This is why you have a limited government enforcing rules only everyone can agree on and allowing individuals to do as they will because after all the society exists for the benefit of the individual not the other way around.
Using the argument that no government is bad so you have to have uber government is a farce
If there is a dispute there is a contract if there is a contract there is volition. the civil court in a free land only holds a man to his word. fairness is relative all are not =
One more question - how shall we trade? There is no government backed currency. Are we to trade with goats, chickens, and valuable metals? If there is an agreed to "club currency" how shall we prevent massive counterfeit? Will there be banks?
The redress to the press is not convincing. Both parties can go to the press. In this case the richest party may be able to swing the most weight or may even own the press itself.
Question 4. How does one become an arbitrator or have access to the reputation database? What prevents a party from bribing an arbitrator? If an arbitrator is bribed where does one go to address the injustice? What if a poor party cannot afford an arbitrator? What then?
Question 1: What person or persons will (a) compose and (b) distribute these original four base rules that everyone is to live by?
Question 2: How are the rules to be interpreted? (For example: If I cut down every single tree I see to make something out of nature is that okay - or should some of nature be protected? How shall we determine what nature is "free grabs" and what nature is to be protected wild-life.
Question 3: What will fund, maintain, and protect the reputation database?
A truly moral society has one law and one law only and that is "The threat of or initiation of violence, fraud and or theft is punishable by a court of law, who can demand reasonable restitution and or retribution for such acts, and a person can not be punished for reasonably defending himself and or others from such acts." All other laws are immoral and unjust. No person or group of persons is an exception to this law. Even arbitration agencies and the courts themselves are subject to this law.
If party A has a LOT of money and bribes the arbritrator to go against party B. You assume word will get out because party B will complain. But party A will swear up and down that the arbitrator is the best in the business. These public lists and databases need to be "impervious" to natual disasters, hackers, and crime? Good luck with that. He who has the money will always be able to tilt the table and manipulate reality to their favor. Human corruption will find a way to make this not work.
couldn't a person make a living off stealing things and disregard his reputation? i don't think it'd be the ideal choice but i'm sure people would do it.
What this youtuber doesn't mention is that the incentive to agree to your contract exists outside of arbitration. If you do good business, you have a repeat customer. That's where the profits come in, not from doing shoddy work exploiting a customer. Nevertheless, I agree with his positive idea of a voluntary society. Ron Paul 2012 (the closest thing you can get right now).
@FibonacciPrower It would be very unlikely for monopolies to form based on all the competition that would spawn from the system, however, if the system did spawn monopolies or cartels they would be be amazing ones (highest quality of goods, least expensive goods, highest wages for workers). Having those 3 attributes would be the only way to get ahead in this system. Chances are someone would offer lower prices, higher wages, and higher quality to compete anyway. The monopoly wouldn't last.
The larger a society becomes, the more easily people can abuse and exploit others without facing the consequences, creating a unique atmosphere contrary to what lead us to evolve into a cooperative social species in the first place.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this video actually makes the case for a simple gov't and rule of law. these so-called "arbitrators" and the decisions made ARE an example of gov't, being a judiciary.
there is absolutely no valid argument against liberty by means of the rule of law, and to have rule of law, there must be some form of judiciary in order to protect self-ownership (even at the tribal level), and therefore, a form of gov't.
anarchy is a lie, as much as socialism, fascism, etc. cheers! 8-)
@infinityBBC Just because arbitrational opinions are being made doesn't mean it's a government. Government is the violent monopolization of arbitration, to the point where it starts conflicts, rules in its own favor, and then enforces it.
Anarchy doesn't mean no modernity; it just means that no group of people have special privileges (an = no/without, archy = ruler).
@Nielsio the arbitrators depicted in this video are a kind of Judiciary, because they are judging (ie: gov't). the problem with this concept of anarchy is that without any rule of law, the arbitrators have no principle to judge by and are therefore, ARBITRARY arbitrators... unless of course, one party pays them extra to rule in their favor. 8-)
@Nielsio the Declaration of Independence spells out the basics of unalienable individual rights, whereby all individuals are equal under the rule of law. We the People have merely ALLOWED our own gov't to become so corrupted in so many ways, including allowing for "special rights/privileges" for certain individuals and/or collectives.
@Nielsio collectivists wrongly believe that collectives have rights. they have infiltrated all levels of gov't, most notably the Supreme Court who has ruled that corporations (a form of collective) has rights as if it were an individual.
under attempts of anarchy, collectives will still form and individuals will be likewise be usurped of their rights, except it would happen far quicker without any rule of law.
@Nielsio bottom line: individuals have to defend their liberties, regardless of what kind of gov't is in place — even the kind of gov't which this "voluntary society" must create in order to deal with practical issues which always arise.
@infinityBBC BINGO! it matters not whether a private or public gov't is in power — what matters is defending our individuals liberties, because ALL individuals are prone to corruption!
it's amazing that so many folks here just don't get that.
@Nielsio If there is no monopoly on arbitration then what stops each party from simply adopting a favorable arbitrator? Say Party A and Party B both have an arbitrator on their side. (I think this is very likely in a system where arbitrators are hired among other arbitrators.) What if the dishonest hack the reputation database or start their own rival database?
@Nielsio To put it simply. What gives this reputation database, which is key to the entire system, exclusive legitimacy? Say the rich start a massive ad campaign to convince the public that, for example, a database secretly funded by BP is the most legitimate?
@Nielsio Discernment of the rule of law. in the world the law has always protected government and ruled over the people. this is rule of law.
In America we threw off our sovereign and reclaimed our aboriginal god given sovereignty for ourselves. the govt. we created was not given our authority but only permission to execute our authority. Here the law rules over the government and protects the people. the people are free and not under the rule of law unless adverse volition brings them to it.
@infinityBBC it makes an argument for justice, not for the "rule of law". the rule of law and governments continually do THE OPPOSITE of what this video explains (barring any public-relations motivated decisions so that these mafiosos continue to appear as "just", which is just nonsense because they are the most corrupt people on the face of the earth -- go look up your congressman's criminal record and compare it to your friends')
@infinityBBC There is a difference between a private arbitrator enforcing a contract and a government: the arbitrator and terms are chosen by mutual consent of all parties involved, a government is a unilateral force against others.
@dkmdlb as originally intended, the Judiciary IS chosen by mutual consent of all parties involved. after all, the People vote for gov't officials, and then juries are determined by both sides of a legal matter. done justly, this is how the legal process was set up in America — by rule of law.
if you think private arbitrators cannot be corrupted and purchased like politicians, you just might be dreaming of a utopia we humans are incapable of achieving. 8-)
@infinityBBC lol you have a huge flaw in your logic though. Unlike the Government you don't HAVE to use any specific arbitrator, if an arbitrator makes corrupt decisions people will tell others and not use that arbitrator, so the arbitrator has EVERY reason in the world to make a fair decision, because that is the only reason he is chosen. The only reason Governments can get away with being corrupt is because you are FORCED to use them, and they can use force to make you use them.
Great video. A friend of my started a nextwork program called the Web of Trust. I was trying to give suggestions and features to be added to it which would have done just what you are suggesting here. It ended up becoming a feel good board until they removed it completely because they didn't add any useful features. The owner could remove comments from his/her profile; I knew it was going to suck the moment they would not change that.
@6thMessenger "Looks ok on paper. Impossible to implement in a large, complex society."
I imagine this is what a person would say about market economy if he had lived his whole life in a communist country and knew not of any other system or country.
@ssesf It looks good on paper because there are 311,415,761 in America. We don't all know each other. We don't all agree on the rules of a voluntary society. It relies on "reputation". As soon as you have someone tracking reputation you have government. People are an x factor. Your reputation relies on someone rating you honestly. Moving to a voluntary society would eliminate money and destroy the world economy.
all of these solutions are assumptive to the point of myopia. I'm not a big fan of government, but we the people are to blame for allowing it's unrelenting usurpation of power. The constitution is not perfect, but the underlying principles are sound. If we are unwilling to defend our rights all freedom based systems will fail. Government is not the problem, laziness and apathy are. Would the country be on the brink of disaster if the government obeyed the rule of law? I think not.
I think that anarcho-capitalists really underestimate the how emergent collectivism really is. The very first rights that are given here are only rights if the collective protects them. And in a voluntary society every single issue that was really important to people would come alive through a democratic union. If most people in the world formed a union that would strike from working in society itself ,unless it's democratically popular ideas were established as law. What if 51% of the whole...
@MacabreManifesto ...world said that abortion should be illegal. This law would have to become established to make sure society doesn't crumble. Government and law is a way that society tries to organize the right balance of individualism and collectivism. Some forms value one side way over the other, some are more in the middle, but even the stable ones have problems. As to be expected, humans didn't evolve for the express purpose of organize into a complex, high energy society
I like this as long as I work from the reputation of the corporation I own. I will keep my personal reputation to non business activities. From the comments I see a lot of people are reading too much into this presentation. This has nothing to do with your private life, only your professional life, which can easily be disconnected by operating a corporation to create and maintain reputation scores.
The system seems to be based on trust. If you're not able to trust the arbitrators, the system falls apart just like any system where the state acts as an arbitrator and the state cannot be trusted. The majority of the population is quite powerless and a system of voluntary arbitrators provides no more guarantee that the haves will not exploit the have-nots than you can find in any other system.
This is too collectivist. You're just substituting "the public" for the government this is supposed to be denouncing. There is no value for individual rights here, you're saying you need permission from people to do things. The "public" has to agree. Or other people need to agree you own things, what if they're lying on purpose? The actual purpose of a government is an arbitrator and protector of freedoms, not a provider or thief. This sounds anything but voluntary, it's advocating coercion.
@NimbleNoddy It's indeed quite interesting that an idea based on absolute individual freedom ends up sounding like a collectivist system. The extreme right and extreme left are not as far apart as they may think.
@raizumichin Hrm, the left and right use violence to enforce their social ideas. Libertarian/Anarchy is outside the left right dichotomy because it's a pluralistic system. You only have false opposites like "left and right" when you have limited choice and little freedom.
@MrPisster My utopian idea based on unrealistic expectations of human behavior is much better than all the other utopian ideas based on unrealistic expectations of human behavior!
@MrPisster :) There are ways of reconciling anarcho-capitalism with anarcho-socialism. It seems that people tend to argue that they are mutually exclusive systems, Noam Chomsky being the major proponent of Left-Libertarianism who has no qualms with hypocritically denouncing the free market. It is sad that academia is producing Libertarian thinkers who buy into the false dichotomy and perpetuate it. :/
traditional anarchists are just freedom lovers that don't understand economics; or more specifically 'natural rights'.
I think this article is extremely useful in understanding natural rights:
jim . com / rights . html
too often people believe natural rights are inextricably linked to religion or pantheism, or some kind of mystical non-scientific view of the universe. this is UNTRUE!
in fact, ironically it is evolution providing the best defence for natural rights. read the article!
Arbitrators, Protection agency, etc; hence, a State; nothing new here. State protects: our unalienable Rights, property, and settle disputes. In time, there will be arbitrators for: Clean Water, Global Warming, etc. Morphing into Big Government, the history of the US. Next comes fairness and equality – Socialism; destructive to our Rights. The State becomes distressed, time for change, and the cycle continues. The age old struggle, can man rule himself. Too bad, men are not angels.
Voluntarism is just a framework for different social organizations. Actually this movement is possibly not compatible with voluntarism. You would have to ask one of the zeitgeisters if you can opt out of their system at your own will or if are they trying to force whole world to do what they imagine is right.
@nocturnalc Actually, a system like the VP/TZM would voided if violence and coercion were used. It would be pointless to shoot for something like this if we have to fall back on these means. Look what happens in the system you're already in. WACO is a prime example of coercing people to support the system. We may not get it right the first time, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying. Would you put me down for my dreams?
@nocturnalc The VP and TZM are just Ideas. Nothing says that the people have to follow this blueprint to a T. Do you want to bridge the gap between the rich and poor? Would you like to see a better world? I don't have the answers and neither do you, but we could try working together to find them without thinking, "how much will you pay me for it." I don't agree with all the TZM but it does have some valid points to take away and consider. What are your thoughts? What would you propose?
But what about the people (or organisations) who own the monopoly. They would just say " Hey it is hard to get these supplies, we will raise our prices 10 times now!" Something that would resemble economy would not be able to exist in this enviorment.
That what government does now. It raises price of its services at a steady pace. In my country there was never a moment when taxes actually went down. US is the same - taxes may have had come down at some point but then government debt rose. Thats because government is monopoly you speak of. It is very hard to be monopoly if government is not protecting you by laws and regulations, because business must then actually satisfy consumer needs in order to gain market share.
Sounds like the arbitrators would take the places of state-sanctioned judges. Somehow I doubt their motives or positions would change. I suspect they would have the same sense of entitlement and the same sense that they are the rule makers. Who wouldn't want to be an arbitrator? I fail to see how this is better from a practical standpoint.. Seems like we are just re-labeling those with the power.
@teeowe Unlike a "state-sanctioned judge", an arbitrator is competing in the marketplace for their service and will need to be extremely customer oriented if they want to be top dog in their line of work. We, as the customers shopping for such a service, have the opportunity to choose based upon their open record of performance and decisions. It would be a fascinating dynamic to choose with the other party an arbitrator. Do you go with a "Judge Napolitano" or a "Nancy Pelosi"? Gee, I wonder! ;-)
@xearther Even assuming your position has merit, who pays for the administration of databases? How do we trust the system will be free from fraud and abuse?
@teeowe "they would have the same sense of entitlement and the same sense that they are the rule makers."
It could be, but there is no requirement that I use such individuals.
That is the great difference between "govt" and "market". The adjudicators are just as subject to market forces as everyone else. Unfair rulings would be published just as widely, if not more so, than any other transgression.
What would the newspapers have to report otherwise? They'd be all over such a ruling!
I have one critique of this system. What if an immoral person, planning on breaking contracts/committing crimes, put their name in multiple databases, to protect their reputation years into the future?
What if they signed on to every database around, under different names? Then, they could breach many contracts, and still have a good reputation to fall back on.
More generally, how would an ancap society establish and verify identities?
Retinas, Fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc. etc.
The situation you describe infers that this person will have an enormous gap in his records. Are you saying that this person has been a 'goody goody' for all these years just to be bad? Or that this person has been doing misdeeds on a different name and then grabbing a new one ever few months? If so, sure, that is possible. I wonder just how far someone could go doing this. Certainly I wouldn't hire someone with no record for 30years
@zyodei "More generally, how would an ancap society establish and verify identities?"
Ask yourself how, in theory, a state dominated society would solve the problem you're wondering about. Then ask yourself if there's any reason to suppose it's necessary or desirable to have a territorial monopoly on violence handling it.
The protection agencies (and violence) are unneeded. If A can prove that B stole his property to B's reputation provider then people can find out what B did through that reputation provider. They can refuse to associate or sell to B until he makes things right. If a company tries to not check someone's reputation before selling then the public can put an entry into the company's database at its reputation provider, boycott the company and buy from someone who does voluntarily cooperate.
I feel like you're describing one, possible business model that could exist in a reputation based economic order. I think this analysis would benefit from dealing with the problem at a higher, more abstract level. I liked where you were going with the village where everyone knew everyone else.
On Youtube you can add multiple subtitles to videos, so if you would supply me with a Polish translation, I will add it. Feel free to upload the video with another spoken language on it. I've added a link in the description to the original video-file.
Thats a statement that needs to be backed up by something. Statism is utopia. You give some people ultimate power over your lives, complete with atomic weapons, and then tell them to behave nicely and limit themselves. Are you going to cling to hope that only angels get into government? "Where are those angels that will organize society for us?"
This quote comes from one of Milton Freedman videos. He was talking about coercive organization of society by politicians that somehow are not most dignified people.
@zbigniewzapora This seems very simplistic but even if it were perfect the most robust plans are only as good as their implementation.
The founders of America designed a brilliant healthy, democratic process able to grow and adapt our only problem is the ignorance and apathy of the people of America. our greatest weapons are Education and Solidarity
Democracy requires oversight, transparency and accountability.
You contradict yourself. You say: "The founders of America designed a brilliant healthy, democratic process able to grow and adapt" and then in the same line you are saying "our only problem is the ignorance and apathy of the people of America.". So can it adapt or not. Is it healthy and brilliant or not? Why don't I have to care about apathy and ignorance of the other people when buing new TV for example? Think about it.
@zbigniewzapora The founders were brilliant men, they created a great system of self rule a Secular State founded on laws with checks and balances and remedies for grievances and inequities.
When I say Ignorance and apathy is our problem it simply means that too few Americans Care, Understand or are Informed about America's system of government, current events, or how to organize and participate effectively to maintain this countries democracy.
You just said it yourself - people are apathetic and ignorant, therefore this system can't possibly work, because it was designed to work only when people are exact opposite. And why should they care? Watch this: watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4
Piece of paper will never protect anything and never did - look at any country in history; does freedom increase, stays the same or decrease in any society where government is present?
Hmmm, I dunno man. The more of this I watch, the more it just looks like you are just describing anarchy, a very efficient and computerized anarchy. And I cringe every time you use the word pay, or charge, or prices, or consumers, or any of the other words we constantly use to describe our society as it is now.
10:56 Reputation record? Reputation provider? That sounds like trouble.
Conditional voluntarism is not voluntarism. It's the same thing we do now dressed up in a different language.
@bweazel Dude there is nothing wrong with trade, its peaceful and a fantastic way to live. Money is just a way to transact, its the monopoly on the creation of currency which is evil. And yes it is Anarchy and there is nothing wrong with anarchy, the way you find a wife is anarchy! Yes the state has nothing to do with it. is that a bad thing?
@bweazel If you're afraid of 'reputation records', you might be shocked to learn that 3 credit reporting companies probably have files on you already.
McDonald's charges for its services, but I see homeless ppl eating there quite often. Yes, those services formerly provided by government will still have costs, but the costs will drop so severely that even the poorest among us will have access to them when we need them, and be less preferential toward the rich and politically powerful.
@bweazel "The more of this I watch, the more it just looks like you are just describing anarchy"
Yes.
Isn't it wonderful?
As Youtube/user/Stefbot point out, once you eschew coercion, "anarchy" is the only result possible of consistent principle. Anything else is hypocrisy.
This reminds me of the feedback function on eBay and it seems to work alright. Having multiple feedback providers would keep thing from being centralized and monopolies forming. In a way, it could be like how insurance works. A feedback provider might reject you application for being too risky or a smaller provider might take a chance for higher premiums.
We already have a voluntary society that only a small percentage of people want to be a part of. The idea of joining a group or being part of a voluntary society is repulsive to a large majority of people. Hence why only a minority of people volunteer to participate in society.
A protection agency IS government and once created its first priority will be to protect itself.
I think the problem your having is that your definition of the word voluntary isn't the standard English definition, you must have some misconception about the word.
If I offer you a job and you take it that is voluntary because you were free to deny it. If the army drafts you into a war that is involuntary because if you refuse you will be aggressed against.
If you have some strange desire to be someones slave and you submit to it it is entirely different then being captured and enslaved.
@romeshomey The best way for a protection agency to protect itsself in a voluntary society is to remain voluntary. Especially when you consider that they have no supposed right to the monopoly of violence like the government claims. If there are several organisations that all got started by being voluntary then if any of them try to become coercive the others will take it down.
Whoa whoa whoa. You lost me around 3:00. Please tell me how you think volunteering has anything to do with contracts? The two ideas are exclusive. Contracts are what we're already using now, and look where that has gotten us. People use contracts because their exchange is not voluntary, it is involuntary. Pay? Verify? Record keeping? How is any of this voluntary to you? Voluntary actions are those taken out of TRUST. Your entire video is laden with politically correct mistrust.
You obviously don't understand the term voluntary under a voluntarilst philosophy. Contracts are completely compatible with voluntary interaction, as long as the contract is agreed upon without any coercion.
@rockandrock44 The lack of coercion does not mean voluntary. It just means the lack of coercion. The way I see it, something that is conditional cannot be voluntary. What we do today is not voluntary for the most part. You sell your labor, for a wage. You exchange your wages for goods and services. I'll show you an involuntary exchange, someone that pays for something but feels like they paid too much.
I don't see how the word contract and voluntary fit into the same philosophy in your mind.
"I'll show you an involuntary exchange, someone that pays for something but feels like they paid too much."
It has nothing to do with exchange being voluntary. You are talking about second thoughts after exchange has taken place. If you have doubts about your purchase then even today you can get full refund.
@bweazel Because you "vountarily" sign the "contract" pretty simple. People sometimes act like the fact that they need to eat, be clothed and housed somehow makes taking a job involuntary, it doesn't. There is something involuntary involved, but that isn't put on you by the voluntary society, its put on you by the inherent nature of the universe and life. Whats involuntary is that you need to eat to live and there is only so much space and food so we need to ration it based on currency.
@Hashishin13 Voluntarily signing a contract does not mean anything except you voluntarily signed a contract, the contract itself does not represent something that is voluntary though, it represents mistrust, insurance, and conditions. Also, when the contracts are broken, in comes the involuntary force, in this case, arbitrators, who have the power to force you to perform your contract. Like I said previously, you don't sign contracts for volunteer work, you just do the work.
@bweazel Being punished for voluntarily signing a contract is still voluntary, as long as the punishment is spelled out in the contract you voluntarily signed. Mistrust and conditions don't affect whether or not something is vokuntary at all. You have quite a strange idea of what voluntary means, it doesn't mean that you are overjoyed to do something, it just means you are willing to do it without being threatened, thats all. There is absolutely volunteer work that requires a contract.
Just because one has opportunity costs and trade offs does not make it any less voluntary. I've never seen anyone make such an argument seriously, and I suspect we're using the term in two different ways.
//The way I see it, something that is conditional cannot be voluntary. //
The more I think about it, the more absurd this statement is. Virtually everything is conditional to one extent or another, and therefore it makes the very concept of voluntary action incoherent.
@bweazel "The lack of coercion does not mean voluntary. "
In the current context, that's exactly what voluntary means. Unless you want to empty the word of all meaning ('I don't voluntarily walk to the shop because i'd prefer to be flying, but physics won't cooperate').
You originally said it sounds like slavery, not that it would lead to slavery. But also you revised statement needs arguments. If in a system based on voluntary action people don't want to be slaves, they will not become slaves. Since every person except the occasional masochist doesn't want to be a slave, slavery (which requires the initiation of violence) in a voluntary world is an absolute contradiction.
I occassionally check out videos and leave comments. I'm not here to spend a lot of time proving to the dense how dense they are. But since you don't seem too dense, I'll discuss it with you.
Whether the system is slavery or would lead to slavery is the same. This video talks about a hypothetical world and doesn't cover all of it bases, it ASSUMES that the system would be controlled by the "fairness" of the market. In reality, the market does not set up fair systems.
Yet you do actively spend time telling people how dense they are. Why not get rid of that waste of time alltogether?
The morality of the free market is very well theoretically advocated, and in practice there is the rule that the freer the market, the more prosperous *all* people get.
@myusernameisluc I originally spent all of about 30 seconds writing a comment for a video that I watched for over ten minutes, and I do like to engage in conversations with those who can float.
But, after reading your comment, I realize you are pretty dense. As if businesses are somehow going to become ethical via the opinion of other businesses. That makes me laugh. And monopolies are purely on an outgrowth of gov't regulation? Laughable again.
In reality, the market is strictly controlled by government, by creating monopolies (including the one of the creation of currency and determining the interest), barring starting entrepeneurs from entering trough regulation and taxes, etc.
You won't find a single free-marketeer that advocates the current "market".
In a free world without regional monopolies on violence, the market causes systems to form as close as possible to the wishes of the people. Slavery is no such wish.
@myusernameisluc The Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE BANK that creates American money. The government can't even check the books of this private monopoly.
Stop watching stefbot or whoever is turning your soft head into a cone. It's a joke. You and whoever is teaching you this nonsense advocate giving more power to the same wealthy elites who put us in this economic mess in the first place.
@MagicByWest The name Federal Reserve is a misnomer. It was a monopoly granted to a private institution by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which was snuck passed Congress on Christmas Eve, when few congressmen was there; and was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson.
Your ideological mantra about implied violence is typical and proves nothing.
@riethc I'm talking about the method used to maintain the "Fed's" monopoly on printing and issuing currency. How is that done? Are you saying it is not done with violence?
The ideological support people give the monopoly on force of the government is what keeps the Fed afloat. Without the monopoly on money creation and interest determination *enforced by government*, the Fed would be nothing, it wouldn't even exist. Calling the Fed a private bank is just a stupid semantics game. The Fed is a corporatist(fascist) bank, not capitalist.
About the violence part: Why don't you try setting up your own currency and see how long you will stay out of jail.
@myusernameisluc THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS NOT UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. It does not represent the intention of the Founding Fathers. It was a swindle and continues to be a swindle.
Maybe if you understood the way the government functioned you'd see that the Fed has been imposed on it.
You come here making all kinds of assertions, and when people react to it with arguments, you call them dense. Can you see the irony? And don't tell me "I'm not here to spend a lot of time", because that makes you just another troll.
@riethc "You [] advocate giving more power to the same wealthy elites who put us in this economic mess in the first place. "
You have it exactly back to front. The Fed exists because of state granted privilege, secured by violence and the threat thereof. You're obviously new to all this, I recommend following the mises.org blog for a few months, or reading one of the introductory texts: 'The Machinery of Freedom' is a decent one.
Then why won't you try to debunk it? Is it too uncomfortable? In the time you have been here making all kinds of assertions and playing down the ideas presented, you could have easily made some basic arguments to debunk them. If you had a basic understanding of the topic, that is.
@myusernameisluc Listen, you are a useful idiot and you'll be used, as a useful idiot, to overthrow any values of a republic. You'll enslave yourself and, if you have any, your children.
Can I give you an education in a YouTube comment? No. It is not possible.
"Can I give you an education in a YouTube comment?"
An entire education is not needed. A few basic arguments, if they are true, will convince me. It's that simple. Please stop trying to evade discussion, and try and argument or two.
This is why you have a limited government enforcing rules only everyone can agree on and allowing individuals to do as they will because after all the society exists for the benefit of the individual not the other way around.
Using the argument that no government is bad so you have to have uber government is a farce
If there is a dispute there is a contract if there is a contract there is volition. the civil court in a free land only holds a man to his word. fairness is relative all are not =
lostbuffalo 6 days ago
It can function, however, it can only go so far as a countryside town.
theawesomebeliever 6 days ago
One more question - how shall we trade? There is no government backed currency. Are we to trade with goats, chickens, and valuable metals? If there is an agreed to "club currency" how shall we prevent massive counterfeit? Will there be banks?
moxin86 1 week ago
The redress to the press is not convincing. Both parties can go to the press. In this case the richest party may be able to swing the most weight or may even own the press itself.
moxin86 1 week ago
Question 4. How does one become an arbitrator or have access to the reputation database? What prevents a party from bribing an arbitrator? If an arbitrator is bribed where does one go to address the injustice? What if a poor party cannot afford an arbitrator? What then?
moxin86 1 week ago
Question 1: What person or persons will (a) compose and (b) distribute these original four base rules that everyone is to live by?
Question 2: How are the rules to be interpreted? (For example: If I cut down every single tree I see to make something out of nature is that okay - or should some of nature be protected? How shall we determine what nature is "free grabs" and what nature is to be protected wild-life.
Question 3: What will fund, maintain, and protect the reputation database?
moxin86 1 week ago
This is the Rodney King philosophy of governance. "Can't we all just get along?". Worked there, didn't it.
JDJD2011 1 week ago
@JDJD2011
The video addresses arbitration. That kind of implies people don't always get along.
myusernameisluc 1 week ago
A truly moral society has one law and one law only and that is "The threat of or initiation of violence, fraud and or theft is punishable by a court of law, who can demand reasonable restitution and or retribution for such acts, and a person can not be punished for reasonably defending himself and or others from such acts." All other laws are immoral and unjust. No person or group of persons is an exception to this law. Even arbitration agencies and the courts themselves are subject to this law.
FreedomFighter1131 1 week ago
If party A has a LOT of money and bribes the arbritrator to go against party B. You assume word will get out because party B will complain. But party A will swear up and down that the arbitrator is the best in the business. These public lists and databases need to be "impervious" to natual disasters, hackers, and crime? Good luck with that. He who has the money will always be able to tilt the table and manipulate reality to their favor. Human corruption will find a way to make this not work.
MACA5982 3 weeks ago
It's ideas like this that give me the hope to keep living.
...even though I know it will never happen until the peasants unite.
...which almost never happens. >.>
duumas 1 month ago
This sort of video just gets me excited imagining a completely voluntary society!
dooglio 1 month ago
couldn't a person make a living off stealing things and disregard his reputation? i don't think it'd be the ideal choice but i'm sure people would do it.
angrygrunt 1 month ago
Maybe make an open source iphone app that does the arbitrator's job and let the best program win.
frosthazard 3 months ago
What this youtuber doesn't mention is that the incentive to agree to your contract exists outside of arbitration. If you do good business, you have a repeat customer. That's where the profits come in, not from doing shoddy work exploiting a customer. Nevertheless, I agree with his positive idea of a voluntary society. Ron Paul 2012 (the closest thing you can get right now).
apell711 3 months ago 2
@Portlandhardstylers a hacker would not agree to help you.
GreedX23 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@06:50 If that is advertisement, then I approve! Non invasive, not annoying or disrupting, precise and QUIET!!
GriebKyle 3 months ago
Comment removed
GriebKyle 3 months ago
Can this system prevent the formation of monopolies or cartels?
FibonacciPrower 6 months ago
@FibonacciPrower It would be very unlikely for monopolies to form based on all the competition that would spawn from the system, however, if the system did spawn monopolies or cartels they would be be amazing ones (highest quality of goods, least expensive goods, highest wages for workers). Having those 3 attributes would be the only way to get ahead in this system. Chances are someone would offer lower prices, higher wages, and higher quality to compete anyway. The monopoly wouldn't last.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
The larger a society becomes, the more easily people can abuse and exploit others without facing the consequences, creating a unique atmosphere contrary to what lead us to evolve into a cooperative social species in the first place.
NilesBrokman 6 months ago
18 sheeple, I mean "people" like being slaves to the State
MarineWolf1994 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this video actually makes the case for a simple gov't and rule of law. these so-called "arbitrators" and the decisions made ARE an example of gov't, being a judiciary.
there is absolutely no valid argument against liberty by means of the rule of law, and to have rule of law, there must be some form of judiciary in order to protect self-ownership (even at the tribal level), and therefore, a form of gov't.
anarchy is a lie, as much as socialism, fascism, etc. cheers! 8-)
infinityBBC 8 months ago
@infinityBBC Just because arbitrational opinions are being made doesn't mean it's a government. Government is the violent monopolization of arbitration, to the point where it starts conflicts, rules in its own favor, and then enforces it.
Anarchy doesn't mean no modernity; it just means that no group of people have special privileges (an = no/without, archy = ruler).
Nielsio 8 months ago 40
@Nielsio the arbitrators depicted in this video are a kind of Judiciary, because they are judging (ie: gov't). the problem with this concept of anarchy is that without any rule of law, the arbitrators have no principle to judge by and are therefore, ARBITRARY arbitrators... unless of course, one party pays them extra to rule in their favor. 8-)
infinityBBC 8 months ago
@Nielsio the Declaration of Independence spells out the basics of unalienable individual rights, whereby all individuals are equal under the rule of law. We the People have merely ALLOWED our own gov't to become so corrupted in so many ways, including allowing for "special rights/privileges" for certain individuals and/or collectives.
infinityBBC 8 months ago
@Nielsio collectivists wrongly believe that collectives have rights. they have infiltrated all levels of gov't, most notably the Supreme Court who has ruled that corporations (a form of collective) has rights as if it were an individual.
under attempts of anarchy, collectives will still form and individuals will be likewise be usurped of their rights, except it would happen far quicker without any rule of law.
infinityBBC 8 months ago
@Nielsio bottom line: individuals have to defend their liberties, regardless of what kind of gov't is in place — even the kind of gov't which this "voluntary society" must create in order to deal with practical issues which always arise.
infinityBBC 8 months ago 2
@infinityBBC BINGO! it matters not whether a private or public gov't is in power — what matters is defending our individuals liberties, because ALL individuals are prone to corruption!
it's amazing that so many folks here just don't get that.
infinityBBC 2 months ago
@Nielsio If there is no monopoly on arbitration then what stops each party from simply adopting a favorable arbitrator? Say Party A and Party B both have an arbitrator on their side. (I think this is very likely in a system where arbitrators are hired among other arbitrators.) What if the dishonest hack the reputation database or start their own rival database?
moxin86 1 week ago
@Nielsio To put it simply. What gives this reputation database, which is key to the entire system, exclusive legitimacy? Say the rich start a massive ad campaign to convince the public that, for example, a database secretly funded by BP is the most legitimate?
moxin86 1 week ago
@Nielsio Discernment of the rule of law. in the world the law has always protected government and ruled over the people. this is rule of law.
In America we threw off our sovereign and reclaimed our aboriginal god given sovereignty for ourselves. the govt. we created was not given our authority but only permission to execute our authority. Here the law rules over the government and protects the people. the people are free and not under the rule of law unless adverse volition brings them to it.
lostbuffalo 6 days ago
@infinityBBC it makes an argument for justice, not for the "rule of law". the rule of law and governments continually do THE OPPOSITE of what this video explains (barring any public-relations motivated decisions so that these mafiosos continue to appear as "just", which is just nonsense because they are the most corrupt people on the face of the earth -- go look up your congressman's criminal record and compare it to your friends')
RuddODragonFear 7 months ago
@infinityBBC There is a difference between a private arbitrator enforcing a contract and a government: the arbitrator and terms are chosen by mutual consent of all parties involved, a government is a unilateral force against others.
dkmdlb 3 months ago
@dkmdlb as originally intended, the Judiciary IS chosen by mutual consent of all parties involved. after all, the People vote for gov't officials, and then juries are determined by both sides of a legal matter. done justly, this is how the legal process was set up in America — by rule of law.
if you think private arbitrators cannot be corrupted and purchased like politicians, you just might be dreaming of a utopia we humans are incapable of achieving. 8-)
infinityBBC 3 months ago
@dkmdlb yes, the private arbitrators will side with whomever pays them the most to do so — just like corrupted government.
private or public, all governments made up of individuals are prone to corruption.
try again... 8-)
infinityBBC 2 months ago
@infinityBBC lol you have a huge flaw in your logic though. Unlike the Government you don't HAVE to use any specific arbitrator, if an arbitrator makes corrupt decisions people will tell others and not use that arbitrator, so the arbitrator has EVERY reason in the world to make a fair decision, because that is the only reason he is chosen. The only reason Governments can get away with being corrupt is because you are FORCED to use them, and they can use force to make you use them.
LogantheLibertarian 1 month ago
Great video. A friend of my started a nextwork program called the Web of Trust. I was trying to give suggestions and features to be added to it which would have done just what you are suggesting here. It ended up becoming a feel good board until they removed it completely because they didn't add any useful features. The owner could remove comments from his/her profile; I knew it was going to suck the moment they would not change that.
Stonegoal 8 months ago
Looks ok on paper. Impossible to implement in a large complex society.
6thMessenger 9 months ago
@6thMessenger "Looks ok on paper. Impossible to implement in a large, complex society."
I imagine this is what a person would say about market economy if he had lived his whole life in a communist country and knew not of any other system or country.
ssesf 9 months ago
@ssesf It looks good on paper because there are 311,415,761 in America. We don't all know each other. We don't all agree on the rules of a voluntary society. It relies on "reputation". As soon as you have someone tracking reputation you have government. People are an x factor. Your reputation relies on someone rating you honestly. Moving to a voluntary society would eliminate money and destroy the world economy.
There does that make a little more sense?
6thMessenger 9 months ago
This is to complicated we need to keep it simple and let technology do the work for us.
We should be working towards not working.
CosmosPrivateer 9 months ago
all of these solutions are assumptive to the point of myopia. I'm not a big fan of government, but we the people are to blame for allowing it's unrelenting usurpation of power. The constitution is not perfect, but the underlying principles are sound. If we are unwilling to defend our rights all freedom based systems will fail. Government is not the problem, laziness and apathy are. Would the country be on the brink of disaster if the government obeyed the rule of law? I think not.
rmstorms 10 months ago
I think that anarcho-capitalists really underestimate the how emergent collectivism really is. The very first rights that are given here are only rights if the collective protects them. And in a voluntary society every single issue that was really important to people would come alive through a democratic union. If most people in the world formed a union that would strike from working in society itself ,unless it's democratically popular ideas were established as law. What if 51% of the whole...
MacabreManifesto 10 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...world said that abortion should be illegal. This law would have to become established to make sure society doesn't crumble. Government and law is a way that society tries to organize the right balance of individualism and collectivism. Some forms value one side way over the other, some are more in the middle, but even the stable ones have problems. As to be expected, humans didn't evolve for the express purpose of organize into a complex, high energy society
MacabreManifesto 10 months ago
@robertpartee You can click on my channel and type in 'roads' in the search-box.
Nielsio 10 months ago
Social media could prove someones reputation, it can make the world a small village.
what could we use for currency?? barter and silver and gold? or just barter?
who are we? what are we doing here?
lantechmechanical 10 months ago
this is shit. we are one family. would you treat your mother like this. i wouldnt
bluntpunk83 10 months ago
I like this as long as I work from the reputation of the corporation I own. I will keep my personal reputation to non business activities. From the comments I see a lot of people are reading too much into this presentation. This has nothing to do with your private life, only your professional life, which can easily be disconnected by operating a corporation to create and maintain reputation scores.
Isbadd 10 months ago
I like this as long as I work from the reputation of the corporation I own. I will keep my personal reputation to non business activities.
Isbadd 10 months ago
It would never work as long as you use competion. People have to work together in a voluntary society. Because you can never trust your competitor.
LifeIsJustARide85 11 months ago
The system seems to be based on trust. If you're not able to trust the arbitrators, the system falls apart just like any system where the state acts as an arbitrator and the state cannot be trusted. The majority of the population is quite powerless and a system of voluntary arbitrators provides no more guarantee that the haves will not exploit the have-nots than you can find in any other system.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago 2
This is too collectivist. You're just substituting "the public" for the government this is supposed to be denouncing. There is no value for individual rights here, you're saying you need permission from people to do things. The "public" has to agree. Or other people need to agree you own things, what if they're lying on purpose? The actual purpose of a government is an arbitrator and protector of freedoms, not a provider or thief. This sounds anything but voluntary, it's advocating coercion.
NimbleNoddy 11 months ago
@NimbleNoddy It's indeed quite interesting that an idea based on absolute individual freedom ends up sounding like a collectivist system. The extreme right and extreme left are not as far apart as they may think.
raizumichin 11 months ago
@raizumichin Hrm, the left and right use violence to enforce their social ideas. Libertarian/Anarchy is outside the left right dichotomy because it's a pluralistic system. You only have false opposites like "left and right" when you have limited choice and little freedom.
MrPisster 7 months ago 20
@MrPisster My utopian idea based on unrealistic expectations of human behavior is much better than all the other utopian ideas based on unrealistic expectations of human behavior!
raizumichin 7 months ago
@MrPisster :) There are ways of reconciling anarcho-capitalism with anarcho-socialism. It seems that people tend to argue that they are mutually exclusive systems, Noam Chomsky being the major proponent of Left-Libertarianism who has no qualms with hypocritically denouncing the free market. It is sad that academia is producing Libertarian thinkers who buy into the false dichotomy and perpetuate it. :/
anonwoohoo 1 week ago
i watch this with some relaxing ambient music it makes it much more easy to watch
curiositygun93 11 months ago
Ebay operates on some of these basic principles, i would say, in my humble opinion.
droog1967 11 months ago
.
The new Zeitgeist film, Moving Forward, has some interesting info in it
.
Someideasandstuff 11 months ago
traditional anarchists are just freedom lovers that don't understand economics; or more specifically 'natural rights'.
I think this article is extremely useful in understanding natural rights:
jim . com / rights . html
too often people believe natural rights are inextricably linked to religion or pantheism, or some kind of mystical non-scientific view of the universe. this is UNTRUE!
in fact, ironically it is evolution providing the best defence for natural rights. read the article!
CytherLynx 1 year ago
Arbitrators, Protection agency, etc; hence, a State; nothing new here. State protects: our unalienable Rights, property, and settle disputes. In time, there will be arbitrators for: Clean Water, Global Warming, etc. Morphing into Big Government, the history of the US. Next comes fairness and equality – Socialism; destructive to our Rights. The State becomes distressed, time for change, and the cycle continues. The age old struggle, can man rule himself. Too bad, men are not angels.
Mike10four 1 year ago
"either a criminal or deranged" XD In such a serious voice.
god0fgod 1 year ago
fucking awsome! love the finishing a/v touches at the end. thumbs up!
AnarchoCapitalistTV 1 year ago
Go a Couple steps forward and you get to something like this idea...
watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
cjhindma 1 year ago
@cjhindma
Voluntarism is just a framework for different social organizations. Actually this movement is possibly not compatible with voluntarism. You would have to ask one of the zeitgeisters if you can opt out of their system at your own will or if are they trying to force whole world to do what they imagine is right.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@cjhindma That's a pretty unfounded statement. ZGM would have to rely on violence and coercion to achieve their unrealistic "utopia"
nocturnalc 1 year ago
@nocturnalc Actually, a system like the VP/TZM would voided if violence and coercion were used. It would be pointless to shoot for something like this if we have to fall back on these means. Look what happens in the system you're already in. WACO is a prime example of coercing people to support the system. We may not get it right the first time, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying. Would you put me down for my dreams?
cjhindma 1 year ago
@nocturnalc The VP and TZM are just Ideas. Nothing says that the people have to follow this blueprint to a T. Do you want to bridge the gap between the rich and poor? Would you like to see a better world? I don't have the answers and neither do you, but we could try working together to find them without thinking, "how much will you pay me for it." I don't agree with all the TZM but it does have some valid points to take away and consider. What are your thoughts? What would you propose?
cjhindma 1 year ago
Excellent job. Very clear ideas, impossible to argue against.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
Your voice is monotonous. Puts people to sleep. Over.
EdMan2012 1 year ago
@EdMan2012 - Your comment is immature, and brings nothing to the conversation. This isn't third grade.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
But what about the people (or organisations) who own the monopoly. They would just say " Hey it is hard to get these supplies, we will raise our prices 10 times now!" Something that would resemble economy would not be able to exist in this enviorment.
johnytoreno 1 year ago
@johnytoreno
That what government does now. It raises price of its services at a steady pace. In my country there was never a moment when taxes actually went down. US is the same - taxes may have had come down at some point but then government debt rose. Thats because government is monopoly you speak of. It is very hard to be monopoly if government is not protecting you by laws and regulations, because business must then actually satisfy consumer needs in order to gain market share.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
There is only one solution to all our problems: educating ourselves into seeing the organism we form and not only the individuals we are.
We are still about.... 600 years away from such an advanced concept being commonly accepted.
StevXtreme 1 year ago
Hey this got on the Lew Rockwell blog. Right on!
blue46gt 1 year ago
How about living and obeying the constitution,, Are you listing Barrock Mohamade Obama
darrellmellissa 1 year ago
Sounds like the arbitrators would take the places of state-sanctioned judges. Somehow I doubt their motives or positions would change. I suspect they would have the same sense of entitlement and the same sense that they are the rule makers. Who wouldn't want to be an arbitrator? I fail to see how this is better from a practical standpoint.. Seems like we are just re-labeling those with the power.
teeowe 1 year ago
@teeowe Unlike a "state-sanctioned judge", an arbitrator is competing in the marketplace for their service and will need to be extremely customer oriented if they want to be top dog in their line of work. We, as the customers shopping for such a service, have the opportunity to choose based upon their open record of performance and decisions. It would be a fascinating dynamic to choose with the other party an arbitrator. Do you go with a "Judge Napolitano" or a "Nancy Pelosi"? Gee, I wonder! ;-)
xearther 1 year ago
@xearther Even assuming your position has merit, who pays for the administration of databases? How do we trust the system will be free from fraud and abuse?
teeowe 1 year ago
@teeowe "they would have the same sense of entitlement and the same sense that they are the rule makers."
It could be, but there is no requirement that I use such individuals.
That is the great difference between "govt" and "market". The adjudicators are just as subject to market forces as everyone else. Unfair rulings would be published just as widely, if not more so, than any other transgression.
What would the newspapers have to report otherwise? They'd be all over such a ruling!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
this kind of society would never work.
scullyy 1 year ago
you got posted on the LRC blog. nice.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
I watched this from LRC ^_^
It's an intersesting video that i am thankful for watching, as i wondered how a society without government may possibly work.
Bluestarhand 1 year ago
@Bluestarhand
also feel free to check this one out which i made a while ago, it is incomplete, but you may find something useful in there:
watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
am watching it right now.
Bluestarhand 1 year ago
I have one critique of this system. What if an immoral person, planning on breaking contracts/committing crimes, put their name in multiple databases, to protect their reputation years into the future?
What if they signed on to every database around, under different names? Then, they could breach many contracts, and still have a good reputation to fall back on.
More generally, how would an ancap society establish and verify identities?
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei
Retinas, Fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc. etc.
The situation you describe infers that this person will have an enormous gap in his records. Are you saying that this person has been a 'goody goody' for all these years just to be bad? Or that this person has been doing misdeeds on a different name and then grabbing a new one ever few months? If so, sure, that is possible. I wonder just how far someone could go doing this. Certainly I wouldn't hire someone with no record for 30years
Telpeurion 1 year ago
@zyodei "More generally, how would an ancap society establish and verify identities?"
Ask yourself how, in theory, a state dominated society would solve the problem you're wondering about. Then ask yourself if there's any reason to suppose it's necessary or desirable to have a territorial monopoly on violence handling it.
bitbutter 1 year ago
The protection agencies (and violence) are unneeded. If A can prove that B stole his property to B's reputation provider then people can find out what B did through that reputation provider. They can refuse to associate or sell to B until he makes things right. If a company tries to not check someone's reputation before selling then the public can put an entry into the company's database at its reputation provider, boycott the company and buy from someone who does voluntarily cooperate.
DrTodd13 1 year ago
I feel like you're describing one, possible business model that could exist in a reputation based economic order. I think this analysis would benefit from dealing with the problem at a higher, more abstract level. I liked where you were going with the village where everyone knew everyone else.
claytonlisa 1 year ago
Nicely done. Would you mind if I translate it to Polish (replace the audio and upload)?
khunag 1 year ago 7
@khunag Hi khunag,
On Youtube you can add multiple subtitles to videos, so if you would supply me with a Polish translation, I will add it. Feel free to upload the video with another spoken language on it. I've added a link in the description to the original video-file.
Nielsio 1 year ago 6
A nice utopia.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Thats a statement that needs to be backed up by something. Statism is utopia. You give some people ultimate power over your lives, complete with atomic weapons, and then tell them to behave nicely and limit themselves. Are you going to cling to hope that only angels get into government? "Where are those angels that will organize society for us?"
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago 16
@zbigniewzapora Um..I think the idea is that it is supposed to be...US.
cjhindma 1 year ago
@cjhindma
This quote comes from one of Milton Freedman videos. He was talking about coercive organization of society by politicians that somehow are not most dignified people.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora This seems very simplistic but even if it were perfect the most robust plans are only as good as their implementation.
The founders of America designed a brilliant healthy, democratic process able to grow and adapt our only problem is the ignorance and apathy of the people of America. our greatest weapons are Education and Solidarity
Democracy requires oversight, transparency and accountability.
Shroommduke 9 months ago
@Shroommduke
You contradict yourself. You say: "The founders of America designed a brilliant healthy, democratic process able to grow and adapt" and then in the same line you are saying "our only problem is the ignorance and apathy of the people of America.". So can it adapt or not. Is it healthy and brilliant or not? Why don't I have to care about apathy and ignorance of the other people when buing new TV for example? Think about it.
zbigniewzapora 8 months ago
@zbigniewzapora The founders were brilliant men, they created a great system of self rule a Secular State founded on laws with checks and balances and remedies for grievances and inequities.
When I say Ignorance and apathy is our problem it simply means that too few Americans Care, Understand or are Informed about America's system of government, current events, or how to organize and participate effectively to maintain this countries democracy.
Shroommduke 8 months ago
@Shroommduke
You just said it yourself - people are apathetic and ignorant, therefore this system can't possibly work, because it was designed to work only when people are exact opposite. And why should they care? Watch this: watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4
Piece of paper will never protect anything and never did - look at any country in history; does freedom increase, stays the same or decrease in any society where government is present?
zbigniewzapora 8 months ago
Thanks for these videos. I like the clear speaking voice with simple but informative illustrations.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
Fantastic Vid!
alternativeangle 1 year ago
Hmmm, I dunno man. The more of this I watch, the more it just looks like you are just describing anarchy, a very efficient and computerized anarchy. And I cringe every time you use the word pay, or charge, or prices, or consumers, or any of the other words we constantly use to describe our society as it is now.
10:56 Reputation record? Reputation provider? That sounds like trouble.
Conditional voluntarism is not voluntarism. It's the same thing we do now dressed up in a different language.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel Buying something means trading something. It is a peaceful act.
See my video 'What Is Money?'
Nielsio 1 year ago 20
@Nielsio I'll check it out, thanks.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel As long as there is no legitimized violence or force, it's voluntaryism
masonkiller666 1 year ago
Comment removed
alternativeangle 1 year ago
@bweazel Dude there is nothing wrong with trade, its peaceful and a fantastic way to live. Money is just a way to transact, its the monopoly on the creation of currency which is evil. And yes it is Anarchy and there is nothing wrong with anarchy, the way you find a wife is anarchy! Yes the state has nothing to do with it. is that a bad thing?
alternativeangle 1 year ago
@bweazel If you're afraid of 'reputation records', you might be shocked to learn that 3 credit reporting companies probably have files on you already.
McDonald's charges for its services, but I see homeless ppl eating there quite often. Yes, those services formerly provided by government will still have costs, but the costs will drop so severely that even the poorest among us will have access to them when we need them, and be less preferential toward the rich and politically powerful.
rsimpson69 1 year ago
@bweazel "The more of this I watch, the more it just looks like you are just describing anarchy"
Yes.
Isn't it wonderful?
As Youtube/user/Stefbot point out, once you eschew coercion, "anarchy" is the only result possible of consistent principle. Anything else is hypocrisy.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@bweazel
This reminds me of the feedback function on eBay and it seems to work alright. Having multiple feedback providers would keep thing from being centralized and monopolies forming. In a way, it could be like how insurance works. A feedback provider might reject you application for being too risky or a smaller provider might take a chance for higher premiums.
JKS4779 1 year ago
@bweazel That's because you have been trained to distrust everyone rather than be trustworthy yourself.
Dragdamar 11 months ago
We already have a voluntary society that only a small percentage of people want to be a part of. The idea of joining a group or being part of a voluntary society is repulsive to a large majority of people. Hence why only a minority of people volunteer to participate in society.
A protection agency IS government and once created its first priority will be to protect itself.
romeshomey 1 year ago
@romeshomey This is not a voluntary society. It is conditional. When was the last time you did work for a business for no pay?
bweazel 1 year ago
I think the problem your having is that your definition of the word voluntary isn't the standard English definition, you must have some misconception about the word.
If I offer you a job and you take it that is voluntary because you were free to deny it. If the army drafts you into a war that is involuntary because if you refuse you will be aggressed against.
If you have some strange desire to be someones slave and you submit to it it is entirely different then being captured and enslaved.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@romeshomey The best way for a protection agency to protect itsself in a voluntary society is to remain voluntary. Especially when you consider that they have no supposed right to the monopoly of violence like the government claims. If there are several organisations that all got started by being voluntary then if any of them try to become coercive the others will take it down.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
Whoa whoa whoa. You lost me around 3:00. Please tell me how you think volunteering has anything to do with contracts? The two ideas are exclusive. Contracts are what we're already using now, and look where that has gotten us. People use contracts because their exchange is not voluntary, it is involuntary. Pay? Verify? Record keeping? How is any of this voluntary to you? Voluntary actions are those taken out of TRUST. Your entire video is laden with politically correct mistrust.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel
You obviously don't understand the term voluntary under a voluntarilst philosophy. Contracts are completely compatible with voluntary interaction, as long as the contract is agreed upon without any coercion.
rockandrock44 1 year ago
@rockandrock44 The lack of coercion does not mean voluntary. It just means the lack of coercion. The way I see it, something that is conditional cannot be voluntary. What we do today is not voluntary for the most part. You sell your labor, for a wage. You exchange your wages for goods and services. I'll show you an involuntary exchange, someone that pays for something but feels like they paid too much.
I don't see how the word contract and voluntary fit into the same philosophy in your mind.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel
"I'll show you an involuntary exchange, someone that pays for something but feels like they paid too much."
It has nothing to do with exchange being voluntary. You are talking about second thoughts after exchange has taken place. If you have doubts about your purchase then even today you can get full refund.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@bweazel Because you "vountarily" sign the "contract" pretty simple. People sometimes act like the fact that they need to eat, be clothed and housed somehow makes taking a job involuntary, it doesn't. There is something involuntary involved, but that isn't put on you by the voluntary society, its put on you by the inherent nature of the universe and life. Whats involuntary is that you need to eat to live and there is only so much space and food so we need to ration it based on currency.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 Voluntarily signing a contract does not mean anything except you voluntarily signed a contract, the contract itself does not represent something that is voluntary though, it represents mistrust, insurance, and conditions. Also, when the contracts are broken, in comes the involuntary force, in this case, arbitrators, who have the power to force you to perform your contract. Like I said previously, you don't sign contracts for volunteer work, you just do the work.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel Being punished for voluntarily signing a contract is still voluntary, as long as the punishment is spelled out in the contract you voluntarily signed. Mistrust and conditions don't affect whether or not something is vokuntary at all. You have quite a strange idea of what voluntary means, it doesn't mean that you are overjoyed to do something, it just means you are willing to do it without being threatened, thats all. There is absolutely volunteer work that requires a contract.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@bweazel
Just because one has opportunity costs and trade offs does not make it any less voluntary. I've never seen anyone make such an argument seriously, and I suspect we're using the term in two different ways.
rockandrock44 1 year ago
@bweazel
//The way I see it, something that is conditional cannot be voluntary. //
The more I think about it, the more absurd this statement is. Virtually everything is conditional to one extent or another, and therefore it makes the very concept of voluntary action incoherent.
rockandrock44 1 year ago
@bweazel "The lack of coercion does not mean voluntary. "
In the current context, that's exactly what voluntary means. Unless you want to empty the word of all meaning ('I don't voluntarily walk to the shop because i'd prefer to be flying, but physics won't cooperate').
bitbutter 1 year ago
Prepare for the constant assault of what ifs. :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
It couldn't.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel
And do you hae any arguments to back that up?
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
Databasing everything? Sounds like new wave slavery.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
You should look up the definition of "slavery". This has nothing to do with it. It is entirely voluntary.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@myusernameisluc Yes, setting up a system of databases and "arbiters" would not lead to slavery. lol
You guys are dense.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
You originally said it sounds like slavery, not that it would lead to slavery. But also you revised statement needs arguments. If in a system based on voluntary action people don't want to be slaves, they will not become slaves. Since every person except the occasional masochist doesn't want to be a slave, slavery (which requires the initiation of violence) in a voluntary world is an absolute contradiction.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago 2
@myusernameisluc
I occassionally check out videos and leave comments. I'm not here to spend a lot of time proving to the dense how dense they are. But since you don't seem too dense, I'll discuss it with you.
Whether the system is slavery or would lead to slavery is the same. This video talks about a hypothetical world and doesn't cover all of it bases, it ASSUMES that the system would be controlled by the "fairness" of the market. In reality, the market does not set up fair systems.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
Yet you do actively spend time telling people how dense they are. Why not get rid of that waste of time alltogether?
The morality of the free market is very well theoretically advocated, and in practice there is the rule that the freer the market, the more prosperous *all* people get.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@myusernameisluc I originally spent all of about 30 seconds writing a comment for a video that I watched for over ten minutes, and I do like to engage in conversations with those who can float.
But, after reading your comment, I realize you are pretty dense. As if businesses are somehow going to become ethical via the opinion of other businesses. That makes me laugh. And monopolies are purely on an outgrowth of gov't regulation? Laughable again.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
In reality, the market is strictly controlled by government, by creating monopolies (including the one of the creation of currency and determining the interest), barring starting entrepeneurs from entering trough regulation and taxes, etc.
You won't find a single free-marketeer that advocates the current "market".
In a free world without regional monopolies on violence, the market causes systems to form as close as possible to the wishes of the people. Slavery is no such wish.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@myusernameisluc The Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE BANK that creates American money. The government can't even check the books of this private monopoly.
Stop watching stefbot or whoever is turning your soft head into a cone. It's a joke. You and whoever is teaching you this nonsense advocate giving more power to the same wealthy elites who put us in this economic mess in the first place.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc It's a "private" bank, that has a monopoly granted to it by the government, and violently enforced by same government.
MagicByWest 1 year ago
@MagicByWest The name Federal Reserve is a misnomer. It was a monopoly granted to a private institution by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which was snuck passed Congress on Christmas Eve, when few congressmen was there; and was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson.
Your ideological mantra about implied violence is typical and proves nothing.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc Yes, and does that contract anything I said?
As for the violence, ok, then please tell me, how is the monopoly maintained? What happens when someone else tries to make a competing currency?
MagicByWest 1 year ago
@MagicByWest Are you talking about JFK and Executive Order No. 11110?
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc I'm talking about the method used to maintain the "Fed's" monopoly on printing and issuing currency. How is that done? Are you saying it is not done with violence?
MagicByWest 1 year ago
@MagicByWest You don't even know about JFK's attempt to make money outside of the Fed system, do you? That's funny. You guys are freaking dumb.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc Love the ad hominum attacks, as well as the divertion from the actual discussion.
Never said I didn't know about it. He was the last one to make any such attempt as far as I know.
MagicByWest 1 year ago
@riethc
The ideological support people give the monopoly on force of the government is what keeps the Fed afloat. Without the monopoly on money creation and interest determination *enforced by government*, the Fed would be nothing, it wouldn't even exist. Calling the Fed a private bank is just a stupid semantics game. The Fed is a corporatist(fascist) bank, not capitalist.
About the violence part: Why don't you try setting up your own currency and see how long you will stay out of jail.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@myusernameisluc THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS NOT UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. It does not represent the intention of the Founding Fathers. It was a swindle and continues to be a swindle.
Maybe if you understood the way the government functioned you'd see that the Fed has been imposed on it.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
The US constitution is just a piece of paper with ink on it. Both that and "original intentions" is entirely irrelevant.
You continue to make mere assertions, without giving any arguments. Prove it, I'd say.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riethc
You come here making all kinds of assertions, and when people react to it with arguments, you call them dense. Can you see the irony? And don't tell me "I'm not here to spend a lot of time", because that makes you just another troll.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@riethc "You [] advocate giving more power to the same wealthy elites who put us in this economic mess in the first place. "
You have it exactly back to front. The Fed exists because of state granted privilege, secured by violence and the threat thereof. You're obviously new to all this, I recommend following the mises.org blog for a few months, or reading one of the introductory texts: 'The Machinery of Freedom' is a decent one.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter A few months of brainwashing would get me on the same page...
I have watched enough ideological nonsense like this video to get the idea though.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
Then why won't you try to debunk it? Is it too uncomfortable? In the time you have been here making all kinds of assertions and playing down the ideas presented, you could have easily made some basic arguments to debunk them. If you had a basic understanding of the topic, that is.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@myusernameisluc Listen, you are a useful idiot and you'll be used, as a useful idiot, to overthrow any values of a republic. You'll enslave yourself and, if you have any, your children.
Can I give you an education in a YouTube comment? No. It is not possible.
riethc 1 year ago
@riethc
"Can I give you an education in a YouTube comment?"
An entire education is not needed. A few basic arguments, if they are true, will convince me. It's that simple. Please stop trying to evade discussion, and try and argument or two.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@myusernameisluc
The belief that the market does set up fair systems is simply that, a belief.
riethc 1 year ago
Excellent video. Very clearly laid out.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
Nice video. Is the narrator a dutchman?
jvv85 1 year ago
@jvv85 Yes.
ShmuelSpade 1 year ago