Peter Leeson Explains Anarchy

No description available.

• Category

  Education

[UnholyUnderwear]

3) As for competing governments, a form of the principle of “coming to the nuisance” applies. If a rights-protecting government already exists, then no one has a right to start a new government in that area because the existing legitimate government was there first. If a government is or becomes an essentially rights-violating government, then revolution may be in order. Economists, do economics. Philosophers, do philosophy. Rand didn't do economics. Why tolerate Rothbard et al doing philosophy?

[simplethunder]

You're damn right, good sir. Government is the residue of mankind's evil. The will to control, to manipulate, to possess. It's what eventually happens when humanity is left alone for a couple thousand years and lets greedy and manipulative people slowly take over the reins. Now we're psychologically and physically chained to the idea that government is the only way to live.

[Steelahman101]

It's funny how this has almost 18,000 views and only 296 rates.

[Don Stacy]

This seminar is easily the best formal introduction to anarchy I have seen.

[inverhillsphilo]

the ancient greeks called this virtue. virtuous anarchy, i like it.

[Travis Spalding]

cont.. making arguments like "the dumb people are regulating the smart people" and "the most capable and smartest people are in the private sector". It's just fantastic from an outside observers point of view.

[Travis Spalding]

cont.. Walter Block did a beautiful response to hands down refutes your argument for a monopoly of defense SERVICES (not rights) and ultimate decision making in all conflicts including ones WITH ITSELF.

P.S. I love how your main argument that force (since it is always automatically anti-reason (god I can't believe you guys seriously believe that) must be relegated into one organization your guys have to say that the most reasonable people should go into the government, while at the same time...

[Travis Spalding]

cont.. a jingoistic foreign policy of mass murder and that will with absolute certainty lead to nuclear war. Rothbard was a philosopher and his basis for anarchism was a secularized Aristotelian natural rights theory which he pioneered but his main objection to the State was that it is unjustifiable on NAP grounds. For decades you clueless Objectivists and minarchists have refused to think or deal with these objections seriously. Peter Schwartz did a hatchet job of libertarianism which..

[Travis Spalding]

Lol Rothbard was a political philosopher who had an encyclopedic knowledge about an insane amount of topics ranging from numismatics to the history of legal systems to colonial America. You're assertion that we shouldn't "tolerate Rothbard et al doing philosophy" is ridiculous because he didn't bother with this nuts Objectivist argument that "all force is the negation of reason" since retaliatory force can be used very reasonably. This mental defect you guys have lead you to supporting..

[Kyle Z]

And an anarchist overthrow would stop the violence? Please, a government is a necessity and ultimately determines the prosperity of the "geographical areas." There would be even more monopolies if the government did not exist. A free market is the breeding ground of monopolies.

We would see monopoly corporates and widely influential head figures gaining control of the populous and a temporary government would form as that figure strives for even more control. Anarchy would not work.

[lengthyounarther]

I never said you can torture any human. Pure strawman. I am saying interpersonal comparisons of "feelings" cannot be quantified or qualifed. As such you cant start extrapoliting generals normative assumptions about other people based on your feelings.No two humans expereince pain, pleause, hunger, or other stimulie the same way.Your advocating the constuction of a social system based on "most important needs" via extrapolation of your personal value scale.This is erronious and unscientific