Anarchy Debate: Michael Malice vs Yaron Brook

Summary

The 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

00:00

🗣️ 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.

05:03

🤔 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.

10:03

🏛️ 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.

15:04

🚨 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.

20:04

🤝 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.

25:05

🏙️ 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.

30:07

🛡️ 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.

35:08

🌐 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.

40:08

💡 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.

45:09

🛑 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.

50:10

🏁 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.

Keywords

💡Anarchy

Anarchy refers to a state of society without a governing authority or centralized government. In the video, it is a central theme with various perspectives being discussed, including its potential for fostering freedom and the concerns about the lack of order and protection of individual rights without a centralized authority. For instance, the speakers debate whether anarchy can lead to a better world and how it contrasts with the current systems of governance.

💡Government

Government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, typically a state. The script explores the role of government in achieving societal goals, the potential for government to work effectively, and the debate over whether a functioning society can exist without it. The participants discuss the necessity of government for maintaining order and providing services, such as security and dispute resolution.

💡Liberty

Liberty is the state of being free within a society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The video discusses the relationship between liberty and government, with some arguing that government is essential for the protection of individual freedoms, while others suggest that government can be an impediment to true freedom.

💡Freedom

Freedom, in this context, is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance. The script delves into the concept that freedom is not possible without some form of government to protect it, contrasting with the idea that government inherently restricts freedom. The debate touches on the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes true freedom in society.

💡Objective Law

Objective Law refers to the principle that laws should be based on objective principles, independent of personal feelings or opinions. In the video, the concept is discussed in the context of the need for a coherent legal system that can be applied consistently and fairly. The speakers consider whether objective law is possible and how it relates to the idea of competing legal systems in an anarchist society.

💡Competing Governments

Competing Governments is the idea that multiple entities could provide governance within the same geographic area, competing for the consent and participation of the governed. The script explores this concept as a potential solution to the problems of monopolistic government power, with the market dynamics potentially leading to better services and more responsive governance.

💡Monopoly on Force

Monopoly on Force is the concept that a government or state has the exclusive and legitimate right to use force within its territory. The video discusses the implications of such a monopoly, with arguments that it can lead to the abuse of power and that alternative systems, such as private security firms in an anarchist society, might offer checks and balances against this power.

💡Private Governance

Private Governance refers to the idea of non-state entities providing governance services, such as dispute resolution, security, and the establishment of rules and regulations. The script considers the potential for private governance to emerge in an anarchist society and how it might differ from traditional state-based governance, including the possibility of more tailored and responsive services.

💡Violence

Violence, in the context of the video, is discussed as a potential consequence of the absence of a centralized authority to maintain order. The speakers debate whether violence is more or less likely in a state of anarchy compared to a society with a government that has a monopoly on force. The script also explores the role of violence in resolving disputes and the potential for privatized security to either increase or decrease violent conflict.

💡Accountability

Accountability is the obligation of an individual or organization to report on and be responsible for its activities. In the video, the concept is discussed in relation to both government entities and private organizations, with the argument that private entities may be more accountable due to market pressures and competition, whereas government entities may be less accountable due to their monopolistic position.

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