Anarchy Debate: Michael Malice vs Yaron Brook
Summary
TLDRThe transcript captures a spirited debate on the viability of anarchy versus government. Participants discuss the role of government in protecting individual rights and fostering freedom, with one side advocating for a minimal state that only intervenes to prevent force or rights violations. The opposing view questions the effectiveness of anarchy, suggesting it could devolve into chaos and violence. The conversation touches on the potential for diverse legal systems under anarchism and the historical precedents that suggest the evolution of societies from anarchic states to authoritarian regimes.
Takeaways
- 😀 The discussion revolves around the role of government in achieving societal goals and the potential for government to contribute to a better world.
- 🏛️ There is a contention that government is essential for liberty and freedom, with the argument that without it, society cannot effectively organize or protect individual rights.
- 🤔 The conversation explores the concept of anarchy and its relationship with fascism, suggesting that historical examples show stateless societies often lead to authoritarianism.
- 👥 The participants debate the feasibility of a society without a centralized government, with some arguing that private governance could fill the void left by the absence of a formal government structure.
- 🕊️ The idea that anarchism could lead to a more moral and effective system for human relationships is presented, with references to 'Atlas Shrugged' and the concept of Galt's Gulch as an example of an anarchist society.
- 🔪 The potential for violence in a stateless society is discussed, with arguments that the absence of a monopoly on force could lead to increased violence and the lack of a centralized authority to resolve disputes.
- 🛡️ The role of security in an anarchist society is examined, with the suggestion that private security firms could provide more accountable and effective protection than a government monopoly.
- 🌐 The conversation touches on international relations and the potential for conflict between different legal systems or governments, especially in cases of cross-border incidents.
- 📚 There is a reference to historical and philosophical perspectives, including the ideas of Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and the Enlightenment, to frame the discussion on the possibility and desirability of different forms of governance.
- 🤝 The participants agree on the importance of individual rights and the need for a system that protects these rights, although they differ on whether a government or some form of anarchism would be more effective in achieving this.
- 🔄 The discussion highlights the complexity of transitioning from the current system to any alternative form of governance, and the potential challenges and conflicts that might arise during such a transition.
Q & A
What is the central topic of discussion in the provided transcript?
-The central topic of discussion in the transcript is the concept of anarchy and the role of government in society, with a debate on whether a functioning society can exist without a government.
What is the speaker's stance on the possibility of achieving a better world through government?
-The speaker believes that the only way to achieve a better world is through government, and that the idea of liberty or freedom without government is a rejection of the concept of liberty itself.
What historical examples are given to argue against the feasibility of anarchy?
-The speaker mentions that every example of a stateless society in human history has led to authoritarianism, suggesting that anarchy naturally leads to the rise of authoritarian regimes.
What is the relationship between the terms 'anarchy' and 'fascism' as discussed in the transcript?
-The transcript suggests that the road to fascism is anarchy, implying that without a centralized government, society may devolve into chaos and eventually authoritarianism.
How is the concept of 'Galt's Gulch' from 'Atlas Shrugged' related to the discussion on anarchy?
-Galt's Gulch is presented as an example of an anarchist society where everything is privately owned, and there is no authority over anyone else except the landowner, challenging the traditional concept of government.
What is the argument against the idea that government is inherently necessary for freedom?
-The argument is that government monopoly on force can lead to abuse of power and lack of accountability, and that a market of defense against violence could potentially provide more effective and accountable security.
What is the role of violence in the context of anarchy as discussed in the transcript?
-In the context of anarchy, violence is seen as a natural emergence in human societies that could be managed through collectives funding mechanisms to resist violence, as opposed to a government monopoly on force.
What is the concept of 'private governance' as it relates to the discussion?
-Private governance refers to systems of rules and enforcement that exist outside of traditional government structures, such as those within private organizations or communities, which can be seen as a form of anarchism.
How does the transcript address the issue of accountability in the context of security and law enforcement?
-The transcript suggests that private security firms would be more accountable due to market pressures, as their performance directly affects their business, in contrast to government security forces which may not face the same level of accountability.
What is the main criticism of government monopoly on security as presented in the transcript?
-The main criticism is that a government monopoly on security can lead to inefficiency, lack of accountability, and potential abuse of power, as there is no competitive pressure to improve or maintain standards.
How does the transcript discuss the potential for competing legal systems under anarchy?
-The transcript raises concerns that competing legal systems under anarchy could lead to conflicts that are difficult to resolve without a central authority, potentially leading to violence or instability.
Outlines
🗣️ Debate on Government's Role in Society
The paragraph delves into a passionate debate about the role of government in achieving societal goals and the concept of liberty. The speaker argues that government is essential for creating a functioning society and that the idea of liberty without government is a contradiction. The discussion also touches on the historical progression from anarchy to authoritarianism, with the speaker asserting that anarchy has always led to authoritarian rule due to the lack of structure and governance.
🤔 The Anarchist Perspective on Violence and Legal Systems
This section explores the anarchist viewpoint on how communities would handle violence in the absence of a centralized government. It suggests that collectives would form to fund defense mechanisms against violence, emphasizing the importance of community organization and mutual aid. The conversation also critiques the concept of a government monopoly on violence, arguing that it can lead to unchecked power and misuse of force.
🏛️ The Concept of Anarchism and Private Governance
The paragraph discusses the concept of anarchism, differentiating between the state's monopoly on violence and the idea of private governance. It presents the notion of a 'private club' as an example of a society formed without government intervention, highlighting the potential for private organizations to establish rules and systems of order. The discussion also addresses the complexities of international relations and the resolution of disputes in the absence of a centralized authority.
🚨 Accountability and the Role of Police in Society
This section of the script focuses on the issue of police accountability and the broader debate surrounding the role of law enforcement in a democratic society. It questions the effectiveness and necessity of police forces, suggesting that they may not be fundamentally flawed but rather part of a system that lacks proper oversight and accountability. The conversation also touches on the potential for private security firms to operate within a government framework.
🤝 The Voluntary Nature of Anarchist Relationships
The paragraph examines the voluntary nature of relationships in an anarchist society, where individuals interact without a centralized authority imposing rules or regulations. It discusses the concept of voluntary transactions and the importance of a legal system in facilitating these interactions. The debate also covers the potential for privatizing force and the challenges of competing police forces in an anarchistic context.
🏙️ The Implications of Anarchism on Legal Systems and Enforcement
This section discusses the potential implications of anarchism on legal systems and enforcement mechanisms. It raises concerns about the possibility of competing legal systems and the challenges of resolving conflicts between them. The conversation also explores the idea of objective law and the potential for different ideologies to influence legal outcomes, suggesting that a lack of centralized authority could lead to a fragmented and inconsistent legal landscape.
🛡️ The Evolution of Anarchy and the Inevitability of Government
The paragraph presents an argument that anarchy, without a centralized government, would inevitably evolve into a form of government due to the natural consolidation of power and security forces. It suggests that the market dynamics of competition and takeovers could lead to the domination of a single security force, effectively becoming a government. The discussion also addresses the potential for corruption and the misuse of power in such a system.
🌐 Global Perspectives on Anarchism and the Role of Government
This section considers the global implications of anarchism and how different legal systems might interact in a world without centralized governments. It raises questions about the resolution of disputes involving different nationalities and legal frameworks, as well as the potential for violence in the absence of a unified legal system. The conversation also touches on the historical context of violence in smaller states and the potential for increased conflict in an anarchist society.
💡 Innovation in Law and the Market for Legal Services
The paragraph discusses the potential for innovation in law and legal services within a market-based system. It suggests that the absence of a centralized government could lead to a diversity of legal systems and dispute resolution mechanisms, driven by the needs and preferences of different communities. The discussion also considers the role of private arbitration and the potential for market mechanisms to address issues of contract enforcement and property rights.
🛑 The Challenges of Enforcing Individual Rights in An Anarchist Society
This section addresses the challenges of enforcing individual rights in an anarchist society, particularly in cases where community standards may conflict with individual liberties. It discusses the potential for certain communities to impose their own legal systems, such as Sharia law, and the ethical implications of allowing such practices. The conversation also explores the role of a government in protecting individual rights and the potential conflicts that may arise in an anarchistic context.
🏁 Conclusion: The Future of Anarchism and Government
The final paragraph summarizes the key points of the debate on anarchism and the role of government. It highlights the importance of protecting individual rights and the potential for innovation in legal systems within a market-based approach. The discussion concludes with a recognition of the complexities involved in implementing an anarchist society and the need for a balanced approach that respects individual freedoms while maintaining social order.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Anarchy
💡Government
💡Liberty
💡Freedom
💡Objective Law
💡Competing Governments
💡Monopoly on Force
💡Private Governance
💡Violence
💡Accountability
Highlights
Faith in government's ability to work effectively to build a better world is debated.
The necessity of government for achieving liberty and freedom is challenged.
An argument that anarchy historically leads to authoritarianism is presented.
The concept of anarchy as a relationship rather than a location is discussed.
The role of government in Emma Goldman's radicalization and the assassination of President McKinley is mentioned.
The debate on whether anarchism is the antithesis of liberty or its ultimate form.
The Atlas Shrugged example of an anarchist society called Galt's Gulch is referenced.
The idea of competing governments as the definition of anarchism is explored.
The potential for violence in a stateless society and the role of security companies is discussed.
The concept of objective law and its coherence in the context of anarchism is questioned.
The historical example of Iceland's sagas as evidence of anarchy's violent nature is cited.
The debate on whether the absence of a historical precedent for a successful anarchist society is a valid argument against its possibility.
The role of force and violence in resolving disputes without a centralized government is examined.
The potential for private governance and the market of defenses against violence in an anarchist society is hypothesized.
The issue of accountability in government monopolies on security and force is critiqued.
The philosophical differences between the necessity of government and the potential of anarchism for human freedom are summarized.
Transcripts
oh so let's put this on the table
speaking of naive i still
more than the two of you by far i think
have faith that government can work
okay let's put that on the wait i gotta
i'm not trying to be pedantic what do
you mean work
government can't achieve goals that is
not in dispute you can achieve goals
effectively to build a better world okay
a a functioning society
so i'm gonna take it one step further
than you oh boy
the only way to achieve a better world
is through government
michael what do you think about that he
almost dropped and i said it on purpose
that way no i i i in
dropping you cannot you cannot achieve
you cannot have liberty or freedom
without a government now not anything
like the governments we have today so i
think i think the idea that you can have
liberty of freedom without government
is the rejection of the idea of liberty
and freedom
um and and the undermining of any effort
any attempt to do it so in that sense i
don't know who's sitting here right lex
i know exactly on this side we can agree
with lex yeah it's unusual that
government is good for freedom agreement
with the guy who's reading minecon
that's not a surprise he's dressed in
black yeah
that's the bad guys no the the the the
the fascism
i mean the road to fascism is anarchy
it's not
what the hell are you talking about and
i think what exactly when anarchy led to
fascism well every example of a
stateless society leads to
authoritarianism every single one in all
of human history and well it has to
because you're saying why heart germany
was uh anarchy
well it was it wasn't pioneer but it got
close but no
i didn't say i said the reverse by the
way i said the reverse i didn't say that
every form of authoritarianism
started with anarchy i said that every
situation in which human beings lived
under anarchy
led to
authoritarianism so i said to flip
anarchism isn't a location anarchism is
a relationship the three of us are in an
anarchist relationship
every country is in a relationship of
anarchy toward each other the u.s and
canada have an anarchist relationship
toward one another
and to claim
you know when
going back to emma goldman who i love in
1901 uh william mckinley president
mckinley was shot by this guy leon
salgaz
and it was very funny he was a crazy
person
and they arrested him he shot the
president and they go why did you shoot
president mckinley and he just goes i
was radicalized by emma goldman and
she's like oh god
so now she's on the lamb she had nothing
to do with this guy she's trying to flee
she gets arrested they caught her
and she said and this is the the hubris
of this woman which i admire as the
subject of you good hubris she goes i'd
like to thank the cops
for doing what they're doing they're
turning far more people into anarchism
than i could do on my own
so
given everything you've said in these
two hours
and then to pivot to
uh being anti-government is being
anti-liberty i don't feel i have to say
anything
well okay for people who are not
familiar if you're i don't know why you
would not be familiar but
uh michael malus talks quite a bit about
the evils of the state and government
and espouses ideas that uh anarchism
is actually what is it the most moral
system the most effective system for
human relationships there's this great
book called atlas shrugged
and the author posits in anarchist
private society she calls it galt sculch
where everything is privately owned and
everyone is no one is in a position of
authority over anyone else other than
the landowner that's an anarchist
society there's one judge
yeah and one authority yeah and that's
what everybody hold on and that's what
everyone and that's what everyone has
voluntarily moved there and agreed to be
under it's a very small community right
sure that is right so i have no problem
with competing governments that's the
definition of anarchism what's that
that's the definition of anarchism case
claims okay end the show and the show i
got him i got him over
i'm all for competing governments get
more cookies good job
he did it he did it yeah yeah wrong you
brought him over
lithuanian
competing governments on different
geographic areas
uh that that's that's fine why does it
have to be okay let me uh it's it's
really crucial that that it's on
different so you don't have two
uh judges in gold sculpture you have one
and and there's a reason one there's one
authority there's one system of laws
in gold's gulch uh that that is that all
the people under the gulch abide by
there's one there's two because they're
they're in america no they're not the
whole point is they're not right they're
not in america they're in colorado i
know but but the whole point of the
novel is they've left america they
haven't left america they've they've hit
themselves so they're not under the
authority of america but they are don't
think they're not but they're hidden and
they're supposed to be the point is that
they're hidden so they're not under
if you if the three of us hide
we're still under the authority of
washington no but not if they don't but
this is why they haven't established the
state and it's not it's not a government
and it's not in that sense com you know
an example of of of really the way we
form societies it is a private club that
is hidden away from everybody else fine
i'm fine with that what happens if an
american kills a canadian in mexico
what happens in american it depends
depends on the nature of the governments
of the three places right but usually
what happens in most of human history is
that america will launch a war either
against mexico or canada okay just first
of all
so usually violence results in much more
violence anarchy is just a system that
legalizes violence that's all it does
and in international affairs that's the
reality the reality is that the way you
resolve disputes that are major disputes
is through violence ein rand said
the definition of a government is an
agency that has a monopoly of force in a
geographical area so you can't complain
that anarchism is legalizing violence
when the definition of government
according to rand is legalized violence
no but because you you're taking the
definition of violence the way she
defines it right in this context a she
talks about retaliatory force only and
has that ever happened
that's not the point that is the point
before there was aristotle was in
aristotle before there was an america
was in america the fact that something
has never existed means that it will
never exist before the fact that the
ideas haven't been developed to make
something exist means that it will never
exist before
you know where young human race is a
young race the ideas of freedom are very
young the ideas of the enlightenment are
just 250 years old the idea that you
can't create the kind of government i
talked about i talk about that that it's
never been before means it will never
happen again that's a silly argument
it's not a silly argument it's you're
being a platonist no not at all i'll
explain to you how you're being exactly
a platoonist so if i was sitting in 1750
arguing with thomas jefferson he was
telling me what kind of state he was
going to create and i said is a state
like this ever been created and he said
no was i being a plaintiff of course not
no you know things change you're being a
politeness now here's why you're being a
politeness now because one of the things
that aristotle believed in one of the
things that ayn rand and other contexts
believed in the cover of her book the uh
philosophy who needs it is i think it's
the sistine chapel the cover or wherever
it is it's aristotle and plato walking
no not yeah but what's that painting i
forget what it is it's the school of
athens school of athletes thank
plato's pointing toward the heavens
while they're talking
and aristotle's pointing to the earth
reality reality absolutely so if you
want there's two approaches there's the
descartes cartesian approach which is i
sit in my armchair and i deduce all of
reality
or if i want to study the nature of man
if i want to study the nature of dogs if
it wants the nature of the sun i have to
look around i have to open my eyes i
have to look at data
it's very difficult you know when rand
was on donahue he asked her about aren't
you impressed with the order in the
universe and she goes oh now you have to
give me a moment and the point she made
which was very hard for many people to
grasp is hard for me to grasp is one's
concept of order
comes from the universe you can't have a
disorderly universe because order means
describing that which exists and which
has existed now
if you are looking at governments
throughout history that have always
existed and when you were on lex you
said what i'm talking about has never
existed that's right to say that this
therefore that that has a possibility of
working in reality i think is uh
certainly not a point in that favor
number one and number two
jefferson was a fraud what jefferson
argued how america would look
did not come true jefferson's concerns
about the constitution were accurate and
the fact is the federal government did
become centralized did become a civil
war so if you tell mr jefferson
the government you're positing can't
work you would have been correct
that's not what i'm saying it's not the
issue of can it work or not it's the
issue of can something exist that hasn't
existed in the past
it's a it's a it's a silly argument now
we can argue about the facts of reality
whether such a thing can exist but to
say it hasn't existed in the past is not
an argument about whether it can exist
in the future but that's argument you
made no no you're talking about history
and now you're dancing around it no i'm
not yes you are i'm saying i'm saying
that something different happened in the
founding of america it might not have
been perfect might not be an ideal it
might have been some people even think
it was bad right sure but something
different happened sure and you could
have sat 20 years before and said well
that's never happened before so it can't
happen in the future that is a that is a
bad argument it's not a good argument it
is irrelevant no but you're making the
argument because something hasn't
happened before does that's certainly
not a point to say it's likely to happen
or possible
no i'm saying i'm saying
first of all i i agree that everything
we know about what's possible or what's
not possible has to be from reality that
we agree completely i think i think
anarchists completely evade that point i
think you guys
live in a world of of uh mythology of
abstraction of the cart to imagine the
kind of anarchy that david friedman or
or rothbard described it's complete
fiction
and it's complete that's just name
called mysticism okay
let me ask just a few dumb questions so
so first of all
uh what do we do with violence
uh in terms of just natural emergence of
violence in human societies sure so
the idea that anarchism proposes is that
we would as the community grows there
may be violence and then we together
form collectives that sort of fund
mechanisms that resist that violence
i mean that's
i'd love to sort of talk about violence
because that seems to be the the core
thing that's the difference between the
state that has a was
definitionally i guess is the thing that
has a monopoly on violence or
controls violence in such a way that you
don't have to worry about it and then
the anarchism i don't know
because i'm using bad words no your
definition is accurate but
the point is that being the definition
of the state versus how states act
reality is just absurd yeah so uh and
and then the idea that anarchism would
be is that it's more kind of a market of
uh defenses against violence so you you
have like security companies and then
you hire different ones that you have
more competences you have things being
made affordable you have more
accessibility to security you have
accountability when people misuse their
power and you have uh
more layers of security than having a
government monopoly
objectivists understand and they don't
deny this this is something they talk
about constantly is anytime you have a
government monopoly it's going to
have enormous distortions as a
consequence it's going to be expensive
it's going to be ineffective and when
you're talking about ineffectiveness in
markets that's not just you know like
the cup sucks it often means mass death
it often means persecution so this is
something that
anarchism uh um if not entirely prevents
certainly mitigates enormously so can i
just as a thought experiment say it was
very easy to immigrate to another
country like where you could just move
about from government to government sure
would that alleviate most of the
problems that you have towards the state
which is like people being free to
choose which government they operate
under wouldn't that essentially
yeah so like what is i i'm trying to
understand why
governments aren't
already the thing that's the goal of
anarchism the kind of collectives that
emerge
under anarchism it seems to be what
government you're equating two terms
yeah so there's something called like
private governance and there's
government so for example if i go to
jaron's house and he has a rule take off
your shoes become your house
if you want to really be kind of silly
about it you could say he's the governor
it's this but it's it's it's really
nonsensical to say that if you go to
macy's right if you want to return your
sweater macy's rules are right up there
you have seven days if you don't have a
receipt you're going to get store credit
if you do ever see you get a refund so
every organization every bar every night
club your house has rules of governments
this is it's often they're unspoken this
is unavoidable no one in america
uh
by law
has to pay a tip
but it's just customary you go with the
waiter you give them 15 20 so on and so
forth now
what anarchism does is it says okay
security
is something that is of crucial
essential human need we all need to be
safe in our property safe in our purpose
the organization that by far is the
biggest violator of this and always has
been always will be is the government
why because it's a monopoly because it
has no accountability and
look at the writing last year right
if you have one agency pretend it's not
the government pretend it's apple and
apple has the ch in charge of security
in this town people are lied riding
people looting and apple says yeah we're
not going to send people into work and
if you try to defend yourself we're
going to put you in jail as well that's
the problem of having a government
monopoly
and that's something that anarchism
solves for so okay but
don't you because you said no
accountability don't you mean to say
poor accountability no i mean to say no
accountability i mean but isn't that the
idea of democracies not for democracy no
not for democracy but like the system of
of governments that we have
uh there is a monopoly on violence but
there is a
uh i mean at least in the ideal but i
think in practice as well there's an
accountability i might not think i know
you're a critic of the police force and
all those kinds of things but the
military is accountable to the people i
do not the police forces accountable
in perhaps imperfectly but you're saying
not at all not at all and we've seen
many examples of police officers doing
horrific things on video and they don't
even lose their power but there's a lot
of amazing police officers no you i mean
no they're not so you're saying by
nature
police is like a fundamentally flawed no
by nature government monopoly and police
is a fundamentally irredeemable system
we'll talk about private security
if i have a private security firm you
could have that with under a government
and as a result of my private security
my person who i'm bodyguarding gets shot
that's going to be very bad for my
company as compared to competing
companies however when you have a
government monopoly and i get people
shot what are you going to do
so so the problem is that
all the examples are going to be within
the context of an existing government
this is why i said the cell phone
example and all these other examples of
us being here we're not in anarchy that
is absurd we're under a particular
system of law and the system of laws
applies and we know that this is a
particular system of laws applies so the
problem is when you have
uh there are many laws that we're not
going to be enforced that we're not sure
we know that violence related no there
are lots of laws that are not going to
be enforced right and and
and uh that
that doesn't make this anarchy because
there are the laws out there they could
be enforced which makes which makes an
enormous business but look there's a
there's a number of issues here uh
there's an issue of the role of force in
in in
i got to clarify thing because i think
you misunderstood what i said
i i'm not saying that america is
anarchist what i'm saying is the three
of us have an anarchist relationship
between us because none of us have
authority over the others that's what
i'm saying but but that is a that's a
bad use of the word anarchy no that's
the correct use the word anarchy it
makes it meaningless it makes it every
time any people get together they have
an anarchistic relationship yes no we
have a voluntary relationship that's
what anarchism means terrorism no it
doesn't it's it's it's it's it's a
political way to get a dictionary out
you're taking a word and it's accepted
usage and then you you're saying oh no
it means selfishness
maybe and we never finished that
discussion you're taking a word we're
taking a word that that you're defining
as as and replacing it with volunteering
now
i'm not for energy it's not volatilism
but let me let's let's understand what
volunteering means right so we for
example go into stores and and there's a
certain relationship that we have with
the store that we engage in certain
voluntary transactions with testo now i
believe that that works because
there is a certain system of law that
both the store and we have accepted that
makes that possible
now
if that didn't there are certain people
would like to walk into the store and
just take the stuff right so there is a
not we might not but there are certain
people who might want it to go into
their store there's a certain system of
laws that regulates
the relationship
and and that defines the property rights
and then provides protection for the
property rights now you would like all
that privatized that is the store would
have its police force and they that
would be privatized now i don't believe
that force can be privatized
um and the ru and there are many reasons
i don't think he can and i don't think i
i think i think it's an interesting
distinction i i don't think it can
because i think that it's an unstable
equilibrium right i don't think
competing uh uh police forces can work
uh the at the end the police votes with
the biggest gun always wins and always
takes over that's true and because
look at iran and iraq excuse me we had
the bigger guns we didn't win
look at afghanistan we didn't
we didn't win partially because none of
that is an example of anarchy no but you
said you just said the guy with the
biggest guns gonna win yeah the guy with
the biggest gun we didn't win in vietnam
we had the bigger guns
but again you're taking it outside of a
context that was a context in which
uh there was a context which countries
are fighting not a contract in which
there is no
okay
ron have a rocket launcher yes and
there's a hundred people with handguns
how are you gonna win
you have the biggest gun
oh believe me i could win with one
rocket launcher against 100 people yeah
it's just it's a good well depends how
many rockets i have in the rocket
launcher and whether i'm willing to use
them but that's but so so now it's
democracy because they're more of them
that they win
look the the
any one of these scenarios all it does
so so let's go back to the store so this
is fascinating by the way i'm really
enjoying this i just want to say that
this is great
because i'm glad you are i am enjoying
the pain and i'm also enjoying the
comments that are going to happen oh the
comments the comments could be
overwhelmingly on your side i don't know
i think so no i think the anarchy
position is completely dishonest i'm a
modern day what's his name what's the
guy who is defending communism
oh rachel i'm a monday richard wolfe
there's a sense in which i think
anarchists are
uh evading reality in the same sense
you know so so we've got this i think
i'm dishonest or delusional
i think calling someone dishonest is a
really
and as i said on the show
on the previous uh interview i said only
smart people can be anarchists because
it requires a certain level of
abstraction of divorce being divorced
from reality that is hard for people who
are actually connected to reality he
makes a good point because i always talk
about this with people on social media
and they talk about a lot of people who
buy into the corporate media narrative
and how they're dumb i go it's easier to
train smart people than dumb people it's
easy to convince smart people of the
systemic that's the voice from reality
when somebody's done yeah yeah
with the concretes that actually happen
um
this is an example i gave uh debating
another anarchist so who was it
it must have sucked
uh well you were the only
happy fans
the people i like the least um in the
world out there
uh you know you like them better than
the communists don't you
barely oh come on seriously yes because
i think it leaves the same place i
really do i think it leads to gulags
fine i think anarchy leaves the ghoul
and i think hopper's view of anarchy
definitely leaks to go look i'll i'll
grant you just for the sake of argument
that it leads to gulags however surely
you concede that they are against gulags
whereas the commies have no problem with
it and that's a big
i think some do i'm not sure i'm not
your people i hope they do because if
you if you read if you read some of his
stuff
one wonders right uh you know but wants
monarchies and he wants uh once uh he
said monarchies are preferable to
democracy which is true no it's not oh
god
i mean one of the problems with
anarchists is what judge that's the most
one of the problems yeah
one judge one authority this is why
that's why i think although it
i don't want a an arbitrary judge i want
an objective judge there's an essay by
john hasn't has to think his name i'm
going to bungle it it's going to be in
my upcoming book on anarchism and he
just discusses and it's a very long
complicated technical issue that the
idea of objective law is incoherent
well yeah i mean that's why we disagree
so much yeah because because i think
objective laws the only coherences do
you disagree
that we in effect have competing
uh systems of law under america meaning
there's different ideologies
uh you have the sotomayor ideology
versus the scalia ideology and that
effectively and the point being when you
and i file a lawsuit it completely
depends on who the judge is yes
and in theory in theory i don't think
the system works this way but in theory
the way the system would work
is that on new issues
there are there is some competition nice
to meet you syria wasn't talking
technology
capitalism
say in theory the system works and this
works i think i think with competing
states but also with competing legal
idea views particularly on a new issue
there's some
uh this is how common law it worked
right there's some evolution of it and
at some point that gets codified into
the law and it gets objectified in that
sense that is there's some conclusion
that
people come to this is the role in
theory of a legislation the legislation
would be nice it was if it was composed
of people who
uh had some idea of legal philosophy
sure uh and and it gets codified and
when it because these things are complex
and and at some point it goes through
all the arguments and then a certain
truth emerges or certainly is identified
and that's what gets encoded in law
that's what the purpose of the
legislature is now if you have competing
mechanisms that don't
converge on one authority because
there's no one authority there are
multiple authorities that is in a sense
say multiple governments or multiple uh
systems of enforcement right then you
get
not just
something emerging out of it what you
get is competing legal systems
competing legal systems that now have
competing
mechanisms of enforcement competing
police forces completing militaries
however we wanted to find it
and now there's no mechanism to resolve
that now yes
we could negotiate and there's good will
and so on
right yeah no there you go no but but
now we're talking about
the law what each view
each position views as true and right
right
and it might involve for example it
might involve the fact that the legal
system has come to the conclusion that
it's okay for children to have sex with
adults and this legal system thinks that
is
evil and wrong sure right
and uh you know this something has
happened right between the two right how
do you resolve that conflict there is no
resolution you know this adult wants to
have sex with this child this legal
system thinks it's okay that the system
thinks the only way to resolve that
system is through one system imposing
itself on the other an example of
countries is exactly that when you had
monarchies when you had little states
all over the place the way any kind of
dispute was resolved when there were
issues of territorial disputes or issues
of marriage or service of of different
legal interpretations about was whoa no
yes it was marriage a lot of times
people would marry a princess from
another country sure forced marriages
which was not very pleasant i'd rather
sacrifice one princess than a car no i
don't want to sacrifice anybody and in
addition i don't know i want to
sacrifice the role and in addition well
i don't want royals well that's what i
think those are pretty disgusting
and then on top of that
you look those periods in history are
filled with violence much more violence
than we have today
much more bloody than they are today far
less freedom than we have today
comparing this to the 20th century
yes i'm comparing a monarchy right you
you you cho you said that's preferable
to democracy yes right
yeah i'm comparing i think hapa said
that i'm not saying i'm saying that oh i
thought you
agreed
and i think it's ridiculous
these kings and queens were fighting
constantly i mean the wars back then
were violent in a way unlike now no much
more violent okay now if you look at the
actual percentage of people killed
the sagas of of iceland about how
wonderful the anarchy and i mean
it's funny because a lot of people who
read they're feminine never read the
sagas it's worth reading uh the sagas of
the sagas of the iceland are filled with
violence
constant violence constantly people
killing each other over
i you know i stole your chickens and you
slept with my wife and uh
the only way to resolve disputes the
only way to resolve the streets
was violence there was no authority
there was no mechanism to resolve these
disputes there was a council but the
council couldn't enforce anything so in
the end of the day we just resolved to
violence and this is legalized because
there is no
there is no mechanism by which to make
the violence illegal so all anarchy is
is legalized violence constrained
constrained
up you know uh for a while
and up until people stop that constraint
by
you know arrangements between the uh
security organizations but the security
conditions have us by the balls to put
it figuratively right they really do
sure unlike the state oh the state today
has it but i would much rather live in
this state much rather live in the state
much rather live in many more
authoritarian states than this than a
place where there's constant violence i
have a bunch of questions but i'm
enjoying this why everything he said is
wrong okay yes first of all the idea of
competing legal systems is inevitable
because uh what rand talked about is
what she wanted
was and this is really kind of eric out
of character with her broader ideology
is
i think this was her term and i'm not
saying this to make fun of you when she
has a judge and he's looking at the
information
she wants him to be basically i think
she's the word robot someone without any
ideology that they're just looking at
the facts they're not bringing their
kind of world view to it i take it as a
compliment you are welcome
[Laughter]
i think that
given otherwise
her correct
view
that
ideology causing the ideology is just a
slur for someone's philosophy that
someone especially someone is erudite
educated and informed as a judge has to
and in fact should
bring their ideology to their work is in
one sensible contradiction in her view
number one number two is we have right
now the d.a in san francisco uh i i
forget his name he's the son of literal
terrorists communist terrorists
and he has made it the decree
unilaterally that if you shoplift for
less than i forget two hundred dollars
we're not prosecuted
you know this game right right
so
now
you and i certainly and lex i'm sure
probably agree that his ideology is
abhorrent that this doesn't help poor
people it doesn't help shop owners it
creates a
culture an area where it's just
deleterious to human life
however
he has in one sense given that he is a
state operative a legitimate world view
can i ask you just a quick question sure
why couldn't a security force in a
particular in a particular context say
yeah if you if you take if you take
stuff on that store
we're not going to we we're not going to
have that
i agree with you that's very fair that's
that's a very legitimate question the
point is
in the context that i'm talking about
that firm
is like wait a minute i'm hiring you for
security you're saying we're not going
to provide security why am i writing you
a check and we have examples of this in
real life
if i get into a car accident with you
right you have your car insurance i have
my car insurance if your car insurance
had their druthers they wouldn't pay me
one penny if my car insurance didn't
have their druthers they wouldn't pay
you one penny we already have all you
were saying earlier that we need to have
one kind of umbrella mechanical fuse
there are already more cases than you
can count where there's private uh um
arbitration now the argument is the
private arbitration only works because
they have recourse to the government but
my point is there's many examples where
even though that recourse is
theoretically possible it's not a
realistic concern specifically because
they know
that if you have recourse to the state
you have no
concept of what that outcome is going to
look like except knowing it's going to
be exorbitant it's going to be
time-consuming uh talk about that we
can't use the state right i mean i'm as
critical as the state as it is right now
maybe not as critical as yours not as
critical but i'm quite critical of the
state as it is right now um but but
let's say let's say we got into a
traffic accident and uh you you have a
rolls voice
um and and i destroyed your world's
voice and my insurance company now owes
your insurance company a lot of money
and and let's imagine it's a lot of
money just for the city and that you're
clearly guilty
yeah clearly guilty and my insurance
company looks at the books and it goes
you know i don't
really i don't want to pay this sure i
and and you know what i've got bigger
guns than his insurance company sure and
i'm going to just going to take over
their insurance company and and hostile
takeover takes on a whole new meaning
when when i can i can muster guns on my
behalf
than than in in
a hostile takeover in a capitalist
context um that to me is what happens
that to me is inevitable lee what
happens and it's and i think this is
where the delusion comes in the idea
that everything that that when big money
is involved and big and power is
involved remember again the same kind of
politicians who today
get into politics are likely to want to
run some of these security agencies
because they'll have a lot of power over
people uh so same kind of uh
uh maybe social passwords i don't think
it's the same skill set but that's a
separate issue i i think it very much is
uh but you think people the people in
washington the same the ceos
psychologically and skill set wise well
today ceos yes okay yes
because they might be right because i
think that's what's rewarded for ceo
somebody who could get along with with
government and i think and i think the
kind of ceo who is going to run a
security company which is not just about
business it's about the use of force
it's about control it's about
negotiation with other entities that are
using force negotiate you know diploma
diplomacy then negate and and we should
get back to objective law because i
think it's essential
something i think all you get into is
security agencies fighting security
agencies and again the biggest gun and
it and i don't mean here the guy who has
the biggest literal gun the rocket
launcher versus the guns i got excited
by the biggest gun yeah the party that
has the more physical force however that
is mustered either by numbers sure or by
weapons is going to dominate can i can i
and we'll take over everybody else now
one of the things that's common in a
market is takeovers it's it's it's
consolidation and here
the consolidation can happen through
force and it can you can roll other
other security companies and that's
exactly what will happen until you
dominate the particular geographic area
okay so let me explain why i disagree
with that you were just saying and i
agree correctly i agree with you that
listen if i have access to the bigger
gun why am i paying you or whoever's
paying wherever i'm just going to use
force and not pay them we have that
right now it's called lobbying yeah so
instead instead of me
and i i'm sure in your example you
weren't being literal instead of the
insurance company literally having the
army they could be like hey let me call
corruptco with the mafia i agree yeah go
out and take them out by having this
federal government as you know and
certainly are not a fan of has takes
more through um
ask the forfeiture
then burglaries combined what assets
forfeiture is people don't even
understand this this is something crazy
which i'm you which are on it's as
opposed to me as a post as i am which is
i'm a cop
i go to your house
i think you haven't been charged or or
convicted of anything i i have evidence
usually in a car yeah yeah but no it's
like drug deals okay i go to your house
you're a drug dealer
i say
and you can understand the reasoning
well if someone is getting profit
through illegal mechanisms their profit
isn't real their property and they
shouldn't be rewarded that profit so
basically i go to your house you're a
drug dealer i seize all your property
you don't really have recourse even
though you haven't been through deep i'm
just explaining to the audience through
due process and sol
that combined for people who don't know
is more than the total amount of
burglaries in america it's a huge ince
and what happens is the police
department which seizes your car
auctions it sees your house auctions it
it's a great way to fly in their pockets
this is a huge incentive it's horrible
it's a huge incentive for police
departments to do this because it's like
look this guy's a crook maybe he's not a
drug dealer but he's clearly a pimp let
me just take all his stuff and it's
going to go to the community well and
the rationale originally was
if i try him in the meantime he'll take
that money and
you know funnel it somewhere else and
hide it and i'll never be able to get
access to it and it was it was past the
1970s under the original seized laws
were kind of rico act sure going after
the mafia and one of the reasons i
despise giuliani as much as i do and
there's very few politicians out there
that i despise more is because he he was
the first guy to use rico on financiers
yeah and so it wasn't even a drug dealer
it was you were accused of a financial
fraud not not you weren't shown to be
guilty
yeah
basically what forfeiture innocence are
proven guilty
if you were managing money
you were done you were finished so
you're saying this kind of stuff
national emergency with the states hold
up so my point is
what are presented as the strongest
criticisms of anarchism are inevitably
descriptions of status quo what you're
describing is already the event i am a
big insurance company i don't want to
pay you i call washington either i pay
you in washington gives me a subsidy so
what you're describing is an inevitable
aspect of having a government see so
what i'm describing is the inevitable
evolution of anarchy into a government i
just think that the markets don't
consolidate into monopoly that's the
leftist propaganda myth not not markets
not markets where you have substitute
products but this is the problem the
problem is force has no substitute that
is force is not a product you can have a
so this is my fundamental issue about
turning police competing police forces
force is not a product first service
it's not a service and it's not a
security is not a service no well
security security in the context of a
legal system is but this is the point
the legal system
the laws
are not a service or product
they are a different type of
human institution um science is not a
product or service it's a different type
of human institution they're different
types of human institutions some a
market
you can create markets in some you
cannot law is not a marketable
uh system yeah question quickly is there
any other field other than law that you
think you can't create markets well
science science is not marketable the
the science itself is not marketable
well sure science is true and the same
ethic is indole law is not marketable
law
is the system that allows markets to
happen right you need a system of law
whether it's private law in a in a
particular narrow context or whether
it's broader law law is this is the is
the context in which markets arise so
one of the reasons we transact is we
know that there's a certain contract
between us explicit or implicit that is
protected by a certain law whether it's
protected by private agency or pri the
government doesn't matter but there's a
certain contract that is protectable
right theoretically theoretically yes so
law is the context in which markets
arise
you don't create a
market in the because there's nothing
above it in a sense there's no
it is the it is the context that allows
markets to be created once you market it
markets
fall apart
so you think that law could be a market
and it already is a market and we see it
for example ebay
if i am buying something from your own i
won't even know his name i don't know
maybe he's in another country i and you
know he screws me out of the money i
don't have ax i can't sue you like or if
i sue you in england it's good luck with
that you're not gonna argue that i'm
gonna sue you what happens in this case
which has already been solved by the
market ebay and paypal which has access
to your bank account they act as the
private arbiter they're gonna get it
wrong a lot
not not even a question just like
euron's not gonna argue that the the
government right now gets the wrong a
lot that's not even a question the point
is at the very least
i'm going to get my resolution faster
cheaper and more effectively so the
issue with having any kind of government
anything and euron's not going to
disagree with this is it at the very
least it's going to be expensive
inefficient and and cause uh uh conflict
yeah but i think what it allows is we
don't even know what the supreme court
is going to judge
again you're moving us to today's
environment which i which i'm trying
against
no but in reality reality doesn't have
to be what it is i mean
that's the most anti-rant quote no in in
a sense in a sense in a sense of of the
politics the
i know but the quote by itself is great
i know i know you'd love to agree with
donald hoffman as well yeah yeah it
turns out i agree with her
so it's it's where were we
so i believe that because we have
a certain system of government right it
allows for these private innovations
to come about that facilitates certain
issues in a much more efficient way than
the government would deal with it but
it's only because we have a particular
system that has defined property rights
that has a clear view of what property
rights are it has a clear view of what a
transaction mean or what the contra what
contract law is and ebay has a bunch of
stuff that you sign whether you read it
or not all of that is defined first and
then there are massive innovations at
the at the level of
particular transactions at the level of
an ebay that facilitate
increased efficiency and that's great
but the fact is none of that gets
developed none of that gets created in a
world in which i might be living under
different definition of property rights
ebay might be living on a separate
definition of property rights you might
have a third definition of property
rights and there's no mechanism by which
we can actually operationalize that
because we all have a different system
there is a mechanic we already have that
let's change the example i just used
what happens if a chinese person who has
different definition proper rights kills
in america american in brazil again in
in in in a smaller community what
happens is lots of violence no but i'm
talking right now if a chinese person
has right now the only reason that that
it doesn't lead to violence is because
people are afraid of even more violence
and it affects
many people large numbers of people who
don't want to go to war but
if if you have if you have small
in a state where the states were small
like in in those little states there was
war all the time for exactly those
reasons because the cost was lower
because uh because it was more personal
because i knew maybe the person who was
killed over there and i i went to my
king and encouraged them to go to war
you know why there was constant you know
why there was war because there had been
no no iron rand
and good ideas lead to good societies
which leads to good people which lead to
good behavior good into relationships so
now that we have iran yes all this stuff
in the past is irrelevant because if
they studied her works we would be
rand was on donahue again you can watch
the clip
and he asks her she goes
he goes you're saying that if we were
more selfish and acted more
self-interest there'd be less war less
hitler and she said there wouldn't be
any
right well if we were all selfish there
wouldn't be any hitler's right but who
do you regard as the overwinning
authority
if i am buying a product from you as a
someone in england via ebay who's the
governing authority
the governing authority is other legal
systems in england in the united states
which have to be synchronized pretty
well right but what i'm saying
why do they have to why ebay doesn't
function in certain countries because
there is no legal system
why do those legal systems have to be a
function specifically of geography as
opposed to why can't i sitting here
right i could sit here you're not let me
finish my point i can sit here and be a
british diplomat right and as a british
diplomat i'm going to be treated
differently under american law than you
are as an american citizen as you are
why can't you have that same process
sure we're geographically proximate but
i'm a citizen of this company and you're
a citizen of that company
why would that be different in your
opinion
be if it's england in the united states
it's probably not going to matter that
much right
but if it's iran
and the united states then the fact that
we're sitting next to each other makes a
huge difference oh i have a massive
difference and the fact is that
an iron man i think would would be the
first to acknowledge this and this is
why she was she was so opposed to
anarchy
it's not why
it is it's because of rothbard no it has
nothing to do with nothing it has
nothing to do with nothing nothing how
do you know nothing how would you
because the argument against uh against
anarchy as an intellectual one not a
personality can be both anyway but
back to it vector on back to iran
you don't know that you're not a psychic
or a necromancer the only way we're
gonna resolve uh this is unwrestling
right it's to violence our best thing is
not violence
wars of violence words are violence
of violence emotions of violence
so wait but he follows me off with this
stuff but that's the problem actually
very very good no not facts of truth i
mean there's distortions and arbitrary
statements because your statement about
rothbard is an arbitrary statement that
has no cognitive standing
and therefore i can dismiss it so i'm
not doing like this because i wanna it
the fact that she disliked rothbard
doesn't mean that everything he said she
was going to dismiss because she
disliked i agree with you but what i'm
saying is it would not be impossible but
there's no evidence i'll give you i'll
talk i'll give you some evidence human
psychology it is not impossible
that if you hate some uh what's his name
what's that guy's name
right it's not impossible
that if richard wolff said something
that you would otherwise agree with you
hold on let me finish you'd be
dismissive or less likely to give him
credit for it being a human being that's
all i'm saying it's as silly as to say
rothbard came up with this theory of
anarchy because he he he he was pissed
off at ein ran and wanted to write
something i don't know
bring it down because bring it down so
that he can speak too and let's let's
let's keep it
because i don't think we're getting
agitated no you guys aren't no no
yeah yeah yeah yeah no bringing it down
not in terms of
in terms of give more pauses okay so
okay michael can insert himself that's
what i mean the private governance point
of that private government
um private he's look it's private
governance it's
trying to establish this geographic law
of the land
i i do think that michael's i mean
that's interesting that you disagree
with this i i do
believe that psychology has an impact on
ideas and iran you don't think iron rand
had grudges that impacted the way she
saw the world
i i we would like to think that i don't
think any of the grudges entered into
philosophical statements at least not
that i can tell um and i don't see and
given the centrality iron man gave and
if you to to the role of government to
the existence of government the need for
government
uh to establish real freedom uh and the
way she defines freedom which is very
different than rothbard and the way she
defines government um to say then
that opposition anarchy is because of i
i think is just just an obvious
statement because it's not right
and not and not and and i don't see why
psychology would answer it now maybe the
tone in which you responded to it to
answer might have been motivated by that
something like but given the amount of
thought she gave to the world of
government and human society and why
government was needed and why you needed
laws in order to be free that you that
freedom didn't proceed
the right you needed to write hierarchy
i you know i think i think that i think
that we could say that it give it at
least the respect that
she this was
she might have been wrong right but she
she had a particular theory that
rejected anarchy and the thought anarchy
was wrong okay hold on i res i i really
resent and i don't want saying you're
doing this the implication
that if rand was guided by her passions
that somehow is the criticism of her or
lessens her i think rand was a very
passionate person i think she
uh
loved
her husband enormously she despised
certain people enormously sure uh and
i don't think that there's anything
wrong wrong she would change her
philosophical position about something
because she disliked somebody i agree
but what i'm saying the amount of
thought she gave to that player all i'm
saying is it is possible
that if someone comes across ideas that
she had not considered before if she
regarded this person as a bad actor like
all of us
she would be less likely to take them
under consideration sure that's all i'm
saying sure and i think i think other
people other people confronted her with
the ideas of anarchy i don't think
rothbard was the only one correct right
charles as well yeah certainly did and
she rejected them and she rejected them
because she had and and whether you
agree with or not she had a thought out
position
about why
you needed to have this particular
structure in place so that markets and
human freedom could exist it's just
really interesting because this is the
one time in my view and please correct
me if i'm wrong where she invokes need
as kind of a basis for political
activity so if let's suppose you want
this federal government whatever you
want you don't want it like it is now
like your version of the government i
don't see why it's an issue for you
for me and lex to say we're not privy to
washington we're going to do our own
thing and given if we go about our lives
not initiating force and being
productive actors why she would have an
issue with this why would i care well
you would care because if you're saying
the government has a monopoly on force
between these two oceans so you can you
can do that as long as you don't violate
somebody else's right sure but what i'm
saying is we just declare ourselves
sovereign we're not going to pay any
income taxes we're going to be peaceable
people we're going to contribute and
when rex and i have disputes we're going
to call joe that's joe rogan you're
never gonna get to meet him but he's a
good guy i know
we're gonna call joe and joe's gonna
resolve it he's so good at like you know
needling and and getting you off topic
that way it's really he's really
effective at it
i i always say when i debate when i
debate communist i always say to him
you mean lex
yeah maybe lex maybe i should do this
comrade i love you that that if they
really believe indeed if they really
believe in what they think then they
should be advocates for capitalism
because under capitalism under my system
of government capitalist government
right
they could go and start a commune
they can live in coppiness they can live
to each according to
each to each according to his needs
farming according to his ability all
they want and and live their pathetic
miserable lives that way and and the
government would never intervene because
the whole view of capitalism
is freedom is we leave the way alone
right as long as you're not violating my
rights as long as you're not taking my
property as long as you're not engaging
with
so so in that sense yeah you and lex can
form your own thing i don't believe in
compulsory taxes anyway so you and lex
can do your thing never pay taxes um do
you think as long as you're not
violating the laws and the laws are very
limited right because they're only there
to protect individualized so long as
you're not violating somebody else's
property rights or inflicting force on
anybody else you're peaceful
you can do what you want you know don't
hit yeah great don't don't don't have
sex with kids right i will stop
immediately good the rest of us are just
plain checkers and he's playing chess
yeah i mean i mean
a government that protects individual
rights properly is a government that
leaves you alone to live your life as
you see fit even if you live your life
in a way that i don't approve of that i
don't think is right i mean that's old
point okay then
the only thing you can do is
you know try to enforce arbitrary laws
that you come up with on me of course
absolutely okay great
wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in
a world where
rights protecting laws are superfluous
but the reality is usually that somebody
violates them whether
by accident or or intentionally and that
you need some mechanism now if you guys
can resolve that dispute without
getting involved fine but if you guys
land up
not wanting not resolving there is
another authority that will help you
resolve it
yeah so can ask a question under
anarchism
what kind of systems of laws do you
think will emerge do you think we'll
have basically a similar kind of layer
of universal law to where like let me
answer this this is a great question i
know you're going through this uh
this is often presented as a criticism
of anarchism and this is actually
something i think iran would agree with
as well in other contexts which is this
one of the reasons communism can't work
central planning can't work and this is
one of mises great innovations is if i
could sit down
it's like asking what would the fashion
industry look like if the government
didn't run it there's no way for me to
know what the fashion industry is which
all of us are in favor of being free is
literally millions of designers of
seamstresses of uh people who make the
fabric
also references throughout history and
these creative artistic minds putting
things together and every year and
there's no shortage of clothes in fact
we make so many clothes that we send
them in landfill sizes to overseas poor
countries and you have people in these
desk two countries wearing like adidas
shirts they don't can't even read
english but because we don't know what
to do with all these clothes that's how
the glory of free enterprise is the
problem is you
probably use this loosely it's
everything comes cheap and over abundant
it's it like food you know well it
doesn't actually come over abundantly
but it's done properly sure it's that's
fair supply meets demand sure that's
fair but what i'm saying is like if 150
years ago you said you know one day
we're gonna have an issue where there's
gonna be so much food and that's it then
the kids are too fat it's just gonna be
like i i too like i had four who are
dead in the crib i wish i mean what kind
of fan what kind of uh paradise is this
so what you would have
we have this right now in certain senses
you have the hassidium you have sharia
you have different comp you have uh uh
i'm sure in the medical system they have
their own kind of private courts and
court martials is another example this
although obviously that's through the
state so you would have uh innovation in
law under markets just the same ways
you'd have it and and we have this
already maybe it's not euron doesn't
like in terms of like murder and rape
and i can understand why but in terms of
like business and interactions he would
have no problem with different
arbitration firms having different rules
for like what kind of evidence is
allowed maybe you only have 60 days to
make your case and so on and so forth
and the market is a process of creative
innovation and it would be dynamic it
would be changing so what's interesting
what's interesting relating to this is
that one of the ways iran proposed
raising revenue for the government
because she was against uh was let's say
we have a contract
we could just have it arbitrated without
government intervening
but if we wanted to access the courts of
the government as a final authority we
would pay
and that's how governments would raise
some of the funds would be raised that
way so this definitely a a a value to
having this innovation and the public
space but
i don't believe that is the case with
murder i don't believe that is the case
with violent crime and and it's funny
you bring up sharia because david
friedman when he gives when he gives uh
wait i gotta ask you to clarify i'm not
trying to interrupt you you're talking
about with murder i mean you would agree
i think just to clarify for the audience
that there is room for innovation and
murder because there's things like
manslaughter there's murder juan murder
too yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah i think i
don't think it happens at a at a market
level i don't think there's a market
innovation for murder somebody has to
figure out what those standards are and
they will evolve as we gain right now
but we're all agreement that the the
word murder means very different things
oh absolutely and and if circumstances
matter and and and
what are your standards of proof
standards of evidence all of that there
has to be consequences too all of that
there has to be a standard and that's
that's what the that's what i think the
proper government provides
um
but uh so david friedman uses in in some
of his talks about private law he uses
he
he uses uh sharia law in somalia as an
example look legal legal systems they've
all privately independent
yeah authoritarian ones ones that don't
respect the rights of women at all are
you married uh no no but we all want to
have sex with our mother as voyage would
say oh my god can we make that a clip
yep where the hell did that come from
that's much better than what i was just
saying about the kids
i appreciate it okay so we went in a
voluntary way although sometimes for
year on and sometimes for michael it
felt involuntary
but uh i we all got the big guns so uh
how do we land this at the beginning
clearly there's a disagreement about uh
anarchism here
i think we're in agree i think there's a
big agreement because if jaron was
saying that if i want to have my
voluntary stupid thing with you
and his government is not going to tax
me and it's not going to insinuate
itself unless we're murdering each other
something like that i'm okay with that
so so if you take if you take the
example of sharia law which was
mentioned earlier so if you impo if you
have a little community within this
within my world right that that imposes
sharia law um
if it starts mutilating little girls
sure
then that then you impose your low on it
right you impose the law on it because
it's an issue protecting individual
rights if they want to treat women
if women have to cover up and the women
are okay with that that's fine if the
woman wants to leave but is not allowed
to leave
that's where my government would step in
and and and allow you know
prevent them from using force against
her and that's it right okay now i i
think it's more complicated than that
right because i think there are complex
issue property rights often where it's
not going to be easy for you guys to
resolve and and particularly if you
interact with people outside of your
community
but but uh
but yeah i you know that's my view is
government is there to protect
individual rights that's it otherwise
leave you alone
you
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)