Anarcho-Capitalism | Sargon of Akkad vs Adam Kokesh

all right we are going way back old school I don't think we've done a hangout like this since probably February Steve it's been oh it's been a while it definitely been a while this is like going definitely old school this morning at about 8 o'clock I was awoken by a loud crashing noise and ran outside my house a drunk driver had decided to take out a telephone pole guy walked out of the car fine I mean like it was nothing but he the telephone pole was definitely damaged so I'm without power at my place until 9:00 tonight and that explains the tech issues that we had just a few minutes ago we apologize for that but nonetheless we are back and we're just going to go retro style with an old Google Hangouts but let's say hello to the two guys that you guys probably came here to see anyway and that would be Adam Koch ish and Carl Benjamin welcome gentlemen welcome back actually yes thank you by the way that's that's like the best excuse you could possibly have for this I mean just way better than the dog ate your homework gathered the drunk driver telephone pole it's yeah it's it was I didn't think about the the ramifications until about noon where I was like you know oh wait everything that I have literally for the show runs on power and so I'm gonna have to have a back-up plan but yes welcome back and Carl thanks for coming back to you thanks having me absolutely I asked you a little bit before but I'm just curious how do you think tomorrow's gonna go I honestly don't know I genuinely have no idea I just published a video that it just saying well I mean the polls are 87 percent in favor of the Democrats but then they were ninety-seven percent in favor of Hillary's so yeah and and the Democrats themselves aren't trusting the polls either and I don't blame them you know I get the feeling that they were probably um it was probably the same with Braque's over in this country where you had a large number of people who would just lie to the pollsters because in public they'd be browbeaten by screeching leftists and so they just keep their opinions to themselves and then go and vote and they're you know and now we leave from the European Union so I honestly don't know as you couldn't say and what about you Adam well after hours and hours and hours of analysis fortunately done by other people I have come to the conclusion that a party that doesn't care about your freedom is going to win and we have a lot of work to do awesome well you know that's that's a I guess that's a good segue into what we're gonna be discussing today why don't you Adam kind of give us an overview of what you feel the government should or how it should be run and kind of your philosophy and we'll let Carl kind of come in off of that are you sure that's how you want to spend the first half hour of this take a couple hours I usually say some words in this show when we had just you won't by yourself I think me and Steve got like five word was I even in that one I yeah I was like just like all Adams which was great actually we can have to do much more business let him talk but yeah but you can do a lot summary give us a brief summary of what what do you think the correct form of government should be sure well this kind of comes down to a matter of definitions and as we know it government today is a coercive monopoly based on a specific geographical territory and if we look at X and and what ethics dictates how we relate to other human beings don't hit don't steal don't kill those basic moral rules are in the best interest of humanity prospering and relating to each other in a way that's good for everybody and you don't get to make exceptions to those rules for government it's not I don't hit don't steal don't kill unless you're a cop or an IRS agent or a soldier and so that points us to this ideal of a voluntary society I describe myself first and form as a voluntary estai I like the term libertarian I think it's more general and inclusive but specifically philosophically the understanding that all human relationships should be voluntary if you care about human happiness and health and prosperity and so that ideal might not be something that you can say we're ever going to achieve in the sense that if you had a perfectly voluntary society the minute someone gets punched in the face by a drunk guy for that moment for him it's not voluntary but what we have today is a society that is dominated by coercive institutions and governments have cut up the world into territories that cover the globe so the question becomes how do we get away from this how do we transition away from this in a manner that's peaceful and orderly and responsible and and and transition to a voluntary society now a lot of people a lot of conservatives and libertarians and it's very important distinction I don't think libertarianism is a right philosophy or a left philosophy because right and left really describe different flavors of status on different things that people would like to use violence and coercion in the form of the institution of government to carry on in society so when you know but but libertarians and conservatives when we look at you know the evil of big government we often confuse the evil with the size and I often like to challenge libertarians by pointing out that government is not Meneses airily more evil because it is larger and the thought exercise I proposed very simply is would you rather have a government that's very large like half the population but more or less approximates what the market would provide and and really use is just enough coercion to maintain its monopolies and respect civil liberties and is generally nonviolent or a government that's tiny that's that's 1% of the population but say murders every firstborn child obviously you'd rather live in a big government that's nonviolent that you know then a small government that is extremely violent and so the measure of the evil of government and really the economic impact is how much it takes us off the state of natural harmony that free-market would provide so anyway how we get to that point what I see is the most likely the most effective the most efficient transition is localization of government and eventually we're going to make sure that it's completely obsolete technologies is doing that essentially forests anyway the idea that we would need to rely on these kinds of institutions that are based on coercion problems that exist for lack of information all of those are basically going away with the increase in technology that is exponential supercomputing artificial intelligence robotics 3d printing life extension technology all of these things are combining to make it possible for Humanity to achieve if not the absolute perfect ideal the the general ideal of a voluntary society that holds those standards of ethics in appropriate regard ok and coral what's wrong with that it's never gonna happen because we don't have a monopoly on the government of the world the problem the the problem that you have with any kind of we are discussing anarchism here specifically not libertarianism are we because in my opinion the problem of anarchism is that it always loses to any kind of statism because of the effectiveness of the state to marshal a force do you mind if I stop in defiance you applied the label to me you know in arrow I'm asking I mean if you don't if you don't you can automatic yes that's fine well it becomes a matter definitions like I said voluntary is first so I would not object to someone having an institution called government you have the right to call it whatever you want as long as it's not coercive as long as it is ethical in its primacy so you could say that if you say government is inherently the definition that I gave it as a fixed definition that government is by definition always inherently coercive then what I'm saying is anarchism you can say that or if government can become voluntary what I'm advocating for is a society that only has governments which are voluntary okay so government can't be voluntary has to be a unique a legal entity with a monopoly on force I'm not putting on law giving probably others to be honest that they're the two that I think are the most important and it has to be over a discreet geographical area that could be the entire earth if we had a world state not that I think that's a good idea but it's probably inevitable at some point and I don't think there's any way of getting around that I mean I don't I don't really see how you can expect people to live in perfect harmony with one another without the need for laws and if you do need laws then who enforces them well already this is based on what I see is the historical trend and the immediate relevance of government I mean to answer your question in two parts there's the historical part and I like that to cite the work of Professor Steven Pinker who's not a libertarian by any stretch of Harvard professor who has proven academically that we're living in the least violent times the most peaceful times in human history that we are less likely today than ever before to die at the hands of another human being and when you understand freedom is non-violence right I mean if we live in a non-violent society that's one where freedom is respected obviously and that trend of violence is like a radioactive decay curve we are actually getting more capable more harmonious more prosperous over time that's the nature of intelligent life progressing so I see all of the great forces of nature all of the great forces of history really moving us in this direction and I do you monthly to interject that yeah sorry um the the thing the thing that you're describing is true obviously we and it's true about the West especially but I mean it probably is true of non-western countries that violence is declining but the thing is this is all a consequence of the liberal state this is because the state exists and operates in a certain way that is accountable to a citizenry that it protects private property rights that it protects human life using laws from lawmakers who are accountable that allow this to happen and the second that the government breaks down you end up like Somalia with ridiculous murder rates with no protection of private property so I don't see how we can abandon the mechanism by which we have created this world so that's one of Steven Pinker's theories as well and and I want to go back to the point you made before that that human needs humans need laws if they're going to live in harmony we're gonna have standards you know and and I would say that the one law that's relevant that really is the universal standard is the natural law based on self ownership and that is that you as an independent entity as a sovereign consciousness you own yourself and it's unethical it's wrong for anybody else to claim ownership over you and from the Lockean concept of property rights this is how you mix your labor with natural resources and acquire property legitimately through voluntary trade and when I say that this is partly grounded in my observation of current reality with the relevance of government a lot of people will say well we need government in order for people to have laws and forces for people to be good but the greater force here is is not that it's really the the market forces that are prevalent to those human relationships and the accountability mechanisms that we already have for bad actors so for someone to say well we need laws is and we need a government we need an enforcer that is this arbitrary giver of a loss a legal standard it's like saying well if it wasn't for government I just go on a killing spree but when you separate them what is actually happening from the institution that is claiming credit for it yeah and I grant you the the point that a lot of human progress towards a more harmonious society is because of mechanisms of government and accountability but if anything they've been holding us back from better applying those technologies from better applying our ability to hold each other accountable so I don't think if we got rid of government everybody would go on a murderous spree but what we would develop very soon is we'd be able to separate the false services from government that are based on the coercion and the imposition of the monopolies and the control and the exploitation and the corruption and get down to the real legitimate justice services do we need a well law written down no we need protection and accountability for people who are bad actors the services to provide that will always be better provided by the market and this is the one thing that that a lot of status but you know conservatives especially can't really you know get around as separating these I think you know that they'll say we can we can do everything else with the free market but if it has to do with force and violence or protection or dispute resolution that has to be done by government and that's the worst that leads the worst corruption the worst destruction of life and property and essentially of course war and you know things like the war on drugs and the you know all the greater evils of government okay so how how exactly would a non-governmental legal system work well there are a lot of different theories about how we would do this but there are a lot of viable ones that look like insurance companies and dispute resolution organizations and private security they could either be community-based or completely market-based and individual based so stop them and I'm why would I cooperate with any of these because if you don't then you lose your reputation and you'll be ostracized from society essentially and if you're actually you know in a sense I'm gonna say what if that doesn't matter to me what if what if the group of people who will find that objectionable are not the entirety of society and I can just go somewhere else and carry an operating give me a specific example of what what you would want to do that would be bad that you think you could get away with or would want to be able to it doesn't matter what it is what I mean there will be no laws so I mean why it doesn't matter what it is I mean what's right who decides what's um what's illegal and what's not will you decide based on what you agreed to so basically right now like if you if you go and get it did you apply for a job right you have to provide a driver's license that identifies you and you know allows your employer to run a government you know it's okay whatever background check to say you're not a wanted criminal what you haven't in a market system would be a better system of accountability where in order for you to do business with someone you would have to sign up to say I have agreed to this you know an insurance system or to this dispute resolution organization system or whatever the market demands you to be able to do business with me but that mechanism that we see provided for by government and we kind of take for granted it's very easy for the market to replicate that in a marching okay that's not let's no let's not rush off because I mean what how are you going to stop me from just doing any kind of transaction with another person without following these rules how am I gonna stop you from doing the transit I don't want to stop you from doing the transaction that's the point what do you mean well then that renders your system irrelevant because however you plan it for you personally if I don't buy into that and someone else doesn't buy into that then you become irrelevant as we continue trading without you well of course you can trade and I can choose to opt out of your trade system or I can opt into your trade system and play by your rules I would have that choice sure I mean we also need a codified method of guaranteeing contracts who's gonna guarantee the contract between us right the same thing I described before is that you would have a an insurance company or dispute resolution organization that you would have to sign on to well then you can do business without it I mean like I think you mean a standard of government perfection here and one of the things that we see that's so destructive about government having a monopoly on justice services is that they're very limited is it like that I'll give an example this is like going back to when I was in college right I had a motorcycle stolen from in front of my dorm when I got back from a rock that was my deployment toy and I was like you know the big big treat for myself and it got stolen this guy cut the straps off the helmet with a razor blade jacked uh the the the ignition with a screwdriver ran off and had his girlfriend it got caught with on the with her on the back on a high-speed chase on the freeway the bike got trashed I had to go pick it up and I went to court and I got a judgment for restitution against this guy the government said yeah this guy owes you the damages to this motorcycle and and this is going to go on on his criminal record and the guy went to jail the government spent tens of thousands of dollars at least housing and dealing with him and in the few thousand that I was owed instead of me getting that from you know the people who are supposed to serve me in terms of justice they taxed me more to pay for his housing and pay for all the services that he receives now as an ex-prisoner that's absolutely backwards the system that I'm talking about is one that's based on making people whole when victims when victims are created by actual material crimes that's something that we just don't have under this government system it's a very terrible approximation it's because we don't have that accountability when markets are able to provide accountability for those basic services we're gonna have way better services in every regard I don't agree and I don't think there's any way you can compel people to follow any of this and if people aren't compelled to follow any of this then why should they listen to you well what do you mean by compel well I want to point out the difference here because I don't want to get help anybody do anything well then you can't run a civilization then well if you mean compel by incentive then I'm with you if you mean conception like with the chap who stole your most stole your motorbike he's not just gonna bring it back is he he has to be compelled to relinquish right so in that sense I'm the system that I'm advocating is is capable of using force in the sense of restorative justice if you mean that there's someone who's an immediate threat or their stolen property that needs to be returned absolutely ok but we not that more if we'd have that to more efficiently than the government I'm not saying that the system would have no coercion or compulsion at all but that compulsion would still have to be in accordance with the natural law so you wouldn't be compelling anyone to do anything unless they've already committed a crime people or the problems when a crime is basically the natural law is the standard and that's what works what if I don't agree with in that term all well then only people who want to do business with you will do business V and that's fine you don't have to agree that's the best part of this you don't have to create everything yeah but let's talk this too seriously right because like if if I don't believe in property right say I'm a socialist and I go along and I find a motorbike I like it I take it and someone comes and says well hey that might blonde someone else I'll say well I don't recognize your jurisdiction I don't recognize your authority I don't care about your opinion on the concept of private property and I'm currently something this motorbike now you have to make me relinquish it where does the authority to come from to make them relinquish it well so there's there's an informed balance to be struck here that the market is capable of providing that the government cannot and that's is it worth using force to go after someone is it in the best interest of justice is it worth the cost and I trust the market I trust people interacting voluntarily to figure out what that balance is better than government so let's say it's it's a you've made your point come on so you you you don't you trust the markets to be able to get your motorbike back if I have an insurance company that is responsible for protecting my property or that has some in greet agreement with me to provide a certain service and it's if my property is stolen they're responsible for making me whole but they get the claim to that property it's up to them to decide if they want to reclaim it by force as long as I made whole in accordance with that service of contract okay okay and on what authority do they have to take back something that is assumed to be stolen by force if someone steals your wallet and you chase them down the street and you take his with your wallet back what authority do you need to take your wallet back well because the the persons have to be broken in law well he's stolen your property right yeah so so you're saying that if someone steals your wallet you need a law on file somewhere with an authority in order for you to go and tackle them and take your wallet oh no no no I could I could operate under the law of the jungle opiez I could you know if if I'm capable of catching him and overpowering him then sure I have the physical capacity to take my wallet back but if I'm not and you know I I imagine that most people are probably not stronger than the criminals who rob from them and then I can't get my property back unless there is a third party governmental style institution that is capable of tracking this guy down in you know without my presence returning my property and then punishing the criminal to make sure that other people realize that there are punishments for doing this and that's I think a necessary part of having a civilization with private property so the question is from where does the legitimacy derive for whoever has to do that well well if you were capable of picking up your own wallet what what's your authority from that because it was mine and I can physically take it the law of the jungle might makes right no that's that's not we'll see you're doing it based on a legitimate property claim so it's not law of the jungle because you don't have any because I'm stronger than the guy well it's your honor but but you're not going around and taking other people's wallets you're taking your wallet back your receipt or I could just go around and take other people's stuff couldn't I well no because there would be mechanisms of accountability for that would be better than what we have under government today so no absolutely I think they would in fact this is something that happened in the 10th century in Norway well you you would have this some this kind of rice of challenge where you would walk up someone who owned a farm and you know is married on the farm and they would they would chance and fight for what they owned and if they were slain then they took their wife they found me the farm all the property and it was completely legal and it had to be outlawed because obviously you got some guys who are really good at fighting and they started amassing a lot of property pretty unjustly so I I don't think that is a better mechanism a government like royalty did blame government more like feudal governments don't like is it your example is one where governments don't like competition don't steal the government hates competition like really it was it was the king of Norway and that was under demand from his own citizens right because other people were getting in on his game know this that the subjects of the King were being murdered and having their property stolen and therefore Iceland so I commanded the King impose some kind of law and order and prevent this kind of blood rights by coming remember the name right now but we're preventing that from happening my point was normally that's what governments do that's how Kings became kings yeah that's the point of them yeah some of these some of these eventually we don't need that well I mean it's it's possible at some point in the far future that there won't be crimes maybe but I find it highly unlikely and at the end of the day you're always gonna get people who commit crimes or what we consider bleah crimes for reasons that aren't about property and the normally the Communist argument is well well no one has any private property when the post-scarcity it won't matter because what we need loss for but I don't think that's gonna be the only reason that people commit crimes I mean like you know how are they going to prevent an elliot rodger from going on a killing rampage or what are they gonna do about it when he does you know well this gets to a little bit to the the nature of human progress I mean if you want to get into that side of it although I don't know if our hosts have anything that they'd like to intervene with and I know this is thrilling you you guys are doing just we're just listening at this point you guys are doing just fine all right well I mean I kinda want to put Carl on the spot here and turn it back around and say what I'm advocating for is the realization of the natural trend of human progress where crime does become less likely as you know as you agreed to that basic academic observation that human violence is on the decline that we get more harmonious we get more prosperous there is less crime over time I'm part of it as there is less one but all of the incentives for violence and crime decrease over time as humanity gets more capable and if what you're asking what do you what do you ask me to explain it exactly well how is it how is it how is it beneficiary to humanity to say let's entrench an authority that has a that has a monopoly on violence in order to achieve a more harm society because it removes the legitimacy from us doing violence to one another by creating legitimacy for its own violence see what I'm talking about is deal it so you're saying you want your objective here I think you're agreeing with me on this is that the objective here is to as a society D legitimize violence correct no violence will always be the final factor in any kind of conflict always there's no greater fact that it will always be the last one the problem of violence is that it hurts people it's dangerous it's date is something most people don't want to have to experience in their daily lives so you have to find a way of managing this we can't pretend it's not a part of the human experience because it is so what can we do about it and it seems the best solution is to invest a sovereign with the monopoly on force and then you say well that's a king it's like yeah it is so what we need to do is find ways of keeping that accountable so we actually go to democracy and that means that we can create a massive bourgeois society with a state that is actually remarkably small and this prevents most people from doing violence to one another because they know at the end of the day no matter what they do there is a state that is invested with the power and has the resources to track down any one individual or group of individuals and subdue them so you're again you're going back this is this is the fundamental difference you're going back to a specific service provided by government but I'm thinking would be better provided by the free market i I really don't think you will but the point the point the reason that the reason that the government has a unique legal and corporate incorporation is because it's coercive and has a monopoly on force in a certain geographical area as you described at the beginning the way that this the way that this has legitimacy is that is directly accountable to the people that rules over your mercenary come your company is not accountable to me and so I would not recognize the authority of that most new company so if they came and said well Adam kokeshi alleges that you beat up his brother or something I if I mean if I would just blow it won't get Ben and then pull out a gun you know and they they would have to come with a remarkable mouth force you know because you assume that everyone's gonna expect that kind of reaction so I mean well you would turn into some kind of mad max-style world it would be terrible well first of all it's really the opposite in that you would have greater disincentives for crime because you'd have greater accountability for for all sorts of petty crimes but this is the main thing now again I think we're you're out of touch with just the basic reality of what the difference is between government and the free market where you say that a government if they're a sovereign through a democracy is a countable I mean in what Fantasyland of statism has that really effectively worked if we have we seen governments held accountable by voting populations I mean do you really mean that is better oh yeah okay do you really think that that is a better mechanism of accountability than the instant and total accountability that the market provides where you withdraw your business as soon as you don't like what someone is doing in the case the government didn't want happen or power I don't think there will be a market as you understand it without a government markets don't exist because the government's they exist despite government's know the protection of private property rights I'm about the protection of private property rights the market won't exist as you understand it again that won't just be a supermarket you can go to and buy things out okay again you're promising this on the idea that there's an appropriate disincentive in theft for government if anything what government does in its justice system is encourage petty theft and and I live in a community where you know we have accountability where people have reputations and and those who are good actors you know are treated as such and those who are not are held accountable for that but it would be better if we had something other than government because we can't call government when you have a hundred dollars in damages when you have you know a bicycle stolen with a motorcycle stolen with you know thousands of dollars of damages to the bike itself I didn't have a system of accountability I want to be able to hold those people accountable government government I thought you said the guy went to jail yeah but I didn't get any restitution and now there's another thing you're talking about stop going off on tangents man come on let's take this step by step right so you you the going to get your bike back did you did he not have to pay for the damages you did not have to pay for the damages so no well so that you didn't have an insurance company or something no not for that not for the damages by theft oh right dollar deductible or so you know but I mean I would have to I would have to look into that know the judge the judge ordered a restitution and there was no enforcement of it the guy went to jail the government spent thousands of dollars housing him and processing him and he was put back on the streets and was never in any way compelled to pay me back right and if I want to get that money back how much do I have to how much do I have to pay the lawyer he'll pay the costs if you win the case which it sounds like you win the case right and this is something I mean this guy is now a homeless crack addict from from what I was told by his probation officers we're supposed to be see there already is a mechanism this is this is the insanity of statism it didn't work once let's do it again but the idea of punishment versus justice this is this is absolutely critical because if you're punishing someone and this might be a definitional thing you know you said you wanted someone who stole from you punished I don't want them punished I want justice and I want to be I want them to be held accountable and that's an important distinction because okay so maybe you're agreeing with this but I want to make it clear that that's not like galloping on from point to point because the these are important sanctions and punishment is a component of justice you it doesn't have to be the only component I mean one one thing that you might need to do to achieve justice is to punish the person punishment a punishment is something that is applied to a person who's committed a crime in order to make sure that they they don't do it again as a wave is a way to incentivize not doing anyways I'm incentivizing other people not to do the same thing but the the problem that you have again like who do meet soundless justice okay this is so this is really an important understanding of natural on the definitions here because you made the definition of punishment that are somewhat inclusive of say like if someone commits a crime let's say someone murder someone because they are insane and they need to be locked up to be isolated from society that's something that happens to someone who's committed a crime but it's not to punish them it's in the interest of justice to forcibly isolate them to prevent them from murdering again so I made this way of punishing them you you can't separate the two I mean they're both well let me finish and explain you'll see the distinction here because if you punishment I I equate with hurting someone or causing someone pain or damages or suffering in order to control their future behavior and you kind of included that in your definition saying to prevent them from doing that again in the future and so you're using force and violence and hurting someone in a way that's outside of justice in order to compel behavior come on you say that like punishment isn't a part of justice why I think it is so I mean like okay so like a wink-wink someone you can't talk over each other because then nobody can hear you Carl's the promised man so you you you think that there should be just this that doesn't involve any kind of physical harm or suffering or what I would describe as punishment or is that correct I think it's – I'll be in the interest of justice if that's incidental you can say that that's that that might happen if coming to punch you in the face and you have to tackle them and hurt them to stop them sure yeah you're gonna use force you're gonna use violence they're gonna get hurt in that you know in that instance if someone needs to be but if someone steals from you its I'm much more in favor of accountability for people as debtors rather than as as someone who needs to be forcibly isolated so the hypothetical possibility of a debtors prison would be more in line with justice so if someone steals your wallet or someone steals something from you that they don't have the ability to to make you whole by themselves they can say you know what in order to maintain my reputation with the community I'm going to sign up for something that allows me to work in a way that pays this person back that's justice if they're not an immediate this and this gets back down to the natural law when is it okay to use violence against someone and I would make the case that it's only okay to use violence against someone when they when it's in the interest of justice in the sense of the natural law in prevention of a crime if someone is you know there's an immediate threat to life or limb its defensive violence if it's restoring property then its restorative you know might be coercive but hopefully it wouldn't be violent necessarily okay well I mean you know that's your opinion on that so I guess I'm like as far as I can see from what I know I've had this discussion with anarcho-capitalist before I honestly think that this is something that is utterly unworkable and will degenerate into feuding tribes effectively that will in and out of this will come a governmental structure state yes the world is target's of warring tribes yeah I know I know yeah because we didn't start with a governmental structure that was accountable to the people we started with anarchy and that turned out to be a bad idea because we can hold any property and prosperous it was dangerous it was brutal and it was only through this long progression of the century the millennia that we've come to this point where we've actually managed to get a hold on what an accountable government is the purpose of government being to protect human rights that we've started to essentially create a bourgeois world through the liberal state and I think you're looking at the consequences of this process and saying that's nice now can we get rid of one component of it and the answer is no because all of this was necessary to arrive in the position right now well see I would you take a view of history here to say that we started with with anarchy and and I would say that's that's really not in line with historical reality you could say that we started with tribalism and you could say that that's not government in an institutional sense but again if you look at the definition of government that we you know that we agreed on for this conversation that it's a territorial territorial monopoly on violence in a tribe where whoever can pick up the biggest rock is in charge that's a different kind of statism in fact I'd say that's an extreme form of status and if anything we've come away from that not over it I mean for example like but that's that's domination that's not a government that's that's a government can be domination too but that's again like like if you we I do not honestly think we are going to be able to go to a position where we have no government to effectively keep people in line and still have private property rights I mean like in the 60s in Vancouver the police stood down for one day and it took four hours for the first bank to be robbed you know I mean I think I think what you're saying is fantastical I have to say well you would agree that government has gotten less violent over time that humanity has gotten less violent over it depends where you are there are loads of different kinds of governments you're treating what government as if it's just the same there are massive differences in governments of course but no no I'm just going back to the original point that you agreed to when I referenced professor peakers work that humanity has gotten less violent over time would you agree yeah because of the liberal democratic state okay and have governments gotten more less violent overtime which ones overall the Nazi government was pretty pretty violent but I wouldn't consider them to be in Liberal Democratic stays well so see this is incorporated in Steven Pinker's work because he's looking at a time period of history where we had by any definition large modern institutional governments and even over that period they've gotten less violent over time so governments know you're misinterpreting what he said that right so the your your you are taking the violence done between people in society and describing that to the government that's no I mean no I'm separating those two things my point is that Esther Peters work includes government violence it includes war right oh right K so I'm saying it's covering both interpersonal violence and government based interpersonal violence are you saying that he said the Czarist Russia killed more people than Soviet Russia no he said the overall aggregate trend across the globe for all of humanity including violence done by governments in in mass pogroms and exterminations and the the Holocaust and and every other war including all of those things governments as well have gotten less violent over time but that that's because of the victory of liberal democracy okay well I mean that's that's fine if you want to attributes of that all I'm saying is that trend is going to continue and that's a good thing and we should encourage that trend by great but you can't get rid of the liberal democracy that's causing that trend you sound like the people who said we can't get rid of the monarchies that are causing this trend no I don't well it hasn't always been this way it used to be really awful and it took a lot of work to get to this point and you're mistaking the the cause for the effect and you're saying now we figured it out and now we never have to change it again this is it it's constantly changing constantly but that you're saying this concept of modern liberal democracy that humanity is settled on this we're not going to progress to any other form I actually actually really do agree with your idea of sort of like localism you're sort of the the decentralization of power from central government I totally agree with that but the concept of central government is still gonna have to exist well how local then now if I may first it's really beautiful that this is something that reasonable people can agree on that the people should have the right to subdivide according to their own desires for social organization for government you should have the freedom but then how local so like if a state has the right to secede okay I don't need an example I know what you mean when you say the question right so you I think it's really important for us to delineate between the state and society because as far as I can see you're conflating the two and they're not the same for example you are actually as free as you probably need to be you probably can go and do whatever you want tomorrow right I mean for example if you want to join a golf club or something like that no I know you what I'm trying to do here in Arizona but I can't tell you publicly otherwise I won't be able to do it okay there are a lot of things I can't do here I tried to think what those things are but with my own property with my own pride been threatened by the accountant so okay I'm like I said I dread to think all those things out but for middle people they you can't fill the house I can't I can't build a house Rini yet build I'm not free enough to build a house on my own property right I mean you have to apply for some kind of permission that don't you it's a lot more than that right that's all okay well you made it sound like Linda fairies know I want to build a house on my own property like if you like for a permit could you get one if you want to build your own house I mean is that something that you would actually apply for you are they just saying outright you can't buy ask you that's something I can't get into in my specific case let me go back to what I was saying because what I mean is okay sure there again there are going to be certain I mean with private property you do have to have some sort of regulations because you live in a society there are people around you you know I mean if you if you build I don't know a giant fortress in the middle of in the middle of your housing estate and then have blaring sirens every day then yeah they were probably legitimate complaints from your neighbors but some but what I mean is that you you as an individual you you you are free to operate in society how if you like practically you know you can associate in whichever one you like and join whatever clubs you run your life as you want according to your job and your needs and non-si and that you are actually relatively free in that regard the government isn't getting involved and comparatively the government is relatively small I mean there are situations where the government was far bigger and far more intrusive than in a Western liberal democracy so I mean I I agree that we should try and reduce the size of government I would like to see that too and I would like to see powers devolved to local centers of government there are also accountable to the central government because then you have a much more responsive form of government to the people who are in the local area and who need local things to be done you're saying still subsidiary to a larger government you're not saying that well does a community have a right to secede they can try I mean it depends doesn't it you know they I'm not asking you is it gonna be successful I'm saying is it righteous is adjust do you have a right to or the American right to say we don't want to be part of the British Empire anymore it depends on their standards don't I get to set the standard for my community or don't don't we get to say like because if King George sets the standard we're still part of England if if the American people set the standard the colonists set the standard then then we're not and then there's the fight over it but the question is who's right in that what I mean are you saying that that King George was right to say kill the colonists for asserting their independence I don't know would it be right for California to secede from the United States because it was full of communists absolutely that would be wonderful wonderful that would lead to the breakup of the United States but I suppose you'd be in favor of that well the political breakup of the United States would be the restoration of freedom for America would be America leading the world forward as it once did in the American Revolution the first revolution right and how do you stop the Chinese from taking over well this is where the wisdom of the founders of the first revolution were so I was so important so relevant because they were against the concept of a standing army they knew that a better more effective and more righteous defense of a free people would be a militia defense and again it comes back to incentives and that the best defense of a free people we we we know that a militia is not as good as a standing army for what purpose fighting the purpose is not to fight the purpose is to effectively defend an area you have to do that by fighting a military or ex-military may have to fight yeah and a standing military isn't way better than a militia which is why they we have them do I have to remind you of the Revolutionary War again I mean it was the American forces that were largely militia based that fought the British lined up in rows may you made it really easy for them to die it's right there stop before we start getting carried away with mythos because you needed the standing army of the French to achieve this listen I'm a big fan of military history and if there is one thing that you learn it's that a professional military is always better than a militia always military hosts here what was the actual the actual question though which is more the standing army or militia well I mean standing army has been far more trained than any kind of well-regulated militia would you agree of course yeah am I gonna be well what better arms because they're backed by state and they're gonna have much better coordination because they're trained and drilled and they have an infrastructure behind them and they're gonna have much better weapons because that / a nation the other militia come absol I don't think I'm malicious gonna do much in them on their end you're dealing with right bankrupt the entire what right and we address them with the military in what in Afghanistan still deserves the name the the graveyard of Empires what can a militia do bankrupt an empire there you go I mean it's it's when this goes back to understanding what war is in an understanding of what governments are a spiritual lesson working because like I ganna Stan being the graveyard of Empires is kind of a British colloquialism and it was for the British Empire or at least you could argue that but that's not necessarily true I mean they you know for for like five hundred years they were ruled by the Persians so you know it's it's one of these things that it's everything in that regard is relative and okay you don't live in Afghanistan anyway so I don't I don't understand the significance of me not living in Afghanistan but okay it's easy to fight a defensive war when you have a force multiplier in the form of raki and in hospitable terrain right but the u.s. is at least unless at all the eastern side quite nice and pleasant and welcoming and would be would be relatively easy to move across which is I'm sure what the colonists found so how you know how is it militia gonna fight against a superior force you don't have a force multiplier in the form of terrain on your side I think it's down one of the principles of what the founders were advocating in terms of what is a righteous and effective defense and what war is and what government is and the fact that it exists primarily to exploit people and so when it when it people say as a whole we're not gonna take it from anybody we're not going to be governed by anyone we're not gonna put up with any form of taxation or intrusions on our freedom then the incentive for another government to try to take over that territory goes away and should they overcome them militarily they will probably lose more lives in the process even the Occupy made area loses the an invading force in a sort of force on force military sense the invading force will probably lose more lives in the conflict to a population that's resisting with the guerrilla-style force and that population if they are really committed to those principles will be able to overthrow that oppressive occupying force that's that's a more common trend in history I don't think so we didn't see that in Afghanistan we I can't think of anywhere that you really have seen huh so I don't agree but I mean I think we're kind of getting off the gang off topic here really are we but I mean is there anything else we really need to discuss cuz I mean I I just don't see where any legitimacy comes from in the situation that you're describing to civilization describing because like why should I cooperate with any of it we're winding down too so I just had kind of one question maybe they can kind of up a little bit we got about 10 minutes left before the hours up but Adam last time you were here we started to go into the who would pay for some of the things some of the infrastructure that we we had and we said they were we would approach there the next time you were on so I'm wondering if you have a like a an answer for things like roads or schools who would cover that kind of that kind of funding if we are sure we get rid of the government well the important problem with government is that in terms of the problem that you raised here of allocating funds for large social projects that require significant cooperation is that when you when you trust an institution that effectively has you know far less accountability through the electoral system then you would have through the market that a lot of the funds that they take in in terms of taxes are gonna be diverted based on corruption and special interests so when you have a market-based system for funding those things those funds go directly from the people who want those services to those service providers and in different forms you're going to have different ways that people you know bring those those resources together whether it's at a community level or you know private property or a business enterprise or an investment level you know those things those those resources are gonna now be invested directly in what those people want without the diversion of government so can I can I just the the way the way that I can only envisage what you're suggesting happening is if a giant corporation had effectively their own private military to protect all the property that they own well already a lot of corporations end up with you know private security that they rely on more heavily than government you know they rely on private security I mean generally a lot of company okay I don't agree with that right for example I you know they're building projects going on whenever I want you don't agree with my observation that there are companies that have private security no only if I can finish for example I go you know there's a building site near my house there are no guards on it why not why aren't there guards on a building site near my house there are materials just left all over the place in invaluable materials the cost isn't justified no because they know no one's gonna steal it and if someone does steal it then that person will be found because there's an authority to go safe with the grievance well it's not because there's an Authority's because there's an institution there that provides that service that institution right now is government yes because government is the only legitimate means we have of doing that otherwise you return to system of existence there are there are lots of private mechanisms that are legitimate for doing that I mean like you like go back to the wallet example you wouldn't say that someone who takes his wallet back from the thief is illegitimate that is authority on that wallet is illegitimate no it's it's in line with natural law if unless that's the problem I have what you're saying because what you're saying is might makes right no I'm saying that the natural law is a standard based on self ownership and ethics makes what's right yeah but you know I became to them you'll see you're saying I can do this because I write free ok so here's his way of conceiving it property rights exist in other people's heads not your own sir I can I can work with that model that property rights are in abstraction sure yeah they they they exist other people have to believe you have property right right it's about respect for control of property right the people respect your control of it yeah and people tend to respect control of property from fear of punishment I think fear of punishment is not the greatest restraint on unethical behavior I think the human conscious and accountability to people around you is far more significant because otherwise theft and murder would be a lot more rampant I mean do you think government is really effective at stopping all forms of violent and criminality I mean people can still get away with the why I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I think it would happen in much greater degree if we didn't have that and we can tell from countries that don't have the rule of law I mean this this the thing that all all of Western prosperity is built on property rights the rule of law an accountable government that's it these three things will make any civilization prosperous and wealthy and peaceful and you you want to get rid of at least two of those things well I say so I think we got it like this has been really intense and like we've been really focused like really really direct and intellectually focuses hasn't been it's been it's been fun in an intellectual sense but it but it but it's been kind of lacking any fun and kind of you know more lively interaction with with Stephen Kyle or the audience but I think we've done Karl I think we've done a really good job so far of showing our differences but there's one point of getting towards you know a similarity here or perhaps a more important agreement as you know because I compared to a lot of the statist whom I've debated I have a lot of respect for for your level of thoughtfulness you know that it's not there there are a lot of easy arguments that I can use to defeat sadism and a lot of other people that I can't use against you like you're just you're just doing it cuz of tradition or because you were told that or whatever obviously yours is much more thought-out here but there there was really one critical point and you said you agreed with me on local ISM but I define that I think a little bit differently because there's subsidiarity as like the Catholic Church principle of let's have all functions happen at the lowest level possible but let's still have this pyramid to the central authority of the Vatican and the Pope and what it sounds like that's what you're advocating in localism and what I'm advocating in what I call specifically localization is that governments be allowed to themselves splinter off and become localized at the right of secession be respected and I correct me if I'm wrong maybe I interrupted but I don't think you really answered was where the American colonies that they have the right to declare their independence there's a state today this California have the right to secede okay I can answer closely under I mean it depends from the perspective you're coming from but from the perspective of King George know they didn't have the right from the perspective of the US government no California doesn't have the right that's why you have to use force okay but what's your perspective then well that was there I mean like that's you know that's it's it's part of your Constitution that your territories aren't just allowed to secede and ultimately if you want to maintain any kind of state at all which I know you don't you have to have that but also Authority thing because it's in the Constitution I'm asking you what I just explained why I just that was just an observation you you have to have that to prevent a state from splintering apart and destroying itself which I mean I'm accept being accepting of but III felt I really do agree view on the I like your pragmatic view of it that you started at the beginning well you saying that I don't think it's gonna happen tomorrow but I would like to see a decentralization of power and executive decisions to the lowest possible level to their local community level and that I completely agree with you on I just don't think that we can abandon the idea of a central sovereign the the lawmaking body has to make know so again how central and this is again I like I really want to put you on the spot here so if if you were alive if you were a British citizen living in the colonies during the American Revolution what side would you oh I would have owed him in fighting the monarchy obviously okay so you believe it so you believe that the colonies had the right to secede from the empire then does they they didn't have the right to do it if they had the right to do it they wouldn't have to fight but I think the head of just calls the Just Cause being unjust taxation yeah that's one of the reasons I won't brexit say you know I think it's completely I think the EU is an illegitimate organization I don't think that being taxed to pay for them to do anything is just so I want to leave and I would dread to think what would happen if years and years went by and we still haven't left the EU I think you'd start see terrorism not so what would you say to Wales if Wales says well we don't want to pay to access to the central British authority now we want to be independent the same way that Britain wanted we as Britain as a whole wanted to be independent from the Union they wouldn't be allowed I think we need to start wrapping this up a little bit I know well I mean we we may well do what we did with Scotland and have an independence referendum and I guess we're totally oppressive because the Scots would stay so but they did and you know I'm not I'm not even saying that we can't have referendums and do things like this but some I think the the primary thing is that people in a given polity have to live under a coherent set of laws and so your your idea of decentralizing sovereign power isn't that's not possible you can't create second sovereigns because then you create a rival state that'll set its own rules and eventually come into conflict with the superior states so are you saying that if it were to happen by referendum by a sort of legal accountable transparent political process you support any roots right to secede then as long as done again it really depends because it's a remotely complex thing and it's gonna take us a long time to guarantee because you have to start going back into like historical sovereignty and things like this but I mean like if a city wants to secede probably not but I mean if you've got a country like voluntarily entered a union then if they at some point want to disassociate from that Union then you you know if they petition for a referendum they get it that I don't have any problem with that okay so the reason I'm trying to drill down here as a matter of principle is that the principle that I've taken on this is that if an individual owns in their own property they have a right to secede and choose to be sovereign on their own property and that it's wrong for a political authority to say you know we are gonna force ourselves on you because we have more people because might makes right I say that's wrong I think every individual human being has the right to self sovereignty and that we concede that to an authority in any way that we choose by where we choose to live what agreements we sign what institutions and organizations we choose to be a part of but that it should all be by choice and that only is truly respected when the individual rights of sovereignty is respected I think I I would I would like to agree with what you're saying but it's fantastical and frankly I think you can create prison for yourself because if a person was immediately wise it might not be wise because if I'm in the government if some guy was like right I've got like five acres I'm gonna I'm gonna secede from the US government I'm like okay fine I'm gonna build a wall around your right obviously I'm not advocating for any particular leap to this way what I'm actually advocating for is very much in line with at least what you even even though you don't seem to quite be there in bracing that universal principle of individual star names and me that's that's like the real part of the crux of my beliefs okay we're in agreement guy's gonna have to like we're gonna have to like start disengaging here a little bit I do agree individual sovereignty and I think that's why we have governments that pride and protect individual rights that's that's the point so I'm gonna ask a quick question to both you gentlemen it's going to take thirty seconds I wanted your hands depending on it what do you think is more which you would be going for as far as justice Cubao Terry of justice before and I'm kind of curious especially to add them at both you can answer what do you think is more important and retributive justice or restorative justice especially when it came to your bike which would you have valuable entire story yeah I mean I sue I mean this we could spend a little while debating all or you know defining all those terms that you use there but if if you're talking about punitive universes restorative then definitely its its restorative not punitive I don't I don't support controlling people's behavior by causing them pain or damaged I support causing whatever pain and damages is necessary to restore justice and no more than that I'm happy to I don't think a punitive justice systems a good idea we spent a long time getting away from those so yeah I personally only English common law is the best we've come the best solution would come through so far in comparison to any of the justice systems I've seen like you know Sharia or Conte you know the inquisitorial French system I I think mean the Commonwealth system is the best one which isn't instantly what the United States is based off so I would say stick with that yeah and I happen to agree build on that I haven't got some super trances we just don't mind you get out of the way it's like for them I'm gonna read them off real quickly ESO says for two dollars libertarian for no more Applebee's suits ESO says for two dollars sorry I needed some fruit so he had a dig that's not very nice say again he said sorry I needed some fruit so low he had a dig Melissa Carly $10 more than the 1700s are totally the same as a war would be in the 21st century the founders were wrong standing armies were inevitable due to the Industrial Age in the nation-state yeah degree yes ESO says two dollars at least Sargon spoke up more this time didn't I speak up basta I think people have this this expectation that you're gonna come in guns blazing in you know III tried to be nice in person yeah well I was hoping for a little more condescension with that you know like it's you really because it's like you know bringing a gun to a knife fight you've got the British accent and the gray just perfect in the beer that it's like it's great if you like you love for me and like the condescension is it's so easy why not I've seen you debating in on the street against progressives you know collectivists I don't I don't agree with your it's not even I don't agree with your ideal I mean I think that you know in in if if I have the option that does sound nice I just think it's really never gonna happen I don't I don't even know if it is desirable for it to happen but any ultimately like I understand we come around and thanks for about a place of bad intentions and ultimately I think you make good arguments for capitalism above things like socialism and so I don't have any desire to try and stop you in your mission to do that you know so I yeah because I I want to share something then that that to me is really important that I think I've I generally bring to the conversation around libertarianism that most people don't which is the impact of technology today and of what we see as future technologies right around the corner and and aside from the general decline in violence the general increase in human productivity I think if you just factor those things in you go well it's kind of inevitable how can you justify a welfare state when we are so productive as individuals that you can work for you know a year and support a family for a hundred years at a good quality of life and that's the nature of Technology is that the value of an hour of human labor in terms of what actual quality of life goods and services are produced from that hour of labor goes up and that goes up exponentially with technology the problems of communication there's a lot like the drug war I mean the drug war is based on so many offensive lies it's like you just can't maintain that in the age of the internet like that it's ridiculous and so I mean I could keep going I guess to me this is what this is like really what I passionate about a seen how government is being rendered obsolete but to use a really immediate petty example and I don't mean the internet which is huge but self-driving cars according to the US government the majority of interactions with law enforcement in the United States happen in traffic stops well you can't pull people over when they're driving their own cars sorry that part of the government racket just goes away and there's so many other examples where I see the state not just you know becoming obsolete but withering and its relevance to the point where it's it's I can't promise my political solution is going to be valuable because it might be that we render government so irrelevant by the time we have the kind of awakening that the you know all of us have this awareness of the nature of government that it might be that like by the time you know in another ten years I'm like yeah I'm still a libertarian but who cares because government's already irrelevant or it's like it's just it's not you know that was calm Marx's plan for communism you know that right yeah I I think I've said this before like I think capitalism will eventually create something that is approximating like you're saying this kind of a position where we poke post-scarcity we're not you know they would there won't be traffic stops because those thing they'll be self-driving cars or some mechanism that supersedes it like undo teleportation or you know whatever stupid invention in the future you know but like a lot of the problems that we've had in the past will be solved by technology and they and it you know I I agree that the need for these things probably will in like units a 200 years or something have effectively fallen away but at the moment we're not there so yeah let you guys now I know Adam you've got a book that you want to put out there so you can let everybody know about where they can go to buy net and then we'll send everybody to Sargon so too much fun I can't stop I gotta respond to what he said there cuz even got it a little just a little thing at the end saying that when I want to I agree in the sense we're not there a lot has to happen okay but government is well behind the awareness and that's why this conversation is so exciting so important even even even what Sargon is doing I'm sorry I appreciate your voice in the bigger you know human conversation of the Internet I value and I think it's I think it's really important in in what I see as the this beautiful dance forward of humanity so and my part in this I have a couple things that I'm focused on in my activism one is my book freedom I started writing when I was in jail it's it's just a hundred pinkest free three-hour audio book free in every digital format possible and the other one is my presidential campaign and I cringe every time I have to introduce myself as a presidential candidate because you really have to be some sort of psychopath to want to be President of the United States to say I want to have this unjust power over other human beings that shouldn't exist so I have to point out that I'm not even going to be putting on the ring I'm gonna be throwing it directly into the fire the platform is the peaceful responsible dissolution of the federal government where we immediately declared of no authority and I resign and initiate a process leaving us with 50 independent states so that's localization in action I think that is something that Americans are ready to unite around because we don't have to be united under one government to be united in American value so thank you all very much for this opportunity Carl thank you I almost wanted to address you with Sargon this whole time but the kind of thinking works better with the British accent so Alex you haven't did you change from because last we heard last we talked to you you were going for Arizona the Senate was was a failed a little ballot access experiment that we did primarily to help the party here in Arizona and it failed good deal so you going back for the big big time awesome all right Carl everybody know where they can find more of you and follow you on any kind of social media oh you couldn't just follow my youtube channel which is which is sargon of akkad just on YouTube and you know that's that's that's my presence online mostly perfect and make sure you check out both these guys on we really appreciate you coming by and having this talking was fantastic great and sorry about the tech issue you guys for at the beginning but we got it sorted out and I think it all wound up coming out pretty good so we'll see you guys tomorrow at 8 p.m. and have a good evening and I know

  1. Resign and dissolve the US government? What stops the counties of each state from declaring sovereignty from the states? What keeps cities and townships from declaring sovereignty from counties? What keeps neighborhoods and even single dwelling properties from declaring sovereignty from townships and cities? He has not idea what he is talking about. This would lead to chaos, war, destruction and domination from other nations with governments and standing armies. Kokesch is fucking stupid.

  2. He had private insurance on the motorcycle and that insurance did not make him whole. Wow, he is blind. Private insurance is part of what he is championing to replace government.
    Oh, this is gold. He did not have coverage for theft. That is on him for not purchasing private theft insurance. Says it was too expensive. THAT IS FREE MARKET PRIVATE INSURANCE, numpty. Just, holy shit.
    How do you get restitution from a homeless crack addict? And you did not purchase free market private theft insurance because…. Oh yea, too expensive. And he blames the government. LOL Moron.
    How do you make a homelss crack addict accountable?
    Kokesh wants "law enforcement" privatized and thinks it would end up far less corrupt than government. People corrupt government/corporations/organizations… they are not inherently corrupt. With people, corruption follows.
    Watching to 32:54 is enough for me to draw the conclusion that Kokesh is a blithering idiot.
    How do you isolate a murderer without law and law enforcement?
    Without government how do you keep companies from price fixing?
    If you are not willing to talk about it, do not bring it up.
    We won the war against England.
    Today's battles are not men standing in a line waiting to be shot. You cannot compare warfare today with warfare of the mid to late 1700s.
    Replacing government with the free market does not fix the issues he complains about. The corporations BECOMES the GOVERNMENT. Similar to how it is now, just with zero regulation. Hell, the church could end up becoming the government. Good luck having freedom under corporations or the church.

  3. I think the guy on left cut off the USA person way too many times. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong, they need to respect one another.

  4. I hate to double post on a single video, but I wish Adam would put forth a few hypotheticals that better explain the mechanism by which his society would would to enforce justice. All he's done in the first 30 minutes is make assertions but can't back them up without attacking the status quo. I just want to hear some ideas but I can't accept or reject his assertions without some kind of substantial information to back them up!

  5. Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite end if the political horsehoe from communism…both sound like paradise in theory

    Completely unfeasible in practice

  6. I think a much more dignified debate would be between Sargon and Shane Killian. Much more well spoken, Kokesh ain't the quickest gun on the draw

  7. Democracy worked in 2016? What a joke Akkad guy is. Let me guess, Drumpf is our holy savior.

  8. In the end Sargon basically laid out why Americans have a just cause to break away from their government…it's not "just", at all.

  9. Yes, the Mossad/CIA coup in Syria, I'm sure the innocent Syrians just love the modern liberal democracy.

  10. Right, because we all known that the politicians are the REAL government Sargon…fuckin naive as hell.

  11. That Adam guy is extremely verbose, but it's really a just a magician's handwaving, he's not actually saying all that much.

  12. Though out history mercenaries have shown time and time again to extort the very people they protect, take Attila the hun who extorted constantinople, he was a king sure but after a while of providing his armies in exchange for gold he eventually realized he was the muscle and could turn that muscle on the people who hired him in exchange for much more capital…what's to stop the powerful actor who realizes his got the biggest dick in town from turning around and saying fuck a sales pitch i'm going to make you pay me…and thus the power vacuums left by governments are filled with new more archaic and orthoritarian governments which will no doubt lead to civil wars as these archaic governments fight it off with each other for more territory and thus you have basically hit reset as apposed to incrementally and slowly reforming our current systems which have been improving with a few steps back and fourth for millennia. Why do you think every large scale group of humans larger then a tribe independent of each other have developed in to governed states? Because this is an expression of natural human behaviour, a power hierarchy..or on the flip side any civilization that has tried anarchy of this nature has failed….this isn't even starting on weapons of mass destruction which we have today, can a private individual own chemical and nuclear weapons? Because those won't just go away so we can't even afford to flick that reset button to beggin with because then it's all up for grabs.

  13. When a twig from your neighbor's Home Depot Inc.® Southern White Oak Style Tree falls on your Lockheed-Martin Corporation Medium Extended Air Defense System, violating your NAP, so you enact your levy on your child sex slave army and summon reinforcements from the McDonald's Private Defense Office to conduct a raid on your neighbor's backyard chemical weapons facility.

    laughs in Ancap

  14. Of all the people the to bring to debate Anarcho Capitalism you guys bring Sargon Of Akkad? All the kindergartners wore busy that day or something?

  15. Great debate a bunch of well spoken smart dudes except for the Applebee’s manager who trying to act like a big boy.

  16. This needs more views. I'm not particularly a fan of the guy but he demonstrated the absurdity of anarchy better than anyone I've come across so far.

  17. 58:55 Sargon, the original Constitution of the US had only 10 amendments. And have you read some of the constitutions of some states? I know at least in the Constitution of New Hampshire, they retained the right to secede (not that it really matters of it being written, it's still a negative right that can only be taken away by using force).

    Article 7 of NH Constitution [State Sovereignty]:
    "The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled."

    Article 10 of NH Constitution [Right to Revolution]:
    "Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

    Sargon, you accuse us of abiding by "might makes right", when you are the incarnation of that:
    >"People don't have the right to govern themselves unless they are mightier than their government (King George, the US Federal Gov. etc.); if they can't secede by overpowering the government, then they don't have the right to secede and govern themselves." You are unironically advocating for tyranny, which again proves that you have no principle other than might makes right. You might have good intentions and might want to prevent people from hurting others, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  18. Hello there comrades! I have come to to share with you an exciting
    story, about a boy named Soygoy of Cuckad. An intellectual juggernaut
    who does not require evidence to support anything he says. If he says
    you are a child groomer YOU FUCKING ARE KID get rekt. Watch as a boy
    slowly but surely… becomes a toddler throwing a temper tantrum
    demanding respect and acknowledgement from everyone without showing or
    giving any in return.

  19. The American colonists did engage in line battles just like the the British they were fighting(what kind of training do you think took place at Valley Forge? With a Prussian general as the instructor…)They did skirmish battles with Indian inspired tactics as well but there plenty of examples of Colonists in rows shooting at rows of British soldiers… ancap guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

  20. Great discussion, but I think Adam has the harder side of the argument,
    so the burden of evidence should be way stricter on the side of the
    argument that basically argues, "no, it can't be done". Sargon can
    basically sit back all day long saying, "no, that can't work", and "what about if this happens,
    what about if that happens" while Adam has the burden to blueprint an entire system
    that can only emerge organically through the collective ingenuity
    of billions of individuals.
    And there's plenty of historical examples where anarcho-capitalism has
    worked on a smaller scale, and there's no reason to assume it couldn't work
    on a greater scale.

    I'm giving it to Adam

  21. Anarcho capitalism is the opposite of communism.
    One is a globalist, cultural lacking world where people are oppressed and owned by the state government.
    The other is a globalist, cultural lacking world where people are oppressed and owned by the corporations.

  22. Taxation isn't theft, it's a societal membership fee. If you want the benefits of the society around you then you need to pay to uphold it. I'm not even talking about social programs or business regulations, I'm talking about living with your neighbors, your community, and the nation, and doing so unmolested. This is exactly the same as the argument against illegal immigrantion: if you want to live in this house, play by our rules; if not, get out. If you want all the benefits of living in a society but refuse to pay to maintain that society, you're a freeloader.

  23. Anarchy will never be viable. There will always be those who band together to prey on other people, and there will always be those who band together in protection against those who would prey on others.

  24. To address Adam's claim that all we need is a militia and that it's the most just form of defense, the continental army was on the verge of mutiny during the revolutionary war explicitly because they weren't paid and the colonies were refusing to contribute to congress to pay them. Sargon is entirely correct in saying that without France's standing military, we would not have won the war against the British. That and we also had an entire ocean between us and England during an era when reinforcements were months away for the British and the colonists had the advantage of defending rather than attacking. We didn't win the revolutionary war BECAUSE of us having a militia instead of a standing army, but rather IN SPITE of it.

Leave a Reply

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