 It's a question that comes up time and time again, but the only thing you can be certain about is that when it's asked it will cause an argument. Should those in the libertarian right ally ourselves with the libertarian left or the authoritarian right? Lib unity or rights unity? To answer this, what I thought would be a much needed exercise for us is to lay all the cards on the table, make the cases for both, analyze and critique them both on their own terms, and finally come to an informed decision that I think is the most sensible one and hopefully we can all agree on. So let's get into it. The case for libertarian unity starts off pretty simply. Anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, mutualists, georgists, agorists, and anarcho-capitalists all have one critical common goal, abolishing the state. If libertarians of all stripes united in this goal they would be far more successful in accelerating the goal than they would be if they fought amongst each other, the whole time just giving the state more of an excuse to expand itself in order to enforce its rule upon us as we remain divided and easily conquered. The understanding within libertarian unity is that an authoritarian government forces the people under its jurisdiction to accept its system and force is immoral. An end to the institution of force would allow all people to live their lives as they most see fit. You could have separate locations of societies organized around agreements to adhere to, like Ancom-communs trading with Ancap cities, georgists living in a town where they all agree to reimburse their community via a land value tax, and this whole system especially appeals to the free market sensibilities we have as what you essentially have is competition of ideology not forceful domination of it. Whichever ideological system is best, in air quotes, will attract the most people to it who will then contribute and they will become the most prosperous society as a result. The only reason you would fear this competition is if you've doubted the proficiency of your own ideology. Anybody who believes that capitalism, communism, or anything else must be forced upon people or else they will choose to reject it is inadvertently admitting that their system is inferior compared to others. If you admit that your ideology is inferior, then why the hell do you even stand by it right? The whole point of researching and choosing one is to determine by yourself what is best for people and then ultimately you need to let it prove itself so that people will choose it. Now building on this there's an even more unified vision called panarchy where in areas like cities every single individual can choose which system they want to participate in. So instead of having neighboring cities of communists and capitalists you can have literal neighboring people being communists and capitalists going to work at co-ops and firms respectively in the same city. Instead of dividing societies by ideology you could fully unite everyone by the common goal, choice. What is more broadly libertarian than allowing people to choose to live how they please for as long as they do not interfere with someone else's choices. After all don't tread on me. That statement applies to everyone. Communists cannot tread on capitalists, capitalists can't tread on mutualists, mutualists can't tread on agorists and so on. The state is the institution with a monopoly on the initiation of violence. So if you initiate violence on anyone then what sort of libertarian are you? Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. By all means use your freedom of speech to debate amongst your peers. Sit down with your communist neighbor to discuss economics long into the night just don't end up punching each other like children. Work together to end the institution of force and then leave everyone alone. So the best way to start the case for right unity is to actually begin by critiquing libertarian unity. Now the main problem area is up here. All of this going on up here is what's causing me the most physical discomfort. It's like a visceral reaction of discontent coming from this area. This area is not good either. I hate this but I'm mainly worried about this. Let's take the final analogy that I used there. Have you ever actually debated an anarcho-communist? It's almost always not a pleasant experience. The way we on the libertarian right see it is that communism is ineffective but if it isn't forced upon you well then who cares? Our confidence in our economics allows us to say this where we know that socialism is doomed to fail including so-called market socialism but if people really want to live like that then it's just not worth trying to stop them provided they don't force you to as well. But there is a glaring difference in the way that libertarian socialists view capitalism. We do not see their economic model alone as inherently immoral or evil but that is how they view capitalism in all of their doctrines. All socialist economics are based on the theory of exploitation. The only institution that we apply exploitation theory to is the government and their cronies. It's the very reason why we say taxation is theft but socialists go so far as to say property is theft which then means capitalism and the entire system of profit is also theft. It is funny when you ask them if that means loss is also theft but that's getting off track. Socialists overwhelmingly view capitalism not as inefficient or undesirable but evil. Have you ever heard the phrase there is no ethical consumption under capitalism? Do you honestly expect to be a capitalist who lives next to someone who says that and feels safe knowing that on the other side of the wall there is someone who views your existence and way of life as unethical? This view makes friendly debate between us an incredibly rare thing. Some socialists are sensible enough to happily agree with you that any voluntary interaction is only the business of the people involved and two people willingly engaging in capitalism are not an issue. By this extent these socialists are embracing the non-aggression principle. Fantastic but they at least seem to be an extraordinary minority. The vast majority of leftists take their total hatred of capitalism and choose to side with the authoritarian left against us. It seems that nearly all right libertarians start off by being for libertarian unity until they get told enough times by anarcho-communists that they will be put against the wall and shot. I know this is my experience and that of just about all of my peers who have been libertarian for long enough. You can only get so many death threats from people you're trying to help before you give up. So this will cause you to double down on the very thing it is that the left hates about you, private property. It is undoubtedly the defining characteristic of our quadrant in how we alone treat it as a natural right. So when you turn away from libertarian unity and you look northward to the authoritarian right you see that they allow private property to exist as a conditional institution rather than a right which isn't good but isn't that better? Taxation is theft but isn't it better to have your property be taxed than destroyed entirely? Something is better than nothing, right? So does that mean that we actually have more in common with the authoritarian right than the libertarian left? It's extremely important to note that the bundle of sticks aren't at all the correct way to view the off right. They are totalitarian economic centrists. They hate socialism and capitalism. They are not who we're talking about here. The authoritarian right are mostly constitutionalists, conservatives, people who place good importance on capitalism and things like gun rights. People who aren't going to kill you over your economic beliefs. They are likely to use force on you regarding drugs, taxes, sexuality and other social issues but isn't that better than being dead? It's not a case of good, it's a case of the lesser of two evils. So don't think that because I've just made the case for both Lib Unity and Right Unity that I like either of them. Do you want to know what I stand for? Libertarian Right Unity. So many of us break the mainstream duopoly and become libertarians when we're sick of choosing between the lesser of two evils and decide to start choosing that which is actually good. When you put all of those hypothetical arguments I made aside, take a moment to lift your head up and look at the world around you. You'll quickly realise we are not in any sort of a position to try and make alliances with any people who are ideologically opposed to us. We can't even make alliances amongst ourselves. From classical liberals to minicists to ang caps to agorists to agorists, we spend more time fighting each other than anyone else and it's honestly pathetic. We can all agree on at least 90% of all political, economic and social issues. Why the hell do we need to bicker with each other at the same time as trying to ally ourselves with people that we agree on less than 50% of all things with? Fundamentally, both groups do not care for your natural rights at all, yet we completely divide ourselves over who of us is more consistent in their defence of natural rights. Like I said, private property is our cornerstone and we should always debate how best to fully realise it in our systems and seek the most consistency. But the moment that we start fighting instead of debating is when we push ourselves further away from our 90% of a common goal, all for the sake of the 10% remaining. And like I said, when we're divided, we're easily conquered. All of the other three quadrants are happy for us to remain this way. While we shout taxation is theft between our spats of infighting, taxes get raised. While we tell each other, oh you're not allowed to wave the gadstone flag because you're not a real libertarian like I am, then we're all being tread on. We are not ideologically opposed. Our ideology is property and freedom. Why don't we start choosing to unite with each other over this? Instead of trying to unite with those who want property and no freedom, compared to those who want freedom and no property, you can't have one without the other. We all realise this. So why can't we unite in order to secure both? Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. And before I end it, I just want to ask that we all please remain civil in the comments of this video. I have faith that we can, and I think I've made videos before which are actually more divisive, yet we've had good cohesion over. But I just feel the need to ask this time. I also want to apologise for how slow videos have been lately, but I have great news in that all of the generous donations I've received from viewers in the last month has finally enabled me to be able to buy the parts for a new PC, which will be with me in the next few days. This means you can expect more live streams and videos from me in the future as turnaround times improve. And I want to give a huge shout out to all of you who've helped me in this, your real ones, and I love you all. Take it easy.