14 votes

This video will turn any Libertarian into an anarchist


There is a follow up video as well.

Here it is


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My questions and doubts...

I found this intriguing, but I still have additional questions and doubts (referring specifically to the 1st video):

-Why does he assume the security companies wouldn't go to "war"...at least sometimes? The scenario proposed sounds a lot like how black markets operate today: all settlements and disputes are handled privately outside government legal system. Yet the one common characteristic of black markets is they are marred with violence and coercion.

-Who decided the fine was $10,000? Why not simply all of his wealth plus the rest of his life in a working camp? Their cost of finding him and winning the arbitration is a fixed cost...once they've got access to him, they might as well make him a slave.

-A lot is based on the argument that these companies will be responsible in order to protect their reputations. But a company directly hired by one client, for example, would have little to gain from a good reputation.

-Other providers would WANT the reputation of being ruthless and quickly resorting to violence. Ironically, that "badass" service might be exactly what the market wants...I would if I was getting letters telling me to pay up or become a slave!

-If someone was rich, couldn't he hire additional protection even after the arbitration found him guilty?

-Who protects poor people from powerful companies (or people) that just want to take them into custody and put them in slave camps? I'm sure there would be some general market demand to preventing that, but how many people are really going to make a voluntary monthly payment so others are protected...and would that total be more than the incentive to others in make them slaves?

-Obviously, this system disproportionately favors the rich...which is true of any market good. But it's one thing when the rich have greater access to sport cars, mansions, and private jets...it's totally another when the rich have greater access to their life and their liberty.


I couldn't think of a scary world than one where a corporate bureaucracy could extract payments from me, apply debts, and force jail time and violence upon me if I don't pay my debts for crimes that they consider I committed.

The rule of law is a government institution for a reason. We see the privatization of prisons and their influence on lawmakers to continually make illegal mild drug offences leading to "overpopulated" prisons that earn huge incomes for the firms that own the prisons.

Legal systems and the ability to deprive people of freedom for crimes does not mesh well with capitalistic models which would have perverse incentive models.

Creating such a system institutionalized extortion and creates only the smallest of needs to create the image of legitimacy.

governments are like minds

Once expanded by an idea, they never return to their original size.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

tasmlab's picture

It's probably a tougher road than a couple of videos

It took me quite a bit of reading, study, mulling and more to put it altogether i.e., make the connection from minarchism to anarchism. I would suggest a less bold claim.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

lol Fair. :)


Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

beyond the current pale

As I've said in previous reply comments, this is simply a glimpse on down the road of the status quo. A few years back a friend asked me what field of study would best prepare her for a marketable future. I told her, "Actuary Science!" She should do quite well in such a world in which the price tag of all human action is collectively calculated before taking action...

I haven't watched the vids but

from comments it's clear they try to portray a free market solution, because people will always ask "Well what would you replace the government with?" I would myself quote Thomas Sowell, "What do you replace a cancer with?"

Regardless the the problem with the exercise of imagining business models is that it is just like any armchair entrepreneur saying how someone else's business could be done better. It's not easy, competing and staying solvent is hard in a free market, which is why corporations actively despise the free market.

What we do know is that since it won't be a monopoly, it will be more responsive to customers, cheaper, and provide a better value.

We also know that since enforcing a law is a cost, and people will not be able to socialize that cost onto their fellows there will be a whole lot less enforcement going on.

People may be willing to outlaw pot smoking or sodomy for example if they don't have to shoulder the cost themselves. But if they do have to shoulder it, and most people don't care, it will be very expensive and probably not even offered as a service in most cases.

The basic set of protections offered will be loosely consonant with natural rights, common law, and the NAP. How can I predict that? Because those are the things everyone will be willing to pay for.

Social engineering and busybody laws will not be. Also anti-market laws like legal licensure laws will be rare. Why? Because they benefit the few at the expense of the many. Will you pay to protect a Dr from competition? No. Maybe the doctor will, but since he doesn't have a monopoly in the first place he won't remotely be able to afford it.

Also I don't think there will be many cages. Cages are expensive. The first sanction will be to revoke the contract and advertise that your contract has been revoked and you have no more protection. Why should a defense firm bother with paying to cage you or open themselves to tort or problems with a competing firm when they can just put you at the mercy of the real criminals in society?

Along these lines, for minor infractions they can threaten revocation, but if you want to not have your contract revoked you can accept some community service or corporal sanction, public humiliation, like stocks, or even flogging in extreme cases. So for a violent but non lethal crime you might be offered 8 lashes in lieu of contract revocation. And remuneration of medical expenses, of course.

And understand while there are bad people, the real sociopaths are just a few percent. If they are not in power, people will not be able to pay for cruel laws. People will pay for laws that are just firm enough so that they work. People will not pay for hand amputation for petty theft for example.

Short version in three steps:

1) Firms will not offer services people will not pay for.
2) People will not pay for cruel laws or even busybody laws if they can't socialize the cost.
3) Profit!

Brilliant comment!

I like that you commented before watching the videos. There is enough premise here in the set-up to do so. The videos extrapolate from such a premise, and you are correct that the videos do go the route of somewhat going overboard with replacing what was so eagerly removed. Your comment is long though and eventually hits on points that the videos trample. Like this...

"What we do know is that since it won't be a monopoly..."

From reading the other comments myself, I surmise that many are seduced by the seemingly rational flow of things presented in the videos. On the surface it seems to be akin to ideations presented by the likes Walter Block [and Murray Rothbard]. It is not the same. The videos present a world that overshoots Anarchy. You pegged it in your comment. It replaces cancer with AIDS. On the surface it appears that they have removed "government", but they have simply replaced it. What seems at first to be less monopolistic eventually reveals hyper-cartelization, an economic vacuum. It IS government. All one has to do to participate is to "pay up". Today, shopping at the mall is engaging direct democracy. However, not all that we do is determined or effected by our experience of engaging democracy at the mall. The videos present an odd dish of democracy-run-amok as it adds a flavor of unchecked extortion. You're screwed without participation at the mall. It's perhaps the antithesis of self-governance. In a system such as this your employer will one day simply pay you in mall coupons. Funny, seems like Rockefeller's ultimate utopia. As I mentioned in another comment, this is a look into the future of the status quo. Substitute the name "Blackwater" for "Dawn Security".

Thank you

I know it is difficult for some people to imagine how it will work. Just like it was difficult for people in the CCCP to imagine where bread would come from after it collapsed. But bread came because people were willing to pay for it. So will law. And we have a fine history of common law to start with.

And I think it is fine for smart people to speculate, but not wildly and thoughtlessly so that you make the entire enterprise look suspect.

I don't know the best business model for the provision of law anymore than I know the best business model for the provision of milk. But I do know they will be provided.

Whether we can get to a free society is another matter entirely. But I do NOT worry that it won't be a far more just, peaceful, moral and prosperous society if we do. I also don't worry that it will be perfect. It won't. It will merely be better than all the alternatives.


A general impression I get from what you say is that we can speculate and ideate an anarchistic future, but we must not take our current ideations too seriously. We must not have the replacement too buffed out. Bad government must first be removed, and future mechanisms must be allowed to develop organically. The above videos don't necessarily exclude that notion of process, but immediate exposure to their nightmarish scenario sends me into surmising they project too many current needs into the future.

"But bread came because people were willing to pay for it."

I'll take your Soviet-collapse analysis one step further. But bread came initially because people were willing to make it for themselves. A modicum of self-provision remains at the heart of all economy. It must never be actively encumbered or worse, extorted away.

I think the Prison Industrial Complex would love this!

From the video -

"They may force him to work at a place of their choosing"


"a secure workhouse where criminals are held while they pay of their debts"

Today companies like Wackenhut have an interest in keeping as many people locked up as possible, which plays into why our prison population is so high - and I think this would really help their profits!

Slavery, yeah! Slavery Is Freedom! We could all be working for Wackenhut! Viva la Wackenhut!



Call me crazy, but I think getting private business OUT of the justice system is the way to go... Sheriffs who know the constitution is where it's at http://cspoa.org/

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/contribute/ - http://www.unclesamtamovie.com/#!support-the-film/c1met

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

tsk, tsk, Zak

You should know better. Who is gonna pay for those prisons in a free market? Do you think most people would pay their own money to lock up non-violent "criminals"? Not to mention the cost of prosecution? Methinks not, brother. The average dude would rather buy that new iPad with that money, than send it to some prison company. On the other hand, that same person would probably happily pay to keep property violators locked up, such as some mugger that stole that new iPad.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

You advocate a government monopoly on security.

The private prisons today are just government subcontractors, so if you object to them, you are actually objecting to the government monopoly.

As you invited me to do, I call you crazy.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Weak Ass

video from mental masturbators full of questionable assumptions. Yes, your life will be better when the courts and jails are run by insurance companies! Riiiggght.

Of course, that would get rid of none of the problems that exist in current systems.

And it would have all the problems of private arbitrations and insurance companies at present.

But ok, nice fantasy!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I love free market solution

I love free market solution theories to problems absent government.

Yet, I found that there are some flaws in these videos. Well, more of a nitpicking than flaws, because this is a viable solution along with a ton of other viable solutions that will compete to keep people safe and secure.

In the first video, when the dispute goes to the 'arbitrator', it says they are legally bound to accept what the arbitrator orders.

In a world absent government and it's statutes of legalese, how would the companies be 'legally bound' to follow through on the arbitrators decision? I can see the watchdog groups would make a stink, but 'legally bound' doesn't fit since there is not a legal system per se.

I also don't like that certain groups are delegated the possibility of breaking the Non-aggression-principle and be acceptable because 'they are just doing their job'.

I do think while on the journey from minarchist to anarchist, people should watch the following video: http://youtu.be/xFOUqurUgFk?t=46m50s
The whole video is worth a watch, but where I tagged it is where the 'meat' starts explaining natural law court, and how it can be a reality and not just a theory.

Quick synopsis: It's a voluntary reputation based natural law court system with the use of 'outlawry' to punish people that don't follow the 'suggestions' of restitution subscribed the court/jury of random peers.

I dontthink Dawn defence is violating the NAP

Self defense is allowed under NAP. If someone steals my property or wrongs me in some other way, I am allowed to defend against that, and force the other person to make me whole.

Therefore, I can outsource that as well.

Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I would need 20 minutes to list what this video gets wrong in 10

It keeps making, I think, very wrong assumptions about how things would play out in a personal defense market, with an eye towards portraying a non-chaotic future.

One of the most glaring items was this: That the security agencies with a reputation for being unusually loyal to their clients would get priced out of the market. I think not! They may need to charge more, but they would, at the VERY least have a strong niche market to be funded by. I know that's who I would want, since I know how illogical humans can be in determining facts, especially in crimes that people get especially emotional about.

As for the title, uh.. not so much. The sharper "anarchists" often -and rightly- say that govt is a fiction. Just a gang. But then they go in mental circles to try to pretend that it could be replaced by something that ISN'T, at it's core, also a gang. Libertarians/"anarchists" often have a mindset that likes consistancy of principle, and so the idea that anarchy, which (almost) sounds like the the answer to the contradictions between non-agression and civilization, might not be a coherent concept, is a bitter pill to swallow, especially after they probably went through other philosophies and heartaches to get to where they are today.

So if you push them long enough, they usually come down to something like "In any event, smart aleck, what I propose would at least be smaller, more efficient, more moral, more easily changable, etc." and indeed, maybe it would be. but it's not non-aggresion. It's not volunteryism. It's not gang-less. And it comes with it's own NEW set of problems, which I won't get into.

Here's just one example of the kind of blinders you have to put on to be an "anarchist". Let's contrast these two sentences:

Something an "anarchist" often says: "The problem with states is that they have a monopoly on force."

Anarchist video you just watched @ 7 minutes in: "Benton Enterprises is a highly respected firm, and no other firm will agree to defend him now."


Anarchist aren't against the rule of law

and in favor of paying corporate thugs to extract revenge. This video was basically just direct corporate government. Why should a company be able to choose the level of retribution or fine for a crime? They'll just base it on how much they can get or how much they are willing to be aggressors for their client based on what they are being paid. This is missing the rule of law. Where is it?

Actually the customers/victims choose.

remember a number of competing defense agencies are competing for your business.

Lets say you choose the $50 a month package for $10 million life insurance, $8 million rape insurance, $500,000 battery insurance and an 10% service fee incase you are the criminal.

So the killer in this example would have an agreement perhaps with his insurance agency stating that he will have to pay what the life was insured for plus 10%. If Dawn defense tries to charge the life insurance plus 20% to the two agencies will use the bargaining mechanism (vid 2) to find resolution.

Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

The advent of "$8 million rape

The advent of "$8 million rape insurance" policies will institutionalize the act of rape.

Explain this a bit more?

$500,000 battery insurance and an 10% service fee incase you are the criminal.

So anyone who can convince their insurance company that they've been the victim of battery collects $500,000? Or do they only get as much of that as their assailant can pay, and only if the assailant is caught and convicted? What if the assailant has no money and no insurance? If the victim's insurance company spends what it would cost to take the guy to trial, and he's convicted but can't pay and has no insurance, what happens next?

So the killer in this example would have an agreement perhaps with his insurance agency stating that he will have to pay what the life was insured for plus 10%.

So it's a $10 million life insurance policy, and the killer is convicted, and insured, and by the killer's own insurance he now owes $10 million plus ten percent. His net worth consists of five bucks, two cigarettes and the clothes on his back. What happens next?

Good questions

1. Like any insurance policy the insurance/defense company must pay its customer. Customer gets $10 million immediately. The insurance company now tries to find, and recover costs from the killer.

IF you were an insurance agency what would you do to maximize profits? a) Perhaps have cops on the beat to reduce the number of killings and therefore payouts.
b) have agreements with other agencies that if their customer is a killer they will not protect him and vice versa. All of which will be in the terms of the killers policy.

2. The broke killer now has no protection against Dawn Defense. Dawn defense will want to get some money out of the killer, but they will not want to lose customers by appearing soft on killers. Dawn Defense will threaten the broke killer with violence or even death (He is a killer remember and he has been through due process of court and his defense agency has abandoned this killer) Perhaps broke killer might try agree to work in a dawn defense factory until the payments are paid off. It is hard to say what exciting ideas the free market will work out as punishment and rehabilitation.

Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I can't begin to explain

how many ways that seems unrealistic to me. But the clincher is "It is hard to say what exciting ideas the free market will work out as punishment and rehabilitation." It's like the missing second step in the underpants gnome episode of South Park. The missing part is the hard part.

So someone who is poor and unskilled and has nothing to lose, takes up a career as an armed robber. Eventually they get caught. The insurance company has to cough up the $500,000 or whatever payment on the policy of the victim. It also costs them money to find the guy. Then he can't pay, so if they don't want to let him go because of what that would do to the deterrence factor, are they going to lock him up and incur even further expense? Chopping off a hand is cheap, and a visible deterrent to other would-be thieves, and the guy won't have any insurance after he's convicted so there's no worry about retaliation. Maybe that's the exciting free market solution? Not that it's a new idea, of course.

Also, you've created a huge incentive for insurance fraud, since being the victim of a crime now means a huge and very tempting payoff. Desperate people do desperate things, and you're dangling a huge incentive in front of them. You've created what's called a "moral hazard."

The moral hazard of insurance fraud

Insurance frauds may exist.... but it may exist in current insurance plans like house insurance and fire insurance, etc.

It does not mean the system won't work. About 40% of current rape allegations are false now. Why? Because the cost of false allegations is not passed onto the individual falsely accusing people.

In a free society it would be.

Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

other moral hazard

aside from insurance fraud by the consumer, is that there is moral hazard inherent in every insurance company. to the extent it provides the benefit contracted for, it becomes poorer.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

equaly true of government though.

But with government there is no incentive to provide value, and customers are forced to pay.

At least free market voluntary governments/insurance agencies are incentivized to provide value to attract customers.

Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I get your point, but disagree with the equally

and this is why I am a minarchist, not an anarchist.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Or Bill

pays dawn defense 1000 to confirm that the glove didn't fit so they had to a acquit. On a more serious note, I know your getting at the fact that it's reputation that keeps the system equitable and just but pragmatically there will be no justice if lines of punishment and damages are a moving boundary dictated by money. What if you bought an insurance package that says that part of your damages include vengeful retribution. People that want that might even pay a premium. And why not. They're just criminals. They deserve it.

The 2nd video....

The bargaining mechanism explains that.

Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I'll watch it.

Don't mean to be too critical here. Thanks for the post.