 In mainstream dialogues, the term right is thrown around like it's going out of fashion. Every few months, pundits vastly from the left wing come up with some new material condition which they decide to be a right with little to no justification as to why it is one. These rights can only exist depending on the collective wealth of a given society, but collective wealth is both not any kind of measurement of what any individual has earned or is owed nor is it the foundation of what constitutes a right. This is what I mean by material condition, the combined sum of all of a society's material wealth. There can be no talk of a right to healthcare, education, transport, etc. in a society of, let's say, hunter-gatherer humans using primitive tools just to survive rather than thrive. Without the material wealth required, these people have no hope in hell of any of these rights as they are called. If it can only be called a right for one group of humans at one point in time dependent on the vague total material condition available, well then it's not a right at all as rights are by definition inalienable. Rights are determined deontologically, meaning by the nature of existence itself. Rights cannot be determined consequentially, meaning dependent on physical factors. We can already tell that these material or positive rights are entirely consequential and there is no such thing as a consequential right, but what can exist are consequential responsibilities. Without the rooted connection to a right, it is completely appropriate to argue for a responsibility to provide education, healthcare, transport and so on to the material ability of the society and without violating the deontological rights in the process of doing so. Just as it would be immoral in a hunter-gatherer society for one person to steal from another, just as it would be in our modern day. So it cannot be moral to meet a societal responsibility through theft as rights always trump responsibilities. The theft is the removal of a person's property without their given consent, so taxation is theft. I'm sure you saw where I was going with that one. An institution founded and funded by this violent action should never be the first port of call when trying to meet responsibilities. Government is rather the great remover of responsibilities. They remove them by saying don't worry about it, just give us the money and we'll sort it out. Oh and by the way, you can't stop us, we'll take it whether or not you want us to, and we'll do whatever we want with it, yet we expect you to trust us because you're stupid and let us get away with just about anything. Now how do you meet material responsibilities without this theft? Charity. A person chooses to give to charity and obviously gives their consent when they transfer their money to the cause of their choosing. If they do not transfer their money, they will not be kidnapped and thrown in a cell. Ask anybody who says taxation isn't theft, what would happen to them if they stopped paying? A charity won't kick down your door before sunrise and go as far as to kill you if you resisted capture enough, but the government wouldn't blink an eye at that. So a good question is this. Do we, as an affluent society, have a responsibility to provide for those who are limited or unable to provide for themselves? It's a subjective question, but I'm sure we all know the answer is a firm yes. Great, problem solved. We all agree that we have this responsibility and therefore we should choose to fulfil it. So why the hell do we need a gun to our heads to do it? For starters, the people who get rich by coming up with all of these new fake rights and shouting about them should be the first people to embrace this position, put their money where their mouth is, and give those earnings to charities of causes that they espouse. But clearly that is far too much to ask of those charlatans, like how Bernie jumped on the $15 minimum wage bandwagon but wouldn't even pay that to his campaign staff. Like how he owns several homes from being a career politician, instead of giving back to those taxpayers whose stolen money paid for those houses. If writers for the Guardian put less effort into perpetually writing articles about how Boris Johnson is Hitler and is genociding the vague group they call the poor and, you know, they actually did things to help the poor, then they would be massively closer to what they claim to want. Actions speak far louder than words, and if these people wanted to help the poor, well, you'd see them actually doing it, and of course, you hardly do. When somebody's words don't match up with their actions, you have to ask if they're lying. Think about this, if Bernie got his health care, his rocketing minimum wage, demolished the banks and any other policy he proposes, and let's take a massive dose of poetic licence to say that this doesn't destroy everything it touches, well, what would he have left? How would he receive millions of dollars' worth of campaign donations just to not refund them when his campaign collapses? Is it actually in his interest to achieve anything he claims to want? Perhaps he's like a dog chasing cars, wouldn't know what to do with one if he caught it. Let that sink in. Really though, as the generic total material conditions progress, so do these people's ideas of rights. We've already heard the push for a rights to internet, with the Labour Party proposal of nationalising broadband. Here's a quick nugget for you. Did you know that almost all of the main internet and telephone lines in the UK are owned by BT, who just rent them out to service providers? They were a government company and department of the post office, until Thatcher privatised them in the 80s and they carried over their monopoly, so now all Labour needs to do is call it the people's BT or some stupid shit like that. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Is the government ever capable to fulfil responsibilities on the behalf of societies as normies like to say it does? If you've been of the libertarian persuasion for any length of time, I'm sure you've heard people say, well I like paying taxes so it's not a problem. It's funny how these people love paying taxes so much and feel so good when you're talking about welfare, but they quickly splutter and stall when you ask if they support the wars that they fund, police brutality or how it pays the politicians salaries of whichever political wing that person has decided is the bad one. One of the greatest ironies surrounding us as libertarians is how what we want is to meet societal responsibilities without also causing the deaths of millions in a desert thousands of miles away, yet we are apparently the extremists. The mainstream left and right are under a mass hysterical delusion that government is good when they control it and bad when they don't. What they never do is talk about how governments are the only institutions in human history that have ever carried out genocides. When Oxfam puts millions of people to death, I'll consider humoring the possibility that a monopoly on force which is funded by theft might be a contender if only we can get the good people in charge of it by ticking a box on a piece of paper. Until then I remain confident that government will only ever be more capable of harm than good and will choose to subvert it for the better, more efficient and bloodless option charity. I've said this before in a previous video but I'll reiterate it here. If somebody believes that people would be too selfish to give to charity if they didn't have to pay taxes, ask if they would. Scrambling for the moral high ground this person will say yes. Ask them if they're some sort of saint morally ascended beyond the capacity of mortal humans. If they say yes you can laugh them out of the room and if they say no your point is proven. Here's a timeless phrase. If people want something they will pay for it. Do we as a whole want to help people who are disabled, poor, elderly, suffering from addiction, homeless and so on? Yes we do. There we go we'll pay for it. So this is the answer to the question when people ask how would there be a social safety net in an anarcho capitalist society or even a minicist society for the government only exists to protect basic rights? Charity. End of story. It's better, it's more efficient, it's peaceful and it allows society to fulfill their responsibilities without threat. It is a complete destruction of the argument libertarians just hate the poor or any crap like that that people try and say. Clearly we hate the poor so much that we want them to stop being reliant on the inefficient and destructive government and allow them to be protected by private charities which we fund out of our choice. How bloody evil of us I know right? Now is the time for me to plug the organisation Voluntaryism in Action, a charity created on these libertarian principles. A singular sentence from the front page of their website puts it perfectly. Whenever a need is introduced Voluntaryism in Action and its supporters address the need to the best of our ability. Orgs like these are the perfect places for us to put our money where our mouth is which I derided the left for not doing. Our job is to be better than them which is not a particularly hard task and give to charity rather than just talk about it. I'll leave links in the description to their website and Instagram page so you can look into the work they do and hopefully find it worthwhile to donate to them. They've been doing this for a good while now and are well known among libertarians and I trust them greatly. Another org I've recently come across but has apparently been going since the 1980s is Perk, an organisation devoted to what they call free market environmentalism and have programmes for privatised nature conservation. If the grey outdoors is something you cherish and you want to put your money where your mouth is, it seems like an ideal choice so give them a look. But of course they don't have to be outwardly libertarian or free market organisations giving to any charity at all is your way of knowing that the money you give is going to a good cause rather than if you bought something with it which will be charged VAT or sales tax which then goes to the government who are guaranteed to abuse it. Keep that in mind and take it easy.