Hey can we have a) a video on decoding Keynesian terms b) a video debunking the myth that corporations would take over under libertarianism or c) your take on recent events regarding conservative riots
Especially B. Thats a big reason that drives people away. They think that monopolies would get even worst when the opposite is true. In a libertarian society there is little to no government for meritless monopolies to weaponize against their competition, little to no intellectual property to hold hostage from the rest of the world. The markets would decentralize, not centralize.
@@CeaddaOfMercia some non aggressive and non coercive actions are immoral and called immoral by true libertarians many people think that libertarianism is summed up in the NAP but that's not true the NAP only addresses violations of our negative rights the right to free from coercion and aggression libertarianism also addresses are positive rights these are actins that don't involve aggression or coercion violations of our negative and positives rights are both immoral
As for the communists, they would be entirely entitled to establish their own voluntary commune if they so chose, and would also become subject to the competition of societies. If by some miracle they produced a prosperous and fair society, others would have the opportunity to join them.
0:55 "to employ violence against another human is a performative contradiction" The performative contradiction arises when attempting to justify aggressive violence. "It is easier to commit murder than to justify it." -Papinianus.
All moral frameworks, good or evil (from our own view) have a real physical objective basis of reality behind them. No one says a human flapping their arms and flying is immoral, simply impossible. While I respect Hoppe, and while I fully believe in the NAP as my central belief, I cannot accept the idea that it is somehow an objective moral or legal framework outside of my own subjective opinion and resolve to take action to enforce it. Morality is a product on the marketplace of ideals, and the NAP is not some objective law of nature. It is not law outside of our own resolve to enforce the law of the NAP. Every action that can be taken, may be taken. It's up to us to see that we prevent actions we view to be immoral from occurring. Egoist miss the mark by calling morality a "spook" as some derogatory term, but they are right in that the basis of morality is subjective desire and opinion, they are objectively correct on that basis as there is no such thing as an objective moral or legal framework of action outside of the laws of physics. The NAP is a legal framework only if we can enforce it, and we must enforce it more than we have now if we wish to see it succeed.
Why is violence not allowed, if someone tried to infringe on your rights it would make sense that violence should be a reasonable response. Also I like your explanation on how taxes violate the idea of capitalism.
why did "God emperor ,Slayer of Europa , Tamer of Scotland and Lover of the pearl of the Orient-Boris Jhonson the Furry Haired" decide to close down your country abruptly.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually gotten around to reading _Democracy_ yet, just pieces of it in commentaries. Why could there not be a covenant community based on democracy or even a sort of communism? If all members of the community voluntarily agree to abide by the results of some voting method or to share their property with each other, where is the issue? Why must a covenant community based on defending property place limits on free speech? If the ideas of libertarianism are in fact correct, then they should be able to withstand criticism rather than having to resort to exclusion. Perhaps this is unfair and he has simply been mischaracterized, but it seems to be a recurring theme with Hoppe where he uses the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law so to speak (and in some areas outright advocates for the use of coercive state force).
I agree, there could be covenant communities based on democracy or even small scale communism as long as everyone who is involve within voluntarily agrees. I've ask this question before (if communists can live within 'ancapistan' as long as they don't force it to others), unfortunately I haven't got a response from anglo, though the response from other people agrees on my point. I have seen a video of anglo addressing how libertarian unity would look like (panarchy) which I fully agree with. I disagree on the idea that we should ostracize communists through Hoppeanism however people are still free to do so. Besides Hoppeanism still requires social cohesion (In that, people should agree to ostracize the same people) to achieve physical removal which is impossible in my opinion.
Hey can we have a) a video on decoding Keynesian terms b) a video debunking the myth that corporations would take over under libertarianism or c) your take on recent events regarding conservative riots
I gave my very short take regaring C on my Instagram, so I'll make A and B my next few videos 👍
Especially B. Thats a big reason that drives people away. They think that monopolies would get even worst when the opposite is true. In a libertarian society there is little to no government for meritless monopolies to weaponize against their competition, little to no intellectual property to hold hostage from the rest of the world. The markets would decentralize, not centralize.
@@CeaddaOfMercia I did try to look at your instergram but I can’t find it.
@@CeaddaOfMercia some non aggressive and non coercive actions are immoral and called immoral by true libertarians
many people think that libertarianism is summed up in the NAP
but that's not true
the NAP only addresses violations of our negative rights
the right to free from coercion and aggression
libertarianism also addresses are positive rights
these are actins that don't involve aggression or coercion
violations of our negative and positives rights are both immoral
Missed you Anglo hope you dont go crazy because of the third lockdown.
As a sensible person I am going to like this video before I even began watching it.
Welcome back to the game, by the way!
Welcome back Anglo.
3:20 We had a discussion about this this in the discord yesterday and came to the same conclusion
Is it a paid discord?
@@bboobs yes
As for the communists, they would be entirely entitled to establish their own voluntary commune if they so chose, and would also become subject to the competition of societies. If by some miracle they produced a prosperous and fair society, others would have the opportunity to join them.
Anglo and stoicism
why am I not surprised?
I mean he is British 😂
Welcome back Sir, bloody well done video. Changed my mind. I always thought Ancap was moral, but the legal argument is airtight
Very Good video
This Private Law stuff needs cleaning up alittle, but the stuff is a gold mine.
Who would make a video focused on homesteading?
Agreed! Good suggestion
Missed your content Anglo
0:55 "to employ violence against another human is a performative contradiction"
The performative contradiction arises when attempting to justify aggressive violence.
"It is easier to commit murder than to justify it." -Papinianus.
Both? both sounds good.
Dare you to actually replace the lion with miki
In your opinion, what age do you think people can consent?
14? 15? 16? 17?
Or is it subjective?
Ay Anglo, good to have you back. Btw where is the link for your discord?
Discord invites are for RUclips and SubscribeStar members only I'm afraid
All moral frameworks, good or evil (from our own view) have a real physical objective basis of reality behind them. No one says a human flapping their arms and flying is immoral, simply impossible. While I respect Hoppe, and while I fully believe in the NAP as my central belief, I cannot accept the idea that it is somehow an objective moral or legal framework outside of my own subjective opinion and resolve to take action to enforce it. Morality is a product on the marketplace of ideals, and the NAP is not some objective law of nature. It is not law outside of our own resolve to enforce the law of the NAP. Every action that can be taken, may be taken. It's up to us to see that we prevent actions we view to be immoral from occurring. Egoist miss the mark by calling morality a "spook" as some derogatory term, but they are right in that the basis of morality is subjective desire and opinion, they are objectively correct on that basis as there is no such thing as an objective moral or legal framework of action outside of the laws of physics. The NAP is a legal framework only if we can enforce it, and we must enforce it more than we have now if we wish to see it succeed.
Where’s my pet monke
Yaaayy
Rothbard Once said " what if the child consents tho? "
Why is violence not allowed, if someone tried to infringe on your rights it would make sense that violence should be a reasonable response.
Also I like your explanation on how taxes violate the idea of capitalism.
Look to his statements on Tony Martin in the "gun control is dead" video if you want a clarification.
Agression against an agressor doesn't count as agression
why did "God emperor ,Slayer of Europa , Tamer of Scotland and Lover of the pearl of the Orient-Boris Jhonson the Furry Haired" decide to close down your country abruptly.
"AE doesn't claim a value. It instead shows it to be a normative fact that ..."
What is a "normative fact"?
Normative means "what ought to be done". In other words, Anglo messed up semantically-most likely hoping someone doesn't notice
Do you have discord channel? If it’s yes can someone put the link below?
Discord invites are for RUclips and SubscribeStar members only I'm afraid
Disclaimer: I haven't actually gotten around to reading _Democracy_ yet, just pieces of it in commentaries. Why could there not be a covenant community based on democracy or even a sort of communism? If all members of the community voluntarily agree to abide by the results of some voting method or to share their property with each other, where is the issue? Why must a covenant community based on defending property place limits on free speech? If the ideas of libertarianism are in fact correct, then they should be able to withstand criticism rather than having to resort to exclusion. Perhaps this is unfair and he has simply been mischaracterized, but it seems to be a recurring theme with Hoppe where he uses the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law so to speak (and in some areas outright advocates for the use of coercive state force).
I agree, there could be covenant communities based on democracy or even small scale communism as long as everyone who is involve within voluntarily agrees. I've ask this question before (if communists can live within 'ancapistan' as long as they don't force it to others), unfortunately I haven't got a response from anglo, though the response from other people agrees on my point. I have seen a video of anglo addressing how libertarian unity would look like (panarchy) which I fully agree with.
I disagree on the idea that we should ostracize communists through Hoppeanism however people are still free to do so. Besides Hoppeanism still requires social cohesion (In that, people should agree to ostracize the same people) to achieve physical removal which is impossible in my opinion.
Virgin Argumentation Ethics vs Chad Virtue Epistemology