S. finds the markets and raids them.
snowfallzz 1 month ago
You may want to try and pull your head out of your ass and educate yourself hysterical fool
pneumatictrousers 2 months ago
Yawn, the same simpleminded mimicked drivel once again.
pneumatictrousers 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You know what stops bad people with weapons? Good people with more/better weapons. With the one exception of protecting us from other countries, i cant really think of something positive a government should do. Having said that, i cant see how anarchy can protect a state from a rival state...
QCprepper 3 months ago
Comment removed
QCprepper 3 months ago
What's to stop a group within an anarchist society from acquiring power?
IntenseSapience 3 months ago
@IntenseSapience What's to stop them, other than the tens of millions of people who don't want to have their property taken from them? Those people, who are armed with who-knows-what? Do you think they would just allow a group to claim their property and then abide by its rules without putting up any kind of fight?
jeffsandychelsea 3 months ago in playlist More videos from mikeshanklin
@jeffsandychelsea Whether one puts up a fight or not is moot if a group has the ability to project their will. Like it or not, there will ALWAYS be a government entity, official or de facto. Anarchy is just a power vacuum.
IntenseSapience 3 months ago
@IntenseSapience Like it or not, there will ALWAYS be slavery, official or de facto. Freedom is just a power vacuum.
jeffsandychelsea 3 months ago
So, what's your alternative to government, if it's always bad? Anarchy, like in Somalia, is obviously working so much better for their citizens than government over here. I don't see how a larger proportion of the American population isn't better off than they would be in an ungoverned, lawless society.
dhicks3 3 months ago
@dhicks3 Somalia is not anarchy, they just escaped 50+ years of communism... Not only that, they have the UN, the WTO, NATO,... not to mention their "transitional federal government". The little bit of Freedom that might have come out of Somalia was through Xe'er law. Unfortunately, too many people still believe in statism slavery (violence on peaceful people)... and governments still rule the world... for now. The alternative is DROs, dispute resolution organizations.... through choice.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin I just want government to make laws, take care of pensioners, give people healthcare/benefits..etc
I dont believe in "good government" or "bad government"...and I think you are a jackass
LandlessPeasantFuck 3 months ago
@LandlessPeasantFuck You believe in myths,... you want this violent monopoly to do all those "good things", which means you are not realistic. Why am I a jackass for pointing out facts?
mikeshanklin 2 months ago
@mikeshanklin so if I want governemnt to provide ,for example, pensions. By your logic, governments are being "violent"??
clearly you are lacking in the logic and braincell department.
And I believe in "myths"..what "myths" would those be?..the myths that government have been around to set laws and provide services?
LandlessPeasantFuck 2 months ago
@mikeshanklin 7:20...are you seriously comparing having government to rape and murder?
"and we have to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as good violence on peaceful people, and that is all that government truly is"
I dont think thats a real sentence. It doesnt make sense. Its a disjointed sentence and teh subject of the first part of the sentence does not relate to the second part about government.
cont
LandlessPeasantFuck 2 months ago
@mikeshanklin you need to learn how to construct proper arguments..seriously!!!
I think you might be mentally retarded...im sorry..I feel really sorry for you but obviously the chemtrails or the fluoride in water has given you braindamage or something....i fucking hate the bastards who have braindamaged you..please see a doctor.
LandlessPeasantFuck 2 months ago
@LandlessPeasantFuck How can you in the same breath of telling someone to construct a good argument, do you call them "mentally retarded" and "fucking hate bastards"?
luciusETRUR 2 months ago
@luciusETRUR I just fucking hate retards.
LandlessPeasantFuck 2 months ago
@dhicks3 Somalia was the worst third world shithole on the planet at the time Barre was ousted from power. If you want to compare the conditions in post-Barre Somalia to conditions in another country, without engaging in blatant intellectual dishonesty, try comparing it to another third world shithole in the same region, not the wealthiest first world country on the planet.
Libertarian333 3 months ago
@Libertarian333 Wow, you don't really sould like someone it would be possible to have an 'intellectual' discussion with anyways, even if one could even be had over Youtube comments. In any case, the US in terms of GDP per capita, isn't the wealthiest country in the world at all. It's behind many of these apparently terribly misguided high-tax, pro-government services countries in, gasp, socialist Europe! It's probably just the fault of those citizens you imported from 'shithole' Africa, right?
dhicks3 3 months ago
In 1872, a revolutionary society was formed un der the simple name "The Organization," which had a super-secret circle chillingly called "Hell." Though its goals have continued to be pursued for well over a century by groups which continually change their names, its existence has been unknown to the outside world.
Soviet historians have dared to write about the ac tivities of "Hell," a forerunner of the Russian Commu nist Party, only as recently as 1965, ninety-three years after its format
qlevert 3 months ago
Mystification is the best, almost the only means to impel men to make a revolution.
It is enough to kill a few million people and the wheels of revolution will be oiled.
Our ideal is awful, complete, universal, and pitiless destruc tion.
qlevert 3 months ago
There wasn't some grand scheme by some cloak and dagger organization to enslave us. The truth is a lot more sobering. The policies of government reflect the philosophical zeitgeist of a culture, if people hold reason as an absolute, and the individual life as a standard of value, they discover a limited constitutional government. If they hold whim and faith as absolute and hold God or the race/collective/the environment as the moral standard, they get fascism/socialism/totalitarianism.
liltimy1850 3 months ago
You treat the state as some disembodied, almost mystical entity, that holds a quivering impotent populace under its invincible thumb. The truth is government, no matter how big and how oppressive is always a government of and by the people. That is it is always an aggregate of individuals that either endorse its policies openly, or go along with it passively. Or the flee, or they revolt. There will always be evil people. But as Ayn Rand would say, evil requires the sanction of the victim.
liltimy1850 3 months ago
Not to create a straw man, but I simply cannot see any other reason for this animosity toward a monopoly on the defining of and dispensing of retaliatory force as such. Even when its properly and objectively defined specifically to protect your rights. The only thing it 'deprives' you of the liberty of using force against others when ever you feel like it.
liltimy1850 3 months ago
What is it that a government (voluntarily funded) whose sole purpose is to objectively define and protect individual rights, depriving you of? What is it that these so called private security forces can offer you that a single all encompassing government (within some geographical area) cannot? Options on how YOU want to define the propriety of force? To use force as YOU see fit?
liltimy1850 3 months ago
@liltimy1850 Where is this voluntarily funded government you refer to, who's sole purpose is to objectively define and protect individual rights? I can't follow your statement because I don't know what group is in possession of these traits.
MrPisster 3 months ago
Well, you keep on making arguments against goverment but a perfect, good goverment is as much of a utopia as is a peaceful, nice anarchy and complete freedom?
You cant change the human nature, there will always be people who will turn against other, and abuse whatever system or situation they are at.
People will always form societies, and when they grow big enough it'll turn into a goverment. The problems only start showing up when the people lose interest on keeping the leaders in check.
Foksuh 3 months ago
@Foksuh " when they grow big enough it'll turn into a goverment."
~That is not true, once people understand governments are simply threats of aggressive violence on peaceful people, they won't have enough support. In fact, once governments are ended, they will not come back again, just like you will never seen widely accept chain slavery ever again. We continue to grow, and more and more people see the fact that violence on peaceful people is against civilization, not civilization itself.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin
What is the world without goverments like then? I want to know how people live and get along? How different is it from our current lives? What would change on everyday life?
And I want the big picture, not just the positive things you keep bringing up.
I know you've spent way more time thinking about this whole subject so you must see the negative things that'll follow aswell?
The positive ones must outweight them though, so why dont you tell about it? Make a vid?
Foksuh 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin Why did anarchy die in the first place, then?
luciusETRUR 3 months ago
@luciusETRUR I argue we have never truly seen anarchy... that the statist mindset of unethical infringement has ruled humanity from the start, and that only as humanity continues to evolve and advance will we be able to create a more voluntaryist society.
mikeshanklin 2 months ago
well i do admire people who can do peaceful resistance, but honestly sometimes you gotta smack the goverment in the face, dont get me wrong i consider myself a anarcho capitalist to, but i feel like peaceful protest only gets you so far
thomas242007 3 months ago
Mike - Apologies if you've answered this question before (as we're sure you have), but what is your def. of gov't.? Are you only concerned with the relatively new notion of the state, or are you speaking in broader terms? If it's the latter, since humans have always organized themselves into groups, families, tribes etc. for their own collective good, when does that collective become a government in your opinion? when it goes from being democratic to being representative?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@ostralopithicus ok i see. It goes right back to our responsibility and self government. gotcha. thanks for the response.
CloverfieldMonster95 3 months ago
"There is no such thing as good violence on peaceful people."
A constitutional government cannot inflict violence on peaceful people. They can only use force on people who use force against others. They have no power on economics to influence markets, so they cannot create monopolies. They're merely there to protect individual rights and the law of the land.
I think it's you that doesn't understand because you've never seen a constitutional government. We have a fascist government instead.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 Obviously a constitutional government can inflict violence on peaceful people. In fact, how will it be funded without involuntary taxation?!? Technically, the Constitution does have taxation, it does have "common good" statist phrases, and it does have monopolies built inherent in it.... ALL governments are against individual Freedom/choice... Constitutional government is no different.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago 2
@mikeshanklin The "common good" phrases that you mention, such as the general welfare clause are not interpretted the way they were originally written. The Liberals like to change the meaning of these clauses to make their "point". General welfare does not mean welfare checks to individuals. It means things such as military for defense of the country; yes we do need one or we would be taken over by other nations. Income tax is unconstitutional. Tax should only be collected from sales revenue.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 let me ask you this: WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION? THE CONSTITUTION IS WHAT POLITICALLY ORIENTED PEOPLE CALL A "SOCIAL CONTRACT." in short, a social contract binds us to the state, allowing it to have "justifiable" reign over us (of course "justifiable" is a bunch of bs.) by definition, a state is a geographical monopoly over a certain community. therefore, a state can NEVER be libertarian(because it is monopolistic, it can do whatever it pleases) as you ignorantly suggest.
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@megaminxmaster A constitution is a legal document that limits the power of government and protects our inalienable rights. Sadly we are not following the constitution any more.
A state CANNOT do whatever it wants. It's powers are limited to what is written in the constitution.
You need to research the word Libertarian. It means "limited government", not "no government" (Anarchism) as YOU ignorantly suggested.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 my goodness....where to begin. there is virtually nothing historically or philosophically accurate in this comment. it is quite humorous lol. but anyways, i will say this again: the state has unlimited power in every aspect. IT IS A MONOPOLY ON YOUR LIFE AND SOCIETY. the constitution is a piece of paper that is worthless. its purpose is to give the illusion of statist restraint, that's all. i could burn it and it wouldnt make a difference (wouldnt that be a treat :) ). CONTUINUED
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@megaminxmaster Everything I mentioned is accurate. You just have no counter-argument for it.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... "sadly we are not following the constitution anymore" this basically proves my point. as far as the definition of the word Libertarian goes, you have no clue as to what it means or how it came to be what it is today (in both the US and the rest of the world). let me give you some definitions and some history: Libertarian is defined as "one who advocates freedom of action and thought." CONTINUED...
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@megaminxmaster Here in America a Libertarian is defined as an individual who is for limited government. Any other definition is moot.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 the reason people consider libertarianism to mean what it does is because we live in a nation of mostly uneducated people. its not my fault that people dont read history. im sorry i use it in the correct manner.
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... it was first used in 1789 by William Belsham, but wasnt used by anarchists until the late 1850's. anarchists became the primary users of the word and are considered the original users of the word today (except in the US but i will get to that later). in the 1880's and 1890's, French anarchists started using it due to anti-anarchist laws. they started referring to themselves as "libertarian socialists" as the word "socialist" gives a positive connotation. CONTINUED...
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@megaminxmaster "French anarchists started using it due to anti-anarchist laws. they started referring to themselves as "libertarian socialists" "
So they incorrectly used the word to hide the fact that they are anarchists. Similar to the modern liberals who continued to call themselves liberals even though their ideology greatly differs from classical liberals.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 clearly you still dont understand what libertarianism is. the French anarchists used the word libertarian as it is defined. consider these definitions:
LIBERTARIAN:one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
CONTINUED...
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED...
these two definitions together yield: "a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... as an anarchist, i know all about anarchism as well as libertarianism. anarchism is not "no government" as you said. anarchism is LACK OF HIERARCHY. all societies have governments, even anarcho-primitivist societies. (not that you would know anything about anarchism considering you are a conservative moron LOL)
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@megaminxmaster " all societies have governments, even anarcho-primitivist societies."
Which contradicts the OP's video entitled, "There is no such thing as Good Government".
You just can't help showing your arrogance, can you. LOL
I'm not conservative at all, in fact I hate conservatives even more than liberals. I'm an Ayn Rand individualist. Something you know absolutely nothing about. People resort to calling others morons when they realize they have no counter-argument. Good day!
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 it does contradict this video, but what is being discussed in this video is mostly nonsense (other than the fact that states possess full control over their societies). if are not aware, mikeshanklin is not an anarchist, even though he says he is (i would classify him as a Rothbardian Propertarian). i can agree that there is no such thing as "good government" but you can have a government that is totally decentralized, like in a libertarian socialist society. CONTINUED...
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 as far as me not knowing about objectivism, how do you know? YOU DONT. in fact, i like you was once an objectivist. when it comes to politically oriented things i do tend to get arrogant, but its only towards people like you who dont have an open mind and cant admit when they might have something wrong. i have studied politics for almost 7 years now, and i have changed philosophies 6 times. i have learned to be truly open to the possibility that i may be wrong. CONTINUED...
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 CONTINUED... as for me having "no counter-argument," let me ask you this: HAVE I NOT BEEN DISCUSSING THIS WITH YOU THIS WHOLE TIME?
megaminxmaster 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 I think your idea of how government should work is inline with how anarchists believe DROs and PDAs should work. We can agree that the constitution did not stop us from having "a fascist government". It seems good in theory but we need to get rid of the government. But I think almost all anarchists are against chaos. It is important to note that anarchy will achieve freedom not chaos.
rjnrf 3 months ago
@rjnrf then go forth and spread anarchy....if anarchy is the way, the truth and the light then you should have no problem...you as a leader taking action should build up a gathering of followers desperate to free humanity from the tyranny of pension funds, food stamps and the department of agriculture.
"DOWN WITH MEDICARE"
RETARD!!
LandlessPeasantFuck 2 months ago
@LandlessPeasantFuck Sure.
rjnrf 2 months ago
@mikeshanklin hey mike I just came back from a child labor video and the top comment was about how not all work is voluntary without government because Ford paid thugs to beat up workers or something or other. How would you respond to that and what would happen in that situation. How we would avoid that without a government?
CloverfieldMonster95 3 months ago
@CloverfieldMonster95 Ford paid a very high wage and there was a lot of competition for the jobs at his factory - this was the beginning of the industrial revolution that changed our world for the better - not to say that it is a perfect system. In a truly free market anyone who wanted a job, would have one - that in turn creates a more competitive market for labor, allowing workers to pick and choose their employers, thus making employers behave well and increasing wages to keep good workers.
ostralopithicus 3 months ago
No matter the system, there will always be petty jealousy and immoral behavior. There is no perfect system that can make all men as true equals. But when we put man over man by allowing top-down government monopoly on the use of coercive violence, we are sending a clear, albeit subconscious message to people that group violence is okay. IMO, this leads to where we are today.
If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one. -Robert LeFevre
ostralopithicus 3 months ago
Let's play a drinking game! Take a drink every time he says "peaceful people".
renoo27 3 months ago
Government is impossible to eliminate in any social organization. State and government are not the same thing. A state necessarily has borders, however a state can be lawless, and a state can change governments. Government or more precisely governance is completely unavoidable. Let's assume you have an anarchist system. Any time murder, rape, theft, etc. is committed people will fill the roles of law enforcement, executive/legislative/judicial force. That is still government.
promontorium 3 months ago
Government is not reason, cooperation or free association. It is force, theft and destruction.
carcabe 3 months ago 2
There is no such thing as no government. A democracy is intended to keep government in check. Without such a control, you have a Despotism of the most powerful.
BusterXXXL 3 months ago
Aside religion, statism is an absurd irrational belief plaguing society.
chuska8383 3 months ago
i am wondering, how do you propose preventing monopolies in a completely free market, with no regulation? also, to say there is no good government is to say there is no good people. basically, all government is is people and money. this is the same with businesses and homes. the only difference is how the people act and spend the money.
RyanLaneGreenwood 3 months ago
@RyanLaneGreenwood Monopolies are "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." That is only possible WITH government coercion/interventionism. In freedom, no person has a right to exclusive possession or control over an entire industry... there is always the threat of competition. Exclusive possession monopolies are impossible in Freedom, as anybody can compete in that industry at anytime.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@RyanLaneGreenwood It is true that governments are people, but mafias are people too... that doesn't mean that mafias can be good (or they wouldn't exist). It's the same thing for government. Government is simply a collection of control freaks... that believe they have the right to control other people. THAT is why government is bad, because its only difference between freedom is that it wants to control peaceful people AND is willing to use coercion to do so.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikeshanklin
" that doesn't mean that mafias can be good (or they wouldn't exist). "
You advocate having protection services instead of government. The mafia offers protection services as well. How are these protection services any different than the mafia? If you don't subscribe to them, who is going to prevent them from breaking your legs?
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@RyanLaneGreenwood There are already ample lectures and papers written on monopolies. There would be no monopolies unless someone was producing the best product for a price no one could compete with. Hence it would be beneficial for the consumer. The only way to have a monopoly that is bad for consumers is with government... think Federal Reserve, post office, or rating agencies. Then partial monopolies through regulation given to association. Most of the monopolies are partial or Rackets.
theoriginalanomaly 3 months ago
@RyanLaneGreenwood
Competition and Monopoly | Dr. Benjamin Rogge -- highly recommend for understanding monopoly in free markets. v=APr6exqcHgE
ostralopithicus 3 months ago
Good stuff Mike. Keep making videos.
BadQuakerDotCom 3 months ago
Who are these idiots who hang out on this channel and yet don't understand the non-aggression principle????
There are millions of other channels they could be at.
nanciqwerty 3 months ago
Without government we still be in the wild 1890 century.
djdk89 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djdk89 "Without government we still be in the wild 1890 century."
WTF ?
It wasn't government employees who created all the technology that has improved our lives immeasurably since the 1700s.
But it was them who enabled the continual theft of wealth from us via the fake currency of central banking.
nanciqwerty 3 months ago
@djdk89 You should google Wild West myth. You will see that the Wild West actually had one of history's lowest murder rates per capita. Besides, governments have always been around, so the ideal that the decade you stated (not century, as century would be all the 1800s) was somehow government free completely is bunk. If anything it was only around the Industrial Revolution years previous that humanity started to truly break away from govts.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
I think the only reason we have governments is because society needs to be structured and ordered. Not the new world order, but a set of rules everyone has to follow in order for all to be able to enjoy freedom without infringing on someone else's freedom. Our system of travel is a perfect example of this. What would the highways be like without traffic lights or stop signs? The system isn't perfect, but at least we all have a small measure of freedom.
psxwarrior 3 months ago
@psxwarrior So you're saying that Freedom won't have stoplights?!?!? I mean, just listen to yourself. If I owned a road, I would have to put up stop signs and stoplights or else I risk injury claims through dispute resolution organizations... not to mention loss of customers. The nonaggression principle is the only law we need. Every aggressive infringement extends out of that.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin "I would have to put up stop signs and stoplights or else I risk injury claims through dispute resolution organizations"
Who is going to stop people from driving through red lights, stop signs and speeding?
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 The people/company/firm that operates that road... they would have private security guards just like millions of businesses today.... but unlike statism slavery, they would not have victimless crimes and security guards would be under strict scrutiny from DROs for aggressive behavior.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin What do they do when someone goes through a stop sign or through a light or speeds? What happens when there's a hole or rock in the road and someone loses control of their vehicle, crashes into yours and you lose an arm. Where is your due process? Do you just say, "Oh well, at least I still have the other arm"? The owner of the road will say it's the fault of the two cars. The driver of the other car will say it's the hole in the road and you will say its his fault. Blind justice.
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin Well, I appreciate your response, and you make a good point.
psxwarrior 3 months ago
you make a lot of sense,mike.
katkal3 3 months ago
Everything in this world is liable to excess. The gov't's good is limited, it still has a good to perform. The mere fact that the state's power to punish those violate the rights of others can itself be abused doesn't mean it should not be allowed at all. That is like saying that b/c money can be used for evil, it should be outlawed for all people, or that since guns can be used in crimes, no one should be allowed to own guns.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Money is not the outright violation of Freedom... government is. Money is simply a medium of exchange and is more efficient than barter. People are free to use, or not to use money in choice/Anarchy/Freedom.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin: In point of fact, people are NOT free to not engage in trade as they need to have things to live. At the very least, even the most self sufficient of us (a very small minority) would be miserable in total self reliance.
As far as the freedom to rape, rob & murder is what is being violated, such violations are a good thing. People will always commit crimes, a livable world requires some means of stopping them, that means is called the state.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto
That statement is full of holes. The logic of your statement is in a sentence, "Because people commit crimes, we must form a coercive geographical monopoly on committing crimes and acts of violence..."
sorry but you would have a MUCH easier time trying to justify the mafia than you do government- since they are essentially the same thing
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
The mafia will protect you, its got guns and good intentions, so nothing will or could ever go wrong with that right??? lol
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880: You will have a mafia, whether you have a state of not. What is needed is a force capable of countering violence of the mafia. The only way that people can safely go about the business of peacably creating wealth is if they are free from being constantly harrassed by gangsters. You need something that will create a monopoly of force in a region & won't use its power to abuse most peaceful civil people. That is called the state, it really is that simple.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto
also i should point out you are guilty of committing over a dozen logical & economic fallacies in your couple of statements. First being what is otherwise known as the diamond water fallacy
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
The diamond water paradox goes something like this:
in our normal day to day lives, why is water priced so low per quantity as compared to diamonds? Even though water is "essential" for life but one could go his whole life without seein a single diamond?
why? well yes in our day to day lives, relatively speaking, water is often times valued less than diamonds.
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
However, if you a ton of diamonds and are stranded in the middle of the Sahara with nothin to drink, just how valuable are those diamonds to you then?
See the water diamond paradox really aint a paradox- its a FALLACY. its an economic & logical fallacy neglecting the notion of marginal cost and marginal utility
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
NO PERSON EVER EXCHANGES CLASSES OF GOODS! u never really exchange all water for all diamonds. nor do you exchange half water for half diamond- what you exchange is margins of time & margins of space!
if u exchange 1 diamond for gallon of water, than u value that gallon of water more than that 1 diamond AT THAT VERY INSTANCE OF TIME(that is marginal time). u trade very specific instances of space-
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
u trade not just any diamond for any gallon of water but that very specific diamond for that very specific gallon of water.
Same thing with justice & laws & protection as with food, clothing shelter etc. Nobody EVER exchanges classes of goods. Moreoever, these so called 'essential' things are not really essential- they ARE NOT REAL!
What is "food"? What is "clothes"? I have NEVER in my entire life seen something called "food" or "clothes"- nor has anyone around me.
swu880 3 months ago
Comment removed
swu880 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What i do have is MY SHIRT, MY PANTS, MY SHOES that i am wearin right now. These are all REAL goods- instances of goods not some abstract undefined class
statism is plain dead- the logic, economics, the whole INCENTIVES structure - its dead. Its got holes the size of a blackhole in it
The second fallacy u commit is 2 parts
1) the false assumption that ONLY a coercive monopoly called government could provide justice.
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
2) Government actions are righteous & justly - almost angelic & incorruptible
Any person with more than 2 brain cells can easily puncture these fallacies.
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880 No voluntaryist I know has ever said that the value of a good is constant... subjectivity can be rapid, and marginal utility changes with it.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin
yes i know that is what im trying to get at. i was replying to victorleponzo who apparently is a statist and committed the fallacy of disregarding marginal cost & utility in law, justice & protection. Often times when you hear people talk of classes of goods ie. food, water, shelter, clothes- being 'essential', it is obvious that they have committed the fallacy
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
Marginal utility is very straightforward. No person values anything or any class constantly (well its impossible to value a 'class' since "classes" of goods dont exist in the real world). Value is determined marginally - at a very specific instance of space & time. And it is always dynamically changing. A value which doesn't change is essentially not a value
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
I should also point out that victorleponto by saying such classes are "essential", also committed the fallacy of confusing the REAL with the illusionary non-existing 'things'.
Justice & protection is a totally arbitrary illusionary abstract meaningless thing. Well its not even a thing. IE, what is the thing called "protection" exactly? what exactly is "justice"? & how is it possible to even value such a "thing"?
you can't! cuz justice & protection ain't real.
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
What is real is me havin my 9mm on my side & being trained in something like krav magav or wing chun etc. What is real is just how easy it is to corrupt centralized coercive power - ie the corrupt police & the corrupt judicial system.
Mike I apologize if my words aren't as eloquent right now- kinda getting late. Well btw thanks for making the video. i appreciate what you are doing :)
swu880 3 months ago
Moreover, statists such as victorleponzo believe in unicorns- they believe that magical omniscient & incorruptible angels descend from heaven filling each & every seat of government
But this is not real at all.
swu880 3 months ago
@ventures58 just because the government created the internet and killed ur mom, makes it ok?
sniped101 3 months ago
Comment removed
DaveEZ2009 3 months ago
why does this cock sucker keep popping up on my main page?
joeratti 3 months ago
Several things wrong with this:
1. There are varying degrees of "violence" not all of which are necessarily bad if used appropriately depending on the situation.
2. Not all "peaceful" activities are beneficial to their participants.
3. Nobody has all relevant information available to them to perform the task demanded of them which means without some sort of "official" standard which right now comes from the government, you're asking for shoddy quality products and services.
technatezin 3 months ago
@technatezin He specified several times, "violence on peaceful people" not just all violence.
People can learn for themselves which activities are beneficial to them. I think you're talking about drugs? A blanket drug restriction for everybody is completely unnecessary. Some may find certain drugs beneficial(artists, people with cancer, etc) some may not. No need for rules.
Non-government "standards" already exist and people learn which certifications equal quality.
hawbster 3 months ago
@hawbster "He specified several times, "violence on peaceful people" not just all violence."
The greatest harm to people comes not just only from violence, but lies, deception and witholding of vital information. I can for example harm you either intentionally or inadvertently by witholding vital information that you need.
Also, all people learn about their environment through somehow experiencing events through their 5 senses (less than 5 if you've got an impairment).
technatezin 3 months ago
@hawbster (cont.) What does my previous statements mean when it comes to "anarchy" which some people advocate as the solution to social problems?
It means it's an unrealistic pipe dream at best and a nightmarish free-for-all selfish Hobbesian society where people use whatever means at their disposal including lies, slanders, half-truths and up to and including violence when there's a possibility of personal success using those methods.
technatezin 3 months ago
@hawbster (cont.) Further, Nobody likes to take the blame for own failings which inevitably means in "anarchy" nobody wants to be accountable for any disasters which means 2 things:
1. nobody would likely take any risks or decisions to do anything because with no rules people might simply kill or injure you if you mess up not take you to an impartial arbiter or court or law
2. There's nobody to enforce safety standards in anything which means consumer purchases would be a dangerous adventure
technatezin 3 months ago
@hawbster (cont.) Don't get me wrong or misunderstand me. I'm fully aware that there are very, very bad things that government can do, but getting rid of an official institution (government) that claims to be a neutral referee or arbiter to set minimum standards of human behavior, professional competence and consumer safety in favor for a "anarchic" and "free" society is asking for trouble.
There are alternatives to the present government, but anarchy is simply destructive, suicidal and stupid.
technatezin 3 months ago
@technatezin That is the joke, that government is somehow neutral... it is a monopoly with an agenda also, so don't EVER suspect that governments are neutral. They aren't even neutral towards your freedom... unlike DROs which have an incentive to rule correctly or receive less business and take a horrible hit in the consumer reports.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin I said it claims to be neutral not that it actually is. There could be governments that are outright dictatorships and discard with the pretense entirely, but that's not I'm talking about.
Also, who writes the consumer reports? Another business that has an incentive from earning (or receiving) money? The problem seems deeper than just government which can have at least some manner of popular opinion and control in simpler times. Relying on private business isn't going to solve it
technatezin 3 months ago
If any individual does what a government does to the people around him he's labelled as a liar and a thief..
andrewh817 3 months ago
@ventures58 The government didn't invent the internet. The people who invented the internet were state funded.
andrewh817 3 months ago
You sound like JEff Goldblum in the movie the FLY,
Amyls64 3 months ago
Politics aside, you are horrible with rhetoric. Almost everything you say is vastly oversimplified and barely coherent. When you talk about "good" and "evil" constantly, it comes across as condescending. I honestly hope my feedback helps.
funkadelica 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why dont you all go to some island and start your own anarchy society then? Get out of america, we have government here and thats not gonna change. But wait, you wont because you guys love complaining lol
snowwhite923 3 months ago
@ventures58 Without government, we might have had the internet centuries ago... just think of all the progress it stunts through its corporate oligopolization and interventionism.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago 10
@mikeshanklin @ventures58
/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4
/watch?v=tbR4cjA-Few
Terrance keally debunks the false presumption that 'govt funded the internet and thus --> implies there would not be ANY internet." This is a FALSE assumption. It ignores all historical context and the countless other network protocols that were simultaneously available
swu880 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin HURR DURR, WITHOUT GUVMINT WE WON'T HAVE ROADS!! WHO WILL BUILD ROADS??
Tsicar 3 months ago
@Tsicar watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWM
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin Hey, I'm in agreement with you! Couldn't you tell I was just being satirical with that comment?
Tsicar 3 months ago
@Tsicar lol, sorry, I see lots of comments like this that aren't sarcasm. Sarcasm can be hard to get through text sometimes. Peace and Freedom
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin Yeah — especially when you're dealing with hardcore statheists. Kinda like Poe's law, eh?
Tsicar 3 months ago
@Tsicar So many types of statists... :/ haha
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
laws police and justice system . is one of biggest problem on earth .laws try to solve the problem after the fact ,use fear, and the are prejudice .take advantage of the poor people and the mental-ill people .they use financial loss ,mental anguish, slavery,torture and killing .when they are used on the middle class for no reason then they are bad. it OK for the poor and mental-ill people . equally enforced human rights helps all people. laws protect the real cooks cops and leader .
greenearthnazi20204u 3 months ago
treason...the times now are too 'idiot proof'.
snowwhite923 3 months ago
@snowwhite923 So what should happen to me?!? Now that I have committed treason... Who did I infringe on? What individual person's Freedoms did I infringe on?!? Where is the victim? Isn't treason also a victimless crime that should be abolished? Are you saying you want me dead?
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin calm down there little one. Im just saying you would have no chance at surviving if you were alive in the past. Get it right, miss 'crying wolf'
snowwhite923 3 months ago
@snowwhite923 If voluntaryists/Freedom spanned the globe years ago... I would have stood a better chance. The reason it was horrible was because it was laced in even more statism than the mindsets of most people today. What have I ever cried wolf about? All I have are facts... that government is a version of slavery. What do you have to bring to the table?!?
mikeshanklin 3 months ago 7
@mikeshanklin Youre insane and have no life. Get off your mommies couch. You wouldnt have been able to survive because you would actually have to work and be a contributing member of scociety...thats what i bring to the table. But i know youll keep spewing your nonsense...so go ahead, make yourself look even more stupid then i already think you are lol
snowwhite923 3 months ago
@snowwhite923 All I see in you is a man/woman with great insecurity.
MrDefiance000 3 months ago
anarchy doesnt work,just like socialism
linuxpowerification 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@linuxpowerification equally enforced human rights helps all people. enforced it not anarchy .it means cops who beat people would loses their jobs and get some real treatment. cops would ware cameras at all time .their bosses would have to give all orders in writing . people would get real treatment for their problems. help and treatment not punishment . punishment = torturer and fear
greenearthnazi20204u 3 months ago
@linuxpowerification Socialism is unethical, anarchy IS.... and anarchy will come to the world years down the road.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@linuxpowerification "anarchy doesnt work,just like socialism"
Define your terms.
technatezin 3 months ago
They are scared to it would ruin ALL of their view on America.
JustABitchyCancer 3 months ago
Sooo, you propose society without a democratic state to stand between capitalist ruling classes and the people? What exactly do think that would achieve? The capitalists would have all the power and because you don't see them as a class, but as individuals, you don't understand how that is in a sense a monopoly, or just as bad. The democratic state redistributes power, away from the material basis of power over others, accumulated capital, through democratic processes, welfare & public services.
Tuathalful 3 months ago
My beliefs are a bit different, but I do appreciate how you logically present your ideas. Well done, my friend, well done.
Like Aristotle said, "it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it."
EverybodyLovesRamos 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the government is not a monoply its does not control the country its based on a voting styem your fucking retard if you belive our government is a monoply i hate poeple like you who "clam" or country is bad lol shut the fuck up you faggot
Germany981 3 months ago
@Germany981 Government is the only institution that has the right to use threats of violence on peaceful people who simply disagree. These are facts, and although I am not a faggot, what if I was?!? What's it to you? ALL countries are against Freedom... its a fact. Go study dispute resolution and arbitration, voluntary protection services.... something.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin Don't even give credence to idiot trolls, Mike. Good video (though you could upgrade your equipment) and good message. You are nothing if not consistant. Keep fighting for a better world bro (Yes I do consider you family). Tom D.
canubelieve 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin >.< your so corrupt if you honestly think all countrys are against freedom lol i think your definition of freedom is way diffrent then the real definition of freedom please define freedom to me
Germany981 3 months ago
@Germany981 I lived in Germany, you don't think that Government doesn't tell You how and where and what You can and can not do?
Try to fix a roof and not pay the Union company that owns the rights to fix roof's in that city or district.
Just like the Mafia, You pay for Protection or the Protectors will come and Protect everyone else from You.
Your Comment is ignorant and nieve, I expect more from You. For God Sake, you are German, Act like it and Know the facts before You Speak.
americanbandwidth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@americanbandwidth dud shut up seriously i could care less what you had to say
Germany981 3 months ago
@Germany981 Gee, Germ, you're a real good representative for the kind of genius who believes in the State. Thanks for your cogent arguments.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." ~ Josef Stalin
KaptKan1 3 months ago
@Germany981 fucking retard .... money buys vote vs people give lead nothing but their worship = fool when you hate ,it your hate you think any one can feel what in side you . or care that you hate . love help you and other people .hate will eat you up .all you will see is hate and everything will give you a reason to hate . it leads to emptiness.
greenearthnazi20204u 3 months ago
@greenearthnazi20204u try talking to me when you can speak proper grammar, couldn't read a damn thing you just said
Germany981 3 months ago
Do not blame the truck when the driver runs it off the road. Isn't the real problem how crap normal people are at dealing with the far too prevalent groups of psychopaths spreading their sickness further?
lifeformalien 3 months ago
@lifeformalien Most of the people around you are sick with the statist virus.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin sadly, proud of it, flag waving ones at that. Not surprising when the the mechanisms that our worlds are driven by are designed by the deseased to spread their deseases further.
lifeformalien 3 months ago
no such as a good gov. really did u just figured that out there was never a good government thats why i say fuck the government that means politicians and police
luciano6207 3 months ago
The idea that good government exists is a laughable theory. Oh if only my favorite psychopath was in power there would be real change. "Good" government is a comedy of errors at best.
ed2point0 3 months ago
@ed2point0 Comedy if it wasn't so real...
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
I smell a Ronpaultard.
WilbergWBWW 3 months ago
@WilbergWBWW You have bad senses...
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin
alright, then just a retard...
WilbergWBWW 3 months ago
Anarcho capitalist? Really? You've got to be shitting me... you're older than 10, grow up...
eliwoood1 3 months ago