Turns out, Anarcho-Capitalism ISN'T "Anarchy" (RE: LiquidZulu) 

I have never thought Capitalism was anything to do with the size of a business. I always assumed it was the system of trading products to profit both parties. We really cannot speak about politics without a commonly understood dictionary.

I think the main problem I still have is that you're talking about whether or not there would be "a" state (or association or whatever). In reality, it would most likely be competing firms, none of which do everything a state does, but might specialize: different competing police firms, different competing fire departments, different competing courts, etc. I think that leads to a lot of talking at cross-purposes in these discussions. People have a hard time shifting gears from the idea of a single entity doing it all.

A very informative video! (thx for shoutout btw) It is enlightening to see one's ideas from someone else's perspective. As I have experienced, many "ancaps" pay great attention to formalism, and to stay consistent in their descriptions, they make precise definitions mainly to sort things out in their heads, rather than to persuade someone who is not in the know. Thus, they don't usually pay attention whether their definitions align with what people at large use. I now see how guilty I was not to realize this simple fact: "Ancap" definitions although are precise and work fine within "ancap" sphere, they are not widely accepted outside of it. Thus trying to stick with them at all times and places may be obfuscating rather than clarifying. I very like the idea of "I'm not for a capitalism, I'm for a free market". Another proposed name for free market, if I remember correctly it was from Mises, was propertarianism, to indicate the importance of private property which strictly distinguishes it from socialism. But for now, sticking to "free market" seems as the best option. Yet again, thank you for making this video. (And props for promoting our debate god @LiquidZulu!) As a bonus, here is a video exploring voluntaryism that your vid reminded me of: Voluntaryism vs Everything Else - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jvJiHSN1exU.html

Hope you're keeping your head up TIK, you continue to make engaging, intelligent and honest content on all topics and many historians, professors and political commentators could learn a lot from your style, sources and willingness to be wrong and truly explore topics from a realistic and applicable stance. Thanks for all the amazing content and especially on creating the single best documentary on Stalingrad that we will likely ever enjoy, the most complete work on the topic. Your name is right up there next to your sources at this point. Keep it up and love from America

Thanks for the video TIK! "Language should communicate, not obfuscate". You are right. If definitions, words, and terminology used by An-Caps confuse us, then Anarco-Capitalism will be like other religions/cults (especially all cults you mention).

As I understand it, no, there wouldn't be a state, and a similar entity wouldn't be necessary at all. That does not mean that such an organization would be forbidden, as you said, if a certain company decides to provide all the services typically associated with states, in a voluntary manner, then people are free to hire their services, that is one way to organize a society, but it's not the only way, those services can also be split up between different entities and they may or may not decide to work together to better serve an area, it all depends on the people's needs, and how they chose to associate with. In fact, an anarcho capitalist society wouldn't even be against a communist utopia, after all, it's all about respecting private property and voluntary associations, if a community of people decide to take their land, act as if they all owned it, and they all shared their burdens, and their property, and nobody in there was being forced to participate, or to stay in that territory, then there is nothing wrong or anti-ethical going on according to libertarian ethics. True Libertarians, which could be mostly classified as ancaps, do not try to tell how you should live your life, or how your society should organize itself, instead, they care about how we can make a society that is fair to everyone, and which behaviors should not be tolerable, as long as you're not coercing, stealing, or initiating physical aggression towards anybody nor their property, whatever you do with your life is your right. And before anyone gets into the issue of drugs, yes, that also means using drugs, doesn't mean you have to accept it morally though, you may recognize it is their right to use drugs, and you may also understand how harmful certain behaviors are, so you can try to advice the people you care about, and if you can't make them stop, you're also free to no longer associate with them too, just because you recognize their right to harm themselves, or to live a lifestyle you do not approve of, does not mean you should be forced to engage with or even tolerate them. As long as you don't initiate any aggression, of course.

We need to discuss tribes, and people forming hierarchies out of tradition. We also need to discuss if it would be possible for voluntary associations from becoming states. After all, humans originated as an unorganised species yet we ended up with states. What if people just submitted to the association that becomes a state? Every time a state has disintegrated the people always submitted to the next state entity that took power.

I was formerly a business owner. Specifically, I owed a retail franchise that is very well known, which rhymes with 7-Beleven, and at the end of my franchise term I sold my stores to another franchisee. Now, my business was a mini state. It was a complex economic entity, it was a complex social order, and as much as I tried to eradicate it, it was also unfortunately political. What it was not, is coercive. However, that does not mean there weren't rules. Oh yes, there were rules. Lots of rules. I worked under rules, my employees were subject to rules, and my customers were subject to rules. (Every company has rules for their customers, they just like to lie to you about it and make you think that you can do as you please, but you can't. It's just not good marketing to tell a bunch of entitled jerks that they can't be entitled jerks while on the premises.) And the only penalty for breaking the rules - with the exception of theft or violence - was loss of money or income, or being banned from the property. So I say all this to make the point that all of the relationships in this mini state were voluntary and consensual, but that does not mean that these voluntary arrangements are without rules. Even in Ancapistan, there are rules, but they are agreed to by consent, not force.

Everytime you do a topic that involves really getting at the heart of the meaning of the word (linguistics) you remind me of Wittgenstein's statement: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him." Thanks for taking the time to delve into these topics bc language and communication are not the same thing.

I'm glad you're going through these thoughts publicly. This video covers much of my reservations about AnCap as a term. I prefer Free Market Voluntarist, but that is a mouthful.

Hi TIK, good video as usual. I want to let you know that most AnCaps I know of do believe in State = Coercive, because they follow what Frank Oppenheimer sociological notion of State; the sociologist states this notion in his book “The State.” Oppenheimer did influence Rothbard. If you want to look into it, there you go.

Very interesting topic, love this conversation and looking for its continuation

I'd say that when people think of a "state" they are thinking of an entity which at the very least claims some kind of monopoly over a clearly defined geographical area. When I think of "the German state" I am thinking of a singular entity, even though Germans as individuals associate with a multitude of international organizations of all sizes and compositions. Like we wouldn't consider a private sector international trade organization, for instance, to be a state because it does not claim monopoly over a specific territory. Also note that it's the monopoly aspect which can only be achieved via coercion. (By monopoly I mean the situation where competitors are prevented from competing even if they wish to, not the situation where there just happens to be a single provider and no competitors desire to compete with him.)

Excellent! You levelled my reservations on pure (anarcho) capitalism by clarifying the semantics (for which I do indeed not have the time to dig deeper into). Keep it up!

As an ancap, I'd call a society without a coercive government (like forager bands or Germany without a government) as NATIONS rather than STATES, but I agree that these terms are confusing to most. Personally, I prefer to say that even without a state (monopoly on governance) one can still have GOVERNMENTS, as that is what I'd call the competing firms within the legal-defense-insurance space. But the need for definitions stricter than common parlance is a requirement for thinking about any topic in depth. So it should be normal for intellectuals to ask how terms are being defined, rather than to argue from their own definitions. This is heightened for any discussion in the social sciences, because the terms in common parlance come from a bunch of conflicting sources, whereas at least in the natural sciences one is free to coin new terms mostly because people don't have nearly as many preconceptions about how stuff works.

To me, it seems like the only logical answer for a voluntary fighting force able to combat the oppression of a state and to protect the natural rights and property of the populace would be a well-armed citizenry or in other words, a militia. It also seems that a militia would fit into an anarcho capitalist framework quite easily as leadership and organizational skills as well as martial skills would be marketable skills that people who would assemble voluntarily to create this fighting force would want to have in their ranks. It really seems to me that in any truly voluntary society the ability of the people to exercise their natural rights to self-defense and defensive property would lead to a free and armed populace, or in other words, an armed populace is the distinction between a subject and a citizen. As free men do not ask permission to bear arms

Wait until TIK realizes that "anachy" doesn't mean "chaos"! I believe the reason we use the term "state" is to distinguish from the much more common term "government". In reality, An-Caps aren't anti-government, they are against violations of NAP (which include taxation and demanding a monopoly on the use of force such as all the things we call "states" do. A government is, broadly speaking, anything that governs, and we usually mean governs human behavior. This is a good thing! Human beings would be base animals if nothing governed our behavior, like Hobbes' "War of all against all". What can govern human behavior? The family, religion, local community, societal norms, individuals refusing to trade/cooperate with you, etc. Technically speaking, these are "governments" and most would see these things are at least not inherently bad and can have many uses. The issue is the term "government" has been taken over to mean the thing that taxes and demands a monopoly on the use of force. So, in order to distinguish which form of "government" we mean, we call it "the state". Remember, Rothbard wrote "Man, Economy, and State" in the 1950s, and 70 years can do a number on the definitions of words. Also, note that people who have a vested interest in state power would likely not want you to have an accurate word to describe how the state works, because the An-Cap definition doesn't make it look good. Much better to call it "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". That sounds much better! Oh, but actually, if you realize what that means, it implies that there *is* coercion, in that there is a monopoly on government, by pointing out there is only *one* government. I checked out the definition of "State" in Webster's 1913 dictionary (only 40 years from Rothbard), which includes the following: "The bodies that constitute the legislature of a country; as, the States-general of Holland" and "The principal persons in a government" That is to say the state is separate from the people, the nation, or the country. These definitions come before the modern day definition of "state". So, it seems the definition diverged and the more sanitized version became the more common ...just as more people became dependent on the state for their monetary and identity. (The following are separate issues.) Economics doesn't organize people. People organize themselves using economics. Remember, there is no reason why there can't be overlapping and competing organizations providing law enforcement and security. In the market, if one of these organizations decides to act in a way their customers don't like (such as trying to "rule" you), the customers will take their money elsewhere, severely limiting any ability to "rule" people.

Watched LiquidZulus video. Very well put together video and he was calm and well read. I love watching RU-vidrs discuss!

I'd trace Rothbards use of the word ration to his mentor Ludwig von Mises' work Human Action where he used rational the same way. Human Action was Mises' first large scale work in English so has numerous quirks in word choice and style

You've helped a lot with my understanding TIK. It was confusing at first when people defined "anarcho-free market" as having no authority even though you will need forms of authority to have a system of private ownership reguardless. Its all still a form of governing, just decentralized.

sorry but capital is a standing economic term. In German "Kapital" is the literal translation of the english term "equity" - and it stands for ownership. "Kapital" in German has two meanings, and the second one is "means of production". There are two ways to finance stuff you buy. Either with your own money or with liabilities. When you use your own money you are using equity or in German "Eigenkapital" = "Own equity". "Capital"/"Equity" is more than just money, it is private ownership or in the other economic sense "means of production". But to be honest: In my opinion economics uses the term capital as "means of production" wrong. There is a term for means of production and those are assets. Your plant and equipment, your land, your skills, those are all assets, that make it possible for you to create stuff and generate wealth, no need to use the term capital for that. Economics has this one wrong. Capital should strictly mean equity. I find this misuse of the word particular egregious because both meanings are on the balance sheet but mean exactly the other thing. Capitalism is just the economic form where people can have own equity meaning private citizens can have means of production and decide over them and what and how to produce with them. It's definetly not anti-semitic.

Hi Tik! I love your videos so much. I assosciate myself strongly with Voluntaryism and have been doing so for about half a year now. I came to this video a bit skeptical as to what you were going to say. But, after watching it all, I must 100 agree with you. It would indeed be oxymoronic, as a Jew, to deacribe myself as a "capitalist" because "capitalism" isn't what we make it out to be. The government, the coercive state, can indeed partake in capitalism, but it cannot partake in a free market, because it would cease to be a free market. You have no idea how many times I've been bogged down by other capitalists about my own views on free markets and Voluntaryism. They think I want complete lack of any 'assosciations' or 'authority' when I don't. I'm fine with authority, I just don't want it to be coercive.

Thanks for the video TIK! This series has been really awesome, entertaining and informative. There is something that has caught my attention. There is a general trend of deconstructionism in your videos and in the discussions people have in the comments, which in my opinion is awesome and clears a lot of things up. In that deconstructionism(perhaps subconsciously) , we are basically going down the evolution of politics (or people's affairs) that has been present since humans have appeared on the planet. Regarding the example of the police force and the insurance companies,if you are paying the police force to keep order and then the insurance companies to keep the police in check,who keeps the insurance companies in check then? Who clears up the laws? Is there a general set of laws everyone follows ad-hoc or are they written down somewhere? Doesn't the money you pay function the same way as a tax? Are you even using money? And who gets to decided what money is good? Are you bartering or are you using precious metals or paper money or cryptocurrency? What if some people feel coerced by the voluntarism of others? I think by now you are getting my point. Since states or associations are at their very core a group of people agreeing on some kind of cooperation and organization, any sort of association or (group of people, or state or whatever you want to call it) will go down the rabbit hole of having another association, or institution checking it and making sure it doesn't abuse power. Even the one that keeps abuse of power in check will have to be kept in check itself. Then what do you get? Having checks and balances and the "holy trinity" of the legislature, executive and judiciary. You may call it by any other name but in effect that is the end result, you will have a state as complex as the ones we are living in now. One man's state is another man's association and one mans coercion is another man voluntarism and vice-versa.

This is super helpful, I look forward to the next topic to learn from master TIK, but take you're time!!!

Thanks for the video! It does raise awareness on the importance of clarifying certain terms we use in political discussions, which are important because they also shape how we perceive the world and our societies. I’m, however, finding myself closer to Rothbard’s side with regard to the definition of “state”. While it’s okay to loosely equate the “society” with the “public” or the “people” in this context, the state is still distinct from the three concepts. An illustration for this would be the various primitive pre-state societies that were once the most popular forms of society on earth thousands of years ago. Until the Sumerians, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, and the Indus Valley people brought the Dawn of civilisation to mankind, the primitive societies (which are already hierarchical in nature) had not taken the form of states yet. Those were the times of true anarchies. What follows is that the dictionary definition of “state” is not in contradiction with Rothbard’s definition l, either. The dictionary one is merely an explanation of the concept in layman’s terms, and Rothbard’s one approaches the concept through a different angle and highlights what’s not explicitly stated in the dictionary. An Amazonian tribe clearly does not qualify as “an organised political community under one government” since it doesn’t even have a government, and neither does the hypothetical Germany-without-a-government (essentially, the “nation” of Germany in its social and population-wise concept would remain, and perhaps the “country” of Germany in its geographical or even legal sense might also remain, but the “state” of Germany in its political sense would certainly be gone along with its government). It’s clear to see then that the concept of state is tied with the concept of the government, which is more commonly accepted as the “coercive tax collector and monopoliser of use of force and violence in a given territorial area”. While the dictionary didn’t use the word “coercion”, the use of coercion in a state is already implied by the precondition of having a “government”. Therefore, the two explanations are in fact complementary to each other. In that sense, if the “ancap society” is to truly meet the anarchist standards, it still would not have any universal “rules” or “authorities” that any agent in the society must obey to. The “voluntary association” or “insurance company” analogy helps illustrate that as well, because there are never just one associations or insurance companies in one society, but there are always many you can choose from (if not, it will essentially become a coercive government regardless of its name). And because of their lack of monopoly on use of force in society, they cannot become the “rulers” to enforce universal rules in a given society, because different companies will have different policies of their own, and one company cannot override the rules of other companies (well, unless they use forces to “conquer” the companies that do not share their policies). For example, if you have paid for Company A to protect your properties, another person who’s not subscribed to Company A’s policy is not bound by any universal rules that can prevent them from claiming your properties and trying to take them away. And when Company A steps in to intervene, there’s no rule stopping the claimant from calling, for example, the Company B that they’ve paid for, to also come and fight for their claim. So it all boils down to who can win between Company A and Company B. When this scenario extends to every member of society, the only absolutely safe option for everyone is to pay at least enough companies that they would together have a bigger force than all others combined. Before wondering how much money that would be compared to the amount of taxes that you’re paying now, the system itself encourages the competition in the market that will result in either a cartel of insurance companies or the monopoly of just one company. In the case of the latter, that company would effectively become the de facto government of the entire society again and the ancap system would fall apart. As for the case of the former… that is exactly what we have right now: a world of sovereign states that have mostly kept the resemblance of a mutually accommodating cartel of insurance companies and occasionally would war against each other. Ancap would no longer exist in this case, either. The conclusion therefore is, unless the human society collectively regresses to a pre-civilisational stage, the ancap system logically would not be able to sustain itself.

I've said this on Brokenomics on the Lotuseaters podcast and I'll say it again. I NEVER cared much for economics, or economic history, especially when I was university. Probably because the teachers were Marxists, I overheard some talking about Marx. But both you and Brokenomics have given me an interest in economics. And it is my dream to have you and Dan do a livestream together, just shooting the shit. So never just stick to tanks, TIK, your economics videos are way way WAY more important then tanks and battlestorms. Even though they do have glorious map p0rn.

Hi TIK! Thanks for this video and all the great work you've done. I've been leaning towards ancap myself and this helps a lot. However, I'm still struggling to figure out how some things would play out if an ancap society came to be. For example, here you discussed associations as non-coercive entities that would fulfill some of the functions of a state while being voluntary. My problem is that these organizations would have both the means and the incentive to become coercive. If an association is to prevent crime, they need to be well armed. In fact, they need to be armed better than any potential criminal in that area. And once you are the best armed entity in a given area, well, using a little coercion can surely help increase your revenue, and, it would be a missed opportunity if there is no one to stop you. This may sound like an artificial scenario, but maybe I have a real world analogy. I've watched some videos on the Sicilian Mafia and how Mussolini defeated them in the 1930s. It's said that Sicily was a pretty lawless place, which allowed the mafia to grow. The mafia forced businesses in the given area to pay for protection (kind of like states force us). Eventually, it got so bad that Mussolini's regime was preferable and he gained popularity for dealing with the mafia. Thus, my fear is that an ancap society would, in some way, devolve into a set of regions protected by security companies, which would, however, operate like mafia in practice. I'd love to be wrong on this, so if I am, please correct me.

Make more long videos!!!!!!! I like your long format stuff that I can just listen to over the course of a few days. I’m here ONLY for your economics videos. That’s how I found your channel.

I love me some economics. Please continue making content. I will watch whatever you make!!!

Absolutely marvelous.i always thought this was what ancaps were about, but I never had any clear indication. This is very helpful.

I’m grateful you are helping me see this subject better. I will continue to chew on the subject. Thank You.

The concept of state is essentially tied to the concept of government. Even according to your source, this is the definition of state: "A nation or territory considered as an organized political community *under one government*" I looked at definitions of government, and all of them involved implications of coercion: 1. the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization - governing authority implies that the relationship is non-consensual. 2. the group of people who officially control a country - this doesn't really need explanation, "official control" implies authority that can't be meaningfully challenged. 3. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states - from these definitions, it's clear that the concept of state as something that is controlled by a government and the concept of government as something that controls a state are intricately tied together and follow from each other. To simplify these definitions to their essence, a state is a territory under one government, and a government is a body of people that rule other people within a state. Given that these two definitions presuppose each other, you could call this something like the axiom of public governance, or the axiom of collectivism. Apart from the clear non-consensual nature, another reason why ancap is not reconcilable with the concept of a state in the dictionary definition, is the territorial unity. Conceivably you could have multiple associations (or insurance providers) available in the same living space, so you could belong to provider A while your neighbour belongs to provider B, but the next block is again under provider A. Such a system of private provision of security, judicial services, or welfare etc. would essentially have the same limitations, territorial or otherwise, as for example electricity providers do, and they would also have the same level of authority over non-consenting people of a given territory by default, as electricity providers do - in and of themselves zero - so it doesn't really make sense to call them states.

I'm 54 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

I love your videos so much, especially the ones on philosophical topics, but in my opinion Fascism cannot be properly understood from a spiritual perspective without Gentiles philosophy of Actualism and how the thinking as perception creates the nation through the idea of a collective mind. Could you perhaps make a video on your views regarding Actualism?

Could you make a video on the intricacy of leasing vs owning,for example would you rather own 10hectares of land or a lifetime 1000 hectare lease

@TIKhistory The idea-historical reason for our distinction between economic and political is the sociologist Franz Oppenheimer who wrote in his 1908 book "The State" that there are two ways acquire resources: Through work or voluntary cooperation or exchange (the economical) or through use of force (the political).

I thoroughly enjoy and look forward to your vids no matter the topic. It makes my brain hurt to try and identify a "perfect " system, when as soon as you put people into the system it all falls apart. People, by nature, are competitive at some level and the more extreme of us cannot coexist with others that don't agree. "Carthage must be destroyed "

I'm an American and the thought of Association and State reminded me of USA history whereas you have territories organizing themselves to apply for Statehood to the USA. Territories did have a means of trade as currency and being in a territory did not necessarily mean rights as US citizen but there was governance. Even now there is territories under protection of USA but they are not states. Did this help muddy the waters or clarify their perspective?

Thank you for your well written and insightful videos. I've enjoyed the discussion of ideas since I was a child and your channel provides a wealth of content that promotes serious reflection. I read Rand, Peikoff, and Greenspan in the '80s as a middle school kid thanks to parents who encouraged me to read everything I could--even if they personally didn't understand or agree with it. Now that I'm in my 50s and living a life of obscurity and desperation, it's very tempting to lean socialist for purely pragmatic reasons. Your content resonates with my fundamental free market stance, but I doubt I'll live long enough to see the freedom and prosperity that it could provide if only we'd give it a try.

Another thing I was strugelling about: The 90ies in the eastern sphere gave us a picture of "the abstinence of a state" and all kinds of groups fighting. This was also a reason for me to think about this therm. What do oyu think about the size of nation states? I had thought about this and the most competitions between companies and goverments seem to exist in confederations of small states within military federations. This would solve most of the cohersion between goverments and citizens, leaves more aplications to experiment with compeding ideas and was also a big factor for the germans to develop their education system and work ethic. The only question is, how to keep these states military united and politicaly indipendent. Assuming the abstinance of cohersion isnt totally possible, minimising the cohersion is a better therm.

Tik. You're a godsend we've needed your kind of intellectual proficiency on this subject.

So Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail was wrong when he described his anarcho-syndicalist commune as "anarcho" unless he was using Rothbard's definition of the state?

I have enjoyed watching your videos on wars and military campaigns, but your videos on finance , economics and political ideologies have been fascinating and very educational. I now have a much better understanding of these subjects. Thank you.

Please continue to upload economic videos Tik. Love them all.

Tik, you should look into the economics of Orania South Africa. They are an Afrikaner only town with their own money and the land is owned by a Private company. They are successful even in the middle of nowhere in a hostile nation, so they are doing something right.

MOTHER ANARCHY!

I for one, LOVE your vids on enconomics.

Hey TIK, thanks for the video. I'm very curious about where your journey will lead you and am looking forward to seeing more about it. You said "Free markets limit the size of (those) businesses [...]" at 23:07. Please elaborate. As far as I can tell, free (unregulated) markets *always* lead to accumulation of ressources (/wealth) which *always* leads to monopolies, or at least oligarchies (which, to the consumer, has practically the same effect).

Very interesting video, as always. There are a few things to point out though. The state has a monopoly associated with it, or at least implicitly. The associations that Liquid Zulu points out do not have a monopoly. So in theory two associations can and would be allowed to share the same territory. Yes, there is a city, but there can be two competing "police" forces in it. Now there are ofc a lot of problems with this.

I'll believe in "Anarchy" when people can show one not only existing, but lasting beyond encounters with statists. History has shown time and time again, to be against such ideals.

I used to use government, and then people told me since there would be organizations helping to govern people then there would be government. So I started using "state" instead, which makes sense since when you "state" something you're asserting, which implies coercion. Now you don't want me to use state, what term should I use?

8:00 freeloader principle? So coercion is bad? Is it bad only only if the state does it or is it okay if private groups or individuals do it?

When deciding what system of governance is worth pursuing, what the human species is actually capable of should always be considered. My personal experience dealing with people tends to correlate, pie in the sky ideas, with epic failures. Most people tend to think of themselves as always in control of their thoughts and behaviors, however, this is not the case. Any government, or state, is a reflection of the morality of the people. This morality as well as our biology and physiology are often never considered.

4:24 - This is the first time you heard "states" defined as corrosive service providers? Not to brag, but rather to express wonderment that someone as well-read as you could have missed this, but I first heard that definition in 2008.

Thank you for such an informative video! You claim that the definition of state that Rothbard used is in conflict with your definition that you found a dictionary. These were interesting reflections. Speaking of which, what do you think of one of the most famous definitions of the state that the German sociologist Max Weber came up with? Weber defined the state as a "community that successfully claims a monopoly over violence within a geographical area, which required it to have legitimate and legal authority". The key concept I want to emphasize is the notion of a "monopoly on violence". And can anarchy be defined by the absence of a monopoly on violence?

This is not merely an interesting topic but it is perhaps the most important topic for our times. Tik, yours is a very important voice for these times and I just wish that more people were able to hear what you have to say on this. I think I have to increase my Subscribestar subscription. Andy.

When you really think about it, anarchy cannot possibly exist. Anarchy means the lack of executive power, which means there's no one to enforce laws, but, in every case apart from ancapism, there are laws and rules that must be followed. In ancomism, communes are states that enforce collective ownership of the means of production, in syndicalism it's the trade unions, et cetera. Ancapism is true anarchy because there are no rules apart from "natural law", but even then, households effectively act like their own small kingdoms with rules that visitors must follow while on that property, so anarchy therefore cannot exist under any circumstance, even if there's no such thing that resembles a modern state.

Yeah, I'm definitely an ancap, but the issue with using definitions in their economic, political-scientific, or other not-so-common modes is something I've felt applies through A LOT of academia, and even causes problems within academic crossfire, scholars talking past scholars. Evidence, besides the Austrian School's fun, is what was meant by the original physicists talking about "observers" in quantum mechanics, by which they didn't mean the agents of consciousness experiencing a phenomena, but merely the measurement of a phenomena by a coordinate plane or any other device which detects and measures, yet popular science and science communicators often blur this line. Another example in the Austrian School is how Mises defines "socialism" and "capitalism" as, respectively, the public or private ownership of the means of production, and absolutely nothing else. It's a strictly defined economical term. Most people, however, confuse corporatism or state-capitalism with capitalism, or a welfare state with socialism. Or they just aren't using the Austrian-economic definition. Another is the distinction between inflation most commonly understood as *price* inflation and the more historically appropriate use of inflation as *monetary* inflation. I used to research Catholic philosophy, and there are a ton of things which would fit into the same category. Aesthetics, for example, is defined as "systematic training to right thinking and right feeling in matters of art." It's a cultivated, morality-aided sensibility towards the beautiful in art. Have you ever heard it used that way?

You said what I thought about using different definitions. If we all think words have different meanings then conversations over the political borders will be impossible

Yes. We need to get some good tightening up of terms and definitions.

Dear TIK, first of all, I want to say that I'm a huge fan of your content, especially your historical videos. The level of research and quality you put into them is truly impressive. Additionally, I find your anarcho-capitalism discussions interesting. However, there's a question that has been on my mind, and you might have addressed it before, but... in an anarcho-capitalist society, where there's no state in the traditional sense and most things are governed by markets, I'm curious about what would happen to those who are poor, disabled, or elderly and cannot actively participate in the workforce. In a system heavily reliant on market mechanisms, what would happen with people who don't have enough money to support themselves? Will they be left to... starve? I understand that some of these individuals might receive help from their family and friends, but what about those who don't have a support network? Do you believe that this voluntary entity you talked about would be sufficient to take care of all the needy individuals in such a society? I appreciate your insights and keep up the fantastic work.

From Max Weber: a "state" is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence A security service that does not maintain such a monpoly is a government but not a state, in precisely the Rothbardian sense

so the question i have is - can grand economy of scale take place in an environement when the security of the naiton cant be guaranteed by the entire state and factional war is possible since there is no monolithic state to keep the peace.

Interesting, this explanation actually falls in line with my own instincts

17:15 - I can accept your admonition to allow "a state" to mean "a society" independently of whether or not it is organized as a coercive territorial monopoly on providing its services, *because* you have wisely pointed out that doing otherwise would create a vector for language-manipulation subterfuge by other, "statist" 😉 factions.

Thank you for this video. This was very enlightening for me.

I think of Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson where everyone is ruled under a commercial code and there were associations that people could join if you met the requirements to join for protection or common goals. Enforcement of the codes were generally controlled at a local level.

Thank you for making it clear, Lewis

This is why I avoid referring to myself as an "AnCap". So many people, even AnCaps themselves, don't understand the basic concepts of corporatism versus a free market. In an anarchist society, people would be free to join with others to create revenue in order to have things such as roads or hospitals. In truth, this is similar to how things were done before the Industrial Revolution. However, they would also be free to leave or rejoin a group at any time. This is where the concept of "voluntaryism" comes in. No one would have the power to compel people to participate as the state does. It's really a simple concept but humans complicate it.

Could you do an analysis on syndicalism? Would be very intriguing to see you dissect that

Again you have produced a video that clears up thoughts and language. Thank you for what you do. But I have two problems I need reflection on. 1) The situation now is countries with national borders. The war in Europe shows that we are not past the stage in the development of civilization where the use of violence by others to force one's will can be written off. In the private (as you define it) domain, one does not need an overarching organization of how to prevent other people's coercive use. But when it comes to national borders, I don't see any alternatives. We can distinguish between military and defence. But regardless of how one chooses to organize the resistance against other states' use of violence within the country's borders, the resistance must be coordinated, recruited, paid for and training must be provided. Consequently, you need something more than free markets if you are to avoid a solution where the state uses coercion against private individuals. Suggestions for what and how. 2) Most, if not all, countries in the West have a socialist foundation paid for by coerced resources. Goods many have become accustomed to "getting". Even if the majority should decide to discontinue these benefits, it is my assumption that the response of the people of our time will be to make noise through violence to prevent them from losing benefits. Given that one actually wants to change society from a socialist state to a free market society, the challenge is how to do it without having to resort to violence against some of the people who also form part of the new voluntary state. Again, a state based on free markets needs something more not to break out into violence.

As somebody who's been subscribed to Tik and Liquid zulu for some time now this back and forth in good spirit between them is a perfect opportunity for me to learn more about this topic. There are still many questions that i have. For example if in Ancapistan there isn't a state in the coercion sense but only a voluntary "association" that keeps the free market free. What's to stop the "association" from evolving into a classical state with coercion and all? What's to stop them from going full dictator?

In Russian lebertarian discourse we usually call it a "contract jurisdiction" - The NAP is only a basis that is necessary for contract relation because without refraining from agressive contracts can't be considered voluntary and therefore null and void (like any contract you have with state or state associated organisations). On it's own NAP can't be basis for society, but network of contracts within NAP form libertarian society. Interesting thing is that definition of the word for state in Russian (Государство) DOES include coersion. It even shares root with word "Государь" (Governor), so it's not exactly the same as english "State". Also, the difference between modern American and Russian libertarian thought is that American libertarians see NAP as natural rights similar to classic liberals, while Russian libertarians see contract as the main source of right.

Oooh, i cant wait for the liquid zulu response to this one.

Tik, I need to sleep man. I been watching your videos and cant stop watching them.... Here goessnother half an hour of my sleep.

I think that politics and economics go hand in hand, Anarcho Capitalism is a economic belief just as much as it is a political belief. I Think incorporating both into it would be cool. Great Video!

Politics: When out of power, promote decentralization; when IN POWER, centralize: Politics.

Great TIK, thanks for this video! It blows away the fog, dismantling the issue.

Absolutely fantastic video!

There would be governing institutions in an anarcho capitalist society, yes, to rephrase what you are asking in terms acceptable to us Ancaps :) However, one note for extra clarification, there wouldn't necessarily just be one central institution, there could be (most likely there would be to be clear) a patchwork of many institutions. The key to it not being a state is not related to the coercive element alone, it is that there would be competition between multiple institutions rather than a monopoly, that is why it isn't accurate to classify it as "states". States are inherently monopolies, so if it isn't a monopoly, it's not a state. In the absence of coercion there would be competition. The most important policy we can possibly push for is the right to secession with your private property intact, Liechtenstein already has this right constitutionally on a town level.

Rothbard definition of rational makes total sense. Man acts to fulfill desires with what he deems to be the best scarce means(I'm mind quoting). Why can't he say purpose full action? Even though his definition of rational is weak it is still stronger than purposeful. Let's say a man wants to go from city A to city B, there are two roads Z and Y. The fee for road Z is more expensive than for road Y, all else being equal man will choose road Y. By simply saying man is purposeful we cannot derive which road he will choose, we can only say he will choose a road. Murray Rothbard's definition of rational is just weaker than most definitions. In philosophy and for that matter in any specific subject words can take different meanings from their everyday life meaning. For example, egoism has a different definition from the psychological definition of egoism or consciousness and the psychoanalytic definition of consciousness, materialism, and the philosophical definition... Depending on the field of study words can have different meanings. And as in real-life context is necessary to understand, what matter is having a coherent and well-defined definition. Second of all your definition of state might suffer from the etymology fallacy. Dictionaries transcribe what people mean when they use a word and Google's definition of "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." seems to transcribe what people mean by the state. Nobody believes in the state without a government. The government is defined as "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office." And authority is "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience." From this point, it's pretty easy to see how we go from Rothbard's definition of state as coercive. Even if you disagree with Google's definitions it would be uncharitable to regard Rothbatd's as based on nothing. Moreover, ancap's "redefining" to socialist redefining of words is completely different. What Rothbard do gives a weaker definition of rationale he is not denying the broader definitions he is just saying that his definition covers smaller traits. For the state his "redefining" is in the worst case based on an underused (but still used) definition(Google's). Socialists will deny what has failed or what they disagree with is not socialism, instead of just saying that they were indeed socialist and defending their version of socialism which is the smaller definition. Finally, yes language can be seen as a tool to communicate. But language is not sufficient on its own, context is necessary as we understand it with satire.

I know you're an extremely busy man & this is an old video so likely you'll never see this. Thank you anyway. Not long ago I was in a bad mental state, after moving to the country, changing my diet and getting moving again I began to be able to think again. Now watching your videos on ideologies, economics and such are giving me the information I need to sort out the mess in my head. I used to be able to do research but my mind still feels like mush. Thank you for your help Lewis I really appreciate it.

I didnt finish the video, but as far i understand i'm gonna guess: State is any organisation and therefore, any enterprise or conglomerate as organisation, is a State. I hope i'm right cuz thats also my line of thought. Keep the good fight and thanks for your videos!

Tik I love your presentations on economics. Please keep producing them, you are very informative.👍✌️

So, according to your definition, there is no such thing as a "stateless society". I think a coercive monopoly in a given territory is a much more useful definition.

This was definetly a mind-openign video! great work TIK (and ZiquidZulu by proxy)

Hi tik. I commented on one of your videos in the past but I never got an answer. I was wondering where you stand on monarchy

Aracnocapitalism: spider free trade

Tik becoming more based I see. Sincerely, A minarchist

You are correct about the dialectic and the corruption of language in general. Many of the least productive most passionate disagreements I have had with friends and family have boiled down to a misunderstanding resulting from different definitions of a word or concept. Obfuscation of the language and confusion of tongues if you will can prevent like minded well intended people from understanding and recognizing one another. It creates animosity where none should be, and is a hindrance to forming your personal community.

I think it's fair to say that AnCaps are talking about a specific form of states: nation states. Pretty much every modern state is a nation state. And I think the definition they give fits nation states quite well (monopoly on violence, coercive in nature, etc.). Nation states are, according to the definition I was taught, defined by three things: 1. Territory 2. Sovereignty (

Hello TIK, I know you are always really frustrated dealing with people who refuse to listen to logic and reason, and pursue their religious ideologies, but I want you to know that, because of you, I broke out of the socialist religion. So never give up TIK you're a cool guy, your work does help people

In Ancapistan, all "state functions" still exist, but are simply provided by the free market. The coercive function is done away with.

This has been one of the most interesting look into Anarcho-Capitalism that I have seen anyone do, and the economics of it really speaks out to me. I will admit the anarchy was a put-off for me, because I don't believe anarchy is a good long term way to have a civilization that can grow and proper, but since it appears it isn't... I think I may have some new ideas to think about and see where they fit in with my views. Being a Classical Liberal Conservative, with some libertarian views from when I was one (in truth i'm a mix of all three), I have been trying to work out answers to a lot of things through things you and others have taught. History truly is the study of the human condition, even if this video is more a discussion about a current ideology. Voluntaryism is definitely a way forward I think we should think of too, because I have been using capitalism even knowing Marx used it as an antisemitic dialectical term, only because I hadn't figured out a way to express my free market stances until now. That tactic at the end, I think i'll start using that argument. You have been brilliant in helping me find my way from a demoralized perception a couple years ago, helping me understand economics from the level of a commie student at a uni (I just mean I was as uneducated on economics 2 years ago, when I first found you, not a communist, I always was a free marketer, now I fully understand economics much better, but I need to read more Mises, Hayek and learn more) So now. while my ideology is still the ones I listed above, it is certainly possible that I might be more willing to have a look into An-Capistan and may have new additions to my worldview or ideas. So i'd like to end this comment by saying, keep up on making great videos discussing new ideologies and ideas, historical ones, to the explorations of Gnosticism I hope you are doing well as you look much less stressed or exhausted in this new routine you adopted. I also gotta praise you for this as well because you're very open and honest about your biases and personally, I think your biases are not bad ones either, especially since you have proven to be very accurate and objective in many points.

LiquidZulu tribes in the Amazon. Pedantic comments in 3, 2, 1... Great video, sir.

I feel like the key test of whether something is a "state" is whether I am allowed to start a competing enterprise in the same territory.

Just a thought, being an AnCap myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that AnarchoCapitalism would result, not in states, but in governments. The reasoning for this is because governments are literally just hierarchies. There can be private, voluntary governments (an example of a private government is literally just a church, business, household, or any other type of voluntary hierarchy) in an anarchist society which is why I appreciate your use of the term “voluntarist” because it fits much more neatly with AnCap theory and historical evidence for Ancap. There also can be non-voluntary governments, i.e. states. States necessarily cannot be voluntary so I believe it’s more useful to say that there won’t be states but there will be governments in ancapistan.

Hey Tik, I love your videos from France 🇫🇷

Hey man, great video and explanations, I'd just like to give some other point of view that might help clarify things more. Going from the first principles, there are two things needed for a free/voluntary/ancap relationships to exist: 1. respect of property rights (non-agression principle, self defense is ok) 2. respect the agreement/contract (contract being anything that you accepted voluntarily) It is important to have precise definitions of ideas that we are talking about and good of you to point out the inconsistencies, however, maybe the idea of the state/society is just a distraction in this case, red herring. The state (or society) DOES NOT EXIST! That is just a concept, an idea in our heads. What exists are people and there are relationships between them. Is a state always coercive or not is a complete distraction. There are people and only people can be coercive one towards another, state can not be. You would always say that if a relationship between individuals is voluntary, that's ok (moral), if the relationship is coercive (threats of violence) that is not ok (not moral, evil). Calling one side state, society, association is totally irrelevant. If the taxman gets to my house and demands that I give him part of my property under threat of violence (since police with guns are with him), when I didn't sign any contract for any services of the state voluntarily, that can not be justified (we'll ignore that social contract BS since we are not that dumb). He can call himself whatever he wants, be in whatever uniform he likes, all people in the universe can agree that he is doing a good thing, but he is still a human being that is not respecting property rights. That's basic logic A=A. On the other hand, if I voluntarily enter into a contract with another man/association/company that they will protect me from harm (self-defense) and agree that I will pay monthly for that service some amount of money, how can we somehow suddenly call him a state/authority/ruler or what not? It's just a service like any other, bakery, barber, car wash. They are not becoming rulers all of a sudden, just like bakers don't become rulers if I buy bread every day from them. Whenever possible, try to simplify things and go from first principles and basic logic.

I think your point about internal terminology/definitions/phrases that have meaning only within specific ideological groups is super on point, especially when the definition of the concept has now included some tautological game.(e.g. if i said "all cops are corrupt" but my definition of cops is "corrupt law enforcement officers" or something). The most ideological extremes of politics in any direction seem to be prone to do this though(see how a communist might define property, or capital or market, all of them are defined with having exploitation inherent)... I think taken in best faith this is just a function of a smaller marginal group of people discussing largely theoretical concepts a lot and becoming bound up in a sort of internal system of vocabulary. BUT taken in a worse light, it often is a rhetorical tool that both shapes how the internal group views its own ideas AND is intentionally misleading to outsiders who are new to the group. Finally, my problem with all ideological positions and this video(and previous videos where youve mentioned this) is that these positions always define concepts in ideal 'pure' terms. You've stated multiple times that the existence of any type of ANY standard of taxes makes a state socialist no matter how the rest of the economy is structured. Basically youve stated that anything but PURE market economics(which also has never occurred) is socialism while ignoring that socialists do the same in reverse saying anything but PURE command economics(also has never occurred) is free market/capitslist. Such that both sides would say all economies that have ever existed or that currently exist in the world are the opposite of what both these sides advocate for. But pragmatically anyone who deals in the real world and not utopiam theory can recognize theres a gradient, the US economy is more free market economy oriented or less socialist oriented than the USSRs economy for example even if neither extreme would claim either. I think you said you were previously a socialist, and i guess i would ask you do you not see a tight parallel with you you are categorizing the world? If all empirical/real world information needs to be thrown out as the opposition to your pure theory/utopian ideology than you are operating under the framework of a religious philosophy more than an economic or political one. You seem like a smart person and i enjoy your videos, but that makes it all the more frustrating to see how you just arent seeing this.