I practically came when I saw this in my subscription box. David Friedman is my favourite economist by a long way. He is an unrecognised genius in my view.
Yes, but you must also factor in a few more things: 1. In a society like this, there would be MANY more wealthy people, as it would be much easier to obtain since you will no longer have to deal with the most destructive force to wealth that has ever existed: rulers and governments. 2. People would still be just as charitable as they are now. With more wealth access, more people would be capable of taking care of those who are truly in need. We would be better off.
That is a nice point, but Mr. Friedman puts up a case is his book, The Machinery of Freedom, that better explains why national defense is a tough case: nuclear bombarding. If a nation neighboor to a stateless society sends a nuclear missile towards it, it doesn't matter which borders it crosses, once it does, the damage is too high for many people in that particular region. That's why collective defense is a public good. Whoever pays for it is paying for a great deal of other people.
David Friedman is truly a great intellectual. Just like his father the late Milton Friedman. Glad to see him further develop the ideas his had laid forth.
Regarding healthcare systems, my wife is a physician and could write you an entire book about how the idiotic tax and regulatory structures destroy the price system and cause the predictable rise in healthcare costs that we've seen. Free market economists have in fact been predicting these things for decades. But I don't have anywhere near the time or the inclination to do that. If you honestly want to understand where I'm coming from please read Economic in One Lesson by Hazlitt.
I've read Friedman and watched the PBS series, his hypotheses on human nature and economics have been dismissed by many in the field. Economics is a soft science decided into two apposing hypothesis, Total free markets or democratic markets. Guess which one has never been tested? Guess which one fails when ever testing is attempted?
National defense can be provided for by military defense clause on mortgages, loans, financing contracts. Any decent financier will want to protect the value of their assets and collateral. Therefore they will require military insurance as a condition for their loans. While true that some people who pay cash or have no assets will be free riders, that will be a small minority of people.
This is brilliant, David is a chip off the old block, smarter than his father in my view. After taking into account for the advances in Blockchain Technology, Sea steading etc... This will work
I think this is a very strong philosophy. He concedes to some level that his his ideas do not equally apply to national defense, but I think the problem is not in his theory, but rather, the question. Nation defense is border protection. Nations are the product of government, there is no need to defend them or even mind them without government to in the first place. You don't have to explain how to defend that State in a stateless system. A private rights agency can represent those anywhere.
It is a "public good" in the sense that it is a good open for public consumption, and for the purposes of a free rider problem discussion. It is a good, anyone can partake, there is no restricted access.
When the outcome of every judicial decision dictates which of two parties benefits financially isn't it painstakingly obvious that bribery and corruption will be rife?
No because its not compulsory and the courts dependent on reputation so the incentives make that nearly impossible unlike our current system where thats pretyy much normal behavior of the courts
No PvP!? SWG was great, I think it probably had the best simulated economy of any game yet. Valuable resources discovered on a new planet, player cities spring up, cities positioned closest to transport links compete for traders, who pay to have their shops in the centres. The best organised towns get the most visitors and collect the most taxes, get the best facilities. Item quality varies and good artisans and traders get reputation. Really exciting game.
Conflict resolution is hampered by two forces; the inability of a each side to see the other's point of view and the instinct to get even. If those irrational forces can be eliminated, conflicts would be resolved through reason. That role is performed now by government because it is thought by both sides to be large enough to be dispassionate. A society-wide meme must be adopted that dismisses the assumption that private agencies would inherit the above two irrational forces from their clients.
@janc71 "And since when is food property?" Do you even understand the concept of property? It's the exclusive right to a certain object. When you eat an apple, you implicitely make such a claim, because noene else can eat/use it after you've eaten it. Eating an apple IS appropriating the apple, whether you like it or not. And since nobody's complainign that you eat the apple, people apparently acknowledge that is IS your rightfull property.
No, contextually speaking, a public good is one that is socially owned. Wikipedia isn't. At any point the owners could shut down the site and take it away from the public without any legal recourse. The lack of restrictions are allowed by the owners. It is them using their property in the manner in which they see fit. I have two gates in my backyard, one in the front and one in the back. If I was to ALLOW people to pass through it as they pleased, it does not cease to be my private property.
Did all those books you read teach you about "externalities?" The existance of externalities is to economics what genetics is to Biology. You can't have a functional free market economy if there are elements within it that are destroying other markets. Kind of like the Godzilla of all externalities, global warming.
Obviously the issue is far too complicated for either side to convince the other in the limited space of a RUclips comment. If you could recommend any specific books that provide the strongest arguments for your ideas toward classical liberals or libertarians, please reply; I am actually genuinely interested in counter-arguments. For example, to learn a simple approach to the classical-liberal philosphy, I would recommend Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" or "Free to Choose."
You know the answer to that. I don't have anywhere near enough room to respond in this format. But if you are interested in understanding our take on such things, I'd start with the tragedy of the commons, which we both know you won't do, drone.
Lucrative to who, exactly? The government? It's private businesses that ultimately find it lucrative. War is not a lucrative thing. Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy? That applies directly.
While at first people will get advantages via wealth, it will ultimately depend on your real value. While you have arms, legs, a brain you are worth something to someone. Even as a 120 year old sick guy you are still worthy of medical study vs thrown on a scrap heap.
Taking the radio program idea and using it for national defense you make a spectacle of militias with NAS car and monster truck like shows as groups compete against each other for prizes in nonlethal combat that can translate to real world war scenarios. With sponsors and advertising.
work = have a successful outcome. I don't regard the current centralization of government power to work either. I don't know if such a society would work, and I only make a complete judgement after knowing the results. My "gut" feeling is that a stateless society would not work.
Bang! dead rich man and his army of lawyers run for the hills. That is what happens when you leave your opponent no peaceful options and you do not negotiate.
Better a dream world than the nightmare we live in today...Besides,if you had asked your average person a few hundred years ago about whether democracy is possible or whether the abolition of slavery is possible they would have thought you were nuts and living in a dream world. Maybe anarchy is no more unrealistic than were those reforms.
Advertising is not necessarily a "negative good" with "negative value." Think of the Super bowl where millions of people view the game , JUST to see the new and sometimes amazing Advertisements. I think this happens more often than many people think. My son often complains when I switch the TV or radio channels when there is a commercial on.
So while a primary complaint against statism is that people don't like being forced to pay taxes to support welfare, education, and other public services, you think they will do it willingly? If society as a whole willingly paid for programs, then taxes wouldn't have to be levied to meet demand in the first place, people would just automatically donate more money to their local school districts, family services, local job rehabilitation centers, etc. It's not that they can't, they just don't.
just as you buy health insurance, you would buy insurance with your particular agency. because free market - the price would have to be affordable for large amount of people (because agencies obviously want to make as much profit as possible) thus it would be much more cheaper than now. today, you are forced to buy it with the state. in anarchist society, the choice would ultimately law on your shoulders. ergo - nobody would force you to buy anything.
Really? I've always gotten good service from State Farm insurance. Maybe you should shop around. I'd shop around for another government, but alas, Washington has a monopoly over most of the continent.
Why would they lose their customers? Wouldn't people that WANTED to bribe the judge be more likely to chose them? I see it the other way around: Government is benign until the greed of business corrupts it.
@maxwellnolan Agencies could easily be made affordable a couple of ways- first, you and your neighbors could all chip in (a community could offer a protection agency as a benefit of paying dues, alongside other things like road repair) and also your insurance company would be apt to hire one or at least subsidize the cost in order to protect themselves from having to payout in the event of a health injury or death in the case of life insurance.
In one sense this is true but it still needs to be explained. Friedman's approach to market anarchism is gradualist in nature and there is no reason to assume that market anarchy will take over the entire world at once and so stateless societies would have to deal with the possibility of dealing with external states. Do the people in the area of the Carolina's ignore someone invading the area of Georgia or do they help ward off potential invasion of their own geographic region at a later time?
I'm always happy to pay for the things I choose to use. Almost every public service I've seen wouldn't stand a chance of getting my money in a free society, they're too inept and inefficient. You could have said "welcome to the 19th century" or whatever to a slave. Just because society works a particular way doesn't make it smart or moral. The current system is neither.
We would, if you put down the gun. Until you are willing to give us the same respect we give you, to not stick your nose in our affairs at gunpoint, you will not get or deserve an ounce of respect. This conversation is over until you are willing to (1) put the gun down like a civilized person and (2) genuinely try to understand why we seek a free society.
This system sounds interesting but it takes more than one man to brainstorm on this topic in order to conclude if this way is the right way to live with these rules without potential loop-holes that provide unnecessary consequences.
What do you do to punish a neighbor who rapes his daughter? His rights protection agency won't punish him, yours won't, and if you punish him, you have to deal with his agency.
I would argue that Rothbard imposes his moral beliefs to his world view on others who may disagree making in some sense authoritarian. I think Friedman offers the best form of anarcho-capitalism that allows choice. His anarcho-capitalism is the only form that is really is anarchy
@janc71 "These are basic necessities that in a better world would not have to be bought." You are living in a fantasyland (at least you'd wish). Food doesn't magically appear out of nothing. It costs time and energy to plant/grow/harvest/prepare it. That fact alone already shows that there's no such thing as a free lunch. It costs time/labor/energy. Buying something with money is indirect labor, and could be seen as 'transfering energy/labor'. But if you can create abundance, be my guest.
Why would anybody need to be convinced of a blatantly obvious fact? The fact being that rich people will just buy the law, team up with other rich people to buy the entire law and then do whatever they want in any way. Just think of it, it's a no brainer. It's already happening around you.
Welcome to the 21 century. Where every major city is a marvel of civic projects, research universities, roads, justice systems and police. Feel free to enjoy it for free, Oh,wait, no it's not free. If you want to stay you have to help pay. I suggest Uganda if you want to live in a free society with no taxes. Good luck. I'm sure the good and services will be crazy cheap there.
Do you not find it ironic that people such as yourself who want all civic projects handed over to non-accountable private capital don't stop and think that this might be a bad idea? That perhaps having one person own the main bridge in town might slow progress rather than help it?
@TheMawification "Socialism" is an incredibly vague term and has been that way for over a century. Individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Josiah Warren closer views to David Friedman that to anarcho-communists, yet they all still referred to themselves as a "socialists". /watch?v=Q3uCQ-0xpnM
This man is the reason we cannot judge a man's intelligence by the layout of his website. This video is amazing, but the single page of crammed text... it hurts my eyes.
I can't speak for how much he purely believes these ideas. Friedman's ideas seem to be more of a thought experiment of a how a free society might function with no government, if you push free market ideas to the absolute extreme. Whether or not it might actually look like this is anyone's best guess. I personally don't buy into all of it, but I can appreciate an alternative point of view that asks me to challenge conventional wisdom. At the very least, a free society is worth dreaming about.
What's scary is you think you know anything about North korea. What would we think of someone in the 1940's that didn't know anything about NAZI Germany? North Korea is a religious oligarchic with a wealthy upper class and large peasant class. There has never been a free market. When Chinese companies are allowed to buy oil companies in Texas or Saudis are allowed to by ports in the US come talk to me about free markets. At the end of the day we control our markets. That's a democracy.
I support so many of David's ideas, and I would love to live under such a system, but how would we get this into action in the USA or any other country?
david isn't an anarchist he says he is but in his book of machinery of freedom he doesn't show how a society would work with no government, he is like oh we should have subcities where mayors rule over 100,000 people and he talks about taxes.
@@voluntarism335 he is but he isn't dogmatic in his positions he's mostly a utilitarian and argues he can be wrong. Machinery is about an anarchist legal system so ya of course it doesn't get into everything
are you serious dude? did you just say the economy would be worse without the stimulus? money printing can never help only harm.. unless you're one of the multi billionaires that gets the money first..
North Korea is a religious dictatorship, A kingdom. If you can't tell the difference there is a problem. Governmental systems allow for not-for-profit and transparency. If you actually think for a minute about your civic duties you would see this.
Is there a problem with my speakers, or does this man not articulate full sentences properly? Almost all of his sentences start out at a rather loud volume and end in a barely audible mumble.
Okay, so in this anarcho-capitalist future, my security/rights agency, and the security/rights agency of the defendant/accused, agree to a third party arbitration in advance. How is this fundamentally than a gov't? I mean at some point you will be delegating authority to someone who will act without your direct approval, or may act in a way direct against what you perceive to be your rights. Isn't that exactly what libertarians object to in a gov't?
It is different because you are choosing from the options created in the market. That means that different disputes may be handled by different arbitrators based on the preference of the individuals party to the contract. These arbitrators come and go based on their performance and price. With government, there is no market as everyone is forced to pay taxes to support it whether they like the performance or not, so long as some majority keeps candidates in office. If you don't pay your taxes, armed men will come to your door to kidnap you, or worse, kill you if you feel like you have a right to defend yourself from their violation of your liberty. With the arbitration agency, you can, at will (or according to contract terms), change your manner of defense and arbitration agency and do not have to depend on the views of others to make decisions which you agree with. So, it is completely different.
Wouldn't that just descend into tribalism? I mean if we are shopping around for cars or appliances, that's one thing. But for security matters we would gravitate to the choices in the market that would best represent our rights (even if we are wrong) which means these would quickly devolve into tribal identities that would function as gov'ts. If an arbitration goes against me, I'll go to one that I know will go my way most of the time. Just like any consumer would. That's not a new system. That's an old system. The oldest on earth in fact. Maybe in a technological future where I can affordably defend myself from all incursions on my rights (personal forcefield, whatever) then we could have an anarcho-capitalist system. Until then, I think a minarchist state is still preferable.
Travis Clark First, the implementation of anarcho-capitalism is assuming that people have come to the realization that government is the problem. In that case, people would not look for government-like structures to solve their problems. The reason why people do and have looked toward government is because of an indoctrination bias resulting from our societies arising from tribal and patriarchal societies to begin with. IOW, we have always been in a constant state of childhood in a sense, seeking a parental figure to place our fears on. Government fills this role today. So if society were to enter an anarcho-capitalist society without coming to that realization, then absolutely we could fall back into government, or parts of our society could. The other factor is that there may be multiple defense agencies in the same region. Its not like there is going to be some defined border where everyone within that border uses the same defense agency. I mean, that may happen occasionally. Ultimately, cost and price will dictate how these agencies function. It won't be as simple to say, "I want an agency that will kill whoever robs me." An agency that goes to that extent will likely take on too much risk and go out of business. There is a video series called "Law Without Government", it may answer some of these questions for you.
At first the idea seemed silly, but now it sounds like a pretty solid alternative. Although I don't believe in a complete anarchism, I believe a basic income should be implemented to allow everyone to participate in the market, with a minimum intervention by a government. That would imply tax, of course, but just a minimum, clear, concise and transparent tax with that sole purpose. Because how would the people without money have their basic rights ensured?
Zequez Ezequiel Schwartzman I disagree with you completely, I think a basic income is a terrible idea: if money is given to all people equally, 1. Companies could simply raise prices 2. The currency would be worth less.
Anon Ymous How is that? A GBI would imply some form of taxation, thus dead weight loss economically, but it would have no direct bearing on the value of the currency.
Zequez, how about we start by getting rid of "government land" and letting people homestead what is not actually owned by someone. Right now, many people have no way to get land, build a home, grow food, hunt and fish, etc. without government control. Let able-bodied people have a chance to be self-sufficient. Let families and communities help the elderly and the sick. Then see who still cannot have their basic needs met. I would not be in favour of any type of communist-leaning solution such as you suggest.
Canadian Health care system is more efficient (by 5 times) than the American health care system. Which makes up 20% of the GDP. That's just one example. You argument is invalid.
This is described in the interview. To paraphrase, an economy is efficient when every good that has more value to the buyer than it costs the seller is produced. Presumably, ‘more efficient’ means closer to this ideal.
I agree, since I usually think of the two drug dealers fighting over the same corner for business. It would still be interesting to run a social experiment to prove or disprove of a stateless society. Do I think it would work? Nope.
Criminal drug dealers exist because Prohibition creates and protects them. Without the state, would *all* commerce be monopolized by thugs? (Are there enough thugs?) You might look up the "lex mercatoria".
Yeah so people with more money will just have free reign to inflict ANY horrible deed on anyone they arbitrarily feel like. Great system, if you have money
Since the economy, language, and other human traits evolve in a non-directed way, how can this economist so clearly state how an economy using rights enforcement agencies would develop sans government. This non-economist can easily see people collectively choosing violence to settle disputes and differences of resources.
Gary Livesey By analogy, evolution happens in a non-directed way, that is, without being steered at a consciously chosen end. If one understands the forces and mechanisms, one can make better educated guesses as to where it's going in any given situation. One could, I'm making up an example, perhaps guess how frogs vs. storks would develop in a more water-rich environment than what actually exists at place X. Likewise, if one understands the forces and mechanisms which shape how we humans organize our behavior, one can make more educated guesses at how we will behave, especially in cases of conflict. Naturally, any prediction is speculative and nothing is certain in history, but the rational actor paradigm and economic thought has, I think, a _reasonable_ if imperfect track record.
@maxwellnolan ".Some of the richest people in the world work the least..." Oh, you people... Trying to disprove an anarchic society with example from the current one. In a truely free market without barrier to entry and special favors from the government, it would be more difficult to become rich without hard work and enginuity. (cont)
I know. Don't get me wrong. I am an Anarchy leaning Minarchist. But, I still have some doubts about complete Anarchy. For example, a dad sexually abusing his 13 year old daughter. How does she get out of this situation in Anarchy?
From birth, every person has the basic natural rights of life, property, and specifically, individual sovereignty. Children aren't property, as ones own body is their own property. The regional law may differ, but the father in the hypothetical scenario would be infringing on his daughters individual sovereignty and would face the ramifications of the regional law of that region.
What this is describing in essence is simply replacing our current justice and legal departments with insurance companies. All crime or breach of rights would be settled by organizations that offer to their customers reparations in the event of harm. The thought is horrifying to me on multiple levels, not the least of which because I live in the US, where insurance companies are by and large the most unethical and shady businesses in the country, and profit handsomely by being so.
Exactly! Please let the "pseudo scientific economists" and "libertarian dip-shits" start one and test that theory so this conversation can go away. Economics 101 starts with supply-and-demand, and microeconomics. Macro deals with the larger economy and the impact of government "central planning and state fiscal stimulation." Economics is a field of study, and does not advocate any specific policy implications--economists do, yes; but the discipline is neutral.
This hypothetical world u describe sounds a lot like socialanarchism.The whole concept of socialism/anarchism(which Im all for) is about,"neighbors all chipping in.U say,"community could offer." Where do u think the word communism comes from?Community/communism. When u start privatizing things,some have some don't.Its as simple as that.That's why some people walk around without healthcare or w/out shelter or hungry in the real world.Would poor people be better off in ur hypothetical world?
How would poor people afford anything in a free society? Poor means just having money relative to the prices of certain goods. I'm a poor bastard because I can't afford a Ferrari, but I can afford a bike. So I'll get the bike agency, because there isn't much to insure anyways.
Are all bachelors single? Or do we need to go out and verify that all bachelors do indeed possess such a quality? Empirical verification of necessary truths isn't necessary. It's not any more pseudo-scientific than mathematics. The difference is in the approach each takes to obtaining knowledge.
You're way off with your anarchism and or socialism and I dont have time to explain.But do me a favor, and define hard work.Some of the richest people in the world work the least...And since when is food property?Is air property too? These are basic necessities that in a better world would not have to be bought.
Also how is having a monopoly on food inspection with the FDA better than private competing publication companies who could shine light on their competition taking bribes, corruption etc..
Tragedy of the commons is easy. It's an interesting thought experiment but fallacious argument. "If people share a common resource some will abuse it, ~ ergo there can't be a common resource. That's a terrible argument. It implies that commons are not useful, which they measurably very much are, and It implies problems withing a commons model means it should be owned, which is measurably false, Example: Detroit-Windsor Bridge billionaire owned.
@@DeadEndFrog mutual aid is two or more parties codependant on one another. I screw you i screw myself. While i fully support charity its disingenuous to say that is the only option. People also severly limit a free market to just money and business when economics is a study of human interaction as a whole. Even your relationships with friends and family are considered market exchanges. You give and receive emotional labor this leads to other benifits from the relationship like one caring enough to help the other when they are in need. Theres also abstract beliefs that add even more to this but in the end youre not solely relying on peoples good nature thats not even the case in the status quo. The reason why we hate the state doing these things is its taking from us Coercively to give to someone mostly people you dont know that you probably dont get anything from
@@joshualocicero6799 i know what it is, but as with all aid, its at the mercy of someone else. So your really saying is that your depending on someone else to see the 'gain' in helping you, and then helping you with that intent that it will in turn help them. Its as i said, being at the mercy of others. I don't disagree on the rest, and i don't defend the states practices, im saying theres always a trade-off. A person with no money, no friends, and no (valued) skills is better off in a country which forces people to give him benifits, rather then being at their mercy. Thats why people with disabilities have it better off in modern countries
@@DeadEndFrog youre complaining about mercy of others but in that respect its no different but youre advocating theft. Sorry your argument makes no sense anyways people don't deserve shit simply for existing if someone has absolutly noone they probably arent a good person.
The reason we don't have private defense agencies and this sensible anarchist society is that that wars between them can be fought and won by attacking a few in leadership. If you are a leader who doesn't remove weak leadership you are the weak leadership and you will be removed. Merit is secondary to politics in today's world. Pseudo-anonymity can change that.
I practically came when I saw this in my subscription box. David Friedman is my favourite economist by a long way. He is an unrecognised genius in my view.
No - It's objective - regardless of your view. Unrecognized and Genius. Perfect description.
I wholeheartedly agree. I just finished Machinery of Freedom and it's excellent!
The man who can say "I was wrong" is really saying "I am wiser now than I was before". Thanks for the assist.
Yes, but you must also factor in a few more things:
1. In a society like this, there would be MANY more wealthy people, as it would be much easier to obtain since you will no longer have to deal with the most destructive force to wealth that has ever existed: rulers and governments.
2. People would still be just as charitable as they are now. With more wealth access, more people would be capable of taking care of those who are truly in need.
We would be better off.
That is a nice point, but Mr. Friedman puts up a case is his book, The Machinery of Freedom, that better explains why national defense is a tough case: nuclear bombarding. If a nation neighboor to a stateless society sends a nuclear missile towards it, it doesn't matter which borders it crosses, once it does, the damage is too high for many people in that particular region. That's why collective defense is a public good. Whoever pays for it is paying for a great deal of other people.
It's not about how HARD you work but how much it is VALUED by other people.
David Friedman is truly a great intellectual. Just like his father the late Milton Friedman. Glad to see him further develop the ideas his had laid forth.
love this guy
I second that thought…
Regarding healthcare systems, my wife is a physician and could write you an entire book about how the idiotic tax and regulatory structures destroy the price system and cause the predictable rise in healthcare costs that we've seen. Free market economists have in fact been predicting these things for decades. But I don't have anywhere near the time or the inclination to do that. If you honestly want to understand where I'm coming from please read Economic in One Lesson by Hazlitt.
Awesome Video Thank you!
I was mulling this over earlier and you are correct. Well said; I cede you the point.
lol yea dude gets ya thinking
What a mind. PhD in physics, but teaches Law and Economics at university instead. Fascinating and talented libertarian theorist! 🖤💛🐍
I've read Friedman and watched the PBS series, his hypotheses on human nature and economics have been dismissed by many in the field. Economics is a soft science decided into two apposing hypothesis, Total free markets or democratic markets. Guess which one has never been tested? Guess which one fails when ever testing is attempted?
National defense can be provided for by military defense clause on mortgages, loans, financing contracts. Any decent financier will want to protect the value of their assets and collateral. Therefore they will require military insurance as a condition for their loans. While true that some people who pay cash or have no assets will be free riders, that will be a small minority of people.
What national defense in the first place, if there are no nation states?
@@whatsthebigfukindeal youre assuming there arent any when you shouldn't
@@whatsthebigfukindeal Well you could also call it Free Private City defense.
Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
@@wurzel9671 call it what you want
how would you pay for it?
@@robinsss read the parent comment and then the comment I replied to
Lol
This is brilliant, David is a chip off the old block, smarter than his father in my view. After taking into account for the advances in Blockchain Technology, Sea steading etc... This will work
less known than the father though
27:25 Wikipedia, the best voluntary public good model I've ever seen.
git hub, arduino, open source coding in general, open source design platforms, fkng youtube tutorials
I think this is a very strong philosophy. He concedes to some level that his his ideas do not equally apply to national defense, but I think the problem is not in his theory, but rather, the question. Nation defense is border protection. Nations are the product of government, there is no need to defend them or even mind them without government to in the first place. You don't have to explain how to defend that State in a stateless system. A private rights agency can represent those anywhere.
It is a "public good" in the sense that it is a good open for public consumption, and for the purposes of a free rider problem discussion. It is a good, anyone can partake, there is no restricted access.
When the outcome of every judicial decision dictates which of two parties benefits financially isn't it painstakingly obvious that bribery and corruption will be rife?
No because its not compulsory and the courts dependent on reputation so the incentives make that nearly impossible unlike our current system where thats pretyy much normal behavior of the courts
No PvP!? SWG was great, I think it probably had the best simulated economy of any game yet. Valuable resources discovered on a new planet, player cities spring up, cities positioned closest to transport links compete for traders, who pay to have their shops in the centres. The best organised towns get the most visitors and collect the most taxes, get the best facilities. Item quality varies and good artisans and traders get reputation. Really exciting game.
Conflict resolution is hampered by two forces; the inability of a each side to see the other's point of view and the instinct to get even. If those irrational forces can be eliminated, conflicts would be resolved through reason. That role is performed now by government because it is thought by both sides to be large enough to be dispassionate. A society-wide meme must be adopted that dismisses the assumption that private agencies would inherit the above two irrational forces from their clients.
@janc71 "And since when is food property?"
Do you even understand the concept of property? It's the exclusive right to a certain object. When you eat an apple, you implicitely make such a claim, because noene else can eat/use it after you've eaten it. Eating an apple IS appropriating the apple, whether you like it or not. And since nobody's complainign that you eat the apple, people apparently acknowledge that is IS your rightfull property.
No, contextually speaking, a public good is one that is socially owned. Wikipedia isn't. At any point the owners could shut down the site and take it away from the public without any legal recourse.
The lack of restrictions are allowed by the owners. It is them using their property in the manner in which they see fit.
I have two gates in my backyard, one in the front and one in the back. If I was to ALLOW people to pass through it as they pleased, it does not cease to be my private property.
Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
So good.
Did all those books you read teach you about "externalities?" The existance of externalities is to economics what genetics is to Biology.
You can't have a functional free market economy if there are elements within it that are destroying other markets. Kind of like the Godzilla of all externalities, global warming.
Obviously the issue is far too complicated for either side to convince the other in the limited space of a RUclips comment. If you could recommend any specific books that provide the strongest arguments for your ideas toward classical liberals or libertarians, please reply; I am actually genuinely interested in counter-arguments. For example, to learn a simple approach to the classical-liberal philosphy, I would recommend Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" or "Free to Choose."
You know the answer to that. I don't have anywhere near enough room to respond in this format. But if you are interested in understanding our take on such things, I'd start with the tragedy of the commons, which we both know you won't do, drone.
Lucrative to who, exactly? The government? It's private businesses that ultimately find it lucrative.
War is not a lucrative thing. Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy? That applies directly.
While at first people will get advantages via wealth, it will ultimately depend on your real value.
While you have arms, legs, a brain you are worth something to someone.
Even as a 120 year old sick guy you are still worthy of medical study vs thrown on a scrap heap.
Taking the radio program idea and using it for national defense you make a spectacle of militias with NAS car and monster truck like shows as groups compete against each other for prizes in nonlethal combat that can translate to real world war scenarios. With sponsors and advertising.
work = have a successful outcome. I don't regard the current centralization of government power to work either. I don't know if such a society would work, and I only make a complete judgement after knowing the results. My "gut" feeling is that a stateless society would not work.
security, courts, and national security can be provided better by private companies
***** but that's what we got now, can i get it for less :)
Bang! dead rich man and his army of lawyers run for the hills. That is what happens when you leave your opponent no peaceful options and you do not negotiate.
+Barskor Why wouldn't the rich man be able to hire an army of security personnel as well as or instead of the lawyers?
Better a dream world than the nightmare we live in today...Besides,if you had asked your average person a few hundred years ago about whether democracy is possible or whether the abolition of slavery is possible they would have thought you were nuts and living in a dream world. Maybe anarchy is no more unrealistic than were those reforms.
Advertising is not necessarily a "negative good" with "negative value." Think of the Super bowl where millions of people view the game , JUST to see the new and sometimes amazing Advertisements. I think this happens more often than many people think. My son often complains when I switch the TV or radio channels when there is a commercial on.
So while a primary complaint against statism is that people don't like being forced to pay taxes to support welfare, education, and other public services, you think they will do it willingly? If society as a whole willingly paid for programs, then taxes wouldn't have to be levied to meet demand in the first place, people would just automatically donate more money to their local school districts, family services, local job rehabilitation centers, etc.
It's not that they can't, they just don't.
just as you buy health insurance, you would buy insurance with your particular agency. because free market - the price would have to be affordable for large amount of people (because agencies obviously want to make as much profit as possible) thus it would be much more cheaper than now. today, you are forced to buy it with the state. in anarchist society, the choice would ultimately law on your shoulders. ergo - nobody would force you to buy anything.
Really? I've always gotten good service from State Farm insurance. Maybe you should shop around. I'd shop around for another government, but alas, Washington has a monopoly over most of the continent.
Why would they lose their customers? Wouldn't people that WANTED to bribe the judge be more likely to chose them? I see it the other way around: Government is benign until the greed of business corrupts it.
Both are Libertarian Gods in their own right (which is an ironic term to itself)
@maxwellnolan Agencies could easily be made affordable a couple of ways- first, you and your neighbors could all chip in (a community could offer a protection agency as a benefit of paying dues, alongside other things like road repair) and also your insurance company would be apt to hire one or at least subsidize the cost in order to protect themselves from having to payout in the event of a health injury or death in the case of life insurance.
In one sense this is true but it still needs to be explained. Friedman's approach to market anarchism is gradualist in nature and there is no reason to assume that market anarchy will take over the entire world at once and so stateless societies would have to deal with the possibility of dealing with external states. Do the people in the area of the Carolina's ignore someone invading the area of Georgia or do they help ward off potential invasion of their own geographic region at a later time?
I'm always happy to pay for the things I choose to use. Almost every public service I've seen wouldn't stand a chance of getting my money in a free society, they're too inept and inefficient. You could have said "welcome to the 19th century" or whatever to a slave. Just because society works a particular way doesn't make it smart or moral. The current system is neither.
It's a really nice voice to listen to. This video would be even better if you could provide us with a transcription.
We would, if you put down the gun. Until you are willing to give us the same respect we give you, to not stick your nose in our affairs at gunpoint, you will not get or deserve an ounce of respect. This conversation is over until you are willing to (1) put the gun down like a civilized person and (2) genuinely try to understand why we seek a free society.
This system sounds interesting but it takes more than one man to brainstorm on this topic in order to conclude if this way is the right way to live with these rules without potential loop-holes that provide unnecessary consequences.
What do you do to punish a neighbor who rapes his daughter? His rights protection agency won't punish him, yours won't, and if you punish him, you have to deal with his agency.
Rape is a violation of the NAP so I'm not sure why in your hypothesis the protection agency wouldn't pick up the case
I would argue that Rothbard imposes his moral beliefs to his world view on others who may disagree making in some sense authoritarian. I think Friedman offers the best form of anarcho-capitalism that allows choice. His anarcho-capitalism is the only form that is really is anarchy
@janc71 "These are basic necessities that in a better world would not have to be bought."
You are living in a fantasyland (at least you'd wish). Food doesn't magically appear out of nothing. It costs time and energy to plant/grow/harvest/prepare it. That fact alone already shows that there's no such thing as a free lunch. It costs time/labor/energy. Buying something with money is indirect labor, and could be seen as 'transfering energy/labor'.
But if you can create abundance, be my guest.
Why would anybody need to be convinced of a blatantly obvious fact? The fact being that rich people will just buy the law, team up with other rich people to buy the entire law and then do whatever they want in any way. Just think of it, it's a no brainer. It's already happening around you.
Can you suggest any fictional accounts of societies based on the ideas Dr. Friedman presents in this talk?
Welcome to the 21 century. Where every major city is a marvel of civic projects, research universities, roads, justice systems and police. Feel free to enjoy it for free, Oh,wait, no it's not free. If you want to stay you have to help pay.
I suggest Uganda if you want to live in a free society with no taxes. Good luck. I'm sure the good and services will be crazy cheap there.
Do you not find it ironic that people such as yourself who want all civic projects handed over to non-accountable private capital don't stop and think that this might be a bad idea?
That perhaps having one person own the main bridge in town might slow progress rather than help it?
@TheMawification "Socialism" is an incredibly vague term and has been that way for over a century. Individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Josiah Warren closer views to David Friedman that to anarcho-communists, yet they all still referred to themselves as a "socialists".
/watch?v=Q3uCQ-0xpnM
i can call my self a pretty butterfly, but that doesn't make me pretty nor a butterfly, so the problem there is not the term
This man is the reason we cannot judge a man's intelligence by the layout of his website.
This video is amazing, but the single page of crammed text... it hurts my eyes.
I can't speak for how much he purely believes these ideas. Friedman's ideas seem to be more of a thought experiment of a how a free society might function with no government, if you push free market ideas to the absolute extreme. Whether or not it might actually look like this is anyone's best guess. I personally don't buy into all of it, but I can appreciate an alternative point of view that asks me to challenge conventional wisdom. At the very least, a free society is worth dreaming about.
What's scary is you think you know anything about North korea. What would we think of someone in the 1940's that didn't know anything about NAZI Germany? North Korea is a religious oligarchic with a wealthy upper class and large peasant class. There has never been a free market. When Chinese companies are allowed to buy oil companies in Texas or Saudis are allowed to by ports in the US come talk to me about free markets.
At the end of the day we control our markets. That's a democracy.
I support so many of David's ideas, and I would love to live under such a system, but how would we get this into action in the USA or any other country?
I recommend looking up the word agorism. I dont think well get to this point using any other method.
david isn't an anarchist he says he is but in his book of machinery of freedom he doesn't show how a society would work with no government, he is like oh we should have subcities where mayors rule over 100,000 people and he talks about taxes.
@@voluntarism335 he is but he isn't dogmatic in his positions he's mostly a utilitarian and argues he can be wrong. Machinery is about an anarchist legal system so ya of course it doesn't get into everything
@@joshualocicero6799 why would he put statist solutions into his book if he is supposedly an ancap?
@@joshualocicero6799 how is having a subcity mayor ruling over 100,000 people imposing taxes at any rate they like anarchist?
The most artificial artificial..Free Markets must exist with society..The machine can't stand chance.
are you serious dude? did you just say the economy would be worse without the stimulus? money printing can never help only harm.. unless you're one of the multi billionaires that gets the money first..
The Punisher could make this way easier.
I agree.
North Korea is a religious dictatorship, A kingdom. If you can't tell the difference there is a problem.
Governmental systems allow for not-for-profit and transparency. If you actually think for a minute about your civic duties you would see this.
Is there a problem with my speakers, or does this man not articulate full sentences properly? Almost all of his sentences start out at a rather loud volume and end in a barely audible mumble.
I KNOW What You Mean but that's just hmmm...
Okay, so in this anarcho-capitalist future, my security/rights agency, and the security/rights agency of the defendant/accused, agree to a third party arbitration in advance. How is this fundamentally than a gov't? I mean at some point you will be delegating authority to someone who will act without your direct approval, or may act in a way direct against what you perceive to be your rights. Isn't that exactly what libertarians object to in a gov't?
It is different because you are choosing from the options created in the market. That means that different disputes may be handled by different arbitrators based on the preference of the individuals party to the contract. These arbitrators come and go based on their performance and price. With government, there is no market as everyone is forced to pay taxes to support it whether they like the performance or not, so long as some majority keeps candidates in office. If you don't pay your taxes, armed men will come to your door to kidnap you, or worse, kill you if you feel like you have a right to defend yourself from their violation of your liberty. With the arbitration agency, you can, at will (or according to contract terms), change your manner of defense and arbitration agency and do not have to depend on the views of others to make decisions which you agree with.
So, it is completely different.
Wouldn't that just descend into tribalism? I mean if we are shopping around for cars or appliances, that's one thing. But for security matters we would gravitate to the choices in the market that would best represent our rights (even if we are wrong) which means these would quickly devolve into tribal identities that would function as gov'ts. If an arbitration goes against me, I'll go to one that I know will go my way most of the time. Just like any consumer would. That's not a new system. That's an old system. The oldest on earth in fact.
Maybe in a technological future where I can affordably defend myself from all incursions on my rights (personal forcefield, whatever) then we could have an anarcho-capitalist system. Until then, I think a minarchist state is still preferable.
Travis Clark First, the implementation of anarcho-capitalism is assuming that people have come to the realization that government is the problem. In that case, people would not look for government-like structures to solve their problems. The reason why people do and have looked toward government is because of an indoctrination bias resulting from our societies arising from tribal and patriarchal societies to begin with. IOW, we have always been in a constant state of childhood in a sense, seeking a parental figure to place our fears on. Government fills this role today.
So if society were to enter an anarcho-capitalist society without coming to that realization, then absolutely we could fall back into government, or parts of our society could.
The other factor is that there may be multiple defense agencies in the same region. Its not like there is going to be some defined border where everyone within that border uses the same defense agency. I mean, that may happen occasionally.
Ultimately, cost and price will dictate how these agencies function. It won't be as simple to say, "I want an agency that will kill whoever robs me." An agency that goes to that extent will likely take on too much risk and go out of business.
There is a video series called "Law Without Government", it may answer some of these questions for you.
At first the idea seemed silly, but now it sounds like a pretty solid alternative. Although I don't believe in a complete anarchism, I believe a basic income should be implemented to allow everyone to participate in the market, with a minimum intervention by a government. That would imply tax, of course, but just a minimum, clear, concise and transparent tax with that sole purpose. Because how would the people without money have their basic rights ensured?
Zequez Ezequiel Schwartzman I disagree with you completely, I think a basic income is a terrible idea: if money is given to all people equally, 1. Companies could simply raise prices 2. The currency would be worth less.
Anon Ymous How is that? A GBI would imply some form of taxation, thus dead weight loss economically, but it would have no direct bearing on the value of the currency.
M Stob 1. Companies could simply raise prices 2. the money has to be stolen by force and given to other people.
Zequez, how about we start by getting rid of "government land" and letting people homestead what is not actually owned by someone. Right now, many people have no way to get land, build a home, grow food, hunt and fish, etc. without government control. Let able-bodied people have a chance to be self-sufficient. Let families and communities help the elderly and the sick. Then see who still cannot have their basic needs met. I would not be in favour of any type of communist-leaning solution such as you suggest.
Unless you factor in administrative costs fraud and incompetence and then it is a drain rather than a zero sum event.
Canadian Health care system is more efficient (by 5 times) than the American health care system. Which makes up 20% of the GDP. That's just one example. You argument is invalid.
What about private defense agencies and insurance companies providing defense?
Do you have anymore essay or book recommendations?
More efficient by what measure?
This is described in the interview. To paraphrase, an economy is efficient when every good that has more value to the buyer than it costs the seller is produced. Presumably, ‘more efficient’ means closer to this ideal.
When was this video created?
I agree, since I usually think of the two drug dealers fighting over the same corner for business. It would still be interesting to run a social experiment to prove or disprove of a stateless society. Do I think it would work? Nope.
Criminal drug dealers exist because Prohibition creates and protects them. Without the state, would *all* commerce be monopolized by thugs? (Are there enough thugs?) You might look up the "lex mercatoria".
Yea, but what about global economics?
I don't get it... it sounds like everything will depend on how much money you have
No thats the current system where these services are monopolized a competitive market is consumer driven not money driven
Yeah so people with more money will just have free reign to inflict ANY horrible deed on anyone they arbitrarily feel like. Great system, if you have money
This guy is as sharp as a tack.
Since the economy, language, and other human traits evolve in a non-directed way, how can this economist so clearly state how an economy using rights enforcement agencies would develop sans government. This non-economist can easily see people collectively choosing violence to settle disputes and differences of resources.
I don't understand what you mean exactly.
Gary Livesey By analogy, evolution happens in a non-directed way, that is, without being steered at a consciously chosen end. If one understands the forces and mechanisms, one can make better educated guesses as to where it's going in any given situation. One could, I'm making up an example, perhaps guess how frogs vs. storks would develop in a more water-rich environment than what actually exists at place X.
Likewise, if one understands the forces and mechanisms which shape how we humans organize our behavior, one can make more educated guesses at how we will behave, especially in cases of conflict. Naturally, any prediction is speculative and nothing is certain in history, but the rational actor paradigm and economic thought has, I think, a _reasonable_ if imperfect track record.
Has he pushed it to the point of national defense?
Rothbard is libertarian god.
@maxwellnolan ".Some of the richest people in the world work the least..."
Oh, you people... Trying to disprove an anarchic society with example from the current one. In a truely free market without barrier to entry and special favors from the government, it would be more difficult to become rich without hard work and enginuity.
(cont)
Agreed! And I like your ingenuous spelling of ingenuity :-)
@@adrianbartholomew3785 Yeah, my English still isn't perfect (I do try!). 😀
How do you protect the rights of minors in an Anarcho-Capitalist society?
what do you mean by that? Right now minors have very few rights compared to those who have reached the magic 18 and 21 number in USA.
I know. Don't get me wrong. I am an Anarchy leaning Minarchist. But, I still have some doubts about complete Anarchy. For example, a dad sexually abusing his 13 year old daughter. How does she get out of this situation in Anarchy?
From birth, every person has the basic natural rights of life, property, and specifically, individual sovereignty. Children aren't property, as ones own body is their own property. The regional law may differ, but the father in the hypothetical scenario would be infringing on his daughters individual sovereignty and would face the ramifications of the regional law of that region.
+Barskor You think the girl's father won't have hired a defence contractor of his own to protect him against such intrusions of his privacy?
What this is describing in essence is simply replacing our current justice and legal departments with insurance companies. All crime or breach of rights would be settled by organizations that offer to their customers reparations in the event of harm. The thought is horrifying to me on multiple levels, not the least of which because I live in the US, where insurance companies are by and large the most unethical and shady businesses in the country, and profit handsomely by being so.
Exactly! Please let the "pseudo scientific economists" and "libertarian dip-shits" start one and test that theory so this conversation can go away. Economics 101 starts with supply-and-demand, and microeconomics. Macro deals with the larger economy and the impact of government "central planning and state fiscal stimulation." Economics is a field of study, and does not advocate any specific policy implications--economists do, yes; but the discipline is neutral.
a threat of violence from the thief rather than the thief's security agency
This hypothetical world u describe sounds a lot like socialanarchism.The whole concept of socialism/anarchism(which Im all for) is about,"neighbors all chipping in.U say,"community could offer." Where do u think the word communism comes from?Community/communism. When u start privatizing things,some have some don't.Its as simple as that.That's why some people walk around without healthcare or w/out shelter or hungry in the real world.Would poor people be better off in ur hypothetical world?
How would poor people afford anything in a free society? Poor means just having money relative to the prices of certain goods. I'm a poor bastard because I can't afford a Ferrari, but I can afford a bike. So I'll get the bike agency, because there isn't much to insure anyways.
Are all bachelors single? Or do we need to go out and verify that all bachelors do indeed possess such a quality?
Empirical verification of necessary truths isn't necessary. It's not any more pseudo-scientific than mathematics. The difference is in the approach each takes to obtaining knowledge.
Martin George Hall Barbara Taylor David
insurance has 30 percent profit
daycare
healthcare
home
security
employment
freedom
democracy
You're way off with your anarchism and or socialism and I dont have time to explain.But do me a favor, and define hard work.Some of the richest people in the world work the least...And since when is food property?Is air property too? These are basic necessities that in a better world would not have to be bought.
Also how is having a monopoly on food inspection with the FDA better than private competing publication companies who could shine light on their competition taking bribes, corruption etc..
Tragedy of the commons is easy. It's an interesting thought experiment but fallacious argument.
"If people share a common resource some will abuse it, ~ ergo there can't be a common resource.
That's a terrible argument.
It implies that commons are not useful, which they measurably very much are, and It implies problems withing a commons model means it should be owned, which is measurably false, Example: Detroit-Windsor Bridge billionaire owned.
A man with no money would have 'more freedom' in a country that forces you to give to the poor, rather then being at the mercy of charity.
Charity is very limited scope to a much broader scope that includes mutual aid
@@joshualocicero6799 sure, but either way, your at the mercy of others.
@@DeadEndFrog mutual aid is two or more parties codependant on one another. I screw you i screw myself. While i fully support charity its disingenuous to say that is the only option. People also severly limit a free market to just money and business when economics is a study of human interaction as a whole. Even your relationships with friends and family are considered market exchanges. You give and receive emotional labor this leads to other benifits from the relationship like one caring enough to help the other when they are in need. Theres also abstract beliefs that add even more to this but in the end youre not solely relying on peoples good nature thats not even the case in the status quo. The reason why we hate the state doing these things is its taking from us Coercively to give to someone mostly people you dont know that you probably dont get anything from
@@joshualocicero6799 i know what it is, but as with all aid, its at the mercy of someone else. So your really saying is that your depending on someone else to see the 'gain' in helping you, and then helping you with that intent that it will in turn help them. Its as i said, being at the mercy of others.
I don't disagree on the rest, and i don't defend the states practices, im saying theres always a trade-off. A person with no money, no friends, and no (valued) skills is better off in a country which forces people to give him benifits, rather then being at their mercy. Thats why people with disabilities have it better off in modern countries
@@DeadEndFrog youre complaining about mercy of others but in that respect its no different but youre advocating theft. Sorry your argument makes no sense anyways people don't deserve shit simply for existing if someone has absolutly noone they probably arent a good person.
miltons son smashing it up son booo ya
Guilty Pre-Chance
I prefer his father's ideas
Virtually the same
I prefer his ideas. Anarcho capitalism makes me swoon
why wouldn't this imaginary society devolve into another Sicily with mafioso??
The reason we don't have private defense agencies and this sensible anarchist society is that that wars between them can be fought and won by attacking a few in leadership. If you are a leader who doesn't remove weak leadership you are the weak leadership and you will be removed. Merit is secondary to politics in today's world. Pseudo-anonymity can change that.
....who's wars were paid for by....taxation.
End of story.
How do you believe wars are paid for today in the US?
You can spot a lie when the nod is left to right, as oppose to up and down.
I was always more of an EverQuest guy