Anarcho-Capitalism II: Justice & Defense - Part 1

Barry Belmont, the 2008-2009 president of the UNR Students for Liberty has made another case for an anarcho-capitalist society. In this lecture, he will address the free-rider problem, public choice theory, and a brief history of States with diverse examples from evolutionary biology, philosophy, economics, and what you already think!

Put simply, this lecture will attempt to convince you that anarcho-capitalism is a viable theory that should be put into practice.

http://www.unrforliberty.com/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• unr students for liberty
• anarchy
• anarcho-capitalism
• murray rothbard
• agorism

[durruti612]

@mushroommike1 their are more ways to exploit people than "putting a gun to their head" or threatening to, enough with the reductionism. the 'free market' is just a euphemism for wage slavery. people are wage slaves because they do not and cannot own the means of production to provide for themselves. The ancestors of proletarians where mostly driven from small-land holdings through illegitimate or unjust means. Only, after this dispossession was complete did people enter "voluntary contracts"

[durruti612]

capitalism and 'the markets' are not one and the same. Capitalism can exists without much of a market. Capitalism means private ownership(or any minority) of the means of production and that the owning class accumulates capital from the surplus collected from wage labor. That is, surplus value through labor from a lower class who operates the means the of production. Markets are important in a sense, but mostly incidental to capitalism, strictly speaking.

[MrsUncontroversial]

@MillionthUsername Courts are the initiation of force, because they give force to opinion, not truth. The truth doesn't require a vote. Even video is not proof. Even DNA evidence is not proof. If people don't take care of their own affairs, and vote people into the slammer based on their opinions, THAT is the initiation of force. Arbitration would not be prevalent in a society that was serious about security. Legalist societies live under threat from the system that claims to protect it.

[MillionthUsername]

@MrsUncontroversial Libertarians are against the initiation of force, not legitimate uses of retaliatory force. Coercion in this context means aggression, not using force against criminals or against the loser in a court case.

[MrsUncontroversial]

Binding arbitration of any kind is coercion, even if you agree to it.

[mushroommike1]

@allanps1979 "Holding a gun to someones head" by definition doesn't occur in a free market, free meaning voluntary, free from coercion. I don't understand why socialist can't see the huge difference between persuasion and ought right control.

[allanps1979]

@xTAxGUNZ Holding a gun to someones head is exploitation because it's putting someone in a position where they have limited options and must choose something that they wouldn't otherwise and which is to the advantage of someone else. The same thing often happens in the free market, it's IMBALANCE OF POWER that causes it. People should argue that exploitation is practical and necessary but don't try to ignore it like this guy in this video does, it's crazy imo.

[allanps1979]

@xTAxGUNZ i'm familiar with this response. it's a tautology. Decisions under the threat of force are considered involuntary only because market anarchists say it is. For something to be involuntary the person would have to be given zero options. I'm not saying the threat of coercive force is ethical but it's erroneous to say, at least in this context, that the decisions made under it are completely involuntary. As long as choices can be made there is volition.

[xTAxGUNZ]

@allanps1979 It actually would not be considered voluntary because someone putting a gun to your head is the initiation of force. Forward the video to about 7:14 he explains this more.

[allanps1979]

At 4:36, the problem with this reasoning is that if someone is holding a gun to my head and demands money, we can say the interaction is voluntary because i