@@Hallbergius read Hans Herman Hoppe and Murray Rothbard

That's largely what it is to be intelligent. IQ is supposedly a measure of flexibility.

@@Hallbergius he just put out a book the Anarchist Handbook

This is why police are a genuine issue because unless you're brave enough to say you're wrong you shouldn't be in a position of control. Hell I know I defend mistakes I make simply because my ego is too big to say I messed up.

Lex is also friends with Malice and knows they are having an actual conversation instead of a "point battle debate". These 2 are complete opposite and work so well together. Every conversation they have is GREAT.

There is a truth in this quote, but it is hardly a compelling case for anarchy.

Mønkey I mean it could be. Think about it, the State’s function in my mind today is to keep the massively underprivileged and malevolent citizenry from tearing everything down out of frustration and to a certain extent, understandable outrage at the present socio-economic landscape. Digital currency in direct hands of central banks might help pacify this, but remains to be seen. In any case, I’m grateful for the society we live in, obviously. America is the greatest country in the world, period. But for those of us who don’t worry about having to spend $5 on either gas, food, or beer...is it really the case that you can justify your safety purchased at the cost of SO much mayhem that govt brings about? So much power concentrated in the hands of so few, with the express purpose of keeping it that way. I’m not so sure it’s a fair bargain in its current form

That's Aristotle qoute

@Language and Programming Channel What? It obviously isn't. Democracy is not perfect, hardly anything in life is. But if you think anarchy is closer to perfection, let alone closer to maintaining societies with current levels of demands for nutrition, transportation, information, safety, technology, etc etc etc, you are absolutely delusional.

@@mattabraham3549 Of course it is not fair. Which, by the way, instantly makes America not the greatest country in the world as there are much more fair countries out there. But it is not problem of democracy. Democracy has spawned the most prosperous systems and countries this planet has ever seen. Period. In the case of America, the problem is mainly the perpetual bipartisan political cartel, that does not allow any other options to enter the market. Americans effectively choose from TWO options in elections. That is just one more option than ONE. America's version of "democracy" is much closer to actual political dictatorship. That is not the problem of democracy itself. That is the problem of the political cartel, who will not allow any real changes and who will get perpetually voted in for some weird ass reason.

I don’t really agree with this because I think now days people are learning but never coming to truth, and the actual truth sets you free. Because the truth is a lot of this stuff doesn’t matter.

@@Titantitan001 That's because you don't understand the quote. Voltaire was referring to zealots who claim the truth and use it as a weapon.

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

Truth is objective and subjective. Truth, therefore is a myth. If it’s a “truism” debating about it is irrelevant.

Nietzsche wod hate this

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

Try living for a year in a third world country. UK will look like a paradise once you go back, and you wonder where all those gratitude went living in your country. Even scandinavian people, arguably living the highest standards in the planet, are complaining. I'm beginning to think most 1st world people are just overpriveleged whiners.

@@gusfring96 Most places are only ‘third world countries’ because of British arrogance and destruction..

​@@gusfring96 That's the flip side of the hedonic treadmill. People will complain about the government if they think it has control.

@@gusfring96 it’s not a dichotomy. Saying the current system you live under is shite doesn’t mean there can’t be worse ones. If you were in the uk you were mostly likely told your nonessential and had either your entire livelihood destroyed or you wages destroyed by inflation. You were locked in your home and had basic freedoms taken away. 4K people a year are locked up for speech violations and you don’t have the right to self defence. That is a soft tyranny. Sure it’s not as bad as China or Venezuela but aside from the fact the west is trending their way it doesn’t mean people can’t speak out about it. And just shutting up and accepting it is how we end up like full authoritarian hellholes.

@@cesarperez10 he's a robot... he can understand and translate over 6,000 forms of communication

translating 11000010010 to russian and then to english ain't easy

@@cesarperez10 I speak one language. However I sound much more ridiculous given the same speed.

I speak two languages and I speak way too fast in one of them, and way too slow in the other one.

That red bull messed up his thinking. You can see hes not catching up to the arguments fast enougj

Ah yes, Bakunin, the asshole who tried to appropriate the work of Proudhon who always hated the communists who eventually got massively betrayed by Marx who excommunicated him from their association. A thief and a cuck, truly a great legend. The term isn't mentionned in the US because of Commies who did terrorist attacks calling themselves anarchists against all the desires of its funders, Proudhon. Truly a shame that they had to drag anarchism in the mud like they did. At least Rothbard, Hoppe and the Mises Institute kept all of it alive and we still have a coherent Anarchist idea who's becoming more known these days.

I see it reversed.

😂🤣👍

Both Russian too

People talked to figure out problems. Not get views. They have to say crazy stuff to get views so the whole world is going crazy.

@@kermittheteasippinfrog5827 it doesn't help that people treat social media as "the news" rather than the gossip mill it is. The information age is over. When the NSA was revving up alot of counter culture folks began saturating the internet with loose threads and half truth. Like anything the CC does within a decade it is used against them. No matter the news you can find a version that feeds your needs. It is an information mandelbrot, where you get stuck in an ever changing feedback loop.

They kinda didn't though. Deciding leaders through popularity contest is fundamentally stupid.

@@isodoublet what would you suggest then.

@@mr.cantsay Even a lottery would be superior.

This guy is extremely arrogant and not very likeable. Could be the reason why he doesn't want to get along with wider society.

@OverLord Opps they are

@@attilakun7850 Actually sounds like he wants just that.

@@attilakun7850 i used to like him but holy cray he seems like a total moron to me now. just another edgar skin suit npc.

@@Christian-ju8lg The difference between men and ants is that men have agency.

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

Tell us a better way. How about Tyranny? Unfortunately there is no other realistic option.

@@fluentpiffle You can philosophize all you want, but when a native was looking down the barrel of a musket while holding a spear or an atlatl, he was probably wondering what his people had actually been doing over the last 50,000 years while these Europeans were inventing guns and warships.

​@GrubHuncher You have an interesting point. From a background in security and risk assessment - consider the following: would you value living by your own wisdom and rules that work for you for many generations even if you knew that there would eventually be aliens that would come and very likely erase your population? You could call it a failure of imagination. Or maybe they acknowledged the risk and chose it. Who knows from the beginning what is wisdom or nievety until looking backward.

Bro what happened to my man Rogannnn

A buddy of mine..

JRE is dead now.

@@otmanighoulassen6177 cap

Rogan’s podcast have never been this intellectual at any point.

It's not... it's something you'd find as a bumper sticker on a pick up truck by some libertarian, who claims he's all self made, doesn't need a government, and then goes on to use roads, supermarkets, the fuel infrastructure to fuel his car... all resources provided by a system he profits from, without even realizing.

@@RoadRunner217 When you invent your opponent in your head it's always easy to win isn't it. Literally everything you said can and has been done by private industry. Don't reply to me ever again with such inane drivel.

@@RoadRunner217 most anarchists position the community at the core of their understanding. The poverty of American “libertarianism” is its function as controlled opposition to genuine horizontal politics.

@@RoadRunner217 Using resouces a person didn't ask for, and provided for by stolen labor, isn't 'profiting' from.

@@handyman1016 too bad. Leave or make your own society

After him, read Murray Rothbard

After both read Proudhon. _The Federative Principle_ should be required reading for all Anarchists, regardless, of ilk.

Max Stirner: “The Unique and Its Property “ ,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation also fascinating.

Thank you for all these suggestions, I'm leaning back into anarchy myself. Been going back and forth between libertarianism and anarchism..

@@muhammadbinjamil9998 Murray Rothbard was a capitalist. Anarchism is anti-capitalist.

Not a smart thing to do before talking to Malice.

That explains it.

There are multiple forms of anarchism.

And ancap certainly isnt one of them, its neo-feudalism

⁠@@graceg3250 No there aren’t. There are no valid subsets of anarchy. Those subsets are controlled opposition invented by government to get statists to hate on real anarchists, who don’t associate with those De-Facto Statists. Anybody who considers themselves anarcho-anything is a De-Facto Statist, and can’t be trusted to do the morally right thing for the rest of the human species

​@@graceg3250 original anarchists were anti-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists are just capitalists with anarchistic attributes. They're real anarchists.

Anarchism is against hierarchical power structures, or domination/being forced to do things under coercion. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Under capitalism you are coerced to work and there is a clear hierarchical structure in the workplace.

I agree..

The phone you typed this message on exists because violent authority structures are too slow to figure out if they should or shouldn’t ban smart phones. We are technologically advanced because smart people (anarchists) distract dumb people (voters) from their hatred of anarchy in order to invent stuff that dumb people can buy. Authority structures are like slugs and sloths pushing road blocks into a pathway.

chang hence my request for an explanation

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

Money will interrupt it

The problem with humans beings is that we used to be a tribal species but evolved into a socially monogamous species ever since we stopped living in tribes and started living family units. This happend only recently in evolutionary terms and this is why so many of our behaviors and values are still tailored to a tribal lifestyle, despite not being useful anymore. We are essentially a species in transition. This is also the main cause of strife between collectivists and individualists. Collectivists want to go back to a tribal lifestyle, while individualists want to keep their socially monogamous lifestyle. The believe in the need for territories and the need for warfare to acquire them is another consequence of our tribal past, BTW. I agree in that governments aren't necessary, but can definitely be beneficial. Subscription to them has to be voluntary in order for them to be so, however. For this to happen, we need to let go of our urge for territories and the urge for power structures based on them. Convincing people of this might sound daunting, but we have already a historical precedent showing it is possible. Religions used to be the dominant power structures in the world, with hierarchies, monopolies, territories and the inevitable wars associated with them. This all disappeared overnight when the notion of Freedom of religion became commonplace. It paved the way for secular liberalism, and many philosophers, like Voltaire, Adam Smidt and David Hume believe this notion to be crucial for peace and prosperity in a society. The same concept can also be applied to governments and their current power structures, IMO. Call it Freedom of governance or whatever you want. Once this notion becomes commonplace, it will be very hard to ever go back.

@@erwinnijs1 isn't the precedent you're mentioning a shift from being governed by the church to being governed by the state. Which is not in fact a true dissolution of government. I think government (in whatever form) is akin to language we must share the same language in order to communicate effectively. Anarchism , or self government alone is about as useful as a language only you know, when faced with a group who all speak the same language.

@@Undone545 They usually coincided because both rulers and ruled weren't ready to fully let go of the urge for territories. That's why I believe there is a need for that paradigm shift. I'm not advocating for a dissolution of government. I'm advocating for the dissolution between territories and government. Self governance is not the goal. Just like atheism wasn't the goal of Freedom of Religion. Self governance is a resulting option of it. I think governance is more about rules than about language and most people speak multiple languages anyways so I don't see any problem in multiple governments or multiple sets of rules within a society. Just like religions dictate certain rules, without posing a problem in society. In that sense is an anarchist akin to a hermit, and I don't expect many people choosing for such a lifestyle.

People like Bob Murphy have discussed, at great length, the idea of insurance companies providing for defence. As far as intelligence gathering I think the private industry has that down to a science. As far as the militia and keeping the government in check I think society would be different. I always compare our society to those kids who have over protective parents. They can’t do anything on their own and if there is any trouble they just run straight to their parents. I think consumers would have to go out of their way to research products (in turn third party reviewers would be more prevalent and more reliable than government agencies who have no accountability). People would also have to look out for themselves a little more. Or at least hire companies to do the job for them. Companies that lose business if they did their jobs anywhere near as poorly as the government. The militia scene in turn would probably be pretty strong. Patriots who were proud of actually doing things on their own would be more defensive about protecting that. I know it’s not a comprehensive answer. More like just a few random thoughts. I was kind of interrupted in my thought process and lost track of where I was going when I came back but if you’re interested check out Chaos Theory by Murphy.

@@murrayrothtard6072 thank you for the detailed reply. I’ll check out Bob Murphy’s stuff. Would love to see how it works.

The US has more privately held guns than the rest of the worlds military combined. If Ukraine had an equivalent number of weapons an invasion would have never been considered. They likely have ~5 million men of fighting age. Russia came in with 150k troops, Ukraine likely would have had that many women willing to snipe long range. The places in the US with high gun ownership are the least violent. The places where guns are limited or outlawed are the most violent.

Of course negative people like that would still exist in an anarchy, but they wouldn't get away with it unscratched or by hiding in the shadows like many states/corporations/institutions do nowadays and before...

The system never created human biology or wired are brains we will always need leaders and individual identity in a group or like minded people through religion or culture your not going to change that and we need communities that have the same values and mindsets all that anarchy would is dismantle a working system into an more corrupt system

very well said.

Exactly, Mike is largely uneducated on nature of the universe... Currency anarchy, social anarchy, governance anarchy = Race conditions = Survival of the fittest = not in little Mikeys best interest... especially in the age of A.I where the number of information vectors rapidly increase.. "Devils" will grow & hide within the complexity. Modern society works because we safe guard ourselves from Evolution by Natural Selection & survival of the fittest ... not by embracing it

12 of the top 25 highest median income counties in the US are the ones that surround DC. This is out of over 3100 counties.

This has already been demonstrated before. Rome went into Gaul, made up of villages spread throughout various tribal groups. They conquered Gall and paraded the captured slaves through the streets. A large collective unified by a singular purpose will always conquer an unorganized group of people. The issue is that as nations become more diverse and populated, that nation will become more and more unstable, with so many various groups vying for their own self interest. Japan is a good example of a unified culture, ethnicity, and race. They are not faced with the same issues Western nations are experiencing. Rome eventually fell into ruin when they became diverse and had conflicting demographics inside their empire, and became far too large to manage.

This is the only criticism of anarchism necessary. It's all well and good to have the decentralized society they want... until the Cartels, China, Russia, etc. decide they want your stuff/land.

He feels powerful when he wears it. So it has become his uniform. His words

@@280SE makes sense. Did he feel less powerful in other colors? I just worry that he may have a coffee spill someday and not find that color in stock 😬

Jack Pot He used to wear white suits and red crocodile shoes but wasn’t getting the respect he deserved so switched to black and his podcast has gone from strength to strength so 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@280SE I could see him rocking alligator shoes and a pimp cane

He's a gay icon of course

In Times of Crisis You Are Your Resource.

@@shawnbruce6934 My point exactly. It would be a shitshow.

@@toddsmith5715every single day is a time of crisis. You have to eat and yet for all of human history, cooperation in the group guaranteed the groups survival. If everybody was a canibal or a food thief in the group, the group would not exist.

@@firstlast9916 "every single day is a time of crisis" No, that's absurdly silly. I didn't even bother reading beyond that.

@@toddsmith5715 I guess your ancestors had food rain down from heaven everyday.

then leave, buy your own island. I never consented to not murdering or raping or stealing from anyone. I never consented to any of the laws forced upon me.

@@ceceroxy2227 not the same shit 💀

Roads are handled by each State, so they're closer to the public's approval and oversight. Of course, it's mainly just maintaining the roads, which is very easy and cost effective, since over 90% of the asphalt is recycled and used again. The Federal Government could be scaled back a lot, but most of what State and Local does is fairly important.

It seems to me the Native American situation, before the Europeans came over, was probably as close to anarchy as is achievable. How'd that work out for them?

the only function of the state must be the defence of the liberty of those contributing funds for it.

@@ronanmartin2362 Wow. Are you telling us you don't understand the difference between people legally moving here from other countries to become US citizens and an armed invasion by a foreign power? You might only be working with a hamster on a wheel but you still need to feed it.

We all live on the same planet, so nothing is truly "foreign". The biggest issue is human greed.

You don't have to have a government to have a militia/military or courts. Even Frederick Bastiat put this type of thinking to rest in the 1700's when he parodied the fact that statists think that because we don't want the gov't to do something, we don't want it at all. Foreign militaries won't invade the US mainly because of our level of civilian armament. this is why the founding fathers (whether you agree with them or not) put so much importance on the 2nd amendment. A well armed populace is more than enough to discourage any invasion. All the historical examples of stateless societies being invaded all were due to the technology of the invaders being much more advanced in a time of geographical isolation. In todays world, this isn't a problem. Especially in the US. If you eliminated the US armed forces entirely, the population would still almost be more well armed than any invading force. Privatize the current military infrastructure and you'd have an even more powerful military who was held accountable by those who pay their wages (no more pointless and atrocious foreign entanglements). Same with courts/laws. People will still want protection and legal arbitration in a stateless society and would gladly pay for it. Especially considering how much cheaper it would be without the bureaucracy to waste 80% of the money. As Malice stated, the current system makes it incredibly difficult for those without money to be represented fairly. In a private system, this disadvantage would be all but eliminated due to the cost effectiveness and competition of a free market. As I told someone in a previous comment, anarchist ideology isn't some off-the-cuff rambling. It's a highly developed and highly intellectual philosophy and has confronted (very effectively) every criticism that has ever been leveraged against it. Most people just have no idea how well developed it is. Literally every single criticism you could come up with has already been answered very thoroughly many times. That fact is simply unknown or unacknowledged by most. We hear and respond to the same arguments every day. Over and over.

Ya, quite naive, society will break down in to every man for himself when the things start going sideways

I'm programmed to not feel like I'm being ruled.

The best advocate I've heard for anarchy is Larken rose. Go view his channel

Don't be. This guy's not as cynical as he thinks he is if he still has hope in anarchy. Anarchy just leads to might is right. Someone will inevitably try to take power, and that will never end until someone finally succeeds.

@@bradspitt3896 Michael Malice's ideal anarchy ignores the natural and immutable human tendency towards greed.

@@thegreymonk4993 in a true state of anarchy the greedy and power hungry would be killed off pretty quickly. They would try to take power and resources and they would be met with opposition of the masses. Enough war lords get lynched and burned alive and nobody else is going to want to be one. Make an example out of those who would vie for power and nobody will want the power.

Why not common interest too I think it’s both. Self interest is better for the common

A lynch mob could qualify under that definition.

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

You mean the same as random strangers finding each other and then attempting to stay alive as a group during a zombie apocalypse? I fail to see how that is a negative action.

Max stirner was ahead of his time.

You and the farmers around you would pay for a local sheriff's dept that would protect the local area. The only difference would be that you could opt out of the protection service. Sooo kinda the same thing, just more options. Does that make sense?

Kurt Johansson no it doesn’t, because most people aren’t willing to pay out of their own will for the local sheriff’s department, or any of the other things paid for by taxes. I live in a neighborhood on a long private road, yet the condition of the road is shit. There’s plenty of neighbors who CAN pull money together and pave a stable road but no one wants to. This is why taxes exist. In order for certain functions of our society like the police, firemen, judicial systems and infrastructure to exist, people have to give up a piece of their pie. And in order for taxes to exist, a government must exist to enforce them.

@@kurtjohansson1265 it makes sense an looks like another form of government

Guys I'm not an ancap, I just kinda like the idea. It would just turn into feudalism, basically. Only things that were really needed would have money spent on them. Personally I think we need a night watchman state, but that's just me.

It would just become a system of local kings

THat just sounds like resurgent fuedalsim. Hopefully well get cool robo knights

@@homieslayer1807 For the Emporer!

That’s because anything “anarcho-(insert_suffix_here)” is a psy-op. Government plants these false versions of anarchy into societal discourse to distract from what real anarchy is, in order to give statists a reason to hate on real anarchists who don’t associate with such false belief systems. What is “real” anarchy, you ask? Look up Mark Passio and you’ll find the answer to that question. He has done hundreds of hours of research into anarchy and governmental corruption that you can find, and in my opinion he provides the best case for anarchy - for freedom - even with its flaws. In my perspective, Mark Passio is the only semi-famous anarchist on the Internet who seems genuine and trustworthy, despite his (sometimes) belligerent attitude. He does his best to expose how corruption works, and has successfully convinced me that government as an ideology is severely flawed. While I wouldn’t call myself an anarchist yet, I definitely lean towards anarchy the most, despite not having any ideology at all. So when you say you’re concerned that anarcho-capitalism could lead the world into a bad place - full of bad-faith actors - I agree. That’s because most anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists are controlled opposition. And also because, like I said before, those subsets of anarchy are false flag ideologies. All subsets of anarchy are a part of one big psy-op. A psychological operation conducted by the state. Your concern is a shared one. You’re not alone. ☮️

@@VinOptimaxxx but then you encounter the issue of non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. If there are 10 jobs and only 9 people the price will rise forever as the people move to the highest pay. Modern nations need 5-6% of their workers to be ready, willing, and able to work but have no job to work at. If they wander off, inflation happens.

@@VinOptimaxxx I mean wander off from the factory and back to the subsistence farm. 2 billion people currently live this way.

@@Willard_and_Wee-un i like ur corsair

.....so much benefit, to who? Cui Bono? empires are indeed built on forced labor. which is why a system that seeks to do away with it isn't an empire, but something different. yes, there will always be work that needs to be done that no one wants to do, which is why we have automation, to make sure no one has to do that work. i really do believe that excuses for slave labor is just that, excuses. these justifications in many respects are arbitrary, and those that aren't, through some deliberation we have come up with ways to cope, such as automation. it's a choice to use forced labor, and it's apparent though people's hard work, that it's a choice with clear alternatives.

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

“A secret ballot- vote- equals a secret government.” Lysander Spooner: “No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority”, 1,2 and 6, 1867-1870 also interesting/ important.

This was a great suggestion, that book is great

Psychopaths would actually thrive in anarchy as well, they do well I unstructured environments. That's how Napoleon came to power during the reign of terror

Short answer yes, long answer yes. I think it would create some kind of purpose that democracy seems to sap away and create a lack of community. "intelligent democracy" would be the goal but it isnt viable or achievable.

Checks and balances.....well yeah. In the minority of first world countries maybe, but just remind you of the fact that most countries are not like that.

@@grnhy If you replace the word checks and balances with separation of powers, I believe I am still making the same point. Where structure in government gives resistance to self interest

those who care for others only care because they are compelled to? if that is the case why pretend otherwise?

@@TheNeoSabre0 What you said. There's actually a profound truth in this point. People are now often operating under the subconscious psychological framework that charity and helping others is something the gov't does so we don't need to. And it has detached people from a sense of community and personal investment and accomplishment. For example, the money Bernie Sanders alone raised in 2016, would have been enough money to feed and house every homeless person in the US for several months, and buy them a nice set of clothes and a haircut to help find employment. Imagine the feeling of accomplishment and the snowball effect from that. People are donating to politics instead of straight to the causes they believe in. If we changed that, we'd literally change the world overnight. With that stated, it also needs said that the vast majority of donations and charity are already done privately. I think over 80%. So people are already doing this way more than gov't is. And they're doing so much more effectively. It takes 5 dollars of taxpayer money to get 1 dollar to the source of a program. That's an ungodly amount of waste. Final point; Anarchists still believe in laws, police, etc. Just not violent governmental monopolies over these services. And we believe in leadership. But not rulers. We have no problem with natural and spontaneous leadership by those who people voluntarily choose to follow. Different communities might develop these things in different ways, but that's the beauty of it. So long as people aren't forced against their will to abide by one "leader", we have no issue with their being leaders. And I think a leader who abused their status would be much more quickly dispersed with, as there isn't the concrete wall of politics to keep them in place when they upset people. People would be able to simply tell them to piss off, and walk away freely.

Any suggestions from you then?

So your mind was predetermined before any logical extrapolations of how the system would operate were explained, weird. (In your defense, it was done so poorly)

Yes, each individual is hardwired, programmed the same way and there is little individuality, unlike humans which have a mind that stores different ideas from each other. Bees and ants have no choice therefore less randomness in their behaviour.

@metalshredmetal1 Not really mate. Insects like ants are nothing but pheromones, sacs of fluid and basic sensors.

@@le13dan not feeling guilty about torching them.

how do you know

@metalshredmetal1 Now I've up voted myself. Thanks for the tip brah.

Bitcoin, not blockchain. Tying anything but BTC into tokens is an intractible problem. The token can't ultimately enforce ownership. Bitcoin is enough.

Even bitcoin is dominated my miners with their hashpower. Bitcoin IS better, however and is almost guaranteed to be the next step.

@@MrVerdes22 Miners don't dominate anything. They are the slaves of the buyers.

I know, gets me craving one every time and my store’s been out of sugar free forever >_>

'Other energy drinks are available' lmao

A sufficiently Anarchist society is an acephalous organism, there are no centers of power to strike, heads of state to assassinate, or delineated territories to assault. Any invading force will likely be met by the mass of civilians turned guerrilas and cities turned fortresses. Organizationally, not too dissimilar from the black blocs of today, although, formed with a cohesive mission in mind, that being to defend the System rather than protest it.

There are anarchist societies existing right now that function perfectly fine, people don’t just go and kill each other. Scaling is a different question, but as far as it working, it does

There are millitas and guns for defense.

​@@smeeg848 Scaling is really the most important variable. Many types of societies can function well when restricted to a small area but completely collapse on themselves when the scale increases, so it doesn't really answer the original question. How do these societies effectively defend against an invasion?

@@simonjesusbeliever3467 Militias aren't going to do shit against a highly organised military force, especially when people have the option to simply desert. And who's going to mass-produce and supply the weapons and artillery?

“The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation for answers.

Falsity and corruption thrive on confusion.. Everyone is born an anarchist.. We have to have the natural state 'educated' out of us.. The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable...

Nah. We embody the principles that document was founded upon.

Surely your vote is your agreement to the direction the country goes, you sign up right then...

@@dtocs8252 Believing that an area as geographically and culturally diverse as that claimed as territory by the United States government should go in any single "direction" is a false narrative and perpetuates corrupt power structures.

@@GS-is9gg that's why you all agree to vote and go along with the vote, you either together under that, or you don't want to belong to a democratic system, you don't want majority rule.

@@dtocs8252 Exactly. Let's opt out, and move towards self-rule individually.

I'm dubious about the prospect that anyone in the military chain of command will be aye-okay with turning arms on their fellow citizens and nuking some of their home cities.

Not simple. Would have to work towards decommissioning them all. I don't believe nuclear weapons can exist in a peaceful/anarcho capitalist society. Their mere existence is akin to having a loaded gun pointed directly at millions of people's heads. They serve no purpose for defense. Their only purpose is to cause catastrophe, and only provide defense by means of mutually assured destruction - which is essentially circular reasoning... we need nukes to protect us from nukes, the threat of which only exists because we have nukes.

Ya that was like sex with my first girlfriend

Hereditary monarchy

I assuming that’s Jordan you’re talking about. First thing* (edit) I think of reading this is hierarchies. Climbing the hierarchy with competence, hence having authority over subordinates. Is this what he means by replacing authority with competence ?

@@Xx_EL_xX .. no. authority doesn’t exist in and of itself but competence does. What looks like authority to you on the one hand is actually codependence on the other. Authority cannot be forced upon you. You must give it. Btw, “force” is not “authority” (if that is your argument). Hierarchical structures built on competence is tangible whereas hierarchical structure built on the illusion of authority is simply an illusion.

@@DansEarway This doesn’t quite add up. As the man says himself, be precise in your speech. Don’t go running around using other people’s arguments without thinking about them fully. I’m a little lost when you say “authority cannot be forced upon you. You must give it”. Give what? Authority? And in which sense of the word does it fit in the statement “cannot be forced upon you”? The way I comprehend this is “I cannot be oppressed unless I let you oppress me”. Do you mind elaborating a little ?

@steven1245force and authority are not the same. No one can make you do anything you choose not to.

@@Xx_EL_xX I repeat, force and authority are not the same. No one can make you do anything you choose not to.

Anarchy is just a transitioning point from one government to the next

Yes. And not to mention OTHER governments.

the main challenge is that these gangs would start to coalesce and form a new government which might be worse than the old one you were trying to get away from

Hmm yeah but the queen is just serving her pre-programmed role like the rest of the colony. She doesn't make any organizational decisions and is no more autonomous than a drone.

King David you act like human leaders aren’t themselves behaving in a predictable way, often in line with their instincts. Regardless, the point is that with those insects who work as a hive, even they are organized through a centralized body. Everything is, businesses, countries, the human body, living cells, etc. Any thing that requires cooperation among many parts does to some extent.

Lex was barely there.

And some people need rulers like some places need cartel,. Or at the very least you need people with guns who will enforce whatever they say can or can't be done. Otherwise people will trash the rivers, burn the forest, extinct every animal, or sell whatever drugs they want without paying the bigger guys. That's why some people need to be ruled and chemtrail sprayed from the sky.

@@NickoGibson anarchy does not mean no rules, we are talking about a political philosophy not the ramblings of an a homeless person on the street

Leave where? I don't think that people realise that "leave" also means no firefighters, no use of roads, no garbage collection, no public transport, no post and so on once you "leave"... And if someone breaks into your house or starts building some shit on your garden, sorry bro, you've left.

@@Puleczech Well if you leave for another country that is willing to woo you for your patronage/participation in their country, then the problems you left behind will remain in the previous country. That means that if countries don't want to lose their tax base, they really need to pull up their socks and deliver a good living standard for their citizens for them to want to stay. As opposed to the norm in most opressive countries where each citizen is treated as the property of the state.

@@copperchatter6890 I don't think paying taxes and anarchy mix together my friend. Collecting taxes and distributing it for vital services requires some form of "government". Not to mention some form of restriction of one's freedoms needs to exist just for the sole case they decided not to participate. So whatever you describe - and I am not saying it is wrong per se - it is not anarchy.

@@Puleczech no it doesnt

@@Puleczech if you can't figure out how we might get roads without stealing then there's not much point in trying to convince you of anything

He said that he was playing Angel's advocate, meaning he was giving counter-arguments so Michael could explain himself more thoroughly. In fact, at one point he says that Michael's ideas are "interesting" instead of saying b*llshit, just to make him talk a little more. It's not like he believes everything he says on this podcast.

@@drofheim which needs consent to work, Hah, I wish.

There is a choice. You can leave

@@edgaraf9411 Why would I when I value Lex and his guests. It’s very rare that you have to contend with moronic arguments here, or morons that decide to leave their pathetic two cents a year later. Must be another bot in the wall…

Why not apply the market principle then to the centralized institutions?

@@erwinnijs1 because it is not the same. When a government builds a bridge even when hiring a company to do that, it might build a bridge nobody wants to use/isnt paying for itself. Companies get bankrupt when they are inefficient, governments raise more taxes

@@kenlowiii yes you. The mainstream narrative is captalism + government, if you truly understood classical capitalism, communism, socialism and other systems ypu would now governments are less effective than the market.

@@babycat5001 Once you subject governments to the market principle, taxes become subscription fees and people can simply subscribe to another one whenever they build something nobody wants.

@@erwinnijs1 yes i agree, you can do that now, move indeed if you dont like your government. In my ideal scenario i would move to a country with zero government. However governments are enforced on people where they are, it would be even greater if you could freely chose whatever system ypu want in the place you are in or choose no system, maybe you meant that too. I would think that is the most free&fair.

The left wing certainly does condemn authoritarian communists. There is extreme tension between anarchists and communists. But the entire left agrees that fascism is worse.

Ever heard of the term "slang"? You surely use it with friends and family... Buuuut.... governments and sexual deviates are trying to force you with penalty of prison/fines to use language...

@@victorrenevaldiviasoto9728 right so that would support that language is not a great example of being in a state of anarchy.

@@dodochipmunk Compelled speech isn't

@@victorrenevaldiviasoto9728 still language is highly centralised and maintained. If there was no policy, we wouldnt even be able to speak to each other like this. The way a lot of people can learn english is through standardized tutorials, textbooks. Lingua franca emerges not because of some anarchism. It emerges when a powerful state gains consistent dominance on political arena.

Anarchism is opposed to coercion not hierarchy, it's in the etymology from the ancient greek anarkhos, meaning rulerless, it was roughly a millennium later when the word gets confused for rejection of all authority and even more foolishly civil unrest.

It was an analogy, for gods sake... How are so many people missing this and taking it literally?