Michael Malice Explains Why He's An Anarchist 

this

This 👆 👌

But if nobody protects your consent, then there's also breeding ground for abuse

It's the DEFINITION of abuse

The joy of community.

LMAO.

chaotic evil

It’s ideas like that that got me on board.

@@crosselen9766 chaotic neutral.

Why can't I reach into the screen and take care of that?

Such a mic drop that.

Ferengi rule of acquisition: Rule # 34: War is good for profit Rule # 35: Peace is good for profit

The old line that human nature is evil is wrong. Perhaps male nature is, but the male is not default. That's another comment though. :-) What the quote describes is the reason a sociopath doesn't typically get violent outside of a war setting created by collectivist power mongers. Good people don't start shit because it is wrong and they know it is wrong and they have consciences they actually listen to.

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Your comment is all over the place making very big claims. Human nature tilts to be self-interested. The reason that collectivists exist is because its beneficial to them, not because they give a shit about the other guy. You don't have to teach a child to lie or steal. They do so instinctively. The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it?

He's wrong though. Humans are like any other animal. Place us in certain conditions where resources are limited and there's a density of population and disconnection from others and you will see more violence. However, in limited, communal living with high interconnectivity we are remarkably peaceful. This is borne out in both past and present societies which have been extensively studied anthropologically. Hobbes was wrong about history being nothing more than a brutish nightmare.

Great quote from my favorite musician, and who may be the most inspiring man who ever lived.

Insert name here - Best user name ever!

And the quote is awesome, thank you I had not heard that before.

And if you resist, you will be put up against that wall.

They started taking down the scenery when they moved 25,000 armed troops on a ,permanent basis around the "Peoples House" Nancy P. = stage manager.

Most folks don't understand that a corporation is a government created entity if you don't have government you won't have corporations

@@jthemagicrobot3960 That's hilariously silly. A corporation is a business. It doesn't even have to be large.

Govts are corporations.

@@MundaneThingsBackwards State courts are what give corporations the legal status of an individual as a business entity, when otherwise they ought to be regarded as capital resources which leaves an individual owner or shareholder as the legal party. Corporations and corporatism in that sense are an issue regardless of the size of a business; subsidized corporations don’t control the nation-state governments, when they’re arms of nation-states through government monopoly on courts, and IP enforcement. And running a business that’s labeled as a corporation means that the State court views running a business as a privilege, because the distribution of wealth and resources is a role legislators claim a false right to.

@@MundaneThingsBackwards reread what I wrote and then go look up the definition of what a corporation is - see Blackstone's legal dictionary or you can try Wikipedia the answer is very similar in both

@@colleenemmerson5973 I think it's called free will Colleen & your fave author just dressed it up.

Glad to be reading this. Fleshes out some strongly held, un-articulated convictions.

They still work don’t they

😤

I still like The Cure.

Right? Why is it that people who advocate for anarchy are the exact same people that couldn't last a day in anarchy?

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Hahaha I'll pass on the fingerless gloves.

Right but the Cure is incredible and so are those gloves lol

@@marcv2648 You get much better feel on the trigger with fingerless. ;)

It’s because insurrectionism has been practiced by known anarchists in the past.

Same as the term "conspiracy therorist", a term literally invented by the CIA. Same as the word "marijuana", invented by government for the same reason, to stigmatize and control behavior. They first tried "loco weed" but that one didnt stick.

How do you get rid of authoritarians?

Lol it’s fake and doesn’t work! Go your own route don’t join this twats tribe..

Welcome, bruv

@@budgibson185 even though the vast majority of all relationships are anarchist, and the others are completely corrupt.

@@SnakeWasRight you don't need anarchISM to participate in anarchy. Anarchists follow the Ism of Anarchism, I prefer being a Anarchyist myself...

There would be a rapid consolidation of power among the super rich. We'd be living under a techno fudalism. I situation we have some chance of avoiding with democracy.

Thank you Dylan. I like taking the best bits from episodes & posting them too - some people won’t commit to a full episode without a taster first!

@@ChrisWillx good idea, best to get these videos to as many people to see them as possible and some people don’t have the concentration or patience for a whole episode.

@@ChrisWillx Hard to go wrong with Michael Malice, he's always a good interview.

@@ChrisWillx I'll add that I didn't know about this channel until now and more videos equals more notifications/possible reccomendations by the algorithm. I subbed, looking forward to more content

Podcasting with Malice feels like BJJ rolling with a black belt - no joke.

I am worried about you if you feel that any anarchist like Malice has anything positive and worthwhile to say about human society.

@@johnmaxwell1750 Just because you are far too stupid to see the value in ideas that haven't been spoon-fed to you since your childhood does not mean value isn't there, you're just too dumb to see it. Take care.

Genuine concern coming from John Maxwell here. NO anarchist LIKE Malice could have ANYTHING positive AND worthwhile to say about human society. NOTHING...AT...ALL. Sheez, that’s brilliant stuff there.

@@theQiwiMan - There are NO positive values inherent in anarchism. It is about selfishness and self-centeredness. It results in destruction and death. In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, "Au revoir, Gopher!"

Irrelevant. You STILL don't have the right to rule others

those analogies do in fact happen

​@@bbb911They don't always happen.

@@LambertBowden56 yet they do happen, and when they do what do you think the reasons are when they do happen?

The problem is when you have two neighboring "bars" that have a dispute, without anyone higher to mediate. It will inevitably devolve to tribal warfare. Whoever has the biggest stick wins.

Read Ayn Rand

Yup.

Yes.

@@SpunkyMcGoo Vague and sophomoric.

@@Composer19691 You're very smart.

It needs to be a more set goal.. like for example illegal surveillance is definitely a cause to fight for because of the unethical injustice involved

How about 69

@@cedricpod is that a reference to age or a sex act?

@@rudyinthesky4967 obviously both, he's 12 and saying 69 is hilarious.

The Capitalist Church is also bigger than the state. Same for its lies.

I have laughing about that since the start of the video. I bet he's doing it on purpose too.

This is a very good comment and very astute

Nowadays liberals appropriated the word anarchism to justify and perpetuate the capitalist structure

That statement is illusory, patently false & does not match reality though it may give some a false sense of comfort. They have taken over your institutions of education, culture, sports & entertainment, law & government & just shut down an American president from speaking freely. How much more flexing of their power do u require to be convinced of their strength & who is in charge. Sigh..

@@m.hughes8605 it's like the billy story. if the victims united they could overpower the bully. If they never figure this out, the actual strength is an illusion... like relying on a talking frog to save the day.

If they're weak you should take their power away from them.

They are powerful beyond words....that entire area has soldiers everywhere and they would have been at the back of the rioters. They let those morons do what they did because it sealed the deal on ending Trump's time in power. At any moment, they could have ended that 'riot.' People in power are smarter than that. They know they don't need to shoot a small unarmed group like that with a gun. It's more effective to shoot them with a camera.

@@m.hughes8605 don’t believe what they are trying desperately to convince you to believe. They are desperate and trying everything they can to show power that they don’t have.

We're new to Michael Malice as well. Care to connect and discuss some ideas? We've just started an anarcho-capitalist "country", if you can forgive the contradiction, and we're debating what's the best way to make it work.

His last name doesn’t ring a bell to all you idiots 😂

He’s promoting Globalist a agenda to get Americans to embrace Anarchy which will then make an excellent case for a totalitarian government

Both the far left and the far right have the same ultimate goal. The only difference is HOW they get to the ultimate goal (Totalitarianism) Although counterintuitive, the only way to fight Globalist Agenda is to be in the middle of the political spectrum and never allow the power to shift too far in any direction.

@Jeff Whitman What is with all the ad hominem strawmen on the web lately? I like Mike. Ease up.

Exactly. Cops are called because many people don't want to get involved either.

Sometimes they're too stupid to do good things for themselves.

‘Localities’. How will localities figure out what’s best? Maybe by talking amongst community leaders and having a vote? That’s politics

Washington inserts itself into everything. It makes itself unavoidable.

No one is more qualified to live your life than you.

@@umwha If you own a business and your locality dictates a minimum wage you can possibly move nearby or attend the council meeting. If DC (or eventually a world gov't) mandates a minimum wage it's much harder to move or change.

Maybe you had too much crack

I think it’s the combination.

Sounds like a voluntary and not a coerced decision.

Try drinking Mountain dew to go with that

@@PonyFoot123 This is a good addition to my life choices, I will update.👍🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Wrong, every tribe had a ruler and form of ruling class.

@@BigPoppa-Monk every one? That is a pretty high standard to defend.

@@BigPoppa-Monk Did they? Or did they just have smart, organized people that others followed and respected? There's a difference between a ruler and a leader.

Yes, they talk in relatively vague terms but no actual detailed practical application taking in account the complexity of societies these days. Sounds good in theory and utopian terms.

For A New Liberty. Murray Rothbard. 432 pages of details.

Irrelevant. You have no right to rule others. The problem with people like you is that you expect everyone to do your thinking for you.

Well said. Gonna remember this point.

If that is the level of protection afforded the Capitol during one of the most tense times in recent memory, then I think it might demonstrate the incompetence of the state (if not the impotence of the state).

@@8d4o0c4 Seeing the law makers that have made people’s lives a living hell throughout 2020. It was absolutely liberating to see those same tyrants cowering in their chamber room on January 6th. I don’t particularly care how or why it happened but I still to this day could give two chits about it happening to them. Many of the decrees they passed and allowed to happen affected me personally and many other people I know. No sympathy for the devil.

I would enjoy that very much.

the idea is that it would still be better than putting those wicked people in positions of power and authority

5000 armed residents not taking your shit.. 🤡

And it is human history to also destroy those things. How can you ignore that equal factor?

@@nerif2849 correct, destroy old and create new.

asking anarchists to tell you what to do :D

@@TrueFork no kidding. "Someone tell me how to live! If you can't do that, then I'll just let a corrupt gang of political elites paid by the super rich tell me how to live!"

@@TrueFork it’s not the telling that we object to, it’s the coercion. We don’t appreciate being chained to some capitalist lord being told to make him rich or else we don’t get to eat. We should own the product of our own labor, decide things democratically, and abolish any coercive hierarchy that fails to justify its existence.

@@Smerpyderp too bad malice is ancap

@@plusixty8992 ye I realized that later on :( sad

thats because states use other peoples money and other peoples lives, if it was the leaders lives on the line, and the leaders money, the incentives would be totally different

Chinese Communists and Mao killed 50 million Chinese people of their own country.

No, this is a garbage explanation. It totally rejects the establishment of a social contract between individual human beings and the larger human society.

@@johnmaxwell1750 hey, i disagree with Malice too. Find it quite fanciful some of it. I like his point that most disputes most of the time are solved without state intervention. Its a little cause for optimism.

@@user-uw6fp4wp5o - Not only is Malice fanciful, he's an impractical dreamer. Like most egghead anarchists, Malice perceives our world and human behavior unrealistically. The Lord of the Flies is a story that Malice should read. It sets forth the most likley outcome for a human society which devolves into complete anarchy. Anarchy facilitates the rise of a totalitarian strongman who rules by force. The imposed regime inevitably destroys intellectuals and decent people who don't kowtow to dictatorial commands. .

@Ghost 3 Delta exactly, most of the defense of government uses the word ideally, like well we know the state commits all these atrocities but really we just need to vote in better people, LOL.

From what I understand (I may be wrong), anarchists don't need a social contract per se - as these are in place to limit government power over people. Anarchocapitalists are pro the non-aggression principle, which means that no one should hurt another or there will be retaliation. Moreover, anarchocapitalists believe in 3 inalienable rights: to life, freedom (as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life plan/freedom) and private property. Anarchism just means "ruled by no one" - at least almost all anarchists agree on this. But this doesn't mean that people can't live in a civilized way - just that they don't need a daddy/mommy state dictating how they should behave and think. In any case, I recommend doing your own research haha😅 Take care!

@@AnuarKronfel People need a central foundation(if you want the benefits of civilization that is), now the question and struggle is who should it be, how much power it has or authority and a plethora of other things. If you could whip up a perfect system in a matter of years we would have one. Current govs are based off ones literally built in antiquity lmao.

Please provide a copy of said social contract

@@joshruelas8435 you realize that's like telling an atheist they need God to be moral

@@jthemagicrobot3960 How so? If Hunter gatherers and Nomads abided by familial structure, it would only support the idea people need a central foundation... Also most atheists could use God, regardless if its nonsense living in bliss is prefered for most people.

Amen

@Sam Smith it can. For example you can trade wheat for rice. Money is nothing but a commodity. Barter system is capitalism of ultimate form.

@@praz7 Correct, further more you'd have a free market of various currencies rather than one enforced and regulated by the state.

Your logic: "The only thing worse than slavery is no slavery." 🤡

Well Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists since they reject the state but support capitalism and private property rights. Original anarchists were very clearly anti-capitalists and socialists so of course they would be against Fascism. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1S99Qiuxxb8.html

@@hamizanyunos1502 thx dude

@@UserName-ii1ce Yeah I find it funny how anarcho-capitalists want steal the term anarchists for themselves as their property. In rebuttal to this Proudhon words to them is that: "property is theft!". Note: I am not an anarchist but it is funny and pointing out the obvious contradiction,

@@hamizanyunos1502 Capitalism is the private ownership of goods/services, and the voluntary exchange of those good/services…so how exactly does that come into conflict with Anarchism? 🤔 Read some Rothbard or Hoppe too.

@@VigilantAnarchism Simple capitalist private property necessitates wage labor thus creating a hierarchal relationship between managers/bosses/owners and workers. Anarchists argue that this is unjust hierarchy.

As a wealthy person myself, if anarchy happens I will hire a private army, become a warlord and control large areas of land.

@@surplusdivision2461 As another wealthy person with some more wealthy friends, I will ask them to unite our armies against you. Eventually, you will burn your money, or your mercenaries won't even sign a contract to fight for you against stronger armies. Or they'll leave, terminate the contract. Hiring well-trained soldiers would be expensive; not many people will risk their lives voluntarily. Of course, in some decades, the war will be machines and technology, so have fun trying to be a wealthier authority than a free-market society. Finally, have fun conquering lands without any info about the inhabitants, which now lies in the government's databases. Never know where something will start firing at you from anywhere. No info about their numbers, their wealth, guns registries, you know nothing. Learning it will cost you a lot of money. Not learning it means each squared meter is an unknown place for your soldiers to die, step on the mine, get fired at, and all that. To keep your conquered lands, you must constantly defend them; people used to freedom will not start obeying for fun on day one.

@@surplusdivision2461 Then you´re a stupid wealthy person, not doing that now when you have the chance since its literally the status quo but waiting in order to do so till people won´t be under opression and free to create wealth, defend their rightly earned land against you and your ex-monopoly.

@@panprd As another wealthy man, with wealthy friends, good luck doing any such a thing in America anytime soon.

Exactly. Malice himself says that international-relations are in essence anarchic, because there is no greater political authority which two nations can appeal to and resolve conflict peacefully. Knowing that, take a look at history and you find countless examples of empires invading smaller countries and stealing their land or resources. The US still does it today in the Middle East. Obviously, profit was the motive for the violence every time.

@@jabrokneetoeknee6448 the US it's an Empire and it's empires and only empires who invade other countries. There has been a lot of peaceful and prosperous countries, but school history Focus of course on wars and kings that Made wars because that fits the narrative. It's all a big well thought out lie.

@@waketfup8864 what narrative is that? Also, no, not just empires. Political units much smaller than empires fight offensive wars as well: nation states, city states, tribes, clans. Were there also peaceful groups? Yes. But our point is specifically regarding the ones that aren’t. There is nothing stopping a superior armed force from forcibly taking your stuff away if they choose. The state of nature is brutish and short… there’s no good reason to return to those days

The people not supporting those corporations. Government is a tool of corporations and we don't have an "opt-out" from govt. Defense contractors, big pharma...etc. LOVE big government. And the millionaires in congress LOVE collecting big fat checks from those same corporations. Politicians get rich and corporations squeeze out competition. Win-win! We can choose our relationship with companies. We have no choice when it comes to govt.

Right. He basically is advocating for tribal warfare to be the norm 😅

Read Hoppe

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Who?

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Lol too long didn’t read

Got to get em when they're young, dumb, and full of animosity.

The problem isn't the age. The problem is where our young people lie at the age of 18. By 18, you should be a fully functioning, grounded, inciteful, level headed individual. You know many 18 year olds like that? Because I don't, but I know who is to blame.

@Grandfather_Din_Racket Haha!

Hi. May I ask your reasons against anarchism?

@@bengsynthmusic Read Lord Of The Flies.

That's ironic. You are relying on mommy and daddy government for your well-being.

A government is an abstract concept. It is not sane to think that one can have a relationship with an abstraction.

@@artemiasalina1860 That is an idea of someone who has not thought of looking under the hood of the proverbial car and see how things work. Have you never thought of what the government should be doing for you or your community? Or likewise, what is the government should be taking or not taking from your? If you are driving on a road you have a relationship with a body government -- local or otherwise.

@@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581 >Have you never thought of what the government should be doing for you or your community? Government should not be violating individual rights, correct? Can government exist without violating rights?

@@artemiasalina1860 Those are different points. Personally, I don't care for things that don't have a practical purpose. So if a practical question cannot be be answered first, I don't care for philosophical ones. In other words, if a government can be replaced by other more practical organizations that serves the community's needs better, ditch the thing. Individual rights is for when we right the rules. And let's not forget that there are societies out there that don't place high value in individual rights, and that is also their choice to setup their governance in that way.

@@pantitapalittapongarnpim1581 > So if a practical question cannot be be answered first, I don't care for philosophical ones. I see things the other way around. I think that you can't ask proper practical questions until philosophical questions are answered first. >And let's not forget that there are societies out there that don't place high value in individual rights, and that is also their choice to setup their governance in that way. Any society that thinks it's conducive to civilization for people to force their opinions on each other is a society that doesn't place a high value on individual rights. That's what democracies are, systems where people force their opinions on each other via voting and government violence.

Good questions, New York Nole. I’ll do my best to answer. For starters, Anarchism does not “hinge on the ideal that all people will operate with the same mental clarity and code of ethics.” Anarchism hinges on voluntary interactions, which is something 99.9% of people already partake in exclusively and have for their entire lives. That same 99.9% of people recognize others’ and their own property rights, buy what they want where they want and voluntarily enter into contractual agreements with employers to work where they want for an agreed upon price. These are all things anarchists do. Most people are anarchists and don’t know it. They’ve been brainwashed to see government as exempt from the same moral standards individuals are held to. I think this is what Michael was trying to show in his relationship example. The only time they aren’t anarchists is when they get in a voting booth. Anarchists abide by the non-aggression principle (NAP). Since they believe the world is best ordered through voluntary cooperation, they only use force in self-defense or in defense of someone incapable of defending themselves. This is why they correctly recognize government as the largest human rights violator. After all, everything government enforces is done so with the threat of fine, jail or death and funded through entirely through extortion. To quote Nietzche, “everything [government] has is stolen.” To answer your question about finding justice for criminal behavior in a stateless society, there would be private arbitration or private courts. To quickly summarize, unlike the current legal system, the competition for legal services in a stateless society would necessarily raise the standard of services, in both cost and fairness. Politics and legislation is downstream from culture. Cultural norms already accepted by most people are what lead to laws. A fellow anarcho-capitalist by the name of Bob Murphy, PhD has made a pretty concise video explaining how law would work without the state: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-C2WhnOHCpKs.html If you yearn to get a better grasp of what anarchism is and how it’s possible, I highly recommend the free documentary, “The Monopoly on Violence.” They provide past and present real-world examples: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XWAEKQjN-yM.html

Every heard of self defense? 🤯

@@Somberdemure ever heard of random acts of violence?

@@newyorknole2225 Self-,defense isn't a "random act of violence." Even if you strawman argument were to actually happen, it doesn't give anyone the right to rule others!

@@Somberdemure no I'm not saying that self defense isn't a random act of violence. I'm saying that if you are assaulted without the opportunity to defend yourself (in a random act of violence) then there would be no reprocussions for that act in an anarchist society.

In some locations yes - agreed bottom up goverance (rules) in other locations they were very socialist (top down) - see gun control in the west

There is a book Not so wild, Wild West

They also call it the department of defense. What are they defending in Yemen and Somalia?

"Deadwood" is anarchy in effect.

Anarchists don't "come to power.' that's the point. They abolish the state, they don't become the state.

Statism is a Religion.

..but they would just rebuild it. How do anarchists not see that? Humans form into groups for the same reason people join gangs in prison--safety from other groups. Not only in an anarchist world would hard viking men like myself jack you and take your shit at any opportunity, but in a world of nation states.. well, prepare to be crushed. You'll put up no defense in a completely disunited system. Malice himself has mentioned this objection in the past, saying he's not "so sure anymore" about the anarchism stuff. I feel like anarchism is kind of a kid's idea, along the lines of a teenager screaming as he slams shut his bedroom door, "You can't tell me what to do, man!" They just don't get the harsh reality of violence, or the futility of breaking down a system that would just be rebuilt in 5 minutes.

@@sonofwotan name fits

Literally as original as "What are you gonna do about evil corporations?" "For one thing, I wouldn't give them a government to run."

Easy to recognize when people dont get what's happening in the background, most assuredly you have no idea either though lol

Then explain what I said and tell me, specifically, why I am wrong...I will be waiting.

@@gregwilliams4599 ".....he just doesn't know it... yet" "Mucho hablando, pero no dice nada." You write as If you've solved the issue, that's a semi-dangerous line. That's why I called attention to it in the least agrresive way possible hence the lol. I know this, because I've done and occasionally fall into it , but I try to write assuredly that I dont know because I've not a clue, regardless how much time I waste learning theories, digging through history etc. I have an idea, but that's about it. Gaining an audience is easy -ish btw, confidence is what it mainly boils down to.

@@joshruelas8435 uh...no I didn't...I didn't make any attempt to solve any problem...I merely pointed the fact that every body tries to SOUND like they are resolving issues, by being opposed to status quo, while doing nothing but giving their opinions. So... you are not able to read my mind, as you thought... neither did you point out where I was wrong, because your assumptions were misguided. False confidence comes when people like us ooh and aah at people that are self appointed 'intellectuals', because most agree without even understanding what is being said. It's like art critics interpreting a work ... there's as many interpretations as there are critics, but never was an actual point. We try to move towards complexity, away from the simple answer, when real solutions untangle the complexity towards the simple solution...mucho hablando, pero no dice nada style, and no one is honest enough to say that it doesn't make sense, because is is trendier to just go along.

@@gregwilliams4599 you're really hung up on me saying you're wrong when nowhere in my original statement did I say "you're wrong" or anything similar to it. Also fail to see where you thought I was trying to mind read you, or does going off what people type a form of it now? Anyways, clearly won't get anywhere meaningful here, you have fun now.

what about hermits? who they answer to? the norm of humanity is to seek freedom while enslaving oneself to oneself.

I wouldn’t compare indigenous social practices to civilizations with top down authority. An elder is not the same thing as a governor.

@@lorettagreen6794 no, they are on the same spectrum though. Neither is Anarchy.

@Patsy Decline Uh, when you write a rule, everything must conform to it. The rule: "The norm of humanity is to create a system to maintain societal order, to which everyone is answerable." if I state a square is a parallelogram with 90 degree angles and equal sides, you cannot have a triangle be a square it violates the rule. Hermits are not answerable to anyone. They can go live in Antarctica. Before there were countries, they could live on any land and not be answerable to anyone.

Exactly. Hierarchical systems play out in all species everywhere.

@Grandfather_Din_Racket lol, opinion noted

@Vebunkd to be fair, some anarchists probably do get it, and then they’re not anarchists anymore. The only “real” anarchists that remain are the followers that see anarchy as a means for revolution and the leaders that see the followers as useful idiots that will help them gain power. I mean neither the leaders nor followers are wrong, but being honest with themselves was never a top priority. There are many vectors for revolution; anarchy is just the one that doesn’t hurt the followers’ brains to think about, so it only follows that they would be less inclined to think about any alternative consequences other than what they’re being sold by the leaders. And then there’s people who do it for the clicks...

For generations, people have been under mind control. The belief in government is generational deep and people are psychological infants.