George Ought to Help
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- Crowdfunding Sex and Taxes: sexandtaxes.georgeoughttohelp...
You Can Always Leave: • You Can Always Leave
Edgar The Exploiter: • Edgar the Exploiter
You can 'Like' the George Ought to Help series on facebook: / georgeoughttohelp
0:00 Introduction
0:18 A mutual friend in need
0:42 George doesn't help
1:04 A vote
1:23 Many voters and delegated enforcement
1:42 A chain of threats and punishments, ultimately backed by deadly violence
3:16 Alternatives?
3:31 Further reading
If you'd like to make a version dubbed into another language you can download the necessary files here:
archive.org/details/GeorgeOug...
Free PDF books:
'For a New Liberty'
mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf
'The Machinery of Freedom'
www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Mac...
'Lessons for the Young Economist'
mises.org/books/lessons_for_th...
Translation credits:
Finnish - / havaitsija
Slovak - / tunecedemalis11
Dutch - Kassen / Richard Boeser
Portuguese (Brazilian) - / feritobr
Portuguese (Portugal) - www.moreirabatista.com
Italian - / mrlorenzoliber
Hebrew - / gdmk1000
Spanish - / dnihilista
Indonesian - #!/@libertarian_ina
Chinese (Tradtional and simplified) - freedomeast.com/
Estonian - / paulvahur
Lithuanian - / vytautas.bukauskas.5
Polish - libertarianizm.net
Greek - / soulthorn
Turkish - / misestr
Russian - / vparkh
French - Alexandre A. Bizri
Use this url to submit new translations:
czcams.com/users/timedtext_vide...
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 may want to pin this comment; that'll move it to the top of the comments list, rather than burying it under other comments. It'll be more visible to people when they go to post comments themselves.
I didn't find this convincing at all; the agents didn't even shoot George's dog when they took him away. You expect me to believe they're that nice?
>imagine you have a friend
This is unrelatable nonsense
Do imaginary friends count ?
Bitbutter, I'm amazed that you continue to reply to all of the same repeated (and defeated) objections posted here in the comments even 10 years later. You are a blessing to the world, and I'm glad you were born.
Likewise Bitbutter!
2:14 is totally wrong, We all know damned well the Agents would've shot that dog for laughs.
"that barrel looks shorter than 14 inches"
The mental gymnastics that people perform in order to avoid having to construct a logically sound rebuttal is incredible.
Just like in 1984, the people are conditioned to only goodthink.
Not really. I use the same roads that my taxes maintain. It not just about "helping Oliver". The real Oliver would get a pittance. I also benefit from living in a society that's relatively less crime-ridden than one in which the poverty-stricken felt they had no recourse beyond stealing my shit. The closest thing to AnCap heaven is Somalia. No thanks.
The fact that the argument has to be set up as an analogy instead of an actual representation is also mental gymnastics.
In which of the situations shown in the video, if any, do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence to get him to do the right thing?
In the situation NOT shown in the video, where George was born into a specific group of friends who have a rule to help each other out in times of need. You abide by the rules while George, who's also had 18+ years to learn of the existence of that rule, suddenly decides he'd rather let the whole social construct crumble than pay up a small part of his income. Even though most 'George's' would have taken he money were they the ones to get into trouble, meaning they were indirectly benefiting from the rule.
George votes to change the rules, but the majority doesn't agree. Now George has to deal with the consequences set to ensure everyone delivers equally, after which he should leave the group of friends. That or he should have left before unfairly taking advantage of its rules. George can go to Africa and live purely for himself until he dies of starvation thanks to a plague of equally selfish rodents eating his crops.
I have not paid the federal income tax in 14 years. I take my witholdings down to zero and claim exempt, so that no money comes out of my check. On April 15th, I do not file.
I have been threatened, and told I will be audited. I even had an IRS agent tell me over the phone that the IRS had sent me notices for years that I owe. and when I pointed out that notices do not constitute evidence, they told me, "Well no ones going to come after you, the IRS has bigger fish to fry!"
The man had no answer when I asked what would happen when the IRS runs out of big fish.
Any update on this?
Still the GOAT handout to statists.
George would be happy to help if the state didn't take half his paycheck
Tin TinEcon "George would probably be in exactly the same position as he was before."
Unlikely.
Consider that there'd be no such thing as Imperialist war machine inc. or War on drugs inc (or any other firm that made it's business to enforce laws against victimless 'crimes'). Consider too the enormous cost of an ever expanding bureaucratic class that the status quo creates. Consider also that we know that the competitive provision of goods and services tends to result in a dramatically improved price/quality ratio. Bearing all these things in mind, George would likely be in a very different position to the one he's in when he's compelled by force to pay taxes.
Tin TinEcon "Last time I checked the majority still opposed legalising hard drugs so drug use very well may remain a crime in a lot of places."
No. And I explained this to you already. Please pay closer attention this time: Under democracy you don't pay a personal premium for the laws you 'choose', so you're incentivised to choose for more expensive-to-enforce laws than you otherwise would be--knowing that if implemented, the cost will be spread across the entire population (including those who do not want the law).
Would the war on drugs continue at its current magnitude if it were funded by voluntary contributions alone? it's a rhetorical question.
"Some things are natural monopolies."
The issue here is specifically coercive monopolies: in which competition is not merely at a disadvantage relative to an established firm, but is artificially prevented from even attempting to compete through threats of violence. There are no natural coercive monopolies. And what you're calling natural monopolies are still (absent the state) under economic pressure from potential competitors (good for consumers), even if actual ones do not yet exist.
"At least under the current system Oliver survives."
You're employing a double standard. I told you about this already too. Don't do it again. Whether under anarchy or representative democracy, Oliver survives only if there is a critical mass of people willing to help him. You don't get to assume that this help will exist under democracy but not under anarchy without explaining why.
Tin TinEcon
"George would probably be in exactly the same position as he was before."
You're stretching a bit on this "probably", since these services weren't a state monopoly, competition and private operations would make them cheaper and better. Not to mention only a small portion of the current govt budget goes to these basic services, the majority is wasted in redistribution and pyramid schemes, unnecessary wars, stolen to special interests, and outright wasted. George was raised to the status of trader (consumer) instead of a subject, he wouldn't be forced to pay for all this.
In any case, two differences are certain and fundamental, for any civilized person that observes the non-aggression principle:
- No one pointed a gun at his face, or threatened to do so
- He had a direct CHOICE regarding the spending of with own damn money
Tin TinEcon
"Last time I checked the majority still opposed legalizing hard drugs so drug use very well may remain a crime in a lot of places"
It would probably be better not to use as an example something that is intrinsically a crime, like using coercion to suppress the use of a certain consumable product. Any defense agency that tries to enforce this against unwilling parties would be a criminal organization.
In any case, the key here is volunteerism: if someone WANTS to fund a certain current govt program, then he could do so in a market. If taxes were abolished and everyone spent their money in the exact same way the govt did, it would be absurd to say nothing changed.
The key change here is that now no one is using coercion to direct this, the arrangement is voluntary and dissenters are not threatened with a shot in the face.
Or think of it this way: I buy water, a portion of my property will always go to buying water. I choose how, what, and from whom I buy, this is the voluntary arrangement. If just for the fun of it some thug attacked me every day on my way to work, put a gun in my face, and took my water money, would it be any less of a crime if he said "dont worry, I'll send you the exact amount of water you were going to buy, I'm just stealing for fun".
Not the best analogy but you get the point, George would not be in "exactly the same position as he was before".
Tin TinEcon
Between social security, medicare/medicaid, an overbloated and unnecessary defense department (and its wars), and interest on govt debt we have around 70% of the current budget. These are all redistribution, pyramid schemes, or other types of spending that you wouldn't need if you had a market for these basic services you mentioned.
When you mention the roads you're talking about just one of the services Goerge would have to pay in the market instead of the govt, I take it that you understand the other services would benefit from competition and private management. But even with roads, the businesses will have an interest to maximize read usage, idle lanes would be unprofitable, so instead of a scary price jack the most likely scenario is that they will price it in such a way to maximize road throughput and traffic flow. In any case, private business pave new roads and build new train tracks all the time, for longer distances there will always be alternative routes (and hence competition). Read 'The Privatization of Roads and Highways' by Walter Block.
We can disagree on the exact item to count in from the current budget, or what services would be cheaper, but the point is that George wouldn't be in "exactly the same position as he was before". Far from it.
I am seeing a lot of people falling back on "but what about the state?" and "but what about the fire department?" or "what about the roads?"
They're still missing the fundamental point. Is it ok to threaten violence in order to build the roads? Is it ok to threaten violence in order to fund the fire department? Is it ok to threaten violence to pay for all the bureaucratic machinery of the state? If you think the answer is "Yes", then just come out and say it. Tell us how you think it is ok to hold a gun to a person's head to force them to give you money. If you think that it isn't ok, then it doesn't really matter what the reasons for extracting the money are. If it isn't done voluntarily, it is meaningless violence.
Thanks Bitbutter! I've watched this video many times over the years and the common sense and simple explanations can help anyone be a Voluntaryist!
Pure Socratic logic. I love it
"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
~ Lysander Spooner, 1870
The false thing is that they didn't shoot the little dog.
I caught that, too. They didn't kill the dog ?!
Still the best video on CZcams.
There are a lot of things one can say to try and make it seem less bad that George is being threatened. In particular, people argue that George benefits from society. All of these points are completely *beside* the relevant point. The relevant question is not complicated: would you, in this case, be comfortable punching George in the face repeatedly and taking his money from him? If you say no to yourself, then you need to think about any support you have for similar laws in society, which threaten the world's Georges with violence if they refuse to pay. All further equivocations are irrelevant. This is the question to be addressed.
+Philippe James
Yes, all property is backed by a threat of violence. For example, if we say that the watch on my wrist is legitimately my property, that means that if someone tried to take it from me without my permission, I would be justified in using lethal force, if necessary to stop them.
But the particular example of violence discussed in the film is different because it is NOT legitimate. The state has no more right to take your watch than the mugger does. If you disagree, then please answer bitbutter's question. In which scenario is it ok to threaten George with violence?
Philippe James "If necessary"
+Philippe James My point is really about the fundamental ethical basis of property. I'm not saying that owning a thing makes it ok to go around killing people ;)
Similarly, when we say that the state is a manifestation of a death threat, we are not talking about officers of the state going around shooting people on sight (a lot people think that is what we mean); we are talking about the fundamental ethical basis of the state.
So, the question remains: is it ok to threaten George?
+Philippe James The "all property claim is a threat of violence" argument is basic logical nonsense. The burden of proof is _always_ on the active claim. The claim of property is not established by violence but by the work needed to produce said property/homesteading/work provided for consideration of some medium of exchange(currency)/etc.
To then make a claim on the property would not _require_ violence, but to demonstrate a valid claim. "This is mine because i made it with my own hands vs this is mine because (insert claim here). These arguments do not state a higher claim to the property than the individual who worked for said property.
Therefore, the logical nonsense and jargon have to rationalize that ALL claim to property is violence when in reality the civil discourse step is ignored by the ignorant and sinister.
donnie gebert "The claim of property is not established by violence"
"Established", no. Underpinned, yes. But there's a difference between legitimate and illegitimate violence: hence the distinction between 'assault' and 'self-defence'.
If you personally hold your friend's decision to not help George vile and intolerable, then ostracize him. It's a much more powerful tool than brute force, and does not in any way violate the non aggression principle.
+Avram Neal That doesn't always work. See: "Internet Trolls"
What's sad is that most libertarians are classical libertarians who are still under the illusion some state is necessary. As if nothing existed before government, as of free markets didn't exist before government, as if prosperous societies didn't exist before government.
They didn't.
The very first human cities in Mesopotamia were only possible because of the creation of a state. You may be referring to hunter gatherer societies or local tribes. They were some kind of "natural" state in their own right aswell. With leaders/chiefs redistributing the spoils of whatever they gathered, hunted or later farmed.
The concept of a state is as old as the written word. In fact writing itself was invented as a way to efficiently gather taxes as before that it was a lot more arbitrary. As soon as larger groups of people start living together and especially as soon as they start living in large enough numbers in a small enough space that that local core community consumes more food then they as individuals or as a groupcan produce themselves you have, by definition a city as part of a larger state or a city as a state in it's own (including nearby smaller farm communities).
"Most of us feel uncomfortable about threatening peaceful people when we imagine having to make the threats ourselves. If we feel negatively towards the idea of threatening George personally, can we really be comfortable with the threats made toward him by agents of the state."
Replace "threatening peaceful people" with "killing an innocent animal" and replace the agents of the state with Tysons chicken, and I think it works as well. I see a real connection between the non-aggression principle / libertarian ideals and ethical vegetarianism, and the connection can basically be summed up as "peace".
(Kinda funny how some of my libertarian friends see me as a crazy vegan, and my vegetarian friends see me as a crazy libertarian, while to me they are just two sides of the same bitcoin!)
I hope to live to see a day when this video is no longer relevant
You won't. Sadly.
I AM SO GLAD THAT I FOUND THIS CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WELCOME! GLAD YOU LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!
Excellent video. I wish we lived in a free world.
I'm currently crowdfunding a new animation called Sex and Taxes. You can learn more at the campaign page: sexandtaxes.georgeoughttohelp.com/
A classic.
Haven’t seen a single comment that can dispute anything said, well done.
It's quite easy to, if oliver doesn't work enough to feed his family than Noone should have to help them. but the way goergoe made his money isn't looked at as well. If the money is above most than he probably in some way took money from others either through labor exploit or indifferent forms of it. This video subjects to ignore those factors obviously that's the point of capitalism, ignore the problem.
BattleClan you can comment that to bitbutter, see what they say. They normally respond to arguments.
"labor exploit"
the relationship between worker and employer is mutually exploitative (they use the other as a means to achieve their own ends). and both are better off for it. so exploitation, in this sense, isn't wrongdoing. it's helping another in order to help yourself. The more exploitation of this kind, the better!
@@bitbutter mutual exploitation would mean that the exchange is in actuality set to be equal, and I do not disagree with that inheritely, I'd rather say that the workers side is blended out to seeing the other side. Away from all the rethorical stuff, the bourgeois, owning the means of production, in most attended jobs actually exploit their workers, considering they do not fully integrate their work as wealth for them to be received,instead the wealth is unequally distributed. I do see that as a problem but what id consider worse is the globalization of capitalist markets working their favors in other countries with different economic systems and situations, legal exploitation which isn't consensual (practically its never consensual to an extend as its a necessity to work), but these cases are also important to look at. I know the last point was off topic but I think it's good to bring up while talking about economic issues! Thanks for the reply as well, love the animation and the work put into this although I do not agree with the way they're presented.
@@battleclan7962 Mutual exploitation is an exchange here both benefits. That's a good thing. We should do more of those.
How can voluntary work not be mutually beneficial? What would be the mechanism for that? If you don't gain, don't accept the job. Simple. An offer can't ever be exploitative since you can always say "no thanks".
What is exploitative is government stealing 50% of your wage. But I rarely hear anyone mention that from the left side of the aisle.
What a cute blue British cloud.
Ah, good ol' reason. The bane of statists.
Why is that cloud talking?
George ought to stop taking LSD.
@Jeremy Hoffman said "Tax collectors don't necessarily use violence. I think that the situation sounds much more reasonable if we assume that, if George doesn't use force against the agents, they will not hurt him. Government officials are (generally) instructed to inflict as little harm as possible. The gun and baton will probably not come into play if he is really "peaceful"; only the handcuffs, if that. Also, the 3rd scenario does not sound bad--only the first and possibly the second."
George has 3 responses to the tax collocter.
1. Resist violently, and probably get killed by the State.
2. Resist peacefully, then end up in prison while the government steals your property to pay off your taxes.
3. Knowing the above, any sane person will just peacefully pay the government extortion, since they don't want to end up in prison or dead.
Without the threat of the first, George could just resist violently, and get away without paying the government extortion. This is why taxes require deadly force.
I wish there was a love button on this!
This video is so well produced.
"Well, my reasoning for thinking that the state owns the land is pretty much because that's the reality we're facing."
The problem is that by the same reasoning, if the mafia was successfully dominating a small town, that would make the mafia the rightful owner of that territory. It doesn't seem like you believe this is the case though. So it looks like you're making an (imo unwarranted) exception for the state.
#Taxes are coercion threats!
bitbutter is best butter
bitbutter you have my admiration and applause. Your patience answering people who refuse to think for themselves is nothing short of legendary. Please keep up the hard work and i will too. Incrementally we will work towards a free society.
Exactly! Great video!
D3Barbaari share it!
Andkon arcade brought me here.
+Joe Joseph I must say I was shocked when I took the time to read the links. Did not expect them to send people to FreeDomainRadio and here. A very pleasant surprise.
I've had academics - so called "intellectuals" - delete me from my online dating list after political discussion lead me to referring this video. Lol. Damn cognitive dissonance.
Glad you liked it! Keep an eye out for the next in the series (facebook page is the first link in the info box).
The question has two parts. Please read it carefully again before answering:
Hypothetical: Person A can be saved by a transplant one of person B's kidneys. Assume that we knew both persons would survive the operation and live normal lives thereafter. Person B does not consent to the operation.
Do you believe that person B is coercing person A by refusing his consent? If not, why not?
dint these comments makes me feel like Nobody paid attention to the context and just made it sound to themselves the way they wanted to hear it. Politics depress me. And for good reason. Threatening violence on someone is definitely wrong. Even if you don't know them. Even if you don't trust them either. Why the hell are you making strangers give you money anyway? I mean I have no money. I don't make any money. I live on food stamps. Which means I am one of those people "Taking money from George." What most people would do is try to keep that subject covered up. Because a lot of people like me rely on stuff like that. But I don't really like it. I would much prefer making my own money and not relying on a plastic card with numbers on it.
Nobody is going to listen to this because everyone hates change at all time every time. Nobody can handle change and everyone is selfish. I knowingly throw this out as a blanket statement because it is entirely true. Everything you do is always for yourself. Think about it, every time you help someone out. You do it because it makes you feel like a good person. Not because it is the nice thing to do. But because the fact that it is a nice thing to do makes you feel nice. Pulling someone out of a burning building is not only awesome and what most would call "Heroic." But the fact that you get called a hero. It would feel great.
I hate taking sides in any argument especially online because it means I have to be involved with the most stubborn people on earth and it stresses me out. I kinda wish everyone would just smoke weed and chill the fuck out.
Voluntarism provides no solution to the tragedy of the commons problem. Selfish people are rewarded by that system at the cost of honest people. Governments were built in part to deal with that problem and succeeded at it, if you're part of a society, everyone has the same obligations for each other.
Now, governments didn't evolve in decades and deserve a lot of criticism. This system if full of flaws and often highly inefficient in it's current form. Innovative and sometime disruptive ways of re-thinking the system are desperatly needed. Voluntarism is a very nice and simple concept that works great in many cases, but it's just not a working solution when it comes to the problem of protecting common goods and services.
If only territories weren't scarce, anyone could freely create different societies with different policies and let them compete in a free market. This being said, this video failed to mention that people aren't coerced to stay in a particular country if they disagree, just like George doesn't ought to help.
_"Voluntarism provides no solution to the tragedy of the commons problem"_
The term 'tragedy of the commons' was coined to describe how, in the absence of private property, commonly owed/used resources deplete. The term 'voluntarism' just means a system of private property. So voluntarism is _in itself_ a solution to the tragedy of the commons!
_"Governments were built in part to deal with that problem"_
Regardless of the _intentions_ behind the 'building' of governments, governments *are not* an antidote to selfish people being rewarded by the system at the cost of honest people. In fact the government is *the embodiment* of that problem!
_"[Voluntarism is] not a working solution when it comes to the problem of protecting common goods and services."_
Again, 'voluntarism' is a system of private property. To the extent that a society's legal framework is voluntarist, there are no common goods and services. If you are talking about environmental issues, conservation of wildlife and so on, then I can see why you would be skeptical, but I assure you this issue is addressed in voluntarist theory. See Walter Block for starters.
_"If only territories weren't scarce"_
The whole benefit of having private property as the legal basis of society is that it deals more efficiently and more ethically with the problem of scarcity than any other system.
_"this video failed to mention that people aren't coerced to stay in a particular country if they disagree"_
You're begging the question. You're assuming that the state has the right to give people that ultimatum. Bitbutter made a follow-up to this film entitled "You Can Always Leave", which addresses this very issue.
Here's a question for you: In which of the scenarios in the film do you think it's ok to threaten George with violence?
J. Promoting private property over common goods is actually avoiding the question of protecting common goods. Privatisation isn't a magic powder that fixes all problems on earth, quite the contrary. We often all lose of a result of privatisation, and privatisation helps the creation of massive monopolies. At the same time, privatisation provides incentives for entrepreneurs and is at the core of the most fundamental human rights. Nothing is all black or white.
Like many others you seem to be thinking your political ideology is an ideal, I am inclined to say this is probably one of the biggest issue in politic. This narrow-minded partisan thinking fails to acknowledge the complexity of the world.
Even the slightest difference in the actual implementations of any idea, or any unexpected event, can have important consequences that will influence the result of any political / social / economic experiment. In each particular case, different politics might provide better results. I am of those you believe the world would be a better place if people didn't blindlessly abide to politic like religion.
> Here's a question for you: In which of the scenarios in the film do you think it's ok to threaten George with violence?
I've noticed you're using this one quite a lot to make people feel like they're "promoting violence", good propaganda :) Not completely wrong either. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't think George ought to help his friend. Yet, I have no problem if George is liable to pay his taxes and must fact consequences of not meeting his obligations for as long as these obligations apply to every citizen, he can leave if he disagree, and as far as he can meet his obligations (and only refuses to do it so for his personal gain).
Does that mean I think the current system isn't over-taxed or over-regulated?
No.
Does that mean I think people shouldn't disobey or protest if they think some policy is bad enough to deserve resistance?
No.
...And so on...
ugh, whatever dude.
If you're comfortable with the state carrying out violence in your name, then just say it.
Paul Pegg Socialism is cause for the tragedy of the commons problem. There's an actual financial incentive to preserve resources when an individual owns them, but none when they're owned by the "collective"
Please be specific. In which of the situations shown in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
In which of the scenarios shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
These videos are awesome.
God damn it, help george out! where do I donate?
You can make a Bitcoin Cash donation, or become a patron here! www.patreon.com/tomaszkaye
this video needs about 30 million more views.
Highest anticipated sequel ever.
I own myself, and no one else. Each of you own yourselves, and no one else. I own my labor. because it is the product of my LIMITED time on earth, and the sweat of MY own muscles, not yours. Money is a measurement of that limited labor and limited time to produce during my short lifetime, which I own. You own your labor as well. and no one else's. Also remember that Money=Freedom. So if someone takes money from you, (by force without your consent) they are not just stealing your time, your labor, or your limited capability to produce... but they are also stealing YOUR FREEDOM. These 'first principles of morality' are very simple to understand and are only objected to by evil people. You may not realize that you are evil for suggesting that you can rightfully steal from me... but you are.
BTW---- for those who do not know... EVIL is the destruction of freedom. (and people who steal the time, the sweat, the labor, the money, the earned personal production of others, without their consent--- are destroying that person's freedom through the theft, and are committing an act of evil.)
mydogjesus I disagree, I don't think people who advocate government are evil. I think they've had a blind-faith belief smashed into their head since before they could talk, and it takes a lot to free them from their indoctrination
+mydogjesus I really hope you don't drive on roads that are paid for by other peoples labor.
+Will Tye it was already there. It's not my fault other people before me fucked it up.
But exactly because of you have your limited time on Earth and limited amount of labor, you can't do everything by yourself. You might even _know_ how to make things you use every day, but that's no help by the limited time you have. The same goes with inventions and science. You can never reach the full potential alone.
Do you prefer "everybody owns their own labor" just as an ideology, or do you wish to live according to it? You have a right to turn your back for group power, but it's nothing more than romantic ideology for most of us (if not talking about tribe families or isolated farming societies). You might feel you were entitled to feel "free" (and that it was fair to everyone and stuff). But that's just an illusion - an illusion which only the "wealth" ones can even think of. Today's "wealth" societies exist exactly because of someone's labor is valued more high than someone else's (same job is more or less valuable depending on where you happen to live and who you are). You wouldn't have your car, clothes etc. for _affordable_ price, if it wasn't manufactured somewhere where labor is not seen as valuable individual resource as it was in your country. You owe labor, time and freedom to people around the world (thanks to globalization). I find it funny every time a (relatively) rich person finds a reason to complain about taxes, because of a person who's not willing to pay taxes, most probably wasn't willing to pay a fair price for the products they use either. So they're telling they owe nothing to anybody, yet limiting the freedom of others all the time. In the end of the day, most of (the rich) people - most probably you included - wouldn't appreciate the kind of "freedom" you're talking about. If they did, you wouldn't have your freedom to go to a store and buy everything you want.
That said, I of course know nothing about your personal life. I'm only criticizing the ideology - it's absurd compared to reality.
I think gorge could give some of him mony but if he does not then it is choice to do with his money has he see fit threatening to take it from George is just plain theft
"I would also declare water, air, food and shelter as "basic human rights", leading to a situation where stealing water, food and shelter would not be considered illegitimate if no other option exists."
If you declare something a right, generally it means that the use of force is justified in enforcing that right. The trouble with positive rights like the ones you mention is that they are incompatible with the foundational negative right of peaceful people not to be threatened with force.
In which of the scenarios depicted in the video (if any) do you believe it's acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
Amazingly well done. Please, make more.
Thanks! I'm working on it. If you feel like supporting me in that you might take a look at my patreon page www.patreon.com/tomaszkaye or my hatreon page hatreon.net/bitbutter/
George benefits from the infrastructure and services provided by the agency, which is funded by these scary bills... if George doesn't like also getting bills that he feels are forceful then George should 'do one' and leave the civilization that functions on these principles. George has every right, opportunity and freedom to go and join an eco-village or haven of some sort, or go to another country.
I will start respecting sovereign citizens when they stop using tax funded roads, benefiting from protection of the police/military etc
in which of the scenarios shown do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
'leave the civilisation that...'
This suggestion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the threats made against George are morally acceptable. See my video 'You can always leave' for more.
+bitbutter I see you've asked a lot of other people that. I personally don't think every single political issue can be summed up with a simplified analogy and there is no good 1:1 solution in the context of this abstract scenario. I'll give it a go though... Let's say george is using services (including passively such as stuff like emergency services and national protection) that oliver, his friend (you) us other peers have been contributing to but refuses to contribute to himself or would rather not contribute to when the situation doesnt directly benefit himself at that time... george should probably be asked a few times to also pitch in, if not then george should be ostracized... if it got to the point that george absolutely would not leave and/or stop using services provided by 'the community' then george should at that point be forcibly removed. I'll check out your other video though! I have personally left my native country (UK) and have no regrets.
I will say that i think it is immoral if george has no possibility or opportunity to leave the community that functions through taxation, though... if he will be followed up for taxes even if he tries to live in an eco village where he trades apples for corn, or they use their own proprietary currency.
+Will Tye "there is no good 1:1 solution in the context of this abstract scenario"
I thought the scenarios were all pretty concrete.
"Let's say george is using services (including passively such as stuff like emergency services and national protection) that oliver, his friend (you) us other peers have been contributing to"
The question is specifically about welfare wealth transfer: funds expropriated from George under the ultimate threat of deadly force, and given to Oliver. In which of the situations show do these threats become acceptable in your view?
George was offered no choice. he was born into this "paradise of infrastructure " so he's essentially a slave to government from birth to buy everyone else infrastructure. even if George is self sufficient and doesnt use the infrastructure.
In which (if any) of the situations desrcibed in the video do you believe it's acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
Do you believe in objective truth?
i dont
all value is subjective.
Phenomenal Video. I like how it doesn't simply assert that we shouldn't force George; it just says if you believe A, then following that reasoning you would also logically have to believe B. I'd say Tax= Theft, so long as we don't have the ability to easily relocate to a different community.
It’s the socratic method. The issue though is that the base premise is false.
Great video that shows the immorality behind all taxation
I agree with you that taxation is problematic and that a low tax is preferable, but don't you think that the state should ensure some "basic safeties" for all people? Such as that everyone regardless of the economy of their parents should have the opportunity to go to school, at least until they are old enough to take responsibility for a loan?
"don't you think that the state should ensure some "basic safeties" for all people?"
No. Those services are too important to be trusted to a state.
See czcams.com/video/jTYkdEU_B4o/video.html for more.
Okay, thank you for answering. Interesting with a clear "No". Don't you agree with my education example? If not, how would education work in a stateless society?
"everyone regardless of the economy of their parents should have the opportunity to go to school,"
School, as we know it, is overrated. Legacy schooling is largely a waste of time. But - like you - I would like everyone to have access to good education. Where we differ is that i don't believe it's morally acceptable to threaten anyone with violence to fund this access. Helping out those unable to finance things for themselves (or their children) is the proper role of private charity, given voluntarily.
Experimentation in education would be much more intense in a stateless society. Right now most schools run systems very similar to the imperial prussian system designed to crank out factory workers and soldiers. We can do much better than that. I'd expect to see many more establishments run like todays democratic schools instead (alternativestoschool.com/articles/democratic-schools/), as well as new models that no one has imagined yet.
To be honest, I learned much more reading books in a library (many of which are supported by only donations) than I ever learned in school.
So in which of the situations depicted in the video (if any) do you believe it's acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
In which if the situations shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten violence against George to get him to help out a third party in need?
How can this video only have 275k views. Cuz I shared this like a million times ^^
Anyone from Andkon?
yes
In which of the scenarios shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
In which of the situations described in the video (if any) do you think it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
You are puting taxation as if it was giving out all to charity. What if you mention that George uses paved roads, walks in nice streets with traffic lights and trees, and has a fire department which protects his house. All of these are paid by the state. If you make taxation voluntary to pay for these basic necessary things there would be tons of free riders and everyone would be worst off.
+Isauro López "You are puting taxation as if it was giving out all to charity"
Not at all. Please assume that I'm _only_ talking about the portion of taxation used for welfare.
In which scenario shown in the video, if any, is it acceptable to threaten George with violence?
"paved roads, walks in nice streets with traffic lights and trees, and has a fire department which protects his house."
Is it _impossible_, in your view, that these things could exist without threats of violence being maintained against against peaceful people to fund them? (taxation)
There is no such thing as voluntary taxation. Taxation is a buzz word for theft, and theft is not voluntary. What makes the free riders you speak of any different than a common shop lifter we see today? I don't see you screaming for the state monopolization of the grocery store industry, or the mall, or electronics, or cars, or anything like that, so what's the difference?
You don''t know what a buzz word means. Taxation is an euphemism for theft.
Actually it's both. But euphemism is a better word, I agree :) .
Rendering services and then demanding payment without a prior agreement is unethical.
I don't claim to have an objective opinion like the anarcho-capitalists do, but how do you get your objective morals? i get my morals from human sympathy and compassion. Is violence objectively wrong if it has good consequences? Countries like Norway and Sweden have the happiest people in the world and these are countries that guarantee their people basic healthcare and welfare for the unemployed. Anarcho- Capitalists want the freedom to let the poor live in misery. I don't think property rights are more important than fucking human suffering or bad health, and that's my opinion. I'm nether right nor wrong, just compassionate, as most people are
SepehrMirzaei Lots of straw men in your post. Here we go:
"I don't claim to have an objective opinion like the anarcho-capitalists do"
Opinions are inherently subjective. Can you show an example of an advocate of anarcho-capitalism claiming otherwise?
"but how do you get your objective morals?"
I don't. No one does. Morals are (inter)subjective. Moral facts do not exist in my view (moral nihilist).
"Countries like Norway and Sweden [snip]"
Assuming your claims are correct, correlation doesn't establish causation. It's possible that countries currently leaning further towards socialism than then have in their pasts are burning up the leftovers of the prosperity they grew into during more laissez faire periods in their history.
"Anarcho- Capitalists want the freedom to let the poor live in misery."
I want the poor to have the freedom to do all they can to improve their condition (including receiving help from others, voluntarily given), without myriad state enforced barriers in their way. Don't you?
"I don't think property rights are more important than fucking human suffering or bad health,"
Do you think it'd be acceptable, then, to murder one unpopular person if you knew that their organs (harvested without their consent) could save ten well-loved people? (assume you knew no one would find out about the crime) To me the answer is no--this runs counter to my moral intuition, which says that the unpopular man's exclusive right to determine how his body may be used (ie his property rights) should be respected.
What do you say, yes or no to the murder? and why?
#1. I agree with you although i'm a humanist. However Stephan molyneux and Adam kokesh seem to think their morality is objective.
#2. I would surely prefer that the poor are helped voluntary, however I think that if the extremely wealthy don't want to help then they should have some of their wealth taken
#3. yeah sure, but whether or not social democratic policy could ever work is another question
#4. ok this one is a bit of a moral dilemma, so yeah depending on my frame of mind i'd probably say it was wrong because my intuition says so. however i can give you an example of when a lot of people would see my side. so your daughter is drowning but you can't swim, in fact if you tried you'd drown as well, then you see a man with a rope and some sort of floating device. but he won't let you use it. so you can either chose between taking it or letting your daughter drown. do you see my point?
I do see your point, it's just that most anarcho-capitalists don't see anyone elses
SepehrMirzaei "so you can either chose between taking it or letting your daughter drown. do you see my point?"
In my view, this is an instance in which it is morally permissible to steal the guy's things, _and_ the owner of those things has a right to protect his property using force if necessary.
Situations like this one (often grouped in the category 'lifeboat situations') are useful for illustrating the difference between rights and morality. This article is pretty good: dailyanarchist.com/2013/01/09/expanding-on-rothbards-lifeboat-situations/#more-7543
Here's a relevant excerpt:
"A libertarian answer hinges upon the distinction between rights and morality.A right is an enforceable claim that every human being has against others in society. Because individuals own themselves, they have an enforceable claim to the peaceful use of their bodies and all property peacefully acquired thereby. The rights carry a corresponding duty to respect the equal freedom of others.But not every peaceful action is moral. People lie about adulterous affairs, they are cruel to animals, they verbally humiliate children. Or a man could buy an artistic masterpiece for the purpose of destroying it. None of the foregoing are violations of right but I consider them all to be immoral. Or, as Rand would phrase it, they are “anti-life.”The key difference; natural rights tells people that they are free to use their bodies in any peaceful manner; morality tells them which specific peaceful acts they should choose in order to lead a fulfilling or moral life. You should not lie, you should not be gratuitously cruel, you should not destroy for the sake of destruction."
I get your point, just approach ethics differently.so what you're saying is that people should have the right to do moral wrong ( i think) i could accept that for most aspects of life, like marriage, and being rude. however, since i don't accept the natural right of self ownership absolute property rights. i don't think it's valid when people's lives rest on the goodwill of the wealthy. I think that the common good and utility of everyone can trump somones right to property.
It's not clear how your question relates to the questions posed in the video. In which of the scenarios in the film do you consider it okay to threaten George with violence?
In which of the situations shown in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten violence against your (ex) friend to get them to help a third party?
I imagine if you throw this wrench into the works, that George is a billionaire, that would cause a split. Some people who were previously against forcing George to help Oliver might change their mind. Just ask a Bernie supporter.
What if you vote for agents to not just threaten physical force against George to force him to help Oliver, but a majority of your fellow citizens vote to threaten physical force against EVERYONE to force them to help Oliver. That probably makes it a lot less ghastly for some people. "We aren't just threatening George... EVERYONE who doesn't help Oliver gets threatened". Some people view this as more acceptable.
That is literally the point of this video. People think it's acceptable to force faceless groups of people to help Oliver when they would find it completely unacceptable if the force was applied to an individual with a face and a name.
Hypothetical:
Part 1
George is fishing off a pier alongside a 9yr old girl he doesn't know. She slips & falls in. George watches with mild interest as she struggles to breathe, tread water & begs for help. George simply watches her drown instead of tossing the lifesaver float just to his left.
(see part 2)
Can you be more specific? In which of the scenarios depicted (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your friend with violence to get them to help out a third party in need?
Yes, it's okay to agree that we have a society. As the video say most people pay the bills without protest. Because most people see the benefit of having a society, with democracy and human rights to food, water, home and education.
And you're saying that people should be forced to pay them--have their lives threatened? Perhaps the government does provide certain benefits, but it's totally immoral to force people to "buy" these benefits when they might not want them or need them.
You forgot war,200 thousand dollar salaries,police brutality and shitty authoritarian schools
In which of the situations shown in the video, if any, do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence to get him to do the right thing?
Lassə
The government is a force-funded monopoly of these services. Even if there is no law against competing in the same market as the government it has a huge advantage over private competitors. How well do monopolies work to serve their customers, even ones whose employees can occasionally be replaced? Don't people hate monopolies because their service is terrible and they can charge whatever they want without fear?
Also, people don't have a 'right' to food, water, housing, or education. Where do you get that idea from?
he problem here is a fallcy of composition. Thinking that large group dynamics is essentially scaled up versions the same as small group ones.
In a small group of freinds and peers there are always bad consequences to falling to particpate courteously and generously in the group. People get kicked out of the group subtly or explicitly, there may well be reprisals in terms of loss of cooperation and reciprocity. Small groups do not need to resort to violence to police antisocial behavior except in extreme cases, since we have biological and cultural checks on that behavior. In fact in many small isolated communities in which a harsh environement causes interdepndence, extreme and insane levels of generosity (potlatching) are the primary means of social competition.
Scale this up to the large society, and those checks disappear. Someone fails to help the group, they still have all teh same benefits as those that are altruists. They still by products at the same price, still are able to accrue teh benefits of charity, still can find jobs, and still sell things, still can get housing, still benefit from others killing dangerous animals, talking about hazards or sharing solutions to problems.
Charity, is no longer a good thing that strengthens the society for the benefit of all, but instead an effective tax on empathy and conscience making the best people unfit.
Experiments in economics reveal that things are even worse. When a system that allows cooperation and cheating is allowed to function without any possibility of punishment, not only do the most greed and selffish cheat, but other people adapt to the freedoaders and in not to long 95% of the population is cheating dragging down the whole economy. Freedom from responsibility to society means that everyone must become exploitive and selffish just to keep up.
Finally, if you need to look at this from a deontological standpoint. George benefits from an educated society. He counts on kids growing up to be doctors, engineers, and others. If he fails to contribute to the education of the generation he will depnd on later, he is freeloading off the fact that other people will.
michalchik "The problem here is a fallcy of composition. Thinking that large group dynamics is essentially scaled up versions the same as small group ones."
The dynamics might very well be different. So: In which scenario (if any) does it become acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
"George benefits from an educated society. "
You're relying on the implicit unfounded assumption that only a state can create an 'educated society'.
"If he fails to contribute to the education of the generation he will depnd on later, he is freeloading off the fact that other people will."
If i enslave you in order to build a dam (assume the whole community benefits from the completed project) and you find a way to escape the slave labour, by escaping you are, by your own reasoning, 'freeloading' on the work of the other slaves. Notice that even if 'freeloading' is a sensible term to use in these situations, you've done nothing to legitimise threats of violence against peaceful people.
1) When your former freind is behaving like a parasitic psychopath and undermining the society in a way that threatens the wel beings and lives of everyone. How much would a former freind have to keep stealing from you before you used violence or other social sanction to get him to stop?
2) No i am actually not assuming anything about education here. Education is one field I have studied and i know its history well. There has never been a society that sucessfully modernized without a broad education system supported with taxes or other forms of coercive contributions. You can see this in societies as radically different as emperial Britain, the byzatine empire, fronteir america Napoleonic france, post Meiji Japan, Bismark's Germany, Post Revolution Russia, and on. In those few cases where countries or societies have rolled back support of education, the professional classes and skilled manufacturing has collapsed. Education has MASSIVE positive externalities and long payoff horizon's which are two things market economies handle poorly.
3) Already addressed. but let me ask this question of you. If someone tries to steal your money, knocks down your house, camps out on your land, or tries to kill your dog, would you use violence to control their behavior or kill them? If so why? They have not used violence against you?
There is a kind of autistic insensibility I see in a lot of libertarains that fail to recognize that we are an obligate social species, we create nothing of real or enduring worth outside the context of society. Alone in the wild, without the context of the tribe, we are helpless and inept compared to many animals. Genius, productivity, and achievement all only occur in a social context for humans which ALWAYS include punistive lements, up to and including the threat of death. If you didn't uphold your responsibilities to the tribe you were either killed or kicked out which was tantamount to a death sentence in prehistoric times.
It is only since the rise of large urban complexes much larger than self-regulating communities with high levels of mobility, that the illusion of individualism can be maintained and people can think they are doing by themselves while they are continually parasitizing society. you benefit from an educated population, the protection of property rights, disease and vector control, control of dangerous animals, protection from raiders, protection from toxic chemicals, natural and and industrail disasters, the roads, the infrastructure, the weights and measures, the currency, the tort system, teh fraud protection taht allows corporations to exists that create jobs and products for you ... All these things you never think about since they work so damn well.
> When your former freind is behaving like a parasitic psychopath and undermining the society in a way that threatens the wel beings and lives of everyone.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Here it is again: In which scenario shown in the video (if any) does it become acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
I'll need to to answer that if you want to continue commenting here.
bitbutter Well if that answer isn't clear enough, it becomes acceptable when threatening him prevents more harm and creates more good that the inaction of neglecting to threaten does.
There is no such thing as a moral system that consistently leads to more harm that good.
Now when do you think it is acceptable to threaten or use violence to stop a person from doing good?
michalchik "it becomes acceptable when threatening him prevents more harm and creates more good that the inaction of neglecting to threaten does."
Still doesn't answer the question. What you're not saying, and what you're being asked, is concretely, _in which of the scenarios shown in the video_ are the threats of violence acceptable.
Can you answer?
Last chance (it's not a difficult question): In which of the situations shown in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
George should not be forced to contribute. I don't want to contribute to money spent on wars, homeland security, firefighters, police officers, Israel, war on drugs, the roads that I drive on, infrastructure that provide me with daily conveniences, the schools that kids attend (I never want kids), the wheelchair that the disabled person needs, and certainly don't want to spend money on politicians. Not my problem we have uneducated population and streets littered with dead poor/disabled people.
Force against George for tuition for Oliver's kids? No way. There might be other situations where I would advocate using force against George, but not for tuition.
+canopeaz like what?
MrPisster I don't know...but this video just asks about tuition.
+canopeaz That's the point though, if you have a state, george can be thretened and forced to do just about anything, not just the few things you think he should be forced to do.
Peter Houlihan This video does not ask what it is possible for a state to do. It asks if someone would advocate using force against one person to pay for tuition for another person's children -- and in the case that someone would not advocate the use of force, it asks the follow-on question would they be OK with the state using force to obtain this tuition when they would not be ok with using the force personally. To which I respond, for me personally, no, I would not be ok with personally forcing George to pay for Oliver's kids' tuition, nor would I be OK with the state forcing George to help pay for Oliver's kids' tuition. This video deals more with what people would want a state to do, not what a state is able to do, as that varies based on the type of state. In a democracy, the people may also limit what a state can do, allowing it to do some things, and disallowing it to do other things.
+canopeaz
Tuition is incidental. You seem to be missing the core point of the film. (Or are you being facetious for comic effect?)
Does this also apply to law enforcement? Are we obliged to help George according to bitbutter when we see a burglar entering his house?
I haven't suggested any obligation. And I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it in a self-contained way?
@@bitbutter Sorry, I meant: Are we NOT obliged ... etc
Is this video only true for helping someone financially or is it also true for helping someone protect his life & stuff?
"Are we not obliged to help [another person] when we see a burglar entering his house?"
No such obligation exists (unless a particular valid contract exists specifying one). The video applies to any kind of help. NB. It may be morally virtuous to help, but that isn't the same as their being an obligation to help.
@@bitbutter Then what is the point of criticizing the state as an entity 'stealing' from peope?
It's possible to condemn theft without supposing that a general obligation to intervene to prevent theft exists.
Thanks for commenting jediewok16, yours is exactly the reaction I was hoping for. I hope you find this tradition of thought as enriching as I have.
"It's not violence he's being threatened with, it's jail time"
It's jail-time and violence: noncooperation with your kidnappers means the threat of physical violence will be actualised. Watch 'You Can Always Leave' if you're still in doubt about this.
I would be okay with people who don't want a state to go and live somewhere (I realize this is not a realistic option aside from cases of terra nullius), but the issue not many people are bringing up is that if someone like George does not pay taxes, they are still enjoying state privileges such as healthcare, police services, fire, free representation in court, social care, and of course the roads. So if George is not paying his "fair share" while still getting something from Oliver (let's say that, theoretically, Oliver is a nice guy and makes his friends lunch at noon) then George is at fault for practically freeloading. Scaling to this size, if a "George" refuses to pay to "help" the state while still receiving benefits from it, then George is morally wrong.
In which of the situations shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
@@bitbutter When he starts freeloading off the benefits as mentioned in my comment, although that part is excluded in the video. Realistically, Oliver (the state) is helping everybody, so George has an obligation to pitch in. Just because it's excluded from the video means nothing.
"Realistically, Oliver (the state) is helping everybody, so George has an obligation to pitch in. "
If I come to your house and clean your windows without you asking me to, do you owe me something for my service?
@@bitbutter Apples and oranges. There is a much bigger difference between state services and some guy randomly going on your property and performing a service. If you have a heart attack on the street, emergency services will be called by somebody and in many countries (not USA which is very privatized) you leave without paying anything. Same as if your house burns down, or the roads argument. State services are carried out regardless, and everyone benefits, so to compare it to an individual doing a favor and then expecting compensation is a moot point. As I said, if there was some way to opt out then it would be a different story, i.e. a contract "don't let me partake in any state services" then that's perfectly fine, but such an option does not exist. Not everything on a grander societal scale can be simplified when condensed as person-to-person, there are some things bad amongst individuals but necessary on a grander scale.
"Apples and oranges."
Please spell out the ethically relevant difference. Earlier you said "When he starts freeloading off the benefits as mentioned in my comment" - are you not freeloading if you refuse to pay me for the benefit you receive from my services?
"As I said, if there was some way to opt out then it would be a different story"
Because the state chooses not to offer such an option.
Back to window cleaning: It just wouldn't be economically viable for me to tailor my service to allow individuals to opt out, so I wash everyone's windows in the territory. Now, since you cannot opt out, do I have the right to demand payment from you for my services?
While some of these views are thought provoking, the state is simply an institution that is empowered by the people to, using any means necessary, protect the life and well being of its citizens and then in turn, its own survival. From the example in the video, and where we have a stateless society for instance, if the Oliver enlists the help of thugs to beat up George and seize what he is requesting from George, what would be George's recourse? To further anarchy, or would he just accept his fate, or would he go and hire some more thugs to protect him from such future incidents, at his own personal expense?
Point of fact here is this, that a state is, with all its limitations, the only institution that can provide a relatively safe and peaceful environment for the safe and peaceful co-existence between individuals, and a stateless society is a hotbed of anarchy. To ensure the continuity of the state, we should pay taxes.
"the state is simply an institution that is empowered by the people to ..."
'The people' is a vague euphemism, I don't know what you mean by it (everyone? some majority? how has this majority been polled?). Can you try to be more specific?
"protect the life and well being of its citizens"
It's an appealing story, but at odds with reality. For instance, in the US it has been ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect a person. www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
"if the Oliver enlists the help of thugs to beat up George and seize what he is requesting from George, what would be George's recourse?"
This is a good primer: czcams.com/video/jTYkdEU_B4o/video.html
"that a state is, with all its limitation, the only institution that can [...]"
You're committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy. The fact that *you cannot imagine* an alternative that satisfies the criteria does not mean that such an alternative is impossible.
In which, if any, of the situations shown do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
"and a stateless society is a hotbed of anarchy"
Definitionally, a stateless society is an anarchy. Yes. It does not follow that it is more chaotic or unpleasant than a state dominated society.
"State dominated society..?" Do you mean where the concept of a state, or the institution of state is hijacked by an individual or a group of individuals, leading to totalitarian regimes or dysfunctional states?
And from recent events, ordinary citizen of so called totalitarian states have been said to be better off then, than they currently are in a practically stateless society.
Thank you for your comment.
Should I say that, my idea of what a state is (and I believe is not my singular opinion), in general terms, is a collection of individuals (peoples) who have chosen an national identity for themselves that they believe will lead to accomplishing their individual destinies. The choice of national identity here is active or passive, because it is not forced, meaning that the individual can actively decide to belong to or can decide not to belong to or may be indifferent to the state. A good example of the declaration of a state is "We the people...
A state, in my opinion, is likened to a utility company that provides social services to a people of a particular area, who in turn pay for those services.
In this time, we have nation states, and then the concept of nationality. It is possible to first of all belong to a nation state by birth or other means, but to eventually renounce such membership and then seek membership to another nation state or be stateless by belonging to none, hence my statement, 'The people'.
"State dominated society..?"
i mean any society in which the state exists.
"have been said to be better off then, than they currently are in a practically stateless society."
Somalia? Read this: www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
I'm specifically talking about the idea that its legitimate to threaten violence against people peacefully using their property (rivalous, excludable) to prevent them from manifesting a pattern they experienced in the world.
Writers, thinkers and engineers lived and worked in places where this was not the case. I hope you can acknowledge that.
"As I pointed out, a government is composed of individuals. You said that individuals should not compel others to help out a third party. Are you now withdrawing that statement?"
"No"
If you believe that government should be permitted to compel people (as you have implied), then you need to withdraw the claim that individuals should not compel people, since the two claims are contradictory as I have explained.
If Oliver is in an accident and is stuck in his burning car, and people arrive on the scene to help, and the only way to get Oliver out before the car explodes is to use the crowbar that is sitting in George's front yard, and George denies use of the crowbar, then I think it is OK to use force against George to take the crowbar to save Oliver's life.
Okay. And in which of the situations shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
None. Unfortunately the problems my friends, former friends, and fellow citizens encounter are not limited to their children needing tuition money. When it comes to agents of the state taking my stuff for direct wealth transfer to someone else, I do not agree. However there may be other situations like the burning car where I would take someone else's stuff, or be understanding if my stuff was taken.
Can I just say, you're doing the lord's work for still responding to comments. I hope you use a template. Thank you on behalf of humanity.
@@canopeaz well good for you! I do think George would be able to take action against you for taking his stuff by force. I don't know if there should be anything owed to him from you of the crowbar is undamaged but its his case to make
He could deny one time. If ur neighbor is an asshole and do not help in thus situation, he will be excluded from society because no one will want to deal with him. He wont be trustful, people wouldn't trade and negociate with him because he do not help others. Today our system of trust is all on governments hands.
Also, u could take the crowbar and no one could see that as crime, and u wont be judged cause nobody would see that as a criminal action. Or u would take it and pay for stealing it. Probabily the bill will be divided among all of the neighbors as they will sympathize with ur heroic action.
There's one disingenuous thing in this video that causes the argument to become biased in favor of anarchism. The character in need, Oliver, isn't having his rights threatened by his situation, when in reality the "Olivers" in a stateless society would be faced with fatal poverty in the absence of the State giving some very basic form of welfare/universal basic income/negative income tax. I agree that voluntary aid functions quite well, however it depends upon the altruistic attitudes of the wealthy to sustain, which can't be assured. Imagine an anarcho-capitalist society in which the middle and upper class, or even a portion of those people, have decided that they don't want to fund charity, and don't care if the poor die. In that case, massive portions of society would die off due to negligence. In an ideal society, the State protects human rights, with the only exception being the force required to make the people who would otherwise be in danger of death be guaranteed their rights no matter what. Human rights, such as the right to life, should never be left to chance and the whims of the rich, they're rights for a reason and should be mandatory, therefore one has to weigh the rights being potentially violated in one case or the other, the property rights of the taxpayer or the right to life of the poor. Do you care more whether the right of a billionaire to keep a small portion of his wealth, or the right of a child in extreme poverty to know that his life is being protected, no matter how much people care about him?
In which of the situations shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
NB that fatal poverty also exists under welfare statism (e.g. www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-indias-welfare-revolution-is-starving-citizens). And the lack of state welfare doesn't mean death - recipients of private charity and mutual aid understood this very well.
"voluntary aid [...] depends upon the altruistic attitudes of the wealthy to sustain, which can't be assured."
No policy under repdem (including certain kinds of aid for the very poor) can be assured either.
re. a society in which many people don't want to help the poor. The same outcome would obtain under repdem if a critical mass of people decided they no longer wanted to fund welfare programs through taxation. A key difference is that under ancap the level of prosperity would be dramatically higher, so charitable giving would be correspondingly higher too.
"Do you care more whether the right of a billionaire to keep a small portion of his wealth, or the right of a child in extreme poverty to know that his life is being protected, no matter how much people care about him?"
1. Rights cannot be in conflict. If they seem to be, you've just made a mistake about what you're considering a right.
2. I strongly believe that rules that would allow billionaires (and everyone else) to keep all their legitimately gained wealth have the net effect of dramatically limiting the number of people suffering in extreme poverty.
@@bitbutter I believe you have the historical record on your side. Marvin Olasky has documented how very well private hospitals and associations (including political parties) took care of the poor, the sick, and others in need. We even achieved nearly 100% literacy entirely with private and locally-funded schools. As you illustrated in your video on the Healthcare Crisis, it is special interests that have shut down these voluntary associations by getting the government to interfere. The motives of these special interests is inevitably to raise the barriers of entry so they can keep prices high for their members.
@@PhilKelley I agree that privatized services almost always are more efficient and innovative than government ones, and that the market for healthcare and education should be operated by private entities, but my issue with the anarcho-capitalist argument for zero government is that theres an assumption that everyone will have their rights, specifically to their own survival, protected no matter what unless by force by another individual. There's a massive hole in this argument, it assumes that people won't die of neglect, and that private charity can solve every problem that arises with poverty. If healthcare has a cost, any cost, there will be people who can't pay it, and there will be people who will die because of this. Private charity of course will solve some of that, but hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to supply everyone who can't otherwise pay for healthcare with it, not to mention all the costs of living for those in extreme poverty that they can't cover.
The same goes for literally every private service in a voluntarist society. Everyone has a right to their property, and that property in most cases requires a third party to be protected, some form of justice system, but if every court is private the poor don't have any form of justice. The same goes for police, if they're paid for by landlords, homeowners associations and the companies they patrol, then those who can't afford any of those services aren't having their rights protected. Anarcho-Capitalists always seem to answer questions about why the poor wouldn't constantly be dying and being screwed over with "just earn money to pay for those things" or "but charity will pay for it."
Will it? What if there isn't enough money donated by the people and poor people start dying rapidly without police, courts, hospitals, etc? According to the natural rights argument, thats clearly evil, their fundamental rights to life, liberty and property are utterly violated, but the Anarcho-Capitalist inevitably answers that those suffering from uncured illness and regular crime should simply work harder, or ask nicer for charity. Your ideology literally depends on the idea that everyone will be above the poverty line, or that the millions of people in reality who can't afford to have their rights protected will just pull themselves up by the bootstraps. It's insane to think that just because courts and police *could* be privatized that they all should because *most* people could pay for them. Not everyone, just people with money, and those without don't even have the chance to improve their lives because they literally don't have rights in the eyes of their society, and their welfare is the charity based on the pity of the extremely rich.
@@PhilKelley Yes, the existence of welfare or some form of support for the extreme poor is in crisis at times, but I would trust a political system far more to sustain a program than a private entity, and I do think the threat of violence is justified to protect those who would otherwise have their survival be in question. I believe Penn Jillette puts this problem well, that we should only do with government what we would personally do with a gun otherwise, and I would supply basic protections for people with a gun.
@@Whaylie you didn't answer the question yet: In which of the situations shown in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
You're attacking a straw man. Anarcho-capitalism isn't utopian. There *will* be rights violations and people will die. The claim is (much more modestly) that ancap is likely to be better than statism in most cases.
"ut hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to supply everyone who can't otherwise pay for healthcare with it"
NB. The price of healthcare is massively inflated thanks to gov intervention at the moment.
"but if every court is private the poor don't have any form of justice"
That doesn't follow. Charity exists. Mutual aid societies can exist.
"The same goes for police"
David Friedman. Rights Enforcement Without Government
czcams.com/video/-PnkC7CNvyI/video.html
David Friedman. What About the Poor?
czcams.com/video/ewbTfv40vWs/video.html
The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary
czcams.com/video/jTYkdEU_B4o/video.html
"What if there isn't enough money donated by the people and poor people start dying rapidly without police, courts, hospitals, etc?"
Again: you need to bear in mind what you're comparing this to. What if the welfare programs voted for in a repdem state aren't enough to help the poor to the level you deem enough?
"but the Anarcho-Capitalist inevitably answers that those suffering from uncured illness and regular crime should simply work harder, or ask nicer for charity. "
More straw-manning. Please stop doing that.
"I said that corporations don't want to do research for the sake of research,they're in it for profit"
Of course. And this has no bearing on anything I've said.
Imagine you have a friend called George. You were close friends in childhood, but have since grown somewhat apart, not the least because you are an average working person making a modest sum of money, and George is making a 7 digit salary as a high executive of some company. You know that George is the most peaceful person you've ever known. You also know that he exploits his workers, underpaying and overworking them to increase his company's profits - as many companies do. In fact, Oliver may very well be one of his employees, or the employee of a similar person. George could easily afford to give Oliver enough money to put one of his kids entirely through college without even noticing. Yet he categorically refuses to share his gains with anyone, leaving many of his employees unhappy, on the brink of starvation (or actually starving), and either homeless or just a single accident away from becoming so. By refusing to help anyone, George is casting thousands into poverty, despair, and an early grave.
Is it not our duty, as a person or a society to stop such people? Those who impart harm upon others, even without the use of force, deserve force to be brought upon them for the sake of the downtrodden people they leave in their wake. They must be made to pay, and fix the harm that they have done to the least of our brethren because they did not help them voluntarily.
"he exploits his workers"
He offers workers a deal, which they accept. He does not violate the property rights of these workers in order to get them to accept, ie. they accept the deal without being under duress.
Consider the workers who accept his deal, by their own judgement, he has helped them (otherwise they would not have accepted). Your complaint then, seems to reduce to the objection that has not helped these people *enough*. But notice that this 'exploiter' is helping the poor he employs far more than the vast majority of non 'exploitative' non-employers are doing, and that by 'stopping' him, you'd also be harming the people you claim to care about.
It sounds like you need to think this through more carefully.
greycompanion A widget-maker can produce 10 widgets per day. An engineer builds a machine that can produce 40 widgets per day. He offers the widget-maker a job operating the machine for a value equivalent to 15 widgets per day. Who is exploiting whom?
lol what an extreme simplification
bzeljn In which, if any, of the scenarios shown in the video do you think it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
"In the scenario where Oliver and his family suffers from poverty and where there's no way possible to secure his survival and dignity."
These criteria are vague to me. Please answer directly. Again: Can you tell me under which (if any) of the scenarios in the video you think it's acceptable to threaten George with violence?
Last repeat of the question you're evading. Do it again and you're blocked (NB. there's no shame in the answer 'I don't know'):
In which if the scenarios in the video (if any) does it become acceptable to threaten violence against George?
You can not indivdually force George, the group of 10 can't, but 'the agency' can.
How come?
@@killingjoke90 Because 'the agency' was given the power by a large group of people to rule over the people in order to improve the common good. No such institution exists in the first two examples. This is my second account btw, I'm the same person you replied to.
@@therationalityreport3202 And where did the "large group of people" get this "power" that you speak of to rule over others? No person or group of people can delegate a power to 'the agency' that they never had in the first place.
Powerful collection of videos. I'm sure you have changed some minds! Keep up the good work.
Thanks! Yes, now and then I hear that one of these videos was a pivotal factor in changing a persons mind.
I asked you a question. Please have the courtesy to answer it if you want to continue commenting on this channel.
In which of the situations depicted in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your friend with violence?
Hannah Arendt called the state the only power to which is given the right to violence. Tax is compulsory because that’s how the state ensures stability. If you don’t want to pay tax you can leave to another state. No one is forcing you to stay. If my parents make a rule that I am not to smoke in the house but I do anyway, then I may face the consequence of being kicked out. The govt also has rules and if you don’t like it go and create your own one elsewhere. It’s the real world where the ideas in this video have to be tested out. This video against taxation overlooks many issues that have been tested in the real world for millennia.
"If you don’t want to pay tax you can leave to another state."
Sure you can. Notice that this fact does nothing to help establish the legitimacy of taxation. (if you don't like paying protection money to the mafia they also allow you to leave).
"If my parents make a rule that I am not to smoke in the house but I do anyway"
Your parents get to set the rules because they own the house. I've seen no compelling argument supporting the idea that the state owns the land. See czcams.com/video/fasTSY-dB-s/video.html for more.
In which of the scenarios shown in the video do you think it becomes acceptable to threaten your former friend with violence?
>Hannah Arendt called the state the only power to which is given the right to violence.
Can one legitimately endow another with a moral right that they themselves don't have? If it is wrong for me to coerce others then how can I delegate that to someone else and have it become right? And if it is wrong for a group to threaten others to participate in something then how can we delegate that to others and make it be right?
I agree and disagree at the same time.
If we talk about roads, streets, services like fire departament etc. that come from taxes then yes, he uses it and it should be justifiable to "beat him up" to force him to pay it. Otherwise he is just using someone's services for free, either pay the tax or don't use said things ever.
If we talk about the tax that goes to welfare (And I'am not sure but i think that very small portion goes to charity) then this should be voluntary.
> If we talk about roads, streets, services like fire departament etc. that come from taxes then yes, he uses it and it should be justifiable to "beat him up" to force him to pay it [..] or don't use said things ever.
Imagine you live in a little island somewhere. I come along with my gang. I declare it illegal to produce food without my permission. I demand a food tax from all islanders (my gang will sooner kill anyone not paying the tax rather than let them get away with non-payment). Using the funds i extort from you all I set up a new Central Food Service. Each villager receives a bag of (low quality) food every day, for free! No other food production/consumption is allowed in the island.
Now: Do you believe that me and my gang are justified in beating you up to force you to pay the food tax? If not, why not?
Well, did the gang were the first on the island and they claimed the land there? If so then they are the owners of the island and they make the rules. Otherwise, did people of the island chose the gang to be a representatives of the island if no one before that claimed the ownership of the island? If so then those are the rules and you agree on them just by being on the island. If none of that then they are just a bunch of punks and the analogy is bad.
> Well, did the gang were the first on the island and they claimed the land there?
No. Just as most (all?) extent states weren't the first on the territory they claim to own - and generally claim and expand their territories through violence against prior users, or the threat thereof.
> did people of the island chose the gang to be a representatives of the island
Perhaps some liked that idea. Others didn't, and didn't consent to it - Just as most extant states claim to represent many people who never consented to that arrangement.
Imagine that you're one of the ones on the island who wasn't happy about this new order, and had not consented to it. Do you believe that me and my gang are justified in beating you up to force you to pay the food tax? If not, why not?
nice :D
Or we could just, you know, charge George for the things he uses like everything else on the free market. Taxation is not necessary to get people to pay for their groceries, they pay them voluntarily when they go shopping.
I don't mind re-uploads, but I appreciate it if the title isn't changed, and if there's a link to the original in the info box. Thanks!
Thanks very much. I have to say I'm not always as patient as I'd like to be, but I'm glad I can give that impression at least some of the time ;) Nice username.
George should have handed over 50c.
why do those with little to no power care so much about changing the world. i can hardly keep my house clean so why should i worry about anything more.
So in which of the scenarios depicted (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your friend with violence to get them to help out a third party in need?