Criticisms of Freedom - An Article Review - video Dailymotion

Stefan Molyneux

In this lecture, Stefan examines Ludovic Jullali's critique of anarcho-capitalism through the lens of Robert Nozick's philosophies. Jullali categorizes it as a "dangerous and contradictory doctrine," arguing that its intellectual shortcomings hinder its viability in practice. Jullali discusses natural rights, emphasizing the implications of mutual protection associations in a stateless society.  Stefan contrasts voluntary private protection with state coercion, asserting that the competitive nature of markets limits any single agency's dominance. Stefan addresses economic inefficiencies of state systems and advocates for the evolution of protective agencies that prioritize prevention over reaction to crime. Throughout the lecture, he responds to critiques regarding external threats and competing legal systems, ultimately defending anarcho-capitalism as a framework that promotes individual rights and decentralized governance.  Link to article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374088008_A_Criticism_of_Anarcho-Capitalism  GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK! https://peacefulparenting.com/  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!  You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!  See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Transcript

00:00All right, so returning to some political theory, Ludovic Jolali has a criticism of anarcho-capitalism

00:10And let's have a look at that, this is from 2023

00:16A criticism of anarcho-capitalism

00:19He says, introduction, in the present text the author is animated by the desire to put forward a criticism of the anarcho-capitalist doctrine

00:25Ah yes, doctrine, always the most neutral word that could possibly be used

00:29The author will describe anarcho-capitalism as a dangerous and contradictory doctrine which does deserve damnatio memoriati

00:38I assume that's damnation into the annals of memory

00:42The anarcho-capitalist doctrine, in spite of its interesting investigative acceptation, is unable to materialize itself in the public domain in virtue of its intellectual weakness

00:53All right, whatever, okay

00:56So the big issue he has here, the set of natural rights, this is from Robert Nozick

01:04The set of natural rights, in particular the rights of non-aggression and enforcement, permits individuals in the state of nature to enforce their rights, defend themselves and punish and exact compensation from aggressors

01:15The right of enforcement further allows them to seek recompense for harm done to others

01:20Nozick posits that these rights would lead to groups of individuals to join together in the formation of mutual protection associations

01:26I guess what I call DROs

01:28These protective associations will each establish procedures for intra-association strife as well as conflict between members and non-members

01:36The pressures of a totally free market, the need for division of labor, economies of scale and so on together, blah blah blah

01:41Okay, so he's basically saying that you're going to end up with some sort of police force or, you know, something like that that is going to protect people, all right

01:51The weaker, less efficient associations will go out of business as people flock to the associations which guarantee the best protection for the cheapest cost

01:59Ultimately, a single protective association or federation of United Agencies will gain dominance in a particular geographical area

02:06Nozick calls that association the dominant protective association

02:09Nozick seriously considers the possibility that the dominant protective agency constitutes a minimal political state

02:19And I couldn't disagree with that more strongly if I tried, but we'll sort of get to that

02:24We are thus obligated to understand whether it is really possible to create a stateless society

02:30Nozick has seen a stateless society is condemned, sooner or later, to be characterized by the presence of a form of state, right

02:42And I, again, couldn't disagree more and we'll sort of get into that, right

02:52Let's see

02:59De jure, what is that? I don't know

03:02I know de jure, I think de jure is probably a typo for de jure, unless, of course, it means something else

03:08But de jure, it's in effect, right, a stateless society

03:13The Principle of the Invisible Hand, sponsored by Nozick, states how the citizens living in a stateless society

03:18for putting forward their affairs and preserving their individual, i.e., personal safety

03:22would act in order to favor the appearance of a widespread number of protective associations

03:26The protective association is, de facto, a surrogate of state

03:31The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, does boast a pivotal role in society in virtue of a variety of reasons

03:40The state does exist as an apotropaic institution

03:44Apotropaic simply means having the power to prevent evil, to ward off evil, so it's a way of stopping evil

03:50An apotropaic institution, the apotropaic function of the state, is equal to the state's capacity to avert what is perceived by common sense as evil

03:58The state can put forward its apotropaic function only by publicly boasting force and vindictive power

04:06So, this idea, or argument, that in order to protect your property, people need a coercive institution, which they do, right

04:17And to protect persons and property, they need a coercive institution, okay

04:23And then one of those is going to become the most popular, and that is going to be kind of like a state

04:32And that is, it's so beyond false, I can't even tell you

04:39And I'm going to be annoying here, I guess, as usual

04:45Let me just, yeah, I don't think Robert Nozick did a lot of business stuff

04:53Yeah, so he taught, he received a PhD in philosophy in Princeton, taught at Princeton, Harvard, Rockefeller University

05:02At Harvard for the remainder of his teaching career

05:07Yeah, so no business experience

05:11And it just, it bothers the living hell out of me when people start talking about the business of, say, dispute resolution organizations

05:20Or these sort of protective agencies

05:22They talk about all the business stuff, having never actually worked in business

05:26Now, I mean, one of my strengths as a philosopher and theoretician is I've actually done the stuff that I'm talking about

05:35Like, empirically have done the stuff that I'm talking about

05:39I've worked in business now, as an entrepreneur, for like 30 years, right

05:45So, thinking that a very successful protection agency is going to become like a state

05:53Is fundamentally misunderstanding the longevity and cycle of business, right

06:00So, of the hundred biggest companies at the turn of the 20th century, like three are still in business

06:08Since I was a kid, IBM was the giant, Microsoft barely existed

06:13Now, Microsoft is the giant and so on

06:17So, just the idea that there's going to be this dominant protective agency and that's going to be like a state is bad

06:26So, let's get into his argument

06:28Just because there's a cycle

06:30You have a particular genius who starts the business

06:33And who's he going to get to replace himself?

06:37I mean, maybe some other genius, but they're pretty rare

06:40Entrepreneurial geniuses don't tend to want to take over big existing companies

06:44And there's always going to be something that disrupts the business, right

06:50So, you've got a giant media empire, a newspaper empire, television empire

06:56Then the internet comes along and you've got vloggers and podcasters who eat your lunch

07:01Like the Substack people and all of that, they just eat your lunch completely

07:04There's just constant churn and change, right

07:09You've got this big, giant software company

07:12And then AI comes along and can enable people to write code very quickly, right

07:18So, you have all of this business stuff constantly is getting disrupted, right

07:24You have some big, giant gas and oil company

07:29And then along comes better solar power, better batteries, electric vehicles and so on

07:35And things change quite a bit

07:38So, maintaining the quality of an organization, particularly in a truly free market, right

07:45So, in the existing system, what happens is there are fewer disruptors

07:51Because most people's brains are crippled by absolutely crappy and mind-destroying government schools, right

07:58So, government schools are there to make sure that you don't compete with the powers that be

08:02By being smart and entrepreneurial, creative and curious

08:05So, people just get their brains absolutely shredded and destroyed by government schools

08:11There's less competition

08:13Property rights in terms of intellectual property create a big, giant legal fence

08:18There's lots of patent trolls and so on rolling around

08:21So, it's really tough to break into new markets

08:25Because there's all of these fairly ambiguous intellectual properties, copyrights and patents

08:30And all of this sort of stuff, trademarks that create a huge legal quagmire

08:37There's, of course, endless amounts of licensing and requirements to go through multi-year

08:43And sometimes half a decade to a decade plus hoops in order to be able to perform various functions within society, right

08:53So, then, of course, you have unions, government-sponsored unions that make it very hard to compete

09:01You have tariffs and excise duties and other forms of taxes

09:06You have regulations and OSHA and disparate impact legalities

09:12All kinds of crazy stuff that means it's virtually impossible or very hard to compete with large established companies

09:17Because they're constantly buying up politicians and preventing others from coming into the field, right

09:23So, if you open it up to a true free market, there will be massive amounts of innovation occurring in the protection of property

09:33And, of course, in the protection of property, what we want for the most part is prevention, not cure, right

09:39You would rather, you know, if somebody steals your TV but it can't be started without your thumbprint

09:44That's going to be very, very helpful

09:47If you can reduce the amount of criminality and violence within society

09:53Then people won't need these protection agencies nearly as much, which is the peaceful parenting argument

09:59You raise children peacefully and they are going to not be violent and not be criminals

10:07And, therefore, you're just not going to need these companies very much

10:11So, there's constantly people who are going to find ways

10:14Because the protection agencies for persons and property are going to charge a lot

10:17And there's going to be constantly coming along other companies that want to undercut them

10:22That want to prevent these kinds of things

10:24And even if you have some absolutely brilliant genius dispute resolution organization

10:28Well, it won't be able to copyright its entire business model

10:31And all big companies get sclerotic, they harden their arteries, they get layers and bureaucracy and all kinds of HR nonsense

10:39And then smaller, leaner companies come along that can undercut them and provide better services

10:43Because they can start from scratch, all this kind of stuff

10:45So, this idea that you're going to get some big DRO, some big police and protection agency

10:52That's just going to last like a government, despite the fact that there's constant innovation

10:57And I remember this, of course, when I was in the business world

11:01As a software entrepreneur, man alive, I had to constantly innovate like crazy

11:08I had to come up with wild new ideas, I had to experiment with things, I had to automate things

11:12I had to find ways to produce the software, the customized software, faster and more accurately

11:18And so we'll build web interfaces and integrate with all other kinds of systems

11:23There's just a massive amount of innovation that was required

11:27So, just when people say, well, you're going to get one big DRO and it's going to harden

11:32And just become like a state

11:35It's just people who've never operated in business

11:37In business, you're constantly, again, without the protection of the state

11:40Without the reinforcement of the state and all of that

11:42You're just constantly surfing against absolute creative geniuses

11:46Who are going to eat your lunch unless you eat theirs first

11:49And it's really hard to maintain the growth

11:53So, think of it, you want to think of big corporations in a free society like bands

12:00Like a music band, right?

12:04So, if you look at John Lennon, right?

12:09He had Sean Lennon as kids and Julian Lennon

12:11They're both great musicians

12:13And Julian Lennon had Much Too Late For Goodbye

12:16It's a pretty good song, sounded a lot like his dad

12:19So, they're stronger than average musicians

12:23But they're not as good as their dad

12:28And their kids won't be as good as them

12:31Who is not as good as their dad

12:34So, the people who were in the Beatles

12:37They didn't just sell their life

12:40They didn't just sell their brand and say

12:42Well, four other guys can now be the Beatles

12:45That's just not how it works

12:48So, a group of musicians, a band

12:54They just won't last

12:56I mean, the Eagles have been broken up for years now

13:00Pink Floyd, broken up for years

13:02And people go on to do solo stuff and all of that

13:04But it's just not the same

13:06You can't maintain a band

13:07It's like saying, well, some band is going to come along

13:09That's going to be the most popular band in history

13:11Like the Beatles or Queen or Rolling Stones

13:13Some band is going to come along

13:14The most popular band in history

13:15And they're just going to last forever

13:16It's like, well, no, they're not

13:18Because they're going to die off

13:20And there's going to be other bands that come along

13:22And compete with them and so on, right?

13:23So, remember, in a free society

13:25The barrier to entry is almost infinitely lower than it is now

13:28And you don't get access to government power, regulations

13:31And bureaucracy and red tape

13:34To keep other people out of the market

13:36So, people are going to figure out

13:37What's the cheapest and best way

13:39To protect people's persons and property

13:41And they're going to say, well

13:43The best way to do that is peaceful parenting

13:45And so, there's going to be DROs

13:48There's going to be DROs that give massive discounts

13:52To children who've been raised peacefully

13:54And they'll check that

13:55And sort of brain scans and so on

13:56I write about all of this in my novel, The Future

13:58Which you should definitely check out

14:00But, yeah, it's not going to last

14:05Stuff in business doesn't last

14:07It's constantly churning

14:08It's constantly changing

14:09There's constant innovation

14:11And what was the biggest company 30 years ago

14:15Is not going to be a big company now

14:17And it's going to be like 5, 10 years in a free market

14:19Anyway, so let's go on with this guy

14:21Anarcho-capitalism as a performative contradiction

14:24Nozick's Invisible Hand argument

14:26Is in a position to show how

14:28The anarcho-capitalist doctrine

14:30Does contain in itself

14:32In aprioristic terms

14:34A performative contradiction

14:36A performative contradiction arises

14:38When the propositional content of a statement

14:40Contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it

14:43As I call it, self-detonating arguments and so on

14:47Like if I write you a letter

14:50Containing the argument that letters

14:52Never get delivered to the right person

14:54That would be a performative contradiction

14:56Anarcho-capitalism promises a stateless society

14:58However, in virtue of the capitalistic

15:00Acceptations which characterize

15:02Capitalism itself

15:04An anarcho-capitalist society

15:06Would give birth to a crypto-stated society

15:08Namely a society governed by a dominant

15:10Protective agency

15:12Protective agencies are very expensive

15:14So society will look at the best ways

15:16To reduce criminality

15:18To reduce the need for protection

15:20Which is peaceful parenting

15:22And that's not a theory, right?

15:24I've got the whole bomb in the brain series

15:26That's proven all of that

15:28Okay, anarcho-capitalism promises a stateless society

15:30No, anarcho-capitalism does not promise

15:32A stateless society

15:34Anarcho-capitalism

15:36Is the definition of a stateless society

15:38So promises is

15:40What the goal is

15:42What the goal is

15:44Like if I define a mammal

15:46As, you know, give birth to a live young

15:48Has got hair, warm-blooded, whatever

15:50I don't say that the definition of mammal

15:52Promises these things, the definition of mammal

15:54Is these things

15:56Anarcho-capitalism is a stateless society

15:58And he says, however, in virtue of the capitalistic

16:00Acceptations which characterize

16:02Capitalism itself

16:04An anarcho-capitalist society would give birth to a crypto-stated society

16:06Namely a society governed by a dominant

16:08Protective agency

16:10Well, let's say

16:12Of course it wouldn't

16:14Because there's constant churn

16:16And prevention of problems

16:18Rather than solving problems

16:20Would do all of this

16:22I mean, there was a company

16:24That was very big

16:26Making rotary telephones

16:28Where are they now, right?

16:30So governed by a dominant

16:32Protective agency

16:34But that dominant protective agency

16:36Cannot initiate the use of force against you

16:38It cannot initiate the use of force against you

16:42So it is a voluntary

16:44You can do without

16:46It's protection if you want

16:48You can provide your own protection

16:50You can band together with your neighbors

16:52To have protection of some kind

16:54You can do a wide variety of things

16:56Rather than take this

16:58You can't do that with the state

17:00This dominant protective agency

17:02Isn't going to be able to go

17:04Into multi tens of trillions

17:06Of dollars of debt

17:08On you and your children's behalf

17:10It's not going to be able to suck up

17:12Against your will and against your approval

17:14Money from your bank account

17:16It's not going to deduct its source money

17:18It's a voluntary thing

17:20I'm sorry, this is just a dumb argument

17:22It's not even an argument

17:24It's basically saying

17:26So there's slavery

17:28And

17:30In the future

17:32All you're doing

17:34Is replacing

17:36Slavery with wage slavery

17:38I mean, people are still going to have to get up

17:40They're still going to have to go and work for a living

17:42So it's exactly the same as slavery

17:44No, it's goddamn well not

17:46One is voluntary, one is not

17:48You know, penis and vagina

17:50It's the same with voluntary passionate lovemaking

17:52As it is with coercive knife to the throat rape

17:54Both involve penis and vagina

17:56It's like, no it doesn't

17:58One is voluntary, freely chosen

18:00And the choice can be undone at any time

18:02It can be captured

18:04Oh my god, putting the word crypto

18:06You know, it's like

18:08Rape is crypto lovemaking

18:10Is not a valid statement

18:12Or lovemaking is crypto rape

18:14Putting the word crypto in front of it doesn't

18:16One's voluntary, one's not

18:18One's moral and one's not

18:20One conforms to the non-aggression principle

18:22And universal moral absolutes

18:24And one does not

18:26So anyway, let's see here

18:28The author by putting the focus

18:30On the psychological aspects

18:32Of the investigation does state how

18:34In virtue of an icon effect

18:36The citizens are prone to adhere to institutions

18:38Which are already famous and experienced within the country

18:40Crowdial philosophy

18:42Psychology

18:44I don't really understand that sentence

18:46I apologize

18:48Icon effect, he's given footnotes before

18:50Crowdial psychology

18:52I don't know

18:54But the passage of time, the protective agency that is in a position

18:56To become the largest and most famous within the country

18:58By the icon effect, the goodwill of the people

19:04The function

19:06The function boasted

19:08By the dominant agency of protection

19:10Is equal to the function which is commonsensically

19:12Associated with the traditional state

19:14Yes

19:16One offers you the services voluntarily

19:18Protecting life and property

19:20The other one violates life and property

19:22And then fails to protect you

19:24So the state, at least in America

19:26I'm sure this is true in many places

19:28The state has no duty to protect

19:30This has been repeatedly affirmed

19:32By courts

19:34All the way to the top

19:36It is

19:38Fundamental in a state of society

19:40That the state has no duty

19:42To protect you

19:44You can call the cops

19:46The cops can show up, do nothing

19:48And you have no recourse whatsoever

19:50So there's no duty to protect you

19:52So

19:54I don't know really what to say

19:56About that

20:00A DRO, if it fails to protect you

20:02Will

20:04Suffer sanctions

20:06It would have to include that

20:08It would have to include that

20:10In the contract

20:12Because

20:14Nobody would sign on to a DRO

20:16That did not have any particular

20:18Duty

20:20To protect you

20:22So this

20:24Apotropaic function

20:26This fighting evil function

20:28Is not

20:30The state

20:32The state initiates the use of force against you

20:34Takes your resources

20:36Against your will by definition

20:38Because otherwise it wouldn't have to

20:40And it has no duty to protect

20:42And you have no recourse if it fails to protect you

20:44So it says the dominant agency of protection

20:46Is a de facto state

20:48That is distinguished by the same coercive powers

20:50Of the state

20:52Totally false

20:54That's totally false

20:56So

21:02The two people using force

21:04Are not the same

21:06Because there's the initiation of the use of force

21:08And then there's

21:10Legal and moral self-defense

21:12Some guy pulls a gun on you

21:14And you outdraw him and shoot him

21:16It's like saying well you're both the same

21:18You're both drawing guns and pointing them at people

21:20It's like well one is the initiation of the use of force

21:22And one is not

21:24So maybe he'll break it down

21:26Let's see here

21:30The dominant agency of protection

21:32In spite of its

21:38Apotropaic function and coercive abilities

21:40Is not a public institution

21:42The agency of protection is equal to a private business

21:44Which uses private means of production for materializing

21:46Its business

21:48The dominant agency of protection

21:50In spite of its endemic

21:52Action is equal to a private business

21:54That cannot be questioned by the citizens

21:56On the basis of an official and objective

21:58Code

22:00What?

22:02The dominant agency of protection

22:06In spite

22:08Of its

22:10Endemic

22:12Action

22:14Is not

22:16Prevalent

22:18Or limited to a particular

22:20Locality, region, or people

22:22Its local action

22:24Is equal to a private business

22:26That cannot be questioned by the citizen

22:28On the basis of an official and objective

22:30Code

22:32What is that?

22:34It cannot be questioned by the citizen

22:36On the basis of an official and objective code

22:38Well of course it can

22:40Of course it can

22:42If you sign with a cell phone company

22:44There's pages and pages of

22:46ULIS and dispute resolution and so on

22:48I don't really get that

22:50If you sign with a protection agency

22:52There's going to be a whole bunch of things

22:54That they agree to and a whole bunch of things that you agree to

22:56And they're going to train you on

22:58For instance

23:00What you're allowed to do in terms of self-defense

23:02There'll be training videos

23:04And questionnaires and so on, right?

23:06So I don't know what this means

23:08The modus operandi of the agency of protection

23:10Is self-made

23:12The modus operandi of the agency of protection

23:14Is self-made

23:16No, it's not self-made

23:18It's made based upon what is considered

23:20Most efficient and valuable to the customer

23:22So he goes on to say

23:24While the state is officially recognized

23:26As an objective model of justice

23:28The state is constitution maker

23:30The dominant agency of protection

23:32It's the head DRO

23:34Or the most popular DRO

23:36Does put forward its business

23:38Without presenting itself

23:40Under the

23:42Form of an objective institution

23:44What does that mean?

23:46What does that mean?

23:48The dominant agency of protection

23:50Is equal to a private actor

23:52Who profits through its activity

23:54While state action

23:56Is accountable to the people

23:58And questionable by the people

24:00What?

24:02State action is accountable to the people?

24:04And questionable by the people?

24:06Absolute bullshit

24:08That's embarrassing

24:10There have been countless studies done

24:12You can look at the myth of the rational voter

24:14The countless studies done

24:16That the preference of the people

24:18Has

24:20Virtually no effect

24:22On the actions of the state

24:24The preference, even in a democracy

24:26It doesn't matter

24:28In Europe they've been crying out for lower immigration

24:30For decades

24:32So it doesn't matter

24:34No, it doesn't

24:36The dominant agency of protection

24:38State action is accountable to the people

24:40And questionable by the people

24:42Nope

24:44State action

24:46How many people believe something shady happened

24:48With the end of Epstein?

24:50How many people want the list released?

24:52How many people

24:54Go through all the hoaxes?

24:56How many people want those

24:58As it seems to be the case

25:00If Jeffrey Epstein filmed a bunch of people

25:02For purposes of blackmail and so on

25:04And

25:06How many people want

25:08Those accountable?

25:10Those people arrested held accountable

25:12How many people

25:14Want some sort of

25:16Justice for some of the really bad stuff

25:18That happened under the COVID nightmare?

25:20Doesn't matter, doesn't happen

25:22Right?

25:24So, while state action is accountable

25:26To the people and questionable by the people

25:28The dominant agency of protection

25:30Is private matter

25:32That operates according to private economic calculation

25:34What does that mean?

25:36What does that mean?

25:38Private economic calculation?

25:40Yes, in order to provide

25:42In order to provide

25:44Services to people

25:46You have to do that, which pleases them

25:48So I don't know what private economic calculation means

25:50The enormous ethical gulf

25:52Says the writer, which separates

25:54The dominant agency of protection from the state

25:56Exists as such in virtue of the

25:58Tragic unaccountability

26:00Of the agency of protection

26:02What the fuck is that talking about?

26:06So, okay, so

26:08A voluntary private company

26:10That can't initiate the use of force against you

26:12Is tragically unaccountable

26:14But the state, which can borrow

26:16Print and, you know

26:18Kind of attack you

26:20Kind of at will

26:22Well, that's

26:24Accountable

26:26But a private business

26:28That has to please its customers

26:30Is tragically unaccountable

26:32Oh my god, this is wild

26:34A private business exists

26:36De su

26:38And for itself

26:40Right?

26:42Because lord knows, people in the government

26:44Are just absolute selfish angels

26:46Who

26:48Don't act for themselves at all

26:50They're just absolutely

26:52Kantian idealistic

26:54Altruists that never

26:56Ever aim. This is why

26:58Politicians never get wealthier

27:00And all of that

27:02Because they're just there for the benefit of others

27:04Right?

27:06While the function of the state is objective

27:08And no

27:10Profiteering

27:14The dominant agency of protection

27:16Exists as a profiteering agent

27:18That in addition does not have

27:20The ontological duty to serve the community

27:22In its entirety

27:24The agency of protection serves

27:26Its clients who are, in whatever case

27:28Non-equal to the entirety of the population

27:30The function of the state is objective

27:32And no profiteering

27:34So apparently, people in the government

27:36Are not interested

27:38In profiting

27:40Again, politicians make absolute

27:42Fortunes and

27:44Depending on how you measure and calculate it

27:46Government employees

27:48Make between a third and a half more

27:50Than private sector employees

27:52And

27:54Have job security that

27:56Can't be dreamed of

27:58People who vote for the welfare state

28:00Profit to the tune of

28:02$80,000 a year plus in benefits

28:04So

28:06They vote for that kind of profiteering

28:08We've seen, of course, recently under Doge

28:10All of these

28:12Non-profits which get massive amounts of

28:14Government money

28:16Hundreds of billions of dollars

28:18And just pay themselves

28:20Massive salaries and don't really

28:22Get anything done

28:24So this person, this writer

28:26Actually seems to exist

28:28The function of the state is objective

28:30Whatever that means

28:32And it's not for profiteering

28:34So somehow, people in the government

28:36Which is, you know, a third of people

28:38In some countries, right, or more

28:40The people who work for the government

28:42Are a completely separate species

28:44From the people who work

28:46In the private industry

28:48Because people in private industry

28:50Are interested in profit

28:52But people in governments

28:54Are not at all, in any way

28:56Interested in profit

28:58So we've got two classes of people

29:00Pure profit-driven people

29:02And pure altruists

29:04Who are completely indifferent to profit

29:06And this is the same as the Marxist thing

29:08Just create two classes of human beings

29:10Which makes no sense

29:12Wild, man

29:14That's everything

29:16Oh, that's it?

29:18This is his argument?

29:20Okay

29:22Alright

29:24Let's do one or two more

29:26This is painful

29:28On private production of defense

29:30On the dangers of insuring pluralism

29:32According to Hoppe

29:34This is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I assume

29:36Insurers could and would

29:38Differ and distinguish themselves

29:40With respect to the behavioral code imposed on

29:42They could and would exist

29:44Side by side

29:46For instance, Catholic insurers

29:48Applying canon law

29:50Jewish insurers

29:52Applying mosaic law

29:54Muslims applying Islamic law

29:56And non-believers

29:58Applying secular law

30:00Of one variant or another

30:02All of them sustained by

30:04And vying for a voluntarily

30:06Paying clientele

30:08Consumers could and would

30:10Choose and sometimes change the law

30:12Applied to them and their property

30:14That is, no one would be forced to live

30:16Under foreign law

30:18And hence a prominent source of conflict

30:20Would be eliminated

30:22According to several thinkers

30:24The absence of the state

30:26Would give birth to sectarianism

30:28In various fields

30:30Hoppe's prediction is the overture

30:32To tribalism and mutual incomprehension

30:34The variety of successes

30:36Marking the democratic age

30:38Of the state and its subjective nature

30:40Endemic and

30:42Malleating powers

30:44Oh, to malleate

30:46To beat with a hammer, pound

30:48To beat or mark a dent

30:50Okay

30:52The process of unification of customs

30:54And objectivization of human logic and behavior

30:56Sponsored by worldwide governments

30:58Worldwide pedagogical institutions

31:00And the internet would certainly be endangered

31:02By the passing away of the state

31:04And the appearance of economic and behavioral tribalism

31:06If you're not tribal under the state

31:08That's just not true at all

31:10Races tend to be tribal, religions tend to be tribal

31:12Tribalism under the state absolutely exists

31:14And I suppose

31:16As states become more powerful

31:18Multiculturalism is funded

31:20Through debt, right?

31:22And so

31:24The fact that as the state becomes more powerful

31:26You end up with more of these sort of

31:28Multicultural values

31:30Differences

31:32Is not

31:34It's sort of impossible to notice, right?

31:36When the government was relatively poor

31:38Say, in the

31:40I don't know, 13th, 14th, 15th centuries

31:42How much

31:44Of all of this multiculturalism

31:46Was going on, say, in the West

31:48Well, not that much, right?

31:50So when the government gets more money

31:52Then it can buy votes, it can expand the welfare state and so on

31:54Which is going to attract some people who are there for free stuff

31:56Not for freedom, as I sort of talked about before

31:58So

32:00The idea that

32:02Somehow

32:04A free society with no enforced

32:06Welfare state

32:08Would create all of these

32:10Multicultural conflicts

32:12Doesn't sort of fit at all

32:18An anarcho-capitalism and warfare

32:20According to Harpy, in addition to the opposition

32:22Of an armed private citizenry

32:24The aggressor state would run

32:26Into the resistance of not only one

32:28Oh, you know what, I'm going back here for a sec

32:30I'm going to go back here, right?

32:32So he says that Catholic insurers applying canon law

32:34Jewish insurers applying mosaic law

32:36Well, so

32:38Of course we're talking sort of multi-generational issues here

32:40Which are very interesting

32:42Multi-generational issues would go something like this

32:44So

32:46Let's just say person A and person B

32:48Person A

32:50Has

32:52Just the non-aggression principle

32:54And protection of property rights

32:56Libertarians, all that kind of stuff

32:58So they're just basically interested in

33:00That, right?

33:02All I want is the non-aggression principle

33:04All I want is

33:06Protection of property

33:08It's very minimal

33:10And let's say there's some other people who have

33:12You know, 10,000 laws that they want enforced

33:14Well, what is the price difference going to be

33:16In these situations, right?

33:18Well, what is the price situation?

33:20What is the price difference

33:22For the non-aggression principle and protection of property

33:24Versus

33:26I want you to enforce these 10,000 laws

33:28Well

33:30It's going to be a couple of bucks a month

33:32For

33:34Simple laws

33:36Protection of property

33:38And non-aggression principle

33:40And to enforce 10,000 laws

33:42On people who are part of that DRO

33:44Well, that's going to be

33:46$3,000 a month

33:48Because it's just way more expensive to enforce

33:503,000 laws than a couple of simple principles

33:52Especially proactive laws

33:54So over time

33:56Money in society

33:58Is going to concentrate

34:00In the wallets of those

34:02Who are libertarians

34:04Who are non-aggression principle

34:06Protection of property

34:08Because it's going to be way too expensive in the long run

34:10To enforce these

34:12Other rules and other laws

34:14So that is going to

34:16Long curve towards minimal laws

34:18So I just want to mention that

34:20All right, let's get on

34:22Oh gosh

34:24So this guy quotes Harpy

34:26In addition to the opposition of non-private

34:28Citizenry, the aggressive

34:30State would run into the resistance

34:32Of not only one

34:34But in all likelihood several insurance

34:36And reinsurance agencies

34:38In the case of a successful

34:40Attack and invasion, these insurers would be

34:42Faced with massive indemnification payments

34:44Unlike the aggressing state, however

34:46These insurers would be efficient and competitive

34:48Firms

34:50These other things being equal

34:52The risk of an attack

34:54And hence the price of defense insurance

34:56Would be higher in locations in close proximity

34:58To state territories than in places far away from any state

35:00To justify this higher price

35:02Insurers would have to demonstrate defensive readiness

35:04Vis-a-vis any possible state aggression to their clients

35:06In the form of intelligent services

35:08The ownership of suitable weapons and materials

35:10Training blah blah blah

35:12So what's he talking about here

35:14In other words

35:16The insurers would be effectively equipped and trained

35:18For the contingency of a state attack

35:20And ready to respond

35:22With a two-fold defense strategy

35:24On the one hand, insofar as their operations

35:26In free territories are concerned

35:28Insurers would be ready to expel, capture or kill

35:30Every invader while trying to avoid

35:32And minimize all collateral damage

35:34On the other hand, insofar as their

35:36Operations on state territory are concerned

35:38Insurers would be prepared

35:40To target the aggressor at the state for retaliation

35:42That is, insurers

35:44Would be ready to counteract and kill

35:46With long-range precision weapons

35:48Or assassination commandos

35:50State agents from the top of the government hierarchy

35:52Sorry

35:54Of king, president or prime minister

35:56On downward

35:58While seeking to avoid or minimize

36:00All collateral damage on the property of innocent civilians

36:02Non-state agents

36:04They would thereby

36:06Encourage internal resistance

36:08Against the aggressor government

36:10Promote its delegitimization

36:12And possibly incite the liberation and transformation

36:14Of state territory into a free country

36:16One of the greatest failures of anarcho-capitalism

36:18Is represented by its approach to warfare

36:20An anarcho-capitalist society

36:22Would simply

36:24Would be simply unable to defend itself

36:26From the attack of a traditional army

36:28Nations boasting

36:30Traditional armies, i.e.

36:32Armies equipped by the state

36:34Would not take into consideration

36:36Insurance agencies as military actors

36:38Uh

36:40How?

36:42How do you know?

36:44A nation slash community

36:46Protected by insurance agencies

36:48Is, in military terms, equal to an undefended territory

36:50Easily invadable

36:52This is just statements

36:54I don't quite understand

36:56This is just statements

36:58It is ridiculous to underestimate

37:00The risks of war and invasion

37:02Which are all historical events already documented

37:04Which do reflect objective

37:06Definitions of human psychology

37:08Uh

37:10What?

37:12Okay, he says here, a nation cannot exist as such

37:14Without being able to boast effective defense

37:16Okay, how has that worked in America?

37:18How has that worked?

37:20The American government is the largest

37:22And most powerful government in the history of the world

37:24With the strongest military presence

37:26And

37:28People just walked across the border

37:30And took state resources through welfare

37:32By the millions

37:34So how's that working out?

37:36How's that working out?

37:38Just as all

37:40Anarcho-capitalism glorifies

37:42The industrial spirit of mankind

37:44And the rights of the individual

37:46Over his or her private property

37:48However, just anarcho-capitalism

37:50Is unable to defend the private property

37:52Of the individual from foreign attack

37:54But Hoppe made a whole argument

37:56About this

37:58About how you would target the

38:00Leaders

38:02Of the military

38:04Or you would target state leaders

38:06And generals and so on, right?

38:08So

38:10Do you just quote someone

38:12And then completely ignore it?

38:14Uh

38:16Just saying, well, you wouldn't be able to

38:18Private companies would not be able to defend

38:20Against the government

38:22I don't

38:24I mean, guerrilla warfare

38:26Is very common

38:28You know, the resistance

38:30Against, say, the Nazi occupation

38:32Of France, the French resistance fighters

38:34They were not state actors

38:36I had a conversation

38:38Many years ago with a guy

38:40Who was talking about how

38:42You know, when it came to Iraq

38:44It was a bunch of guys

38:46In, you know, on the back

38:48Of a pickup truck in flip-flops who were taking on

38:50The US military

38:52And they were not state actors in that way

38:54So

38:56There's tons of examples of guerrilla fighters

38:58Pushing back state actors

39:00Non-state resistance

39:02To state military actors

39:04So I don't

39:06Like, you can't just say

39:08It doesn't happen, it won't happen, it's impossible

39:10When there's tons of examples

39:12I don't know

39:14Uh

39:16So

39:18Those citizens living within an anarcho-capitalist society

39:20Would find themselves without defense

39:22And terrified by the risk of encountering

39:24An age of war

39:26So

39:28There's just saying stuff, though

39:32I know

39:34In hypothetical terms, the anarcho-capitalist doctrine

39:36Can be successful only within a fictitious scenario

39:38Namely a world in which all the countries

39:40Are anarcho-capitalist

39:42Anarcho-capitalism thus reaches its maximum level

39:44Of non-utility once the latter is contextualized

39:46Within warfare logic

39:48Yeah, so it's just a bunch of nonsense

39:50It's like when

39:52All armies used to be slave armies

39:54He said, well, I don't want a slave army

39:56Saying, well, then you're not going to have any defense

39:58It's just completely limited thinking

40:00Or non-thinking

40:02So I don't

40:04Yeah, he's going to quote stuff

40:06I'll just do one more chapter

40:08Because this is not as good as I

40:10I was hoping it would be a lot better

40:12Uh, chapter five, on anarcho-capitalism and the law

40:14For Hoppe, quote

40:16On the other hand, a system of insurers

40:18Offering competing law codes

40:20Would promote a tendency towards the unification

40:22The domestic, Catholic, Jewish, Roman, Germanic, etc.

40:24Law would apply and be binding

40:26Only on the persons and properties

40:28Of the insured

40:30The insurer and all others insured

40:32By the same insurer under the same law

40:34Canon law would apply to profess Catholics

40:36Blah, blah, blah

40:38Uh, so you'd be able to

40:40Interact with Muslims from Catholics

40:42Uh, similar

40:44Okay, um, competing law codes

40:46Arrive at distinctly different conclusions

40:48A problem would arise

40:50The insured would want to be protected

40:52Against the contingency of intergroup conflict, too

40:54So you'd have

40:56Particular groups with their own laws

40:58For that group, but then you would have

41:00Uh, common law

41:02Which would be property rights

41:04Non-aggression principle between groups, right?

41:06So, uh, a Muslim group

41:08And a Mormon group

41:10Would have their own particular rules

41:12Internal to themselves

41:14Which are now enforced a lot through ostracism

41:16If they don't have access to the power of the state

41:18But between

41:20Say, the Muslim group and the

41:22Mormon group, they would not be allowed

41:24To initiate the use of force and steal

41:26From each other, right?

41:28Alright

41:30Uh, but if competing law codes

41:32Arrive at distinctly different conclusions

41:34As they would in at least

41:36Some cases by virtue of the fact that they represent

41:38Different law codes, a problem would arise

41:40The insured would want to be

41:42Protected against the contingency of intergroup

41:44Conflict, too, but domestic

41:46Intergroup law would be of no avail in this regard

41:48In fact, at a minimum

41:50Two distinct domestic

41:52Law codes would be involved, and they would come to

41:54Different conclusions. In such a situation

41:56It could not be expected that one insurer

41:58And the subscribers of his law code

42:00Say the Catholics would simply subordinate

42:02Their judgment to that of another insurer

42:04And his law say that of the Muslims

42:06Or vice versa. Rather, each

42:08Insurer, Catholic and Muslim alike

42:10Would have to contribute to the development of intergroup

42:12Law, i.e. law applicable in cases

42:14Of disagreement among competing insurers and law codes

42:16Yeah, so, I mean

42:18Every cell phone provider

42:20Offers different plans, but they all

42:22Carry each other's signals if necessary

42:24Right?

42:26I mean, Rogers is a company that operates

42:28In Canada, and Rogers has a plan

42:30By which you can use your phone in the States

42:32So

42:34They have as a minimum

42:36And of course it's the same thing with email, right?

42:38Email bounces around a bunch of different servers

42:40And they all

42:42Agree to process the email

42:44In a way that makes sense

42:46So

42:48And where there wasn't, so let's take

42:50For example

42:52I'm obviously no expert on this kind of stuff

42:54But let's take some rule like

42:56In some Muslim communities

42:58The standard for proving

43:00Rape is a lot higher than, say

43:02In a Christian community

43:04Right? You need more witnesses and more

43:06Verification and so on, right?

43:08And I'm sorry if I've got all of this wrong, I'm just taking this example

43:10Out of my armpit

43:12So

43:14If there is a different

43:16Definition

43:18Of, or if there is a different

43:20Legal standard for

43:22Establishing that a rape occurred

43:24Between, say, Muslims and Catholics

43:26Then

43:28Those two groups

43:30Would not interact

43:32On a sexual level, right?

43:34They would probably try and stay away from each other

43:36On a sexual level because of the

43:38Difference in proof

43:40So then there would be

43:42One group would stay

43:44With their own group, the other group would stay with their own group

43:46And those kinds of things

43:48Would cause

43:50A

43:52Fragmentation

43:54The fragmentation is largely already occurring

43:56But yeah, there would be a certain amount of fragmentation

43:58Right?

44:00So if there was a group that said

44:02Oh yeah, I'm not saying

44:04This is any particular group, right?

44:06I'm talking about a group, the Elbonians, right?

44:08So the Elbonians are like, oh yeah, we can rape at will

44:10Okay, well

44:12I don't think there would be

44:14Many DROs that would want to deal

44:16With that kind of stuff, but let's say that one was made up

44:18Within the Elbonian community

44:20Yeah, we can rape at will, we can steal at will, whatever, right?

44:22Well, everybody would stay away

44:24From that area and that group

44:26And nobody would do business with them, and nobody would want to socialize

44:28With them, and they would be kind of ostracized

44:30Within the society

44:32Because it would be pretty risky and difficult

44:34And dangerous, right?

44:36So that group would suffer

44:38Economic ostracism

44:40Because they had these sort of bad rules and laws

44:42Like rape at will, steal at will, or whatever, right?

44:44And so

44:46There would be a very strong pressure

44:48To have

44:50More rational rules

44:52That were cheap and effective for the society

44:54As a whole

44:56So you've got to look at these things

44:58Like not in static

45:00Oh, there's going to be groups that disagree

45:02For sure

45:04And right now

45:06The groups that disagree get to hijack the state

45:08And impose their will of right and wrong

45:10On populations of tens or hundreds of billions of people

45:12So that's no good

45:14Right?

45:16That's no good

45:18It's like saying, well, you know, if people date

45:20Some people will ask others to date

45:22They won't get a yes, they'll be unhappy

45:24And then some people will end up going through life single

45:26And so on

45:28It's like, yeah, that's a risk, for sure

45:30And that risk will work itself out over time

45:32It will diminish over time

45:34And

45:36The solution to that

45:38Is not to have the government

45:40Force everyone to get married

45:42So if the government forces everyone to get married

45:44And chooses their marriage partners

45:46To say, well, we don't have problems with singletons

45:48We don't have problems with romantic disappointment

45:50Yeah, but you're forcing everyone to get married

45:52That's like institutionalized rape houses

45:54Like, that's terrible

45:56Right?

45:58So the fragmentation

46:00And some of the balkanization that would occur

46:02In a free society

46:04A stateless society

46:06That's a real issue

46:08And it would work itself out over time

46:10Because those who had the least intrusive

46:12The least initiation rules

46:14Response rules

46:16Somebody has to violate persons of property

46:18In order for the state actor

46:20In order for the DRO

46:22The quasi-state actor

46:24In this guy's nomenclature

46:26The quasi-state, the DRO

46:28Would be cheapest

46:30Most effective, most efficient

46:34With regards

46:36To

46:38Protecting property and persons

46:40And that's about it

46:42So over time, it would flow that way

46:46And of course, anarcho-capitalism

46:48Will only arise

46:50When a significant portion of society

46:52Raises their children peacefully

46:54Which means not imposing

46:56Anti-rational doctrines

46:58On the children

47:00And again, there's no

47:02Snap your fingers and have it change all by tomorrow

47:04Anarcho-capitalism

47:06Would lead to the dramatic process of schism

47:08Of the law

47:10Again, just saying stuff

47:12From a historical perspective

47:14The process of unification of the law

47:16Is one of the greatest achievements of human history

47:18An achievement which brought mankind closer

47:20To the objectification of human logic

47:22Really?

47:24Unification of the law

47:26So, is he saying

47:28That

47:30The constitution

47:32That was adopted

47:34By the USSR

47:36And imposed, of course, eventually on the Eastern European countries

47:38Is he saying that

47:40The

47:42Objectification

47:44The unification of the law

47:46Is one of the greatest achievements in human history

47:48Yeah, but what goddamn law

47:50Are you talking about?

47:54I mean, if you look at North Korea

47:56It used to be a bunch of different fiefdoms and princedoms

47:58Way back in history

48:00And now it's unified

48:02But it's the largest open-air prison in the world

48:04And people are treated like

48:06Absolute slave cattle

48:08It's horrendous

48:10So, unification of the law

48:12So, putting everyone under

48:14A centrally coercive dictatorial system

48:16Of rules

48:18For the profit of corrupt people

48:20That's one of the greatest

48:22I don't know, it's wild, right?

48:24The process of schism of the law

48:26Is in logical opposition to the economic reasoning

48:28Of the economic profit

48:30Is this translated?

48:32It's not good English, right?

48:34The schism of law is equal to ghettoization

48:36And mutual incomprehension

48:38Once different communities

48:40Are accustomed to different logics of law

48:42Intergroup incomprehension and clashes

48:44Are ordinary events

48:46The principles of intergroup clash

48:48Harpy, see above citation, advocates

48:50The development of intergroup law

48:52Once Harpy advocates the development of intergroup law

48:54He advocates nothing but the objective code

48:56Which is traditionally associated with the state character

48:58Anarcho-capitalism despises state

49:00However, it

49:02Especially in moments of emergency uneasiness

49:04Regrets its customs

49:06I'm sorry, this just

49:08I don't follow this at all

49:10Because he's not talking about the rationality

49:12And the logic and the universality

49:14The non-aggression principle

49:16Leads to a stateless society

49:18Because the non-aggression principle is universal

49:20Which means you can't have people

49:22Who have the right to initiate the use of force

49:24Which is the nature of the state

49:26That's just a fact, right?

49:28So he's not dealing with any of the arguments

49:30He's just creating

49:32Ooga-boogas of bad outcomes

49:34Ooga-booga, bad outcomes

49:36Well, you won't be able to protect yourself

49:38Against non-state actors

49:40Sorry, you won't be able to protect yourself

49:42Against state armies

49:44And there's going to be a fragmentation

49:46And all these bad things are going to happen

49:48You're going to end up with the state anyway

49:50None of this deals with the logic

49:52This is the equivalent of saying

49:54Well, if we end slavery, nobody's going to

49:56Pick their food

49:58And you won't have any cotton

50:00And everybody's going to starve to death

50:02And freeze to death

50:04I mean, it's just ooga-booga stuff, right?

50:06Ooga-booga, bad outcomes

50:08Well, if we don't do the rain dance

50:10Because the crops will all die

50:12So give me, you know, 500 bucks

50:14And I'll do the rain dance

50:16This is not an argument at all

50:18This is just, you know, bad things will happen

50:20Bad things will happen

50:22Without a government

50:24Okay, well, that's not an argument

50:26That's just

50:28It's shaking the voodoo stick

50:30Of consequences to hope to get you away

50:32From some sort of rational analysis

50:34Of an idea or argument

50:36Anyway, I don't particularly feel like going on

50:38Because I find this is

50:40And also he just quotes things

50:42And then just says, well, this won't happen

50:44This is impossible, he's wrong about this

50:46And there's no actual arguments or evidence

50:48Unfortunately, look, if there's better stuff

50:50I did about a quarter of this, right?

50:52If there's better stuff out there

50:54That's a good criticism of ANCAP

50:56I would like to see it

50:58But this ain't it

51:00So, freedomain.com slash donate

51:02If you'd like to help out the show

51:04I'll put a link to the document below

51:06You can do it at your own leisure

51:08But I'm curious what you think about this analysis

51:10And I look forward to your feedback and your support

51:12Again, freedomain.com slash donate

51:14Bye

Criticisms of Freedom - An Article Review

Category

Transcript

Recommended