0:05 - Arguments Against Anarcho-Capitalism
4:18 - The Role of Government
6:41 - Complexity and Coercion
17:40 - Market Efficiency and Protection
26:04 - Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Limited Government
33:15 - The Nature of Rights
36:11 - The Limits of Government
40:15 - Conclusion and Reflections
In this lecture, we explore the primary arguments against anarcho-capitalism, dissecting the nuances of the philosophy while exposing potential contradictions within its framework. The article kicks off by scrutinizing the foundational claims of anarcho-capitalists, who argue against a legal monopoly on the use of force, suggesting that without such a monopoly, individuals could initiate coercive force, leading to a breakdown of order. This premise is met with skepticism as the lecture delves into the implications of such assertions, positing that outlawing alternative protection services would itself constitute an act of coercion and thus challenge the moral underpinnings of a state monopoly.
The conversation then transitions to questioning the very feasibility of a monopolistic government that can maintain order without infringing on individual rights. A key inquiry is raised about who ultimately determines what constitutes initiatory versus retaliatory force. The concept is framed as a subjective judgment that would need social negotiation, which raises concerns about potential degeneracy in a system where a single entity holds such power. The speaker argues that relying on a government—composed of individuals who themselves can initiate force—creates a paradox where the protector becomes a potential aggressor, thus undermining the very rights the government claims to uphold.
An emphasis is placed on the complexities of defining terms like aggression, self-defense, and rights within a diverse society. The lecture contends that an anarcho-capitalist society would necessitate a competitive market for these definitions, questioning the logic that suggests a government can effectively and justly enforce one interpretation. The need for competition in defining rights appears not only to preserve individual freedoms but also to foster a system where service providers must cater to their customers’ diverse needs or risk losing business. Consequently, the potential emergence of monopolistic tendencies in protection services is viewed as a critical flaw in the argument for a singular governing body.
Throughout the discourse, the speaker critiques the oversimplification of anarcho-capitalist arguments and their tendency to dismiss potential edge cases as irrelevant. He insists that while complexity exists in understanding rights and protections, the solution is not to resort to coercive measures but rather to embrace voluntary negotiation in the marketplace. By drawing parallels with various real-world complexities, such as marriage or technological development, the speaker illustrates that human society thrives on voluntary cooperation to adjudicate conflicts, not on exertive force.
The lecture culminates with a stark warning against the dangers of allowing any single entity—the government or otherwise—to hold a monopoly on force. The idea that a competitive market would bear more effective and morally sound solutions resonates throughout the discussion, positing that a society structured around voluntary agreements is more robust against the risks of tyranny than one that defers to state authority.
In summary, this lecture not only critically examines anarcho-capitalism's assumptions and implications but also advocates for a framework where voluntary competition and market mechanisms dictate the definitions and enforcement of rights, ultimately fostering a more equitable society.
[0:00] All righty, righty. Arguments against anarcho-capitalism.
[0:05] So, here we are going to have a quick tour through the major arguments against anarcho-von-capitalism, and let's just dive straight in. The main anarcho-capitalist point is that a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force must also include a legal monopoly on the use of coercive force so the main anarcho-capitalist point so you gotta you gotta look out for sophistry from the very beginning, is it a point or is it is it an argument or it is a conclusion or a rational rational approach or whatever, just saying that it's a point. Well, you know, my point is, you know, that's something that is not objective, right? It's not saying it's an argument. It's not saying that they're attempting to be consistent with the non-aggression principle. It's just saying it's a point. A monopoly on the use of retaliatory force must also include a legal monopoly on the use of coercive force. Right. Retaliatory force. So if someone breaks into your house and steals your bike, then someone or some agency, some entity, someone has to go and use force to get your bike back, right? We understand that.
[1:21] So, if only one agency called the state is allowed to do that, then it must prevent other people from doing it, which is an initiation of the use of force. Okay. Outlawing alternative protection services, if such services represent individual rights, must be itself an act of coercion and thus immoral. If other protection agencies use force only for retaliatory and not coercive purposes, then outlawing such agencies would be coercive force. To question how a monopolistic government can be created that does not, by its very nature, violate the rights it is, in the objectivist view, charged to protect.
[1:57] Okay, sorry, is that an incomplete sentence? I misread it. To question how a monopolistic government can be created that does not, by its very nature, violate the rights it is in the objective of its view, tries to protect. No, that's not. It's an incomplete sentence. Sorry. Outlawing protection agencies that use only retaliatory force and thus have not violated its rights is an act of coercion.
[2:18] That's a pretty good restatement of the anarcho-capitalist argument. On its surface, it seems seductively simple, right? Right. So on its surface, it seems seductively simple. Again, they're priming you to using sophistry. Right. Well, we don't want to just have a surface argument. We want a deep and complex argument. Well, I don't want to be seduced. I want to be rational. Right. So here, the initiation of coercion and force is immoral. Comes from Red. Government is an institution which maintains a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force in a given geographical area. But to maintain a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, a government must initiate coercive force to exclude competitors. Hence, to exist as a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, a government must imply immoral means. Government is thus intrinsically immoral and self-contradictory. Hence, Ayn Rand's pro-government position contradicts her basic ethics.
[3:13] This argument is a splendid instance of rationalism. No argument has been made yet it's just bitchy oh the snarky bitchy crap oh it drives me crazy i was just reading the economist i'll talk about that another time just snark snark it's oh it's rationalism it proceeds deductively from a limited set of premises which are presumed to include all other relevant considerations ah yes you see it's rationalism it's on its surface it's seductively simple. It's just a point. It does not include all the relevant considerations.
[3:49] Okay, but in fact, they do not. Here is just a sampler of the contextual considerations admitted. Exactly who determines what use of force is initiatory or coercive? And what is defensive or retaliatory? Okay, what does that mean, exactly who? These are concepts in the mind which are going to have to be negotiated in society. Right? These are concepts in the mind that are going to have to be negotiated. So exactly who determines what use of force is initiatory or coercive?
[4:18] Okay, so if that's really complicated, are you saying that we should just leave it to the.
[4:27] Therefore we should leave it to the government, is morally deranged. It's evil. It's as close to evil as thoughts can get. Well, you know, these things can be complicated. And, you know, the best thing to bring to complicated situations is a gun.
[4:43] You know, this equation is really complicated to solve, so I'm just going to shoot the blackboard and the professor. Like, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. So someone is going to have to determine what use of force is initiatory or coercive and what is defensive or retaliatory. Someone's going to have to determine it. Do you want this to be negotiated with the cost-benefit analysis of pleasing customers in a voluntary free market or by a monopoly of sociopaths who can initiate the use of force pretty much at will? Someone's going to have to determine it. So saying that there's this magical entity called the government that is still just composed of people is something like, well, people can't, they have a tough time agreeing on this stuff, so we'll just make a government compose the people to inflict this stuff by force. Come on, man. Okay, by what process is that determination made? Or, to put it in terms of rights, who determines whether in any given use of force, rights have been violated, and thus who is the aggressor and who the victim? By what procedure, what theory or interpretation of rights is to be used? Rand's? Henry George's? Lenin's? For society, how are such determinations made with finality, and how is that verdict enforced? As a corollary, who determines which agency is a protection agency, and which is a mere gang of aggressors? By what method and standard? Okay, so what they're saying is that things can be difficult, challenging, and complicated, and there are edge cases, and therefore we need violence.
[6:11] You know, it's complicated to be an entrepreneur. It's complicated and difficult, and it's challenging. So I guess, you know, just go rob people. Is that the argument? So something is challenging and complicated. Therefore, we need more coercion and force and violence or a monopoly of coercion and force and violence. And that's going to solve all the problems of complication. So to me, I find this fairly deranged. I mean, it's actually completely deranged.
[6:41] The more complicated and challenging something is to define, and the more edge cases there are, the more you need voluntary free market negotiation.
[6:52] In order to resolve these things, right? It's like saying, well, the government should assign people, their spouses, because dating is complicated, and who's really to define what love is, and devotion, and commitment, and people break up a long time, they make the wrong decisions, it's really complicated, so we should just force the government, or the government should just force everyone to get married and have sex with each other, because it's complicated, don't you know? Oh my God. You know what else is really complicated? Building a rocket. Who's to objectively decide what the best methodology is for propulsion? Who's objectively to decide what the definition of a rocket actually is? Who's to decide what's the best jet fuel? Who's to decide how tall the launch pad should be? This is all really complicated. So we should just force people to build rockets? It's really complicated. So let's use force. Oh my God. What do you say? So the purpose of this and this this is the cheap ass two-bit sophistry and what happens is people say well do you have a direct do you have a conclusive answer to all these questions no well then you better support the government i don't have an answer to these things.
[8:09] So what so you don't have an answer to these things but the answer is let's not use force to solve them. I don't care how complicated the question is. What matters is we don't point guns at people and pretend we're solving anything.
[8:24] Uh, someone's going to have to determine these things. Do you want these things to be determined in a voluntary, free market, efficient, customer-driven environment where people are negotiating on the methodology of peace, money, and reason? Or do you want a small group of people to be given all the guns in the known universe and impose their will through force? Yeah, these things are complicated. Yeah, exactly. Lots of things are complicated. You know, making a tablet that it's really complicated, so we should just empty magazine clips into the Sahara until tablets are produced. Okay, so, but we can answer these questions, right? Who determines what use of forces initiatory or coercive, and what is defensive or retaliatory? Well, it's the contract you sign with your defense agency, your dispute resolution organization, the people who protect you, right? Everybody's going to have to figure out, and, you know, these guys are going to have to want cross DRO compatibility in the same way that your phones work on different carriers, right? They just figure out how to make it work with each other.
[9:32] So it's going to be as simple, as clear as possible, as simple and clear as possible. By what process is that determination made? Well, through the process of trying to sell your protection services to customers. That's how it's made. Who determines whether in any given use of force rights have been violated? Well, you're going to have clear definitions of rights that are going to be in the contract that people with an IQ 85 or 80 or above will be able to sort out. And so it'll be very clear. Will there be some edge cases? Yes, there will be some edge cases. Absolutely. Are they relevant? No. I mean, they're not relevant philosophically. I mean, they're interesting from a legal practice standpoint.
[10:13] But they're not um like if you say to people uh eat eat healthy eat healthy, and exercise, you don't have to say, well, you know, unless there's some particular condition that makes your heart rate going up dangerous for you, or unless you're in a coma, or unless you have broken both legs, or unless you're recovering from hernia surgery, or like, come on, you don't like just, yeah, eat a healthy diet, try not to gain weight and exercise. It's good for you. But what about all these edge cases where things like, oh my God, oh my God, edge cases are implicit.
[10:53] Do things that are healthy only if they make you healthy. If doing things that are normally healthy makes you sick, like exercising, if you've had a testicle removed right afterwards, then don't do that because it doesn't make you well. It's not healthy, right? So, do things that are healthy when they make you healthy. All right. For a society, how are such determinations made with finality? And how is that verdict enforced? Well, the verdict is enforced through economic and social ostracism, right? As a corollary, who determines which agency is a protection agency? The customer. The customer. I mean, who determines whether you're a cell phone customer? A company. Who determines whether you're a cell phone company? Well, if people buy your cell phones and services, then you're a cell phone company. It's not that complicated.
[11:44] And which is a mere gang of aggressors? Well, a protection agency is voluntary, right? You can withdraw if they don't serve your needs or preferences. You can withdraw from that protection agency and go to another one. It's so funny, you know, these objectivists, I'm not sure if this guy's an objectivist, but this general objectivist argument is like, well, the free market produces quality, but a monopoly of protection through a coercive government agency is going to produce quality. And see, the free market produces quality except in personal protection, in which case it's a disaster. Okay, so the free market can produce massive complicated cell phones that work literally all over the planet, but it can't figure out how to protect you from criminals. Yeah, that makes sense. So that which is more complicated can be totally handled by the free market, but that which is far less complicated, well, you need a government gang for that. What what anarchists submit from... So this is just a bunch of questions, right? And this, well, who will build the roads? Well, how do you know? How are you going to get national protection? Right? It doesn't matter.
[12:56] This is this retarded, genuinely retarded, saying, oh, oh, well, you have slaves. Who's going to pick the cotton? And who's going to do this? And who's going to make all of that? And who's going to build? If you don't have the slaves, then who's going to pick the vegetables? Who's going to... Right, you can see this happening right now. It's like, well, without the illegal immigrants, who is going to pick the vegetables? Avocado is going to be $10 It's like You know You don't have to answer these questions You just have to say Is slavery immoral Yeah slavery is immoral Is the initiation of the use of force immoral Yes, That's all you need to answer How are you going to Okay How are you going to Doesn't matter, It's an irrelevant question. It's an irrelevant question. How's the guy going to get to work if the car he stole gets taken back? How's he going to get to work? Huh? It doesn't matter. Did he steal the car? Then it goes back. I don't care how he gets to work. It's irrelevant. All right.
[13:47] Anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating competition in the protection of rights. In fact, what their position would necessitate is competition in defining what rights are. Yes, rights are complicated. Therefore, we need competition.
[14:05] The enforcement of rights is not that complicated. Guy steals your bike, someone goes and gets it back for you. That's not. Yes, rights are complicated because some people use them to mean I have the right to be left alone and other people use it to mean I have a right to other people's labor, i.e. free healthcare. So yes, rights are complicated. So that's why we need a competition because that which is not in the state of competition gets corrupt and top heavy inexploitive and destructive. You take something out of the realm of competition, it turns to shit and is endlessly force-fed to the population. All right, what anarchists omit from their basic premises is a simple fact. Conflicting philosophies will lead to conflicting interpretations of the meaning of such basic terms as aggression, self-defense, property, rights, justice, and liberty. Deducing away syllogism after syllogism from these mere words does not mean that the people employing them agree on their meaning, justification, or implementation, right? So in society, there will be different definitions of these things, for sure. So then how can a government possibly enforce the will of the people if the people disagree on things?
[15:18] But there is such a necessity for the network effect with regards to protection. Like you don't have you don't want to have protection that works in one town but not another, right you don't want to have a cell phone that works only uh in a three block radius right you want a cell phone that works everywhere you go and you want protections that work everywhere you go which means that the bare minimum definitions have to be agreed upon by a very wide variety of protection agencies otherwise if you have a new protection agency that says well i define rights as the right to health care, therefore I'm going to enforce ostracism procedures against any doctor that doesn't give you free health care, well, people just wouldn't accept that. They wouldn't believe in that. They wouldn't enforce that. They would go nowhere with that.
[16:07] So for sure, yeah, that people have differing definitions. How does the government solve that? The government is still going to have to pick one definition out of many and enforce that at the expense of everyone else, which means that everyone is going to try and get control of the government to enforce their own definition of these words on other people, leading to civil war. God, why don't people see this stuff? Yeah, the only chance you have to have these terms defined in any consistently productive way is through voluntary competition. So people who overdefine these terms are going to end up with very, very expensive premiums. So if, for instance, self-defense means, okay, some guy's about to attack you with grievous bodily harm, reasonable expectations, that's fine. Then that's very rare and it's very cheap to pay for insurance against that because it's very rare. If somebody says, well, self-defense is somebody who looks at me mean, well, that's going to be crazy, ridiculously expensive, right? So if self-defense is guy running at me with chainsaw, that's going to cost you 10 bucks a month to protect yourself against that. If it's somebody looked at me funny and called me a mean word, then that's going to be $10,000 a month to enforce for every customer. So which ones are customers, the most efficient? There's an efficiency principle here that can only be determined by economics and nothing else. So saying that there's a huge amount of disagreement about these terms is an absolute argument for voluntary free market definitions and enforcement because that got the efficiency principle.
[17:32] Otherwise, everybody's going to use the government to try and inflict their definitions on everyone else, and you get back to civil war. It solves nothing. All right.
[17:40] Without a philosophical consensus, quote, competing agencies driven to maximize profits by satisfying their paying customers will offer opposing rival social factions and interpretations each once. No, they won't. It's sort of like saying, well, every internet service provider is going to have a different.
[18:01] Standard of data transfer, and therefore nobody will be able to send an email to anyone outside a small localized network. Well, that's just not how things work. Of course, they have to agree on how to exchange data and information. Your email probably, you send an email to Dubai, it probably goes across 20 different systems, all of them using the same basic standards of data transfer. Because that's the efficiency principle, right? So, what they're saying is that, well, in a market that's driven by efficiency, there are going to be these crazy inefficiencies. It's like, well, then you don't believe in the free market. You don't believe that the free market brings efficiency, in which case you might as well have the government run everything. But if the free market does bring efficiency, then the first thing you need efficiency in is the use of force and definitions of self-protection and liberty and justice, right? And the only way you'll get consistent and productive definitions of these things is through the efficiency principle of the market.
[18:54] All right. Yeah, so satisfying their paying customers. So paying customers want to be protected everywhere they go from violence, from the initiation of the use of force, they want to be protected at a reasonable cost for everywhere they go. Yeah. So whoever will provide that will do very well. And everyone who tries to get in the way of that. I mean, imagine all these railroads are being built and you're like, well, I think that a gauge that's half as wide is the most efficient one because you can go faster in a straight line. Okay, so go build your own railroad with a gauge half the size of everyone else's and see how many people want to use your railroad. It won't happen. Anyway, it's just silly. And which agency will attract the most customers? Of course, the one that gets results by best satisfying consumer demand, i.e. The one that can impose its own definitions of aggression and self-defense on competitors nope no it's the one that gives you the most protection for the least amount of money right and also here's the thing too people are going to want definitions of say.
[20:00] Criminal aggression that don't include their own behavior right so i'm not about to spend any part of my day running at people with chainsaws screaming, I'm going to, right, unalive them. So I'm not doing that with them. So I'm very happy having that. It's part of a voluntary protection agreement I signed with the DRO. Yeah, great. However, if, on the other hand, you, as we all do, occasionally look at people funny or may even say something a little bit rude to someone, you don't want that. You don't want to pay for that because that's going to bite you in the ass too. You want a bare minimum of things that you're not going to do that are very aggressive. Right? So anyway. The one that can, okay. So you don't get to impose your own definitions of aggression and self-dependence on competitors. You are casting a wide enough net on aggression that people feel protected, but not so wide that they themselves can run afoul for innocuous things like, I don't know, saying something mean or looking at someone in a hostile, quote, hostile manner, right? So he says, after all, would you hire an agency that couldn't adequately protect your own interpretation of your rights? Well, no, your own interpretation of your rights are going to be things that aren't going to get you caught up in a net and have you ostracized from society, but are going to be a self-protection for you, right?
[21:18] So it's, and of course, if people have their own definitions of rights and want to impose those on everyone else, then they didn't all just gain control of the government and do it that way. And then the civil war, right? Consider the justly maligned profession of defense attorneys. They'll defend any client for a buck using any argument, any tactic to boost their chances of winning. Truth be damned. what people today say when people today say i need a good lawyer do they mean i need a pillar of integrity or do they mean instead a guy who can win for me it's but anyone argue that it is merely the fact of government courts that makes these shyest as possible yeah for sure for sure so what he's saying is that uh people have uh uh people who want protection will get, morally compromised liars to provide that protection for them. All right?
[22:19] So then he gives a government example saying, well, the government has a monopoly on the law courts. And so he's saying that, look, as my primary example as to why we need the government, I'm going to tell you how terrible governments are. Look at my God, right? Oh my God. Do you not suppose that they would find similar employment in a totally privatized system in which the sovereign consumer reigns? So that's just a rhetorical question. Yes, yes, Of course, people would want lawyers who get to the truth, not this combat, right? So the reason why the combative legal system exists, largely like prosecution and defense, the reason why all of this exists is because the government has so much power that you need a defense attorney and the government can overstep its own boundaries and do terrible things and strip you of your rights and withhold discovery and can often get away with this kind of stuff, can plant evidence. So, you need a very ferocious defense lawyer because the government has so much power and has no limit on its own power in the courtroom. So, saying, well, no, that'd be exactly the same, but the free market would be exactly the same as a government system. Okay, well, if the free market would be exactly the same as a government system, then you can have private defense agencies, idiot.
[23:37] Um, isn't it really okay? Today, a legal monopoly exists to put shady private detectives and private extortionists behind bars. Okay. I like how he puts legal monopoly in quotes, like sovereign consumer. This is just lazy, uh, quote mongering, right? Well, here's an argument that, that, that I don't like. So I'm going to put it in quotes. Here's an argument I don't want to address. So I'm just going to put it in quotes. Okay. Okay, it serves as a final arbiter on the use of force in society. Well, it doesn't actually. But anyway, because, I mean, people can get shot even if they get released from prison, or at least if they get off, right? We all agree that it does a less than exemplary job much of the time, but it's there. What happens when it isn't? Or worse, when the shady detective or extortionist has replaced it in a marketplace where profits depend on satisfying the subjective desires of emotional clients. Right. So there are these really shady detectives or extortionists, private extortionists. So a shady detective or extortionist can gain power. So let's give them the power of the government. Oh, my God. Anarchists say this scenario is unrealistically pessimistic. No, it's just every argument you say, well, you know, private defense agencies could be corrupted. So let's give all the power to the government because Lord knows the government's incorruptible.
[25:03] It's embarrassing right uh in fact people naturally seek their rational self-interest they declare once government is out of the way they would try to cooperate work things out well if they did why would they need any agency governmental or private why wouldn't five billion people naturally cooperate on this planet without an illegal institute framework to resolve disputes uh because you can have different interpretations and people also can commit violence because of mental illness, or they take drugs that burn out their brains, and so on, right? So, There will be wrongdoers and evildoers, which we need protection from, for sure. So, and of course, if everyone could agree, you wouldn't need a government either, right? So, okay. The problem is, the problem, of course, is everyone disagrees about what his rational self-interest is. Ask the Palestinians and the Israelis to define rights, force, property, justice, self-defense, or ask the IRA and the British or George III and George Washington, right? So, these are all government situations and government issues, right?
[26:05] So how do we best limit the capricious use of force by these millions whom we call the public? Let's compare anarcho-capitalism with limited government.
[26:13] Under anarcho-capitalism, the public is called the market and votes with its dollars to have its way about the use of force in society. In a political institution, under a monopolistic government, I like he's put that in quote, like it's not a real fact, right? The public is called a political constituency and votes with balance in order to have its way about the use of force in society. Right. So, of course, voting with dollars is continuous and can be withdrawn at any time if the service doesn't meet your expectations, if that's in the contract, right? But if a politician doesn't do what he says he's going to do, then you have no recourse. If zero recourse, no recourse whatsoever, right? Because governments don't sign contracts, but private entities do. And private entities usually have, you know, well, if we don't provide service, you don't have to pay us, right? At least would in a free society. Government doesn't have that, right? But in the latter case, if the government has been constitutionally limited, the masses are typically thwarted in having their way at the expense of others. Oh, my God.
[27:13] Constitutionally limited oh no god man please i mean america has been at war for all but what five or ten years of its entire history congress has declared war precisely twice is it first world war second world war maybe there's one other i've forgotten but no see it's in the constitution that only the only congress has the power to declare war so it's fine because it's in come on, man. This constitution, this is magic piece of paper. It's just going to completely thwart evildoers. Okay. But if you have magic pieces of paper that magically thwart evildoers, why wouldn't you just call that a contract with your DRO, with your defense agency? Because they'll be constitutionally limited too. So they can't break out of those bounds. If the government can't break out the bounds of the constitution, which took two generations or so after the founding of the American Republic, or less, really, if you count the Whiskey Rebellion. So, if a magic piece of paper thwarts evildoers from doing anything wrong, then that magic piece of paper can as easily be the voluntary contract with you and your protection agency. All right. They can't use force to do anything they want. As private criminals, their acts are limited by the government. And government agents themselves are limited by the Constitution.
[28:31] That's right. Unless you get a Patriot Act or FISA courts, or you want to spy on your political opponents or you want to, you know, do something with the five eyes so that you can spy on your own citizens from ostensibly overseas.
[28:47] Oh my God. Our founders were geniuses at limiting power. It's taken lovers of coercion over 200 years to divert our founders' system to its current state and still our system is far from being totalitarian. So the very smallest government in the history of the planet has turned into the very largest and most powerful government in the history of the planet with the capacity to destroy the entire world many times over. But they were geniuses at limiting power.
[29:14] Oh, okay. In the market, by contrast, what's to stop thugs? And by what standard? Surely no private company would deliberately handcuff itself with separations and divisions of powers and checks and balances. Well, why not? Because people don't want rogue DROs to enslave them. So they're going to put lots of checks and balances in, and you can read my book Everyday Anarchy for more on this. Sure. Such silly, inefficient gridlock and red tape would only make it less competitive. No, a competitive company must be flexible to respond to shifting market demand. But the market demand is always to have a protection agency strong enough to protect you, but not strong enough to enslave you. Of course, right? That means the demand for whatever consumers may want anything at all, it can't tie up its own hands by limiting itself. Well, it actually does because it needs the network effect. So that's like saying any cell phone company can simply refuse to interact with any other cell phone company. Well, then it would go out of business because people want to be able to travel with their cell phones, right?
[30:12] Yes, so you have to limit yourself, right? Which is why TCPIP is still the standard. It's why rail gauges tend to be the same width, which is the width of horses, horses, and the Roman Empire for various reasons and so on. Anyway, after all, some other company or industry will always be willing to operate without such moral self-limitation, but it's the customers who want to limit the power of the dispute resolution agencies. What firm would restrain itself when the sleazy, unscrupulous Acme Protective Service across town is just itching for the same customer contracts and willing to promise its clients no limits? Yeah, but people don't want, people don't want, quote, protection agencies with totalitarian powers.
[30:47] Anarchists proclaim faith that in the marketplace, all the protection companies would rationally work everything out. All companies in the private sector, they assert, have a vested interest in peace. No, they have a vested interest in pleasing their customers and their customers don't want budding totalitarian agencies. Their reputations and profits, you see, rest on the need for mutual cooperation, not violence. Oh, what about a reputation for customer satisfaction? And the profits that go with getting results. I guess anarchists have no experience in the private sector with shyster lawyers, protection rackets, software pirates, and the like. Aren't they, too, responding to market demand? So shyster lawyers, that's all government-based. Protection rackets could be dismantled by the government but often pay off the government. So the protection rackets operate under the supposed all-powerful, all-wonderful, all-benevolent governments that these guys like. Software pirates, that's an IP question. It's a totally different matter. So if the demand for peace is paramount please explain the bloody history of the world right people like to use violence to get what they want which is why you can't give people a monopoly on the use of force.
[31:49] Adako capitalists forget their own Austrian economics. It was von Mises who described the marketplace as the ultimate democracy where, quote, sovereign consumers voted with their dollars to fulfill their desires. Not necessarily good desires, mind you, just desires, whatever they happen to be. The market itself is moral. It is simply satisfied by the demands, desires of the greatest number. So he's saying that people can make bad decisions when they vote with their dollars, right? And people can make bad decisions when they vote with their votes. Except if you make a bad decision voting with your dollar, you suffer the consequences. If you make a bad decision voting, society suffers the consequences and you often benefit if you vote for a guy who's going to benefit your company by putting, say, protective tariffs on stuff that competes with you. So yeah, people can make bad decisions. And so they should make bad decisions with their own money and suffer their own consequences, not they should make bad decisions forcing their will on other people for at least a four-year period, right, through the state. In other words, the market like water can't rise higher than its source, and its source is the people, the same people who vote in a representative political system. The marketplace is no more moral than the people who are voting with their dollars.
[32:56] What? Okay. Oh, yeah, I get it. If there's a demand, some supplier will always come along to fill it. Demand for anything from chocolates to child prostitutes. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Child prostitution would not be protected by DROs because people have children. They don't want their children to be kidnapped. They care about children, and so child prostitutes would not be allowed.
[33:16] Prostitution is a form of contract. Children cannot sign contracts, and nobody, no DRO that had, like, can you imagine giving a 10-year-old child the ability to sign, you know, multi-million dollar multi-year contracts, borrow huge amounts of money without any job? No, of course not. Everybody knows that children cannot, or most people know, children cannot consent, and so there would be no child prostitution because prostitution is an economic exchange which children are not competent to deal with, right? And of course, there's sexuality involved and children cannot process the consequences of sexuality. Their bodies are not designed for it. It's too brutal for them. And so it would not be allowed, right? What, quote, market mechanism would arise to distinguish between the two? And by what right and standard would it enforce such distinctions? Yeah.
[34:03] So I think his argument is that in a free market society, you'd get chocolates. And if anybody knows the history of how the food pyramid was developed or how sugar was put to blame for fat, which is less dangerous in many ways than thinking that the government, that under the government bad food will never be allowed into society. My God, you think post-COVID people, well, maybe this is pre-COVID, all right.
[34:28] Anarchists think the invisible hand of the marketplace will work in the place of government, but read what Adam Smith has to say about businessmen in that famous invisible hand passage. Smith knew that government was a precondition of the market and of the working of the invisible hand. Without government, the invisible hand becomes a closed fist, wielded by the most powerful gangs to emerge.
[34:48] Yes, powerful gangs are bad, and the government is the most powerful gang, so that's even worse, because government prevents competing forces from defining and enforcing their own private interests subjectively and arbitrarily. Yeah, because government is just magic physics that operates independently of corrupt human wishes. Even if 99% of protection agents behave rationally, all you'd need is one secessionist outlaw agency with its own novel interpretation of rights and justice tailored to appeal to some customer base of bigots, religious fanatics, disgruntled, blah, blah, blah. Do anarchists care to argue that outlaw agencies, given our current intellectual and philosophical marketplace, place would have no constituencies. Dream on.
[35:24] Well, so he's saying that people don't agree on anything. People don't understand basic political concepts, and therefore, we can't have a free society without pointing out that it is, in fact, the government who educates people for close to a decade and a half, maybe longer, I guess, if you count government schools, post-secondary, which are heavily controlled and licensed by the government. So he's saying, well, you know, people don't act particularly rationally without pointing out that in a free market environment, children would be taught how to reason, they'd be taught useful skills, they'd have much less incentive to steal because they'd be economically productive, and they would have a much greater ability to negotiate because they would have been taught how to negotiate. So all of this, it's, well, the government's controlling people's education.
[36:11] Well, you know, people don't really understand concepts too well, so we got to have a government.
[36:18] Oops, did I say outlaw? Under anarchy, there is no final determiner of the law. There would be no final standard for settling disputes, e.g. a constitution. Yeah, because magic, man, just constitution is physics, man. You can't escape it. It's like gravity. That would be a monopoly legal system, you see. That's because anarchists support the unilateral right of any individual or group to secede from a governing freight work. No. If people initiate the use of force and don't pay restitution, they will be economically ostracized from society. Trust me, I've been through it. It's quite a powerful process. So whose laws, rules, definitions, and interpretations are going to be final? Consider the logical alternatives under anarcho-capitalism. Either no protection agency The imposer enforces any of its interpretations, blah, blah, blah. There is no final arbiter of disputes. No court of final appeal. Right. So it's like the scientific method. There is, in fact, under science, no final arbiter of disputes. You negotiate until you work things out, until then the best conjecture or hypothesis or theory wins out over time. There's no final rubber stamp that says, this is true, right? And so it operates in a state of freedom and negotiation, and that's when it moves further and further and further ahead, faster and faster and faster. So, all right. And there's no final arbiter on disputes, i.e. Judges with a monopoly on enforcement that can be corrupted and bribed and have their own preferences and so on, right?
[37:44] Everyone, some agency deemed guilty of an improper initiation of force would retain unilateral right to ignore the verdict of that agency to secede from any rulemaking framework. Nope. Nope. No, because people aren't going to sign up for enforcement of the non-aggression principle when there's no enforcement of the non-aggression principle. So, of course, there would have to be an enforcement mechanism, right? Who would pay for such toothless protection? Who would stand to lose? Right. People won't pay for something which can't be enforced, right?
[38:14] Uh but who would stand to gain only the thugs who would unilaterally declare themselves immune from anyone's arrest prosecution or punishment right except people would have the right of self-defense and they would have uh weapons so they wouldn't run wild right i mean at the moment i mean this is the daniel daniel penny thing right which is that people are uh punished for self-defense right and people are let out of jail repeatedly right oh no thugs would be unconstrained. I mean, look what's going on in the blue cities. I mean, you can do just about any crime known to man, uh, except maybe burn rubber on a rainbow, a sidewalk, and, uh, you're pretty much out of jail. Like, uh, it's a, um, revolving door, right? Okay. Some enforcement framework must eventually arise and impose a final verdict on everyone. No, this is, so this is on, honestly, I don't want to psychoanalyze this guy, but this is the kind of mentality that comes out of squabbling siblings. Well, dad's got to come and tell kids who's what's what, right? Right? No. People aren't children.
[39:19] All right. Do I care? I just think it just goes on and on. All right. Well, let me know if you want me to do any more of this. I just think it's a sad situation. The arguments brought up front, he's not addressing anything. This is just scare tactics. Well, I can't figure out how things might work. Therefore, they can't work. Therefore, government, Right? Well, what about this? So he's got these six arguments, right? The six syllogisms. And he hasn't addressed it. He's just saying, well, but the consequences could be bad and people disagree. And thugs will run wild. It's just scare stories. It's really sad. I mean, you've got these arguments. Either these arguments, these six at the beginning, right? Either these arguments are valid and correct or they're not. If they're valid and correct, scare stories are just pathetic.
[40:04] If they're not, then show how they're wrong. which you can't do. So, yeah, anyway, I'm not sure where this came from. I just was looking for good arguments against anarcho-capitalism. This seemed to be a pretty good synthesis, and this is generally about as good as things get.
[40:16] So, objectivists, I think, in general, have this belief that there will be a government and that they themselves will be in charge of that government and get to enforce objectivist standards. No, it's not the case. When you have a government, the most corrupt and the most violent and the most sociopathic end up wanting to run it in general. There are some exceptions. And whatever you create as a power will end up being used against your most cherished loved ones under the heel of your worst and most hated enemies. That's always the way it goes. It's always gone that way throughout history. And putting scare quotes around arguments you don't like and appealing to, oh, but my negative consequences don't change a goddamn thing. Freedomain.com slash donate. Thank you for your help and support. I really do appreciate it. Lots of love. Talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
