I remember one time dealing with a sovereign citizen type who got mad when I asked him if he'd need to get a passport to re-enter the United States from his property or need to come to tariff agreements to import stuff to his property. He sputtered and said that I was trying to distract from the fundamental argument. These people have clearly never asked themselves a follow-up question.

@@wvu05 nope. They have what they want out of the ideology, free reign to do as they please without the consideration of others or of their impact, and anything at all that wrenches that is conveniently written off

@@LiftedGamingLoL This is LITERALLY what happened with Brexit. They had not one, but TWO crises with Northern Ireland because in their infinite wisdom, they forgot to make any documents whatsoever to prepare for the oncoming storm, and it ended up exactly how you would imagine it would go.

"BUT I HAVE THE BIGGEST GUN" 🤣

"WHO WOULD DO THAT? Everyone trusts the outcome of the court!" This dude has never been to court, has never been wrongly accused, has zero idea about how the world works.

But it's different because the last caller wasn't a real libertarian /s

@@winnipegkravmaga4077 there's only one true Libertarian. All other hoes is fake news.

@@winnipegkravmaga4077 FACTS

Insert something about "we know how to deal with roads" before them giving a galaxy brained take that doesn't at all solve how you would make roads in a society devoid of government where everything is privately owned.

And every single time, Seeder takes their house. Every single time.

“Fuck taxes. I pay for Amazon prime.”

Exactly, these people have it in their mind that they're the ones in charge of the state farm protection lmfao and always have to pretend everyone is gonna always do the right thing

The difference is that they “chose” (but not really) to pay that specific private entity

@YamadaDesigns especially if 25% of state farm secretly comes to his house at night and puts a gun to his head to threaten him to pay the voluntary taxes. Or just 25% of the community now has a target that doesn't have the collective security. It's not like he'll be home and awake 100% of the time

I mean I would love to pay some lovable old murderer that wears a suit but it's really not that different from uncle Sam

Seriously underrated comment, this NAILS the issue I have with this philosophy.

@Nicholas L you wish to replace state dependency with dependency on a private sector equivalent, empowered to act as a state would... again, the mental gymnastics...

@@thomasprislacjr.4063 He is arguing semantics about definitions of words, we’re already wasting our time.

His arguments are the mental equivalent of doing a backflip and breaking your neck.

An-caps live in the midpoint between gleefully naive and sadistically sociopathic

I had to go back and watch that part over and over again! It's just too good!!! Sam's unbridled titillation at the moment and Emma's laughing were just things of beauty.

Hahahahahahaha me too fam

@@VildhjartaFanGurl interesting how your reply “translated to English” gave it an extra “ha” at the end. I guess whatever language your original reply was in doesn’t have an exact 1:1 ha ratio? 🤔 English must prefer an even number of has vs the odds of your language.

@@savannarbananar accurate 👌

@@savannarbananar Odd laughs are communism.

Well, a privately owned fascist dictatorship paid by the wealthiest, but yeah, it's still a government and he would try and fail to build one of his own to disenfranchise that dictatorship by force.

duh it's called fractal government.

To be fair, a proper anarchist, as one might apply it to the political philosophy, argue against hierarchy, not strictly governance... so you'd still live in a society with rules, but that society would adjudicate disputes the same way any governance would get done, but gathering the community members, both sides explaining the dispute and presenting evidence, and then the community members would reach get an equally weighed vote to resolve the dispute. And or course, anarchism, as a political philosophy, is anathema to capitalism, which is denotative, hierarchical in nature. Anyone calling themselves an anarcho-capitalist exposes that they don't know anything about either ideology.

Ok. So here is a million dolalr idea. Remember that show Kid Nation, where they got a bunch of kids together to run an old mining town? We do that exact premise, but we throw together 200 anarchists and libertarians, and see how long it takes before they form a government.

@@screamingphoenix8113 I hate reality tv, but I would watch that program like it was my job.🤣

Erm, the caller changed the scenario. He literally asked if, in the hypothetical scenario, it was actually Sam living there for years. At which point he agreed that in that case it would be Sam's house. Literally nothing clever or smart about this. Sam was still operating on the original hypothetical. Don't get me wrong, the caller is a moron, but the fact that people want this to be some some kind of big brain gotcha moment is embarrassing.

​@@BodTheGrinch Sam's point was that his court enforced the reality of him living there. It doesn't matter if he actually lived there or not.

@@TheLizardKing752 Yes, I know. But the caller was clearly outside the hypothetical, trying to agree to terms. He wasn't agreeing to the premise or even engaging with it at this moment. It's not a gotcha moment, it's pretending the caller agreed to the terms when he hadn't. That's not clever, you just need to be willing to be that disingenuous about the discussion. I get why he was OK with that here, because he obviously wasn't taking the caller very seriously. But again, it's not a gotcha moment.

@BodTheGrinch OH, I agree it's not a gotcha. It's more of a troll than a gotcha.

@@TheLizardKing752 Yeah, I'll give him that. Decent troll, no doubt.

He also forgets that most people's version of non-aggression is "That sounds like a "you" problem." Or, even better, "how much are you paying me?"

How old is this guy? Like, 16? Does he not understand how crazy people are? People just randomly pull up to malls and massacre people for no reason at all with a gov't and laws in place, and he wants to live in a society where this is essentially a matter of someone's moral fibers? But, he's willing to concede that 25% of the people in his society will be capable and random acts of violence at any given time? 😂😂😂

He's a sweet boy, he can't fathom the depths of human depravity. I hope his illusions are never shattered.

And identifying as an “ancap” is even more egregious…it’s basically identifying as an anti-anarchist but trying to sully anarchism

@@morgancody6752 Quite the opposite, OP didn't understand it it seems. No Ancap is against governance, only against the state and monopoly on governance

@Ban Ned Im glad you are for sending childen to labor camps. Those god damn freeloaders.

This guy's gonna be an HOA president within 20 years.

@Ban Ned so you agree capitalism is shit. Or do you believe that the wealthy people who never work hard day of their life are contributing more to society then they extract because they have access to capital and own the means of production?

You should always defend your right to be a minority, because everyone is a minority at something.

And like, conveniently leaving out at the beginning, that the 25% who wouldn't believe in non aggression is a DIRECT analogue to the most powerful capitalists since the beginning of time. The ones that have to be regulated from doing things like not taking people's property or engage in violence to further their interests. These libertarians, man....

Another one where history proves that his scenario, and his statement, don't play out well.

And just like that, he forgot the most important libertarian principle of all: individual and minority rights.

@@hotzemusic no it really is. like it only takes a few greedy people to fuck up capitalism and create a system where you have to be as heartless as them to succeed

😂😂😂

And while that was undoubtedly frustrating for the caller, he still didn't get the point. Bless his lil socks.

The "I have a bigger gun" "no you don't!" Was peak comedy for me

@@codydavis3100 My favourite part Im still hysterical

My dungeon master has gifted me with a bullet proof cloak And everyone will always know that I always tell the truth.@@codydavis3100

I’m going to have a damn asthma attack from laughing omg

Indeed, the "libertarian" creedo: GUBMENT BAD! ...well, except for when _"my"_ -natural monopoly/primitive accumulation- "property rights" need "protecting" with a privatized court system/standing army aka a privatized non-democratically accountable state apparatus. Despite being even _less_ accountable, when the function of the state that I vehemently criticize and claim to hate works in _my_ interests, suddenly it's "good, actually" and can be utilized to evict people/enforce my -extraction of surplus value- profit accumulation from the working class of course! Gotta keep that usury machine and class conflict going, that's "freedom" apparently. Solipsism at its finest, exactly how you get to demons like John C. Calhoun arguing that "slavery _is_ freedom", the enforcement of class that _defines_ the "mode of production" of capitalism is precisely what the state inherently enforces through property rights which orients antagonistic class interests goes completely unseen, all of capitalism's assumed normative goals of capital accumulation as "efficiency" and worth pursuing entirely internalized as "objective" pursuits ("is" conflated with "ought" as Hume would put it). _"Kelp was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however, whose estate is bounded by a kelp shore of this kind, demands a rent for it."_ - Adam "father of capitalism" Smith, ch.11, Wealth of Nations "Fun" fact: the original conception of "free market", in classical economics (Smith, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, et al) meant a market free of *_rent_* , as rent by definition is value extracted _without_ value produced and a clear contradiction to the justifying logic of "the market", correctly identified as a vestige of feudal social relations (hence the term "landlord") as Sam was getting at. Which of course stands in stark contrast with our contemporary cultural distortion of the concept as essentially a market free *_for_* rent extraction/usury, thanks to neoclassical econ's abstraction of _all_ market interactions as inherently productive, regardless of if these outcomes, you know, _produce_ anything (see: FIRE sector, finance, insurance, real estate). But of course, _“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”_ Anyway, sorry for screed of consciousness here jesus, clearly nothing better to do while I watch this lol, but yeah, as a former dipshit "libertarian" myself, I only read Marx out of hubris thinking I would "destroy" him with "facts" and "logic" only to realize he crystalized like everything I had intuited that was nonsensical about how we organize material reality/society and linked them all together into a framework of analysis and explanation that not only made sense of our contemporary history but gave an actual context to understanding the evolution of the entirety of the human species with dialectical and historical materialism. I'd recommend anyone stuck in such a narrow worldview similar to this caller see what that "gay commie bs" _actually is_ instead of assuming what they've been told from manipulative morons (see prior paragraph). As Sam was trying to nudge toward, we can even put the evolution of history/ideas aside, and simply realize that to think about politics, it might be helpful to ask ourselves literally the _only_ political question, one that liberals in general ideologically blindfold themselves to and one that inherently reveals the actual functionality of capitalism broadly speaking as it cuts through the rhetorical miasma that shrouds ulterior motives by grounding consequential outcomes to actually existing _material_ benefits which reveals potentially unconsidered and unspoken intents: _"cui bono?"_ *Who Benefits?* Reminded of Michael Parenti who may explain all this better, so I'll stfu with an excerpt from his piece Mystery: How Wealth Creates Poverty: _"In their perpetual confusion, some liberal critics conclude that foreign aid and IMF and World Bank structural adjustments “do not work”; the end result is less self-sufficiency and more poverty for the recipient nations, they point out. Why then do the rich member states continue to fund the IMF and World Bank? Are their leaders just less intelligent than the critics who keep pointing out to them that their policies are having the opposite effect?_ _No, it is the critics who are stupid not the western leaders and investors who own so much of the world and enjoy such immense wealth and success. They pursue their aid and foreign loan programs because such programs do work. The question is, work for whom? Cui bono?_ _The purpose behind their investments, loans, and aid programs is not to uplift the masses in other countries. That is certainly not the business they are in. The purpose is to serve the interests of global capital accumulation, to take over the lands and local economies of Third World peoples, monopolize their markets, depress their wages, indenture their labor with enormous debts, privatize their public service sector, and prevent these nations from emerging as trade competitors by not allowing them a normal development._ _In these respects, investments, foreign loans, and structural adjustments work very well indeed._ _The real mystery is: why do some people find such an analysis to be so improbable, a “conspiratorial” imagining? Why are they skeptical that U.S. rulers knowingly and deliberately pursue such ruthless policies (suppress wages, rollback environmental protections, eliminate the public sector, cut human services) in the Third World? These rulers are pursuing much the same policies right here in our own country!_ _Isn’t it time that liberal critics stop thinking that the people who own so much of the world---and want to own it all---are “incompetent” or “misguided” or “failing to see the unintended consequences of their policies”? You are not being very smart when you think your enemies are not as smart as you. They know where their interests lie, and so should we."_

TLDR; The communist creed: _From each according to his ability, to each according to his need._ The capitalist creed: _From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed._

If i didn't know about majority report to a few years ago. I probably would not have been an-cap (mostly because anarchism and capitalism are fundamentally opposite philosophies) but I would've definitely been close to a proud boy in some ways. My friends say otherwise but I'm not sure. it scares the hell out of me.

Same! I used to come home from double shifts of work and watch Sam on Air America on the Sundance channel I was pirating off my parents account. 😂 ✊

To be fair, early models of free markets trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private owners. Adam Smith was the one of the greatest advocates for the view that replacing monopolies, primogeniture, entail, and involuntary servitude with free markets would enable laborers to work on their own behalf. His key assumption was that incentives were more powerful than economies of scale. When workers get to keep all of the fruits of their labor, as they do when self-employed, they will work much harder and more efficiently than if they are employed by a master, who takes a cut of what they produce. “Masters of all sorts… frequently make better bargains with their servants in dear than in cheap and find them more humble and dependent in the former than in the latter… Nothing can be years, more absurd, however, than to imagine that men in general should work less when they work for themselves, than when they work for other people. A poor independent workman will generally be more industrious than even a journeyman who works by the piece. The one enjoys the whole produce of his own industry; the other shares it with his master.” - Adam Smith Classical economists, who opposed mercantilism, never referred to themselves as 'capitalists', or to their proposed system of economics as 'capitalism'; and their idea of the labor theory of value would greatly influence early socialism. In 17th- and 18th-century Britain, big merchants got the state to grant them monopolies over trade in particular goods, forcing small craftsmen to submit to their regulations and enter the labour market. "The labour market was founded on the use of legislation as an active instrument of economic policy." - Simon Deakin

That's what happens when complex systems just aren't understandable. This guy had no idea why government existed in the first place. Might as well just be a black box that eats 30% of your paycheck for all he knows.

@@vgaportauthority9932 😂 black box that eats 30% of his paycheck.

All arguments with lolbertarians eventually end with them reinventing government but called something else and completely unworkable.

@@vgaportauthority9932 I think a lot of them are blind to actual history. Umm, you know we sorta tried this before and it did not work? There is a reason why we went to some type of govt. They fail to see as well that all businesses are in a sense a govt. They lack knowledge of company towns and how they are making a come back.

@Slava Ukraine Learn some comprehension. I did not reply to Anarcho Capitalism. I replied to Libertarianism overall as MOST libertarians call for laisse faire Capitalism. Did we try that before? YES. It is why we have a labor movement and laws got passed. People went to the govt. When govt started to step in we got heavy hitters of the Capitalist world then entering into national politics to buy elections. Did we try private police and fire? YES, and it was horrible. People went to the govt. Did we try company towns? YES, and it was horrible. They are coming back now with a twist and a new name.

News headline: Crime drops to 0

This dude isnt a "libertarian" any more than hes a socialist. He doesn't understand the basic terminology he is attempting to use. I can bet he has read little to no theroy (especially since he doesnt seem to know that anarchy is a form of communism and antithetical to capitalism but.thats another argument all together)

"Do you really think without a government, that people would just run around and start shooting each other?" Um... in his fricken example he clearly states he thinks 1/4 of the population would do exactly that. That's an insane amount of murderers, thieves etc. I don't know how anyone could possibly think this would turn out well.

Naive? No, they are selfish and believe that money will guarantee private security, they just ignore that a large part of the planet's population is made up of poor people who live subjugated by corporations that pay starvation wages.

@Ban Ned how are they naive?

Right wingers literally have baby brains. Thinking critically is far too difficult for them.

"I believe in the law of Absolute Self Interest, except when it comes to courts to determine the outcome of ownership of my property!"

A libertarian, who by rule acts purely out of (non-aggressive) self-interest, would NEVER choose a court that rules in their self-interest. There's a gem for ya.

Especially after his argument of "Why would any company use force to make people buy their product only? That would be terrible for business!".... Sooo...outside of the flaw of "how would a company keep customers if they forced people to be customers?" .. No one would choose a company that's not nice to them, but also, no one would choose a private entity that only favors them??? Ok.

@@SquawkBox13 Seriously. Ummm libertarian, ever hear of Comcast?

I especially love how he keeps saying 'The other person is the 25% of people who don't agree my morals!' when in reality, the vast majority of everyday conflicts begin due to a miscommunication, misunderstanding or just simply an accident. What happens if the two parties in a land dispute are BOTH right? Like what if they have a BIG plot of land and they build their own houses on this land, having been given/sold the deed by an accident at the bank or a disagreement with the previous owners of the land of how to divy it up? The assumption that ANY party who disagrees with you has 'ill intentions' or is outright lying shows a HIGH level of narcissism and anti-social disorder.

It reminds me of being in the 8th grade sitting at a table with a bunch of gamer boys and all of us talking like we're philosophers but never getting beyond the surface on anything.

They've never had to think through their ideas, because their friends all agree with them before they have to elaborate

It doesn't really feel like his idea fell apart, so much as he "invented" democracy and recreated the US government, court system, and police force.

It’s mind blowing but very entertaining to listen to

@@SeanLaMontagne 8* graders are much more thoughtful and articulate than this dude

Most people aren't violent, to be fair. It's not naive or innocent to know that most people are decent and just trying to do what's best for themselves and their families. You could argue that a lot of people have large gaps in their logic and think against their own best interests a lot of times, but statistics show that most people aren't violent. Better material conditions removed its need.

Yeah honestly he is the embodiment of sweet summer child

@@Noooiiiissseee "Better material conditions removed its need." - which was a direct result of government regulations and services funded by taxation. That's the whole point of this conversation - we know the majority aren't violent. That does not mean if the government vanished tomorrow the country would continue running smoothly. It clearly wouldn't.

@@zoeherriot Umm, I don't necessarily agree. Obviously if governments disappeared things would change, but I don't think that means people would become more violent overall without those structures in place. Sounds a bit like the argument religious people use for morality. That it can only come from god and without god there's no reason to be a good person. Except you replace god with government for some reason.

er no - it's nothing like that. It's simply human nature. I'm not saying most people will become violent. I'm saying some people will take advantage of the situation and exploit it for their benefit. You don't need a majority of people to do this to make your society a living hell. But as mentioned in the video - I still don't understand who is going to provide all the services a government provides when there are no profits to be made.

This made me cackle. Thanks :)

*Ayn Rand Intensifies*

@@latentcc9448 Milton Friedman Enlarges

Anarchy isn’t opposed to rules. Anarchy is opposed to the state and other forms of unjustified hierarchies. Rules are fine so long as they horizontally and democratically decided.

i wouldn't call it hell, what he's describing to me sounds exactly like Red Dead Redemption 2, with the Pinkertons assuming the role of "State Farm Enforcer Army"

This is true. Ancaps are extremely classist. They do not recognize that the vast majority of workers are just regular people trying to pay the bills and get by, who face extreme exploitation under capitalism and especially anarcho capitalism. Not every single worker would become Tony Stark if only we "removed the influence of Big Government and regulations"

It's only the government that is preventing them from becoming Howard Roark.

Exactly I was thinking the whole time. I can't afford Healthcare. How am I supposed to also afford protection insurance or to have my own private court?

@@novuspatriarch Punch a tree get wood Make wood into a crafting table Make a wooden pickaxe Use wood pickaxe to get iron Use iron pickaxe to get diamond Sell diamond

@@savi1314 exactly a warcraft approach to governance.

Right!

Just completely missed the section of history called 'The East India Trading Company" which has a subsection on it called 'one time we, a corporation, decided to just take over a town, make everyone in it our slaves and become the courts and hold ourselves above the law and require everyone to go through our courts -- because we could, we were rich, and we had the most guns'. (Also the Wild West and 'company towns') In an ANCAP world, presuming we didn't just 'pause the world' and assign everyone guns, training on how to use them, resources, et cetera -- how exactly does one tell the East India Trading Company 'no, you can't do that'? What prevents Amazon's PMC division from slowly capturing a bunch of small towns and adding them to its 'corporate profile'? Wouldn't the most 'self-interest' thing be 'me and my corporation don't have the ability to take on Amazon without being wiped out, so sorry friend you belong to Amazon'?

Yup. Corporations are para-governmental, authoritarian structures.

That was the best line of the whole interaction lol 😂🤡

Austrian econ kind of makes sense if you forget all of economics and human history.

Do you know how guns work?

Again, again, like 75% believes in nonagression dude

The caller's reply was great too. "No you don't because you're in the minority!!" like, what? How does being in the hypothetical majority or minority determine how big your gun is? lmao

Glad it's not just me. I was brain washed by this shit as a teen.

I think we are all libertarian for a bit

@emofascist I was lucky enough to be physically abused by a step parent as a small child, so I skip by the phase of everyone should be free to do as they please.

Libertarianism is a teenage fantasy. Yes a lot of people go through it once they learn that a little bit of this world around them is a lie. The liar is the corporate billionaires and their political puppets.

@@emofascist Definitely the cringiest part of being a teenager. For me at least. I was a huge idiot… still am, but I’m smaller idiot .

Just makes it even sadder Crowder dodged him. I'd also love him talking to JP about IQ or something.

"holds water" "bears fruit"

@X O awe yes hold water is what i was meaning.

@@Flux_40 awe yes your right. Hold water is what i meant.

Evil gun lover quick draw seder is too powerful for libertarians. What a criminal badazz!

Authoritarians got that anti-logic going on lmao XD XD.

your comment is so concise and true i'm cutting and pasting it into my channel description.

Bern out here spitting 🔥

Never heard a right person say anything about people being nice lmao

100% truth.

This is true, I was raised in an insular conservative community and unfortunately at one point was like this guy, then I turned 15 💀

My thoughts exactly!

Sounds like he was calling from his parents' finished basement apartment/gaming room at the end of the cul de sac...

The majority of libertarians seem to think that the biggest oppression imaginable are having to paying taxes (and age of consent laws) and nothing could possibly be worse. Sheltered is an apt description. I identified with them for a while, as a teenager. Then I met other people who identified as libertarians and that was a wake up call.

@@katipunanball4799 i assumed this dude was 15, until he said he remembered 2003

I’m not giving a willing dumb ass credit

It's not balls, it's stupidity.

Do not mistake hubris for courage

He's just going for the Bad Karma route.

him and his family were illegally settled in sam’s house. in fact the entire town was illegally settled on sam’s land. why would it matter if it were solely him, him and his family, or like 10,000 people? it doesn’t change the argument sam is making at all.

You just love ignoring 90% of the Libertarian argument

@@applethunderspice3072 because it's incoherent

@@Nebukanezzer so is feeling like you have a right to free health care and college eduction. Fools 😂

@@somad6997 bunch of totalitarian scum

@@applethunderspice3072 “so is feeling you have a right to free health care and college education” Yeah, tell that to Norway, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary,….. you get the idea

By 'perfect' he means 'has a gun' because we all know guns solve all problems and make everyone be calm and non-aggressive or something.

@Ban Ned only the libertarian system relies on people being good though.. with other ideologies a government exists so you don’t need to rely on the non aggression principle and hopes and dreams that everyone will just do the right thing and be moral. Only libertarians and an-caps have created a system that is DOA even in theory.. when you claim “both” wouldn’t work you mean the libertarian dream land being one option, and every other conceivable way to order a government to run a nation being the other? Surely there is a way to get a socialist system or a communist system to exist because those systems don’t rely on non aggression principles.

@@terrystevens3998 Socialist or communist systems rely on productive people being willing to do any extra work with no reward. Capitalism relies on productive people doing their best effort to get the reward. The second society actually works as proven, the first one has proven to be a disaster

@@oscarg8449 oh yeah? Who told you that? Let me guess the capitalists lol 😂 Maybe you should stop and reevaluate the success of capitalism now that we know it is destroying the planet.. socialism never killed the planet at least

@@terrystevens3998 I agree, however I would argue that capitalism IS working, it's just that the way it is working is actively destroying the planet with little actual regard for human life and its value.

Why do libertarians, when pressed to logically examine their utopian ideals, always reinvent the concept of government?

For me Sam saying “I have the biggest guns” is the best it feels like a play ground argument

He totally bugs bunny'd the dude.

@@lymphomaniac7579 "DUCK SEASON! FIRE!" That was a good description.

@@thomasprislacjr.4063 Well these are extremists. There are extremists for every ideology. Libertarians don't believe that there is no role for the government. There's a balance to everything. Let's not pretend that the far left's utopia isn't just as oblivious to human nature as this guy's.

Literally every libertarian caller. Ha ha

@@JustinMoralesTheComposer Yup. Including recreating the concept of government.

Also, love how this guy keeps insisting that anarchy is non-aggressive. LIke... which is it, dude? Do you think the structures shouldn't be there, or do you not want to force people to follow a certain way?

Yeah I noticed that too...

Legit all about hierarchy…ancaps are full trash

Anarchy means “without rulers”. Has nothing to do with “rules”.

anarchism as a concept and historical movement, not as the warped pop culture definition isn’t about a society of no rules, it’s just about the abolition of a government as we’ve understood it.

This dude said "who ever mixes the land with the labour first" on who has the homesteading rights and property rights. That's literally communism. Dude is confused as hell.

Why not both?

Combo of all three probably

I’m an AnCap. Rand hated AnCaps. And no AnCap is a fan of Ben Shapiro.

@@JohnDoe-od7ye most ancaps aren't real ancaps, right?

We all need this every now and then

I‘m debating one now in the comments, it’s 2010’s Facebook crazies all over again. Exhausting as ever though.

They got you covered, it don't seem like we're bound to run out of 'em anytime soon.

Just because he claims to be a libertarian doesn't make him a libertarian. This guy is nowhere near a libertarian.

@@INYB Is there like some test you have to pass before you can call yourself a true scotsman, err libertarian?

ford pinto has entered the chat

@Mike Cuneo so you never heard of a quick buck ?

@Mike Cuneo Did you know that the USDA was created after an investigator infiltrated meatpacking plants, and found out that meat was regularly shipped out tainted with various contaminattions including disease?

@Mike Cuneo Dont you think iqs great how whenever there is an outbreak of ecoli in lettuce, you get to know about it, and every store and restaurant doesnt put any diseased lettuce on your plate? Hell, you know it can take weeks before food poisoning can actually take effect, could you confidently tell me exactly what food you ate that made you sick before it happens? You know, Typhoid Mary was a cook for over 60 families before they finally realized she was tbe source of the illness right?

Lmao remember when Rubin said that on JRE a few years back and Rogan dismantled his argument immediately?

He went from zero to 100 really quick, one of the more crabby defensive callers I've seen.

You have it spot-on. They cannot comprehend someone will disagree with their "logic"; and believe everyone will magically come to a common agreement as well as unable to fathom the idea someone just might have mal intent. Incredibly short-sighted and naive.

I've had a sleep to think about it and stand by my statement still, but I have thoughts to add. I admire the optimism and the will to see good in people. 75% of people is far larger than any one ethnic group or majority in the country and he sees a possible world where even with all the hate and infighting and the rest of the bad around us, we could all get by and get along without harming each other without violence. His points aren't correct and we can't act like they are, but again after a good night's rest I've had the chance to think the world would be better than it is with more of us being able to see a brighter future is possible.

@@raiwenduravwin3166 Again, you are spot-on. Your are both shrewd and wise. Qualities that will serve you well. We are all voyagers together on this ship called earth, and we sail the oceans of time and space. For the well being of the ship and success of the voyage we must all work together as best as we can. Otherwise we will spoil the ship, sink and drown.

I love it, it's like they think the only naive way of thinking is the one where we all hug and sing "we are the world" - as long as there are still gunfights it must be realistic!

I think it comes from a sheltered, homogenous upbringing. He gets along with and sees himself and his values reflected in 75% of the people he interacts with. So he assumes (wrongly, as an empirical matter) this can be extrapolated to universality.

@12:15 the big brained libertarian says "we have three times as big of guns as you". 😂 Well Sir, I have four times as big of brains as you! ChexMix!! ♟️

I love the irony of the people who tout the NAP literally stole the word libertarian, and then stole the word anarchist while embodying none of the principles of either. So the stole the same concept TWICE.

@@furiousapplesack All the while saying stealing wouldn't be a problem if 75% shared their principles

@@ananousous how does everyone even get to that point? Doesn't this need a specific type of education in order to ensure a population falls into that fabled 75%? Are all the schools private and in control of their own curriculum? If that's the case, what is stopping one corporation from teaching students to only work for their companies and that the non aggression principle isn't applicable to a rival corporation and it's workers? What is stopping them from not teaching the "non aggression principle"? I just do not understand how any of this would work, anarchy is essentially praying bad people don't exist and if they do hopefully you can shoot them first

@@ananousous Exactly. The teeny tiny minority this dude represents (which according to him means we should completely ignore his opinions) have no problem with theft in all actuality, so having a society with 75% thieves is not in my interest.

Yeah, he keeps talking about the wants and expectations of the supermajority. My guy, you want democracy.

And capitalistic democracies say "Those with the most money decide who get the most votes".

Capitalism is antithetical to democracy

i have a friend who also changed his ways from libertarian ways. Yes both the Gov and Priviate capital owners both can be bad, but Capitalism at its core focuses on individuiality and that sounds soooo goood to most people. But people don't realize that socioalism does the same way just instead of the people at the top its the commonwealth of people that get to own there labor of work.

Lol as a fellow recovering liberatarian who also loved Sam Harris as a teenager .. same

@@Isaac-ul8yz And, unlike capitalism, I can always vote out the government.

@@Isaac-ul8yz Socialism is by definition the opposite of individualism, an 8yo knows that.

I have bad news for you: "Super rich's wealth concentration surpasses Gilded Age levels" --Headline from July 7, 2021. The caller actually wants something even *worse* than our current situation. Because right-wing billionaires have spent literally his entire life funding a huge propaganda campaign, both in the open and with dark money.

I could swoop in and just say his house was illegally built on my property so therefore I have the right to evict him. He's suffering from libertarian brain rot.

Tbf this is basically what we are living in today

Ironically, he also somehow thinks that he's one of the wealthy who will get to make decisions and own property EVEN THOUGH he currently lives in an apartment. Lol.

@Ban Ned, according to Piketty, upward mobility had become about as unlikely as during the gilded age even before the pandemic. So yes, anyone can potentially become rich, but they probably won't. Instead, those who are already rich will get richer at the expense of those who are not. Piketty acertains that it took two world wars to erase this inequality.

She looks at Sam sad because he constantly interrupts her.

That look at 26:14 was pretty sweet. She definitely has a lot of respect for the guy.

@@loljk9443 Seriously?

@@thebigvlad lol exactly

@@loljk9443 Excuse me? What show were you watching? Emma consistently stepped on every point Sam tried to make, constantly derailing his carefully constructed chain of logic, completely oblivous that she's throwing a wrench in his arguments & a wet blanket on every payoff Sam spent the previous 3mins setting up. Maddening.

These people no idea how incentives work lol. They've simply rebrand it as coercion when the incentive in th3 form of government regulation.

@@hotzemusic government regulations led to 9 million people starving to DEATH

Privatization? Bro we need to implement euthanization

"What do you mean I can't sue you for wrongful termination? Fuck Applebee's then!" *Goes home and defends 'at will/right to work' laws online*

*Instead, they're going to be the flaming projectile used by the Lord Humongous.*

The current court has militias and an actual army. We don't get to vote in judges, a supreme court judge overseeing all judges and court rulings should be voted in at the least.

@@jayz8839judges on many levels in the US are directly voted in and the idea is for SCOTUS and circuit courts is to not have them worry about the political pressure of re-election. The democratic theory behind appointed judges is that you vote for the executive who nominates the judge and you vote for your legislature who confirms the nomination.

@@jayz8839and also US gov 101, the SCOTUS does not control the army in any capacity. Congress and the president do.

it's feudalism lol, two fiefdoms disputing the width of a border. it ends in a war

Extra steps and less accountability than we already have.

So very well said!!

It is a pertetual motion machine, so it will be in perpetual motion. Duh

But ... but ... 75% of people won't shoot you and steal your stuff! If they do then it's not his society and therefore uh... things? Or something? Putting aside that 25% of people being willing to do so is a terrifying number of armed criminals willing to murder you for a sandwich.

Acadia

We should let them all leave once they get a functioning ancap society and successfully resolve 10 property disputes and fund/build all their basic infrastructure. They're going to die on that island.

A coconut island, one might say.

Thank you so much for your comment. I really needed the laugh it gave me. And I agree with you.

Everyone has an expertise and we should refer to experts when problems arise that fits their scope. That is the issue with our current government they refuse to listen to engineers, doctors, environmental scientist, teachers, etc on topics that they have capital on experience. From climate change to covid they didn’t listen and pressured the expert (Fauci was stuck in the middle of two hard places). But instead the government is full of political scientist and lawyers who make decisions by collecting brides from the wealthy and figuring out how they can do the elites bidding while staying within the constitution. Government should focus on what does the best for the most amount of people the most efficiently… emphasis on efficient and for the most people.

@@theinvisiblewoman5709 This is a technocratic concept, which I agree with. The amount of people who thing that a technocracy is when technology/machines run things, (Or something similar) especially the ones that are supposed to be politically well read, is mindboggling.

@@theinvisiblewoman5709 no, the issue with this and any government is they exist within and must abide by a capitalist system. people blame government as if it is outside of the system, rather than a consequence of that system.

All they want is a dictatorship of corporations.

@@theinvisiblewoman5709 The problem is that the government is made up of people, elected by people and unfortunately, most people are idiots. I'm including myself in this assessment.

Every single caller needs to be played back their call. It’s *possible* at least a few of them would hear how dumb they sound.

Ok hold on The Lord of the Rings is a good book series. Atlas shrugged is a glorified fanfiction

@@hughquigley5337 I think you missed the joke. The quote at first seems like its criticizing LoTR, but then you realize the "other" that "involves orcs" is LoTR, and the first part of the sentence is actually referring to Atlas Shrugged.

Masterful quote, Ayn Rand was a loon

@@hughquigley5337 way to miss a joke

Very good.

this is only a problem for the right wing libertarians 💀

Sam Seder did anything but dismantle or refute the points of anarcho-capitalism: Granted the caller did have a few deficits in rationale, but I will get to that after bringing up Sam's fervent fallacies. 1) Sam- "prove it, prove it, prove that you own!" Mike- "I have utility bills from an electric company" "Well I have power bills from (presumably) the same or (presumably) a different company". Sam expects us to believe that he was receiving the same power bill for the past five years at a different location for the location Mike was in using the power for five years; how could Sam in paying the power bill not notice the use let alone fluctuation of the power bill for more than a year, but five years and Sam didn't think to gripe nor investigate by calling the power company or calling his neighbors. Obviously, if Sam is to assert that this is a rouse, then obviously his and Mikes insurance firms that investigate it first basis would be able to actually deem who is and who is not actually paying the utility bill. They could also, use mortgage payments though I digress, Sam invokes a paradox when saying somehow two neighbor's eyewitness testimonies put him and Mike at the same house, either one is confused or colluding, or both are mistaken. Sam shifts the goal post as nothing will satisfy his request for physical evidence as is demonstrated by him saying, "My private court doesn't accept video evidence" when Mike implies the presence of a ring doorbell camera. This is patently absurd as than what is the barometer for the term 'evidence' if all of Mikes de facto evidence resources are considered null by Sam's premise, Sam is demonstrating here a faulty hypothetical, as no response could satisfy the principle of evidence as he refuses to acknowledge any real-world amicable thing as evidence. It's a reductio equivalent to saying, the theory of relativity is wrong, but you can't use non-Euclidean geometry, mercuries orbit or gravitational lensing as evidence. It simply makes the feat an impossibility because Sam has made it impossible with exogenous variables that constantly warp the premise to his advantage. It is completely unreasonable to call such a refutation of anything, it's a combination of straw manning and shifting the goal post ad infinitum. 2) Emma asserting that something hasn't happened ergo it can't happen is a fallacy of the highest order: Imagine if Emma said this to the Greeks about democracy, or to Ford about the production line, just because something hasn't happened does not imply that it cannot be, it is the attempt at permeating a natural law where there is no natural law or logical contradiction to express its impossibility. This also ignores the market affairs that have and do occur, the work the not so wild, wild west elucidates events of completely private arbitration, as arbitration has been and can be at this moment a private phenomenon. This also calls on the public goods fallacy which has been refuted ad nauseum- quote Hans-Hermann Hoppe PhD, "(Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and The Production of Security, Jan 1993 A scholarly Article, Hoppe) “As these examples of privately produced public goods indicate, there is something seriously wrong with the thesis of public goods theorists that public goods cannot be produced privately, but instead require state intervention. Clearly, they can be provided by markets. Furthermore, historical evidence shows us that all of the so-called public goods that states now provide have at some time in the past actually been provided by private entrepreneurs or even today are so provided in one country or another. For example, the postal service was once private almost everywhere; streets were privately financed and still are sometimes; even the beloved lighthouses were originally the result of private enterprise; private police forces, detectives, and arbitrators exist; and help for the sick, the poor, the elderly, orphans, and widows has been a traditional concern of private charity organizations. To say, then, that such things cannot be produced by a pure market system is falsified by experience a hundredfold.” 3) Sam & Emma are clearly not economist, that is fine, economics is a sophisticated discipline with clashing schools and advanced concepts. With this in mind though, Mikes argument expresses albeit superficially the spontaneous market order. Mike certainly made a deficit in argumentum with his arbitrary 25% and 75% ratios and his reliance on the valuing of the NAP. For this I point to as was expressed by FA Hayek on the different kinds of order in society (1981) wherein he relays the principle, which is namely elucidated by the action axiom, that humans are not at static equilibria. The market process spawns and people conduct exchanges based on their expectations of advantages which are inspired by subjective barometers of value (STV the Objective Misesian Theorem of Subjective value) (The Law of Marginal Utility). Given this, the economization of protection resources in lieu of the state is not an unimaginable thing, in fact it is highly probable as the state merely subsidizes the current demand for protections and obviously there is a market of security and insurance now clearly showing the states deficit at monopoly provisio of such. Think of it like this, did doors or locks on doors emerge as a result of states top-down edict of doors? Certainly not, doors and the activity of producing, buying and using locks emerges because people have evolved to in both the producer and consumer straum to understand that mal actors are a potentiality among the other psychological advantages derived from having a door or locked entrance to ones home. Hence why Mike makes the rational posit that many people would be armed in a market society, as the decentralization of arms would be the reaction to any urgent deficit in protections and/or the rise in risk of mal actors. The point again being that humans are not beings of static equilibria, the very process of action and creative destruction refute such a notion theoretically and the expanse and operations of the hindered and unhindered private market are examples of these incentive structures. 4) Mike is not saying nor does his argument posit that humans aren't aggressive or that they have potential to be aggressive, as I asserted earlier, the argument relies on people even people with messed up thoughts considering the immediate and long order ramifications of their actions. Granted value matrixes are subjective and risk reward matrices can be skewed toward criminality per the evident advantages present, but that's exactly why private infrastructure would emerge to confront such, just as food vendors and capital structures emerge to profit off of the need for sustenance. Furthermore, it is more adatiuos to recognize that some portion of humans are mal, and than to advocate for the state which has nigh-unlimited power to war, loot in taxes and eminent domain, and intervene in free affairs. In both recognizing self-interest the more damming closing is certainly on that of the state as the state is populated by people just as selfish as the mogul. The mogul though has lesser resources they must serve in a rivalrous climate and consistently appeal to ex ante expectations in order to achieve sufficient returns. All a politician has to do to accumulate wealth and invoke policies which have grave unintended consequences is win a popularity contest by advocating for the provision of stolen loot if they win ie entitlement programs via direct or indirect subsidy. Hoppes Democracy the God that Failed is a great resource on this. 5) Funny Sam should bring up organized crime, as the state caused the mafia to form through prohibition and it fuels criminal drug syndicates through the drug war. Economist have found that the stater keeps supply low and that gang warfare is largely driven by drug selling turf and the profitability of black market drugs. Lastly, Sam is an absolute child in this, beyond his fallacies and his inability to understand that humans adapt to the pressing issues they face and the market economizes the solving of said issues, given a significant rend in trying to circumvent it, he constantly interrupts and acts in bad faith with the guest, at one point Mike asks a premise question of who owns the property, and Sam acts as though its not a premise question and says, "I own it" and acts as though its a critical blow to the thesis writ large. Sam is at best unable to understand that mike is not suggesting some magical entanglement of people or he just does not want to give any ground to the premise to maintain his egotistical notion that libertarians are operating under the auspices that only things called government can do any wrong. I highly suggest anyone genuinly curious about anarcho capitalism read George Selgins, praxeology & understanding, or Man, Economy & State by Rothbard.

@@Praxe you should call in.

@@Praxe Lots of tough talk. Call in and "own" him, big boy/girl. We'll all have a laugh.

@@Praxe Nope, you didn't understand Sam's argument. His point wasn't that he would somehow find better evidence, his point was that truth doesn't matter in a society where you can't enforce it, because an Ancap world is inherently ruled by whoever has the most guns. Incredibly funny that you bring up praxeology though (definitely call in), it's quite possibly the least credible framework ever devised, and one of the few that literally gave up on trying to pretend its ideas line up with reality to instead insist that factual evidence is less trustworthy than the predictions that fail to come true.

@@Praxe please, please I beg you, call Sam and talk it out. I would love to hear you figuring out all of this with Sam