In Conversation with Dr David D. Friedman
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2023
- Should the police be privatised? Should we have open borders?
In this video, IEA Communications Officer Harrison Griffiths interviews Dr David D. Friedman to discuss the anarcho-capitalist perspective on these questions and many more.
Dr Friedman is is an American economist, physicist, legal scholar, author, and anarcho-capitalist theorist. He currently serves as a Professor Emeritus at the Santa Clara University School of Law.
His book, 'The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism', can be read online here:
www.daviddfriedman.com/Machine...
TWITTER - / iealondon
INSTAGRAM - /
FACEBOOK - / ieauk
WEBSITE - iea.org.uk/
#capitalism #economics #freedom
Great fan of his father. He's inherited many good qualities of his father and has cultivated many of his own.
I have to give my praise to the interviewer. Very well posed questions.
For many centuries, England relied, in part, on Common Law, case-made law that maintained its existence through time by the use of precedent. Worked well, and has only recently* begun to be supplanted by statute law and, until very recently, EU 'directives'.
*By recently, I mean in the last 500 years or so.
I'm all for it
How does Anarcho-Capitalism differ from Free-Market Anarchism?
it's a different term for the same thing. Same philosophy.
@@colwho3738 close, they see anarcho-communism as contradictory. Free market capitalism isn’t a system as such as it can pertain to either a stateless or a state society.
It’s the same actually
Both use a free market (decentralized libertarian control of distribution) rather than a command economy (centralized control of distribution).
Anarcho-Capitalism has capitalist corporations (top-down structure for production). Market Anarchism has democratic co-ops (bottom up structure for production).
@@Eudaletismhow is one or the other enforced in each system?
I'm exploring this philosophy because I have realised that I do much better by DIYing the education process, once you got the fundamentals and know how to search on the internet you can basically outlaw the middle-man, and if you know where to look for regarding valuable courses for upskilling, you are basically head of the herd competition. The internet is also gold mine of white papers and educational materials. There are also other centralised operations that do more harm than good...fascinating theory I want to delve into further.
You have good instincts
Under Anarcho-Capitalistism, how do search warrants work? Child & Animal Protection Services? Prohibition of chlorofluorocarbons?
Personally I'm a fan of private cities. So, police forces would work the same way they do in your town, except they would compete with neighboring towns. Safer communities = more residents = more profit from the fee they charge (taxes by another name). So CPS and APS would be nearly guaranteed, after all, what parent would live in a city that doesn't provide CPS? As for CFCs and similar harmful chemicals, it's my belief that it is perfectly within the NAP to ban their production. CFCs destroy the ozone which fries the planet and gives people cancer. The same way blowing cigarette smoke in someone's face is aggression due to the health risk, use and production of CFCs is aggression. Therefore I think it is perfectly rational for a private city or Microstate to ban them.
In the end though, the cfc ban is kind of superficial. Governments can ignore it or accept bribes to get around it whenever they want. Private cities could do the same. I don't think there's any 100% guarantee solution to CFCs. Fortunately the ozone has been healing but we can only hope that it will stay that way. I hope this helped
Friedman's book explains how social rules, including rules about such things as animal welfare and property searches, can be established and enforced through contracts established between people (via 'rights enforcement agencies').
I am new to this so I’m sure this is a newbie question but I am wondering how militaries would function under this system. With no central government I can only guess that militaries would also be private but where would the intense funding come from required to compete with adversaries with central governments and collecting taxes to fund their militaries?
What is a military? What does it do?
It can be solved by voluntary work or private mechanisms
Thanks for the input! Nobody ever takes the time. I have more questions but I realized it’s gonna be a big post so I’ll get back. Don’t feel you need to even worry about it though. If you want to tackle it I’d be appreciative though 😀
Imagine South Korea, with its large industry and advanced tech, neighbouring its aggressive northern sibling. Its defense would have to be one or more large private security firms manning artillery, a standing army, etc. All the resources for this are in the market, in the defense arms industry. This can be payed for by the largest industries in SK, are the ones with the strongest incentives to deter an invasion, as they would lose their factories, offices, distribution channels, etc if there was a war, and their stock prices would plummet. Companies cooperate for common purposes like these all the time. For example, software companies get together to produce industry standards to increase interoperability.
@@DF-ss5ep Good answer.
David D Friedman is amongst one of the greatest minds of our time. Anarcho capitalism absolutely could work and by “work” I mean it would be much much better than socialism or the system we have now. No system could ever be entirely flawless but this system is very well thought out, practical, tactical and freeing.
Yep, nothing like warlords, sorry, "CEOs", ruling like Immortan Joe.
The Law is discovered trough scientific means and not created.
What is created is simply excuses to justify ones own crimes.
Always interesting to hear some out of the box thinking.
Ps - Towards the end the host compares Buckleys assertion that heroin addiction was a contagious disease to 'right wing' speculation that the rise in Trans identification is a social contagion as though both are equally baseless. It irks me when someone confidently opines on a topic they're clearly not that familiar with.
The unprecedented rise and the change in which sex is affected (used to be a male phenomenon, is now mainly a female one) along with an obvious vector (social medial) is what drives the absolutely reasonable speculation. This is not novel either. Anorexia likewise had a rapid rise in the 2000s. Kids literally aquire Tourettes ticks from tiktok influences. Go read about the rise in self diagnosed multiple personality disorders among teens who regularly browsed Tumblr. Acting like speculation about social contagion can just be dismissed is just ignorant.
(OH and BTW, the phrase Trans Rights is so weasely. You'd think one was trying to take their speech or property rights away when you hear it
When really it is people objecting to their kids being taught baseless Gender ideology, being socially transitioned without their knowledge, kids being put on experimental treatments like puberty blockers that have long term effects which they cannot possibly comprehend (especially considering both their effectiveness AND the number of people who detransition are literally not known), males being granted access to female exclusive spaces where they're vulnerable, to female specific activities where they have an overwhelming advantage etc etc)
Yeah you made good points here.. David is an incredibly intelligent guy but even he can be wrong sometimes *it’s the human condition.
Yeah you made good points here.. David is an incredibly intelligent guy but even he can be wrong sometimes *it’s the human condition.
Imagine Elon owns all the drinking water in the USA. How many days do you think you could survive?
Yes , fight for your refurbished gov shi t water that comes out your tap ( which isn't even free by way )
Brilliant philosophy ❤
If this system would work why hasn’t it emerged already? There are windows within existing set of laws for this system to begin working and then the state can wither away as there is less and less need for it.
Probably because the state is unwilling to give the powers it's got. Each function of the state has a group of well-paid employees administering it, and those people would be against "deregulating" their own jobs out of existence.
I encourage you to look into private cities like Prospera around the world. ReasonTV has a good view about it. It's not exactly what Friedman describes here, but it is anarchocapitalism nonetheless. Some are skeptical but others are very happy with it
Firstly, it does exist already to a greater degree than you probably appreciate; but you may as well ask that question about drug prohibition or any number of things.
There have been multiple precedents by which the state has decided it will not respect the decision of private arbitration even if those involved have contractually agreed to abide by the decision of the arbiter.
The Danny Masterson case is an example of this. I’m don’t believe Masterson was innocent, but regardless, the parties involved agreed upfront to settle matters via arbitration by the court, and the federal court system disregarded the decision.
So you see, the system actually CAN’T coexist along a state system, because so long as the state system exists, that will always take monopolistic precedence over the private system.
After all, why would you and I pay to subscribe to a private adjudicating system if we could just seek damages with the state the minute we don’t get the decision we want? We would naturally lose faith in the private system because it is toothless IN COMPARISON to the state system.
@@weareham3068 That's an interesting point, but on the other hand private arbitration does exist and does work well for the most part, in spite of the interference of the state, which is a testament to its efficacy. And of course if we look at it more broadly almost all disputes are resolved without the state's involvement. If we disagree about the definition of a word then we agree to go by what the dictionary says etc.
It’s all about freedom.
I highly second that thought!
Free trade might be good, but free movement of welfare recipients is not.
Spot on! Welfare should only be available for those who are legally resident/citizen of any given country.
In an anarcho-capitalist system, there is no 'welfare' provision other than charitable effort and family solidarity. So why would welfare recipients move from where they are to somewhere else as, with no 'states', everywhere is the same.
@@nicks40 Can you give me even one example of a prosperous country (i.e. worth breaking into) that does not have a substantial welfare system?
While your argument makes sense logically, it discusses the kind of situation that does not exist in reality.
@@gintasvilkelis2544 I think that, as the discussion is centered around anarcho-capitalism, the idea is that mutual arrangements between ourselves (the people) mean that the notion of a State (meaning a body with the monopoly of force over a given area) falls away. We can see this happening, slowly, now, as people become richer and more able to take care of themselves, their health and their children's education and so forth, the notion that the State should do any of these things and that we should be taxed to pay for them, becomes more and more risible, and people become less and less engaged in politics.
@@nicks40 _Some_ people do what you've said, but, unfortunately, the number of people, who vitally rely on welfare, is growing, and there are enough of them to out-vote the self-sufficient people most of the time. So while you can choose to pay for your own needs out of your own pocket, your ability to say "No, I refuse to pay for the needs of the _other_ voters out of my own pocket" is limited, and, I think, it's becoming even more limited with time, as governments are collaborating ever more closely with each other to cut off people's abilities to escape this form of repression (including by voting with their feet). Do you have a solution to this problem?
Friedman is not a true anarchist, he admits this in the very first sentence uttered in this video.
That's debatable
He further relates,
"...the ideal society would have no state but would use the institutions of private property for purposes of coordination"
This is all well and good until you realise that (as I understand his work) he neglects to offer a detailed vision of property and within his description of his 'AnCap' society absent an adherence to a thoroughly thought out philosophy (there is no emphasis on this in his work) these supposedly private institutions are able to violate property if people are willing to pay for it, so all he or any anarch-capitalist has achieved proposing to replace the existing country-sized states with a society of smaller competing states ('rights enforcement agencies') that aren't necessarily bound to any philosophy and that are thus only really different to the states of today in that they're smaller, more numerous, more geographically fluid ; so what's interesting then is that all we can hope for as libertarians is that market forces among these firms will prevent them from engaging in statism. In which case we're back to Square One, but at least the states will be smaller, more numerous, and, being subject therefore to greater competition, less intrusive than they are presently.
Friedman then goes on to clarify (or not) that what he means by 'anarchist' is not even a 'no rulers' ie Libertarian/ethical interpretation of the word but a, as I understand it, doesn't even define it at all with reference to philosophy, just in rejecting the current statism of today (ie foregoing their absence of retaliation/commitment strategy behaviour with reference to present-day statism) but not altogether rejecting statism since once the state today is dissolved and replaced with competing arbitration and enforcement firms these firms _can_ (if people pay for it) violate rights... but doesn't even define what your rights even are...
So in other words he strangely defines 'anarcho-capitalism' not as a philosophy / libertarianism or full application of it but just as the removal of the states of today and their replacement with firms that won't necessarily be actually anarchist / capitalist / libertarian in practise (hence the odd proposition that "anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism aren't the same"); this is a confusing way to define 'anarcho-capitalism'. This oversight leads to confusion, he should be clear in defining 'anarcho-capitalism' in the same way as everyone else and should clearly define the bounds of property but I've also noticed in his work a reluctance to do so and to instead define 'property' also in his own way so as to contribute even more confusion to the matter.
Yes, and no true Scotsman either.
This is... Shockingly short sighted. How can anyone take this crap seriously? Well, if anyone indeed does.
We take it seriously because the people who oppose it don't have any arguments against it.
For example, your comment.
@@bane3991 The argument is simple: This is asinine. It was tried in the past, you know. The period was called the "Dark Age".
@thomaswikstrand8397 No, it wasn't tried in the past. We had rulers during the dark ages.
Do you have any counter points what so ever?
Have you read the machinery of freedom? Market for liberty? For a New Liberty? Any book regarding anarcho capitalism at all? At least one? Or are you just disagreeing because it doesn't agree with your views you already have and you don't even want to hear the other side you just want to call it "asinine" without doing any sort of research what so ever. Have you ever even read any economics books what so ever?
Also, let's run with your logic that we need some regulations or some sort of government monopoly in particular sectors. Maybe you're a full blown socialist and believe in the complete nationalization in the economy(this happens to be a bit more rare so I'll assume you're with the average person who thinks some intervention is necessary). So using this logic, let's say for roads, military, law enforcement, courts, etc which have government monopolies in them, why don't we apply this logic to the rest of the economy? Why not nationalize the entire economy like North Korea for example? Surely if they can run a military, roads, justice system, etc better than the free market they can do everything better such as food, housing, computers, tvs, video games, cell phones, clothing, etc. Why not let them control the entire economy?
This is complete nonsense. Total Anarchy yeah, that’ll work.
Not an argument
plenty of examples of statelessness or quasi statelessness. Amish; Cheran Mexico; Rajova, Syria
You provided zero argument.