14 votes

This video will turn any Libertarian into an anarchist


http://youtu.be/CmCPtD16G3Q

There is a follow up video as well.

Here it is


http://youtu.be/oqbX9tgn7Gw




Comment viewing options

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

What happens when...

... Dawn Defense becomes large enough to where it is more economically feasible for them to just arrest Bill without fear of reprisal from Tanna Justice? What happens if Dawn Defense charges astronomical premiums that only the very rich can afford? What happens when Dawn Defense becomes so powerful they can do practically anything they want with impunity? (kinda like the federal government is today).

Sorry, but this Libertarian remains unconvinced.

Great points. Just think them all through.

1. In a free market if they charge very high premiums competitors will steal market share.

2. A) Monopolies dont occur in the free market, B) Are you saying we need government because in a free market, a company might grow so large that it becomes a government? that does not make sense.

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

Depends on what your definition of monopoly is.

If it is in the classical sense where a monopoly is a company that enjoys special privileges or protection granted by the government, yes, this won't occur in a free market, If however, your definition of monopoly is a business that achieves a dominate position in a particular market, I would argue that this can and will occur in a free market (and is not a bad thing in and of itself).

After viewing this video, I am even less convinced of the merits of anarchy when compared to a vastly limited government (Libertarianism). Anarchy may very well be better than our current system, but that is a pretty low bar considering how the rule of law has been perverted by the criminals that have infiltrated all branches of government. I'm not sure it (Anarchy) would fare any better.

Yeaaaah

Except in the situation where the victim is targeted by a dangerous gang or where a gang begins operating in an area and all security firms preemptively drop coverage to avoid losses due to confrontation.

This idea works when the only gangs are made up of good and honest people. The second bad guys have gangs too you've got a mess.

Imagine you're brought up in an area where a crime lord runs the only security firm in town and you pay for protection, yet your supposed protectors are buddies with the same guys who will destroy your property and hurt your family. In fact, your protectors like to have "some fun" sometimes too. No other security firms will come in and face a certain melee. Think of the costs involved.

You're left to defend yourself. Also this video makes a pretty big assumption when it says the mugger has no other choice but to pay the fine (profit stream to the security corp). He could simply defend himself when they come to enforce.

The crime lord scenario...

is really just a monopoly argument. Any monopoly will act like a government and it will be thugs 'R' us.

But monopolies do not exist the free market.

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

Then what you'd end up with

Then what you'd end up with are currently free market areas and areas not called free market currently. Monopolies may not exist in a free market but they do exist.

Sory How about I did not quite understand that.

?

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

The "monopoly can't exist in

The "monopoly can't exist in a free market" argument isn't really an argument at all. Sure, you could "say" it's no longer a free market in an area where a monopoly arises and thus free market is 100% monopoly free... But that doesn't make it impossible for a monopoly to exist anywhere.

Whether it's called a free market or not is irrelevant if you're stuck under a mafia security company.

Ah... You miss understand me....

I am not suggesting some clever word trick...

I am saying that if the market were free then a monopoly would not form.

This video best suggests why that would be true.


http://youtu.be/UAOJE8Bh5IY

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

This is a great video.

Rothbard would have loved it. It doesn't answer all the questions, but it's a great intro. Who made this?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

youtube user managainstthestate

its a great channel

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

I guess he wants to remain anonymous?

Can't blame him. Well, thank you, managainstthestate, from the bottom of my heart, for making that video.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Fkn Retarded

That was so fkn retarded, thank you for providing a great example why a limited government would be the best option for humans.

a limited government

Now there's a thigh-slapper!

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Yep

that's what I'm thinking...

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

how articulate!

.

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

The video

is evident enough, no need for an explanation of how RETARDED it is. Hell,my 7 year old son could punch holes in that RETARDED ass video.

In fact when he gets off of school tomorrow, that's exactly what he is going to do for you. Fkn retarded..LOL...

No, it won't - not if the Libertarian can think a little

I am a fan of Murray Rothbard, so I was hoping and, actually, expecting to be impressed and convinced that a free market solution to crime would be practicable. Now I am considerably less sure.

First, a monetary fine for a crime of premeditated aggression isn't enough as, even if it is accepted by the accused party, it leaves an aggressor on the streets.

Secondly, we ought to know by now that corporations are very much like governments - both are fictitious entities imbued with unreasonable powers and relatively easy to corrupt. In the example the two security firms seem so reasonable, forthright, moral and straightforward. But in the real world it isn't like that at all. A corporation is no better than its weakest link and expecting ALL corporate employees to act wisely and ethically and more interested in truth than profits is a bit like believing in the tooth fairy.

There may be a way for society to work without a formal, entrenched government in the case of crime, but this video certainly doesn't make a good and compelling case.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

I dont think so

1. The monetary penalty would or could be very high, such that no man could afford to pay it and would end up in jail. but the market would decide that.

2. This solution does not need to be perfect, just better than what we have. As you correctly state. Governments have all of the same problems as corporations. But corporations have the potential loss of market share holding them somewhat accountable, so surely it must be better.

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

so then

rich people could buy their way out of jail openly and the only thing different is they would do it directly and it would be legal?

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

There is no reason the death penalty would not exist...

Why do you assume the penalty will be monetary.

If you purchase the "hunt down and kill the convicted murderer" package from dawn defense, then they will be obliged to do so to keep all of their other customers on the same package.

the 2nd video in the thread addresses this by the way.

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

even crazier

!

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

This is not Anarchy.

This is unfettered Corporate Governance.

It's actually a glimpse of what's ahead on our current path.

What if my security firm scapegoats an innocent man for raping and murdering my daughter, a man without security insurance, an easy target to promote to clients its success with the death penalty? It also scares those without insurance into buying some, very much like computer antivirus firms spreading viruses to stimulate demand for their product.

If capital punishment is to be negotiated through mere cost/benefit analysis, what's to keep a wealthy murderer from simply paying off security firms. Da po' man hangs.

Rothbard at least recognized the moral benefit to uniformity of law, equal access, separation of legislative policy from enforcement. Negotiating capital punishment as such, is madness beyond anything Rothbard ever dreamed.

corporations are only powerful for two reasons

One, they please customers. That's good.
Two, they receive special privileges from government. That's bad.
In so far as the second reason would not exist in our scenario, only by pleasing their customers would a defense agency wield power. If they abused their power (e.g., evil, psychopathic CEO), their market share would rapidly go down for at least two reasons. One, their operations would get more expensive, if they relied on violence more often than their competitors. Two, they would burn up any good will they had with their customers, taking the reasonable assumption that most people do not like violence (especially when they personally have to pay for it).

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Why are corporations who

Why are corporations who receive privileges from the government powerful? It's because the government has guns. How will these special corporate overlords punish crime - especially if the perpetrator doesn't want to be punished? Guns. So, corporations would be just as powerful as they are now - actually more so, because there wouldn't be any middle man to slow things down.

I should note that I'm using the word "guns" here as a symbol of the practical ability to force someone to do something. It could mean fists guns knives nukes or fat guys named Vinny who will break your face.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

I think I'm

I think I'm convinced.

Combine this with Threat Management Center's video info and you've got a pretty good argument. Their company provides security not only to customers but to the rest of the neighborhood. If they're already patrolling, it's cheap PR to watch the other houses and businesses on the same block, or in a block that's in between several other blocks they're patrolling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco&feature=youtu.be

I've always been leery of gangs rising up and taking over, like they already do in ghettos. But if there are established businesses already doing work in the better parts of town, the incremental cost of them taking on customers in the ghetto would be affordable, especially if a whole neighborhood pooled their money to get it going.

Just thinking it through, there could be a bunch of mergers until one company gets control of the whole country and gets too aggressive towards small ones trying to compete. But the thing is, they would essentially be a government, and a govt can only exist at the consent of the people. The company gets too far out of line and they'll find themselves facing guerrilla warfare and have to consider the costs. Of course, if people are sheeple then they could probably turn oppressive without much argument just like our current govt has done at the mass consent of the sheeple.

That video you linked = awesome...

in the op's videos, while you were thinking about mergers I was thinking about collusion between agencies creating injustice for profit. If our republic requires a moral people, I feel as if anarchy would require the same. Even so, it was a good watch and I upvoted.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

Monopolies and collusion require government...

This video explains


http://youtu.be/UAOJE8Bh5IY

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

I've seen this already.. good vid,

but when a "security firm" believes they have the authority to restrain someone's freedom, they are executing the function of government. Collusion would be easy. The security firms would be best served by maximizing profits. It would be in the best interest of the industry to find everyone guilty. If the people were not vigilant, the firms would get away with it. Anarchy would require a highly moral people.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

Understanding how law and order...

would function in a free society was my biggest hangup about why we need a government at all.

This video answered that for me.

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