What's the link to donate so you can make more videos? We need them now more than ever

"But you choose to be forced to pay taxes" LOL

I like the fact that you explained the statist's argument in a fair way. I've just decided that I'm no longer a libertarian. You just honestly can't be if you continue thinking logically about your own views. Taxation is theft, but just because they only steal to provide people 'the absolute necessities' it's okay? Your talk of mutual assistence societies has changed my mind. I'm full-blown ancap now.

Better than an after-school special! Perfect for raising questions and dialogue about authority. Well done.

It's crazy how reasonable this is :D

bitbutter’s animation style and story telling is a great and easy way to understand the situations in the video’s. It also makes you very unhappy about whats going on with current politics.

Issue in the Restaurant analogy: You voluntarily chose which things, in that setting, you wish to purchase. You don't have to buy the Tilapia and Ribeye, and you could simply get the free water, should you chose to. Neither party, assuming they stay in a normal situation, will invoke any sort of aggression. I don't have a bill including that expensive seafood and steak if I simply order a drink, should I not order it. In a state, I am forced to do that no matter what I purchase, if anything.

I believe we can all agree that discussions like the one in this video, and other videos like this are a good thing, are 'of value'. There is societal benefit to be had from having these discussions. Now imagine if KZfaq, or content creators on KZfaq came into our homes and forced us at gunpoint to pay for these services whether we support them or not, whether we watch them or not. It doesnt even matter if we do end up watching, but the initiation of force to take people's property for good causes is imoral.

I re watched this after long time. The animation and sound acting are so spot on!!! Truly a great work of art. The conclusive answer to the saying "you can always" leave is also, spot on. The state can't legitimately own any land. A corporation can legitimately own land, but what's the difference? The difference is that the corporation didn't use illegitimate means to gain the ownership of that land, namely, use of force or coercion.

5:02 the imagery here is fantastic

I'm currently crowdfunding a new animation called Sex and Taxes. You can learn more at the campaign page: sexandtaxes.georgeoughttohelp.com/

That skeleton is a strawman! Statist are not that reasonable in rl XD

i love all these animations, such a professional and creative way to broadcast an excellent message

OK, how would someone even begin to refute this? I guess one has to fall back on the fact that we're all so accustomed to taxation being moral in principle that any alternative view is too radical and "out there." Besides, Somalia warlords ... and who will build the roads?

You just take first principles right on out to their delicious, logical conclusions. Well done!

the like to dislike ratio is satisfying

I get that the point of the video is to address the argument that "you can always leave if you don't like how things are" with the counterargument of "is what people are doing which is driving you to leave even justified to begin with?" But I think a more constructive counterargument to address the "you can just leave" argument is "is leaving even a valid option?" If you're just going from one nation which demands your money at gunpoint to another nation which demands your money at gunpoint, the problem still exists. This video does address that problem (the violence isn't justified to begin with, so it wouldn't be justified in any nation you went to either), but it doesn't *name* it directly, so I feel like people who make that argument are just going to persist even after viewing something like this. Fantastic content, by the way! I got directed to your channel through debates on other website and have been working my way through the catalogue since. You're doing good work. More people need to hear discussions like this.

My name is Jeff.

Both sides of the argument are put forth very well. Thank you for these very pedagogically informative videos.

"Wait wait wait! Police officers aren't killers." LOL 2015 is calling, US where you at?

"Why does someone necessarily 'own' something if they homestead it?" I believe that the homesteading principle is the best shot we have at minimising violent conflict. I'd be happy to hear of alternative theories of property, but so far I didn't hear of anything that I think coheres as well with my moral intuitions, and provides as clear a structure for avoiding violence.

I wish IRL discussions were this rational :)

The stars on that ball were pretty badass.

"You can always leave" argument fails if you consider many countries(such as the US) enforce their tax laws even if people leave. Barring renouncing your citizenship-- the IRS wants it's money from you.

Amazing video! I'm really digging the art style. How do you create these animations? Do you use a particular program/follow a particular tutorial?

we don't own anything. if we have to pay yearly taxes on things that we purchase, like houses and cars, then we are just renting it from the government. property tax is wrong.

In the United States you cant leave. You have to pay a fee to get a visa then leave then you have to pay a fee ~$1400 to cancel you citizenship. On top of that tax / take some of your money when you leave.

"The alledged thief receives communication that the victims law enforcers are going to come round and get his tv" You're describing a section in which there's an fast run-up to an armed confrontation between two firms, Friedman is just using this example to explain why quickly resorting to violence isn't smart business.

This video is fantastic! This explains "Taxation Is Theft" in such an easily digestible way.

I've had dozens of similar conversations, great vid.

B-But muh roads

"You're saying that in the case of say, arresting someone for tax evasion, we have good reason to believe things will end up in a violent shootout, and that the tax evader will most likely be killed?" What I'm saying has been spelled out carefully in the video you're commenting on. Watch it again. If you still don't grasp this then I don't think this channel can help you further.

I'm glad to hear it. Thanks for the comment.

But wait - the video baits and switches a couple of times. Just at the moment when the normal everyday centrist who's been so carefully guided down this chain of thought actually says the titular "You can always leave," the response, instead of addressing that freedom of movement question directly, goes down a rabbit hole of ownership definitions conveniently positioned for the conversation by the skele-man's particular analogy of a private restaurant. It doesn't actually refute the idea of 'voting' by simply exiting exploitative systems. Now, setting that aside. Let's walk through some obviously leading hypotheticals of our own. Say a group of homesteaders in the 1800s settled, say, four square miles of land in rural Idaho after crossing the plains west as a wagon company and decided to become a community. The problem with this land is that it needs to be farmed, and most of precipitation in the area derives from spring run-off from snow-capped mountains. The mountain streams run near, but not to, the area of our new community, so the community as a whole pools its man-hours to create a canal system to reach the farmland and reach every farmer. They all voluntarily do so, seeing an obvious community benefit and requiring no authorization from a far-away federal government in the East to achieve it, and all lands prosper. Now we can do a lot with this very real-life situation. Is there anything so far that voluntarism would object to? First question: who owns the water? All of them have contributed to the improvement of the land - do we have a shared communal ownership? Reasonably that's what they agreed upon. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. A general principle is that the more water one piece of land gets the better its crop will be. The amount of water diverted from the canal for each farmer is controlled by locks and pumps on each plot of land. One year, a farmer downstream accuses a farmer upstream of starving his land of water by using more of it than was agreed upon. The upstream farmer contests the claim, stating instead that there was less water in the first place than the downstream farmer thinks, and that the claim is nonsense. Who wins? In fact, a critical question: who arbitrates? For that matter, since the water's flow is controlled by locks and pumps on private property, is there any lawful ability to dictate how the upstream farmer uses them? Farmers might decide they need to pay someone specifically to measure water levels. However, if only one party is paying that person, the person is still biased and the matter is in no way satisfied. If the person is paid as a pot by a community who entirely agrees to it, well enough. Water is carefully measured at the reservoir and at multiple stages of its progression through the community. The process takes time, and can only ever be estimated. Which means the measuring-man is paid from a communal fund that everyone has agreed to pay a certain amount into. So if a farmer chooses not to pay the water-measuring man, does that open him up for being cheated by means of the water man passing him over in his measurements? Unfortunately, this also affects everyone downstream of the non-participatory farmer - any cheating of him cheats everyone downstream of him. And if measurement no longer occurs on his property, he can in turn steal water from anyone downstream. The community has reached a complete impasse with its recalcitrant member. How do you broker a resolution? Let's say the community grows for a couple of generations. I assume property is still inherited through family lines in this matter, each generation benefiting or losing from the work and intelligence of the generation which preceded it? At this stage the improvements made on every man's land are not just flowing from a mountain, they're flowing from time - they're all irrevocably shaped by the actions of that one group of people who would become the founders of this thriving little town, the original owners who made it all. One expansion of the town was an enterprising man who built his home closer to the original source of the canal system, in a small nestled area of fertile land. This placed him farther from the general protection of the town, farther from help or support or advanced goods, but in a position to make a greater profit. A generation and a half later, his clan of descendants still live there and are financially well set. One year, due to weathering and erosion, part of the canal bank in the downstream region of their property collapses. Trees and shrubbery fall in and mix with the earth. Sediment and other debris from the storm that caused the direct collapse mix in, and the canal is effectively dammed. Water supply to the majority of their property upstream is uninterrupted. A team of men from the town assembles themselves when they realize the problem and marches up the path to the estate. The rich man's clan, however, feel they have reason to be suspicious of the townspeople - there have been conflicts over prices in the past, and they perceive a general jealousy of their exalted status among the homesteader's descendants. They worry that if they let this group clean the job, their land may be damaged, their crops trodden underfoot, and they would be left with all the debris piled up in their field. What's more, regardless of their justification, they have the right to dictate what does or doesn't happen on their property. Plus less crops overall means higher prices and more profit for them anyways, if we want to be cynical. So they refuse entry. Now, the townspeople might be advised to try to dig a whole new canal. Likely, however, that is not so convenient. They would have chosen the best route for the canal the first time. The condition of the terrain could be anything from solid mountain bedrock to gravel to clay along the way once they scout out a new route. The digging takes months and full engagement of ox teams and other goods - in short, it's a massive endeavor. Meanwhile the full planting and harvesting year will pass without the ground getting nourished. The farmers will have effectively no income for an entire year. Assuming they survive, that doesn't mean everything resumes as normal next year. See, before they tilled the soil, it was characterized by thick prairie grasses and shrubs. Now, with no plants in it and no water, it will turn to dust. That dust will be caught in the wind. The wind will sweep away the fertile topsoil. The land will be severely damaged for years to come, the crops a pittance. The very lives and livelihoods of the entire community are in jeopardy. Perhaps crucially, we should consider the rights of the clan of the fertile ground in the first place. The actual canal wasn't improved by them, or even by the villagers, but by ancestors now long-gone. Nonetheless there is no way to access the dammed area without using their land. In fact, the man who initially found this excellent piece of ground may not have even been one of the town's founders, though he profited off their efforts. He may have been admitted to the community later on, or simply taken the initiative to homestead himself and gained from the group effort. Has everybody in the town inherited, along with the privilege of the property of their ancestors, the privileges of the canal, and the duties that attend it? Can future generations have a responsibility to uphold the good that their ancestors established? What happens if they don't? Your video consistently imagines a state as something arbitrarily set up by one violent man. But states came about because people valued and needed a structure, an unbiased negotiator and mediator, a system for them to pool funds for efforts that benefit everyone. The only issue briefly mentioned in your video with this scenario is something that doesn't really impact the man who would rather opt out. What if it were life or death for most people involved, or even everyone? What if someone simply doesn't act in their own best interests, and dooms a majority for it?

Hey bitbutter! Really great video, I'm sure it will aid any curious about voluntarism/anarcho-capitalism by answering many questions. Being a free-thinking anarchist myself, I like to try and find flaws in the logic involved in both my own viewpoint and those of others. That said, I have a few comments specifically relating to the argument presented in the video against the social contract. From what I understand as it's described in this video, the social contract is invalid because it's the ownership of property that allows one to dictate its usage. While I agree with this, it seems that the skeleton character could retort by saying that the social contract itself is proof of an implicit agreement between the people and the state, which would then be considered a special case of partial ownership allowing it to enforce its mandates on the public. He could say that the social contract alone is what separates Jeff from the average bully, and only "works" because it trumps the generally respected rules of how property can be obtained, thus circumventing any argument involving the typical rules of ownership. I think that a stronger argument against the social contract is to give reasons why it isn't an exception to ownership because it was never legally binding in the first place, rather than to try and say it's simply not possible for the social contract to be above property ownership (not everyone would agree with that, especially if they supported the state already). An analogy the skeleton man could use to show why the social contract is above property ownership would be simply to have Jeff hand out copies for people to sign. The obvious refutation to this that would prove the difference between a formally signed contract and the social contract would be the corresponding part of Lysander Spooner's argument in The Constitution of No Authority. I'd greatly appreciate any insight you had on this segment of the video and my (possibly wrong) interpretation of it, which again you did a phenomenal job on.

"What, indeed, is property in and of itself?" Ownership is the exclusive right to determine how a thing is (peacefully) used. For instance, you believe that you own the parts of your body (kidneys, fingers, hair, blood etc).

"If I tell my friend to pass me a beer, that could be considered a threat of violence" No it couldn't. Since you have no reason to believe that steadfastly refusing to pass him a beer would lead to a chain of increasingly unpleasant demands and punishments ultimately backed by deadly force. In the case of the state demanding tribute, we all know that this is the case.

I like how this gives a fair representation of a statist argument but still debunks it with ease. This should go as an example for debaters who want to avoid making a Strawman Fallacy.

One problem that i see (but i don't know the answer) is the part of ownership of land. Who decides who owns a portion of land? Say, there are people that found a new island and then they walk into it. Someone, say, Peter, found a place that he liked a lot in this island. He, then, puts a warning on the boundaries of "his" land(boundaries that he himself decided) saying that form that point on, that land is property of "Peter" and anyone who walks into it will be subject to Peter's rules over the land. But what makes Peter the owner of the land? Another person, David, walks into the land and Peter warns him that David is in his private property. David then, speaks "What makes you the owner of the land?" Peter than replies "I found it" the... David: You can't say you were the first to find this particular land. And on top of that, there is nothing built on this land, you can't say it's yours. Peter: Then what would make me the owner of the land? David: I think the least would be you built something over this land, then you can claim it's yours Peter: But to build something, you will need land, and to do this, you need to own the land in the first place. So, the problem is, Peter owns the land? Even if he built a house on the land, he would need first to be the owner of the land that he bult his house on. Who decides who owns a portion of space? The first to find? The first to declare the land is his? If so, how do you decide the boundaries? Can Peter decide that his land is 1000m² or 10000m² by his own terms? How to solve this?

"The whole idea makes perfect sense for rich people, they get absolutely everything in the system he describes." Not at all. In the system described, the rich are denied the most potent multiplier of their power that they currently have: the state.

I love the animation, and the arguments are well founded and persuasive. Very good video.

What I don’t understand. Is if there is no money that people are being forced to pay. Then how do you prevent people from breaking the law?

"No, I understand, I just found the deadly force part a bit hyperbolic. " Then no, you don't actually understand yet. There is no hypoerbole here. The film accurately describes the situation in _any_ modern state, including the Norwegian one. The reasoning is spelled out in the film, it's all there.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

This video is simply genius.

this was a fantastic video. great job. subbed

In my first response to this line of questioning I explained that there's no reason that '999 for everyone' wouldn't apply under polycentric law too.

Feel free to private message or email if you find a false claim. I don't believe you can. But if you do, I want to know about it.

Amazingly well done. Please, make more.

Contract? What contract? I didn't sign any contract. What kind of "contract" assumes my consent? Would you feel bound by a contract that assumed your consent? In sex, that's called rape . . .

"Humans create hierarchies by nature, just like many animal species do; that means that the only way to get rid of hierarchies is by force..." Or nurture; by nature, we walk mostly naked.

You're welcome, glad you liked it.

Great video! Keep up the good work!

He said 'if a surviving ancestor of the person the land was taken from'. He meant to say 'descendant'.

Please answer the question. Am i permitted to hire someone else to use my massage table and oil (means of production), to give me a massage? and if not, how will this restriction be enforced?

This is a great and insightful video, bitbutter. Thank you so much for posting. I already shared it on Facebook and linked to it in my blog.

You can tell how irritated that wolfman feels about the skeleman just from his blank face and pauses

Man, these are awesome.

"advocating for their utopian and destructive positions" From where I'm stood, advocating that a small elite hold a coercive monopoly on the right to initiate force, and ultimate decision making authority over massive territories, and expecting that to lead to good outcomes is what's utopian. And history is more or less a catalogue of one massive state-enabled act of desctruction after another. The furthest decentralisation of power possible seems like a much better bet.

"In my example I can't help but think it would be morally acceptable for Robin Hood to steal the money to sustain someone's life." It's not even simple theft that you're advocating though. It's actually making a death threat against a person to get them to hand over the funds. Do you believe that making a death threat against a peaceful person, in order to help out a third party in need, is morally acceptable?

@Marrec Miles (pls enable replies if you wish to comment here in future) ""You can always leave" doesn't mean leaving for another country. It means leaving society itself." The state is not synonymous with society. That's statist arrogance talking. 'You Can Always Leave' refers to the option of leaving the territory claimed by the state you object to. "The point of the social contract [blah blah]" And the point spelled out carefully in the video you're commenting on is that the state is in no position to offer this 'deal' in the first place since it's not the legitimate owner of the land. Have you actually watched it? "at least in the eyes of the west - the people confirm the legitimacy of the state's authority through the democratic process, " Do they? In most elections the non-voters are a larger group than any voting for a specific party (for instance: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/the-one-map-that-shows-how-nonvoting-would-have-won-the-general-election-if-it-were-a-party-10238290.html). Even if we assumed that all voters were whole-heartedly supportive of the representative democratic state as an institution (rather than voting in the hope to avoid the worst of several evils) it's far from clear that this dismal turnout constitutes a legitimation of the democratic process. I hope you agree. "But the modern, western state was also based on the principle of Rule of Law" More arrogance and ignorance I'm afraid. You talk as though law is not possible without the state. If you have the time and inclination to learn about how you're mistaken here I strongly recommend the books: The Problem of Political Authority, The Machinery of Freedom, and Chaos Theory. "It is ludicrous to call out on "taxation backed by violence" because every aspect of the modern, western state, functioning on the principle of Rule of Law, must be backed by some form of punishment" It's ludicrous to point out that taxation is backed by violence because all state law is backed by violence? If you'd been disagreeing with statists online for six years or more you'd appreciate that, in fact, most supporters of the state are *utterly blind* to the violence undergirding their preferred societal arrangement, they don't believe it exists. Hence this video.

Something Tolstoy explained like 120 years ago...

Good to see this video back up.

"Why would I call my defence firm if I see someone else being attacked?" Perhaps because 1) you prefer not to live in, or visit, an area in which such attacks go unpunished 2) You'd prefer the attacker was not free to attack again 3) you'd like to see justice done.

yeah im 18, and love your channel... I know in your pinned comment you said your goal was to educate young people against statism and it seems to work... Ive always been capitalist and freemarkets and belive in nihlism like no objective truths, but really never considered or heard about decentralized societies... i didnt really think it was possible until coming across your videos and wow!!

Hello again! I've watched a few more of your videos, and I must say I'm quite astonished by their quality! Anyways, if you recall, last time I said I wanted to discuss on the subject of ownership, though this video didn't really solve my doubts... You seem to say, basically, that the restaurant owner can set the terms of your presence in his establishment because he owns the place, but the state can't because it wouldn't own the land it claimed... I'm not really sure to understand why in one case it's ownership, but not in the other, though... Could you clarify on what you think it means to legitimately own something, with homesteading and having it given to us willingly? What I understood is that, according to you, if one improves something or if someone willingly gives something to them, they start owning it and thus become able to do everything they want with it, but I want to be sure I'm not mistaken. If that's the case, then, can everything be subjected to ownership? Can a dog be owned? If yes, how?

"George Ought to Help" addresses your concerns. its his first video. "You Can Always Leave" is a follow up to "George".

In your preferred order, if I desire to hire a person to paint my house/tidy my garden/give me a massage are we permitted to make that trade? And if we're not, how will this restriction be enforced?

awesome. very good!

I approves this video o7

"I am asking in regards to land ownership, not bodily ownership." Ownership is ownership. The principle doesn't change whether we are considering a kidney or a tee-shirt. If we believe that a person may have the exclusive right to dictate the terms of use of one, then there's no reason to deny that this right may apply to the other too.

"Is there a threat of deadly force though?" Yes. This is explained in detail in the video you're commenting on. Watch it (again, if necessary).

These videos are fantastic, I thank you for them. At this time I am not able to show my support by funding you, however I am pleased to be able to take advantage of the fact that these are put on KZfaq regardless. Were I able to fund you, since I see value in what you are doing, I would. My only concern is that this is some kind of red-herring leading towards some delusional conclusion of "Anarchy ftw". Anarchism is as equally irrational as compulsory taxation. We can use mathematics, game theory, logic, and information theory to prove this. As it stands now, the optimal Nash Equilibrium for economics and information theory for this subject matter shows that the optimal situation is for the business known as "government" to serve as the Objectivist ideal: a night watchman state. Small government that supports protecting property rights is what people need to be educated is the proper ideal.

Excellent animation. I agree for the most part with the message. Here are a few counterpoints for you to consider: 2:20 STATEMENT: Private firefighting services (one of the examples) exist. COUNTER: My point in all of the following is that, for goods and services NECESSARY to general well-being of the public, laissez faire falls short. Firefighting is an emergency service that saves lives. IF government regulation helps to ensure that firefighting services are more organized and effective, which would clearly save lives and property, isn't it very important to have government regulation? Now I'd like to substantiate the aforementioned "if". Capitalism is *clearly* not synonymous with greed, but let's say the private firefighters showed up to a poor person's home. The person clearly could not pay. Offering free firefighting services repeatedly would not be a good business move. Would the firefighters let the home burn (property loss, death) or put out the fire (bad/unsustainable business)? What if no entrepreneurs wanted to found a firefighting business in a given area? There would be no firefighting service (thus endangering people). You say that people could choose not to live there? Not totally true. What if there WAS once a firefighting business, but that closed. Now many people would have to move house... a task not easy/possible for some, and certainly not efficient. We as a society, in my opinion, cannot chose to let people die in house fires. 6:26 STATEMENT: How did the state come to be the owner of the land it imposes laws on? COUNTER: Let's take the United States as an example. European colonists (including the Dutch!) came to the continent and claimed land in various ways. Most often an explorer would claim something in the name of the king and the land would be chartered. These claims were made "valid" by the threat of violence (including war with Native Americans). In your video you talked about how violence isn't a legitimate way of claiming land. I think this is historically inaccurate... violence (including war) has been the NO. 1 way of taking land. Do I think individuals should violently take land from one another in modern times? No. Killing my neighbor and occupying his house would not legally grant me his property. Violence only became illegitimate on the individual level after we developed existing governments and "civilized" societies. After the colonies were established, there were more wars and Britain was pretty victorious. America was a British colony. America issues a declaration of independence (somewhat warranted) and fights a war to gain its independence from the legal "owners" of the land (Britain). The land was then owned by the Continental Congress (weak government, lacked ability to tax). Country was transferred to the current US government with the constitution. Interestingly, the Continental Congress was never abolished. SO, the US government "owns" the land. When it comes to other countries, especially those in Europe with long histories, the land was obtained by the government largely by violence. Indeed, I think the only reason every government continues to hold its grip on the land IS the threat of violence. This works on the individual level too (but again, I don't encourage individual-level violence) If I don't get upset when my neighbor parks his trailer on my yard (for example), he'll be encouraged to keep taking and maybe my other neighbors will do that too. It's the same as talking about how, if the government didn't back up the taxation process with threats, people wouldn't pay. It's my opinion it IS reasonable for the government to maintain its claim via violence as a last resort. Here's a quick list: Spontaneous violence NOT ACCEPTABLE Threat of violence BETTER, NOT ACCEPTABLE Removed threat of violence BETTER, NOT ACCEPTABLE Removed threat of violence by government BETTER, NOT ACCEPTABLE Removed threat of violence by duly elected government BETTER, and, at some level NECESSARY All throughout video STATEMENT: It's unethical for the government to use violence COUNTER: Not in my opinion. As earlier discussed, there are essential services that a government must exist for to provide. If not fire services, how about police? Would you want individuals hiring their own police forces to intimidate/kidnap other individuals? Government police can be bullies, but certainly better than mercenaries. Because their MUST be a government, people must pay a reasonable amount. What constitutes a "reasonable" amount can and should be debated. My opinion is that the amount should be way lower than it currently is (in my country and elsewhere). The government shouldn't be engaging in things such as crony capitalism (buying more expensive products from people who lobby the government) and the government shouldn't have its hands in regulating lots of the stuff it regulates. That's all opinion for a different discussion. Should a government agent show up at my door and punch my face in? No, but that's not how it works anyways. Should there be consequences if I don't pay my taxes? Absolutely. If I violently resist paying my taxes, should there be more serious consequences (jail/death)? Absolutely, IMO. Extremism is very rarely the right answer. There are those who want the government to control EVERYTHING (mainly the people who control the government). This has been proven by history to be horrible in terms of personal liberty. There are those who advocate for anarchy. Judging by this video, perhaps you do? This has been proven by history to be horrible for personal safety, unpractical, and unsustainable. Like it or not, power vacuums will be filled by those with the resources and ambition to fill them. The best we can do is make a government that acts within ethical restrictions. As history proves, we cannot make it so that there is "no government". --- Clearly a long post. Thank you for reading. I think it's important to discuss ideas. Your video "Edgar the Exploiter" helped shape my stance (and add to my argument) about the minimum wage. I hope the discussion of ideas like this one can also help to better form arguments.

Thank you Redose.

"Violence isn't the first recourse when it comes to punishment, and, ideally at least, it's avoided as much as possible." If violence is the _last_ resort, then a threat of violence is still being made.

Was the skeleton supposed to be a left winger, if that's the case, then he was still much to agreeable and reasonable.

Why the social contract sucks. It starts as a mutual agreement among adults and thats ok till you have kids who then have to abide by the past agreement even if it no longer serves a good purpose kind of like an arranged marriage it might workout or it might not, considering the suffering and tyranny in the world I would say it's not working. Governments are like religious indoctrination starting from childhood "Public Education" breaking away is difficult you leave everything you have behind property and relationships and where are you going to go? There is no unclaimed land to run too So you run from rapist/thief A too rapist/thief B because rapist B doesn't beat their victims as much oh Huzzah! the choices.

I can't make sense of your comment, sorry.

"I like how nearly everything in this is a counterargument to arguments that people can own land." "All I've claimed from the start is that the forms of your arguments can be used to support other systems" No. You've claimed much more than that. You'll need to acknowledge that if you want to continue commenting here.

Dear BitButter you sir are to woke and I love your mentality so much, I understand and want to form this type of perfect community we (smart people) can live in peaceful happy times where everyone THINKS like this! Harmony

I don't think this video correctly addresses the title of the video. What is preventing a person from leaving if they don't want to fulfill their end of the bargain? Most government land in the US was purchased from foreign powers, so the state is the rightful owner of the land.

Glad to hear it!

I really like the trippy, dreamlike style used in this one! Great videos, important concepts, keep up the great work!

One question is, what prevents another person from acting violently to obtain what they want? The government is using force, I concede that point to you. However, without the government enforcing some degree of law enforcement, acting as an overarching deterrent, how do we stop individuals, or groups of individuals, from committing acts of violence to obtain what they want, be it property, land, and even people?

The comments section is moderated. Civil dissent is very welcome. Posters of antagonistic comments may be blocked from the channel. The use of invective or name-calling is very likely to get you banned. Please consider whether there's a more constructive way of conveying your message before clicking 'Comment'. Thanks!

You asked a loaded question. Implicitly stating that liberty=chaotic and deadly.

Thanks for the reply. Do you think a greater aspiration for humanity is perpetual individual dependency or the utmost if not entire ability to be self-sufficient?

damn this is a good video

"An ancestor of the person the land was stolen from..." If the land was stolen 200 years ago, I highly doubt an *ancestor* of the owner of that land will be showing up. A *descendant* maybe.. ;)

Do you agree with the following statement? "Whether mugging is legitimate or not depends on how much is taken and from whom and what its used for"

"But this isn't a good analagy for taxation. For one thing, modern states use taxes to provide services that help people" -- He should have already understood why that's wrong after watching "George Ought to Help".

According to the counter-argument to the social contract, a Monarchy would make taxation rightfully just as a Monarch, because the Monarch OWNS the state. So technically, if a restaurant owner has the right to tell how the place is run, the same goes with a Monarch. This argument is almost the same as arguing for a Monarch. Except in the restaurant analogy's respect, the boss owns a business, not a nation.

Many many flaws here. The state represents the community as a whole, not an individual bully. The video says there are other people living on the desert island besides Albin and Jeff. Do they interact with each otherl? Or each individual lives completely separate from the others, meaning, they hunt alone, they fish alone, each one build their homes individually, and so on? The idea that an individual can do all these things completely by himself without the help of anyone else is not realistic. People would help each other voluntarily, so they would form a community. Now lets imagine that each individual build his own hut, and after that, they decide to pave a road to connect all the huts. Each individual owns only their own hut, they don't own the land between the huts. So everyone work together to pave the road. Now I ask, who owns the road?Jeff owns the road, Jeff who is the personification of the community as a whole. The road is public property. And the road needs constant maintenance, and every individual needs to contribute to keep the road clean and in proper conditions for people to travel by it. So Jeff has to knock on the door of every individual and demand each one of them to pay a certain amount for the maintenance of the road. That's why Jeff is demanding that Albin give a portion of his property to him. The demand doesn't come out of nowhere, just because Jeff is a bully. Jeff wants to take care of the public property. If Albin wants to make use of the public property, he must pay his fair share. Otherwise, he shouldn't make use of public property. If he insists in making use of the public property without paying, then what happens? The rest of the community, personified by Jeff, will get angry and will threaten Albin with violence. That's a perfectly justifiable use of violence. Its not an aggression against Albin, it's the opposite, Albin is comitting an aggression against Jeff every time he uses the road and refuses to pay for it. So the violence Jeff will apply is actually self-defense against the theft that Albin is comitting. The problem with this video is that it treats every single property as if it was constructed by individuals working alone. As if there is nothing that was constructed by people working in group. As if people were autists that refuses to work alongside other individuals. Which is an idea that its completely outside the reality of human societies.

I can't make sense of your comment. With whose funds/savings do you suppose the fish farm was built?

The first time I saw this video right when it came out I wasn't too excited about it, but now that I watch it again I really like it. It's very well-made. Fantastic job!

Amazing masterpiece of a video

I believe in near future cryptocurrencies will evolutionary change current balance of state authority and individual person rights and interests. It will drastically reduce role of governments in our life.

At least according to a homesteading-based theory of property, one important difference is that states (as we know them) do not own the land they claim. While a landlord may well be the legitimate owner of the property he rents out.

Be specific please. Which claims made do you believe are false or controversial?