General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Cole Behnke
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Cole Behnke" (@colebehnke7767) on "Turns out, Anarcho-Capitalism ISN'T "Anarchy" (RE: LiquidZulu)" video.

@thurin84 it’s as coercive as having to pay a farmer for their labor.
10
@bakters depends, there are a million ways to deal with it.
7
@bakters there are a million ways to deal with negative behavior, it’s agreed upon that if you take someone’s rights you leave yourself open to having your own rights taken.
7
@coonhound_pharoah what if the government reduced itself to its most basic tasks, thus reducing the costs of taxation to a level that people would be willing to pay for if it was voluntary. Then you could make it voluntary, and if people want to not pay the government they could find a new competitor organization that does what the government does but better.
5
Completely voluntary might I add. Much better then our current system.
4
@coonhound_pharoah but they can just chose to not pay and find someone else.
4
@coonhound_pharoah both of our governments come together to a previously agreed upon mediator for this kind of thing. I mean my group just wants my money, but losing fifty bucks a month probably isn’t worth dying over.
4
@coonhound_pharoah congratulations you have a war on your hands, and I’m betting that most people under the thumb of your crime syndicate will be willing to pay a lot more money for us to come in and while it out, enough to make the potential of death worth it.
4
Simply because the population would just pay someone else to not do that.
3
@MadeleineTakam_Info_on_Profile if people don’t value it, then why are we forcing them to pay for it? If you see that it’s an issue then you should raise awareness and get other people to value it.
3
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
3
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk not really, you won’t pay someone who just lets the rich enter your house and take stuff, so your right defense agency would be there ready to shoot anyone who does. What are results exactly here? Because to the majority of people it’s not having your rights trampled on.
3
@MoonshineH so me as the farmer who spends his own labor is being coercive if I expect people to pay me for it, dispute the fact that there are dozens of farmers and that anyone can become a farmer? Also you do know how companies buying out their competitors directly creates more competition, it’s the law of supply and demand, if competitors are being bought up, it signals that there is a demand for such a good. More competitors would pop up just to be sold and they won’t sell themselves for less then it took to create them.
3
@MoonshineH what process results in a monopoly? Can you show any real world examples of this happening?
3
@MoonshineH can you provide examples? The ability to accumulate capital doesn’t equal eventual monopolization, not only is the economy net-positive, but the more wealth you have the less in touch with reality you are which makes it harder for you to accumulate capital.
3
@MoonshineH there are a lot more forces behind the centralization of wealth then the monopolistic forces you describe, like how standard oil already lost a significant market share long before anti-monopoly laws were being brought up. The truth is profit attracts investment, investment creates competitors, and competitors reduce profit and market share. The only reason we are seeing such accumulation of wealth is because of larger socioeconomic systems.
3
How so? From what I heard they don’t particularly care for either system.
3
@picklejarmonsterfanboy9367 I pay a rights enforcement agency to protect me.
3
Hay if it’s not voluntary I, and everyone else under their thumb would gladly pay a little more then they take to remove them.
3
@bakters well I paid a group of people to protect my rights and sold my claim to the restitution to another group.
3
Not really, imagine if the government reduced itself to its most basic functions, and so becoming adorable for the average person to voluntarily pay into. Because defense is a basic function other counties wouldn’t invade. After a while other organizations would pop up providing the same thing as the previous government, but for cheeper or with higher quality. The previous government and these new organizations don’t really want to fight each other because that costs a lot, and that additional cost would be transferred to the average buyer.
2
It’s quite possible, your just not creative enough.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk what if we don’t end the state, but made taxation voluntary? Then any new organizations would have to actively be significantly better for people to switch to them.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk instead of throwing out the current state, let’s reduce it to its most basic tasks, like protecting private property and defending its customers against rights abuses. Reducing it this way would make it significantly cheaper, to the point where most people would willingly pay for such services instead of it being required. Thus any organization that competes with the government in this business will be too small to refuse the governments laws, or does the governments jobs of securing private property rights and national defense so much better that people think it’s worth switching over to. Basically libertarians acknowledge that there will be demand for a force that assists people in protecting their rights, we just don’t believe it needs to be something that your obligated to pay.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk I don’t understand? What do you mean by establishing property rights? Like everyone establishes property rights by existing, and these organizations can help people maintain their property rights.
2
Are your sure about that? https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
Not really, imagine if the government refused itself to its most basic functions, and so becoming adorable for the average person to voluntarily pay into. Because defense is a basic function other counties wouldn’t invade. After a while other organizations would pop up providing the same thing as the previous government, but for cheeper or with higher quality. The previous government and these new organizations don’t really want to fight each other because that costs a lot, and that additional cost would be transferred to the average buyer.
2
@rockmcdwayne1710 I hear socialists tell me all the time that there are limits to growth, after a point getting bigger won’t make you any more money. Really the market is like evolution in halftime. The bigger a organization gets the slower it is at adapting to changing environments, there’s a reason large animals tend to go extinct every time.
2
@leosam7097 libertarians don’t believe that rules are bad, but that they don’t reflect the actual values of the people, a free market will always match the values of the people, simply because they will pay for what they feel is valuable.
2
@leosam7097 i don’t really see how the fascism thing is relevant when they were socialist themselves. No I’m not enlightened, but if the rules really do reflect the culture then they would exist under a free market framework ether way. A free market of law would always reflect the current culture and beliefs of the population.
2
@leosam7097 you should read The Machinery of Freedom, it covers how a free market legal system would work. Your correct that the culture shapes the market, but your wrong that we need a central state to enforce said culture. If a culture can’t survive without a state it isn’t much of a culture.
2
https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
The Machinery of Freedom answers all those questions, but in short RDA’s would try to form agreements with all other RDA’s on what mediators they want to use, simply because if they ever did come in conflict actually fighting it out would cost both sides tons of money. Now you as a customer would pay close attention to the mediators that RDA’s use, because they are the ones who set the law.
2
 @patmacken5130 You get what rights you offer to other people.
2
@patmacken5130 yes, but the beauty of such a system is they will have to pay for it.
2
@patmacken5130 and I will pay another group of people to defend me. Basically how much I value my ability to freely associate would go up against how much they value to force who I can associate with. The thing is most people agree that being able to freely associate is nice and going back to the old days where you where forced to associate with a government is a bad idea. We already fought off being forced to associate with certain businesses and the like, so how would this be any different?
2
@patmacken5130 I’m not being forced to pay, I could pay any number of people or I could do it myself or I could make a club with all my friends who believe the same thing and would be willing to protect each other for free.
2
@patmacken5130 yep and completely voluntary! Why is this hard to grasp? Ancaps don’t care if there’s a government, just that you can freely choose to associate with it.
2
@patmacken5130 your not correct on your assessment, the US doesn’t care where you live, if you were a US citizen at one point they will always come after you for taxes. The truth is most people can’t afford to just become citizens of new states, and most states actively try making it harder. A libertarian society is by far the least utopian because it believes states will exist but they won’t really be bound by territory, so if you don’t like how your state is running things you can on a dime switch to another state or even try creating your own.
2
@patmacken5130 the big question here is what services does the government provide? And does the government need to provide them? You should read the Machinery of Freedom, it covers how the free market can provide common laws and courts, though it doesn’t answer the defense question yet.
2
@thecollierreport https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
Well if that’s a problem you could definitely found a company to satisfy that need, imagine the boost to your image if you went out there and protected those people for free, I bet a bunch of them might want to switch over to you once they get back up on their feet.
2
But they have, violate someone else’s rights and you agree to have those same rights violated.
2
@FerdarPleaseSubscribe yeah, but it’s voluntary, if you don’t like the state you could always switch to one that you like better, all without having to relocate or anything.
2
Why can’t it be voluntary though? If it’s so useful people would willingly pay for it.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk I’m better there would be a lot more then just 2. People would only pay these other organizations if they think they are better then the normal government, which includes being a moral organization that doesn’t wage war with its rivals. Additionally waging war is expensive, the rates for protection would go up driving customers to competitor who aren’t fighting. For the organizations that give better property rights to the people who can pay, how is that any worse then what we have today? Also would you pay that organization, or would you stick with organizations that “tax” people equally and give them equal property rights?
2
@josephk.4200 my boycott? No, I’m simply paying someone who actually supports me, like everyone else. Why would anyone pay the plutocrat for rights defense if they are doing it badly? Especially since there are lots of other people doing it better?
2
It’s simple, the voluntary association could go to the people being stolen from and ask how much they would pay to have them come over and kick out their oppressors. Now the stealers have to fight someone who has the resources of their own territory and yours.
2
The thing is you are free to pay them or not, but the moment you violate someone else’s rights you are telling society that’s where your rights end as well. Rights are limits two people can agree on. If you steal you automatically agree that it’s ok to steal from you.
2
@stephenurban9880 Which is not coercion because I agreed to it by the fact that I stole. You get what rights you offer to other people.
2
@stephenurban9880 that sounds much better then the system we have now.
2
@stephenurban9880 but significantly less coercive then any other system.
2
@stephenurban9880 the NAP answers this, if you aggress against someone else’s rights you consent to having your own rights aggressed against. Thus any restitution is not coercion.
2
@stephenurban9880 no, it’s a simple treat people how you want to be treated. If you brake into someone’s house and steal their stuff don’t be surprised when someone does the same to you.
2
So you admit that ancaps aren’t Utopian?
2
@bomination. you have an example?
2
@bomination. yep, and I exploited my employer heavily.
2
@bomination. how much money are we talking?
2
@tristanthamm505 you don’t need universal laws, hell we don’t even have universal laws. Laws change form one state to another and if there is a conflict between two states they have a system I’m place to deal with that, so why can’t voluntary states have systems to deal deal with conflict between states?
2
@tristanthamm505 contracts have the backing of continuing relationships. And continuing relationships with other RDAs is vary important to RDAs, because if an RDA doesn’t use contracts to resolve issues then warfare is the only. Read the Machinery of Freedom, it covers this in detail.
2
@tristanthamm505 you forget that anyone can become a competing RDA, there is no such thing as a monopoly on force. Additionally there is an easy way to establish a system where that doesn’t happen, by using the old government to set the precedent. If we reduce the government to its most basic functions; that being law, courts, and defense, and make it voluntary, most people would be willing to pay for those three things. Additionally most people wouldn’t trust competitors and would rather stick to the tried and true government all else equal, so any competitor would have to do what the government does that much better. It has to be better at law, court, defense, cost, and not forcing people to pay. The last one there would be enforced by the established government, they would still rush in and save you from the oppressive organizations, for a significant fee of course. Thus these organizations could only grow to the size where they can beat the government and establish their own authority if they are honestly competing with it.
2
@tristanthamm505 well projecting force is also really expensive, and whatever defenses they have would be equal to the wealth that could be stolen.
2
@tristanthamm505 welfare is one of the easiest things to decouple form government, along with regulation. If people value it they would pay for it, if they don’t then your just wasting resources.
2
If the current government was voluntary then the only way for other government organizations to brake the laws is for them to become stronger then the current government, and the only way for them to become stronger is if people think they do a better job then the previous government.
2
@Liberty-Jamie but warfare is expensive, the organizations that have the most customers would be the cheapest ones, and not fighting your rivals reduces costs a lot.
2
@stafus describe what this “permanent serving class” is? Are you sure all societies don’t have them?
2
@classicalextremism fortunately for me I made sure that there are no socialist mediation agencies that my rights enforcement agencies associate with. So your rights enforcement agency has to go through a capitalist mediation agency to deal with my rights enforcement agency.
2
But now it’s completely voluntary, you can go shopping for which associations are in your area and chose the one that’s best for you.
2
@jerryhu4763 because that’s kind of behavior is unprofitable. Not only is conflict expensive, but do to the ability to freely associate with them most people would leave and pay associations that don’t behave in a criminal manner.
2
It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
2
Could you have a voluntarily funded state that people could switch out whenever they like? https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
Would the US be able to hold off invasion with a defense budget of 100 billion? If yes, then the US could defend itself if everyone paid 500$ a year. That seems like a small sum compared to the cost of being invaded, in fact people would gladly pay much more if they were being invaded.
2
Simple, counter-violence. If you attack me the people who I hired to protect my rights will attack you. Both sides probably agree that I’m not worth dying over and so will seek mediation.
2
@michaelthayer5351 no one said you have to hire a rights defense agency, but most people would rather leave that to someone else so they can specialize in something else.
2
It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
2
@Evirthewarrior honestly the end of global trade is a side effect, such an institution benefits the rich more then the little guy, just now they will have to be the ones paying for it.
2
Are you telling me that people wouldn’t do that if we paid them?
2
Or they could work together against external threats.
2
How does that make any sense? You would only join the association if you agree to the rules.
2
⁠ @BurtReynolds-qp1jk both sides agree on a neutral arbitration agency before any conflicts arise. This then becomes a selling point for rights defense agencies, would you pay more to be judged by this arbitration agency that allows for capital punishment, or this arbitration agency that doesn’t?
2
Then you will have mediators who mediate between two agency’s. These mediators will then set rules and laws. The consumer then decides which groups agencies they want based on their skill and what mediators they use. Thus law becomes a voluntary action that you consent to.
2
@romitkumar6272 if there are no mediators then the only option is violence, which is expensive. So the most cost effective rights defense agencies would seek out impartial mediators that both sides would be satisfied using.
2
@romitkumar6272 yeah, but that would apply to both sides, people would vote with their subscriptions what laws they actually want to be judged by. Basically your judged by the organizations and their laws that you believe are just.
2
How so? We could do it slowly.
2
A kidnapper on the lose is a danger to everyone, so an investigation would happen ether way, and now you will have a few companies coming to you to so they can prosecute the villain.
2
https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
And the fire department could charge extra after the fact. Like the do I’m some places in the world.
2
@droe2570 there are many places in the world with private fire departments, and they work by offering a small subscription, if you weren’t subscribed and they would bill you for the expenses.
2
@droe2570 on average 20% of the population will always pay into it and 20% will always not, the remaining 60% will do what they see everyone else doing. If you want to defeat the free rider problem all you have to do is make it in the best interests for more then half of the population to follow it. One easy way is to have set prices for a collective, this uses the same forces behind pyramid schemes, the more people you get to pay, the less you individually have to pay. Thus all members of society are trying to get each other to pay which tips the balance.
2
@droe2570 uh, these stats are general gamership, gathered when their was no negative outcome for not complying. Basically scientists did exactly what you said for the coffee shop. The reason my voluntary state would work is because free riders and payers both have the incentive to get other people to pay, so on average 40% of the population is telling you to pay into the system, and if your part of the 60% of the population you will go with the flow.
2
@belthesheep3550 the answer to that is to create a legitimized law and defense corporations that fulfill the same role as government.
2
@olliestudio45 It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
2
https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
The Imperator Knight.
2
@donaldhysa4836 I mean say we got into a disagreement about who owned a house, we call up our rights defense agencies to back us up. Our rights defense agencies really don’t want to fight each other because that’s expensive, so they go to a previously agreed upon mediator. Both of us agreed to be judged by this mediator when we paid our rights defense agencies. This way if you don’t want to be judged in certain ways you can find rights defense agencies that don’t use mediators that have certain laws. If the laws you want to be judged under are unpopular then it would be hard to find rights defense agencies that use mediators have those laws. Thus laws are written biased on how much different people actually what to be under those laws.
2
⁠ @donaldhysa4836 Would you call having to keep a promise coercion? Didn’t you agree to that contract? If you feel like that contract was unfair you could go to court with an impartial mediator. I would hardly call it coercion to have to follow a contract you agreed to.
2
@donaldhysa4836 coercion is not having a choice, so when you have a choice where and how you can’t have a choice it’s not coercion.
2
@donaldhysa4836 you have the choice to even create the contract and the rules that you live by. You get to choose the law. Edit, can’t reply, YouTube is having a hissy fit.
2
Got to love how you miss the point.
2
@dIRECTOR259 how would that happen?
2
If the ancap system is corrupt it can’t be any worse then the system we have now.
2
@Aioradeleo27 are you sure, 50$ a month sounds worth a law system and national defense. https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
@titanicisshit1647 because I can always go to my brothers and say let’s start our own Rights Defense Agency, there is no state to stop me.
2
@titanicisshit1647 an RDA is the people you call when someone wrongs you and you can’t deal with it yourself, basically the police. Example, you caught your neighbor stealing your TV on a security camera so you call up your RDA and give them the evidence, they will then march up to your neighbors house and demand him to give it back, oh and fifty bucks for the trouble. Your neighbor of course calls up his RDA and tells them that he is about to be attacked by your RDA, so they march up and then there is a standoff. All four people don’t want to actually fight though, you and your neighbor don’t want your property to be damaged and would probably sue, and the two RDAs don’t want to fight because that would cost them tons of money in equipment, damages, and hazard pay. So the RDAs go to a predetermined fair mediator who will judge the case. Part of the predetermined agreement is that whoever side loses would backdown.
2
@titanicisshit1647 yes there would be a private database that the owners would charge RDAs to access. All the issues you have can be answered by asking, “ok how can I make money off of this issue?”
2
@titanicisshit1647 I fail to see how that’s relevant. They don’t make money off of it because they are using the service directly and they have infinite money to maintain the service.
2
@KnownNiche1999 both 1 and 2 are answered in the first paragraph, if we can force the government to become voluntary it creates the culture for voluntary governments, any organization that comes after would need to uphold that same culture otherwise people wouldn’t switch to it. If the culture does change then their is nothing any government can do about it.
2
@KnownNiche1999 eh, then how does our current system do any better?
2
@KnownNiche1999 I’m expecting them to be corrupt, it’s just that the rich would be subsidizing everyone else’s RDAs, additionally warfare is expensive, and even if you “win” you had to spend more money then you will ever gain in return. Basically warfare is a negative sum game, while almost every other form of economic activity is positive sum. So they have the economic interests in not waging war.
2
@KnownNiche1999 but how does one get the resources necessary to invade an area in the first place? The population of the land will fight back, all they have to do is make it more expensive to control them then you get out of it. Additionally everyone around that area would also fight back, you have just shown yourself to be willing to attack and oppress people so assisting the invaded population against you is in their own best interests. So any invader would have to fight off the warfare capability of a much larger area then the area they are occupying, thus they will always have to spend more resources then they will eventually get out of it, because the occupied area and anyone else who feels threatened by you will always be resisting you.
2
@KnownNiche1999 but I just described how it would never pay off, if any mercenary company goes rogue then everyone who is or feels threatened by them would pay to end the threat, this attracts a ton of mercenary companies who then figure out the most economically efficient way to end them. The oppressors used to be a mercenary company so most of the soldiers are there to get paid, so all you have to do is run their coffers dry, keep them spending lots of money while also preventing them from stealing from the population.
2
@KnownNiche1999 there’s a really simple way to deal with all of that, make the current government have voluntary taxation and let other organizations compete for its job, the only way for any organization to grow to the size where they can’t be punished by the government for being bad actors is if they can get the support of the people by being better at everything the government does, including having voluntary payment, letting other organizations compete, and punishing bad actors.
2
@KnownNiche1999 the government only wants to expand and grow its own power, so anyone who fights against the expansion of the government is ignorant child in your eyes?
2
@KnownNiche1999 this is a better state, one that’s voluntary, one that doesn’t have a claim on your wealth just because you were born in an area. The rich and powerful have a huge impact on the society, law would be determined by how much the population would be willing to pay be under it vs how much they would be will to pay to not be under it. The rich would obviously would have a huge impact on this because they would be willing to pay so much more. The thing is they would be subsidizing RDAs for everyone else, they would pay RDAs who would have to then bribe all the RDAs of the common people to agree to using their laws, and this bribe has to be bigger then what those RDAs could make if they used laws their customers likes more, thus making the common persons RDA cheaper. I would recommend reading The Machinery of Freedom. It covers how a ancap society would function and the biggest unsolved problems of ancap society, most importantly how to fund defense.
2
@KnownNiche1999 your also telling millions of people to grow up because a state will never reduce its own size. My concepts are just an extension of reducing the size of the state. Once a state has been reduced to its most basic functions, that being law and defense, then debates would start happening on if we should go further. Are you telling me that one of the most widely held beliefs of the right is a childish fantasy?
2
Read the machinery of freedom, all your questions are answered there.
2
@D.S.handle yes, but bureaucracy doesn’t need the state.
2
@alphana7055 that’s the marvels of the free market, you don’t need to track everything, instead you do it on an individual level.
2
@alphana7055 because both defense agencies agreed on submitting to the mediators decision so they don’t have to fight each other.
2
@alphana7055 well you can do things yourself, but there’s a reason we have police. How do we know all judges are not bribed? A mediators whole job is to be someone both parties can trust, taking bribes is the kind of thing that makes people not hire them. Defense agencies would regularly try to bribe judges just to see who not to work with.
2
@alphana7055 the police are the rights defense agencies. People pay them to protect their rights. If there is ever a conflict between two people over who’s rights supersede who’s they will ask for a mediator.
2
@alphana7055 they could, nothing stopping them. Thus is the glory of ancapistan.
2
@drdeadred851 not if the president is set for the opposite to happen.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk monopolies have serious pressure to stop existing in the free market, because if they are profitable they will attract investment to that field, which then creates more competition.
2
@thomashjensen1556 you bring up organizations that have no effective mediation and who don’t have to worry about customers leaving them if the prices get to high.
2
A large reason money was invented was because of the population explosion from the agricultural revolution.
2
@Cloud_Seeker uh, how were you forced to agree to their terms? Edit, can’t reply, YouTube is having a hissy fit.
2
You turn to another association that you find more agreeable?
2
Well that child probably is protected by a rights enforcement agency who will be coming to deal with you.
2
Completely incorrect, if we are being forced to pay someone for something we don’t want then we probably would be willing to pay that much and a bit more to have them removed. Thus a non-coercive group can remove a coercive one.
2
What’s wrong with private protection agencies?
2
@kylebrink9347 but why will they compete with bullets? That’s vary expensive, wouldn’t it be smarter to deal with conflict though mediation? Plus who’s paying them to compete with bullets? If we ever see rights protection agencies it would be after they show they are better at doing what the government current government does.
2
Taxes, if you want you can pay someone who you think is doing whatever the government does better.
2
Read the machinery of freedom, all your questions are answered there.
2
Nobody wants there to be suddenly no government, instead we should reduce the government to its most basic functions and make it voluntary, after that point if an organization can to what the government does but better people would switch to that.
2
It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
2
How so?
2
@Mr.Witness https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
2
Not really, imagine if the government reduced itself to its most basic functions, and so becoming adorable for the average person to voluntarily pay into. Because defense is a basic function other counties wouldn’t invade. After a while other organizations would pop up providing the same thing as the previous government, but for cheeper or with higher quality. The previous government and these new organizations don’t really want to fight each other because that costs a lot, and that additional cost would be transferred to the average buyer.
2
@Mr.Witness we don’t have to throw it away though, imagine that the organizations that replace the current government have to first outcompete a voluntary version.
2
@Mr.Witness the second one. If a new state starts within America it won’t be able to have its own laws unless it surpasses the current government, and the only way it can surpasses the current government is if people like it more then the previous one.
2
@Mr.Witness not just that, but they also initiate violations of my rights.
2
@Mr.Witness it’s the same way Abortion or the Death Penalty could be sold on the market of law. One thing we can now for certain is that privately run organizations are more effective the publicly run organizations, so privately written law would be written far better then publicly written law.
2
@Mr.Witness there’s a vary simple way to establish rules of conduct, use the old government. If we can reduce the government to law, courts, defense and make taxation voluntary then people would pay for those things, and the only way for a competitor to outstrip the well established government is to do everything the established government does better.
2
@Mr.Witness i completely agree there. Slavery corrupts and distorts societies around itself forcing them to stagnate. Rome would’ve industrialized if it didn’t practice slavery.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk the only way for these agencies to outcompete the current government is to protect private property better then the current government. Whatever the government does to establish property rights would be copied and improved upon.
1
How would it achieve a monopoly though? Edit: Can’t reply, YouTube is having a hissy fit.
1
@TomislavPuklin-wz1bl but how does one win in this game? Waging war costs lots of money, costs that would be transferred to the customer. If the costs become too much customers would switch to cheeper alternatives. No, if an Ancap state forms it’s because everyone thinks it that no other state can do any better.
1
@TomislavPuklin-wz1bl exactly, this is why you won’t see warlords. If any of these companies does start oppressing its customers then they would pay more to a another company to intervene.
1
Your misunderstanding what ancaps call coercion. If you agreed to a contract you should be upheld to that contract.
1
I don’t trust them to do the right thing, I just don’t pay them if they do the wrong thing. Simple as.
1
And Ancaps don’t believe in eliminating all coercion, but instead making all coercion something that you agreed to. In the contract you signed with your rights defense agency you agreed to be judged by the mediators they work with, if you don’t want to be judged a certain way you have to avoid rights defense agencies that work with judges that judge that certain way.
1
@bomination. yep, they tell me what to do, and I make tone of money, it’s a total steal I’m my favor. Do they think my work is really worth all that!
1
It’s corrosion that your agreed to. https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
1
It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
1
@classicalextremism mediators are the answer. If two rights defense agencies have a conflict they could either fight which is costly, or seek mediation which is not. These mediators would then set the basis of rights and the like. Now when your choosing a rights defense agency you not just choosing the rights defense agency, but also the mediators they are willing to work with.
1
@classicalextremism fortunately for me both of our rights enforcement agencies have already agreed on mediation agency for this exact reason. If you refuse then your rights enforcement agency would probably back off, whatever your paying them just isn’t worth fighting my agency.
1
@Regis1995 got to love socialists confirming that they want to enslave everyone.
1
@jerryhu4763 uh, that’s what I’m expecting, they will take the place of the government, but only after they show to people that they are better then it. The easiest way to achieve the anarcho-capitalist utopia is to reduce the current state to its most basic functions, law and defense. That reduction should reduce the tax burden to the point where people could honestly be persuaded to pay for it voluntarily. Then new organizations could pop up that do the same thing as the government. Most of the time they would follow the governments laws because they aren’t big enough to actually fight the current government, and the only way for them to become big enough is if people feel like they are doing a significantly better job then the government to the point where it’s worth switching over. All in all this guarantees that whatever organizations replace the current government will be better then the previous ones.
1
You could have a state that taxes voluntary, if everyone in the US payed 50$ a month then you could fund the judicial system and double Indias military with plenty to spare.
1
@ericc9321 na.
1
@leftistadvocate9718 the thing is, with the free market you literally do consent, it’s in the contract.
1
Yep, that’s what’s so great about it. They have to provide a service otherwise I wouldn’t pay them.
1
What are you talking about?
1
@user-ee2vt7yi3m if the state is so useful then it should be able to be work even if people could freely associate and chose to pay them.
1
@user-ee2vt7yi3m is that what your using the state for? Weird. Personally I use it to help me protect my rights but to each his own.
1
Or you could have two organizations who are trying to compete for legitimacy actually have to fight over upholding their constituents rights.
1
Exactly like the video says.
1
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk if both rights defense agencies cannot agree on an arbitration agency then they fight and both lose tons of money. They then will have to raise their prices to make back the money lost which will drive customers to their competitors who decide on arbitrators before conflict arises and so can offer cheaper services. Basically one of the big things rights defense agencies would do before offering their services to anyone is negotiating with its rivals on what arbitration agencies they will use. Thus anytime conflict does arise they don’t have to bleed and die for it.
1
⁠ @BurtReynolds-qp1jk or the loser could destroy anything of value before they lose it. I mean they have no obligations to hand it over to the person who’s literally killing them. So the winner is now losing tons of money to buy arms and pay its employees for risking their lives that is can’t make up in small amounts seized property and the few new customers.
1
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk my boy, you just told me the reason they are fighting me is to get my stuff, so if I destroy that stuff they have no reason to fight me. Like a rights defense agency might be able to do that once, but everyone would probably wizen up to what they are doing and work to create incentives to not attack them, like lining your supplies with explosives so you can destroy it in a moments notice.
1
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk I was going to lose my property anyway from the aggressive rights defense agency anyway, so destroying it doesn’t harm me. Also I think we got sidetracked, your talking about my tv? That Joe stole from me? Yeah I called up my RDA and the went over to Joe and told him to give it black. Of course Joe decided to call up his RDA and there was a stand off. For some reason instead of taking it to a mediator they stated shooting at each other. Five guys died and my RDA backed off. I was almost ready to switch to the agency made by my brother when they came buy and offered to pay me for my lost tv they couldn’t recover. Still it was annoying when the premiums went up.
1
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk yeah, which is why people will pay for RDA’s that don’t start unnecessary violence.
1
@romitkumar6272 yep, but at that point it would be agreed upon by all parties that the aggressor did trample on someone’s rights and so restitution is justified. The victim’s rights enforcement agency would seize the aggressor and exact restitution and the aggressors rights enforcement agency would stand back and not interfere.
1
@romitkumar6272 did you not read what I already wrote, they consented to it when they signed the contract with their rights defense agency. These rights defense agencies add clauses in their contracts that say they will use a neutral mediator to settle disputes with other rights defense agencies, and if you lose the case we won’t support you because the 25$ a month you pay us is not worth dying over. For the rights defense agency, if you disagree with the court case and fight against it you will find yourself alone and surrounded by enemies because everyone knows you don’t except mediation. https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
1
@blakeprice2988 what if we don’t end the state, but made taxation voluntary? Then any new organizations would have to actively be significantly better for people to switch to them.
1
@blakeprice2988 what do you think are the other parts are? The complete cessation of any form of violence and coercion? That seems unrealistic.
1
@bobthefish442 honestly the most realistic way to create Ancapistan is to reduce the scale of the current government until taxation can become completely voluntary. then competitors to the government would start poping up and if you like any of them better then you can switch.
1
@bobthefish442 the Machinery of Freedom explains how it could work pretty well.
1
It can be done thou. It just takes a while to explain.
1
@javier8015 It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
1
@javier8015 no nothing would happen if you didn’t pay, eventually once enough people stopped paying the government would leave the aria. The voluntary aspect comes in later, this is just how to transition into a voluntary government. After several competitors popped up they will start creating agreements to settle disputes between customers, mainly though the use of impartial mediator. Mediators are the ones who create the laws between the two parties, so customers would factor that in when they choose a rights defense agency. So if we ever got into conflict we would be judged by a mediator whom we both selected, and thus laws that we both chose.
1
@aleksazunjic9672 the answer to your organ harvesting operation is to pay rights defense agencies to defend you. As the threat of being killed by them increases so does the incentive to hire RDAs. Eventually it would become so expensive for the organ harvesting organization to operate that it will collapse.
1
⁠ @titanicisshit1647 simply because the corporation doesn’t control the country, and membership is voluntary.
1
@dwizzi1724 who says I have a monopoly on violence? Couldn’t there be multiple agencies who’s job is to protect the rights of the people who pay them?
1
what if we don’t end the state, but made taxation voluntary? Then any new organizations would have to actively be significantly better for people to switch to them. After it becomes standard for organizations to not subjugate people, the ones who do will see a lot of pressure to stop it. Not only would the people being subjugated pay more then the subjugator to have their rights maintained, but so would anyone outside of their rule because the threat of the subjugator to expand and take their rights would be too great. Basically a rogue organization like you describe will have to make more money from the plot of land they subjugated then their rivals do form that same plot of land plus a large radius around that.
1
@KnownNiche1999 well those are some serious problems you present, how would you make money off solving them?
1
@KnownNiche1999 everything after point 2 can be solved by creating a larger defense community. So you could have several organizations who’s main job is coordinating everyone else. If defense from invasion is something they care about the average person would pay for it. Did you know that if everyone in America paid 50$ a month we could easily pay for double India’s defense budget, and that’s just in peace time. If a war started going we would pay a lot more.
1
@KnownNiche1999 so the worst that could happen is we return to what we have now. Additionally there won’t be just one organization here, there would be dozens, so if one steps out of line people would pay the others to stop them. Like they whole job is preventing a state form taking over, which includes themselves.
1
what if we don’t end the state, but made taxation voluntary? Then any new organizations would have to actively be significantly better for people to switch to them. After it becomes standard for organizations to not subjugate people, the ones who do will see a lot of pressure to stop it. Not only would the people being subjugated pay more then the subjugator to have their rights maintained, but so would anyone outside of their rule because the threat of the subjugator to expand and take their rights would be too great. Basically a rogue organization like you describe will have to make more money from the plot of land they subjugated then their rivals do form that same plot of land plus a large radius around that.
1
what if we don’t end the state, but made taxation voluntary? Then any new organizations would have to actively be significantly better for people to switch to them. After it becomes standard for organizations to not subjugate people, the ones who do will see a lot of pressure to stop it. Not only would the people being subjugated pay more then the subjugator to have their rights maintained, but so would anyone outside of their rule because the threat of the subjugator to expand and take their rights would be too great. Basically a rogue organization like you describe will have to make more money from the plot of land they subjugated then their rivals do form that same plot of land plus a large radius around that.
1
You do know about bitcoin don’t you? It’s a decentralized logbook keeping track of ownership of an imaginary good. Saying you need a state to do this is dumb.
1
@alphana7055 they will run to their right defense agencies who will then go to mediation and nail things out there.
1
@bakters oh, it’s pretty simple, the state wasn’t dissolved completely, but instead reduced to its most basic functions of law and defense, and in doing so became affordable for the average person to voluntarily pay for.
1
@SpeedKatMcNasty and you volunteer to pay for food.
1
⁠ @nathanbeler4874 what trust? How would they create a monopoly in a way that I can’t stop by not paying them?
1
@nathanbeler4874 the Machinery of Freedom answer those questions pretty well. Basically how much the population would pay to be under a law competes against how much the population would pay to not be under that law. A rich guy could pay a thousand times what the average person does to influence law, but all it would take is for a thousand and one people to make it more profitable to for law companies use the people’s law.
1
@thomashjensen1556 the answer is violence is expensive so right enforcement agencies will go for mediation to save on costs.
1
@Cloud_Seeker depends, personally I would negotiate with the HOA for the ability to freely associate with them. If they refuse then I will find somewhere else to live.
1
@Cloud_Seeker this is a case we’re the HOA (and the government) actually owns the property and your lending it form them. The two basic ideas of anarcho-capitalism is that these organizations don’t own the property and you should be able to freely associate with them, and you consent to having your rights taken away when you breach the rights of others. In an ancapistan the HOA would have to create incentives to work with them. In most cases it would become a cheep mediation office so homeowners SPCA’s settle disputes, like if half of the neighborhood wants uniformity they could the other half, or if a tree in one persons property is hanging over another’s. In they want to give you fees they will have to own a part of the house, which then paints a clear picture on how they are going to work.
1
@Cloud_Seeker how did you turn “These organizations don’t own the property and you should be able to freely associate with them” into “the state owns everything and you will be subservient to it”? This is boggling my mind here. I’m literally saying that the state (and the HOA) will not have a claim to your time or property in ancapistan.
1
@Cloud_Seeker I was describing the current state of the world, then showing the Ancap vision. Right now we don’t actually own our property, it belongs to the state in everything but name only. In ancapistan the government/HOA would have no claim to your property, it isn’t owned by the state.
1
@Cloud_Seeker the reason meditation works in ancapistan is because if both sides fight, both sides lose. Fighting costs lots of money, costs that would be have to be put on the customer, prices hikes always drive away customers, so it’s in the best interests of all who are involved to work with mediation.
1
@randalsnyder4821 as opposed to what system of governance? If the rich want to impose their will they will have to subsidize the legal system for the rest of the ancapistan. It’s just how economics works.
1
@randalsnyder4821 the thing if a minority wants to impose rules they will have to pay for it, subsidizing the legal system for everyone else. I feel like that’s a fair trade.
1
@kylebrink9347 you would imagine that if you were being taxed that people would be willing to pay slightly more then that to overthrow the unjustified rulers. Thus providing a resource for non-coercive groups to attack coercive ones. The main reason why rights defense agencies wouldn’t fight is because death costs a lot of money.
1
@kylebrink9347 well we aren’t creating a power vacuum, the current government would be reduced to its most basic functions, thus making it possible for the common person to actually want to pay for it voluntarily. Now that the government is voluntary other organizations could pop up that do the same thing. These new organizations would have to work with the current governments laws because they are not strong enough to oppose them, the only way for them to grow large enough to challenge the government is if they show they are better then it to the average consumer. People on average won’t support an organization that’s actively worse for them.
1
@kylebrink9347 the thing is people would tend to be wiling to pay more for the protection of their rights then people would pay to take those rights. Most people would pay just enough that they aren't instantly conquered, and then after they are attacked they would pay much more.
1
If everyone pays the US government 50$ a month they could fund the Judaical system and the double the budget military of India with plenty to spare. So it’s completely doable.
1
So where does this offend AnCaps?
1
It’s actually responsibly possible to achieve, just reduce the current government to its most basic functions, after that it should be possible to make taxation voluntary, because they would be low enough for the average person to feel comfortable paying. Like if everyone paid 500 dollars a year the government would have a budget of 165,950,000,000. That should be more then enough to defend the homeland and fund the legal system. After that organizations that do what the current government provides would pop up and offer higher quality services at lower costs. Because these organizations have to compete with the current government they automatically gain a lot of legitimacy, they can’t brake the laws of the original government without becoming big enough, and they can only become big enough if the people think they are a suitable replacement.
1
@Mr.Witness in ancapistan a slave rebellion would’ve won decades earlier.
1
@Mr.Witness the rules of conduct in ancapistan is the government doesn’t own me and that if you infringe on someone’s rights you consent to your own rights being infringed. The rules are enforced by the people and the rights defense agencies they hire. Individual law is defined by arbitration agencies who compete for the most popular laws. In ancapistan you could have arbitration agencies that allow for slavery, but they have to compete with the arbitration agencies that don’t allow slavery, and those ones would get paid by everyone with an vested interest in ending slavery, not just the people who don’t want to be enslaved, but everyone who doesn’t want to compete with slave labor and the slaves themselves.
1
@Mr.Witness i would recommend reading The Machinery of Freedom, it addresses all of that. From what I understand most people don’t what their car stolen from them, so the demand for that is high and there will be lots of companies competing to fulfill that demand, reducing prices to a respectable level. Meanwhile the people who do what to steal cars would be relatively small, because if it’s legal for you to steal cars it’s also legal for other people to steal your car. Because there are less people here it becomes a luxury product, as they will have to pay off almost every other RDA to get them to use arbitration that supports stealing cars.
1