Anarchism vs Objectivism Victor Pross debates Brandon Cropper



we'll see about that Victor Gizem versus objectivism I favor it all right so hey everyone oh oh I must there we're definitely live now okay we had some repeating going on there so anyways folks so we're live here and we have today with this we've got Victor Pross once again I'm sure a few of you or some of you have watched my channel before I've seen Victor process of hadn't long had him on the channel a few times in the past and today he's going to be dealing with a gentleman I don't really know but he's a fellow well he's an Objectivist so he's obviously something that really cares a lot of the individual liberty as well and today let's go debate between Victor and Brandon is going to be basically between anarchism versus objectivism and this is a conversation I think it's really important to take place especially for people that need to learn and understand what does the state even represent what is government because that's the thing a lot of people in there out there discussed in politics in reality it seems like they're playing team sports predominately a lot of them they're not really speaking from an informed perspective they're speaking from as if they were sitting there watching a baseball or a football game and they're picking or cheering for Team A or team B right as far as political parties but at the end the day what it comes down to is people should know intrinsically and understand what is government what is the point what does it mean what is what is the role of government is there a role for government and that's what this conversation that's what this debate it's gonna be about now today Victor's gonna start off and give his a few minutes take a few minutes to put forth his points and then Brandon's gonna do the same thing and then they're going to be conversing and debating back and forth based on the points each other puts forth and presents go ahead Victor okay very good yeah well just you know just as I was saying before we went live is that you know I'll begin my opening statement now by emphasizing the fact that that I do share a lot of things with both Brennan that being objectivism so don't call it anarchism versus objectivism because that's not where I'm coming from the objective is might characterize it as that yes and urk is anarchism versus objectivism but I'm not against objectivism I'm not again against it at all I follow Rand when it comes to the basics of her philosophy and epistemology metaphysics ethics just part ways when it comes to when it comes to government which is natural cos I've just declared myself an anarchist so that's where we part ways not with the large Opus body of a work that covers a lot more than just government which is there's only one small fraction of her work okay so but no need to worry we do have significant differences there and then because nothing could be more boring than a debate where the people are just agreeing right so but yeah no political philosophy by its very nature it is a normative discipline I recognize that a lot of anarchists who have problems getting their heads around that but it is a norm enough discipline political philosophy and it does describe political phenomena it does employ norms standards the values it does evaluate actions and so as and so forth so there there is an ethics to the whole thing whereas you know like too many anarchists would just say that oh it's just brute force that's it no it is a normative discipline the whole field of politics in government so the this this prescriptive aspect is is commonly said to to constitute the essential difference between political philosophy and political science so you know the latter we are told it's purely descriptive in a character political science and that its value free value free so a lot of the anarchists you know the that they read the economists and they yeah it's value free that's right you know and it's political science and so it's not normative and things like that but it's both normative and it's both descriptive as well so when dealing with with beliefs about political legitimacy political sciences scientists rather they do not impose their own value judgments on their subject matter they they do not attempt to determine whether such beliefs are right or wrong justified or unjustified but they think they simply confine themselves to describing those beliefs and partially so I doubt that a political science always lives up to this rigorous standard by the way because with of this this whole value-free standard of approach in studying a political science after all like when a political scientists classified some regimes as authoritarianism bliss Utley at least so suffice to say that normative standards and the field of ethical philosophy is very much a part of politics politics rests on ethics that's where I agree with the Objectivist a lot of anarchists haven't got their head around that politics does rest on ethics and ethics and thus on metaphysics and epistemology going down the entire hierarchy hierarchy of knowledge when it comes to philosophy but now we get to the point of where we differ and that what's that's where we lead into the the hub of the the debate I am a free-market anarchist I'm with Rand on epistemology reason metaphysics objective reality ethics rational self-interest now let's just a show how severely the separation is when it comes to politics then where the Objectivists and the anarchist part ways let me quote rain here in regards to that ok rands views on anarchism and this might be edifying for you as well Bennett okay now to quote Anarchy as a political concept is a naive floating abstraction a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would participate or precipitate it into chaos and gang warfare but the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to Anarchy even a society whose every member were fully rational faultlessly moral could not function in a state of anarchy goodness it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreement among men that necessitates the establishment of government and she goes on to say that if a society provided no organized protection against force it would compel every citizen to go about armed turn their home into a fortress shoot any strangers approaching his door or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs formed for the same purposes and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into chaos and Gangrel ruled by brute force into perpetual tribal warfare prehistorical savages now you can see this is a very very severe critic criticisms of anarchism and it's one that's shared largely by the by the public at large I think you have Objectivists scholar Leonard Peikoff who is the intellectual hair to to Iran and he writes anarchism is the idea that there should be no government and an Objectivist terms this amounts to the view that every man should defend himself by using physical force against others whenever he feels like it okay with no objective standards of justice crime or proof so here we have the whole enchilada caricature of Anarchy which you know comes from a sex pistol album I think but as well but no this is not what anarchy means no anarchists I know of at least defends using physical force against others whenever he feels like it as a serious idea to consider now look a lot of this a lot of these problems arise back from going way back and it's not ran has that this brought all this this this dull for confusion and about a lot of this goes back to Locke versus Hobbes John Locke versus haunts the Objectivists shared three basic philosophical excuse me they do share some basic philosophical principle principles with with the poll with John Locke like with for example let me just John Locke has covered a lot they would they would criticize them in a lot of different areas but in the areas of whether an agreement of the the Objectivist do you agree with the idea of individual rights of course and as with as expels by John Locke and property rights that rights are not granted by God or government men have rights by their nature they need to be free in order to survive and flourish this no this is all comes from John Locke the Objectivist approach to individual rights is just vanilla classical liberalism flourishing in the works of John Locke man is a rational animal he is able to grasp and comprehend reality man is able to discover and grasp the concepts such as rights and justice and freedom as a conceptual volitional being he's capable of all of this but I would argue and I think this is probably where Brandon would probably take serious contention with that the objectives also share some basic philosophical principles with Locke when it comes or excuse me with Hobbes when it comes to human beings in society according according to Hobbes the man is not by nature a social animal and that society could not exist except by the power of the state which is made up of people by the way just a legend all that but according to Hobbes man is in a state of nature a state of nature and is there therefore pre-social pre-social according to Hobbes man essentially a mechanistic brute okay so for the most part Anarchy has functioned as a political equivalent of hell a perpetual war of every man against every man and we can see that in rands quote of course it just comes it just all comes out to the to the to the surface and this is really she's channeling the spirit of Hobbes with this kind of outlook but she'll switch over when it comes to ethics she becomes a locking in full throttle but when it comes to politics without that the idea of a government then then it's Hobbes and it's just this this mechanistic warring brute who's shooting anybody who approaches his door so and you even have like a Objectivists spokespeople like you're on Brooks who would openly said he would rather live in a communist dictatorship than an anarchist Society so you do have this this whole Hobbesian approach here you know it's a state of nature red tooth and claw life is nasty brutish and short and bran gave an illustration of that in in that quote that I just gave you now the according to Objectivists the absence of a centralized Authority the state would lead to a piss ma logical chaos I've also noted that in the works of vine vine ran an Objectivist writers as well for example when it comes to terms such as force cohesion rights Liberty aggression retaliation defense human beings are frothing at the mouth make it up as you go women worshipping subjectivist so they conclude that an anarchist society would collapse into a subjectivist orgy of different meanings being ascribed to the concept such as force and freedom and who's to say what that is by the way buh-ba-ba-bah this would lead to an enormous bloodbath of rival gangs fighting over you know what is the proper definition so it's epistemological chaos Peikoff himself Leonard Peikoff an Objectivist philosopher he writes just to back up my claims here he writes the anarchists or the anarcho-capitalist primary of judge is not government but the fact that gives rise to the need for one the need for outside impartial observers to objectively evaluate and control the use of force in society so in other words people we the citizens are emotionally win riddled philosophical monstrosities out to demolish objectivity but praise the government in but we can praise the government for instituting law and government or for excuse me for law and order so Rand and the Objectivist intellectuals suffer from a sort of Hobbesian sense of life as I would argue you see only the philosopher kings of rands government of rands proper government are capable of determining objectively while the masses are wholly dependent upon the power elite for a law and order and for their very definitions to objection okay so of course the funny thing here is that according to objective as opposed his moto G reason is an attribute of the individual so the I know that that would be set but just to just one other quote here just to drive home the point of how the people are being separated from these philosopher Kings because we're just all human beings the government is just made up of people but they are making this separation of people who would be in in power writing the laws defining the laws interpreting the laws implementing the laws you have Objectivists robert ben adano who wrote in the contradiction of anarchism exactly he asks exactly demands yeah the challenges exactly who determines what use of forces initiative or cohesive and what is defensive or retaliatory why what processes that determination made or to put it in the terms of rights who determines whether any given right rights have been infringed or not and he goes on with this like who for citing for society how are such determinations made with finality and how is that verdict enforce and as a corollary who determines which agency is a protection agency speaking of the DRO model as spearheaded by Murray Rothbard and which is a mere gang of aggressors by what method and standard so you see the challenges all this and anarchists sincerely believe that they are that they're merely advocating competition he writes in the protection of rights in fact what their position would necessitate its competition in defining what rights are so the fact that bitter none'll isn't answering question his own question speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned he retreats into legal subjectivism okay now this point is very pointed a very urgent that I want to make here when it comes to ethics when it comes to ethics Rand is right on as far as I'm concerned cheese bridge the Assad economy and all of that shit that man is the rational animal it's and so forth but like I said when it comes to politics when it comes to politics the guy the man the rational animal is able to grasp the principles of let's say engineering or computers or architecture becomes this bumbling idiot when it comes to when it comes to justice so is there's the the is there something mystical mystical about this government and all that only it is capable of giving a fair trial to someone accused of murder let's say even if another agency follows the same procedures and has the same concerns with arriving at at just outcome the the subject of this government would have why is that the case so that's that's basically you know I'll just I'll just close off there and I'd like to hear what what Brandt would have to say in regards to that all right well it occurs to me that after I say my piece we should even probably spend a minute or two asking each other a couple of questions and then go from there sheriff let me describe first of all for the audience that's not familiar with me where I come from as an Objectivist we Iran views metaphysics and epistemology as the base of her philosophy which is simply to say that something exists in the universe and you you have a mind now anarchists get a little confused about this when you ask them about a person on a desert island some of them don't think that you would need ethics on a desert island Iran thinks that on a desert island you would need them most of all because ethics is the science of how you live and when somebody else shows up on the island and you have to fight over the berries then you've discovered politics so ethics and politics are simply how we live and how we live with other people and anarchists some anarchists actually dispose of the question of politics and say they have only ethical views and that's just how naive they are now that's the total philosophy of Iran views a individual human being in the universe thinking for himself and politics isn't as a subject that comes out after you have the individual they're thinking for himself now that's just that's an argument that's just my view of human beings and and philosophy now to start off against anarchy it's not true that the ancient Greeks were confused when they sat a cup of water down on their table because Isaac Newton hadn't explained water and gravity to them Isaac Newton explained it to us and yet when we set a cup of water down on the table it's the same phenomenon that the Greeks experienced however somehow the Greeks did not understand the phenomenon that they were observing and the reason they didn't is because of the work of Copernicus and Kepler and Newton and Newton had to finish that out so there can be something right before you and if you do not have the cognitive understanding of what you're seeing then you do not have the cognitive understanding what you're seeing and it's very important to understand what you're looking at so that's the first point with anarchists they've got to get this point through their head Newton and his work were important now to give a very simple illustration of this you would never take a person seriously who said I will now fly my airplane and you would say to them where is he airplane and they'll say I don't need to build it I don't need to design it I just need to fly it and that is our view of the anarchists taking politics and ethics and starting to work with them there without the foundation you haven't designed an airplane and you haven't built an airplane and now you think you're going to go fly an airplane and you look ridiculous okay the Greeks done with those two points on to my third point the Greeks were someone was at the court in Persia and the Persian king said who is the despot set over the Greeks who do they obey and this Greek who was visiting his court said sire the Greeks obey only the law they obey no man now that sentence right there is the discovery of freedom the Greeks knew it and every society that's had an inkling of freedom since then knew it that we do not obey men we obey laws and we write the laws and if we don't write the laws then comes a revolution now why do we have these laws one reason to banish force now that doesn't mean sometimes bad people getting control of them that happens a lot so we better keep our guns and we better respect our rights and we better have our philosophers on our shelf and read them constantly so we have to defend ourselves but the reason these laws exist is to banish force and to mention what you said earlier about Euron Brooke would rather live in a communist dictatorship than an anarchist Society I agree with them on that because in a communist dictatorship at least there's a court of law at least there are police officers you can't just run around shooting people and murdering people when there were murders and corpses were showing up in Gorky Park there were men with Kalashnikovs all over the city at every train station there were police everywhere they were looking for evidence in the parks now during that time they also arrested two or three or five thousand people during that period and put them in a gulag so I'm not in favor of that it's definitely important who's in power and what they do and we should definitely keep our guns but the reason for laws is to banish the use of force from from regular society and communist dictatorships do a better job of that than anarchist societies ever could or would now how I've got two or three more minutes on now to the question of anarchy versus objectivism objectivism is a total philosophy that comes from the individual with a mind and develops from there anarchy takes for granted all of the basis of philosophy and is simply floating up on the top with ethics and politics saying that we don't like people forcing us and therefore so what are you going to do you're going to get rid of the instances of force so that will bring me I think I can finish there and then if I can ask a couple questions of you Victor and then I'll let you ask a couple questions of me I'd like to respond much what you said so far but questions can follow alright well I just have two quick questions and then it will be into the meat of it I would like you to define free market and then I want you to say exactly what parts of the government you object to about what define what you object to about government and define free-market those are my two questions sure yeah well basically yeah you know I do agree you know just as a preamble to answering your question I do I do we do learn from Rand that philosophy not politics is primary okay it's one of the things that I've been trying to wear I'm a gadfly even to the anarchists trying to get that across you know you do have an ideal rannian government could emerge and and be sustained only in a society with a significant percentage of rational people such as such a government could a rice would not be possible and today societies today's culture you would agree right so of substantial percentage of a population that does understand and respect individual rights and property rights in the free market will truly had would truly have a limited government according to Rand right well there you use our the culture right you haven't defined free market be you keep using the term yeah no a free market is is is a division of labor where the where the participants are fully cooperate with one another as they see fit for the for the purposes of producing and trading there is no clash between producers and consumers in fact they're one in the same person at we are both producers and we are consumers and we are not to be hampered in hi I am strong by external forces dictating telling us what how agent afraid what we are to trade there is a division of labor there is specialization this is how human beings flourish because we do have to produce in order to live so it so it is the it is free ultimately it is free from the use of physical force and reason being applied to the problem into the challenge of survival which is production how is it free from the use of physical force who stops the use of physical force in a free market well this is where we this is where I would get into making a case for dro agencies because there are because there would be criminals violent criminals and there would be the case of people where honest objections would take place where there's a misunderstanding and you do need a third party arbiter to settle such disputes peacefully and this is where a defense or or DRLs would committed to the form and what if the what if the people who are having the contention didn't both agree to submit to the arbitration okay okay first of all let me just say before we get into get into that okay let's let's continue to distress the crucial importance upon proper definitions let's just get back to to the to the issue of government because I know that they were getting into trouble there and you want to back go go somewhere else no I want to I want to define the norm I'm making the case against government as being the answer that you're leading me to because the government is far from the solution to any of these issues that might not no no I think I've made my case that it's the law that I'm making the case for here not can I just say something real quick there gentlemen only simply because Brandon brought up the fact that he mentioned about the law and like I say I'm not you guys get back to your thing but I will just say since you did bring that up Brandon it would be a point of clarity actually because you say we don't obey men we obey laws but who writes the laws we do but aren't they men yes we read the laws and if we don't you how can we like you me are three or four of us sitting with a pen together doing it Orser well my example is group of people that have agreed my example was the Greeks right but but men people I mean you know that's that's the part I guess where he and I don't push your question in regards to tomorrow's – yeah well the big thing is when you say that that we write laws we are men well I mean unless you're talking with women to me it's the men or women or he likes human that's only profound human being right so that's just exactly to take this whole sexy crazy note of it but look let me just it is fallible human beings that meets temporize on law for a minute then tomorrow a new device will be invented which is a laser that was more powerful than any before and all of the sudden we did not previously have this problem of helicopters having lasers going to their cockpit and now we have the problem voilá we need a new law now how do we write that law maybe the first version of it causes some sort of in justices but we wouldn't know about that unless we had courts where we found this out and then we can rewrite the law so the law is written then it is arbitrated in the courts and if need be we rewrite it now the real danger there is that the people who are writing the laws are some gang or some group rather than elected officials who constantly get churned back out into the populous all right yeah you guys go ahead I just like to say I'm sure you'll clear this up anyways with your dialogue so go ahead don't worry that look at Brandon okay I don't know if you're familiar with us Duvall Molyneux but he's popular with a lot of different quote it's like not an argument and so forth and one of the other popular Coulson's described to him is that the law is just an opinion with a gun when it comes to that when it comes to that he was talking about political law as opposed to natural law let's just call it natural law the idea of an organized and just stateless society with the privatized privatization of laws what I be calling for not the abolishment of law or ruling it out of the of the the lexicon what do you mean private i the word private is a word that means your right to your property enforced by the government that's what the word private means so how would you privatize government that's that is getting that's flying your plane before you build it well you see that's why we have to define what government is because I'm not talking about privatizing government and I'm not talking about competing governments let me let me define what what what the government is so when we're not arguing midstream as rain would put it right but let's continue to stress the crucial importance of prompt proper definitions if only for the sake of for the audience what is the essential fundamental characteristic characteristic that separates government from any other social institution what attribute or distinguishing characteristic characteristic unites all governments under the communication now I know that you you prescribe to a certain to a certain theory and type of government but now I'm just defining government a monopoly on force right yes so of course that with that type of broad a designation there are many types of government the term government subsumes theocracy absolute monarchy Nazism fascism democratic socialism and any number of sundry dictatorships including the conservative libertarian types and they're wet dreams of a limited government again what is the essential fundamental characteristic that separates government from any other social institution that would be force that would be force so it said that all this is where I set from from the Objectivist they say that the purpose of government is for the protection of individual rights that's not the purpose of government because you just you just eradicated fascism and communism for chrissakes they are governments they are governments it's actually to banish the use of physical force in daily dealings are you talking about government are you talking government yes government even in a communist society that's what it's for is to banish the use of physical force in daily dealings they even hold up a facade of banishing the use of force when they arrest people they even arrest them and haul them away and put them in front of a court and stuff the banishment of the use of physical force innate no no it's not that you'll find yourself on so superior for exercising the right of it for exercising the wrong thoughts yes I know that communism falls far short but I'm saying that every instance of the use of law is to bring order and banish the use of physical force in daily in daily life I mean look at China China is a communist dictatorship where they banished the use of physical force in daily life except for people who are allowed to use force in daily life right the government or whatever you know but that's what the system of law is for is to stop people from using force in daily life no actually that's not that is not the case all the way back to ancient Babylon when they did court cases against people for borrowing a ladder and bringing it back broken they wouldn't go beat the guy up they would go to court it's taking physical force out of our daily lines and putting it up to some authority no because that's the contradiction that is because the initiate force for the supposed social utility of preventing force you don't have a problem with that that's the no government has ever been established by cooperation and by mutual consent of the people that would populate of the populace that would have any share in each geographical slice now you the nature of government in principle or are you just talking about the governments that you have seen that have occurred enough if the nature of government in principal doesn't defend you then why are you offended by the nature of government in principle I do but I do think that there has to be a third party arbiters and there has to be laws against actual physical force and this is where I agree with the Objectivist model that the own the only way that you can violate rights is through the use of physical force physical force it's nothing to be defined by the candy clerk who tries to upsell you from a small coke to a large coke and that's some kind of like coercion against you so there has to be some strictures against that there's all the only physical force is the only way that you can violate rights the contradiction of government is is that they establish themselves by force maintain themselves by force and that is the contradiction that's not to say that we don't need a third that we don't need laws that we don't need a third party arbiter to settle disputes honest disputes that rise about or to prevent us again to protect us against actual crimes not all the crimes that good governments make up and like I like I stress here like I said like I stressed no government has ever established or maintained itself except by the use of force so it is a ridiculous contradiction when they purport to be the the protectors against force among citizen against citizen just real quick their brand cents you're gonna actually be kind of alluding to this in your answer anyways I just want to mention AJ did a $5 donation his question was and I'm pretty much sure your answer do let to Victor will be more or less along this line but what do you guys think about the social contract because that's basically a long lines and what you're gone and referenced in there so kind of if you I try to incorporate that into your question or in your answer that be grateful yeah logos apparently I think that anything could be govern yeah yeah well let's let Brandon answer there cuz it's kind of its turn there anyways the the social contract is certainly not essential to the Objectivist philosophy we we view individual rights as the basis of our philosophy and people have said that don't exist and there isn't any rights anywhere and that's really technically true and the way that we defend our rights actually comes down to every single day in real life using trained men with guns and jails and prisons that's how we defend our rights there are no floating abstract rights somewhere and you're never going to get everybody to agree on it or respect them and even if you did you would still have honest disagreements among men so at some point we're going to have to have an authority and if you don't like what the authority is doing then that is why politics is an important science because you should be interested in politics you should be interested in what kind of an inny you're voting it up there and what they're doing and you should have your rights written down on a piece of paper this comes back again and again and again I keep coming to these pieces of paper with stuff written on them and the anarchists are upset that that's all that's between me and Anarchy is a piece of paper with stuff written on it whether it's the Declaration of Independence or any given law and that is how sophisticated my philosophy and behavior is I can actually hold together an entire society by agreement based on what's written on the papers and the few people who disagree we simply throw into jail okay let's get back to basics dear sorry do you want to say something about that well I was just I just wanted to point it just just because just to throw a little monkey wrench in this whole equation here I guess based on what Brandon was saying is I could say at 40 years old I've had social and civil conflicts people both from the physical realm and in just as far as economic terms like transactions or the other side of the contract wasn't property I've never used the police the courts or any judges to arbitrate my disputes and most of the time I've actually done a much better job of actually arbitrating those disputes by making sure that I was wise enough to make sure that I place myself in a position that that person if they decided to you know screw me over that saying was an economic transaction for that one time they recognized there was an inherent ability that it was actually going to cause them more economic harm and pain down the road so like I said I didn't have to use the government or even this pretense of these court systems to arbitrate to dispute I don't believe that that is actually the only which is why I don't believe in the monopoly of the use of force violence's turn in terms of government as the final arbiter or means to dispute conflicts whether it's in the social realm or in the economic justice it can be done without it because in 48 years I've never done so myself and like I say I have arbitrated disputes I would clarify it's not the final arbiter of force it's the only arbiter of force and if you wanted to say the final arbiter of force that would be the individual because if someone breaks into my house are they are gonna get stabbed or shot so I am the final arbiter of force if you want to say it that way but the government is the only arbiter of force nobody gets to use force except the government and that that means talking about the initiative for us to establish and maintain itself is that what you're defending ah I'm also talking about retaliatory force outside of emergencies right I mean if somebody burns your house down while you're on vacation you don't go over to their house and burn theirs down or else you're gonna go to jail too right you call the police and let the police deal with it so unless it's an emergency where you have to defend yourself with force the government is the institution that uses physical force period full stop I'm sorry I just got a response okay actually just from my own personal life rather than relying on the government you know someone that's why I don't know especially growing up in New Brunswick where the cops are like a half hour away I relied on the fact that my neighbors and everyone who knew me weren't worried about the cops showing up they were worried about actually they were probably more worried about that if they burn my house down or fuck yeah man it's gonna burn your so actually I think that was much more of a deterrent to be honest with you then you know the cops taking me to court and who knows how that pandu but like I say my ability to defend myself and having that inherent right that is not afforded to front of me by government just by sheer factors now I consider myself free human being that was a pretty good deterrent and it has been a really good deterrent over the course of my entire life is my willingness and my ability to if you screw with me I'm coming back that's a way more of a deterrent well hey someday maybe that's the case for you but there are other individuals who aren't so strong and so in Berlin in the world that you're speaking of these great equalizer these individuals would become the victims and and who would who would defend them and some poor little old lady or something you see and this is you see now we've gone full circle if you retain the the my opening speech here is this like here we have like who's going to determine this who's going to determine that ba ba ba ba ba this is where Hobbesian subjectivist s– on in the political realm where the objective has come out this is where Hobbesian man the hog bian sense of life when it comes to law my cousin determinate whoever i said would determined look at you just said that we need the government as a not competing defense agencies you just need one monolithic monopoly on the on the on the provision of arbitration diplomats who have I said would write those laws sorry write those lines we will write those laws and if you don't write those very good let's get let's get let's get back to basics then that's that's that's very good when justice was provided by non-state customary law that's that's the we that we're talking about here it was a non cohesive quick efficient and bare and cheap what states arose and imposed government made laws on their on their own people in other societies justice became unavailable core here serve slow inefficient costly and awfully unjustly brutal besides I think all of history shows this for chrissakes under all of these all these governments you might very well say that the purpose of government is for the protection of individual rights it's kind of like a hard press point to make on when you when you think of communism or Nazism or just ruling for the sake of ruling sake it's just a matter of like a powerless none of these societies had even defined the conception of individual rights the the Monarchs and the Kings and all the dictators Sunday dick dictatorship 2007 there's nobody defending that position Victor I'm not defending that position you're wasting your breath but yours what you're justified but you just but you just said you agree that you would rather have living in a communist dictatorship than an anarchist society an anarchist society is not one where you just make it up as you go along alright people category what justice is let me put it this way let me put it this way when you break the law you don't just have your enemy that you damaged like like our host here was just saying you have the full force of a massive gang of armed thugs that are now after you when you break the law that's why we like the government okay we don't want criminals to be answering to just us we want criminals to be answering to a ruthless gang of thugs who do not stop the long arm of the law is what we say about it right it just keeps going edge and when one prosecutor quits some other prosecutor will be hired in its place and it just keeps going it's relentless that's why we like the law because it it takes the whole enormous infinitely advanced to every single criminal one individual criminal does one individual act and he gets the entire state thrown at it that's why we like the law I'm not arguing against the law you what you're not arguing for it unless you're severely confused look at I'm saying that there should there should be a codified system of laws of procedures of what constitutes I would enforce them the people the people they certain yeah they're yeah in the sense that there should not be one monolithic agency that's that maintains and sustains itself through the use of physical force let me ask you why does it have to maintain itself through the use of physical ok well let's let's get let's get into it without over talking one another okay how is how is this monopoly on the use of force this government how is it to maintain itself I wasn't earning keep so to speak well I would say it should do so by voluntary taxation and we have a proxy of that in the United States because we do control our taxes through our elected officials okay now what okay with all that voluntary taxation yes that's right yes you don't consider taxation this let's go back to what III agree with ran here that definitions are the guardians of are the guardians of rationality what is taxation but career self how can you have it's like saying you've all antara taxation is an oxymoron you don't think that any you don't think the rational people would be willing to pay for their own defense yeah what we call taxation it's just like I want to have sex on my wife that's what the devs doing that it's got between that and rape is or voluntarily decide to interact let's not call it one person or someone involved in that equation that hasn't voluntarily chosen to do so well that's that's not consent and that's a presumption of consent that like I said how people try to work through that like that's mysticism beyond belief to believe and I'll just point it at myself right now I have never agreed in my entire life ever and no matter of fact no politician has ever actually asked me if I want to keep paying this massive amount of taxes on these constant you know whether it's on the housing search have you ever driven past a church sure yeah of course I'm actually those were built voluntarily those were built through voluntary contributions yeah yeah houses and thousands and thousands of them so unless you unless you're gonna argue against the existence of churches then people are willing to put gargantuan amounts of money towards something that is absolutely useless again Victor but we just agreed to earlier then you agreed to this which is why we really got stick to these definitions if the people in the Chad's gonna be you know properly informed is we agreed that government is a monopoly of force of violence so if the government is using that monopoly force of violence which is the pre-emptive use of force to take money for me against my will oh wait why did you say that why did you say that you didn't that doesn't follow to take your money just because they are the arbiter force doesn't mean they're gonna come take your money they do it all the time are you suggesting we don't have taxation well would it make sense for me to sit here and argue that every single government is gonna have concentration camps and gulags just because they don't go into the misdirection we're talking about taxation right you agreed to it ever you are talking about you are talking about taxation I'm talking about funding the government brain which is through taxation now if you can come up with something that's like you said voluntary taxation like I said there's no such thing as voluntary rape because we might as well just like we might as well not even be speaking the English language of the world the exact opposite of what it's supposed to mean the ristar saying that black this cup this is white how are we gonna have a conversation we get to the point of the contradiction okay we have to be clear in our language and that is important taxation is not voluntary and to pretend to suggest otherwise is to literally deny the entire reality of the world that we live in which is not Objectivist has nothing tithing Church tithing is voluntary no tithing is voluntary I've been to the church man I grew up in a front put the money in the plate they around it so you've seen voluntary taxation you can't go you got very tithing I've seen voluntary donations but I've never seen voluntary yes you have if you saw tithing than you saw voluntary taxation okay this is turning into a semantic cesspool for chrissakes what are you you look like a fool – I look like a fool by well that it's fat churches they build all these churches through voluntarily giving contributions and say okay look at we are look at hold it okay what do I need to be the moderator yeah early apparently cuz like I say no listen I'm you you know I'm a real guy but when someone's trying to like tell me the OP is down and black it's fucking white no I'm sorry I don't put up with that shit nah nah nah that's not what I'm about we hey hold on if you're here to fucking be honest let me know if you're just here to play games then we can shut this down right now and you can go to bullshit because I know I know what the difference between fucking theft is and voluntary interactions and I don't have to race down to any goddamn stupid-ass level you try to compete with some of this trying to tell me that I don't know what the fuck what that is and what isn't when someone takes something against my express permission that's theft and if I deny that you can't have a congressman and random friend unicorns exist Brandon Brandon let's stay here and talk abou what color unicorn do you like what the fuck I don't want to have a conversation about something that doesn't exactly point has been made in it in a variable ways all right well then let's get better knowledge you know but I thought you were doing objectivism versus anarchism not fucking retarded ass statism because that's all you're Brandon man I don't know what the hell you're coming at with but that does not make any sense to me if you're gonna sit there talking okay say Brandon Brandon Bennett by Bennett Bennett began it Bennett are you through I'm through okay okay taxation is theft yeah that's fucking theft let's look up the word taxation and let's look up also what what Brando was opposed to a cohesive taxation and she used the words voluntary contributions to the government we're getting into asset we're getting into semantics cesspool here we're not getting we're trying to find out he's trying to clarify language hey d'Or a minute I'm getting tired of this cool I don't really go shit to be honest with you I don't really give a shit cuz like I said if you guys don't want to be intellectually honest in this conclusion then just go to fuck away and do your shit cuz I don't play these games I'm not here to fucking entertain people because I'd be a whole lot richer if I just want to entertain people I'm here to try to hopefully educate and inform which means you have to be willing to be honest in your fucking position and if you're gonna sit there Tommy that black is white and up is down then we're wasting time here all right I'm an Objectivist and I defend Iran's definition of government which should be voluntary taxation there's such thing as voluntary taxation is there such thing as voluntary rate do you not understand the fucking point of consent is there volunteer you're saying up and down is the exact same thing at the same time that's an impossibility dude and if that's the fucking air you're working from then I don't even want to listen you anymore because it's telling me that you're not being intellectually honest and you're actually someone that's just trying to convince people to think of mystical terms and I don't want my Pete listen my people that watch my shit they can they can get all kinds of bullshit all over the place I do my stuff to properly educate in foreign people but I thought that that's what you guys were going to work from and usually Victor's pretty good about this stuff but if that's why you guys were bringing on here and you're gonna use my channel to talk up this cocksucking smack then just take it elsewhere and have your own debate on your own channel because that's not what I'm about I'm about being honest with people and trying to suggest that taxation is voluntary is like I said the same as suggesting that rape is voluntary another cool thing I didn't say that you so you said taxation is the same as sitting in a church queue tithing and I Omega say I know I've seen the difference I've never fucking government how come the government kids take my money against my permission the people in the churches no one in the pews ever come in and took picked my pocket they held it the collection plate and I had the choice to either voluntary hand it over or not – yeah you didn't nobody was going to come and take me away nobody's won't send me paperwork in the mail to say and you better pay this up or we're gonna garnish your wages or anything now that happened that's the difference means voluntary interactions and something that's done under the none force and tap gene isn't under the means of force and job you just to pretend otherwise like I say it's a complete waste of my time and I'm not a big fan of wouldn't in my time now be careful about it because we are at the the good thinking of the audience here they're going to be judging us by what we say right and that's why I do and say what I do because they know damn well I won't gonna hold nothing back when people try to fucking play games and suggest taxation is voluntary so you see such thing as though taxation no sir you think it's voluntary donations but now they're sure shit can't be such thing as voluntary taxation but then you said tithing exists tithing is not taxation okay your audience is watching you and the thinkers are hearing you yeah damn right there okay voluntarily given funds built churches voluntary funds do a lot of thing but they're definitely not used at the point of a gun or the pre-emptive use of force which is you admit it already earlier is what government represents that's the thing how can you sit there suggest that government is and you said it at your own mouth a representation of a monopoly force of violence and yet taxation is theft but yeah I've never voluntarily decided to give anybody one dime in government ever yeah it happens all the time why because everyone feels that they have to because if they don't well you know what happens right so this is the problem it's not voluntary and try to otherwise to me you're not you're not educating you're not helping to inform people you're trying to tell them that they're still supposed to believe that up is down black is white and that there's a magic man up in the cloud sitting there too because to me that's the same thing as if there's a magic man in the clouds is to suggest attack patient volunteer month there you are an anarchist sitting there talking about a society that's never existed and Here I am a 9r and objective is talking about a society that's never existed and you're trying to make me defend the science societies that exist I'm not listening there's lots of things be prior to the slavery ending there was no such thing as as far as societies that existed without slavery do I really give a fuck just because there was no such thing as freedom in the Dark Ages in the past I don't really give a crap if there was no such thing as freedom in the past I care about informing people so that they know in their mind what freedom means how they straight out strive to attain that I don't know that's up to each individual but I'm not going to trick their mind by telling that oh no you can be free while someone is take from you against your will but without your express permission I wouldn't be doing any service to any human being on this planet if I suggest them that no you should just go along with government when they want to take money from you no you just do that okay all right can I make two points yeah go ahead first of all a lot of stuff is done voluntarily with money of course it's right yeah secondly we do need to build a society in the future that's different from what we have mmm from what we have for sure yeah okay then why don't we do it with voluntary money I agree wholeheartedly voluntary money is the only way to go as far as I'm concerned so you're on board with Iran subjective estate then I'm on no I'm on board with dealing with other people which I've done actually my whole life you have been recruited to this very means thank you I need to borrow a cup of milk from my neighbor I ask I don't go over take so yes that's how I want society to be built on and I don't need I don't need any like what your your interpretation of Objectivism because I don't even believe you're interpreting ejective isn't properly is hahaha if I read actually you advise me yourself now without making a fool more than well I mean that's your hey that's your subjective opinion but I guarantee lots of people that would tell you that you're the one that's doing that but either way like I said that's that's fine you can do the insult I'm to love that I'm just saying that I don't need someone else to tell me that black is white when I realized and I understand the English language enough and I've read the dictionary and I know what the term and of the or the definition of the words that we use is I know what white means white represents a color such as this white doesn't represent a color like this and Taxation does not mean voluntary interaction and government having the pre-emptive use of force to take from me against my will is the definition of Taxation so I don't care if fine Rand the poster on call or anyone else ever said that I should okay I'm not saying preemptory force I never said preemptory force you are being so dishonest you're putting words in my mouth sir I'm not you you look like from honey right now are you kidding me you're putting words in my mouth like that I did not defend preemptory force okay what okay how do you get taxation without using force please tell the government which I'll say it right now hey in case you aren't aware I don't give I don't give any permission do any government federal provincial or local to ever take one dime from my paycheck or when I go to consume a product to take one extra dime incited the cost that was incurred and produced as the cost for that particular product so I'm saying that I don't agree to that go ahead timing No lord have mercy so now you're just going to skip over the fact that they did it won't tax it well they're going to hand out a collection plate well I'll say take your klaxon plate and shove up your ass how's that oh you never gave to a church collection plate oh you're talking about government in a church yes the church yes but like I said the church is voluntary we're not talking about a church you're talking about government here alright stop trying to confuse Church with government even though in the past there were people that were mystical just as mystical and their beliefs in the church and that Authority as you seemed to be in government matter of fact it's not a whole lot like my 90 something year-old grandmother when she talks about the church and how it's this final authority that you should just bow to whatever they say you sound about the same thing something you're calling the church government instead reviews or people from working from a dogmatic position they don't make one fucking bit of sense if you think about it critically so I don't even know you're listening if Iran was alive today she'd actually be greatly disappointed I firmly believe in how you represent in her philosophy I'm gonna used to pay that right here now would you support a government that doesn't violate individual rights government can't government is you just said how many times you gotta go through this you said government is a monopoly force upon us so you're already government by its very definition if someone that wants to use pre-emptive force and all it means to an end yeah no government is no no no okay how do you set up the country Canada then they just come in and and all everyone else said yeah we voluntarily allow the ruling monarchies of Europe did you set up this everyone whole interaction and said yeah we want that come on Canada's a fuck mess I don't care about Canada any country any catch I don't care what country Tabu even right the state of us which those people were much more along along the lines there was no such thing as tax aging member I remember that not the founding fathers of the u.s. there was no such thing as taxation why because mangement understood that that should never be an inherent part of what government is if you gonna have such thing as a arbiter and they create that mystical concept that you're trying to create where you they're just the final arbiter of justice but once again once you've created that area that platform in people's mind where someone has this ability to escape all the things all the rules and laws that we have to be of help to which is not used force against people well now that's why you get taxation because now what you've created an area in your mind where you said those are some people in society that can have this ability to use force or violence against me well that's how taxation comes to exist because you've created people to trick them in the mind to think that they should believe that some other human being just because they put on this way I'm a conservative or a liberal and I represent the government oh now I can take from you anyone other any other human being on the planet could never come up to you and just take something money out of your wallet or out of your paycheck but you've created an area in their mind with this goddamn belief in statism where you think if someone else does it but they claim they're from the government well that's ok like I say I don't play those games and I would never try to trick the people that watch my videos into thinking that they should believe that there's some human beings that have arbitrary authority over their fucking paychecks and I mean what you would want to put forth of that kind of narrative yourself you as an anarchist can talk about a future society we need to build but I as an Objectivist not the current society I can't talk about a future Society I have to defend the current way that they violate people's rights huh why do you want to defend that you are saying that I'm defending it I'm not defending it and you look like a fool sir you can say what listen you that's your subjective opinion you honestly believe like that's the thing when you say that even when you say that I look like the fool that alone tells me that you're actually thinking that what even if there is only 10 people do you actually believe all 10 people that say there's only 10 people watching this you really believe that not one and this is on my I'm looking like a fool but yet I have all these people that watch my video you don't think they've ever fucking point before dude really you really don't think they've ever heard me say this stuff before you only look like you're calling me a name and insult is not even an argument I'm just saying you look like a fool in comparison to me in the words that I'm saying alright do you say so that's all right I've had lots of people tell me that my car bike was slower until they actually raised me too and then I kicked their ass but hey you can say whatever you want a baby that doesn't like I say that's as far as I'm concerned but it doesn't mean they just actually deal with the arguments and forget about trying to insult me because it's not gonna work I don't care what you say you can sit here all hang all right so you're you're you're trying to make me defend the way government's operate today and then you say shit by saying that then you say deal if you want if you want to retract your statement then we can move on what I say if you want to still stick with your taxation as voluntary yeah I'm not done till you actually I didn't say I didn't say taxation is voluntary yeah you did yeah perdón thing is going to a church the audience can watch no you said ty' it's the same as tiny okay definitely not no in Iran's in the government that Objectivists would build and you how do you use your mind on its own rather than just repeating some God guess you heard who's doing the insults now I forgot whose tongue don't you use your own mic you just keep repeating Gregory ding but Iran is she was here yourself like your your straw man the shit of that woman because she would have sit here right now matter of fact was debating her and we were actually having an intro-level day the taxation is theft wait wait who's repeating themselves mmm yeah I've google rehab and I've been known to repeat myself before what's your point I'm waiting for you to make a point sir it's been a lot of fun Bennett I hope this is available for my audience to see you think oh yeah it was actually it was a complete fucking utter waste of time as far as I'm concerned because you are obviously not willing to be on on on intellectually and like I say I don't like dealing with people that aren't gonna be intellectually honest it's too bad Victor step dude but I can understand because he knew where this was going anyways in and you saw the good one enjoy your cuz I'm concerned you're a closet fucking communist I was a commie man Brandon I think people can find me as mr. cropper on YouTube I'd do your advertising all you want I don't really I thought it went okay you guys look like the fools you are so if you say so but matter of fact I'll let you continue on actually because if you think I'm be bears than anyway not not but if you want it listen oh why don't there if you want to keep jumping on it undefined free market for me free market is people that voluntarily interact and engage with each other freely without have used the force of violence pretty school in concept man and what if somebody decides to use force then what then it's not free market so so how would you maintain the free market because somebody would use force I do it every day I better of fact today I was a to the flea market I picked myself up some a six-pack of beat that he's really good some some pepperoni sticks and you know all those interactions we're all volunteer matter of fact I went to Canadian Tire and I got some stuff to tough I got some paint chips on the castle moved or bought that it can entire that whole interaction that that totally voluntary I do almost every day doesn't count that isn't because you had the police available do you could call any second never call the police and no police have ever been interval in involved or interacted in in my economic interaction so I don't have no idea what you say anyway first of all first of all I live in a country of Canada and in Canada we do have gun rights you understand that right so I have total access and a legal right doing my own firearms what the fuck I need some other idiot that probably isn't nearly as confident you got to remember dude well maybe you don't know this but I'm from the country in New Brunswick and actually most of us that grew up in that hunting rural settings are probably better shots than most cops that maybe what go to the gun range what once a month if they're lucky we're talking about people like myself or people that I grew up with where or around gun since we were knee-high to a grasshopper you think why would you think I need some cop to protect me you are projecting your own goddamn failures in your own life to protect yourself and you feel you need some external entity to protect you but you know I don't need even if I couldn't do myself not only do I not need a cop I got friends I got family members I got neighbors I got other people in my community I've never ever ever had to call the cops if somebody wants to mess with me or a group of people wants Matheny because I have friends I have neighbors and I can deal with stuff all on my own and so kind a lot of other Canadians and matter of fact most Canadians on their daily duties every day when they enter gate interact or engage with people socially economically they all do it voluntary and you know what even without guns I'm simply speaking of the historical record of police strikes every time there's a police strike the city that the police are on strike and erupts into violence but no when the police are on duty the whole city is suffering from pre-emptive threats of violence on a continuing ongoing basis what are you talking about that's the cops do not use pre-emptive force and violence without a crime being involved a continuing basis QED thanks Ben appreciate it you know you know what this may be but what it is is maybe you should have dealt with me rather than Victor because he was pussyfooting around a little too much and that's a shame that he did because yeah I'm more than willing to give you a challenge and a run for your money cuz let's hear how you suggest that cops don't ever use violence against people that Evans I did not yeah all right what do you talk about when the please go on fucking strike what you mean just different criminals what you're saying is when the police boys strike those criminals are not doing their duties but there's different criminals that step up to do their dude all I'd agree to that but to me it's like I still look at both of those actors that are doing the crime they're both criminals I don't care if they've got a badge and a suit on or they're wearing a mask and a black and keep it there we Crandall as far as I'm concerned yeah there we see that your moral compass is no better than any given communist or fascist you can't tell the difference between Nazi Germany and States of America what are you talking cops enforce laws that are preemptively using force against people that are actually yes you can give you this pre-emptive force and then you use the entire government as just a corollary of force so you just dismiss government as such as a violation rights you can't have a perfect example of it you know I lost my entire livelihood as a truck driver because I had a few beers on my ATV so I was charged with impaired driving which comes with a criminal charge and they take your license away and they take which was my livelihood because that was my career as a truck driver and they all used force and I wasn't quite as willing as you would want to go along so you haven't even more use more physical force on me to subdue me all for what I didn't cause any harm to nobody I wasn't doing a damn thing to harm anyone so the state actors they're mindless enforcers use their belief in their political authorities just like you to productively use violent towards me and you want the judge the Lord let the proud Crown prosecutor they all went along with that shit why because they believe in the same kind of fucking ridiculousness authoritarian ISM that you do and though I do I do every day is try to get people to stop believing in this huh nothing that you are yeah you are because please did it you're defending the fucking cops you know like I say they're the ones that are good not matter of fact no caused me more harm in my life than any like your lowly cannot defend in the car and shit to me I'm not cops I'm not defending the cops so then what are you talking about you said when the cops want strike then somehow the the violent criminals but all you well then will you admit that what it is is just the violent criminals that are called the enforcers of the state when they want to strike other criminals you say hey hey there's room for us to function that's all it is you do that well that's what a riot is that's when the police call strike there's riots that's that's not what I'm saying I'm saying would you agree that the police use pre the police is akin the way the laws are set up today is akin to being a legal gang a force that actually preemptively uses not just violence force but extortion and theft or defending that Bennett why would you defend them why are you defending them I'm defending cops yeah well I'm not offending cops someone here must be you ever hear me defend cops side how can you didn't hear me defend cops did you yeah we're done and like I said you're obviously not willing to play this I didn't defend cocks are you defending cops who here's defending the cops you were the one defending cops no I'm just saying that when the cops go on strike violence erupts all over the city they go on strike in work first of all where is this example Los Angeles Riots the let's see the Detroit riots in 67 Los Angeles in 96 and oh boy I mean Ferguson in 2012 or whatever it was no violence happening when the police didn't want strike you can't tell the difference between the Los Angeles Riots before and after the riots broke out whether it's an escalation of ice but are you suggesting there was no violence like when the police weren't on strike was there violence happening from regular people then are you suggesting that the police going around doing their job just as bad as anarchy no I'm saying it's worse anarchy like you say anarchy is every anarchy is a war I live here all the people that don't like it's worse around that's part of the state not leave they have none of the people that I live around believe that they have any authority to use force against me and no one in this community or not the people who live around me believe that they can just go up and take money out of my paycheck or none of them think that they can see me out on my trail having a cup of beer and say oh I'm gonna go put that guy in a cage and ruin his life no only people that believe that shit are the cops are the ones that work for government all right well I'm not defending communists or Nazis me neither I don't know education or collectivism of any shape well I'll just remind the audience I'm an Objectivist I defend iron Rand's philosophy of Objectivism well I just say like I said I don't think you've done a very good job of representing I enjoy reigns philosophy because I'm a virgin a huge fan of iron Rand I'm a huge fan of iron rain business of that where do you represent her matter of fact if you were if they were using your words and Iran's voice back the day then I wouldn't have called line ran and objective is I would have said she's just a play hopeful on state as far as I'm you said you haven't read her books yeah I didn't read a book I don't have to read her book down there okay question me honor philosophy don't fucking laugh question me on one of the points of her flaws okay how does Iran say government should be funded government shouldn't be funded through any force taxation that's a that's just rally I don't give a shit what Iran said as far as how Ghana city dude you laugh all you want it doesn't mean a squat I don't think like I'm see that's a problem you do is like is Iran like you do like this is that what you do cuz I got this here my own mind I appreciate the woman just like I appreciate Victor just like alright alright he's done figures anyways like I said last man standing as usual fucking dipshit come out here playing these games with me sorry folks I know that I know listen as you know yeah I get you know what people play games like this I I get upset sorry about that everyone I'm gonna get into check because I'm sure sure this probably rocks some boats but whatever crimes will go up when please strike but that's also because people are generally not allowed to earn and defend themselves exactly when they run the so true AJ man thanks that for that donation again too but like that's a shit like I hope all of you folks and I'm sure maybe some of you might disagree me but listen that's why I say what I got to say I don't back down from nobody and the ones that don't like what I got to say well fuck off right I don't really care to be honest with you cuz I'm not gonna play these stupid games like I if someone's gonna represent and I've heard people that's the thing so what you think this guy the first guy that's ever represented the philosophy of Objectivism before no I like for the last 10 years I've been you know neck deep in to learn about these philosophies and this guy was not represented in a proper sense like I say I totally understand where you could have got to that point where you know actually in reality they should have gotten the point where they were closely aligned and there was just that last bit of mysticism as far as given this pretense of authority to government that's really where that conversation should have led up to is to break free from that paradigm but sound like Brandon here Wanda actually entrenches even further deeply into that so I don't even know I don't even think I like I say doesn't sound like he's a proper representation of the Objectivist philosophy to be honest with you peaceful living is voluntary compliance most cops only show up after receiving exactly exactly cops are never there to protect you from anything they come along later follow the reports and I mean if you're lucky there might be some investigation but once but the actual instant the actual crime no cops gonna protect you from an actual crime that happens in real time you have to be able to do that yourself the onus is on you and that's and when he was saying or what about the old lady well that's what guns are for that's what we human beings have given to other human beings this amazing capacity and capability to defend yourself without using government without using pre-emptive force right like me walks often carry a big stick I never want to cause harm to nobody but if people bring harm to me I want them to know 100% certainty that if you bring your shit to mean you want to use violence towards me you want to cause harm towards me yeah you're gonna get it back in spades that's the best deterrent that could ever happen rather than what if you do it I might call the cops they might show up a half hour later when you're already home or scape and flayed and they'll never see you again kind of thing then like I say there's a reason why criminals are criminals because they realize that most the time they do it when you know they're not gonna rob a police station most the time but if they know that people have the ability and willingness to defend themselves like places where I live in my home in New Brunswick yeah people don't go in and rob homes in the country nearly as much as they do in these big urban centers where people are disarmed and the reason why that is is because they know people in the rural settings a lot of them have gone arms our and guns that are well armed and have the ability and confidence to take care of themselves and use back to me that's the best deterrent that you could use not government not mysticism not the pretense of saying hey I'm a nobody I have no authority over my life but this person that represents government they have all that authority right now I don't believe any of that bullshit anyways folks sorry sorry that this debate didn't actually get to take place in the way that I was hoping I really tried to I I was hoping to keep my mouth shut and you've seen my past debate so I'm usually pretty good about it but yeah once I realized that people aren't being honest then why would I want to sit and inundate all the people that consume my videos why would I want you to have to listen to that bullshit you get bullshit anywhere like great hey like I said to Brannon before if you want to speed up you shit bullshit you know I'm sure he has his own channel go do that but I didn't agree to do that for you to bring mysticism and nonsense on to my channel on my channel I at least hold people to a a relatively decent standard as far as which is just be honest be forthright and if you're gonna claim to be an Objectivist be objective let me see what's going on in the chat and what's going on Steve that's a joke Bennett Winston oh you would say that anyway Steve cuz you're an awesome dude but yeah I think he no but that did seem really messed up right and I'm sorry like I say I I kind of feel bad because you know I hate setting something up and then you guys not get to see the final product because to me it's like I wanted to deliver that right and there was some obviously interest in and and people engaged in the chat so I'm a little disappointed with myself that I didn't allow this to continue on but once again I'm not very good i restrained myself when people would fucking bullshit line I'm not good at that force and I'm sure most do you have come to terms and understood that just need to force and defend things thanks James I hear you buddy I hear you now yeah you're right like I say I should have just in reality I should just well whatever it is what it is most of us could see the hippo actually thanks amber appreciate that it's a joke oh that's Steve again that guy was an anarchist and doesn't even know it plus what no he wasn't an anarchist actually AJ because he's a big believer in the state so actually anarchists actually I Victor was the anarchist because he's not a believer in the state but but Brandon he was a proponent of the state and sounded way way too much of a proponent far as I'm concerned he needs to use proper language yeah well yes language that's the bat really at the end the day is yes at least be clear and concise with your language and don't misrepresent the words in terms that you use because dictionaries have the proper meaning and like people say oh well well you have a we can we can reinvent and and change up the language well no actually you know what that has to be done on on a proper manner you know people don't just get to interject and redefine me in the words of turns probably that has to happen on a societal level where it's actually happening naturally right but the reason why we can communicate with each other easily and fairly precisely is because we know when we're talking to each other what the proper meanings and definitions of the words in terms were use now when you hear politicians or people that are in the political realm arguing and it sounds like they're arguing past each other all the time the reason why that is and why it frustrates you just as much as it frustrates me is because they're not speaking in the same language they're using English words but not in the proper constant context or based on their proper defined meaning which is why when they're talking to each other just like when Brandon was talking to me it sounds like we're not even talking to each other we're talking past each other the reason why that is is yeah we're actually using the same language of English it's just the words aren't being properly defined and this person is using the word in a different kind of a meeting than how I'm using the word so it sounds like we're using a totally different language that's the problem no we have to like I say we have to agree to have proper defined meanings for the words in terms of use if we get into the area where we just get to make up what this means as we go along well that's completely subjective then that is just anybody can make up whatever it wants and then what the hell there's no point even arguing a debate and ever anything in terms of morality or ethics politics you know religion philosophy might as well not argue about anything anymore because if people would just make up whatever they want there's no way of getting to any kind of universal consistency or in terms of what we would do as far as respecting each other so no I can't I can't function that realm sorry like I say and I learned that very early on because of the religious dogma this in my family I learned very early on don't let people just trick you based on their own dogma and even though they were willing that's the thing people are dogmatic are willing as you seen right they're very willing to defend their dogma no matter how ridiculous it sounds to person that's actually thinking critically but you know if a person's like I say it'd be the same thing of someone telling me that you know there's a guy sitting on a magic cloud somewhere you know a couple hundred miles up or the other six thousand years old like no I don't want to list your bullshit because I know it's objectively not true it's it's it's it's very clear that that's not a representation of reality and if you're not functioning in the realm of reality well that's the world I live in I don't know what world you want to live in but you do your thing I'll do mine as long as you're not using force or violence against me that hey you can live in that goddamn dystopian world the problem is based on Brandon's presupposition in regards to what God might represent he's more than willing to use primitive force and violence towards me so yeah I'm not a fan of people that believe in that kind of shit anyways thanks everyone for watching you can hire private please yeah or well I mean yes yes like in a proper setting yes you wouldn't you would have to have proper arbiters but like that's the thing with smart contracts and Victor didn't even get that as far as we button Brandon's whole thing is how would you deal with people if they try to have a conch at trick you know if you if it's not someone that you can trust on a handshake which a lot of people I won't trust on edgy but if it's oh no I'm not going to trust on handshake set up a contract and then all you need is a third party intermediary which doesn't have to be government could be like like even Victor was a loon do you know non governmental agency or you know some place that you hire which that their whole goal because there these people are going to be proficient at their arbitration and disputes because they'll have to function in a free market and they don't do a good job at it well no one will ever use their service right that's the beautiful thing about you know holding people to account and actually getting people to be confident in what they do is use the free market use freedom and then like I say then people will automatically gravitate towards people that do things properly whereas under a one-size-fits-all system which is what government is is we can't gravity anyone if government Fox up where do you go nowhere because you only got one choice government right now I just focus a no competition in not just power of ideas and and how we deal with each other in the social sphere but even in the economic run smart contracts you know using your brain using any kind of contract making sure the other person on the other side of the equation maybe if you especially if it's monitored maybe have collateral right for a long if you don't lend someone money not only should you have a contract but you should maybe ask them if you don't trust them or or you have this presumption that you might not be able to trust them maybe ask them to have some let's hold in Nashville right or something that's of some tangible value which would give them a more constructive understanding of yeah if you don't pay it back I'm just going to take that away from you right contracts contracts and all contracts should be voluntarily interacted and engagement if it's not based on voluntary interaction or engagement and once again it's just an excuse for using pre-emptive force of violence and lots of people throw many times in history and I'm sure you'll hear many times in the future and now even in the present by people such as Brandon that you should always give people or there should be reason to give people this arbitrary authority to use pre-emptive force or violence against you whether you like it or whether you want just because I ran said I guessed according to this but once again like I say if Iran was alive today she would have actually pushed back against a lot of stuff that Brendon said that Victor hey I know man but you know that's what I do I gotta be honest next word to look up moderator yeah well like yeah well first of all it was it wasn't against you Victor but eight just don't I don't know if you want to do this in the public I mean you go ahead do it but whatever you just burning bridges that you shouldn't really really fucking be burning if you because I wasn't going to get you at all but if you want to try throw me on the bus Victor yeah you go ahead and do that man corporations are a creation of the state yep that's true wealth inequality is caused by governments failing bailing out the banks in 2008 yep yep yep yep anyways I'm gonna get off here cuz yeah I've had enough frustration for the night matter of fact it's my Sunday night you gotta work in the morning and I was willing to do this shit and all I'm doing is getting banks on yeah whatever who cares trolling whatever either way well even if he was then yeah I don't know anyways guys and gals sorry I just say when I say guys it doesn't mean guys it's just terminology but anyways guys girls thanks for everyone that did show up sorry didn't work it as good as as I was hoping I actually like I thought it started out pretty decent but yep I say but yeah I'm not the kind of person that lets people play stupid games manipulate stuff in such a way well not not on my channel I'll do your thing on your own thing but just not here anyways have a good one everyone we'll talk to you later




Comments
  1. Canadian church's receive grants today for repairs, So repairs are Tax dollars, tithing is payment ,… This taxes the citizens life..

  2. 1:13:00 The moderator hasn't read a single book on Objectivism but still he thinks he is capable of judging someone else's knowledge ON Objectivism.
    I was expecting something from this debate as it was starting to build up, on part of the opponents, obviously, but it went down the hill when the moderator suddenly forgot his job and jumped in the ring himself, yelling, 'its my show, its my show'. He fumbled and messed it up himself because he knew 'his' side was all set to look like the fool, as anarchists eventually do. Now YOU the 'moderator', sure as hell look like a fool, and a big one. The credit is all yours. While Mr Cropper should be commended for maintaining his calm and making intelligent arguments while debating these morons.

  3. You sure are entertaining for a guy who's not trying to entertain! You're jumping at implications and aren't allowing the full information to convey the idea to get across. You are right in the arguments you make, but they aren't all arguments you even need to have. He never said taxation was voluntary or that cops were entirely good. There are no absolutes. When he speaks of the shape of society as being rather unsocial, he's right, and that fact is the one that validates the argument that there's a need for government and police, but that still doesn't mean that your position is wrong.

    What wasn't said that should have been said at the time the argument began was that the paying of tythes is very very much like paying taxes. The voluntarism of the act is a falsehood. We pay taxes with the threat of a later government action where the police pay you a visit, and people pay tythes with the threat of a later punishment of god for not being a good Christian by paying. Like the police, God has venging angels to do his dirty work, and like our modern day society, the old society had demons and the devil as counterpoint to God the way we have crime and mob bosses. What both have in common are the fact that people have predatory instincts that would have them take advantage of the weak, and positions of authority where the ones with that instinct tend to gravitate for the power to do so, which is exactly the problem you have with government that justifies your outlook and is exactly the reasoning why he believes good government is needed.

  4. Let me give a simple analogy for these thick headed anarchists: Government acts as a moderator. It should protect the time limit (Individual Rights) and shouldn't interject in the debate (laissez faire Capitalism). The fact that we need a moderator for a debate indicates that we need a government to protect our individual rights. Society can not function without the law and law enforcement. P.S. we need an unbiased moderator.

  5. Also, the objectivist keeps pretending that anarchists are idealists who live in the pretend world of La-La Land.

    Most interactions between individuals, in the current society we live in a this very moment, do not involve the government. Most of our interactions are voluntary.

    So anarchists are not living in a fantasy world. they are just telling you ''wouldnt you want more of your interaction to be free from the coercion of the state, like most of your daily interactions are???''

  6. at 22:59 I face palmed so hard…

    You know that there are other incentives to maintain peace in your society? you do not need to threaten people with the use of force for them to do the right thing. You have also create positive incentives…

  7. Also, I would rather live in the most lawless anarchist society than in a communist regime. Because most people want the same thing. They want to live their lives in peace and have good relations with their neighbors. Even when no one is looking, they do not steal; rape or murder each other.

    A communist regime, however, has a specific goal, which is to have dominion over all. And to obtain its goal, it needs to commit murder on an industrial scale to eliminate all competition and all who have the wrong ideas.

    Seriously, I cant understand why anyone would want to live in a communist state.

  8. Wow, just after 22 minutes I have so much to unpack. I'll try to be short and sweet.

    1st- I didnt think Ayn Rand was so short sighted. Everything the first guy said for the first section of the debate was nothing more than a soft ball.

    I cant believe that all the philosophers he named couldnt figure out that without a government you can still hire a private police force, as a community, to maintain law and order…

    And as for the question: ''who will make the laws''. Well that is easy to answer. It is the customers who hire the private police force that will decide on the laws and how they are enforced in their community.

    This completely throws the pseudo argument that the first criminal would rule over the people.

    And how would you prevent that police force to take power? through free market competition. If one police force initiates force on the citizens, you hire the competition to remove them.

    2nd- that non-argument about flying a plane without having a plane is silly. Anarchists are not trying to build a government, so they do not need to understand how a government is constructed. This was pseudo intellectual garbage with no other purpose but to attempt and fail at discrediting the other side.

    3nd- at 22:24 the objectivity is absolutely wrong. Laws are not made to control the use of force of the ruler. They are made by the ruler to dominate the population. He is confusing a law and a constitution. A constitution is what keeps a government in check.

  9. As the moderator is Canadian and is a victim of parliamentary government, his confusion about voluntary taxation is understandable as his executive authority does choose to raise taxes through a rubberstamp legislative branch. Canada lacks America's constitution and separation of powers. Thank goodness that America's Founders had the good sense to establish government based upon better legal principles.

  10. When the moderator lost his shit, it demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the legal principle of agency, which Cropper had referred to indirectly in his comments about representation. On the subject of voluntary taxation, Rand wrote that it was a complex subject within the philosophy of law so she did not expound of the topic but instead provided a few examples. When peeps say 'Taxation is theft,' they betray an ignorance of the complex relevant legal principles involved as an advanced technology as if they are looking at it as a transactional and economic issue, which they address with the technical sophistication of the barter system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *