You're viewing YouTube in English (US).
Switch to another language: | View all
You're viewing YouTube in English.
Switch to another language: | View all

Do We Need Government? | Learn Liberty

by Learn Liberty • 28,981 views

Should government provide law enforcement? Most would argue that government is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Prof. Edward Stringhman, however, argues that government may not even be...

Is every citizen going to have their own police force? He never explained how that first dispute was solved without violence. Will each town and city contract with different firms? If so how will they pay the firms? With taxes? How is that any different than what we have now? Do security guards have detectives how will they investigate crimes? Simple conflict mediation won't solve anything if the mediator has no power because then there is no consequence for ignoring him. What's the mediator going to do? Tell one party to kindly check them self into jail? What if they refuse you would need armed officers to haul them off then wouldn't you? To what standard are these officers trained? Who sets that standard? The free market is the best provider of most things but not something as complex and intricate as law enforcement.
+Kyle Ginnetti It is if the economic and legal system are based on uncontrollable capitalism. Do you know just how much the law in the US and Europe has been changed illegally? If you have a constitution and you have another law, if that new law counters the constitution it can not be placed into action. So for the last 100 years the US government and the last 10 years in Europe you have laws that were put into action illegally.  That is just on the side of law. Whenever you reduce a human to something that is less then a human you are making a terrible mistake.
I wouldn't say a resource is inherently less than human. A resource is simply anything that has value. that could certainly be a human.
Something that was not addressed: How is a government any different from a really successful security firm? Successful from the firm's point of view, that is. Its not enough to say that the government forces people to remain in the system through coercion, as that is entirely consistent with a geographically bound security service monopoly. There is nothing inconsistent with a private business forcing its customers to pay its fees: Pay up, or else. To argue that private security is preferable to state security presupposes a sufficient difference between the two and this has not been clearly established in his talk. What I get from his talk is that the security provision now monopolistically provided by one government should be fragmented into multiple security provider options. Fair enough, but how is this different from simple cessation for independence? Nothing actually forces the conclusion that the new security force should be "private" as opposed to "public".
I really like this dude. It's like a young Jeffrey Tucker.
competing firms is the best option for this
An arbitration clause and mediation is completely appropriate for civil fraud hearings.  But not criminal hearings. A Monopoly over people is also called "the consent of the masses".  Entering into an agreement.  It's only when the laws don't apply to the government do we have problems. The security forces at a college or large business (Disney) and the referees of sporting events are the equivalent of a government police force.  Fed police, State police, County police, City police, Company/School police.  Each responsible for their jurisdiction.  You would not call a school security guard to handle a murder.  Security would protect private property and ensure safety of visitors, but that's it, no further jurisdiction.  City and county police can handle murders on city and county land, as do state police on state land and federal police on federal land. In order to implement a "private" police force at the State level, you would need to pay for it through an agreed upon method, and everyone would be required to pay or else they would have to be escorted out of the state.  This would be the equivalent of involuntary taxation or consented taxation, whichever you choose. The role of government is to protect your rights, especially your property rights.  From the poorest to the richest.  If rich people can come into poor neighborhoods, take the property of poor people, drive them off the land and claim the land as their own, then pay off private judges and arbiters to make it "legal" then isn't that defeating egalitarian thought?  Suddenly all people are not created equal, or everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others.  Going to the Disney example the speaker keeps bringing up, if a Disney vice president was caught by security raping a guest and that information could destroy the company, the person being raped is probably going to be eliminated and swept under the rug, the guards will be rewarded for keeping their mouths shut. The ultimate justice system is one that is uncorruptible by the people being judged.  A private system is much more corruptible than an elected system.  Combining the two just makes the elected system more corruptible.
if he don't change that cynical voice and face he will have no future ....
Do you mean a condensing and arrogant voice?
omg, prof. Stringhman occured in "keynes vs hayek round two" videoclip as a reporter. see at 08:18
Yes, of course we need a government. Someone needs to resolve disputes, someone needs to provide for the common defense, someone needs to fund the installation of infrastructure and govern its use, etc.
We have govt now, and the entire world is corrupt, and its been getting worst and worst as time goes on, hitting its peak in these last days. They dont benefit people, but only take from the people. Govt have done nothing good for society at all, yet people think they need it. People in ancient times (biblical Yisrael) did not have govt, only leaders that them to battle against their enemies/oppressors, and they didn't have much crime either. When everybody has means to defend themselves, people think twice about committing crime, because they know they might be the one getting harm.
Modern societies do theoretically not necessarily need a government. But they probably need an administration. The governing role could be assumed by the citizenry in more direct ways. But for this there had to be a political culture of many active citizens and different social structures. So that the citizens would have the time and the financial possibilities to govern the state as a (more direct) res publica. And there had to be structures that the other citizens could control the active group - but this is a challenge and problem of representative governing too. The role of the constitution should be an important one in both approaches to govern and administer a modern large-scale society.
Did I understand that correctly? The guy says that it'd be so cool if any person on Earth could create their own legal ecosystem (including private executive power, private legislative power, private courts of law, private prosecuton, private police etc.). And these ecosystems would be totally independent from each other - no government as the top-level ecosystem to override them all. This is so ridiculous! Think about Ponzi scheme or other fraudulent investment operations. Perpetrators would easily get away with it because the entire scheme would be organized and resolved within their own malicious legal ecosystem. They would take maximum care to create the system where such schemes are LEGAL. It would by clearly written somewhere on page 4843234 of the article 2342345 of this and this bill or something. But who would reads all those articles, if people use common sense, the system would work very well for the first few years and their customers would be very happy and give positive feedback on the internet etc. :) When shit hits the fan and the pyramid collapses, the fraudster points to article 2342345 on page 4843234 and says 'screw you'. You can't do anything because the scheme turns out to be legal. Common sense? Your can wipe your ass with it. The proposed idea leads to a lawyer-cracy when you sign a contract and have no fucking clue what the consequences could be, because by default any deal you sign may fall into a legal ecosystem that sombeody made up just like that!. So you have to carefully read all 234346346 pages of 42362356 articles not to get screwed. This is completely ridiculous and I have no clue how adult people can take it seriously. Do you want a system when people can't trust each other and can't put your common sense to use? I think this is simply a naive, wishful thinking that 100% people are good guys and nobody would ever take chance to create a malicious legal ecosystem. 99% people are good guys but the FREEDOM to do such things could be so easily exploited and abused by 1% bad guys. In other words, if you allow EVERYONE to create their own independent legal ecosystems then and a VERY SMALL group of a VERY CLEVER, determinated fraudsters could take advantage of that "freedom" and fuck the remaining 99% society right in the ass - AND GET AWAY WITH IT!!! In fact, the proposed system where anyone can create an independent legal ecosystems leads to a completely NEW TYPE of frauds, that you don't even dream of. Plus you'll be able to create an ecosystem where, say, slavery is legal (of course, slaves would sign their contracts freely). It's only a matter of legislation, and then exercising the executive power over some area. If there's no top-level supreme executive power (called government) - you can do ANYTHING if only you're able to exercise your own executive power over given area. 99% people are normal but 1% are villains. These one percent sick bastards would take advantage of it very quickly - because they would have FREEDOM to do so. You would quickluy realize you don't want to live in a world like this. So get real. Talk about minimal government, limited government, but never ever mention the idea of "NO GOVERNMENT".
Overall, good watch. But wow..the level of indoctrination/propaganda of some of the audience. Muh "lack of regulations" caused the crash~! "Free Market cause the Great Depression"~ Somebody needs to stop listening to mainstream propaganda. Check out some Tom Woods / Peter Schiff / Thomas Sowell -different schools, but a lot more detailed than mainstream half-truths.
Of course we do need government, but a small responsible one not the behemoth we have now.
That wouldn't work. All governments/states want to grow larger. The United States is a perfect example. It started out rather small, but has only grown in size like a malignant cancer.
Card counting. I cannot think of more severe crime.
Ah, this guy seems so happy ^^ Love it.
He seems to be so false.
John Smith Shared on Google+ · 1 year ago
Do We Need #Government? #‎Law‬ ‪#‎WithoutGovernment‬: Conflict Resolution in a ‪#‎FreeSociety‬ #‎JFKAssassination‬ ‪#‎JFK‬
The thing is, wars are almost always unprofitable, so a bank or a corporation would not get involved on its own. However, if the war is paid for by the state, and corporations get all of the profits, that's entirely different story. That's the formula of fascism - public expenses, private profits.
Oh, so minorities dominating majorities is better? like it´s always been - be it feudalism, capitalism, communism,...?
And again, we find another reason to make excuses for capitalism. Whenever capitalism fails, what is it that you people say? "It's the gummit's fault!" Then when I show you people a country has has no gov't at all, and what do you say? "that doesn't count, the country's in turmoil." No shit. That's what happens when you have no gov't.
Who is to say the higher authority is the moral being, and the cities not? For a long time slavery was federally legal. It was human beings, just like us, that slowly banned slavery. It's banned because we mutually agree it is immoral, and if we didn't, the government would legalize it.
"Where is he going to get the money from?" Banks, if they see profit. Corporations are structurally sociopathic, "juristical person" working for "profit".
Under dangerous freedom, the thieves would be taken care of pretty economically, you can count on that! Prisons would be a thing of the past.
I don't think that's what that's like saying at all. Yes, those are all different forms of government, but their features are entirely different. A free market or a corporatist state or any capitalist system is bound by several common features. All of them privatize the means of production, and all of them do it in order to make a profit. I think one could easily find many other shared features as well.
...When I say a "psychopath" I don't mean it literally of course; just looking for more power, sure INDIVIDUALS can't manufacture cars for example or any other high-tech goods in their basement, even with a 3d printer, you need something called education; a bunch of degrees as a sign that you know what you're doing, add to that an amount of people who have similar skills (labors), only investors or employers can arrange all this mess, how do they get money? A loan, then making profit...
You don't win an argument by applying one negative ("psychopath") and one meaningless ("right") label to a dead person. Let's focus on specifics. Do you think human interactions should be voluntary?
Wow. The dullards are in control. "Yeah, but what about...Yeah, but what about...Yeah but what about..." The guy makes the simplest of arguments with the basic tenet that coercion and force are wrong and they just don't get it. He also tells people that they are empowered to make logical decisions for themselves and they reject him wholesale. Anyone love the movie Idiocracy? Does anyone want to be like them?
This guy may be right but he sounded a bit like an idiot and very disrespectful concerning the injustice at Kent State.
Funny is the fact that most of Learn Liberty 'professors' teach or have studied in very mediocre and/or religious universities. Also, Edward Stringhman actually teaches in a state university. Lol. The irony... Howard Baetjer also teaches in a state university. And so do many others of them. Want to know why all these so-called 'economists' studied and teach at very very mediocre state universities? Because they were too poor in economics and mathematics for the likes of Yale, Harvard, LSE, etc.
Lol, you try to push the same BS argument AGAIN? Are you dense? Or do you believe in your prophetic skills? You really are but burning waste...
Damn that bitch at the 1 hour mark is fukken stoopid
A psychopath cannot easily build a military on his own. He needs a multitude of other psychopaths to serve as his soldiers, and he needs a huge amount of money to pay for that. Where is he going to get the money from? If he's a business owner, his business would immediately lose millions of dollars once his plans to conquer the world become known. Government taxation and money-printing is what enables the military.
because for justice U need an impartial 3rd party to keep the peace ... otherwise the strong will oppress the weak.
And what if I didn't want to contract with a private police, how am I going to get my ass protected?
Actually, government is probably why you don't have private property. Money-printing by government creates inflation, inflation creates a housing bubble, and you also have half of your income stolen from you by the system of taxation. Housing prices at least twice of what they should be, income less than half of what it should be, your savings being decimated by inflation - that's government.
Prof. Edward Stringhman is fantastic isn't he!
Yeah, should have told the black slaves their masters were not to blame for their enslavement. The masters that had the advantage over them, that held the whip of violence over their heads. No, it was the fault of the slaves. Perfect sense.
What if, in the absence of government, a city decided that slavery should be legal and protected by a private law enforcement agency? What higher authority would intervene for the unalienable rights of the oppressed slaves?
Sorry for being so talkative or "writative" that's not even a word, this whole bullshit lecture I just gave was just my opinion; it's just some philosophical hypothesis, or you can call it bias. I just felt that I can't just set and watch, I wanted to say something -I've written it instead-. I can't just keep it inside me.
plus people seeking the highest quality security would search for those who do it best, those that would secure everyone, would have more dollars to work with, and have a higher quality on the buck of security to offer. the bigger company would do it better, and the bigger company would be the company with the most revenue, and that revenue would not be very big if ignoring arbitrary demographics. racists would have to take a trade off, crap security, or better all inclusive..
There are way too many people in the audience that are OK forcing others to live by their "morals." How can you force anyone to be nice or give of themselves for the "common good." The guy speaking at 1:04:40 needs to read Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable." The free market breeds equal treatment.
Do the goverment need to bail out the auto companies? This people see the world black and white.
I see that you're first point confirms a known fact; that there's no true monarchy, it's always multiple people who are running the show. But no; his soldiers are just hardly working for the money, why do you think someone will hire a soldier? Trust me, it's not just for mere defense, part of their job is to obey his commands, money talks here, actually assassins are -currently- illegal PM contractors. where'd he get that money from? Maybe he's an automobile investor...
"Do we need government?" Short answer = No.
I wouldn't say fear, rather opposed to. Libertarianism is the most progressive political philosophy.
Lol, sure, and the weapons needed for that and people working for the government are not part of the market. What a deluded perspective... All that while the military budget of the USA is absurdly bloated...
im not an anarcho capitalist, im more of a libertarian minarchist, but im currently attempting to understand all the anarcho standpoints and reasoning, it seams to me, (on the subject of race) that even though some are racist, the other races have productive value of their own to work with, and any security comp that seeks to be competitive, would seek to acquire any means of revenue and would not exclude say the black community. racists would be ignored as unprofitable. continued>>>>
I am so glad I wasn't the only one getting frustrated with her. Those situations she was talking about are true under our public system now, whether they are wrong or not. What he was proposing wasn't going to fix all the problems of the world. All it was meant to be was to let people know that there might be a better way of living life, a life with more freedom. Its like people want you to lie to them.
The internet works because you cant kill or steal in it. Never in the internet do you have to worry about your life or the necessitys of life like food. you cant really steal in the internet unless the one your stealing is a moron, if your bank account is hacked and you lose your money the bank has to pay you back, or your inscurance will pay it. but in the real life you have a house with in you have your things that you like to use and have to keep safe.
Of course you live in a dictatorship, you are merely watching the curtain and not the wizard. You believe picking between 2, both provided to you, is not a dictatorship. You are naive. You need to review TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. Smell the coffee, good sir.
No, it's not justified, but peaceful protesters are only good for one thing. For the police to practice beating their patons on their heads. The left is so spineless and cowardly, that it infects everything they do. This video was made to target environmentalists, but it might as well apply to every leftist movement in the country. watch?v=eknuqWQ4-Mw
I think government should be used for stability and protection against foreign threats and terrorists, not interfering in our market system.
I consider most questions in the form of "either/or" to be misleading. In some fields and in good moments I may be wise, while I´ve certainly been stupid on other occasions. Great parts of my comments were questions that you wouldn´t answer. "Truth" is a big term and I won´t start proclaiming truths - unlike you narcissist. My statements are accurate and based on observations of reality, yours are based on tautologies.
You ignore that if you take away the state, gangs will take over. And momentarily the biggest gangs are private security corporations. From the rain into the...
Do you consider yourself a wise man, or a stupid man? Do you think what you've been saying here in this thread is true, or you are a liar? Do you see now, according to your own logic, you are one of these: "stupid", "liar", or "ridiculous". I do not necessarily think this is the case, but I cannot see how you are able to live comfortably with this set of beliefs.
Funny, how of all people it´s the academics who´ve never produced anything, never worked with their own Hands, fed by public institutions and corporate "think tanks" who demand the end of the state...
No, condemn it - not vote for it, not sanction it, nor participate with it. No, the wars were not. Though the US does not have a revolutionary history, sadly, it has a very militaristic one. It has been at war, one way or another, since day one. War is very easy for the Americans to find. You cannot defeat fascists by using their tactics.
You cannot really take out a multi-billion dollar loan. You can try to find an investor, and convince him that your particular military operation would be profitable. Which it won't - the costs of war are far greater than potential profits from oil extraction, even putting aside the moral considerations of investing into those things.
"Government is also ineffective" Really, so WW 1 and 2 plus all the other wars were not effictive? People didn´t die for real? The rest of your comment is but autistic, ideologic BS!
The poor have always been with us and will always be with us. Capitalism does not create poverty - in FACT, relieves much of it. Capitalism does not cause wealth concentration - you have NO economic theory that makes this case.
Great, let´s go back to city states and the Europe of the middle-age... " we would just embargo" Who are you trying to speak for?
I think you over estimate the average voter...How else do you get ideas into the mainstream of people's heads without dumbing it down a lot!
"The reason why they created the governments, is to distance themselves from the violence government is committing." Lol, sure... And corporations don´t use violence? "Capitalists" never mercs had beat up workers in strikes? Corporations don´t use terroristic tactics? Never heard of "economic hitmen"? Go on deluding yourself with propagandistic crap, corporatistic bullshitter.
That's the thing. Gov't isn't impartial at all. Gov't essentially has a monopoly on the service of conflict arbitration/resolution. I'll give you an example: If I have a dispute over an arrangement I've had with the government, where am I allowed to resolve this? The government will insist that I use their tribunal, and nothing else. And ofc, the reason I comply with their demands to arbitrate their own dispute is because they have overwhelming force to back them up.
But the decisions are made by the majority. I'd say that's pretty terrible, having the majority gang up on the minority, legally.
Say, when was the last time you heard a racketeer call his trade "civilization?" Ask yourself this question though: Is living under a government really necessary (hint:figure out what it is first)? I'm saying that living under an organization that is allowed (and often obligated) to seize your justly acquired property in the manner I described previously is probably going to do a lot more harm than if it were gone.
Expand. Tell why it requires a government to form rules.
They cannot work with criminal regimes _if there are no criminal regimes_. That's my point. Get rid of the state, most corporations go bankrupt, the rest turn into peaceful free-market enterprises.
Billions starving is not due to Capitalism, but a lack of it in those affected countries. It is a sign of success that 14% of the population consume the majority of resources - that is what success and prosperity means - consumption of resources to solve human problems. The goal is not to destroy the source of success but to expand its reach into areas that have yet to know it.
Flawed? Compared to government? You dismiss capitalism because it is flawed, yet champion Statism...which is even more flawed. Argument of hypocrisy. Humans are not perfect. No one is demanding perfection (except you, hypocritically) MORAL is the demand. You want to beat people into trading, whether they want to or not. Capitalists wish to voluntary trade ... which is equally a "no, thanks" as it is a "yes, thank you"
For some reason, Americans fear their government. And for some reason in Europe, governments fear their people. Maybe this is why. A protest at Berkeley: watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4 A protest in London: watch?v=OZxlC5ZL9qo A protest in Athens: watch?v=l189dKhJpUc Here endeth the lesson.
You are correct that capitalism is a means of organisation of labor rather than a political system. The position I take is that allowing this organisation the greatest amount of leeway to maximize (or capitalize, if you will) productivity and efficiency for the highest standards of living. There are in fact market failures (pollution comes to mind) that should be accounted for, but they are far, far less extensive than what government regulations currently do.
No, no, no. I don't care if they call the Fed private. It's not. I cannot go and print the dollars in my basement, I would be put to prison. Fed can do it. They are a government-created monopoly, and US government is trying hard to eliminate all of the competition, like Liberty Reserve, e-Gold, Gadhafi's gold dinar, etc. Good thing they cannot destroy Bitcoin.
Tell that one a 1 hour "So what? You can't make people have your values."
The property owner doesn't have any particular incentive to be mean to you, or charge too much, since you can always move to a better property. But, yeah, if you don't have property, you cannot break into somebody else's property, what's the big news? Government doesn't solve that, or it solves it in such a way that you'd better team up with your friends, and rent an apartment collectively. Communal flats in USSR were horrible.
"Maybe our current president" Wow. Yeah. Obama is totally a communist. He is worse than Marx himself.
No, it´s about fascism, governments and corporations working together for profits and power. "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
If I don't have private property I have to live on someone else's and thus be subject to them.
It is called living in a civilized nation. NO LIKE IT !!! Get involved and improve it. Unless the elections are rigged slaves are to blame for their masters.
If they would do that atrocity we would just embargo that city till they not do that
So, you think attacking cops will get them to back off. You are seriously naive and misguided.
But this doesn't negate what I was saying, even though it does provide some insight into the origins of socialism. Government is immoral, since it is the monopoly on violence in a single geographical area. Government is also ineffective, it always, and provably, leads to misallocation of resources - unlike capitalism. Government taxation and control of money supply are one of the primary reasons why many young people cannot afford to buy a house these days.
" Government is a group of people with the monopoly to initiate violence on a certain territory" "In order to agree government is immoral" Lol, you left out the question if that monopoly of force is good or bad. Take it away and you have but "might makes right".
Not really. Police forces have a pretty long history of roughing up leftist protesters for no particular reason while letting right-wing dissenters carry on unopposed.
I agree but they are vastly different systems. That is like saying Minarchy, Democracy and Monarchy are just kinds of government.
I'll clear some things up for you then. Government is an organization that holds the exclusive right to the initiation of force sustained by widespread systematic extortion. The "protection" from individual aggression that government offers the public quite conveniently does not apply to its own acts of aggression (if we understand taxation to be force). As such, the concept of taxation has no justification whatsoever. In a simple context, this is what I meant by my other post.
So now you are suggesting these people physically resist the police? You are suggesting that violent escalation is a better strategy then peaceful protest?
Slavery got banned in the south due to north intervention see i didn't have to go back far to see what i said being done
Anarcho-capitalism is senseless because large private property owners would essentially be de facto states. If your problem with government is just that it is called "government" then it is the system for you.
If you really think that would happen, you're very naive. You don't have to look very far back in history to see that human beings tend to be awful to each other, especially when the oppressed are in the minority.
I want to ask the lady at about the 1 hour point what she does to help the community? If she doesn't do anything to help those people then bringing it up as an issue is just hypocrisy.
Show more Loading...
to add this to Watch Later

Add to