Liberty > freedumb freedom implies servitude aka government workers

Libertarianism and anarchy is the same thing dumdum

@@DavidSiciliano2100 no it's snot

@@philosorapper5454they're both the same line of thinking further or more moderate down said line.

@@DavidSiciliano2100 libertarianism is a big tent in which exists people with anarchistic beliefs. In the same way that vegans are in a sense vegetarians. If that analogy is wrong Vegans, I apologize.

This is great.

Agreed. Next should be Eric Weinstein and Michio Kaku.

I like Malice a lot sometimes, but here every time Yaron makes a good point Malice just uses some silly false equivalency to try to defeat his argument, or some other gimmick, rather than genuinely addressing the argument. He may have some good views but he doesn't know how to argue fairly, it's all tricks. I don't know that Yaron is even right about everything but he looked way better than Malice here IMO because his arguments were honest

@@cheesemccheese5780 for me the best example of presenting themselves as insane is, someone telling me, with a straight face, that language dosen't exist. And they don't even attempt to explain how it is that I understood the words that came out of their mouth?

The anarcho-socialist Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol. A pure anarchy is sought out to live in by only bipolar individuals more or less, and it is their bipolarity that is their fake resistance to authority. Such a community always ends up in a lot of immorality and conflicts, and one example was Copenhagen's "Christiania" some years back when finally the police went in ,took out many of the druglords and the dirtiest hippies there, which stabilized the area greatly. Many kids who grew up in the anarchist collectives there went on TV documentaries as young adults and told of the lack of organization ,and a lot of problems with their parents from alcoholism to fights to poverty. The individualistic moral codes needed to protect a rational society is the only way to advance civilized freedom. This is why Norway once going independent in the 1800s formed the constitution unpolitically ("rettsstat"). Later the political parties appeared ,and today the government have in several cases the last decades violated human rights and the constitution whenever deemed necessary ,now fully supported by 90% of the mass media owned by big corp and with editors from the old communist parties. *However* in for example the US, the total lack of calm secular intellect in say 90% of the public makes also a more or less Randian liberty state into a potential hazard ,since the police are just a bunch of baseball primates. Anyway, what the two guys here largely disagree about is just semantics. They dont debate enough from the same definition of anarchy. Brooks is talking about anarchy as chaos of the lack of morals. And government as the constitutional definition of the morals that protect freedom. The other guy defined anarchy as the natural craving of freedom like in natural competition. Basically that is not a contradiction but that depends on the cultural and situational context.

There would have to be a world war for anarchy to really ever take hold.

Ok how long after this comment did your A.D.D kick and you turned off the podcast cause you were no longer "fascinated" by it

@@mattss7886 Why you hating?

@@jamescordova1796 it was a question

@@mattss7886 Yes it was a question, as well as some shitty presuppositions that you added in with no evidence.

@@jamescordova1796 9 I

Should watch Jordan vs Sam harris, They debate god morality and religion. Probably the best discussion available on youtube.

@@randomz8065 thank you so much for your suggestion. Its so interesting holy moly

Internally? Did you not hear him during that period? He sounded like a group of schoolgirls that just had their first period simultaneously.

Translation: malice won the debate so let me try to soften the blow

@@nextgenfootball69420 LMAO

Who has the biggest rocket launcher has determined the course of human events throughout history

tyusSquadrons 7

Malice is throwing life boat scenario fallacies at Yaron.

i do. prepare to die.

It seems like Michael came up with his ideas when he was like 17 and it started getting him attention online so he has just stuck with it so he can get on podcasts and stuff.

Anarchy is a 100% guarantee to the rise of feudalistic violently competing authoritarian rules and authoritarian groups form because of the power they gain by doing so, thus sending a society socially backwards many hundreds of years.

Woah, tell me more

Same . In fact it’s what changed me from conservative to libertarian.

@@ruddthreetrees1104 I guess conservatives _should want_ more progressives to be mugged by reality,.. but I would really rather not!!

@@davidhunt7427 it’s not that when conservative I wanted the government to do such things I just guess I still had some faith in the institution…obviously seems dumb now .

@@ruddthreetrees1104 Riddle me this please,... Does the Truth derive from Authority or Does Authority derive from the Truth?? *_I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery._* ~ Thomas Jefferson, _letter to James Madison,_ January 30, 1787 *_Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have._* ~ Harry Emerson Fosdick *_Better to starve free than be a fat slave._* ~ Aesop *_The State takes the place of God...and State slavery is a form of worship...The State, like the Church, demands enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, and love, and if religion requires or presupposes the 'fear of God,' then the State takes good care to provide the necessary terror._* ~ Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self *_The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own._* ~ Sir Richard Burton *_Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves._* ~ William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783 *_To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them._* ~ George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 *_And I cannot see, why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty._* ~ Andrew Fletcher *_Nothing is more disgusting than the crowing about liberty by slaves, as most men are, and the flippant mistaking for freedom of some paper preamble like a Declaration of Independence, or the statute right to vote, by those who have never dared to think or to act._* ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson *_The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men._* ~ Robert Ingersoll *_None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free._* ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe *_The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves._* ~ Dresden James *_Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them._* ~ Frederic Bastiat *_Americans are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom._* ~ Alexis de Tocqueville *_The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave._* ~ Alexis de Tocqueville *_Even despots do not deny the merits of freedom; only they wish to keep it for themselves, claiming that no one else is worthy of it. Thus our quarrel is not about the value of freedom per se, but stems from our opinion of our fellow men, high or low as the case may be; indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that a man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him._* ~ Alexis de Tocqueville *_The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave._* ~ Ayn Rand *_What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion._* ~ Ayn Rand *_In our desire to have government become our benefactor and sustainer, we have allowed it to become our taskmaster and overlord. As a result, we have become little more than well-fed, well-entertained slaves to the state. Freedom, as envisioned by our forefathers, is gone._* ~ Chuck Baldwin *_It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement._* ~ Etienne de la Boétie *_Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves._* ~ D.H. Lawrence *_A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him._* ~ Ezra Pound *_Enslave the liberty of but one human being and the liberties of the world are put in peril._* ~ William Lloyd Garrison *_To educate a man is to unfit him to be a slave._* ~ Frederick Douglass *_No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves._* ~ John Peter Zenger *_I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men._* ~ Robert G. Ingersoll *_All socialism involves slavery._* ~ Herbert Spencer *_The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state._* ~ Thomas Sowell *_I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air ~ that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave._* ~ H.L. Mencken *_For twenty-five years I've been speaking and writing in defense of your right to happiness in this world, condemning your inability to take what is your due, to secure what you won in bloody battles on the barricades of Paris and Vienna, in the American Civil War, in the Russian Revolution. Your Paris ended with Petain and Laval, your Vienna with Hitler, your Russia with Stalin, and your America may well end in the rule of the Ku Klux Klan! You've been more successful in winning your freedom than in securing it for yourself and others. This I knew long ago. What I did not understand was why time and again, after fighting your way out of a swamp, you sank into a worse one. Then groping and cautiously looking about me, I gradually found out what has enslaved you: YOUR SLAVE DRIVER IS YOU YOURSELF. No one is to blame for your slavery but you yourself. No one else, I say!_* ~ Wilhelm Reich *_While boasting of our noble deeds we're careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery._* ~ Horace Greeley

@@chrisbishop6928 msm chooses to do that.

⁰l

@@TruthDissident So, you believe the individual exists to serve the state?

He doesn't understand the definition of government. A government is an agency with the perceived justification to use force. It's basically a concept that one is not free to defend themselves from the initiation of violence from certain agencies, which is stupid. Ironically, most statists can agree that a person should be free to defend themselves against coercion or force from a foreign government, a gang, a thief, a mafia, etc., but throw that attitude away when it's the local government.

a go vt that leaves you alone is like a fly that leaves sh-t alone - don't exist. naive, foolish, brainwashed

Government survives on not leaving you alone via robbing you through taxation soo...

By definition government does not leave you alone.

​@Glockmog2007 I agree, which is why it's needed.

Its not a problem with governments, its a problem with societies. Anarchism cannot fix this.

@@mouthpiece200 The quote doesn't discuss the root cause, which (perhaps obviously) is human nature. It simply points to a specific conundrum, in case you hadn't noticed and still believe. Thus, the natural conclusion is to attempt to evolve to make advancement possible. Anarchy has nothing to do with it.

@@QualeQualeson Well the topic here is anarchism...

@@mouthpiece200 Yes? Didn't you _just_ say it's not going to work?

@@QualeQualeson Yes, what's your point?

It's fantastic. I wish more people could have disagreements like this.

It’s also thanks to the fact that Malice actually got serious and set aside the trolling. I think that’s when he’s at his best

True, but you can't have a conversation like this with a leftist, because to disagree makes you evil

@@cal8362 you do know who michael malice is, right?

@@cal8362 which is the same with right wing people because it’s pretty obvious that two polar opposites won’t agree on everything due to different perceptions of morals, laws and so on

Agreed. I need to read a good anarchy book.

@@GodsOwnPrototype he has the absolute power. He can violently intrupt them and forcefully change the subject or even cut everything in post production. They could stop the cycle and go out but lex has the monopoly of voice in this location. They voluntarily accepted his authority when they participated in his pod cast.

@@mmehdig They weren't coerced into participating

@@giovannirosado5606 yes, you are right. they are not coerces and they are not born into this podcast. But if in future if Lex sells his material to Disney channel and handover the material to the next monarch, I don't know if they can remove their interviews from the podcast.

@@Xplora213 you can say similar thing about government. 1) if governments abuse power they face rebellion 2) it is far more valuable for some governments if people define their own path because they can maximize the number of work force and their performance. These subjects cannot change the name of the channel to "Michael's podcast" or "Yaron's podcast", this is Lex's territory.

@@Xplora213 I like this observation very much except, I wouldn't call entertainment nothing.

only if those people are working together as a group

That's the point of the example. The one individual had THE biggest gun, but no one was with him. The 100 people with small guns didn't want harmed or ruled. They banned together through their own volition. VOLUNTARISM.

There's a statue of Leif Erikson in front of Church of Hallgrímur in Reykjavík that was gifted to Iceland by the U.S. in 1930 in commemoration of the 1000th anniversary of Althingi.

That sounds like a lovely system, but do you think that it is a realistacally implementable system? I don't know that we could realistically re-create something like that in the 21st century. And even if we did reinstate a system like that, what would life be like? Could we have developed modern medicine with that system? Could we have developed automobiles, trains, and planes under that system? Could we have put a person on the moon in that system? I don't think so, given all of those things require a modern globalized society that is regulated by governments. Seems like folks may have freedom, but they may not have access to lots of life saving and amazing technology that makes life better for everyone. But this is why I agree with Yaron about anarchy: it is purely a fantasy, a political fanfiction that assumes the absolute best out of people and totally ignores human nature. It would be impossible to implement a decentralized world system in which there was no central authority. Even if we snapped our fingers and created that system peacefully right now, within a few years one tribe/faction would have violently taken over the other one to control them under an authoritarian system! Hence why I agree with him in that Anarchy leads to Authoritarianism.

@@j.masonbrown6216t’s certainly a fascinating topic. One could just as easily argue that we’d be far more technologically advanced though. Countries with the most government authority are the lowest contributors to advancement. Countries with the less government authority are almost entirely responsible for all advancement/inventions/technology, etc. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Imagine how further along we’d be with even more freedom. I’m a libertarian/Constitutionalist with an open mind to anarchy with more education on it. I still believe there should be a very small, well defined government (protecting rights and national defense). But I have an open mind to anarchism as I’m learning more.

Another thing I find Yaron Brook does is ignores the examples of societies that didn’t have kings and big modern sates.

Not sure about that the dude has got no emotions or energy, lol.

@@plastifiedmetal5682 the fuck?

@@plastifiedmetal5682 true, but Rogan is an idiot

@@plastifiedmetal5682 But Rogan has too much emotion and too much energy. Kind a like somebody on crank you can’t moderate their mouth or their emotions.

@@chriswilson8118 but its entertaining. Lex has good content but oh man is he boring.

I dunno, I think MatPat would be a little out of place here :)

That's how anarchy works. You can choose to think it's absurd and reject it.

That is a gokd analogy of the state of government in america right now Its eating its tail not realising its gonna reaxh its own head and diebif suffocation

What makes Malice believe that he will be able to choose security company? Most likely he will be controlled by the mob, and how no say on who he has to pay for protection, why does he think security companies would act nice, as if there was a law system enforced by somebody more powerful then they are. The security providers that act like a mob would have advantage so they would dominate.

Because war is expensive when you can't pass off the costs onto other people. Why would you go to war over a $100,000 car when the war will cost much more even if you win? Wars generally don't happen without taxation funding them. How does that taxation arise? Usually from the misguided consent of society, not from the coercive demands of a strongman.

@@dude6935 are you suggesting there was not war before a structured tax system? Unfortunately there is a percentage of men and women that are straight up killers. Those that are not needed to organize a society and social contract to protect ourselves from those that are. The rest is just about scale.

​@@neway20045 Wikipedia has list of wars going back to over 3000 BC, and every example I looked at had a state or ruler listed. I googled for a war between mercenaries, and for a war between companies, and I didn't find anything. I looked at the Pinkertons (a famous security agency), and as far as I can tell they never had an armed conflict with a rival agency. So unless you have a counterexample that I am unaware of, I advise you assume that war generally arises as I said it does, when the costs can be passed on to other people, as a result of the misguided consent of the society in question (often embodied in taxation) and not as a result of a strongman's desire to directly conquer a rival by spending his own resources to do so.

@@dude6935 Check this out. When they get enough power for a historian to write about them - I'm sure they'll have a leader and tax system. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e9d9ZtunzZbRXWg.html

everyone already knows what objectivists are going to say lol

@@xspartan346x fancy words help you categorize people and make assumptions about their motives.

he a self described objectivist tho... and none of those words are fancy

There would be spit flying everywhere lmao 🤣

No, he wouldn’t, because then it would be revealed quite quickly that Malice is not an anarchist.

The debate Peterson vs Zizek was amazing - so please bring them together with Lex.

"Can gover-ment sustain itself?" Are you really asking that? The answer is an obvious No. Or shall I say, it can't sustain a just and free society. But it does try to sustain itself by exploiting, fear-mongering, taxing, stealing, creating wars, etc. Ultimately it destroys, and eats itself.

@@jdsartre9520 So can an anarchistic society sustain itself while also meeting the criteria of being as just and free as you may demand?

"the biggest gun wins" You lack imagination. It doesn't have to be a physical gun. The west lost those conflicts because it lacked the will. The war was lost on morale rather than physical force. This is why we are now in a culture war. And the side with the "biggest guns", i.e. the most will to succeed, will most likely be the victor.

The first complaint IS out if context if you can remotely understand the point Yaron is trying to make, which is that the faction that has the militaristic advantage is going to win. Micheal is trying to paint the picture as America having the ‘bigger gun’ and still losing, however in the context of that example Vietnam would have been the country with the ‘bigger gun’ due to the incalculable militaristic advantage fighting a war on home soil provided. If anyone was intellectually dishonest in this interaction it would be Micheal for intentionally strawmanning Yaron, however it is reasonable to assume it was an unintentional misunderstanding of the core message due to poor language. As for the latter: it is because in an interaction between two anarchistic factions there are no overruling authorities to enact the ‘greater violence’. This means the ‘bigger gun’ faction ends up establishing authority over the other simply through (threat of) violence. If your anarchistic faction and mine disagree, and your lawmakers side with you, and my lawmakers side with me, then who is correct? Without a greater authority, there is no answer. The factions have to work it out for themselves. What do you think happens next?

So tru

honestly, on some level: yes. the slaves would gather under the friendliest and most fair slave owner. the more evil slave owners would run out of slaves and be forced to change their ways. (i am not condoning slavery here, im just following your thought experiment ;) )

@@Schmuni Until the slaveowners get together and form a cartel agreement not to undercut each other on their slavery wishlists, and to brutalize any other slaveowners that try to offer a more benevolent alternative. Welcome to global governance

He’s basically flat earthing the debate.

@@PaulsDrones I mean I like malice personally. He seems like a very inquisitive and thoughtful guy, but he basically uses fast talking and an eidetic memory to pettifog the issue of anarchy or anarchism as a viable system

@@chriswilson8118 That's the impression I got from this debate, I'll have to pay attention to what he does in other settings, never noticed it quite like this before

We already have multiple private arbitration companies working in parallel with government courts and across jurisdictions. They all work very efficiently.

Rights violations happen across property boundaries. The judge presiding over property A would be in conflict with the one in property B, and there would be no supreme legal authority available to resolve this conflict peacefully.

balkan blood connection bromance

yes. is he not for real?

What is it about some people who can't get to this point without becoming violently angry?

sadly, yes.

Monarchy must contain many judges too. No king has the time or interest to hear every case.

@mouthpiece200 1 monarch > 9 SCOTUS judges. He's still the supreme authority even if he delegates to lower courts.

@@ctrlaltdebug SCOTUS judges don't get to make competing rulings. All 9 judges come up with one unified decision. Monarchy = One judgement = SCOTUS = One judgement.

@mouthpiece200 invalid logic. Democracy only has one outcome in an election also.

sorry im late, could i have some kind of link or something? cant find anything online

The entire point of a constitution is to limit the government to its only purpose which is to protect individual rights. The problem we have today is that we have culturally adopted a philosophy which calls for rights violations. That philosophy is altruism - the philosophy of sacrifice.

You say: "Malice is right that the government is the biggest violator of liberties". Yaron believes this also.

😂 libertarianism devolves into authoritarianism because it allows government. Just stand up for yourself without government

Yeah, I'm still going through the debate, but another thing that annoyed me was Malice playing dumb with the "One with the biggest gun wins", it's obviously not meant to be taken literally, if you've got an army of 10000 people armed with 9mm pistols, and an "army" of 100 people with rocket launchers, the army of 10000 IS the bigger gun. I mean, what happens once those 100 people kill that one guy with the rocket launcher? Sure, if they are just an angry mob, they will go their own ways leaving vacuum behind that someone else will fill, and it can repeat ad infinitum. But if the force of 100 people are not just an angry mob, but an organized force (for example, private military), now they are in the position of power, until someone with a "bigger gun" beats them into submission or kills them, and now you got an even stronger force in the position of power. I mean, didn't the human species start with anarchism? And yet authority emerged, because the man with the biggest gun can just say "That land is mine now".

Malice is such a troll, very smart troll, but a troll.

So then if an objectivist society can reject a State and not be under it's authority, can an anarchist society reject an objectivist one? The point is that both the US and the Objectivist would claim that people are under its authority by fiat and nothing else. It shows how hollow and self serving their monopolistic "justice" claims are. In each case there are two competing sources of law, one by fiat, and one by voluntary membership. The objectivist is falling into the same trap as the statist, wishing to impose his will on others in the name of social necessity, in the face of the objections of it's victims.

@Jake Hill exactly. All minarchists are statists.

@@ctrlaltdebug How do search warrants work in libertopia??!?

@@emilianosintarias7337 hmm is this a serious answer ?

@@emilianosintarias7337 sounds strange, is there any place that can be referenced in history or in the present that works in this sort of way? Or this is some utopia not realized yet?

Idk I thought Malice did a lot worse than Yaron. Yaron was arguing honestly and fairly, Malice was using shitty tricks to try to win arguments the whole time.. tons of false equivalencies, some moving of the goalposts, interrupting constantly, etc. etc. I usually like Malice but he was in bad form here. He needs to learn to address an issue properly rather than using smoke and mirrors

@@EB-bl6cc I would say that's a pretty fair summation. I like Malice but his resorting to immature tactics in this case slows the conversation needlessly. It sort of like he's trying to use amateur boxing scoring system in a fight only determined by knockdowns.

Yaron's was a discussion whereas Malice's was an argument. Malice was just looking for gotcha opportunities rather than digging deeper into the issue.

I’d usually say Yaron is uncharitable and hardheaded, but here Malice was. Interrupting, while Yaron is trying to get to a nuance, distinguishing his view etc. and malice yells “I got him!” and throws a candy bar he’s prepared for some fake “gotcha!”. Lame.

THANK YOU, GUYS! I was beginning to think the whole comment section didnt have a brain, applauding Malice's form and arguments.

I feel the same! Love the dude but when he goes into a weird mode where everything that is said has to match exactly what he thinks. His Q&As are a riot haha

@@JakeWitmer I wouldn't go that far. He's great

@@murrijuana2842 I’m here to learn not to be talked at like some prole. If you have any substance at all, you’re sure not showing it.