Love Michael!!! His speeches on N Korea are v v much needed, we have left those people to their fate (despite meddling in the rest of the world for supposed humanitarian reasons), I hope he is right that it can improve for them. Ive never trusted any politician... its... politics, all of it. Hadnt considered Anarchy before but he puts forward really good points and given me plenty of interesting thinking topics. Much love to you both, keep on keeping on
Been a libertarian my whole adult life, and never gave anarchy a thought. Now I’m half way through “An Anarchist Handbook” and have already ordered The Anatomy of The State and Against the State.
I really like Michael Malice and agree with much of what he posits. The thing that holds Anarchism in permanent abeyance is its reliance on the intrinsic "goodness" of human nature, the expectation that everyone will play along. This must necessarily include all citizens of this planet. Given the fallibility of humans, the need for a structure of some kind (security, legal, protection of the most vulnerable citizens, etc ad infinitum, with some kind of requisite "authority") is necessary, if this structure does not comprise the state, what does it comprise? A state by any other name.
Interesting to hear you speak about loosing your cognitive faculties, I just went through something similar but it's root cause was my emotional equilibrium. 6 months ago I had what felt like a heart attack at work and the company fired me, then I lost my housing and kept having severe dizzy spells, I wasn't able to stand let alone walk. I went to the hospital again and fixed the dizziness issue but now I'm out of work, in a brand new city where I know no one except my wife, burning through my savings living in an Air BNB, being denied on every apartment application because even with a very wealthy Co signer attached to the application my wife doesn't make enough money. So as this is all happening I start developing severe anxiety and panic attacks where I shake like crazy and my heart rate is through the roof and with each successive failed job interview it's getting steadily worse and worse. Finally it clicked that this was severe anxiety and I started taking Gaba from the health food store and that dampened the panic enough to the point where I could get through a couple interviews and get a job but I was incredulous at the fact that am entire lifetime of self control and mental discipline could evaporate in a matter of weeks.
Hang in there, keep fighting, i have been experiencing some similar situations for about a year.. but the last few months have been getting better... exercise a little ever other day if you can... if not go for a walk in nature if possible, it actually helps .. good luck
LOL. I'm going to check up on another interview with Malice to see if the Maggie Thatcher books were placed there specifically for the British interview :)
I've never noticed them before, so I assumed they were. Although it is a bit subtle for him these days lol. I fully expect him to show up dressed in a loincloth made of meat at some point
whenever Malice describes "anarchy" as being better, why is it that the "Autonomous Zones" didn't achieve what Malice describes? Why is it that human beings NEVER achieve what Malice describes?
The selection for who gets prosecuted is no more arbitrary than deciding between regular person and possible criminal for trial, the difference in trading up is that it is at the discresion of the judge, when who gets put on trial otherwise isn't. It doesn't even have to be that way, and there are no good examples to think of where judges have let people walk this way as a favour. Could be down to other and better methods at hand, but alas.
The problem with the cell phone analogy is that those "agreements" they came to are called geographic monopolies that basically gives them carte blanch within their service area to set rates and coverage in an anarchist world they would have free range on how they enforce those "agreements".
Speaking of Intrusive thoughts - this is a normal process (you don't have to be sociopathic etc) Take a look at research around this - it's fascinating. Example: Purdon C. & Clark D. Obsessive intrusive thoughts in nonclinical subjects. Part 1 Content & relation with depressive, anxious & obsessional symptoms. Behav.Res.Ther. 1992;31:713-20; Some examples of percentages in this particular study relating to 'non-clinical' male students (ie: not diagnosed with any mental health issues). These figures are the percentages of these young people who had these specific intrusive thoughts: 1. driving into a window 16 2. running car off the road 56 3. hitting animals or people with car 54 4. swerving into traffic 52 5. smashing into objects 40 6. slitting wrist/throat 22 7. cutting off finger 16 8. jumping off a high place 46 9. fatally pushing a stranger 34 10. fatally pushing friend 22 11. jumping in front of train/car 29 12. pushing stranger in front of train/car 20 13. pushing family in front of train/car 14 14. hurting strangers 48 15. insulting strangers 59 16. bumping into people 43 17. insulting authority figure 48 18. insulting family 55 19. hurting family 50 20. choking family member 22 21. stabbing family member 11 22. accidentally leaving heat/stove on 66 23. home unlocked, intruder there 69 24. taps left on, home flooded 24 25. swearing in public 34 26. breaking wind in public 49 27. throwing something 26 28. causing a public scene 43 29. scratching car paint 43 30. breaking window 43
As someone from Blackpool, I've never considered forgetting its name or even its existence as being anything other than a godsend. Get back on the drugs, and tell me what they are so I can get some from my doctor!
Ive been saying for years that in todays morden age no one should be forced to live under someone elses choice for politician. If you choose Labour you get them and their taxes and benefits. If you choose Conservatives you get them and their benefits
Regarding the "kids" problem, the state has tried and failed, for many decades now, to replace family as the main building block of society. Statism is the primary long-term cause of wide-scale bad parenting because it provides incentive for immoral behaviour. Anarchism would lead to stronger families, stronger communities and stronger kids. It would also lead to much more effective private charity for those kids that still end up in need of outside help.
When you make your tour try to visit Austria, home of the grandfathers of libertarians (Austrian school of economics): Menger, Böhm von Bawerk, Wieser, Mises, Hayek. If you need a guide, just call me!
Anarchy in the US is really impossible when you consider human nature. As soon as you take the Fed down, all of the normies are going to be persuaded by someone who speaks firm and confident and then we get the next government which will probably be even worse. I love The Fountainhead, and the principles we should live by. However, I have no faith in large groups of people to stick to the concept of freedom at the expense of personal accountability.
Anarchy will not arise through a subversion of the population, government only exists (and has any power) because of its perceived legitimacy. There is no way a political candidate who would end the FED would get elected, most Americans want the wars to end yet the pressure from the cathedral is too great. You don't subvert government by getting elected and changing the rules, you subvert government by nullifying its ability to enforce its rules. Think (privacy) crypto coins and enough people operating self-sufficiently to trade with one another regardless of government edicts. Let's say there were 1-20 million Americans (idk the required amount) who decided not to pay the income tax, and had the infrastructure in place to replace the state (both of these things will take a good while), at some point the political pressure is too great to repress, and with information as hard to control as it is, it will not be possible to keep anarchists out of the public's perception. Yes, it's very hard to convince people that the state is unnecessary, but it's much harder to convince anarchists the other way.
So true. When there is no government the "normal" people behave just like during riots or after a hurricane hits - plunder, steal, assault, destroy. And the rest wants "the state" to bring order. To establish an anarchic society, successful mass education in individual self-relience (economic and legal) and significant grow in social cohesion are both needed. Otherwise such societies would end conquered by an external government, more or less tyrannical.
@@jackmoniker3422 well the state is a territorial monopoly on violence, those inevitably become abusive and we shouldn't have them. We can organize, cooperate and have law and the protection of property rights without a state
@@destinal_in_reality I don't know if you know this but the government is made up of people. If you're saying the government is inherently violent and malevolent than you were saying that humans are inherently violent and malevolent. This is a naive and childish take. The state is merely a tool of the financial elite who only care about their own political and financial gain
@@jackmoniker3422 This lie is the biggest piece of state propaganda used to keep us controlled. That supposedly the state, this elite monopoly on violence, is "us." It is not us. It is not our agent or working in our interests. Read public choice theory. The state has its own interests that are prioritized above that of its people and it's not possible that we all want the same things anyway, at best it's a tyranny of the majority but power corrupts. I'm against monopolies of all sorts and a monopoly on violence is the most harmful.
The statement at the beginning about there being only Pepsi or Coke... wtf? What store is he going to? When I go to my store there are hundreds of different beverages - from a vast variety of beers, wines, and hard lemonades, to fountain sodas, waters (even something called ‘black water,’) to coffees, juices, etc. - and in 3 or 4 different aisles - it’s total anarchy!
Yeah, that was his point - the government offers you two choices, as opposed to the market, which, as a matter of everyday experience, offers endless choice.
I don't think it would work specially cuz of the invading army factor but many other reasons... And we need order. There will always be elites or clicks...
Hey there fellow listener, have some timestamps :) 00:00 Cold open: Why the current system is crappy (clip taken from: 37:27) 00:24 Opening banter - Michael Malice in the Amazon charts 01:19 Michael's philosophy behind The Anarchy Handbook 04:24 Michael's definition of Anarchy 06:25 Why does Michael not vote? 08:52 John Hasnas and the myth of objective law; anarchist resolution of "legal" conflicts 16:55 The hardest problem for anarchy to overcome: What about the kids? 17:58 Anarchy's relationship to war 20:11 Will there be an anarchist society in Michael's lifetime? And where? 22:52 The process and success of making The Anarchist Handbook 29:35 Showing how the sausage is made 32:19 The glory of making one's own path and being reliable 36:25 Crappy choices in democracy 38:24 Giving important people a platform; Louis Lingg, Adam Lane Smith, Albert Parsons 45:52 Chris' cognitive decline and comeback; examining your health, and the FODMAP diet 51:21 Absurd thoughts, and the teleological brain 54:26 Bill and Melinda Gates, Jeff Bezos and Jeffrey Epstein 55:36 Subjectivity of the state law 57:13 Significance of Facebook's COVID turnaround 1:01:10 Alternative video uploading platforms 1:01:38 Recognizing the corruption of authorities 1:04:22 Michael on the hilarity of big political parties embarrassing themselves and finding excuses 1:09:14 Relationships between UK politics and US politics 1:17:03 The left's contempt for the working class 1:19:54 The radicalization of the working class in the US 1:21:52 Chris' and Michael's friendship and future plans Thank you both for this conversation! :) It was indeed beautiful to listen to two friends talking about such interesting topics.
@@ChrisWillx Consenting Adults whose hearts are full of hatred with irreconcilable differences. I say let them fight under the doctrine of bodily autonomy.
@@99Yteu Back when dueling was legal, it was a matter of honor, which is mostly about the broader society treating you with shame for your perceived cowardice if you didn't answer the insult or challenge, or behaved in an ungentlemanly way during it. So legalizing duels in modern times probably wouldn't work, since there's very little regard or social enforcement for things like personal honor, sadly
He is excellent at waking up the uninitiated and the low-info corporate media consuming normie. He is genuine and sincere to a point where his points are often undeniable.
I highly highly highly recommend reading Murray Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty and hear the stories of nearly countless of anarchists/libertarians murdered by the state solely because they believed in liberty.
I hate that the word Patriot and patriotism has been bastardized to mean someone or something that defends the government when it's actually a name or title we give to those who defend the people against tyranical laws and or government Examples: Edward Snowden & Julian Assange . Both patriots .
One of the first books I ever read that I really got into and thought and pondered about along the way was the Lysander Spooner Reader. And I did a book report on it in 9th grade. I'm glad Michaels getting his name out there.
@@Inannawhimsey Nice. I actually found him on my Dad's bookshelf. I don't want to dox myself but I share a surname with Lysander, and he's somewhere in the family tree, my Dad knows how. My sister is about to have a baby this month, and his middle name is going to be Lysander, he'll have a different last name but it's still cool.
@@RossLambert801 Find a far left FB friend and a far right FB friend and look at their discussions. They behave in exactly the same way. Take the right winger names from the leftist posts and switch them around to leftist names and that exact post could go up on a right wing chat and be loved and cheered for. There is no fundamental difference between the far left in the far right, except for the fact that right now the far left is infinitely more influential.
Yeah, it's pretty great that Malice is able to show people a tradition of thought that they may not have considered before. Like, maybe we don't need a monopoly on violence to have functioning societies?
You don't vote and you get Democrats running everything, and their destroyed cities now are an example of what happens if you don't vote the opposition to them.
@@Acujeremy Your mistake is that you think the other side is true opposition. There are a handful here and there but by and large they are the same. Not even talking about this past election, you can look throughout US history to see how rigged many elections were. By and large unless there is some crazy outlier like Donald Trump, it’s who ever they want in that is installed. I understand exactly what you’re getting at. The problem is your thinking is too linear.
“the voluntary society is the source of order that comes from freedom itself. There is no contradiction or even tension between liberty and security. If free enterprise works well in one sector, it can work well in other sectors too.” - Gustave de Molinari
@@fukpoeslaw3613 when you have a bigger impact on the Anarchist viewpoint than Gustave de Molinari I'll give a shit what you have to say. Until then I will continue to quote the giants of freedom and peace.
I bought this book because I would like my preconceived notions of the state to be challenged, I have just assumed the utility of the state is necessary and I also hold a “healthy” maybe nostalgic sense of national pride, whilst of course recognising the bad outcomes that have manifested today and throughout history in their varying degrees. What I really appreciate about Michael is that whilst he has strong disagreements with the unchallengeable idea of a state being necessary, he is principled enough to not jump on any bandwagon which may appear to align with his goals of dismantling the system. I’m essentially referring to bad faith actors/activists attempting to dismantle the current system in order to be a part of a system where they may wield more arbitrary power than they currently hold. You can just sense the authenticity of his perspective, and the lack of an agenda it carries when compared with other anti-establishment groups or individuals, this makes me much more open to his challenges of “what I hold dear” as it doesn’t demonise well meaning individuals and doesn’t divide people into groups or accuse those that don’t align absolutely with the promoted narrative of “wrongthink”. Alway appreciate your thoughtful work and discussions Chris, I wish you continued success.
@@shoyupacket5572 Not necessarily.. Being against a system that has inevitably grown tyrannical is a natural process of ALL systems/governments throughout history. The need for systems is inherently part of human beings.
@@HenryPaulThe3rd Obviously women's purchasing power has helped wokists get their way but feminism is not the only thing on the left especially now blm got popular.
I always thoroughly enjoy listening to libertarians and anarchist types because they like to talk and explain things. And I like to talk and listen. They are very open to discussion. So a very enjoyable video. I always make it a point to visit different political groups to map what basic principles and values construct their ideas. That said, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions, and that comes from a few key pillars of which I think guide the world. At least to my pillars that counteract against those who highly value freedom, it would then be my understanding that oligopolies are thy natural form of human governance and they will spring up, no matter the government type. Followed by governments propagation of conquest theory, in that fighting happens incessantly until a monopoly of violence is established and maintained over a geographical area. There are different ways to structure oligopolies so they inflict the least amount of damage. The elites have to be tied to the geography of the people they rule, they have to be fearful of bad choices (economically/physically), and are govern / lead by civil society (families/producers). I think modern democracies have deluded themselves into thinking non oligopolies are possible and this in turn leads to worse government, whereas if we accept oligopolies are inevitable, then you can design limitations around the worst traits, to make the world more bearable.
50:00 Interesting man. My mom has a brain decease, Aphasia. She couldn't remember words, misspell them, and later on just lost whole concepts. It's dramatic.
Anarchism, as here described, seems a bit loose on details. That being said, I'll relate a true story from the early Michigan frontier, before it became a State. My Mother's paternal ancestor was coming in from Connecticut. Besides wagon and oxen, his only possession was a milk cow. Around the cow's neck was a fine brass bell. One night, outside of what is now Clinton, Michigan, this bell was stolen. In a few days, further west along the old Indian trail (U.S. 12) at a tavern owned by Jabez Bronson, the only structure then at what would become the town of Bronson, some men recognized that bell, being carried by a man in his 20's. They knew the bell belonged to my ancestor. They questioned the young man on how he came to possess this bell. Being unsatisfied with his answer, they held him until the matter could be cleared up. A few days later my ancestor and his family came along the trail. The upshot is, the young man finally confessed to stealing the bell. A board was removed from one of the wagons and the young man was turned over the back of the wagon and briskly spanked. Yes, spanked. The bell was returned to it's rightful owner and the young man was loosed to go on his way. That's an example how Justice might be dispensed in an Anarchic society, but the potential for abuse is far higher than the system we live under now. A million little fiefdoms would be dispensing rough and unequal "Justice" all over the place. I don't want to live in a world where a handful of self interested yokels could pass summary judgement and hang me for stealing a cow bell.
Loved it! I had a friend in school who was an anarchist, we gave her such a hard time bc we dismissed anarchism as a childish fantasy. Dumb kids. Luckily I’m not much smarter now. Jk
Anarchy is unstable? And what do you call our current equation? LOL. Those who make rules and laws are not bound to follow them, so those rules and laws only restrict us and let the rulership Run free. Anarchy is peace, Anarchy is natural order. You cannot be free without a free market. Please study up before continuing to comment.
Everywhere in the animal kingdom, we have hierarchies and order and those who work in unison have a natural advantage. For humans too, those with better-organized structures succeeded over those without. Or why do you think did civilization successfully emerge over tribal societies? Structure emerges regardless of what we do - it doesn't have to come in the form of laws or rulership, but chances are it will.
@@ChrisWillx Well, I'd argue that he doesn't advocate for anarchy - at best for a temporary reset. I can't think of a single historical example where "no structure" lasted for long
@@TheDhammaHub ANARCHY DOESN'T MEAN NO STRUCTURE, dummy. and i didn't say structure doesn't emerge naturally. look at our very bodies. as within, so without. *you, like 99% of people who use the word, need to look up the definition of anarchy*. it doesn't mean without hierarchy. it means NO RULERS. you are familiar with a veneer of talking points, but have no clue what the actual meaning of what you're saying is.
53:50 Describes also people with Pure-O OCD. It's basically as it's described, some random thought that could be considered horrible pops up in your head. Now to have awkward thoughts pop up also happens to regular people as I find out, but usually they dismiss it/laugh about it without second thought. But people with Pure-O (although I read in some articles it might not be recognized in DSM-5 or something) will obsess too much about it, I don't know why. To the point they think about it for hours or days, and that stress will retriggered it, as a feedback loop and magnify the signal. I have been there too, so I know.
Theres a lot I like MM on but anarchism he hasnt sold me. It doesnt seem pragmatic or realistic. It doesnt even seem to fit with human nature. I'll have to check out his book and see if it's any more persuasive.
corbett report had an episode with a phone app that puts out an alert to other users when you are under attack...i wouldnt rely on cops showing up and if they do they will probably just shoot your dog or something
In answere to the point that michael brought up about taking care of mistreated children: I could easily image an organization like amnesty international whos whole purpose was to look out for the mistreatment of children with associated scoring/public ousting of the parents. If treating children well is valued highly by the people this organization would be appropriately funded. One major aspect that people often forget with respect to anarchy is donation based funding, especially when it comes to upholding moral values. Equivalent how today free countries will intervene (ideally without personal gain) when a genocide is commited elsewhere.
I am not married to this idea but what if children could own their own property and could provide sanctuary to other children who have fled from their own bad environments?! Abused children are likely to be far more trusting of other children than of adults who are more likely to be mistrusted by abused children. My principle point here is that children might be better at taking point on this issue, rather than adults. Just a thought!?
@@AntimaterieGame Good point,.. except in situations like that the form of law enforcement may well be largely irrelevant anyway. If the child is that physically controlled and isolated,.. there may be no hope possible. But if the abused child knows that if he can reach another child he is far more likely to be believed and helped than if he were to run to adults,.. that matter of trust may be what makes the difference. I am also thinking about runaway children, child prostitutes, and child sex trafficking. And I would not advocate taking away other offers of help,.. but help from another child who has enough independence that an adult doesn't necessarily have to be involved?! *_It is because every individual knows little and, in particular, because we rarely know which of us knows best that we trust the independent and competitive efforts of many to induce the emergence of what we shall want when we see it._* ~ Friedrich von Hayek
@@davidhunt7427 Very true. Though when I think about anarchy I feel the really tricky problems arise in the grey areas. One mans child abuse might be another mans 'proper' parenting. And who gives anyone the authority to separate parents from their children by force. In the end it comes down to communities and the concrete cases that have to be looked at indivdually. No man is an island after all and who wants to tade and live with people mistreating children. (If you can't push off this responsibility to a government that is).
@@AntimaterieGame To me the only way that Anarcho-Capitalism can be legally coherent is that for a child to become regarded as an adult there has to be some public declaration of what standards of criminal and civil law the child chooses to be held to. This requires a positive, affirmative act from everyone becoming a citizen,.. but even mathematics requires the use of axioms,.. statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. For even a strictly voluntary society to work,.. there must be some positive, affirmative act upon each individual choosing there after to be regarded as an self-responsible adult. This should be doable. *_A free man is as jealous of his responsibilities as he is of his liberties._* ~ Cyril James *_Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it._* ~ George Bernard Shaw *_[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again._* ~ Edward Gibbon *_Government does not grow by seizing our freedoms, but by assuming our responsibilities._* ~ Michael Cloud *_It is indeed a singular thing that people wish to pass laws to nullify the disagreeable consequences that the law of responsibility entails. Will they never realize that they do not eliminate these consequences but merely pass them along to other people? The result is one injustice the more and one moral the less._* ~ Frederic Bastiat *_Then what is freedom? It is the will to be responsible to ourselves._* ~ Friedrich Nietzsche *_The essential psychological requirement of a free society is the willingness on the part of the individual to accept responsibility for his life._* ~ Edith Packer *_The real freedom of any individual can always be measured by the amount of responsibility which he must assume for his own welfare and security._* ~ Robert Welch *_.. the sense of meaning that life can provide to you, is proportionate to the amount of responsibility you decide to take on.._* ~ Jordan Peterson *_If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all._* ~ Jacob Hornberger *_Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States._* ~ Ronald Reagan *_Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state._* ~ John Dewey *_The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one's own behavior._* ~ Thomas Sowell *_The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from 'society,' rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by 'society'._* ~ Thomas Sowell *_We seem to be getting closer and closer to a situation where nobody is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did._* ~ Thomas Sowell *_The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun yourself._* ~ Harry Browne *_The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it._* ~ Harry Browne *_The increasing dependence on the State is anything but a healthy symptom; it means that the whole nation is in a fair way to becoming a herd of sheep, constantly relying on a shepherd to drive them into good pastures. The shepherd's staff soon becomes a rod of iron, and the shepherds turn into wolves... Any man who still possesses the instinct of self preservation knows perfectly well that only a swindler would offer to relieve him of responsibility, for surely no one in his senses would dream of taking responsibility for the existence of another. The man who promises everything is sure to fulfil nothing, and everyone who promises too much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and is already on the road to perdition._* ~ Carl Jung, _CW 10, Para 413, Civilization in Transition_
Anarchy works and i just remembered why... Michael here is a little homework for you if you don't already know... this is why ANARCHY WORKS... Horses are social animals but in the wild it's even more important for them to be social... because out side of the pack they become vulnerable.... Thus in the wild if one of the horses decides to be unruly and go against the pack they are cast out and are left on there own... which usually means they want survive because they become prey... i can see this same system in an Anarchy...What say you Michael ?? ;
Is it possible that word Anarchy which may be defined as disorderly or mayhem in the public’s mind gets in the way of the actual meaning and it’s possible function for a society.
As a former low-info normie and someone who has spent time across much of the political spectrum it's my opinion that you are spot on with this. Anarchist ideals have a branding issue. It's not due to the ideals but due to the narratives surrounding them. Anarchism has a lot of loose ends as well. Loose ends that need to be buttoned up if to ever be taken serious by the broader public. I'd argue Anarchism is great in many forms but in others it is as vapid and empty as libertarianism.
You’re really just describing a low standard of literacy. But yes. The purest definition of anarchy is the most useful: no rulers. Just as I haven’t the right to rule you, you haven’t the right to rule me. (And no, not even if you’ve won a popularity contest/election. Not even then.)
I will agree that most government is simply there to support more government, and most politicians are there for themselves. But an anarchist system is wishful thinking and I'm not a fan of making policy on wishful thinking as opposed to real world solutions.
I heard about MM talking with Dave Smith on his podcast about how the public schools nowadays pushing critical race theory is purposeful child abuse so you're definitely right.
Forced schooling in and of itself is legalised child abuse. I can't bring myself to care what the subject matter is, in comparison to the fact that _there is_ school.
Yeah exactly! It isn't like humans will just be like, hey freedom, no rules, peace! The human race would have to evolve drastically for anything like this to happen.
@@destinal_in_reality Somehow violent monopolies keep making it to the top. Wake up the human race is yet ruled by the law of the jungle. When humans are replaced by cyborgs, we maybe will have peace.
@@matthewmiller8003 We haven't had a monopoly on violence like the modern state throughout most of history. Even kings didn't have the level of sovereignty attributed to them. Regardless, though, if the worst thing you can say about anarchy is that a new state will rise up, maybe that's not a reason not to try to end the state for as long as we can manage.
eBay has an auction monopoly, very bad example. Monopolies such as this would be much more frequent in anarchy. Anarchy always trends to Somalia not Utopia, it has to.
Is there an age limit to the strictures of anarchy? Are parents allowed to speak for their kids, or are toddlers supposed to represent and protect themselves against the world?
it wouldn't really be anarchy if there were rules like that. I'm not an anarchist myself but I'm sure Michael would say each family or community would decide on their own how best to care for their children.
Although the anarchist may believe that he is strong (or intelligent) enough to prosper in the world independently, the five morons who just wandered into his bedroom may believe differently. They may believe that a single anarchist is easier pickings than the survivalist compound next door, or even the Granny Gun Club two blocks over.
there's nothing about anarchy that requires you to live alone in the woods waiting for bandits to murder you I'm not an anarchist but I'm amazed how much I feel the need to defend michael from half assed arguments like this. No human has ever been completely independent and anarchy is not about being totally self sufficient. The only thing it's about is getting rid of the state.
@@bro4539 It is easy enough (possible) to get rid of a particular state. It is impossible to get rid of the hierarchical constant that causes states to form. I figured people on this channel would be aware of and understanding of Jordan Peterson's work. What mechanism does the anarchist have to negate hierarchy? Hipster scorn is likely not sufficient.
It's really not about anarchy vs government or one ism vs another ism, it's about trying to find the right balance and, public or private, avoid and prevent concentration of power.
@@handyman1016 My knowledge of Malice and Malice's "anarchism" goes further than this short video. You tried to reduce MM's ideology to "voluntary trade" and now to this video, just stop with your fallacious ways, and I dont judge MM on what he purely says but on what he think would result in.
@@handyman1016he reduces is ideology to that, which is fallacious because its nowhere near what he is about, and you seem to believe him and reduce his view to it too, or at least pretends they are: in your first answer to me. Im not wasting my time with you anymore.
Snake! Damn, and I actually liked you, for a minute. Wow, a pure communists through and through. I see you: I won't be the last. You do deserve an Oscar from you tribe though, consummate actor. Know thy enemy.
The broad, general way of writing a law has clearly failed in example of the Second Amendment to the point of soviet-style pseudo-rights, that are written there somewhere, but in real life are pure fiction. The right to keep and bear arms is about non-existent in big cities and Democrat-run regions, surely when compared to what it was intended to be in early American Republic of late 1700s. If the Founding Fathers somehow came to the mad conclusion, that to properly secure a major natural civil right would require almost writing a small book (instead of one sentence, writing a 20-30 pages) - I think that would only buy some more time for the 2A (depending on the quality of legal barriers of this hypothetical 30-pages-long Second Amendment). I believe the best way is somewhere in the middle: a law worded too generally, broadly is too ambiguous and too open to "interpretations" (I hate that word), while overdetailization, overparticularization and cancerous-like growth of private and public laws and contracts leave space for possibility of "cracks in the dam" and thus floods destroying the spirit of a law, what is always the most important part of it. The Constitution, the law can only do as much as great is people's will for their enforcement. Roosevelt did things that were bolshevik, hard communist in nature - gov't stealing private gold assets, banning private (personal) farming of wheat and before him the rise of the Federal Reserve and the beginning of the greatest scam in human history - somewhere about the time of the Civil War the American people lost the 1:1 ratio influence over their politics and today that's almost obvious to anyone, especially after the 2008 crash and these criminal "bail-outs". Political system, in order to successfully protect itself against erosion and corruption, requires more than well-coded law - it requires active action, proper culture built around values held dear by a nation. If I had to come up with something provisionally good enough - if there was a nation-wide tradition of armed militias and armed private citizens marching and open-carrying, let's say, every 3rd of July, every year since 1776 - that would do more good than any amendment or bill or court ruling ever could. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way. No weaponry shall be put subject to taxation. No mandatory registry of firearms nor citizens in possession thereof, shall be made. Any member of federal goverment, state goverment, local goverment and the judicial system declaring will to anyhow regulate or infringe upon this constitutional right is hereby prospectively outlawed and may be executed by any citizen, through the natural right of the people to tyrannicide. Any citizen, who had done so, shall not be prosecuted."
MM said the hardest thing to overcome was the Children. Could society go back to Covenant Marriages where it has to be explained out what is to be done before children are born and your allowed out of that contract/marriage if you have not had kids yet but after you have to go by what's in the contract. Society could set up like here are you 8 choices that have to be in there like school visitation and such. Just make it so you can't kill your children if you separate to solve the problem.. No Hurting....
🖐A place where we speak freely🤘#NoMasters Jul 04 2022 Tune in for our new, very open, congregation of podcast from various minds. This one is sure to go viral for the wrong reasons. We had a lot of fun with a couple of special guests. Check out what we have to say, if you can handle it. Also, bring tissues, you will cry. It might be due to your alikeness to our believes and bazar topics, or it’s because you’re a weenie. See y’all Tuesday at 12PM MST.
What most people don't realize is that the modern state is very new in human history. For 99% of human history we had anarchy. Tell that to anyone who tells you that anarchism is utopian.
Depends on how you define "'Anarchy" and "modern state" . The tribal / feudal / empire periods were less effective at killing , but I wouldn't call them "Anarchy" , but rather the order of their time . And if you think that the fast moving borders below prove your point , consider that some 30 new states and territories have come into being since the fall of the Soviet Union ... a mere 32 years ago . Humans are chaotic , but not anarchistic . We crave order and peace , but strive for the opposite . That means that we have some method to our madness , that manifest in opposing goals . Anarchy has no goals . It encapsulates a state of being without goals . Anarchy doesn't want to cross the river anymore than it wants to cross the stars . There's a very thin line between "let me do my thing" and "stay out of my way" . We're 7+ Billion people on the planet , on the way to 9 Billion . At best we can do controlled chaos at the moment , and we're hurting ourselves in the long run by eliminating war , which both used to cull our numbers and bring about technological leaps forward . And even war was controlled anarchy , not Anarchy itself . That existed perhaps in the early tribal times ... , but even then there were "anarchists" and proto humans that sought to collaborate . History of the Middle East on a map (4500 years) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5eIADs7Ct-Q.html History of Europe on a map (2600 years) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P9YnYRk8_kE.html
Well precisely. We started with no rules and evolved to the present state. It's not entirely obvious that a radically different stable endpoint is achieveable. It's not even obvious that removing the state monopoly in certain areas would help when many of our problems are corporate in nature.
I love the discussion. The questions are very legit and so are the answers. This is how things should be. I don't have to agree wholeheartedly with someone to like and respect their ideas if they can present them honestly, and MM does that in spades and I'm sure I have much to learn from him. Side note: 28:25. It's funny that he says "beating the corporations at their own game" while publishing it with one of the largest companies in the world has ever seen using contemporary technology that they are pushing. I get the message that it's not going through a big publishing house. Still, it was worded funny.
what happens is 1939 again. why? because of how victory on 1918 was persued by the victors. defeat should teach you how to improve, but winning should teach you character. back in 1918 ppl didnt know how to win.
The foster care system would be funded by communities and charity. The orphanages with a lack of transparency and/or system of abuse would have children taken away. Funding as well. Just a theory.
Yall. I just turned 35 last Monday and i kid u not, i have been waiting my ENTIRE life to watch a conversation like this. Where were you?!? Lol jkjk😭😭😭
I have spent a significant amount of my time dabbling in anarchism. Michael's been arguing with the wrong people. The question and/or problem isn't that X situation can't be 'adjudicated' without the government, the problem with anarchism is it CAN be adjudicated. Trust me, I'll do the adjudicatin'. And if you don't like my adjudicatin', suck it. Response: Wait, said you wuz in charge. Me: Who's gonna tell me I'm not?
