Anarcho-Capitalism 101

hello everybody this is Alex Merced from Alex Merced calm and this presentation is called anarcho-capitalism 101 what why and how by me Alex versed of Alex versed calm now what I want to talk about today is just about anarcho-capitalism in general and just help make this a video to introduce people to the ideas you know the what where when why and how etc so first thing we're asked ourselves is what is anarcho-capitalism and it's based on several premises the first being that the belief that force or aggression from any individual or group on another individual group is a legitimate the only there is no legitimate force the only time it is appropriate to use force is to fend off an aggression from another but it's never a legitimate to initiate force so if you are the aggressor you are ethically philosophically in the wrong sense force is illegitimate then the fact that we give a monopoly on force known as a state legitimacy over force is illegitimate so that in that case this state which we which anarcho-capitalist generally defined as the monopoly of force so again it's not the idea that there's no governance no institutions in society that help govern society but the fact that there is a central institution that uses force is illegitimate so in that case we reject the idea that the state is necessary to govern society and that the person and that we advocate for governance over society to be absent of force okay and we use non-aggression to promote that so education outreach etc because you can't use force to preach non force just wouldn't make sense so now that we know what anarcho-capitalism is well a lot of times you'll meet people who are actually anarcho-capitalist who might refer to themselves by many different phrases so here's a list of many different words anarcho-capitalist will refer to themselves by libertarian anarchists market anarchist agora s– voluntarist now each of these words have slight maybe can connotates slight differences or slight differences in philosophy etc but for the most part they come from sort of the same view of force as illegitimate now what is the case for anarcho-capitalism again this is just an introductory video to sort of introduce you to some of the basic points on the anarcho-capitalist case now there's a huge world of literature out there to study all the intricacies and details and down on information and I'll link to some of that in this videos presentations description but let's take a look at what are some of the core cases for anarcho-capitalism the first one will be the ethical argument that's the case that we've already made one that forces a legitimate sense forces illegitimate then the state is illegitimate the second is the economic argument the idea here is that everybody makes your decisions based on the information around them which includes prices culture values that you've developed when you were younger etc and that basically people's ability to do economic calculation is only as good as the information that's provided to them so if you have a monopoly of force known as the state intervening in the economy using force to redistribute wealth and property etc and to move and to compel people to make decisions that do not reflect accurately the information in the economy which is their values and preferences they've scarcely the actual scarcity actual supply and demand of resources then what happens is that you distort the information that you distort economic calculation and people begin to make bad economic calculations as you see more more resources going to maybe not the most productive places or you're not seeing the values and preferences of individuals really being reflected in how the economy works which creates all sorts of unintended consequences thus to prevent these unintended consequences you shouldn't not have the state intervening the economy ideally not have the state at all the governance argument the governance argument basically is focusing on the not necessarily the economy not necessarily ethics of it but what are the incentives to govern in an effective way and what are the in structures of governance that lead to good governance and essentially when you have centralized power via a state what happens is that power tends to attract people who want power okay so instead of getting a large group of altruistic idealistic people who are going to hypothetically govern in a way that's hypothetically to the benefit of the people that they are governing you are going to attract people who will use that power for their own means and also this creates an incentive to use that power to accumulate more power which leads to bad governance outcomes so in this case looking at out if we're looking at how different institutions have incentives to govern whether they're voluntary or involuntary how do they split up our etc so in this case the state has very very bad incentives for good governance okay and then we after that we can go into a further discussion of the individual mechanisms within any particular state or within any other particular institution in society but now that we kind of have an idea of what the case is against the state and what's the case for anarcho-capitalism how would an anarcho-capitalist society manifest itself now most anarcho-capitalists would agree that it's a big x-factor because since people would be able to act on their values and preferences and work on basic real information within the economy culture etc the institutions that will come into existence will reflect those values and preferences which are constantly changing so since those values and preferences are constantly changing so will the institutions that govern them govern them voluntarily but taking a look at basic incentives and structures there are writings and videos etc that talk about how it may manifest itself so I would recommend reading chaos theory by Robert Murphy there will be a link to this pamphlet in the video description also I recommend watching a video by Jacob Spinney called the state is not great I wish I will also link to in the video description okay now great we have an idea of what it is why would we be an anarcho-capitalist what would it look like but who is actually doing this who's actually working towards a anarcho-capitalist state there's a couple efforts currently in existence one Patrick Freedman if I remember right is the grandson of Milton Friedman famed economist is involved in something called the seasteading Institute which is an institute that's trying to create since there's no really no more land to create a new inner co capitalist land the idea is to create a new nation a new land on the ocean by creating constructing platforms and constructing a society on these platforms free of a governing state again still with institutions for governance and private property rights and all that stuff but absent of a monopoly on force also in New Hampshire there's the Free State Project where an anarcho-capitalist all across the country and the world are moving to New Hampshire in the United States which is a small population state the idea is to have a concentration of anarcho-capitalist libertarians etc in one place to essentially live out and show by example how such a society could come to work and how governance would occur in such a place so particularly a lot of people are also moving to a particular town in New Hampshire called Keene you can check that out at freaking calm again links to these efforts will also be in the video description now a little bit about myself now that we've come to the conclusion of the video again I'm an activist I'm based out of here in New York City I live in Brooklyn and I've been doing a lot of Liberty anarchist based economic space activism via videos tweets blogs pamphlets etc just trying to get as much information out there but as many issues and thoughts and processes out there to get people thinking more critically about several of these issues some of my websites that you can check out our Alex Merced comm Merced Institute calm intro to Liberty comm black-yellow free comm okay now if you're someone who's new to many of the these ideas I'd recommend checking out intro to Liberty first if you ready to embrace anarcho-capitalism and would like to learn more about anarcho-capitalism check out black-yellow free comm if you're interested in ideas of governance and institutions and how institutions form and work and create incentives check out the merchants Merced Institute where we take a look at tolerance and creativity and its roles and institutions etc and have access to all these and several other of my projects check out Alex Merced calm bye hub online so thank you very much you guys have a great day hopefully you have enjoyed this presentation so have a good one

  1. Libertarian Anarchism has been used in a context that is quite different from what AnCaps stand for. The AnCap movement itself is a major diversion from traditional libertarian schools of thought in history.

  2. I dunno, I feel the same way about anarcho-capitalism as I do communism

    It's nice in theory, but it seems to me it would fall into the same trap of being way too idealistic to work

    Feel free to correct me, I'm actually very interested

  3. the bigger the government the smaller the community. this is something I've seen firsthand. I lived in small towns and big cities with neighbors a mile away that were like family to the hundred plus people within one block of me and I had no idea who they were after 5 years.

  4. Who determines value in this system? Couldn't this lead to strange bartering? Would a collective that builds sidewalks be able to charge people who use them indefinitely? What would happen with water supplies in areas that can't afford to sanitize their own water and use subsidies to do so? I so don't understand.

  5. free market creates wealth disparity the rich get richer and then have the means to use domination and violence against anyone they choose to become powerful enough to control the world "government" this is the fallacy of not looking beneath the surface of your ideas

  6. I already explained how a free market would result in less wealth disparity. The rich would get richer, but so too would everyone else.

  7. 1. Argument is kanda circular. Saying that use of force is illegitimate in such societies actually means that majority is against it. Which is obvious.

    2. I don't see how it follows that police as institution of force is illegitimate. If police just reacts to illegitimate use of force, then it just does what individuals would therwise have to do themselves- to roganise and defend. Police can in effect just optimize and automate that step.

  8. how would you solve the problem of large bossiness being dominant over regular citizen's because of the dominance strategy of money being used?

  9. That's a fault of the current fascist system. Fascism is the merger of state, and corporate power. In other words the mixing of private profit, and public funds.

    With no state there'd be no taxes, no bailouts, no subsidies, and no artificial barriers to entry for small businesses to compete with large ones. Wealth distribution would eventually (more or less) equalize since no one can use the power of the state to gain an advantage in the market.

  10. there has been anarcho capitalist moments in america's history. it does not end well for the workers, usually.

  11. many businesses have harmed the environment. they dump shit in lake michigan. there was no voluntaryists society, unless you count the gov't making laws against this dumping.

  12. Well sure there has never been any government that has purely acted in defense, but then again there has never been any society that has acted purely without the government. You say "usually" which makes it sound like the state and aggression are not necessarily synonymous. Anarchocapitalism is a theory that is ideal but even to an ancap the state existing as purely a defense would still seem to appeal to them.

  13. Theoretically could act only in the defense of others aggressions. Although no government has purely done that though, many of it's action are preventative regulations. While prevention in itself is usually a good thing, the state has often done this by threatening aggression on those who don't follow these measures who often punish those who would of never aggressed.

  14. Your argument that the state has a monopoly on aggression I don't necessarily buy. Isn't it possible that the state could exist but only act as a defense of others?

  15. One, or thousad and wich sector? (: Ok then..Im very worried about I could point at the meat industries or soya productions, companies like fast food chains or those producing also for smaller companies etc..those who now buy cheap land in places like Borneo, the Amazon etc. Companies like Monsanto, Cargill or Chevron etc..

  16. Because you 'cutted it off with your comment (see above) so I took it as 'censoring' me in that way. But my question is this; In a capitalist way, we would again be ruled by companies, the same domination and manupulation It would then create as now, 'kings and rulers over others and hard to keep voluntary, in freedom etc Would this way actually work as you say?,Will it lead to bosses again, to over consumption, endless growth in stead of some stabillity in our needs and care for the enviroment.

  17. Contradiction on WHAT? You dont know my opinion, dont even give it a chance, with your two comments patience lol. If your only interested in hear yourself speak? Open up dude..defend your view but dont blabla it away like this.Thats not mature.That I dont believe in (full) capitalism is NOT in contradiction with using money as a tool of 'trading' or with social anarchism (to many at least). I wonder if you ever read on social anarchism..(if not; Anarchist Library) Peace and dont be a 'censor'.

  18. Your a complete….dude…you cant even give a normal reply…and then blame me lol..TELL ME, ever read Emma Goldan or at least one book that Trump didnt write? Dont answer me if you dont want..why not take my comments away right wing away, cause censorship will save you all(:..cause your not able to lol…cheers

  19. Well, thats great, but we can all agree some dictators dont leave peacefully, nuf said on that. Trade is needed yes, who said no? Not Bakunin, not Emma Goldman..nobody did. In fact, the use of meony isnt bad in my is the basics pilars more..that people can endlessly but up things like land..making some very powerful, the rest left with less..or none! Under the capitalist law there is no solidarity or care if you as human dont bring in money..thats not a free society but a big prison.

  20. It seems to me that Anarcho Capitalism is the true definition of Liberty, each one earns acording to its capacity and there is no institution that presses you on how to spend your money, the world is organized voluntarily. Perhaps the most similar society to an anarchocapitalism one is the Japanese one, free markets, free trade, a job for life, but everyone has social services there.

  21. Lol, thats to easy do that and then turn the critics back to me. Still, like punk..not everything is anarchism. And you dont reply on the fact that capitalism is based right now on too many things, to ever be anarchist. I understand what you mean, im no dictator..but there are limits' on to make some definition of something like (A). OK, you can call peace war…under the name of anarchy? No thats not the way or the truth. Ever read on those who first called themselves anarchists? Emma?

  22. WEll, call it something all pisses me off really because its yust taking something people build up..and then fully change it meaning..and you then tell thats ok.Its not! These people often dont even let critics on their vids. Study capitalsim and you see BOSSES are in that always (as simple example) Bosses cant be in anarchism"..not ANY authoritarian way or all seem to forget about the CORE principles that are there..and not freely to change under the name of 'anarchy'.

Leave a Reply

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