Stefan Molyneux Doesn't Understand Anarchism (ft. The Rugged Midwesterner)



hey I know you do that jaywalking punk anarchist do that gee walking poking our keys hello this is the radical reviewer taking a look at but what's that sound are you okay but I saw that yeah I also saw that I'm gonna talk about it do you want to help sure great so here's the radical reviewer taking a look at stefan molyneux and David Smith's review of Teen Vogue's article anarchy what it is and why pop culture loves it with the rugged Midwestern er combing Ron everyone else does as for the article itself it's okay it's not a scholarly source it's a primer on anarchism for the readers of Teen Vogue and for that it's an okay introduction anarchist ideas something I want to mention because it's going to come up later is that the content of the magazine is aimed at people between let's say 15 to 21 it is not a scholarly magazine and that's fine that's not a criticism of the magazine but knowing that might end up being useful in criticizing Mullenix or maybe not we'll just have to see now from all Anu and Smith's interpretation of the article they are capitalist libertarian types and they believe they are anarchists we should know however that their position comes from fundamentally misunderstanding what anarchism means I don't think their analysis comes from a simple misunderstanding of anarchism I think they understand anarchism specifically through the lens of capitalism that's the problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it's capitalistic first and essentially an artistic second and yes I will frequently bring this up throughout the video apparently Molyneux doesn't understand what argument means either yeah that is an argument an argument is an exchange of diverging or opposite views you Molyneux hold that you understand what anarchism means and I hold that you do not what I assume you meant though is that I don't provide much in the way of evidence for my claim well that's the purpose of this video Molyneux and his guest David Smith start out with some basic critiques of government it's okay it's still a fundamentally anarcho-capitalist critique but the first eight minutes are passable and that quickly changes though when we start getting into the meat of their confusion Molyneux states right I think it was bakunin who said do I wish to get rid of Authority no my cobbler is an authority on how to make shoes my dentist is an authority on how to take care of my teeth I don't wanna get rid of Authority I don't want to get rid of hierarchy but this is a confusion of authority and expertise and our kists want to abolish authority not expertise as American Johnson states in how would anarchism actually work in real life part one anarchist societies would seek to eliminate all hierarchies unless they're proven to be absolutely justified in necessary an example of a hierarchy that's perhaps justified and necessary might be the crew of a ship sailing is a complicated and dangerous endeavor after all and out in the high seas a toddler does make sense for the less experienced sailors to follow directions of their more experienced shipmates for the purposes of CP and pragmatism an example of a hierarchy that is unjust and unnecessary would be the way most coffee shops are run at a cafe there's no imminent danger nothing that happens at Starbucks is so pressing that the workers couldn't organize and run the business themselves through the democratic processes even in situations where hierarchies have perhaps justified 'anarchist would seek to flatten hierarchies and make things as democratic is pragmatically possible then Smith brings up that old argument of fairness yeah right I completely agree with you and it's not and a lot of times you'll hear people on the left you use the term fairness right like is what Obama used to love say people need to pay their fair share and and it's it's look the truth is that life is never completely fair now these arguments have been widely debunked from cuck philosophies video why equality is helpful as a political goal to an arco PACs video marx and engels were not a Galit Aryans and even I argued this point in my review of the book Perry calm the point is this anarchists are not ignoring or trying to iron out the fact that people have varied talents and innate abilities but this argument will become more clear in a second let's keep watching I used to play high school basketball I no matter how hard I worked I could never be as good as LeBron James that's not exactly fair but that's reality and if you know it would be far more of a violation of justice for me to somehow force LeBron James to share his salary with me because people don't want to watch me play basketball okay let's watch an actual anarchist literally make this same argument why should we reward people whose genetic endowment gives them some remarkable talent something like Mozart or like whatever it is that Michael Jordan has which no matter how long I practice I don't have right no matter how long I practice no matter what training I go through I can't produce what Mozart produced so why should we reward that why should we award bigger-sized I think an anarchist would say we should reward and here comes the value effort and sacrifice we shouldn't reward power we shouldn't report output we shouldn't reward property we should report it reward remunerated pay for what people put in in the sense of the effort and the sacrifice they expend in their work see we don't want to force people to equalize their output no reasonable person is calling for that what we want as anarchists is to recognize that remuneration based on a person's property holdings or their ability to take from others through force and coercion or even their innate abilities is unjust because remuneration for output is unjust instead we want to remunerated need manyu then goes on to make this point people can't handle that kind of power people are corrupted by that kind of power you know what's really utopian thinking you can hand that much power to a small cadre of human beings that have everything turn out well that's utopian and it's never worked and yeah as anarchists we absolutely believe that but as real anarchists that is to say anti-capitalists we also believe that power such as owning the means of production or being a boss is also giving power over others to a small group of people and it doesn't work it's like Malini you're so close to being right on this issue if you applied it to society as a whole and not simply to the state it's comments like this sir what I mean when I say that anarcho-capitalism is capitalistic first molle can't dismiss owning the means of production or having bosses because if he did he wouldn't have capitalism anymore walling you then defines capitalism ah how do we even begin to unpack capitalism when what people mean by it so technically capitalism is private property rights and free trade that's basically all it is and and those are two sides of the same coin like if you own something you have the right to trade it now this is the crux of their flawed understanding but they expand upon it later so I'll address it then from here Molyneux goes on to argue they never seem to talk about government schools that I can never once I've read I don't even know how many of these kinds of articles not one thing have I ever said well you know and the read oh the parents you see have no control over the schools because the parents are forced to pay for them some property taxes and the students are forced to be there usually by laws or at least an inability for people to have their kids out of them because the property taxes are so high and other taxes is so high and the teachers unions are they don't reflect the will of the parents all them what's good for the teachers they're just there to shuffle money at Democrats and so on like there's an inherent oppressive institution you went to I went to a bitch of the reader of the writer of this article went to there's a perfect example the work of control of the means of production would be parents taken over the schools and I've not once seen a leftist advocate for that but that's the one we've all been through firstly Molyneux you must not have been looking very hard many people on the left of critiqued schools Michael Albert and Eric Jensen have said that schools only teach boredom and following orders paulla fear has critiqued education John Dewey has critique schools in democracy and education many of the books I've reviewed address education but his misunderstanding is deeper than this as Chomsky has argued the possibility that the government is of by and for the people that's impossible it's an enemy to the hate it and fear not there are a lot things wrong with it but that's not what's wrong with it from their point of view is that has a big defect it's potentially influenceable by the population and big enough to stand up against private power and that's the defect molyneux your ardent desire to raise the flaws of the state above all else has caused you to misunderstand our ability to affect systems of power at different levels the potential for public input in public schools is much greater than it would be through private ownership voting with your dollar doesn't work especially when people with more capital want to keep the workforce uneducated and people with less capital want to be educated this is class struggle 101 small and you you either know this and you're being disingenuous or you don't understand the very basic ways in which power works in society I would also add that we do have private schools that private schools have problems admitting and disciplining people of color a black girl was suspended a couple of weeks ago for having dreadlocks in a Catholic school in California and the reason that our school system is doing so poorly it's because the government isn't paying for it it has nothing to do with teachers unions in fact teachers are some of the most underpaid and overworked people in the entire country then get to a wonderful total misunderstanding from David Smith Domecq democracy and and and consensus well those aren't exactly the same thing you're like so what do you mean here I mean direct democracy it's are you essentially saying we vote on something and if you get 50% plus one vote the rest of us are all basically just slaves to whatever you guys chose so the the other say 49% of us are or whatever we just have to go so wouldn't that be a Thorat aryan you know is is that now imposed on us mr. Smith sir do you have no idea what consensus means consensus is literally the opposite of 50% voting for one thing and everyone else being forced to go along I'm not going to waste time explaining this to people who already know but there is a plethora of material on how to improve voting to allow for the best possible proportional representation in decision-making non-compete has a video describing liquid democracy in the board account CGP grey has several videos on various voting systems in fact cure Molyneux Smith just for you here's a bunch of videos on anarchist decision-making links in the description we then get to the classic communism killed a hundred million people argument when they're talking about revolutionary socialism to anyone who's had half an eye on the bloody heap of socialist victims throughout history hundred million plus in the twentieth century alone I'd like to hear how you're gonna bypass those pile of bodies you guys can't really be this dense a no check the census at the time check with some factual sources the black book of communism has been widely disproven you turkeys and be capitalism has killed how many people well about two hundred million people died a year from preventable diseases and preventable starvation due to capitalism's poor distribution of resources bad mouse Productions has done a great video on this not only is his argument reductionist for all these reasons but it's also hypocritical take note the molle says that some nebulous left want to associate the free market with oppression which isn't entirely wrong but it is wrongheaded but then he goes on and literally conflicts socialism and communism with oppression and mass murder like no one is denying okay no one who doesn't self-identify as a tanky is denying that their affinities under government's that identify as socialist or communist from Stalin and the Soviet Russia to Pol Pot and they can be a Rouge to the Kim dynasty and everything happening in North Korea the difference between end caps and an calms said we understand why these things and we know why they were wrong and we know how to keep those specific circumstances from arising a second time and it's so simple you prevent it from happening by dismantling unjust hierarchies when the people have power how do you commit atrocities why would you commit atrocities we now go from the classic communism killed the gazillion people argument to the that's not true communism argument honestly the book of this video is just stereotypical surface-level arguments that I'm tempted to assume that they're made dishonestly because they can't believe such arguments would be made out of ignorance for the sake of fun let's look at this argument this way the line that we all hear all the time is that's not true communism this idea that what's going on right now is capitalism they suggest astonishing it that's not true communism this idea that's not true communism not that's not true communism ok moving along mauling you then criticizes an anarchist vision statement it right on their website and I quote we demonstrate a vision for a society and fundamental opposition to the brutal logic of contemporary capitalism a society based on mutual aid cooperation and radical democracy ok do you want to make any arguments or demonstrates and proof or empirical evidence because vision doesn't really cut it in the realm of political philosophy smoke this man it'll all become let's go it's like details now a vision malee new vision statements typically don't have sources their vision statements from here Molyneux moves on to making an argument that is one part misunderstanding basic economics and another part racism everything molnár X does has one part misunderstanding basic economics and one part racism that's his brand yeah good point anyway he states really drives down purchasing power years you know inflation taxation and endless amounts of immigrants who don't come to work but generally don't come for freedom they don't come for free trade they come for free stuff let's deconstruct this one part at a time inflation now inflation does cause problems in society but inflation impact on our daily lives is not purely the cause of the government it's a combination of government and capitalist forces okay what about taxes there are plenty of things that taxes go to that I disapprove of war's bombs prisons police the usual stuff but there are other things that I do support things that if I were to live in an anarchist community I would support through social contract such as research and development and education maintaining infrastructure etc etc however all this misses the bigger picture the fact is taxes provide jobs whether it's purchasing so many tanks that we sell them to countries hostile to the US or putting a hundred thousand new police officers on the streets as Bill Clinton famously said or fixing roads and paying teachers taxes provide jobs for people in ways that capitalism will not or cannot sufficiently provide and lastly the these immigrants and refugees just want free stuff argument is incredibly false many migrant workers pay into taxes for government services that they don't have access to for example it's estimated that undocumented workers pay twenty three point six billion in income tax despite being unable to receive Social Security Medicaid or the Earned Income Tax Credit so we can fairly state that these bozos have no idea what's causing wages to decrease what do they think increases wages I wonder flipside to what you're saying the other side of that coin is what drives wages up and there's really only one thing that does it and that's increased productivity it's people come it's capital investment is people coming up with better technology you know instead of using a shovel now you a big plow now you have a bit and now you you're way more productive and you can demand to be to be compensated and again they're totally wrong innovation might mean costs go down and that might help everyday people by making products cheaper but under capitalism innovation is often centered around cutting costs primarily labor costs innovation under capitalism often means cutting hours and replacing jobs with automation now this can easily be a good thing but under capitalism is definitely decreases wages which decreases income also sidenote innovation is not purely a capitalist endeavor despite the arguments of these silly memes it must be remembered the capitalism maintains itself by creating the biggest possible profits for their investors for one this means that capitalists aren't incentivized to increase wages or services for their employees and in fact want to reduce those things as much as possible I explained this in my review of the communist manifesto but by the same token it means that capitalists are disincentivized from investing in more risky projects like researching and developing new products or upgrading their infrastructure instead capitalism relies on taxpayers for those things research and development grants military and civil scientists working with government contracts and grants radio television the internet cell phones touchscreens numerous inventions created at taxpayer expense and then given to capitalist companies to profit off of and these knuckleheads think that capitalist innovation is to praise well and you then goes on to address property yeah you just said pluton generally recognizes the first self-proclaimed anarchist and a series continued to influence anarchist thought today so he's the guy who came up with the phrase property is theft and because sloganeering is a whole lot easier than thinking people don't actually go into the roots of this so I'll give the context of this so this is crude on why his property he says if I were asked to answer the following question why does slavery and I should ask her in one word it is murder my meaning would be understood at once no extended argument would be required to show the power to remove a man's mind will and personalities the power of life and death and that it makes a man a slave it is murder why then to this other question what his property may are not likewise answer it is robbery without the certainty of being misunderstood the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first so the fact that in the context of the paragraph he's talking about property and slavery would indicate that he's not talking about you having a toothbrush or a factory so property he's talking about this idea of land property that originated in Roman law which is the that the right of the the sovereign right of property the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases to use and abuse so long as in the end he submits to the state sanction title and he contrasted the supposed right a property with the rights which you consider valid of liberty equality and security and so he's talking about a very primitive form of land ownership and of course remember a lot of times when you're talking about primitive forms of land ownership it's because you were really really great at murdering people and so the king gave you a bunch of land because you were good you were a good general a good soldier a good Macbeth who didn't turn on the king so when you gain a huge tract of land by being really good at killing people in the Kings usually useless Wars well yeah I can understand how that's kind of theft but that doesn't have anything to do with the creation and this is something foundational to the leftists that they don't really understand genuinely and I've listened to professor is it's not a matter of intelligence they generally and genuinely don't seem to understand Dave that stuff gets creative it doesn't just land ok land is there so land is you know I can understand the critiques of property is definitely talking about our grants how to land but a factory a job a business it doesn't just like a restaurant you they don't just pop into existence did I just hear mall and you say that he understands a nark isms critique of land ownership holy crap what a breakthrough that doesn't account for the point of creative property particularly the means of production yes Stefan the means of production have to be created but by whom who made the stuff Dave Smith goes on to make the same flawed argument admitting that land ownership is unfair but claiming the owning the means of production is OK this argument that they make would make sense if say if say the world was just started yesterday and some like god-like figure just had distributed all of the products and goods around in this certain way like he just gave you know a billionaire and a millionaire so many was a big house it was just handed to them yesterday every business was just created by a god and then just hand it to people yesterday you could look at the situation to go well that wasn't so fair that this got distributed this way and maybe we should distributed another way but the reality of life is that everything like you said outside of say like trees and hills and land outside of nature everything that you look at like buildings and computers and electricity everything that's man-made was created it was thought up before it was produced and then it was produced again I asked who created it who made the stuff I think this is where anarcho-capitalists especially misunderstand anarchism so let's let Rob Aachen straighten you out there is not even a thought or an invention which is not common property born of the past in the present every new invention is a synthesis the result of innumerable inventions which have preceded it in the vast field of mechanics and industry David Smith then further misunderstands the property if you can't have any piece of property without somebody getting to act in the way that an owner would act the question is really just who what we're concerned with is the just acquisition of property the answer is trivially simple your right to the land does not supersede my right to the land so how do we decide who gets it this is where having some democratic structures comes into play and our Co communists understand that to claim any one individual or group owns a piece of land is to steal the land hence proud Huns quo property is theft or to quote Michael Parenti the fruits of the earth belonged to everyone the earth itself belongs to no one we then come to the Articles definition of anarcho-capitalism and here's what our commentators have to say anarcho-capitalism which is interested in self ownership and free markets you know just a fetish man it's it's a fetish you know it just it gets macragge going you know like Wonder Woman in the cat suit you know it's just I'm just interested in it like oh that got my attention no arguments no facts no historical analysis no syllogisms just interested it's this anarchic capitalism which is interested in self ownership in free markets is much rarer and is considered by most anarchists to be illegitimate because anarchism is inherent opposition to capitalism a couple notes not only do they skip over literally every other sect if anarchism and go straight to an alga capitalism but the only part of the description of the anarcho-capitalism that they actively abduct too is that anarcho-capitalism is considered illegitimate by most anarchists and David Smith adds our principle is non-aggression and private property rights ok so our principle is you shouldn't it is morally wrong to bring violence to peaceful people but guys this is where your ideology falls into basic contradiction the individual's right to own property or the means of production is in fact theft of something that's collectively owned and produced and this is aggression this is the theft of collectively owned and produced resources by the individual the basis of capitalism is aggression and violates the non-aggression principle this goes into what I was talking about earlier the narco capitalism can't reckon with the harm it does because then the philosophy falls apart a person could do an entire video about how the NRP as they describe it wouldn't necessarily lead to oppression I shouldn't I should do that Molyneux is able to wait an entire hour before invoking the specter of Hitler and claiming he was a Sochi and they consider fascism to be on the right which is wrong which is wrong Hitler hated capitalism but this argument is just hilarious at this point there are literally dozens of videos – bunking this myth from different angles check out the book fascism and big business or black shirts and reds or these videos which will also be linked in the description the reality is that Nazi Germany was closer to classical liberalism than to socialism in fact classical liberalism tends towards fascism a point made very well in radiant to PI's video why classical liberals decay into fascism so Molyneux and Smith please watch those videos they then continued down their explanations of anarcho-capitalism anarchists oppose the state as much as they oppose self-ownership and free markets that's a very confused philosophy like I strongly oppose they say I strongly oppose both the initiation of the use of force and the non initiation of the use of force I strongly oppose violations of property rights and property rights like if I don't have the right to property I don't have the right to life all right at this point I feel like I've disproven these arguments to death so here here are some youtubers who have debunked and Arco capitalism links again in the description also I'm gonna state something that seems obvious to me he doesn't seem to be talking about real anarchism he's talking about anarcho-capitalism it's a matter of framing if his audience believes that anarcho-capitalism is a default anarchism then they'll believe that it's the only legitimate anarchism to quote oli from philosophy tube some of the people are nodding their heads and saying oh it's Wednesday I get it Molyneux and Smith then do the fascism is bad but communism was worse argument but the way that fascism is discussed compared to the way communism is discussed and it's really it's quite something where the crimes of the Communists have been completely whitewashed from history and the cons of the fascists are like right front and center like everybody knows you ask someone who the most evil person ever was its Hitler Hitler's the guy who gets even though like Mao Zedong killed way more people and Stalin killed it probably more people and certainly communism in general is responsible for more death and starvation and destruction and then fascism was okay see killing hope see on the Justice of roosting chickens or confessions of an economic hitman or soar than the dollar or overthrow or dozens of other similar books capitalist imperialist countries have been the aggressors and this history is widely known and documented Mullen you then claims that communists won World War two I mean to someone the Second World War there's no question of that if communism won because the reputation of communism not only did not suffer but you've got tens of thousands of outright common communists as academics in America the red army was instrumental in defeating the Nazis something like four-fifths of the war casualties won the Eastern Front but he then draws a line between that and the communist movement of today he ignores 50 years of imperialist history from the US the Red Scare the wars against communism in East Asia in Central America the fall of the Soviet Union etc and there's a reason that he does that if MOLLE were to genuinely analyze the reason more people especially young people are finding socialism and even communism more appealing he would have to confront the failures of the capitalist system that he necessarily supports and capitalism is failing them because it's designed to fail them capitalism makes the rich richer it doesn't do anything for the poor unless the state forces it to Maul and you then addresses a common critique of capitalism namely that it destroys communities and concludes that diversity taxes and feminism destroy communities one of the big criticisms that leftist have of the free market is that somehow it destroys community it's not enough diversity and taxes destroy community feminism destroys communities by destroying family uh-oh my ears what is that ringing sound this this isn't even a dog whistle at this point it's no white nationalist propaganda there's a link to a lengthy video about how white nationalists use diversity as a scare tactic titled reading from the right volume to cultural Marxism in the description because it's thorough from here we come to a pretty standard critique of democratic control and anarchist decision-making in general that it will be bureaucratic and bogged down with excessive voting I've been some anarcho-syndicalist communist anarchist whatever whatever but you've got to get together for direct democracy meetings like nine times a day oh god can you imagine can you imagine like what a nightmare that would be but it's not as though decisions about things aren't currently being made decision-making already takes place under cap ilysm but we call these processes meetings conferences focus groups surveys etc etc the difference is the under capitalism it's a very small amount of people making those decisions and imposing them on others also as I pointed out earlier there are several other ways to address voting to allow for participatory collective input into society if you've forgotten or you didn't look them up when I gave you the chance the first time here they are again the video ends with half an hour of Molyneux and Smith congratulating each other on how principled and consistent they are and how the left isn't principled or consistent the last 20 minutes or so are the most enlightening part of the video in my opinion I could talk for hours about how Steve emotional conflates anarcho-communism with white nationalism or how he seems to think Trump dislikes executing power or this ludicrous notion that Trump can just order the army to construct his ethnic cleansing wall presumably out of excavated copies of et for the Atari 2600 that's literally the most wrong thing he says in the entire video but there's one thing I think is more important to understanding the video than anything else it's at about the one hour and 18 minutes in they wrote it down that's how I take notes and American Barry Goldwater says that he does not use complex language to explain his ideas to people who aren't familiar with them he's analyzing a primer essay from Teen Vogue aimed at 15 to 21 year olds as though it's a peer-reviewed scholarly article while explaining that if he were talking to say a 15 to 21 year old he would issue complicated language and terms in lieu of a simplistic primer he literally describes the thing he is doing himself brainwashing more than once Wow Ron it sounds like Molyneux is either unable or unwilling to engage in the more advanced texts and philosophies that he opposes and that makes any analysis he may have of those philosophies uninformed at best and blatantly dishonest at worst I was gonna say it sounds like a cult but that works too so there you have it Dave Smith and Stefan Molyneux stand for individual liberty and private property yet they seem to not understand that we are social creatures they don't understand that all is and has been created by all and that property ownership and owning the means of production cannot be achieved without aggression they hold a flawed world view of the atomized individual and therefore they do not understand anarchism if you're interested in radical theory looking for a book recommendation or whatever you can get your radical reviews here with the radical reviewer thanks for watching [Applause] that's not true communism not real capitalism that's not true communism not that's not true




Comments
  1. I'm not even an anarchist and Stefan infuriates me to no end when he talks about his weird ass delusional "anarchism". He's bad even for an ancap. And now he's just becoming outright white nationalist, getting teary eyed watching literal Polish fascists march. Yup, nothing says anarchism like getting all wanky and emotional watching people march for rigidly controlled hierarchies on every level of life.

  2. About education: I literally became an anarchist as a teen in 1979 when I discovered radical education critics. (Worth noting that homeschooling advocates in those days were almost all left of center.)

  3. 2 minutes in the video and I already see how retarded you really are. That comment you posted is not a fucking argument. Take a logic class before you start criticizing a philosopher like Stephan Molyneux

  4. Taxes are a red herring as are many other topics here. To be decided in the future when the public equally make a law about them in accordance with all. Perhaps some groups of anarchists would have taxes and others not. Perhaps those groups would all agree to a small overall tax for certain reasons. Who knows! It is an optional thing.

  5. Anarchy definitely tends towards socialism not capitalism because in a group of anarchists all are equal rulers. Then decisions are by consent or consensus. This is how communes work.

  6. Good review. Atrocities mentioned by Molyneux were due to there being a ruler, not due to socialist principles. Could not happen with communal anarchy where the public are equally the ruler.

  7. Cute dog but disagree very strongly.

    Anarcho capitalism is the only true form of anarchy. In anarcho capitalism, you can even establish your own little anarcho communist communes if you want, as long as you don't force people who don't want to be there to be there.

    It will fail spectacularly because the more productive workers will just leave because they are being exploited and stolen from, but you are welcome to try. Something tells me we would be forbidden to start an anarcho capitalist society in an anarcho communism society.

    You guys talk about renumerations from the productive to the least productive. There is nothing moral about that. That is oppression of the productive and is the doom of your society. You might want to treat the ones who are keeping society functioning with a little more kindness than a seizure of their labor.

    Are you entitled to the fruits of your labor? If not, then how is what you are proposing different from slavery? What incentive does anyone have to work the hardest, to produce the most, if it is all taken from him? How does that make you better than a thief? If you are entitled to the fruits of your labor, on what grounds can you claim that you should steal from the most productive?

    Voting with your wallet absolutely works. It's less effective on entities that have to compete with the government like schools or have huge subsidies though. Honestly I'm baffled that you said "the ones with capital want you to be less educated". If someone has capital they want you to be more educated. That means you are in general more productive. Which means I poach you and you provide more value to my company or product.

    >taxes provide jobs
    by taking away jobs the private sector would provide, and less efficient I might add. Also, if I throw a rock through a window I'm also providing jobs. Shit argument. Do you really think schools and roads and police would stop being a thing if the free market provided it? I also highly doubt it would be worse than what the government currently does. And every analysis I can find on the efficiency of government entities vs free market ones seem to point to the same conclusion. I don't think that's controversial and you claim not to like government either so I'll leave it at that.

    You can also legitimately own land without violence. Property disputes have been happening forever. I'd rather not write more paragraphs on how exactly it works, and it can be quite tricky and complex, but the essence of it is you both agree to an impartial third party to solve your dispute and then honor the contract. Someone who just claims he has the mountains over there, especially when they're not being developed likely has a pretty poor case, and won't legitimately be able to stop someone who wants to set up a mine or house or whatever he wants on the mountains.

    I think the fundamental flaw in your understanding is one simple concept. I think anarcho capitalism is far more just, though at first it feels very cold, but i've realized it's the only fair way. In anarcho capitalism, either the people who can't support themselves find someone to voluntarily take care of them, or they die. You do not have the right to force others to pay for you to live. Rights only exist in negative contexts. You do not have the right to breathe, but you have the right from other people stopping you from breathing. You do not have the right to live, but you have the right from other people taking your life from you. You do not have a right to water, but you have the right from other people stopping you from getting your own or trading with others. You do not have a right for others to listen to you or support what you're saying, but you have a right from people silencing you. Other people owe you nothing other than the promise of not stopping you unless you violate the NAP, nothing more.

    I really think you are coming from a compassionate place. I really do. I think the problem is that you think that people are owed life. I did for a long time too. Why would people not be at least ensured life if we are so rich. How could we let people die of starvation and medical illnesses if we have the capacity to stop it. It just makes sense to at least provide that for people… right?

    It doesn't work. Graph countries according to their economic freedom index and you'll see that the more capitalist a country is, the better the poor do. The more rich everyone is in fact. In fact, if you graph economic freedom index vs the gini wealth coefficient of their matching countries you see their is a slight decrease in wealth inequality. Also the more capitalist a country is, their gdp/ppp per capita increases exponentially.

    Moreover, regardless of the results of the free market (of which they are stellar) it is moral. To everyone. It is a series of voluntary interactions. I trade you this, you do this for me. I lend you this, you do this with it, I'll give you this. Both parties are better off or else they wouldn't have done it in the first place. If you don't like the deal, don't take it. Be the guy who lends the thing. Develop more worthwhile skills so you can DEMAND more.

    Everyone may not start in the same place, but anyone can change their trajectory. In anarcho communism, everyone may start at the same place (until you run out of other people's money!) but it is hundreds -thousands of times more difficult to change your trajectory. Your hard work and brilliant ideas have to be distributed among your entire population. Your failures are also distributed among your entire population though. Which is why you don't want people to FAIL. Maybe you yourself are also afraid of failure. But winners, those who believe they can make it, those who can work hard, who are intelligent and confident, will never support something that puts such a heavy burden on themselves. And society is held up by very few, extremely productive people. And when they go on strike for being exploited, I will not feel the slightest sympathy for you when you're among the millions starving because the productive farmers decided it's not worth it anymore.

  8. It's like Jordan Peterson: Molyneux has to blame professors and movements for the problems of capitalism (which are internal) so you get even more alienated people who think we only need more housewives, working harder and fewer immigrants to "solve all of our problems". They will never understand contradictions of capitalism nor the psychological damage on people, like anxiety and conflict.

Leave a Reply

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