@@piracybringer4057 Yes, you're right, it's not 'real' anarchism because we don't support violence. Therefore it's imitation anarchism - cosmopolitan anarchism... The state is evil? Oh I like that idea, I'll incorporate that into my ideology. "Use violence against people we don't like." Oh no definitely not a fan of that one, you can keep that ideological tenant conventional anarchism, I'm cool without violence.
Excellent lecture. Bob Murphy has a great lecture style where he's able to use humor and wit to captivate the audience without sacrificing rigor and precision.
I found this video on a playlist featured by the channel of Ross Ulbricht. The playlist was titled, "for later". I wonder if he ever got to see these videos 😢 He lost his life and was taken from us at the age of 29 😭
And this is just a few people. I always say this. I might come up with a good answer but the answer the market will bring eventually will be better than whatever any indovidual comes up with.
OMG! MIND BLOWN!! Already 13 minutes in and I can see it!! This would really work! My final reservation about a totally free society i.e. 0% government has been answered and satisfied! :) liked and subscribed.
I like how people are saying how anarcho capitalism is a joke but no one here on this thread has really shown how it is a joke. Just ad hominems against the belief of anarcho capitalism.
I'm super confused with that. But I guess the point is that the point of justice is not punishment. It's justice. I guess it kind of applies the the market is an invincible hand and the eyes of justice are blind.
The best solution for society?? It all depends what your belief system is.. If there were a place for me to live under anarchist rules.. then I should be able to.. if you want to live where a government rules your lives and tells you how to live..then you should be able to live that way.. Now! You will say we cannot live in such a divided society.. No? Why not!! Its the way we are as a species.. Humanity will always be divided because we all have different opinions and solutions for problems. We will never all agree on one thing as a standard and it is precisely why we have a government that rules and controls us.. Learn how to live without government, then you will learn the true meaning of FREE SOCIETY! I am not saying live without rules, just without rulers..
17:00 why would the enforcement agency care if there was decent evidence etc? if there were a demand for crooked agencies there would be a market for them.
Regarding the TV example: I guess you’d go to the security agency first and they would say to you “it’ll cost you X to repossess your TV, but we need a ruling from a reputable judge first… here are 5 we recommend.”
"How an Anarchist Society Would Provide National Defense: The Solution to Libertarianism's Hardest Problem" is a 1980 lecture by libertarian anarchist historian/economist Prof. Jeff Hummel. I recently found it and think it adds a good broad perspective to Murphy's "Market for Security" lecture and "Chaos Theory" essays. I recommend it to anyone who is interested: /watch?v=vyDFUx6qEBY
This is all really fascinating. I'm just trying to decide which is worse: locking our worst criminals into life sentences without parole in a state prison, or sending them into whatever this society's "last resort" prison hotel compounds would be. I imagine the very worst prisoners would only have 2 or 3 options on where to go, and all of them would be nothing more than life terms on huge slave labor camps. Still, maybe no worse than what we have now.
What about insurance policies that had premiums linked to the odds of military action by aggressors. You would need a third party to estimate how likely an attack would be, how much damage would be likely result from different types of attacks, etc. like rating agencies. In that case, it'd be more even more important that the rating agency not take sides than during the housing crash.
Makes you wonder what is the best solution for humanity, is it really people all chasing after money or is it developing a culture where going after money is not one of the important goals, people are paid well and have no motive to do any harm to anyone for money. A culture of learning, teaching, service, of health, of nature, quality, etc.
21:00 isn't the question of free tv vs "sounding good" a pretty subjective one? pretty open to abuse by sociopaths and with little recourse from the community except a circular argument about other enforcement agencies (who could themselves be crooked)
@stalrunner I think of it more like exile, because he might be able to get a helicopter or something to fly him somewhere, but he couldn't come on anyone's land who didn't want him, which would probably be almost everyone.
@Hashishin13 No the state gives them money from taxes for housing the prisoners. It varies per state, in Texas I think its like $300 a day per prisoner
ah yes because a corporation that doesn't want to pay unpaid wages to an ex-employee would just happily agree to privately settle with an unbiased arbitrator, they would just keep pushing that shit off, claiming they weren't satisfied with the arbitrator until the ex-employee either gave up or died
1. They have to provide a set of arbitrators or they will just get ignored and sentenced regardless. 2. If they do provide an arbitrator but they don't show up at the court the court would procede and the rulling would be valid regardless.
If people who are convicted of crimes get to voluntarily agree to competing prison hotels, why couldn't they leave? They already understand the likelihood of association, but it's either voluntary or it's not... There wouldn't be prison breaks because prisoners could just walk in and out at their leisure... But they likely wouldn't be able to interact with the public, which is the original incentive for the private prison hotel in the first place. If they want to eat and sleep comfortably, they still have incentive at the hotel, plus there's job opportunities and likely even professional psychological counselors. Some prisons might even have procedures to rehabilitation and allow vouchers that might allow criminals to eventually enter back into society... Like if a teen does something that gets them in trouble, they can learn and prove they've changed, and be given second chances depending on competing prisons. This makes sense to me, and other job programs can accept internship from these rehabilitation hotels with competitive reputations for their effectiveness.
There exist private courts. "Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce" solves contract disputes in competition with hundreds of courts around the world.
some of these values might include a willingness to pay what is necessary in order to prevent defense agencies from offering preferential treatment to wealthier clients, a willingness to boycott agencies which were unable to resolve disputes peacefully, a willingness to pay what is necessary to suppress any organization which is attempting to unjustly rule over others ect. Its not as if this system in and of its self will solve all problems we need a reformation of societal values in conjunction
What do you guys think of time banking or anything that represents labour/energy or a product of energy/production. I mean I think if the government or the banks are involved with the monetary system they should have gold/ silver backing to control their over issuance and debauchery of money, but is commodity money the only way to go? What about production/energy/labour backed time banking money? I think the true problem is how money is generated fraudulently. Just curious on your thoughts?
Voluntarists never said that the system will perfectly work. I think AnCaps more than most understand that everything has tradeoffs and that we are not in heaven but on earth. Please copy and paste this exact sentence into the search bar for an excellent and very concise yet comprehensive article by Dr. Stephan Kinsella on what it means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist: What it means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist by Stephan N. Kinsella
I would have to add that contemporary offensive force deployments by state militaries rely on central planning and are therefore incredibly wasteful of both materiel and lives. Ancap soldiers would deploy to the areas where they were most able to leverage their firepower because they aren't bound by arbitrary chains of command and would therefore be far more effective in smaller numbers. A careful study of Sun Tzu's the Art of War sheds light on why that is.
43:30 the feudal period was heavily decentralised and yet more warfare occurred than in modern centralised societies. example: the thirty years war killed something like a third of the german population. see also steven pinker's "a brief history of violence" where he expounds on the huge amounts of warfare that occurred in pre-state existence.
it is true that voluntaryism could not function unless some as of yet unknown level of the majority of the population shared a few core values, but this is no less true of the stateist society which have civil wars as well. I assume that nuclear weapons would be relegated to the hands of a few agencies who demonstrated rigorous safety standards and redundant fail-safe mechanisms, but it may very well be the case that nukes would be outlawed entirely it would all depend on consumer preference.
22:00 the phenomenon is known as "authoritarian personality types" and you don't need to bring in the question of the legitimacy of the state to explain it
QUESTION: Would this be a good policy to transition a socialist society to anarcho-capitalism? (1) To make a drastic change to "ancap" overnight would be incredibly disruptive and cause far more harm than good... Therefore if I were a politician I would propose a policy change that gives people a choice to reclaim some of their taxes allocated to e.g. public education, schools, etc. and reallocate that portion towards private alternatives - this would generate competition and break up the government monopoly in a more controlled way through voluntary market interactions BUT to keep the socialists happy I might even go so far as to say that this policy would only allow you to reclaim taxes equal to the average cost per person, per year of e.g. health care and so if you are a high income earner your NET contribution to OTHER PEOPLE for e.g. health, schools etc. (statistically speaking) would remain unchanged, you would only be taking back an amount equivalent to your own expected usage of that government sector. ALSO, in taking this option you would forego your ability to use these public institutions (even though you are paying a bit towards them) -- (?maybe your private insurance company would have a contract with the public hospitals though to utilize bed spaces or even existing staff/doctors in some capacity OR WHATEVER...). I ADMIT this would be super kind and pandering to socialists by continuing with the government handouts BUT THE GOAL HERE is to propose something that a modern day super socialist / mega state democracy might actually vote for! The idea over time would be that productive, hard working people would increasingly chose the free market due to being sick and tired of inefficient, shitty government services when they have a little spare cash and are willing to pay a bit more money for superior services, and so the private sector would gain more capital investment to deliver low cost, better alternatives to eventually capture market share of the lower income masses to the point where government dissolves entirely in a kind of smooth transition of free market signals. ALSO the effect would be that as capital shifts toward the private system this would magnify how inefficient the government services are per $ of paying customers. I am interested to hear criticisms or if people here think this might fly as an idea? cheers
Azazel Acheron must be a keynsian. or maybe a holier than though "modern monetary theorist" (which i admit has some allure... But it is wrong). Economics is and should be quite a simple thing to understand fundamentally.
Azazel Acheron What do you believe to be the truth then mate? Where do you stand on the matter of the central bank keeping interest rates far below where the market would have it? Do you really think that taxes and regulations can be used to increase the prosperity and fairness of society?
@misesownskeynes "I didn't bother clicking the link, because "libertarian monarchy" is as oxymoronic as "efficient government"." It's not an oxymoron. Libertarians believe in the least amount of coercion as possible. The only way to have no coercion would be to restrict the ability to coerce to one person(preferably zero but still). In anarcho-capitalism, there's always the tendency for private agencies to monopolize and as they compete the surviving ones will be ruthless and socialistic.
And at least criminals who weren't extreme violent offenders could have a chance to bid into successively freer institutions that would provide them a route to real rehabilitation. I work in a machinery building shop, it might be cool to reeducate some criminals to read blueprints and do machining or skilled assembly work by day, then shuffle them off to the company dorm complex at the end of the shift. Better yet, put them in the less popular 2nd and 3rd shift jobs.
If the axe murderer makes it back to his own property after committing the murders, would he be plucked off his property or would we just contain him to his property?
As I grew up I realized. The government is just another private enterprise just like any other monopolistic private enterprise. It's just that its business is running a country. I think of each country is being governed by their own private enterprises called the "government". And these private enterprises vary in CEOs(the president), managers(political leaders) and regulations(laws). The major flaw I find in Libertarian ideology is that they claim that a country without a government won't eventually be controlled by the most powerful enterprise, therefore becoming a de facto government. Furthermore, libertarian politics is quite similar to socialist and communist poltics. Not similar with ideals or principles, but rather they all look great on paper, very ideal, and yet when they are put in practice, the whole ideology just collapses.
@stalrunner It depends, if the person who was murdered held some weird religious forgiveness type belief and stated it in a will or some other trustworthy type way then maybe the murderer would be allowed back on his property and everyone without the forgiveness belief would ostracize him. If the murderer killed anyone else though, that would be grounds for a just invasion of his property with the intent of bringing him to justice. Borders determine ownership, not justice.
i dont know a single voluntarist who claims to be a utopian, i certainly would never claim that it would create a perfect society, only that it would create a more egalitarian society. Voluntarism doesnt need everyone to be rational and smart, only some as of yet undetermined majority. Remember that it wouldnt need to encompass the entire world. Rational people could get together in one specific place and create a small voluntarist city.
I think military would be largely done through charity. Not exclusively but by a large amount. Also I am strictly against the death penalty when the offender does not admit to crimes. The possibility that the verdict was wrong is too much a risk. If there is a psychopath that would just be a waste of space in a prison and it is practically certain they are a savage murderer, it may be wise to kill the person.
This guy's vision of a free world without a ruling class doesn't sound much different from what we have now. The only difference is the lack of crime in collecting taxes.
some changes are not profitable for businesses but profitable for the society- in this case their needs to be a regulation from some governing instrument, to for instance tell everyone to reduce pollutant emissions, cause no company will want to do it out of there own will, and they will only share propaganda
Yeah but remind that companies get the benefits from its clients, and maybe some institutions tell the people that the company where they are buying things is doing so much damage to our world, the people then can find other companies more environmentally friendly
Never said it was true in a stateist society. My position is that no system is perfect, and I never buy into talk that "it will work if we do it THIS way...". If every single human being of the 7 billion people on Earth were incredibly rational, responsible, and smart? Yes Anarchy would work.
"this comment assumes that government is the only means for enforcing a law, the victim can enforce the law or hire an agent and this would provide incentives for private incentives for potential criminals to follow the law. " Why did you remove that comment?
hmm, hard to prevent bribes to such judges, even if someone has no bribes, the one who looses the case may be tempted to accuse the judge for a bribe, and share such information, if it is done for business and for money then it is harder for it to be fair and just
i certainly dont know for sure that it would work, i am very open to the possability that it wont. For example there is an issue i have been wrestling with for a while, how to prevent foreign governments from outbidding insurance firms for control of national defense agancies in societal infancy. However one thing i am very certain of is that we have a rather large body of evidence that suggests that stateism doesn't work. Trust me if im anything its open minded.
There isn't a justification for doing so, unless the home owner has previously agreed to such conditions to signing a rights enforcement agency or something of the sort.
He also implies everyone would be reasonable and would accept a vote on issues. No government to enforce said laws, right? So why should they follow them?
Great until an insurance company decides you are too high a risk to insure, or even worse, large corporations become the OPC of the future (RoboCop reference). Also you would need some sort of technocracy to implement some of your ideas, that’s not freedom at all.
"include a willingness to pay what is necessary in order to prevent defense agencies from offering preferential treatment to wealthier clients" Be as hopeful as you want, until you guys prove it, I won't believe you.
hey though for a more detailed explanation check out my playlist on my channel, introduction to voluntaryism and feel free to challenge me in a private message, i am very rational and would like nothing more than to learn that im wrong so i can move on to the next idea, ive been 101 other things before i called myself a voluntaryist with each one i systematically uncovered fatal flaws and moved on.
24:30 motor insurance or an equivalent is mandatory in most western nations, the assumption that such agreements would be common in a stateless society is an unjustified one. likewise for malpractice insurance.
@richardcadbury Somalia has the private law system that Robert Murphy described with private arbitration, and insurance of people against criminal liabiltiy and it does lead to gentler gangs and wiser judges. These gangs provide schools and hospitals for their community.
8:30 it's only the case that the employer is on an equal footing to the employee when there is not a mass of unemployed labour competing for that employee's job. the employee doesn't have the option of turning down all jobs since he will starve to death, whereas an employer can pick and choose as he see fits and reject the employees who are themselves picky. i would only expect to see reasonable contracts in technical, professional and highly skilled labour markets.
