Law without Government (2022 Remake) 

Glad you like them!

One of the keys to freedom and education is critical thinking skills. Without these skills it is harder to separate fact from fiction, truth from propaganda or even right from wrong. Those who exercise these skills and are autodidactic possess a more powerful defense against tyranny than all the guns and ammo in the world. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, is it the responsibility of every human being to be informed? Is it up to each individual to learn and teach by example? If the secret of freedom is knowledge, is the secret of tyranny in withholding knowledge? Forcing someone to do even the right thing can easily deprive the meaningfulness or depth of meaning or possibly the entire meaning of the reason why it should be done. I suspect a free society and a healthy understanding in the aggregate of what love is, is created by each individual evaluating each situation, deciding and doing what is right without thinking, "What are the consequences?", because that question means there's consideration of doing what is known to be wrong, and love would never do that. If the care for truth, developing a healthy way of sharing it, and the care for what is right, doesn't come first for each and every situation and relationship, even casual, then love suffers and an unhealthy substitute for love is what is felt and projected instead. Jimi Hendrix has been quoted as saying, "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." I like that quote so much that through contemplation of it I have come up with what I think is a more accurate version: When CARE for truth and what is right outweighs fear and the desire to control others, the world will know peace. Of course, Jimi's is beautifully poetic. Would people be better off if they thought of freedom as the opportunity to do what is right because they know that another of the keys to freedom is to do any ethical thing without asking permission, and to not do unethical things; not forgetting that there is a self legitimized organized crime ring calling themselves government, which is in reality established by the few; and these few assume consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given? Government is the violation of free will masquerading as the protection of it. Government is self legitimized organized crime.

@@HowToBeFree I agree, the quote is very pertinent and important because we continue to see how the love of power hurts many people. Whether it's people who demands reparations from people who have nothing do to with what their ancestors went through (also called cry-bullies) or people hold positions they don't believe in because said positions are supported by tyrants, the love of power is in the center of it. It is also why assumed consent is pushed yet opposed at the same time by several groups of people. These people want to "have their cake and eat it too." They want to steal freedom/power and agency from people, while saying they love those people or doing this for those people's good, make their love of power compatible with the power of love/love itself. This is something that no one who truly loves others would do. I will add the golden rule of "Do onto others as you would do yourself." It is important because you should not treat other people as above or below yourself.

@@HowToBeFree "Forcing someone to do even the right thing can easily deprive the meaningfulness or depth of meaning or possibly the entire meaning of the reason why it should be done." I wish more people understood this because evil people do good things for the sake of gaining power/selfish reasons. It is low virtue, whereas with high virtue, caring, helping (meaning listening and understanding what each person needs/wants) and telling the truth are second nature and you don't care to make a show of helping.

@@HowToBeFree "I suspect a free society and a healthy understanding in the aggregate of what love is, is created by each individual evaluating each situation, deciding and doing what is right without thinking, "What are the consequences?", because that question means there's consideration of doing what is known to be wrong, and love would never do that. If the care for truth, developing a healthy way of sharing it, and the care for what is right, doesn't come first for each and every situation and relationship, even casual, then love suffers and an unhealthy substitute for love is what is felt and projected instead." This is a very good point because it sums up every problem that exists in bad/weak relations whether platonic or romantic. The people that start friendships or marriages on what they can gain out of each other or without knowing each other's beliefs are almost always doomed to fail. Why would you marry someone or be friends with someone you don't know or barely know? Even if a relationship between an atheist and Christian "works," it's still a very unevenly yoked relationship, both have very opposite/incompatible core beliefs. These people think that they can change said individual later or "mix oil and water" so its ok, not understanding the consequences. This gets into the unhealthy substitute for love, tolerant love. A part of love is patience, but these people replace patience with tolerance. They have very different definitions. Patience involves waiting, analyzing and having reasonable hope and faith that a person will do what they say they will or practice what he or she preaches. Tolerance is accepting whatever a person does regardless of how mediocre (under what was reasonably expected), harmful, and morally wrong it is. The definitions are muddied so politics/governments can thrive/pit people against each, controlling the teams they join (Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Party Libertarian, Green, etc. If they align their ideas with a government, don't trust them.) This muddying of ideas hurts people's ability to love and causes non-political and anti-political ideas to be put into the political sphere, warping said ideas. In other words, if I decided to float the idea of whether or not a person should cut off his or her arm, into the political sphere, instead of the people in the sphere dismissing it, all the different political individuals/parties would pretentiously argue different points on how much of said arm should be cut off and the people who want to keep all of said arm would be the extremists.

All systems assume people are reasonable. The question is, for any given level of reasonableness in the population, what is the best system? I say anarchy, across the board. In fact, when people are not reasonable, the state becomes especially dangerous, so the benefits of anarchy over statism are greater when the people are less reasonable.

​@ManAgainstTheState what happens when all or most of the defence agencies form a coalition and use force to impose their will on people? You get a government! This would be nice but it if actually worked it would have probably developed this way from the time we were living in caves. If all humanity everywhere went the other way there is probably a reason.

Yes. They are the kind of people I had in mind for the little green dudes at 7:47. Hoppe refers to them as "natural elites".

This is addressed at 8:24. It's also not an argument against anarchism, because what you are describing is a state being formed. If you worry about The Family, you should be entirely opposed to The State. If the worst thing about anarchism is that a state may form out of it, that's an argument for anarchism.

@@ManAgainstTheState There is no "may". It's an outcome that - to me - seems pretty much inevitable. 8:24 doesn't address this at all - in my scenario the reputation of not being unbiased actually HELPS the malicious party - they're biased and powerful, so it's better to be under their protection than against them... And if you want to call the resulting entity a state, suit yourself, but it won't be like the states we are used to (at least in the broadly defined West) - it would be far worse. It would make modern Russia look like a decent place to live. Unless you have an actual solution for preventing this outcome, picking anarchism (if we were given such chance) basically means picking to live in a tyranny with far less rights and protection than we enjoy right now. And that's assuming the initial transition to anarchy goes relatively painlessly instead of being some bloody revolution... You want to convince me that some system is viable, give me reasons to believe it won't just collapse under its own weight. A configuration that looks like it might be stable and work out long-term. If all you have is a prelude to a tyrannical state where I have no rights, then thank you, but I'll prefer the current states with their defective checks and balances. Since that's still better than the outcome anarchism leads to.

This is a bigger problem with statism, of course, where we are all "under the same agency". The state is motivated to support the people that pay them the most money. We see this everywhere: laws created by and for the rich, crimes of the rich ignored, bribery and corruption to escape justice, etc. Do you want to argue that the state is impartial between rich and poor? The state makes it cheap and easy for the rich to escape justice. The "same agency problem" is so predictable that markets will easily solve it. The firms will be highly incentivised to be open and transparent in their decision-making to avoid any suspicion of corruption or bias. Maybe they will have reciprocal arrangements with each other to take on each other's clients in such cases. Maybe there will be specialised firms that step in to represent clients in this situation, or assess claims of bias. They will all be scrutinising each other for hints of malpractice, ready to expose their competitors and win market share. The market makes it expensive and difficult for the rich to escape justice.

So, your still voting for a ruler? Legitimate question, I'm just trying to figure out how this might work.

Thank you! It certainly did

When? How?

But government doesn't have any right to rule over us. No one has the right to initiate force against others.

@@iamchillydogg True.

Thank you

Thank you!

"how ancaps will defend themselves from foreign powers?" -> Military companies. "what about market failures?" -> Free markets are self-regulatory and self-correcting. "what about nucks?" -> Nukes? Everyone can own nukes. "what stops a state to form?" -> The state is a rogue agency, a voluntary state is of no issue. An involuntary state will be destroyed by other defense firms. "what if someone kills his son?" -> Children can be protected by defense firms if people pay defense firms to protect children. People can also choose to not support the businesses of people that kill children. "what about other monopoles?" -> Most monopolies are created by governments. Natural and free market monopolies are fine, they don't last very long if their services are too expensive as competitors will immediately pop up to take away that surplus profit.

That's why Ancapism won't work, there's no way for it to be implemented. Ancaps will never be united enough to overthrow the current system. Atleast Marxist Leninists and even Anarchists have *some* general plan and roadmap even if you don't agree with their vision of society.

Stay on topic and pay attention.

Thank you for your questions :) "how ancaps will defend themselves from foreign powers?" When there is a powerful aggressive foreign state making threats, the safest place to be is in a stateless society, and the most dangerous place to be is in a state territory. From the point of view of the aggressive dictator, it is more appealing and easier to invade a neighbouring state than a neighbouring stateless society. The apparatus of power is already in place, just waiting be taken over, and the people of that state are accustomed to paying taxes and obeying state laws, and could well be disarmed by their state. On the other hand, a stateless society would be a nightmare to invade and rule, with no single power structure to defeat, no pre-existing apparatus of control to take over, and people accustomed to being free, taking personal responsibility, not being told what to do, and paying taxes to no one. The dictator wouldn't even bother, when there are easier targets like other states. "what about market failures?" There is no such thing as market failures. There are human failures. The free market minimises the negative impact of human failures by having negative consequences for them, such as bankruptcy for a business that is failing to provide value, i.e. wasting resources. The free market is a process of constant correction of these human failures, moving resources away from those who squander them, and rewarding individuals that succeed in producing the most value for others and make the wisest resource-allocation decisions. In contrast, the state amplifies human failures, by shielding individuals who fail from the natural market consequences of their actions. It moves resources into the hands of people who people are corrupt and incompetent. States fail constantly to satisfy consumer demands in whatever industries they monopolise, dominate, or intervene into, because state actors have neither the incentives nor the information to succeed in satisfying demands. State failure is a huge problem. Market failure is an imaginary hobgoblin. "what about nucks?" We would be safer if nuclear weapons were all in the hands of businesses like Dawn Defense than we are now with them in the hands of states. Compare the incentives faced by the CEO of a nuclear-armed company in a stateless society to those faced by the head of a nuclear-armed state. They're less likely to use them, and certainly not aggressively, because it would result in them being tried for murder and it would bankrupt the company. The state removes the costs of (nuclear) war from the individuals who would be responsible for initiating it, and shifts it onto taxpayers and other third-parties. Nuclear wars are extremely unlikely to occur, except when nuclear weapons are in the hands of states. "what stops a state to form?" Lack of desire for one. If a security firm starts acting like a state, the people and all the other security firms will react the same way they would to any other cult-based violent gang that might show up. States can't exist without statists, and statism requires lots of conditioning and propaganda. Vigilence and awareness of the signs of cults will be the ultimate backstop, however, there is more chance of chattel slavery, beheadings, or child sacrifice becoming popular again today than of statism becoming popular again in an established stateless society. Once we've matured as a society, the barbaric practices of the past, including statism, are never coming back. "what if someone kills his son?" Essentially the same as in the video. Suppose Alice and Bill are married and Alice is accusing Bill of murdering their son. Obviously no protection agency is going to support child murder, so if Bill is found guilty, he will face whatever punishment has been agreed to by the protection agencies for cases of this kind. "what about other monopoles?" No other monopolies can be sustained in the absence of the ultimate monopoly, the state. It is the source of all monopolies and cartels. So-called "natural monopoly" is another imaginary hobgoblin.

@@ManAgainstTheState Thank you for the answers Please answer my last quastion What if 99% of people are replaced by machines? Will 99% of people die of hunger?

Thank you. That is not how I use those terms though. The world I describe in the video has law but no government, i.e. it has competition rather than monopoly in providing laws. It is anarchy, because anarchy just means absence of government, i.e. no monopolist of law, i.e. competition in law. You can have lawful anarchy or lawless anarchy, the former being what I describe, and the latter being the caricature of anarchy our state propagandists want us to believe is the only type of anarchy. This video promotes anarchism. I'm saying competing law providers in anarchism will produce better laws than the state/monopolist does. Both the terms "free market" and "capitalism" imply something beyond what I describe in this video. This video is agnostic to whether you have capitalism or communism in wider society, and agnostic to how free your markets are. This video does not promote either anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism. It describes anarchy without any extra assumptions; there is only the assumption of competition in law, which is the very definition of anarchy.

I agree

No, I do not accept that. You are expressing a preference there for driving on roads where all other drivers are sober. I expect you also have preferences about the competence of the other drivers, about the standards of their vehicles, about the speeds they drive at, about them being in the right lane, and so on. Road entrepreneurs will factor all this into account when determining the rules of their road, and how they enforce them. I can't tell you what their rules are going to be, because it will be based on consumer demand. I expect there will be variety, with some strict roads where you must have no alcohol at all in you and it gets checked with breathalysers at random checkpoints, and some casual roads where there is no alcohol limit. Most roads will be somewhere in between these extremes. Consumers will express their preferences about road rules through their choices about using them, and road entrepreneurs will seek to satisfy them. So, the example you raise has nothing to do with the topic of the video. It isn't a legal issue. It's about rules being made by businesses about what customers must do and not do while they are using the services of that business. Amusement parks set the rules for who may go on their rides (e.g. age/height restrictions), and that's all driven by what their customers want and an assessment of safety, protecting customers from hurting themselves or other customers. It has nothing to do with the law. I view your example of DUI as equivalent to living in a world of state-run amusement parks and being worried about who will be allowed to go on the rides if we were to have a free market in amusement parks. The private amusement park / road owners will find the optimal rules, motivated only by self-interest, so don't worry about it.

nothing. this method is not perfect, but it's definitely better than what we have today

Thanks for this comment. You make a good argument. I will try to defend myself. I will make three points. 1) You are assuming the outcome of the bargaining process. 2) You are the assuming the viability of such an agreement between all firms. 3) You are not analysing state law-making with the same critical eye that you are applying to your analysis of this market for laws. 1) I dispute your assertion that the 'good guys' have less to lose than the nasty 'bad guys' company, so the bad guys will always get their way. First, we cannot know in advance what the fine will be for accidentally poisoning someone's water supply. The fine could be substantial. But whatever the amount of the fine, you overlook the main threat that keeps companies on track: the risk of losing customers. If a water company refuses to pay a fine for poisoning somebody (covers it up, lies about it, etc), who is going to continue to buy water from that company? The market reacts by partly or completely cutting the rogue company out of the economy, guided by consumer preferences. Any firm that defends the rogue firm, such as a powerful protection agency, will be similarly rejected by consumers. If my protection agency does not pay compensation out when one of it's customers is poisoned, it is a useless protection agency, and I will find a better one. he economic damage from being caught refusing to pay compensation will dwarf the compensation amount itself. Companies will just pay the fine without hesitation, because the risk of being exposed as corrupt is far more dangerous. They will still be highly motivated to prevent these kinds of accidents from happening, to avoid both the fine and the reputational damage even if they do admit guilt and pay up. There is no reason to believe that a free market law system would make things easier for polluters. Quite the contrary. The economics make the kind of scenario you imagine to be highly unlikely. 2) Economic arguments also explain why no such agreement is viable. It would be prohibitively expensive to secure it with all firms, because those firms will all lose customers if they are caught being corrupt. Even if we suppose that such an arrangement is possible, as soon as it was implemented, new firms would emerge offering security that comes with a USP of paying out after posionings, and customers will flock to them. The only way an agreement/cartel could be sustained would be either to repeatedly buy out any new firm that appears, which would be so expensive the whole cartel would not even be profitable, or turn to a state for help. The option of using a state to form a cartel (with a "regulator" as cartel manager) is preferable and far more proftable, because the state can use force to prevent new competitors to the cartel from emerging. States make everything cheaper for big businesses, including pollution and corruption. The state makes it economically viable for big business to pollute. Far from being a problem with free markets, pollution is a problem of statism, solved by free markets. 3) "The people could vote..." No. You are overlooking the whole problem there. The voting mechanism is inferior to the market mechanism. Democracy is a terrible way to produce laws. It is corrupted by private interests, lobbying, bribery. It is at best a talent show. You are not being consistent when you search so very hard to find a flaw in the economics of a free market in law, but then just assume that voting works, big business just complies with the state law, the poor just get taken of, and everyone somehow gets equal protection. I am saying the free market works better: makes better laws, better checks big business, takes care of the poor better, affords more equal protection, etc, than the state. Coming up with a contrived example of a possible 'market failure', even if persuasive, does not mean the state is preferable. You have to analyse the state incentive/information system like-for-like basis against the non-state incentive/information system. It's nice to look for potential market failure, but state failures are the problems that should concern you more. Thoughts?

@@ManAgainstTheState Thank you for the response. 1) In this example the water being poisoned was an externality, where the factory is producing something unrelated that has waste, and dumps the waste in a river to save costs. I will concede that if a company was producing dangerous products, then people would be able to buy different products. However I doubt that people would care about buying products from an immoral company. Many companies currently use exploited labor from other countries, and the free market hasn't done anything about that. My point with the protection agency was that it was one specifically tailored to defending corporations like this. If it defended rogue corporations, its customers would be happy, and if it didn't, it would lose lots of customers. So the corporation would be willing to spend as much money as it's saving from the externality, whereas customers might not be willing to pay as much. Perhaps middle class people would just buy bottled water, and the poor people who have no choice but to drink river water have no options. There could be factors like boycotts, but this doesn't just apply to externalities. 2) If people are willing to more money to the corporate agency than the corporations are saving from the externality, then the corporation might be willing to stop poisoning the water supply in exchange for the cost reductions to its protection agency. That effectively means society is paying the corporation to not poison the water supply, which seems sub-optimal. I did not assume that all the firms would agree, but that no firm would be willing to stand up to the factory either because they are being paid to. I gave an example of a firm that specifically markets to people concerned with the environmental damage, which would not be able to make any sort of settlement with the firm that markets specifically to corporations that engage in behaviors like this. But environmental firm would likely be smaller and poorer than the corporate firm, because again the corporation has more money they're willing to put into this. The corporate firm could simply say "we refuse to accept that this is a crime", and the environmental firm would not have the resources to make an army big enough to contest the corporate firm. 3) I will concede that there are many flaws with our current electoral system. Corporations effectively run the country as it is. I don't think that's a problem inherent to democracy, and there have been times when the people have been able to overrule the will of the corporations. Today a corporation would not be able to pollute in a river, or pay domestic workers below minimum wage. (And minimum wage used to be enough to live on) But to me a system like this would essentially be voting with money on what laws there should be, so it would favor the rich. 4) You didn't address the last point I made. "Another problem would be that if you can't afford a protection agency, you get no protection. Then you could be enslaved for all the agencies care. Under a government, everyone gets equal and guaranteed protection. There would be no profit motive to stop this as the slaves can't really fight for themselves, they have no money. (Of course they could try to use violence to escape). If there is some sort of non-profit agency that is going after corporations that use slave labor, it has the same issue as the environmentalist example. The corporation's profits are based on slavery and has a greater incentive and greater resources, while the agency is reliant on people caring enough to donate." While I was away, I thought of another scenario. Let's say in the region of ancapistan, there are four protection agencies in tight competition with eachother. This means they have to provide good services for a reasonable cost, and so they have tight profit margins. The agencies get together and think "Hey, what if we merged/formed a cartel? Then we could all raise prices and cut profits, and then we would all have greater profits than before!" Unfortunately for them, the fourth and smallest agency, which has 3% of the customers, declines this. (Or as you pointed out, it would be way too expensive to buy them.) If they made a cartel, then the fourth agency would get all the customers and they'd go bankrupt. However they have a shrewd idea. They form their cartel, and declare that they will not do any cooperation with other agencies. If you get attacked by one of their customers, they will refuse to do anything unless you yourself are a customer. The 3% who are customers of the fourth cartel now have three choices: 1) They switch over to one of the three companies in the cartel. 2) They leave the area and go somewhere where there's another agency. 3) They have no protection from 97% of the population, and could be mugged, raped, murdered, sold into slavery, or anything else. Presumably most people will pick one of the first two options, and so the fourth agency loses all of its customers. The fourth agency has no capacity to resist this with force, as the cartel would be much richer and much stronger, able to win any fight. Once the companies have eliminated the competition in this way, they have effectively become a dictatorial government. They can raise prices (basically taxes), and if you don't pay you have no protection. They can create new laws on a whim, like making it illegal to make any competitors. Thus, they can conspire with other corporations in other industries. The only way out of this is to flee the area.

@@ManAgainstTheState How about a moneyless and resource-based economy instead? Wouldn't that solve the problems at the source instead of trying to apply patchwork solutions?

8 billion people want apple

Competing currencies. Different businesses will accept money from various financial institutions. Think of the way a store might accept money from Visa, but might not accept money from American Express.

Thanks. If you choose not to subscribe to any security firm, and a crime is committed against you, you will have many choices. Just like there will be courts specialising in disputes between security firms, there will be courts specialising in crimes where the victim doesn't subscribe to a security firm. The legal system will be more accessible and friendly to ordinary people representing themselves; laws will be simpler; lawyers will have less work. Or, you could just hire a freelance lawyer to represent you. You could do your own investigation, or you could hire freelance investigators. Or, you could ask a security firm to treat you just like they would one of their subscribers, taking care of the whole process. If your case is strong, they would take your case on for free (taking a cut of whatever compensation they are able to attain for you). If your case is really strong, you may even be able to hire law enforcers directly, without going to court at all. My prediction is that most people would choose to subscribe (for peace of mind, less hassle, convenient payments, etc), but if lots of people choose not to subscribe, that simply means there will be a large market for entrepreneurs to create a flourishing "pay as you go" part of the legal system. It is a relatively trivial matter, akin to wondering whether people will subscribe to a movie channel or buy movies on demand, or wondering whether people will subscribe to a vehicle breakdown service or take their chances paying only if and when needed. Entrepreneurs will shape markets to satisfy whatever consumers demand.

RU-vid lets you change the speed. 1.5x is an option.

Because that would be defining law based on it's content rather than it's nature. To do that would be to miss the point of the last third of the video. My definition of law is content-agnostic precisely to show how the market can be used to resolve fundamental differences of opinion about what the content of law should be. I don't take a side in the Adam v Ben conflict, or care how Charlie reached his decision; he might decide based on considerations of unalienable rights, or equity, or he could flip a coin. The only thing that matters here is that he is providing the service of third-party dispute resolution. The premise is a free market in law, with no assumptions about what kinds of laws people might want. Your money question is easy to answer, because money emerges naturally from the market. Forms of money (gold, silver, paper, crypto, etc) compete with each other, and money providers compete to provide the best product for consumers.

Government is defined as a monopolist of law

That would be catastrophic for their business. If Tanna don't agree to any of the arbitrators suggested by Dawn, then Dawn will publicise this fact. They will point out that Tanna must know their man Bill is guilty and have taken some sort of bribe to protect him regardless. Why else would they refuse to let any arbitrator decide what happened? Tanna will now be seen as a rogue protection agency that protects criminals, and all the competing protection agencies, court agencies, detective agencies, law enforcement agencies, etc, will treat it as such. Tanna will be disconnected from the network of reputable firms operating in the industry. This is crippling in an industry that relies so much on cooperation between firms. Tanna will find it more expensive, if not impossible, to protect their customers now. Who will believe them next time they say their customer is innocent? They will have to charge more, so their customers will desert them, even the ones that didn't leave on principle when the corruption was exposed. Tanna will then go bankrupt. Worst business decision ever.

@@ManAgainstTheState What if Tanna doesn’t care about connection with other firms? What if Tanna is a defensive firm that doesn’t try and redress crimes, only protect their clients?

@@JDG-hq8gy Then you have an armed conflict.

@@whitehavencpu6813 So it’s rule of the strongest again, nice

@@JDG-hq8gy Its right at the start. If Ben and Adam have a disagreement, they can either choose arbitration or violently fight each other. There is no rule as other people outside the conflict aren't affected in any way.

This is false. Do not believe what this guy says. No one subscribes to the federal system. It is forced upon us. You do not have the ability to peacefully opt out. There is no magic legal trick or loophole. He is right that the states are corporations, but he is wrong about being able to exist within the "state" without being a member of the corporation. There is no such thing as a free inhabitant or a sovereign. I sincerely implore people to stay away from this sovereign stuff. It will not go well for you, and you will ruin yourself and/or your family trying to play these games in a court.

Have you tried going to your government's website and clicking 'unsubscribe'?

no

@@ManAgainstTheState no

@@freeinhabitant76 hence it’s not exactly the same. They’re fundamental opposites cuz one is consent and the other is not.

I think of "the government" as being the individuals controlling the state. I think this is how most people define it, at least in the UK. Then Law without State and Law without Government are equivalent, i.e. Law without Monopoly. If you define "government" as simply entities engaged in governance (making/enforcing rules), then yes anarchy will have them, and they will be competing against each other. I prefer to give them more specific labels like law providers, defense agencies, dispute resolution services, law enforcers, auditors, watchdogs, etc. I think it's confusing to call competing private entities "governments" because the word government is so bound up with the concepts of the state and monopoly.

Missed the part where the other 3 tie him to rock and drown him into the ocean at night...

That sort of behavior would be present even with the government, so that is hardly a valid argument.

There is no essential difference between this and the Adam vs Ben dispute. That's just Terry claiming to own the tree. His argument is some kind of appeal to God - fine. If Adam or Ben have a dispute with Terry about this, they can make their arguments to Charlie or whoever, and the same process would play out.

Quote 1: "You get a state regardless of how you try not to have one. You get other humans to judge." Response 1: The state isn't when people judge other people. The state is the government, a government works on coercive action in order for it to exist because the people think they need to be ruled by someone. The government must take money, your property, from you in order for it to function, basically creating monopoly when it comes to law. Meanwhile, I'm not forced to be under one insurance over the other, as my participation is voluntarily. Quote 2: "Who draws the line? Say self defence situation, no witnesses and one person got killed and the other says it was defence. How do we find out? " Response 2: This is basically "what-about-ism", this same situation could happen in any other system and you would get the same exact result. When it comes to who draws the line in a self organizing system, the two insurances duke it out in an agreed upon court. Therefore, it is a court which both parties agree to be under and make a final verdict. Unlike how the current system is monopolized by the government, which good luck fighting the government in their own courts. Quote 3: "It to have functional society you need a system and that needs funding, you don’t want to pay you are non functional." Response 3: The people fund their own insurances in regards to this rights enforcement. For people who choose to not have a job, aren't able to get one for various reasons, or they cannot afford an insurance, charities exist for a reason. People, especially these insurances and courts, will fund charities to help people who cannot afford these services, especially how it makes firms of any kind look good in front of the customer. These charities have to make sure they're also doing the job right, otherwise they're not guaranteed the funding they were asking for if they misuse the money. Quote 4: "I know many smart left wing people, and going by the stats most smart people are left (look at Sir Roger Scruton’s video on this.) And these people support socialism, as it had many different forums. And look what capitalism has done and is currently with the inflation and economy failing. Hate speech and so on. The questions and answer site starts with “Q” uora has many good debunking pages and a lot are left wing. Very good writers too detailed and give sources." Response 4: It is Anecdotical to just go based off of your personal opinion and experience you know people on the left you deem to be smart. What stats you say you know, even if it is true, doesn't matter when it comes to the topic at hand. I can also point out another logical fallacy you've written known as the "Appeal to Authority Fallacy". Just because there are people you think are smart, or even have proof of going to college, isn't relevant to the topic at hand as it isn't proof of proficiency in this specific topic. These people support socialism and I believe Thomas Sowell explains it best, which you can search up a video on RU-vid called "Why Do Intellectuals Love Socialism? Thomas Sowell". Additionally, capitalism isn't the cause of this inflation and for the economy failing. We have only gotten more regulation by the government, which is the government intervening in the economy. Capitalism is about the removal of government in the economy, that includes them removing regulation and stop subsidizing certain businesses in the market. To say we have a capitalistic economy is absurd, we have a mixed economy with a growing emphasis on socialism. Especially some areas of the economy being even more socialistic than other areas of the economy.