This analysis examines an article written against the core arguments of anarcho-capitalism, purporting to highlight contradictions in its foundational principles. Stef critiques their notion of a legal monopoly on force, arguing that prohibiting alternative protection services constitutes coercion and undermines the moral basis for a state monopoly. The discussion raises questions about the feasibility of a government maintaining order without infringing on individual rights and the subjective nature of defining concepts like aggression and self-defense. The speaker emphasizes the importance of competition in defining rights, suggesting that a system based on voluntary negotiation leads to a more equitable society than one reliant on state authority. The lecture concludes with a warning against any single entity holding a monopoly on force, advocating for a society where voluntary agreements foster freedom and reduce the risk of tyranny.
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material, as well as targeted AIs for Real-Time Relationships, BitCoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-Ins. Don't miss the private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material, as well as targeted AIs for Real-Time Relationships, BitCoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-Ins. Don't miss the private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00Alrighty, arguments against anarcho-capitalism.
00:06So here we are going to have a quick tour through the major arguments against anarcho-capitalism
00:15and let's just dive straight in.
00:19The main anarcho-capitalist point is that a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force
00:24must also include a legal monopoly on the use of coercive force.
00:31So the main anarcho-capitalist point, so you've got to look out for sophistry from the very
00:36beginning.
00:37Is it a point or is it an argument or is it a conclusion or a rational approach or whatever?
00:45Just saying that it's a point.
00:47Well, you know, my point is, you know, that's something that is not objective, right?
00:52It's not saying it's an argument.
00:53It's not saying that they're attempting to be consistent with the non-aggression principle.
00:57It's just saying it's a point.
01:00A monopoly on the use of retaliatory force must also include a legal monopoly on the
01:04use of coercive force.
01:06Right, retaliatory force.
01:07So if someone breaks into your house and steals your bike, then someone or some agency or
01:15some entity, someone has to go and use force to get your bike back, right?
01:19We understand that.
01:21So if only one agency called the state is allowed to do that, then it must prevent other
01:28people from doing it, which is an initiation of the use of force, okay?
01:31Outlawing alternative protection services if such services represent individual rights
01:35must be itself an act of coercion and thus immoral.
01:38If other protection agencies use force only for retaliatory and not coercive purposes,
01:42then outlawing such agencies would be coercive force.
01:46To question how a monopolistic government can be created that does not, by its very
01:51nature, violate the rights it is, in the objectivist view, charged to protect.
01:55Okay, sorry, is that an incomplete sentence or did I misread it?
02:00To question how a monopolistic government can be created that does not, by its very
02:06nature, violate the rights it is, in the objectivist view, charged to protect.
02:09No, that's not it.
02:10It's an incomplete sentence.
02:11Sorry.
02:12Outlawing protection agencies that use only retaliatory force and thus have not violated
02:15any rights is an act of coercion.
02:18That's a pretty good restatement of the anarcho-capitalist argument.
02:21On its surface, it seems seductively simple, right?
02:25So on its surface, it seems seductively simple, again, they're priming you to using sophistry,
02:34right?
02:35Well, we don't want to just have a surface argument, we want a deep and complex argument.
02:40Well, I don't want to be seduced, I want to be rational, right?
02:44So here, the initiation of coercion and force is immoral, comes from Randt.
02:48Government is an institution which maintains a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of
02:52force in a given geographical area.
02:54But to maintain a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, a government must initiate coercive
02:58force to exclude competitors.
03:00Hence, to exist as a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, a government must
03:04imply immoral means.
03:06Government is thus intrinsically immoral and self-contradictory, hence Ayn Randt's pro-government
03:10position contradicts her basic ethics.
03:14This argument is a splendid instance of rationalism.
03:17No argument has been made yet, it's just bitchy.
03:20Oh, the snarky bitchy crap, oh it drives me crazy, I was just reading The Economist, I'll
03:25talk about that another time.
03:27Just snarky, snarky, oh it's rationalism.
03:30It proceeds deductively from a limited set of premises which are presumed to include
03:34all other relevant considerations.
03:35Ah yes, you see, it's rationalism, it's on its surface, it's seductively simple, it's
03:43just a point, it does not include all the relevant considerations.
03:48Okay, but in fact they do not.
03:51Here is just a sampler of the contextual considerations omitted.
03:56Exactly who determines what use of force is initiatory or coercive, and what is defensive
04:01or retaliatory?
04:02Okay, what does that mean, exactly who?
04:05These are concepts in the mind which are going to have to be negotiated in society, right?
04:12These are concepts in the mind that are going to have to be negotiated.
04:15So exactly who determines what use of force is initiatory or coercive?
04:18Okay, so if that's really complicated, are you saying that we should just leave it to
04:22the government?
04:23The idea that something is complicated to define, therefore we should leave it to the
04:28government, is morally deranged, it's evil, it's as close to evil as thoughts can get.
04:36Well you know, these things can be complicated, and you know, the best thing to bring to complicated
04:40situations is a gun.
04:43You know, this equation is really complicated to solve, so I'm just going to shoot the blackboard
04:50and the professor, like that doesn't make any sense, doesn't make any sense.
04:55So someone is going to have to determine what use of force is initiatory or coercive, and
05:00what is defensive or retaliatory, someone's going to have to determine it.
05:03Do you want this to be negotiated with the cost-benefit analysis of pleasing customers
05:07in a voluntary free market, or by a monopoly of sociopaths who can initiate the use of
05:12force pretty much at will?
05:14Someone's going to have to determine it.
05:16So saying that there's this magical entity called the government that is still just composed
05:20of people, is something like, well people have a tough time agreeing on this stuff,
05:25so we'll just make a government composed of people to inflict this stuff by force, come
05:29on man.
05:30Okay, by what process is that determination made, or to put it in terms of rights, who
05:35determines whether in any given use of force rights have been violated, and thus who is
05:39the aggressor and who the victim?
05:41By what procedure, what theory or interpretation of rights is to be used?
05:45Rand's?
05:46Henry George's?
05:47Lenin's?
05:48For society, how are such determinations made with finality, and how is that verdict enforced?
05:53As a corollary, who determines which agency is a protection agency, and which is a mere
05:57gang of aggressors, by what method and standard?
05:59Okay, so what they're saying is that things can be difficult, challenging, and complicated,
06:05and there are edge cases, and therefore we need violence.
06:12You know, it's complicated to be an entrepreneur, it's complicated and difficult and it's challenging.
06:18So I guess, you know, just go rob people, is that the argument?
06:22So something is challenging and complicated, therefore we need more coercion and force
06:27and violence, or a monopoly of coercion and force and violence, and that's going to solve
06:32all the problems of complication.
06:37So to me, I find this fairly deranged.
06:40I mean, it's actually completely deranged.
06:42The more complicated and challenging something is to define, and the more edge cases there
06:46are, the more you need voluntary free market negotiation, in order to resolve these things.
06:55Right?
06:58It's like saying, well the government should assign people their spouses, because dating
07:02is complicated, and who's really to define what love is, and devotion and commitment,
07:08and people break up a long time, they make the wrong decisions, it's really complicated,
07:13so we should just force the government, or the government should just force everyone
07:17to get married and have sex with each other, because it's complicated, don't you know?
07:21Oh my God!
07:23You know what else is really complicated?
07:25Building a rocket.
07:26Who's to objectively decide what the best methodology is for propulsion?
07:30Who's objectively to decide what the definition of a rocket actually is?
07:33Who's to decide what's the best jet fuel?
07:35Who's to decide how tall the launch pad should be?
07:39This is all really complicated.
07:41So we should just force people to build rockets, it's really complicated, so let's use force.
07:47Oh my God, what do you say?
07:51So the purpose of this, and this is the cheap ass two bit sophistry, and what happens is
07:56people say, well do you have a direct, do you have a conclusive answer to all these
08:01questions?
08:02No?
08:03Well then, you better support the government.
08:06I don't have an answer to these things.
08:09So what?
08:10So you don't have an answer to these things, but the answer is, let's not use force to
08:14solve them.
08:16I don't care how complicated the question is, what matters is we don't point guns at
08:21people and pretend we're solving anything.
08:25Someone's going to have to determine these things.
08:27Do you want these things to be determined in a voluntary, free market, efficient, customer
08:32driven environment, where people are negotiating on the methodology of peace, money and reason?
08:40Or, do you want a small group of people to be given all the guns in the known universe
08:43and impose their will through force?
08:46Yeah, these things are complicated.
08:48Yeah, exactly.
08:50Lots of things are complicated.
08:52You know, making a tablet is really complicated, so we should just empty magazine clips into
08:57the Sahara until tablets are produced.
09:01Okay, so, but we can answer these questions, right?
09:06Who determines what use of force is initiatory or coercive, and what is defensive or retaliatory?
09:11Well, it's the contract you sign with your defense agency, your dispute resolution organization,
09:17the people who protect you, right?
09:20Everybody's going to have to figure out, and you know, these guys are going to have to
09:22want cross DRO compatibility in the same way that your phones work on different carriers,
09:28right?
09:29They just figure out how to make it work with each other.
09:33So, it's going to be as simple and clear as possible.
09:38By what process is that determination made?
09:40Well, through the process of trying to sell your protection services to customers.
09:44That's how it's made.
09:45Who determines whether in any given use of force rights have been violated?
09:49Well, you're going to have clear definitions of rights that are going to be in the contract
09:53that people with an IQ 85 or 80 or above will be able to sort out, and so it'll be very
09:59clear.
10:00Will there be some edge cases?
10:01Yes, there will be some edge cases.
10:04Absolutely.
10:05Are they relevant?
10:06No.
10:07I mean, they're not relevant philosophically.
10:10I mean, they're interesting from a legal practice standpoint, but they're not.
10:17Like if you say to people, eat healthy and exercise, you don't have to say, well, you
10:25know, unless there's some particular condition that makes your heart rate going up dangerous
10:30for you, or unless you're in a coma, or unless you have broken both legs, or unless you're
10:36recovering from hernia surgery, or like, come on, you don't, like just, yeah, eat a healthy
10:41diet, try not to gain weight and exercise, it's good for you, but what about all these
10:47edge cases where things like, oh my God, oh my God, the edge cases are implicit.
10:53Do things that are healthy only if they make you healthy.
10:56If doing things that are normally healthy makes you sick, like exercising, if you've
11:01had a testicle removed right afterwards, then don't do that because it doesn't make you
11:04well.
11:05It's not healthy, right?
11:06So do things that are healthy when they make you healthy.
11:11For a society, how are such determinations made with finality, and how is that verdict
11:16enforced?
11:17Well, the verdict is enforced through economic and social ostracism.
11:23As a corollary, who determines which agency is a protection agency?
11:27The customer.
11:28The customer.
11:29I mean, who determines whether you're a cell phone customer?
11:33A company.
11:34Who determines whether you're a cell phone company?
11:36Well, if people buy your cell phones and services, then you're a cell phone company.
11:41It's not that complicated.
11:44And which is a mere gang of aggressors?
11:46Well, a protection agency is voluntary, right?
11:49You can withdraw if they don't serve your needs or preferences.
11:52You can withdraw from that protection agency and go to another one.
11:55You see, it's so funny, you know, these objectivists, I'm not sure if this guy's an objectivist,
12:00but this general objectivist argument is like, well, the free market produces quality, but
12:07a monopoly of protection through a coercive government agency is going to produce quality.
12:13And see, the free market produces quality except in personal protection, in which case
12:19it's a disaster.
12:21Okay, so the free market can produce massive, complicated cell phones that work literally
12:26all over the planet, but it can't figure out how to protect you from criminals.
12:32Yeah, that makes sense.
12:34So that which is more complicated can be totally handled by the free market, but that which
12:37is far less complicated, well, you need a government gang for that, what can I tell
12:41you?
12:42Because reasons.
12:44What anarchists submit from this?
12:45So this is just a bunch of questions, right?
12:47And this, well, who will build the roads?
12:51How do you know?
12:52How are you going to get national protection?
12:53Right?
12:54It doesn't matter.
12:56This is just retarded, genuinely retarded, saying, oh, well, you have slaves, who's going
13:01to pick the cotton?
13:02And who's going to do this?
13:03And who's going to make all of that?
13:04And who's going to build?
13:05If you don't have the slaves, then who's going to pick the vegetables?
13:08Who's going to?
13:09Right?
13:10You can see this happening right now.
13:11It's like, well, without the illegal immigrants, who is going to pick the vegetables?
13:12And if you have avocados, it's going to be $10.
13:15It's like, you know, you don't have to answer these questions.
13:19You just have to say, is slavery immoral?
13:20Yeah, slavery is immoral.
13:21Is the initiation of the use of force immoral?
13:24Yes.
13:25That's all you need to answer.
13:26Well, how are you going to?
13:27Okay.
13:28Well, how are you going to?
13:29It doesn't matter.
13:30It's an irrelevant question.
13:31It's an irrelevant question.
13:32How's the guy going to get to work if the car he stole gets taken back?
13:38How's he going to get to work?
13:39Huh?
13:40It doesn't matter.
13:41Did he steal the car?
13:42Then it goes back.
13:43I don't care how he gets to work.
13:45It doesn't matter.
13:46It's irrelevant.
13:47All right.
13:48Anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating competition in the protection
13:55of rights.
13:56In fact, what their position would necessitate is competition in defining what rights are.
14:01Yes!
14:02Rights are complicated.
14:03Therefore, we need competition.
14:06The enforcement of rights is not that complicated.
14:08Guy steals your bike.
14:09Someone goes and gets it back for you.
14:10That's not.
14:11Yes!
14:12Rights are complicated because some people use them to mean I have the right to be left
14:15alone and other people use it to mean I have a right to other people's labor, i.e. free
14:21health care.
14:22So, yes!
14:23Rights are complicated.
14:24So, that's why we need a competition because that which is not in the state of competition
14:27gets corrupt and top-heavy and exploitive and destructive.
14:31You take something out of the realm of competition, it turns to shit and is endlessly force-fed
14:37to the population.
14:38All right.
14:39What anarchists omit from their basic premises is a simple fact.
14:44Conflicting philosophies will lead to conflicting interpretations of the meaning of such basic
14:49terms as aggression, self-defense, property, rights, justice, and liberty.
14:54Deducing away syllogism after syllogism from these mere words does not mean that the people
14:59employing them agree on their meaning, justification, or implementation.
15:03Right?
15:04So, in society, there will be different definitions of these things, for sure.
15:09So then, how can a government possibly enforce the will of the people if the people disagree
15:15on things?
15:18But there is such a necessity for the network effect with regards to protection.
15:26Like you don't want to have protection that works in one town but not another.
15:32You don't want to have a cell phone that works only in a three-block radius.
15:37You want a cell phone that works everywhere you go, and you want protections that work
15:40everywhere you go.
15:42Which means that the bare minimum definitions have to be agreed upon by a very wide variety
15:46of protection agencies.
15:48Otherwise, if you have a new protection agency that says, well, I define rights as the right
15:52to healthcare, therefore, I'm going to enforce ostracism procedures against any doctor that
15:58doesn't give you free healthcare, well, people just wouldn't accept that.
16:02They wouldn't believe in that.
16:03They wouldn't enforce that.
16:04They would go nowhere with that.
16:07So for sure, people have differing definitions.
16:10How does the government solve that?
16:12The government is still going to have to pick one definition out of many and enforce that
16:16at the expense of everyone else, which means that everyone is going to try and get control
16:19of the government to enforce their own definition of these words on other people, leading to
16:23civil war.
16:24God, why don't people see this stuff?
16:27The only chance you have to have these terms defined in any consistently productive way
16:35is through voluntary competition.
16:36So people who over-define these terms are going to end up with very, very expensive
16:40premiums.
16:41Right?
16:42So if, for instance, self-defense means, okay, some guy's about to attack you with grievous
16:46bodily harm, reasonable expectations, right?
16:48That's fine.
16:49Then that's very rare, and it's very cheap to pay for insurance against that, because
16:53it's very rare.
16:54If somebody says, well, self-defense is somebody who looks at me mean, well, that's going to
16:57be crazy, ridiculously expensive, right?
17:00So if self-defense is guy running at me with chainsaw, that's going to cost you 10 bucks
17:04a month to protect yourself against that.
17:06If it's somebody looked at me funny and called me a mean word, then that's going to be $10,000
17:11a month to enforce for every customer.
17:13So which one's the most efficient?
17:17There's an efficiency principle here that can only be determined by economics and nothing
17:21else.
17:22So saying that there's a huge amount of disagreement about these terms is an absolute argument
17:26for voluntary free market definitions and enforcement, because that got the efficiency
17:30principle.
17:31Otherwise, everybody's going to use the government to try and inflict their definitions on everyone
17:36else and you get back to civil war.
17:37It solves nothing, all right?
17:41Without a philosophical consensus, quote, competing agencies driven to maximize profits
17:44by satisfying their paying customers will offer opposing rival social factions and interpretations
17:49each once.
17:50No, they won't.
17:51Nope.
17:52It's sort of like saying, well, every internet service provider is going to have a different
17:58standard of data transfer and therefore nobody will be able to send an email to anyone outside
18:06a small localized network.
18:08Well, that's just not how things work.
18:10Of course they have to agree on how to exchange data and information.
18:13Your email probably, you send an email to Dubai, it probably goes across 20 different
18:17systems, all of them using the same basic standards of data transfer.
18:21Because that's the efficiency principle, right?
18:24So what they're saying is that, well, in a market that's driven by efficiency, there
18:28are going to be these crazy inefficiencies.
18:31It's like, well, then you don't believe in the free market.
18:33You don't believe that the free market brings efficiency, in which case you might as well
18:36have the government run everything.
18:38But if the free market does bring efficiency, then the first thing you need efficiency in
18:42is the use of force and definitions of self-protection and liberty and justice, right?
18:47And the only way you'll get consistent and productive definitions of these things is
18:50through the efficiency principle of the market.
18:55All right.
18:56Yeah, so satisfying their paying customers.
18:58So paying customers want to be protected everywhere they go from violence, from the initiation
19:04of the use of force.
19:05They want to be protected at a reasonable cost for everywhere they go.
19:08Yeah.
19:09So whoever will provide that will do very well.
19:12And everyone who tries to get in the way of that, I mean, imagine all these railroads
19:16are being built and you're like, well, I think that a gauge that's half as wide is the most
19:20efficient one because you can go faster in a straight line.
19:22Okay.
19:23So go build your own railroad with a gauge half the size of everyone else's and see how
19:27many people want to use your railroad.
19:29It won't happen.
19:30Anyway, it's just silly.
19:34And which agency will attract the most customers?
19:37Of course, the one that gets results by best satisfying consumer demand, i.e. the one that
19:41can impose its own definitions of aggression and self-defense on competitors.
19:45Nope.
19:46Nope.
19:47The one that gives you the most protection for the least amount of money.
19:52And also, here's the thing too, people are going to want definitions of, say, criminal
20:01aggression that don't include their own behavior.
20:04So I'm not about to spend any part of my day running at people with chainsaws screaming
20:10I'm going to unalive them.
20:13So I'm not doing that.
20:15So I'm very happy having that as part of a voluntary protection agreement I signed with
20:20the DRO.
20:21Yeah, great.
20:22However, if, on the other hand, you, as we all do, occasionally look at people funny
20:30or may even say something a little bit rude to someone, you don't want that.
20:34You don't want to pay for that because that's going to bite you in the ass too.
20:36You want a bare minimum of things that you're not going to do that are very aggressive.
20:40Right?
20:41So anyway.
20:44So you don't get to impose your own definitions of aggression and self-dependence on competitors.
20:48You are costing a wide enough net on aggression that people feel protected but not so wide
20:53that they themselves can run afoul for innocuous things like, I don't know, saying something
20:57mean or looking at someone in a quote hostile manner, right?
21:02So it says, after all, would you hire an agency that couldn't adequately protect your own
21:05interpretation of your rights?
21:07Well, no.
21:08Your own interpretation of your rights are going to be things that aren't going to get
21:10you caught up in a net and have you ostracized from society, but are going to be a self-protection
21:15for you, right?
21:18So it's, and of course, if people have their own definitions of rights and want to impose
21:28those on everyone else, then they didn't all just gain control of the government and do
21:31it that way.
21:32And then the civil war, right?
21:35Consider the justly maligned profession of defense attorneys.
21:39They'll defend any client for a buck using any argument, any tactic to boost their chances
21:42of winning, truth be damned.
21:44What people today say, when people today say, I need a good lawyer, do they mean I need
21:48a pillar of integrity or do they mean instead a guy who can win for me?
21:52Ah, would anyone argue that it is merely the fact of government courts that makes these
21:57sheist as possible?
21:58Yeah, for sure, for sure.
22:00So what he's saying is that people who want protection will get morally compromised liars
22:14to provide that protection for them, all right?
22:20So then he gives a government example saying, well, the government has a monopoly on the
22:23law courts.
22:25And so he's saying that, look, as my primary example as to why we need the government,
22:30I'm going to tell you how terrible governments are.
22:32Look at the, look at my God, right?
22:35Oh my God.
22:36Do you know, I suppose that they would find similar employment in a totally privatized
22:39system in which the sovereign consumer reigns.
22:44So that's just a rhetorical question.
22:46Yes, yes.
22:47Of course, people would want lawyers who get to the truth, not this combat, right?
22:53So the reason why the combative legal system exists largely like prosecution and defense,
22:59the reason why all of this exists is because the government has so much power that you
23:05need a defense attorney and the government can overstep its own boundaries and do terrible
23:12things and strip you of your rights and withhold discovery and can often get away with this
23:16kind of stuff, compliant evidence.
23:18So you need a very ferocious defense lawyer because the government has so much power and
23:21has no limit on its own power in the courtroom.
23:24So saying, well, no, that'd be exactly the same, but the free market would be exactly
23:28the same as a government system.
23:30Okay.
23:31Well, if the free market would be exactly the same as a government system, then you
23:34can have private defense agencies, idiot.
23:37All right.
23:38Isn't it really okay?
23:42Today a legal monopoly exists to put shady private detectives and private extortionists
23:45behind bars.
23:47Okay.
23:49I like how he puts legal monopoly in quotes, like sovereign consumer.
23:53This is just lazy quote mongering, right?
23:56So here's an argument that I don't like, so I'm going to put it in quotes.
24:04Here's an argument I don't want to address, so I'm just going to put it in quotes.
24:07Okay.
24:08It serves as a final arbiter on the use of force in society.
24:11Well, it doesn't actually, but anyway, because I mean, people can get shot even if they get
24:17released from prison or at least if they get off, right?
24:20We all agree that it does a less than exemplary job much of the time, but it's there.
24:24What happens when it isn't?
24:26Or worse, when the shady detective or extortionist has replaced it in a marketplace where profits
24:30depend on satisfying the subjective desires of emotional clients.
24:34Right.
24:35So there are these really shady detectives or extortionists, private extortionists.
24:40So a shady detective or extortionist can gain power.
24:45So let's give them the power of the government.
24:47Oh my God.
24:49Anarchists say this scenario is unrealistically pessimistic.
24:52No, it's just every argument you say.
24:54Well, you know, private defense agencies could be corrupted.
24:57So let's give all the power to the government because Lord knows the government's incorruptible.
25:04It's embarrassing, right?
25:07In fact, people naturally seek their rational self-interest.
25:10They declare once government is out of the way, they would try to cooperate, work things
25:14out.
25:15Well, if they did, why would they need any agency, governmental or private?
25:17Why wouldn't 5 billion people naturally cooperate on this planet without an illegal institute
25:21framework to resolve disputes?
25:24Because you can have different interpretations and people also can commit violence because
25:28of mental illness, or they take drugs that burn out their brains and so on.
25:34So there will be wrong doers and evil doers, which we need protection from for sure.
25:41And of course, if everyone could agree, you wouldn't need the government either.
25:48The problem, of course, is everyone disagrees about what his rational self-interest is.
25:52Ask the Palestinians and the Israelis to define rights, force, property, justice, self-defense,
25:56or ask the IRA and the British, or George III and George Washington, right?
26:00So these are all government situations and government issues, right?
26:05So how do we best limit the capricious use of force by these millions whom we call the
26:09public?
26:10Let's compare anarcho-capitalism with limited government.
26:14Under anarcho-capitalism, the public is called the market and votes with its dollars to have
26:17its way about the use of force in society.
26:21In a political institution, under a monopolistic government, I like how he's put that in quote,
26:25like it's not a real fact, right?
26:26The public is called a political constituency and votes with balance in order to have its
26:30way about the use of force in society, right?
26:34So of course, voting with dollars is continuous and can be withdrawn at any time if the service
26:39doesn't meet your expectations, if that's in the contract, right?
26:42But if a politician doesn't do what he says he's going to do, then you have no recourse,
26:48if zero recourse, no recourse whatsoever, right?
26:52Because governments don't sign contracts, but private entities do.
26:56And private entities usually have, you know, well, if we don't provide service, you don't
26:58have to pay us, right?
26:59At least they would in a free society.
27:01Government doesn't have that, right?
27:02But in the latter case, if the government has been constitutionally limited, the masses
27:06are typically thwarted in having their way at the expense of others.
27:10Oh my God!
27:13Constitutionally limited?
27:15Oh no, God, man, please.
27:19I mean, America has been at war for all but, what, five or ten years of its entire history.
27:26Congress has declared war precisely twice, is it First World War, Second World War, maybe
27:31there's one other I've forgotten.
27:33But no, see, it's in the Constitution that only the, only Congress has the power to declare
27:37war.
27:39So, it's fine, because it's in the, come on, man, this Constitution, this is magic piece
27:45of paper, it's just going to completely thwart evildoers.
27:48Okay, but if you have magic pieces of paper that magically thwart evildoers, why wouldn't
27:53you just call that a contract with your DRO, with your defense agency?
27:57Because they'll be constitutionally limited too, so they can't break out of those bounds.
28:00If the government can't break out the bounds of the Constitution, which took two generations
28:05or so after the founding of the American Republic, or less, really, if you count the
28:08Whiskey Rebellion.
28:10So if a magic piece of paper thwarts evildoers from doing anything wrong, then that magic
28:16piece of paper can as easily be the voluntary contract with you and your protection agency.
28:22They can't use force to do anything they want, as private criminals, their acts are limited
28:25by the government, and government agents themselves are limited by the Constitution.
28:32That's right, unless you get a Patriot Act, or FISA courts, or you want to spy on your
28:37political opponents, or you want to do something with the five eyes so that you can spy on
28:44your own citizens from ostensibly overseas.
28:46Oh my God, our founders were geniuses at limiting power.
28:52It's taken levels of coercion over 200 years to divert our founder system to its current
28:55state, and still our system is far from being totalitarian.
29:00So the very smallest government in the history of the planet has turned into the very largest
29:04and most powerful government in the history of the planet with the capacity to destroy
29:07the entire world many times over.
29:09But they were geniuses at limiting power.
29:13Oh, okay, in the market, by contrast, what's to stop thugs, and by what standard?
29:19Surely no private company would deliberately handcuff itself with separations and divisions
29:23of powers and checks and balances.
29:25Well why not?
29:27Because people don't want rogue DROs to enslave them.
29:31So they're going to put lots of checks and balances in, and you can read my book Everyday
29:34Anarchy for more on this, sure.
29:36Such silly inefficient gridlock and red tape would only make it less competitive.
29:39No, a competitive company must be flexible to respond to shifting market demand.
29:44But the market demand is always to have a protection agency strong enough to protect
29:47you, but not strong enough to enslave you.
29:49Of course, right?
29:51That means the demand for whatever consumers may want, anything at all, it can't tie up
29:54its own hands by limiting itself.
29:56Well it actually does, because it needs the network effect.
29:59So that's like saying any cell phone company can simply refuse to interact with any other
30:04cell phone company, well then it would go out of business, because people want to be
30:08able to travel with their cell phones, right?
30:13So you have to limit yourself, which is why TCPIP is still the standard, it's why rail
30:17gauges tend to be the same width, which is the width of horses arses in the Roman Empire
30:21for various reasons and so on, anyway.
30:23After all, some other company or industry will always be willing to operate without
30:26such moral self-limitation, but it's the customers who want to limit the power of the
30:29dispute resolution agencies.
30:32What firm would restrain itself when the sleazy, unscrupulous Acme Protective Service across
30:36town is just itching for the same customer contracts and willing to promise its clients
30:40loan no limits?
30:41Yeah, but people don't want core protection agencies with totalitarian powers.
30:47Anarchists proclaim faith that in the marketplace all the protection companies would rationally
30:51work everything out.
30:52All companies in the private sector, they assert, have a vested interest in peace.
30:56No, they have a vested interest in pleasing their customers, and their customers don't
30:59want budding totalitarian agencies.
31:02Their reputations and profits, you see, rest on the need for mutual cooperation, not violence.
31:06Oh, what about a reputation for customer satisfaction and the profits that go with getting results?
31:11I guess anarchists have no experience in the private sector with shyster lawyers, protection
31:16rackets, software pilots and the like, aren't they too responding to market demand?
31:20So shyster lawyers, that's all government-based.
31:23Protection rackets could be dismantled by the government but often pay off the government.
31:27So the protection rackets operate under the supposed all-powerful, all-wonderful, all-benevolent
31:32governments that these guys like.
31:34Software pirates, that's an IP question, it's a totally different matter.
31:37So if the demand for peace is paramount, please explain the bloody history of the world.
31:42Right.
31:43People like to use violence to get what they want, which is why you can't give people a
31:46monopoly on the use of force.
31:49Anarcho-capitalists forget their own Austrian economics.
31:54It was von Mises who described the marketplace as the ultimate democracy where, quote, sovereign
31:57consumers voted with their dollars to fulfill their desires.
32:00Not necessarily good desires, mind you, just desires, whatever they happen to be.
32:03The market itself is moral, it is simply satisfied by the demands, desires of the greatest number.
32:09So he's saying that people can make bad decisions when they vote with their dollars, right,
32:13and people can make bad decisions when they vote with their votes, except if you make
32:17a bad decision voting with your dollar, you suffer the consequences.
32:20If you make a bad decision voting, society suffers the consequences, and you often benefit
32:25if you vote for a guy who's going to benefit your company by putting, say, protective tariffs
32:28on stuff that competes with you.
32:31So yeah, people can make bad decisions, and so they should make bad decisions with their
32:35own money and suffer their own consequences, not they should make bad decisions forcing
32:40their will on other people for at least a four-year period, right, through the state.
32:45In other words, the market like water can't rise higher than its source, and its source
32:49is the people, the same people who vote in a representative political system.
32:52The marketplace is no more moral than the people who are voting with their dollars.
32:56What?
32:57Okay, oh yeah, I get it.
32:59If there's a demand, some supplier will always come along to fill it.
33:01Demand for anything from chocolates to child prostitutes, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
33:06Child prostitution would not be protected by DROs because people have children, they
33:09don't want their children to be kidnapped, they care about children, and so child prostitutes
33:13would not be allowed.
33:16Prostitution is a form of contract.
33:18Children cannot sign contracts, and no DRO that had, like can you imagine giving a 10-year-old
33:25child the ability to sign multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts, borrow huge amounts
33:31of money without any job?
33:32No, of course not.
33:33Everybody knows that children cannot, or most people know children cannot consent, and so
33:38there would be no child prostitution because prostitution is an economic exchange where
33:42children are not competent to deal with, right?
33:46And of course there's sexuality involved, and children cannot process the consequences
33:49of sexuality, their bodies are not designed for it, it's too brutal for them, and so it
33:54would not be allowed, right?
33:56What quote market mechanism would arise to distinguish between the two, and by what right
33:59and standard would it enforce such distinctions?
34:02Yeah.
34:04So I think his argument is that in a free market society, you get chocolates, and if
34:09anybody knows the history of how the food pyramid was developed, or how sugar was put
34:13to blame for fat, which is less dangerous in many ways, than thinking that under the
34:18government bad food will never be allowed into society.
34:23My God, you think post-COVID people, well maybe this is pre-COVID, all right.
34:28Anarchists think the invisible hand of the marketplace will work in the place of government,
34:31but read what Adam Smith has to say about businessmen in that famous invisible hand
34:35passage.
34:36Smith knew that government was a precondition of the market, and of the working of the invisible
34:41hand.
34:42Without government, the invisible hand becomes a closed fist, wielded by the most powerful
34:45gangs to emerge.
34:47Yes, powerful gangs are bad, and the government is the most powerful gang, so that's even
34:52worse, because government prevents competing forces from defining and enforcing their own
34:55private interests subjectively and arbitrarily.
34:57Yeah, because government is just magic physics that operates independently of corrupt human
35:01wishes.
35:03Even if 99% of protection agents behave rationally, all you'd need is one secessionist outlaw
35:07agency with its own novel interpretation of rights and justice, tailored to appeal to
35:11some customer base of bigots, religious fanatics, disgruntled good blah blah blah.
35:16Do anarchists care to argue that outlaw agencies, given our current intellectual and philosophical
35:20marketplace, would have no constituencies?
35:23Dream on.
35:25Well, so he's saying that people don't agree on anything, people don't understand basic
35:30political concepts, and therefore we can't have a free society without pointing out that
35:36it is in fact the government who educates people for close to a decade and a half, maybe
35:41longer I guess, if you count government schools, post-secondary, which are heavily controlled
35:48and licensed by the government.
35:49So he's saying, well, you know, people don't act particularly rationally without pointing
35:53out that in a free market environment, children would be taught how to reason, they'd be taught
35:57useful skills, they'd have much less incentive to steal because they'd be economically productive,
36:02and they would have a much greater ability to negotiate because they would have been
36:06taught how to negotiate.
36:07So all of this, it's, well, the government's controlling people's education, well, you
36:11know, people don't really understand concepts too well, so we got to have a government.
36:15Oops, did I say outlaw, under anarchy there is no final determiner of the law, there would
36:22be no final standard for settling disputes, e.g. a constitution, yeah, because magic man,
36:27constitution is physics man, you can't escape it, it's like gravity.
36:31That would be a monopoly legal system, you see, that's because anarchists support the
36:35unilateral right of any individual or group to secede from a governing framework.
36:39No, if people initiate the use of force and don't pay restitution, they will be economically
36:44ostracized from society.
36:46Trust me, I've been through it, it's quite a powerful process.
36:49So whose laws, rules, definitions and interpretations are going to be final?
36:54Consider the logical alternatives under anarcho-capitalism.
36:56Either no protection agency enforces, imposes or enforces any of its interpretations, blah,
37:01blah, blah, there is no final arbiter of disputes, no court of final appeal.
37:07Right, so it's like the scientific method.
37:09There is in fact, under science, no final arbiter of disputes.
37:11You negotiate until you work things out, until then the best conjecture or hypothesis or
37:19theory wins out over time.
37:20There's no final rubber stamp that says, this is true, right?
37:24And so it operates in a state of freedom and negotiation, and that's when it moves further
37:28and further and further ahead, faster and faster and faster.
37:32So, all right.
37:33And there's no final arbiter on disputes, i.e. judges with a monopoly on enforcement
37:39that can be corrupted and bribed and have their own preferences and so on, right?
37:44Everyone, some agency deemed guilty of an improper initiation of force would retain
37:48unilateral right to ignore the verdict of that agency to secede from any rulemaking
37:51framework.
37:52Nope, nope, nope.
37:55Because if people aren't going to sign up for enforcement of the non-aggression principle
38:01when there's no enforcement of the non-aggression principles, of course there would have to
38:04be an enforcement mechanism, right?
38:06Who would pay for such toothless protection?
38:08Who would stand to lose?
38:09Right, people won't pay for something which can't be enforced, right?
38:13But who would stand to gain, only the thugs who would unilaterally declare themselves
38:19immune from anyone's arrest, prosecution, or punishment?
38:22Right, except people would have the right of self-defense and they would have weapons,
38:28so they wouldn't run wild, right?
38:31I mean, at the moment, I mean, this is the Daniel Penney thing, right, which is that
38:35people are punished for self-defense, right?
38:39And people are let out of jail repeatedly, right?
38:41Oh no, thugs would be unconstrained.
38:43I mean, look what's going on in the blue cities.
38:44I mean, you can do just about any crime known to man, except maybe burn rubber on a rainbow
38:50sidewalk and you're pretty much out of jail.
38:54Like it's a revolving door, right?
38:59Okay, some enforcement framework must eventually arise and impose a final verdict on everyone.
39:03No, so this is, honestly, I don't want to psychoanalyze this guy, but this is the kind
39:08of mentality that comes out of squabbling siblings.
39:11Oh, mom's got to, dad's got to come and tell kids who's what's what, right?
39:15Right?
39:16No, people aren't children.
39:19All right, do I care?
39:22I just think it's, it just goes on and on.
39:24All right, well, let me know if you want me to do any more of this.
39:26I just think it's really, it's a sad situation.
39:29The arguments brought up front, he's not addressing anything.
39:32This is just scare tactics.
39:33Well, I can figure out how things might work.
39:34Therefore, they can't work.
39:35Therefore, government, right?
39:37Well, what about this rhetorical, right?
39:38So he's got these six arguments, right?
39:41The six syllogisms, and he hasn't addressed it.
39:45He's just saying, well, but the consequences could be bad, and people disagree, and thugs
39:49will run wild.
39:50It's just scare stories.
39:52It's really sad.
39:52I mean, you've got these arguments, either these arguments, these six at the beginning,
39:56right?
39:57These arguments are valid and correct, or they're not.
39:59If they're valid and correct, scare stories are just pathetic.
40:04If they're not, then show how they're wrong, which you can't do.
40:07So, yeah, anyway, I'm not sure where this came from.
40:09I just was looking for good arguments against anarcho-capitalism.
40:12This seemed to be a pretty good synthesis, and this is generally about as good as things
40:15get.
40:16So, objectivists, I think, in general, have this belief that there will be a government
40:23and that they themselves will be in charge of that government and get to enforce objectivist
40:27standards.
40:27No, it's not the case.
40:29When you have a government, the most corrupt, and the most violent, and the most sociopathic
40:32end up wanting to run it in general.
40:33There are some exceptions.
40:35And whatever you create as a power will end up being used against your most cherished,
40:41loved ones, under the heel of your worst and most hated enemies.
40:46That's always the way it goes.
40:47It's always gone that way throughout history.
40:49And putting scare quotes around arguments you don't like and appealing to, oh, but my
40:54negative consequences, don't change a goddamn thing.
40:56Freedomain.com slash donate.
40:58Thank you for your help and support.
40:59I really do appreciate it.
41:00Lots of love.
41:01Talk to you soon.
41:02Bye.