Peter Schiff Interviews an Anarchist





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Apr 9, 2012

For the latest Peter Schiff, go to http://PeterSchiffBlog.com -

Peter Schiff interviewed an Anarchist on his show, Stefan Molyneux. In this interview, Peter Schiff is the person who wants more government.

Comments • 55

Kiwi AustEcon
Peter schiff wants a privatised government --> therefore is an anarchist but won't admit it. haha. Embrace anarchy man! Anarcho-capitalism is true freedom. :)
Logan Brion
Molyneux is not an anarchist.
Richard John
a very polite conversation. lot of good points made too
william waddell
well all thing at least in this existence have a begining and an end. so yes statism would eventually come back however stefan is right moral changes tend to last a long time. also america the country most likely was only born around the begining of the so called civil war and therefore most likely only stayed limited for what 75 years? and you could not have asked for a exspirement in statism
Roberto Melendez
Why didn't they mention the "one thousand years of anarchy in Ireland" ?
Stefan Molyneux, the anarcho-capitalist, is asserting the importance of his education and degree from a public university primarily funded by the federal government?
Welfare benefits all citizens equally because no matter who you are, you can receive welfare when you need it - which also applies to receiving aid from the police. What is the factor that makes welfare invalid?
lol Schiff soundly won that quick bridge toll debate then Molyneux immediately tried to move past it without really acknowledging that his position had been wrong and that he is now changing his position to Schiff's position.
View reply
Hide replies
Molyneux's position is not consistent. Because his belief in non-aggression and so forth is just a wish, but not enforceable in his ideal society. In reality, there is always force that can be used, so the very concept of non-initiation of force is incoherent and unrealistic. People will utilize force. So the best option is to create a unified system of institutional structures/protocols for how the whole society can deal with each other for protection, justice, and making changes. This is called democratic government.
Non-initiation of force and respect for property rights is not a societal model. It's a personal choice about one's own behavior or it is a wish about how others would behave. It is not a functional plan for society because it cannot structurally enforce that philosophy. Stefan will probably never be able to understand that. If people naturally gravitated toward what he claims, then we would see wonderful anarcho-capitalist societies all over place - essentially anywhere that civil wars occurred and the central government breaks down. But instead we see people choosing to consolidate power into various factions in order to secure their interests, which may be to ensure order or to simply take power for themselves. That is why it is far better to have largely decentralized, but not abolished, civil institutions that unify all of society in a series of power balances and institutional protocols for enacting change and so forth. This helps greatly reduce the concentrations of power that occur under highly centralized government or form within anarchic circumstances.
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...