All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:54:00
How Much Government Is Necessary? | Michael Badnarik Debates Stefan Molyneux - Part 1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't think that you need self-sufficiency to be an anarchist.
I can't find anything in the bridge without my wife pointing it out, so I think that we'll be talking about a little bit of a different kind of anarchy.
I am what would be technically known as an anarcho-capitalist, in that I try to profit from anarchy.
No, that's not it.
It's that I believe in what I think everybody here would believe in, which is property rights are absolute, self-ownership and property rights are absolute, and the non-initiation of force is a moral absolute.
And I'm sure that most libertarians, most minarchists would agree that property rights are double plus good and that the initiation of the use of force is very bad.
The question or the difference or the divergence between an anarchist and a minarchist I think would be along these lines.
that an anarchist looks at the principle of property rights and the non-initiation of the use of force and says those principles are inviolable.
We are not willing to take those principles over our knee, bend them backwards until they break in order to achieve some pragmatic objective.
The minarchists in general will say, yes, it would be great to have a utopia where everybody was perfect and they believe that anarchists do not recognize the reality of human corruption and human evil.
And I would say the exact opposite is true.
I believe that an anarchist understands the reality of evil, the potential for evil in the human psyche.
And it is because an anarchist recognizes the reality of evil that we oppose the creation of a monopoly of legal violence within society.
It's like certain people have a propensity for addiction to alcohol or to drugs or whatever and an anarchist who recognizes that metaphorically says, well, we're not going to put a distillery in their living room because they're drunkards or they're alcoholics and human beings Many human beings love to maximize their resources at the expense of others.
It's a mere net gain calculation.
What can I do in my life that's going to gain me the most resources in an amoral situation?
Most people are biological creatures.
That's what we do.
We maximize resources.
And the government is a terrible, powerful, ugly and violent tool to maximize your resources at the expense of others.
And since that's what human beings like to do, we can't have one.
Power corrupts.
Human beings like to get things for free.
Human beings like to have power over other human beings.
We are a tribal society.
Darwinian evolution is why we're here today, which is gaining power over others and gaining things with the least amount of effort.
Because human beings have that tendency and the anarchist recognizes that, we cannot have a government, because that will immediately be inhabited by immoral people who will use it to their advantage and at the expense of the majority.
It is my view that minarchism is a very dangerous philosophy, and not because I don't want less government.
Of course I do.
I want less government at the point of nothing, in the same way that I don't if I'm sick.
I don't want less sickness.
I want no sickness.
That's my goal.
But I think that minarchism is a very dangerous philosophy, and I'll tell you why.
Either the Minarchist is going to succeed or the Minarchist is going to fail.
If the Minarchist fails, then the philosophy means nothing and the government continues to grow, which you could say is what's been happening for the past, say, 10,000 years.
But if Minarchists succeed, and I believe that they did succeed in 1776, I don't think that you could come up with a better laboratory experiment for the success or failure of Minarchism than the creation of the American Republic.
It was a beautiful theoretical laboratory proof of the possibility and practicality of minarchism.
And what has happened since then, we are all aware of, and that's why we're here, is we went from the very smallest government, which was about, what, 1%?
2% of what it is?
We went from the very smallest government in 1776 to the very largest, most powerful, most terrible, most destructive government the world has ever seen.
A government with the power to destroy the world many times over.
First time in history that's happened.
Never had a government that big and powerful before.
Is there a relationship between a small government at the beginning and a big government at the end?
I would say that there is.
Because a small government that respects, to a large degree, property rights and opposes the initiation of force creates what?
It creates a free market.
Once you have a free market, you get staggering explosions in wealth.
Right.
Once you get in a society a staggering explosion of wealth, more money is available for taxation.
More money is available for the military.
More money is available for the endless hordes of social programs and social engineering that bureaucrats and politicians and statists love to do.
When you get the smallest possible government, you create a free market which builds wealth, which builds power, which then government swells to take over.
It becomes a goldmine for those who want power over others.
If a man makes $100 a year and you tax him at 50%, he will revolt because he can't live on $50 a year.
on $50 a year, but the man makes $100,000 a year and you tax him at 50%, he won't prevail.
Which is why we're here and not in the streets, because we can survive on what's left over, because there's so much wealth in society So when you start with a very small government, you create the conditions for a massive explosion in wealth that creates the greatest prize that politicians can get a hold of, which is the productive energies and wealth of a free, prospering, industrious, free market society.
That's why I think minarchism is so dangerous.
Another way to look at it, if you don't mind me stepping into metaphor land, and hopefully I won't get too much of it on my shoe, is a guy comes to a doctor.
Two doctors.
There are two doctors in a row.
Dr. Minarchist and Dr. Anarchist.
And yes, that would be a great superhero villain, don't you think?
And the guy comes in, he's got some honking tumor hanging off his side, right?
And he says, Dr. Minarchist, can you help me with this tumor?
Because it keeps growing, it keeps growing, and I have to get it cut, and then I have to go into chemotherapy, and my hair all falls out, and it's just terrible what happens.
And Dr. Menarchus says, well, I can cut it down.
I can shave that thing down for you.
80% maybe I can get it down.
And the guy's like, but that's happened 20 times before I've got my tumor shrunk down 80%.
It just grows back, and I get sicker, and I have to go to chemotherapy.
So what can you do?
Best I can do.
He says, well can't you just cut the tumor out completely?
He's like, oh my God, no.
That's utopia.
That's crazy!
If I cut out your tumor, you're gonna get spontaneous tattoos on your forehead.
Mohawks!
You're gonna be riding around motorcycles with Mel Gibson.
It's gonna be chaos and anarchy and dogs living with cats and All kinds of horrible things, right?
Scare stories abound if I cut out your tumor completely.
And he says, but if you cut it down, it's gonna grow back, he says to Dr. Minarkis.
Dr. Minarkis says, don't worry, I've got a plan.
What's your plan?
Well, I'm gonna cut your tumor down by 80%, but when I'm in there, I'm gonna take out a magic marker, magic being the operative word, I'll lean over, and I'm gonna write on that tumor, don't grow.
And I'm going to call it a constitution.
Because we all know that tumors respect constitutions, right?
And then it just grows back.
Now he goes to Dr. Anarchist, and Dr. Anarchist says, out it comes.
It's a tumor.
It's always going to regrow.
It's happened hundreds of times in the past.
It's going to happen again.
So we're not going to compromise.
We're going to cut it out.
Because I know it's going to regrow.
And that is the way that minarchism looks to an anarchist.
It is a tumor.
There are about 230 odd countries in the world today.
Not one of them has a government that is not growing or has not grown considerably since it was designed expressly to stay small.
There have been hundreds and hundreds more throughout history, from the ancient Egyptians to the ancient Romans, the ancient Greeks, The Magna Carta?
Mmm, look at that we've got.
It was actually more rights to the nobles, and you ended up with feudalism for another 500 years.
Every single culture, every single country has designed a government to serve the people and to be small, to protect property, to oppose violence, and every single time, and we have five to six hundred examples of this, it never once has worked.
Because it breaks principles.
We say we oppose violations of property and personhood, and in order to achieve that, we are going to create an agency endowed with the special, unique, monopolistic ability to violate persons and property.
You cannot protect persons and property by creating an agency with the monopolistic power to violate persons and property.
We all understand that when a parent leans over to a child and says, don't hit your sister, that that's a contradiction.
It's the same thing.
You cannot create an agency with a monopoly of violence to oppose violence.
It never works.
It tracks the principle right up front.
And I think the very, very important thing that I would suggest is that one of the most important virtues in the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge is humility.
I fully accept that the Founding Fathers were stone geniuses whose intellect we can all hope to maybe someday emulate in some small manner.
And they genuinely were the cream of the crop of the Enlightenment, some of the most brilliant men of the age, well-versed in history, in philosophy, in political science.
And they did some amazing work to come up with the best conceivable balance of powers and ways to keep the government small.
Separation of church and state.
Brilliant!
And it's been tried many other times.
The British Revolution of the 18th century was supposed to keep their government small, right?
Serving the people.
What happened?
It grew.
Just as the American Empire did into the British Empire, which ruled a third of the globe, subjugated hundreds of millions of people.
You make the government small, it grows.
The smaller the tumor starts, the larger, and more quickly, it grows.
And humility is very important.
I do not believe for one split second that I have any kind of capacity to create scribbles on a piece of paper That it's going to stop evil forever.
It doesn't work.
It can never work.
How many of you would get a copy of a law written on a piece of paper, walking down an alley, some guy comes running at you with a knife, you're like, "Stop!" What's he going to do?
It doesn't work.
Because the Constitution, laws that do nothing, they're pieces of paper.
Say, but the Constitution restricts the government.
No!
The Constitution brings down a tree or two.
Uses up the mink.
Right?
Nobody goes into a shooting match saying, Look!
I'm invulnerable!
Right?
It's just a piece of paper.
It's not the solution to the problem of violence.
And I do not imagine for a moment that I'm going to be smarter than the 500,000 geniuses who've tried to solve the problem of violence in society by creating a monopoly of violence.
You could give me a thousand years and a thousand helpers to try and come up with Magic spells, magic words on a piece of paper that would stop violent people forever from doing wrong with institutionalized violence.
I would never be able to do it.
That's called humility.
It can't be done.
Recognizing what is impossible is the first step to wisdom.
And the last thing that I would say... What's my time?
One minute?
The last thing that I would say, which I would say very quickly... The last thing that I would say is that the belief is, in constitutionality, in republicanism, limited government, is that if you get the right words on a piece of paper, That evil people will no longer do evil, right?
They will come into government, they will go, oh, alright, no evil.
Okay, no evil.
But if we can come up with magic words on a piece of paper that will stop evil people from doing evil, we don't need a government.
Because we go to the mafia and we say, look, here's a piece of paper that says don't do evil.
They go, oh, okay.
I'll stop doing evil.
Or we go to a murderer and we say, okay, you did kill, but sign this piece of paper which says don't do evil.
And you go, okay.
I go free if I sign that piece of paper?
Okay, there you go.
And we all understand that that will not stop the murderer and it will not stop the thief from doing evil.
The pieces of paper will not stop evil people from doing evil things.
If we can come up with such magic paper, such Harry Potter wonders, we get everyone in society to sign it and there'll be no more evil.
We don't need a government.
But we all understand that that's not how the world works.
That evil people will sign anything you want in order to get away with it.
And that's what will happen in any monarchistic constitutionalist society.
If we can do something wonderful with a piece of paper that will stop evil permanently in its tracks, we get everyone in society to sign it, lo and behold, there's no evil, we don't need a government.
But!
If we doubt that that will work, then how is it going to work with politicians?
If it's not going to work with the mafia, how is it going to work with an even more organized set of criminals called politicians?
We understand we don't stop the mafia in its tracks by getting them to sign a piece of paper with rules on it.
It is not going to work with the mafia.
It's not going to work with the murderer.
It is not going to work with politicians.
And recognizing that basic reality is where the creativity of coming up with a stateless society, with how a society works in the absence of government, is all about.
I don't like... You know, have you seen this cartoon?
I love that.
Have you seen this cartoon where, you know, someone's got this equation, right, up here on the board, right?
And then he comes up with an answer, and there's a cloud in the middle, called "Then a miracle occurs" and somehow it comes to the answer here and there's some guy who comes up and says "You might want to flesh that bit out a little because I'm not too clear on that" Well to me it's like, well we want a non-violent society or a society that opposes violence and supports property rights and to me the constitution and minarchism is like "Then a miracle occurs" and boom, we get this free, wonderful society that part doesn't work
And so we need to find another solution.
And of course, my podcasts and my books, if you're interested, they're all free.
You can look into that.
There's lots of creative solutions about how we can have roads, national defense, police, law courts, all the things that we need because there are bad people in society.
There's lots of ways to do it that don't involve this magical golden gun that's going to make everyone good and is never going to attract bad people to try and control it.
And I think that's where we need to spend our creative energies, rather than the fantasy that pieces of paper will stop bullets.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, at the beginning.
Which society would build the roads most efficiently?
Or any public good, for that matter.
And Mr. Bednarik, if you'd like to take this question.
I'll try.
I don't understand.
Which society would build the roads?
Well, I figure it'd be pretty much the same.
There's no reason I mean, having a minarchist, you know, small government implies that there are a lot of things the government doesn't do.
And so I think it'd be pretty much the same if you don't allow the government to build the roads in a minarchist environment.
It would turn out to be the same way in an anarchist.
I mean, it could be private.
Both ways, it could be private.
And as I tried to explain or express at the beginning, From our current point of view, from where we sit now with government, monarchy and anarchy are going to be almost identical.
it's going to be up to Stefan and I to really kind of distinguish how they are different.
You all ready for a bad pun?
Question of the roads, I consider myself a bit of a road scholar.
Hello, hello.
Take a moment to enjoy that joke, shall we?
Well, I mean, it's funny, you know, the environmentalists who have a lot of good things to say are strangely addicted to avoiding this topic of the fact that taxes pay for roads is one of the worst things for the environment, right?
Because people don't have to pay for their driving in that sense, right?
I mean, yeah, they pay some gas taxes, but you wouldn't be able to drive if the government hadn't built all the roads.
Roads are pretty simple, right?
I mean, they existed prior to the government.
It wasn't like there were no roads before the government.
There were private halls even in the 18th century in America which all worked fine until the government took them over.
If you want to go build a housing development, you're never going to sell the houses unless there's a road to it, and so roads are pretty easy to solve.
And even if you don't accept the technology now, which can actually track where people drive and send them a bill.
I mean, when I used to have a real job, I went on a highway that was entirely private, and I paid a toll, and it was beautiful.
I mean, it was like an airport landing strip.
It was fantastic.
Whereas, of course, the public highway was just, you know, stop and go, choked up, right?
Absolutely.
Roads will be much, much better, much more efficient, and those roads which are not supported by the traffic will fall into disuse, and there'll be changes.
People will drive less or work at home more, and we will end up with a much more efficient use of resources without all this crazy government subsidies.
And the fact, of course, that they don't charge you for peak usage is crazy.
So, you know, that way people all drive to work at nine o'clock.
It's, you know, nuts.
So, a much, much more efficient use of resources, and I think we would agree that that should be a private function, minority or not so.
This next question is for Michael Bednarek.
Also remember that rebuttals are allowed after a lot of time.
Michael, is individual freedom compatible with government no matter how small it is?
Is individual freedom compatible with...
Compatible with government no matter how small the government is?
Yes, it is compatible because we have individual rights.
The basic premise of my book and my Constitution class is the difference between rights and privileges.
We, the people, have unalienable individual rights.
We don't have to ask for permission.
A privilege is something that someone allows you to do and they can revoke that privilege At any time.
And most of us are not really clear on the concept that we have individual rights, we give the government privileges.
Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 says all legislative powers herein granted.
Well, when we are granting legislative powers, it implies that they are privileges, and we can take those privileges away from the government anytime we are brave enough to do so.
And my supporting evidence would be the Declaration of Independence, which says that when any form of government becomes destructive of your rights, the right of the people to alter or abolish.
I think we can all agree that it's time to alter the government and, you know, again, we have the option if we want to abolish it and to establish a new, you know, to provide new guards for our future security.
I disagree.
I think it's important to remember that the disparity of power between citizens and governments now is very different than it was in the 18th century.
In the 18th century, we had muskets versus muskets, right?
I mean, it was a relatively similarly armed opposing groups, right?
What's that old Bill Cosby thing where they lose the coin toss, the British lose the coin toss, and it's like their handicap is that they all have to march in a row with big Xs on them and the revolutionary force can live in the woods, you know, dressed in tree branches and shoot from wherever they want.
But back then it was relatively equal, right?
I mean, because there were no nuclear weapons, there were no spy satellites, there were no, I don't know, brain-frying lasers from UFOs and stuff.
The amount of hardware and technology that is available to a state to dominate its citizens now, not to mention computers, deduction of source of income tax and so on, it's all nuts how much you can be tracked and controlled because of the technology that was largely developed in the free market, is what I was saying.
Small government means free market.
Free market means innovation.
Government takes over that innovation and uses it to control citizenry.
You are creating the weapons that are used to keep you down.
And so, in the future, not everyone's going to have a nuclear weapon, obviously, but the government will.
Because, usually, minarchists say government for national defense.
How are you supposed to, conceivably, no matter how many six-shooters you have, how are you supposed to stand up to F-16s and M1 tanks and nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers and spy satellites?
It's simply impossible.
It's why you can't have a government now, because the disparity between the average citizen's strength of might and the state is simply far too great.
The citizen can never control the government, and the government will always be that well-armed, and that's why we have to get rid of it as an institution completely.
Hand-to-hand combat.
And that's, I think, where this is going to go in about three minutes.
Conflict resolution, of course, is essential.
I mean, the reality is people are going to disagree, people are going to cheat, people are going to steal, people are going to do bad things with good promises.
And that's a reality, which is, of course, why we can't have a government, because those people will all swarm to the government while they have a monopoly of force.
There's lots and lots of different ways of coming into it.
Something that's really, really powerful in society is ostracism.
Right?
It's a really, really powerful thing.
I think Michael's completely right that interdependence is the key to wealth, division of labor.
We're all so dependent on each other.
I mean, if I had to grow my own food, I'd end up eating my feet.
It would just be crazy, right?
And I'm not that flexible, so I'd be really hungry.
But we are so interconnected that if we are not allowed to participate in economic life, it is a complete catastrophe for us.
And so I have this bunch of articles and podcasts and there's a book called Practical Anarchy, which you may think is an oxymoron, but I don't, which is available for free on the website, which I have these dispute resolution organizations.
I don't know how it's all going to work because I can't find the future down to the large detail.
No one can, but it's a way it could work.
If Michael and I enter into an agreement to do stuff together, right?
He sells me an iPod, I'm going to give him a hundred bucks.
Then we have insurance, right?
And so 2% of that goes to the insurance.
And then if he doesn't ship me the iPod, I get the $100 from the insurance company.
And if I don't pay him and he ships me the iPod, he gets the $100.
If we trust each other, we don't have to have that.
Then we have no recourse, and so on.
Anytime you sign a contract, we both nominate an objective third party who's going to mediate the dispute, and we agree to abide by that ruling.
And if we don't abide by that ruling, we are no longer allowed to participate in contracts.
These dispute resolution organizations simply won't allow us to continue in contracts until we deal with the problem.
And then we face the problem of ostracism in a society where to be ostracized is to go to the Stone Age caricature of anarchy that Mr. Bednarik portrayed a little earlier.
The interdependence of human beings means that we have an enormous amount of power and influence over each other without using violence, just by saying, I'm not going to do business with you if you break your contract.
That is a disaster for people.
And of course, right now, conflicts aren't resolved at all.
Anyone here ever tried to use the court system to resolve a conflict?
Anyone?
How did that go?
Was it a productive and quality use of your time?
Was it efficient?
Was it positive?
Was it useful?
So right now we have the worst of both worlds.
We don't actually have an effective conflict resolution, but competition is banned.
And if we can survive this, we can sure as heck survive it where competition flourishes in the productive resolution of disputes to the benefit of the just party.
Oh, I'm done.
When I said that.
I agree that if we have a contract dispute, we can go to arbitration.
There's a saying that in Texas, he needed killin' is a valid defense.
Fortunately, that's not necessarily true, but that's what it all boils down to.
I don't know why I wish that it were not true, but in human nature, you get enough people together, you're always going to find somebody who is crazy or somebody who is evil.
That's what it really all boils down to.
We're not worried about the 98% of the people just going to go around minding their own business.
We're worried about the lunatics that are going out to hurt others.
It is a necessary fact of life that, at times, you need to use violence to quell the violence.
You fight fire with fire.
And the question ultimately revolves around, where's that going to happen?
Now, if you want to do anarchy, and have everybody resolve these violent things themselves, I mean, I'd be happy.
Let me wear my shoulder holster, and I promise only to shoot the guilty people.
And, you know, even my friends are going to go, oh, wow, you know, we don't want to let Bednark do that.
That'd be a little bit extreme.
And so the purpose of having a government, a minarchy, is to have a dispassionate use of force.
I am obviously emotionally involved in the thing, in whatever the issue is, and, you know, it's like, they're guilty!
Kill them!
And, you know, the idea is that we go, whoa, bad mark.
We're going to, you know, calm this down.
We're going to take it slow.
We're going to have a jury of our peers, you know, evaluate this.
And, you know, if, if we finally decide many years later that, you know, the person did, you know, commit murder, then we can, you know, do a lethal injection or electric chair or something like that.
And so this is, this is where there is no good answer.
You know, I would really like to never have to kill anybody.
You know, it's like, why can't we all just get along?
I don't know.
People are strange that way.
And so, I am content to have a very small government say, okay, we're going to use force to protect your property.
Because most people won't.
You know, John Wayne in The Shootist said that, you know, most people will flinch or hesitate before they pull the trigger.
He says, I won't.
I went to front sight training and you have all these guys out there dressed in camouflage with all the extra ammunition hanging around.
They're looking like little junior Rambos.
And I said, well, okay, you know, you look really impressive, but you're shooting at a paper target.
I mean, do you really?
Do you really have the courage to pull the trigger and take another human life?
And suddenly it got all real quiet because they realized that, in most cases, they don't.
And certainly a vast majority of people won't do that.
And they need to be protected.
And, you know, they want an organization to do that.
No.
There is no piece of paper which is going to be perfect.
We were discussing this last night.
How can we write the Constitution so that it's perfect?
How can we write a piece of paper so that this won't happen in another 223 years?
And the answer is, it's not possible.
You know, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance.
It's up to us.
And again, there's no good answer.
Either I have to kill him, or we have to have a government do it.
And we're going to keep bouncing back and forth between, you know, who's going to have that power.
And ultimately, I know the government will not protect me efficiently, which is why I am a very strong Second Amendment supporter.
This question is for both.
Hypothesize, what might the world look like if the U.S.
Constitution had never been ratified?
Would the number of deaths throughout the world be larger or smaller without the U.S.
government?
We'll start with Stefan first.
Okay, good.
Nice theoretical question.
Well, if the U.S.
Constitution had never been ratified, there would... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there would be little to no federal government.
What that would mean is that the competition among the states to keep their productive citizens would be very high, right?
Because originally there were 13 sovereign nations, right?
Like, not the EEC, but France and Germany and England, right?
So what would have happened if the Constitution was not ratified is that there would be no federal government.
There would be individual countries.
And those countries would compete to have people stay and not move and not leave because it's really hard to control the movement of people in the 18th century, right?
I mean, there weren't even any passports until the First World War because people would stow away, they'd come here, there was no electronic this, that, and the other.
You could just go wherever you wanted for the most part.
So there would be that aspect and that competition to keep people Would mean that taxes would be slower to rise because the less centralized things are and the easier it is to move between things, the more competition there is, right?
Because it's like a bunch of farmers where the cows can go wherever they want.
You have to provide them some good grazing in order to, I don't know, slaughter them later in a tax metaphorical sense, right?
But there would be greater competition.
Oh, now I'm hungry.
I'll eat later.
Um, there would be greater competition for the tax livestock, which I think would help things.
There could have been a civil war that would have gone on, but it wouldn't nearly have been as bad, and I doubt it would have actually happened, because I think, as we all know, not having gone with the, uh, schoolhouse rock version of history, uh, we know that the, um, war was against the South in order to extract further tax concessions and had nothing to do with slavery.
That would not have occurred.
Um, slavery would have died out, as it did, because they just would have eventually figured out that slaves, not only completely immoral, but economically unproductive.
So slavery would have died out just as it did in the rest of the world, simply by governments no longer catching slaves.
That's all you have to do to get rid of slavery.
You don't need a stupid civil war, as they did in Brazil.
The government just said, OK, we're not going to catch your slaves anymore, and suddenly it became too expensive to run after your own slaves all the time.
And so slavery just ends when the government stops enforcing it.
So it would have died out relatively quickly, because you wouldn't have been able to compete with the slave-free societies, who have much more agricultural productivity.
You for sure wouldn't have had the First World War because the American involvement in the First World War, which there's a very strong argument that the American involvement in the First World War led directly to the Second World War when Americans sent over huge numbers of troops.
It tipped the balance of power against Germany so much that Germany had to agree to the Treaty of Versailles.
Otherwise they were just fighting to a standstill and they would have gone home and there would have been no Treaty of Versailles.
Because Germany agreed to the Treaty of Versailles, they had to pay off all their debts, which meant they printed money that Germany would have originally have been paying up until the 1980s for the First World War, if the treaty had been honored.
Because they had to print so much money, they ended up with hyperinflation, which destroyed the middle class, radicalized the Germans, who then turned to Hitler for salvation.
There was hatred of the Jews because the Jews were perceived as the international bankers driving the hyperinflation.
And so that hatred escalated.
And so if you didn't get a First World War without the federal government, it's very unlikely you would have had a Second World War.
So I would say that the Constitution has, in a very obviously abstract and theoretical way, the blood of millions seeped into its parchment.
And without that, the history of the world, I think, would have been a much more peaceful and benevolent place.
That's not even to count the things like, uh, do we really think that Delaware would have invaded Iraq on its own?
Of course not.
Of course not.
You have to have the federal government, and the reason you have the federal government is because it has the tax livestock, which gives it the fiat currency power to fund wars through preying on future generations.
So you would not have had the wars in Iraq, you wouldn't have had Korea, you wouldn't have had Vietnam, you wouldn't have had all the proxy wars that have been fought around the world, you wouldn't have extraordinary renditions, you wouldn't have the torture camps of Guantanamo Bay, you wouldn't have Abu Ghraib, there would be an enormous amount of peace because the more you give people the power, what is the there would be an enormous amount of peace because the more you give What is the slogan of government?
Free evil.
That's what it is.
You get to do evil, and other people get to pay.
In cash and in blood.
And the more abstracted you are from those you rule, the more evil you can commit.
And that's why, if you're going to have a tyranny, you want it right by your side, not overhead in the sky dominating everything.
So I think it had a seriously negative effect on world peace.
sorry that's a real sprint through history and I'm not going to say you agree with everything but that's certainly a perspective that I would take.
I love a really good debate so I'm going to agree with Stephan.
Thank you.
You've got to agree with the truth, and again, anarchy and monarchy are going to be very, very close.
We're going to have to search hard to find some of the differences.
I teach a class on the Constitution, but the Constitution is far from perfect.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, you know, allows slavery to exist until 1808.
I mean, there are definitely problems with it.
The colonies were trying to repay the Revolutionary War debt.
The 13 colonies were printing money like it was going out of style, and with printing money you get hyperinflation and the economy stops.
And so people in the colonies went, well, we really love freedom, but the economy sucks.
We want you to go to Philadelphia and modify the Articles of Confederation.
And that's not what they did.
You know, they went, they threw the Articles in the trash, and they came up with a more perfect union.
More perfect than the Articles of Confederation, presumably.
And it established a more centralized government.
Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist.
He didn't like King George III, but he thought that King George Washington would be a really great idea.
Fortunately, Washington rejected the idea.
Alexander Hamilton's followers were nationalists.
They wanted one strong centralized government.
He knew they wouldn't go for that, and so he labeled his team of supporters federalists, which is a lie.
And Thomas Jefferson's followers were federalists.
They wanted a loosely distributed or loosely organized government.
But that label, Federalists, had already been taken, and Hamilton said, well, we're Federalists, and you're the opposite of us.
You must be Anti-Federalists.
Which makes it sound like, you know, so basically what Hamilton did was switch the labels.
You know, good guys and bad guys, and you switch the labels in order to get the Constitution ratified.
Not a surprise that our politicians lie to us.
The surprise really is that, you know, 200 some odd years later, when we talk about the strong centralized government in Washington, D.C., we don't call it a national government, which is what it is.
We go, oh, that's a federal government.
And, you know, so Hamilton was such a good liar, we're still falling for the lie, you know, two centuries later.
If we had stayed with the Articles Confederation, the Articles required unanimous support, a unanimous vote of all the existing states.
Try to imagine 50 states united together and getting a unanimous vote from 50 states.
How big do you think the federal government would be?
It would be a trivia question.
Okay, four tickets to the local concert.
You've got to identify the city where the national government is.
Oh gosh, I used to know that.
So, we would be better off.
We want to make the government small.
And again, it is up to us.
It is up to us to make sure that it stays small.
That's what eternal vigilance is all about.
You know, you don't go out and cut the lawn and go, wow, you know, I've really got a well-manicured lawn, you know, and this is the last time this summer I'm going to have to cut the grass.
You know, you get a good rain and, you know, your neighbors are going to be complaining because the grass is a foot tall.
The government is the same way.
Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, suggested that, you know, we need a little revolution about every 20 years, you know, to kind of trim back the government that has grown up.
The problem is, it's like earthquakes in California.
In California, we like earthquakes.
About every 6 to 12 months.
Because when you have earthquakes often, you know, everything vibrates.
You go, wow, did you feel that?
That was pretty cool.
And nothing bad happens.
It's after five or ten years when you haven't had an earthquake and all that pressure has built up.
Now you get 6.2 on the Richter scale and knock down buildings and roads.
So I think that we're at that place politically.
We haven't had enough revolution in a while.
And if we do, in fact, have one, we're going to be knocking down some buildings.
Thank you.
Thank you.
if they've, if, oh, socialism?
Even a single nuclear weapon has ever been invaded.
Why?
Is Europe at peace for the first time in 10,000 years?
Because they've got weapons of mass destruction.
And the leaders, these brave political-military leaders, suddenly seem to find a lot of restraint when they're in the crosshairs.
Right?
When they can't just send young people to be slaughtered, but they themselves could get hit with a nuke.
Suddenly, they seem to find a lot of restraint in the capacity for peace.
So what do you need to defend a geographical area?
A couple of nukes.
What is that going to cost you?
A hundred million dollars a year?
It's a buck or two per person per year to guarantee that you're not going to be invaded.
Any more, you're going to start causing trouble overseas, which gets people flying planes into your buildings.
So you don't want any more than that.
You want as minimum possible defense.
It's completely easy in a free society.
Second point, which I'll keep brief, is that... Let's use our moderators here.
Just very briefly.
All right, the guy in the suit is the statist society.
We'll keep that theme running.
And the guy without the suit, who should really be unshaven, is the anarchist society, right?
So I'm an evil third-party dude who's got a military and wants to invade, right?
Why is it that I would want to invade another country?
Is it to sightsee?
Of course not.
It's because I want to take over the tax structure of that society, right?
Because that society has tax livestock which produce consistent money, which I can then spend.
Right?
So if I go and invade this guy, then I can take over his tax structure, which is, of course, what every conqueror does, right?
They go in, they take over the government, they continue to extract the taxes from the population.
So I can go and invade this guy, uh, this guy's country, I'll say.
That's a little sinister of a way.
I go and invade this guy's country, and I can take over the tax structure of his, uh, his state.
But this crazy anarchy dude, right, his country, there's no tax structure.
There's no tax collection.
It's the difference between trying to take over a really well-organized farm that's very productive and wandering into a swamp.
No disrespect.
He actually smells great.
I'm going back for just one more.
But that's the real difference.
If you have an anarchic society, there's nothing to invade.
Because there's nothing to take over.
There's no tax structure.
There's no Fort Knox that you go and create.
There's no national army.
Why did Hitler go into Western Czechoslovakia?
Because of the Škoda Ominent Works, which were created by the state, so he could take those over.
To get the 100,000 soldiers, to get the 20,000 tanks, to get the artillery unit.
That's why he went there.
If it was a state with society, those things, those fruits, those benefits would not be there to take.
So, you don't have to, versus just a couple of nukes and stuff, you don't have to worry about being invaded if you're an anarchistic society, because there's nothing to take!
You're not taking over a farm and getting the milk and the eggs, and they're just wandering into a forest where there's nothing to take.
There's no one, no sane person is ever going to invade an anarchic society.
Plus, of course, you don't know who's got what weapons, right?
Which is a little different in a state of society.
It's fun to invade a state of society, particularly in Europe, because the population is disarmed, right?
Even the greatest military in the world is having a It's a tough time standing up to Iraqis who are arming themselves, right?
Because, you know, there's no disarmament of Iraqis because they're just bringing arms in from outside.
So, you're simply not going to worry about national defense.
It's going to be a couple of bucks a year, and even that's going to fade away.
No one's going to want to invade you because there's nothing to take, and they don't know who's armed.
You're just not going to have to worry about it, but we still think in the same old way as when that kind of state of solution seemed to be essential for everyone, but it's really not the case.
technology and events and weapons of mass destruction have overtaken that need.
Thank you.
to the time limits, but I mean, we don't want to be too strict.
It's all right.
We have plenty of time.
Next question.
This is for both speakers.
Ayn Rand once wrote in Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, that anarchy as a political concept is a naive, floating abstraction.
The society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would First of all, I wanted to just mention I'm a massive fan of Ayn Rand.
I think she is a stone genius describing the ages.
And without her, I probably would still be some muttering Canadian socialist.
Canadian anarchist, isn't it the weirdest thing?
It's like the two words you'd never expect to hear together, you know, like Finnish entrepreneur or military intelligence or something like that, right?
It's just weird.
You're an anarchist.
You must be from Bolivia.
No, Mississauga.
Anyway.
So I have huge, huge respect for Ayn Rand.
Two things that I disagree with her approach on ethics, though of course I agree with almost all of her conclusions.
Not that that means anything.
It doesn't prove anything.
It just means that I do agree.
So I have the hugest respect for the Rand.
She's one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived.
I think her stance on anarchy is irrational.
I know she's going to come and haunt my dreams tonight in some fierce, smoky way.
But she says that some gang is going to take over society.
But what are they going to take over?
What are they going to take over?
There's no tax structure in place.
There's not this constant money spigot coming out of the government control of the citizens.
And if there is this incredible desire for domination over other human beings, how does the existence of a government solve that problem?
It's a huge plum prize for every evil person to grab a hold of to control other human beings.
Because it's already in existence, it's already self-funding, the military, the weapons, the control, the police, the prisons, the prison guards, the truncheons, the court system, everything!
The indoctrination system through the children for the most part, although I know she wouldn't agree with that.
It's already in place, you just have to Step in and take the money.
But in a free society, a truly free society with no state, the apparatus for control and profit simply do not exist.
You can't just go around creating them.
I have a whole section in this book about, say, some defense agency, right?
You pay for some defense agency.
Wouldn't they just become another government?
And it's completely logically impossible, economically impossible.
I won't go through the whole argument because I've got my guy here who's keeping me on time.
Have a look at it.
I mean, there's really, really strong arguments as to how.
Of course, there is a danger of human domination.
That's why we can't have a pre-existing structure that is expressly designed for human domination called the state.
If that's not there, people will be bullies in their private lives, but they're not going to take over the whole society of hundreds of millions of people and take half their income at the point of a gun, because that gun simply won't be there, and you can't just snap your fingers and create it in a free society.
I also want to say that I am a huge fan of Ayn Randen.
I think that logical thought is the only way to come to any reasonable conclusion.
In an earlier metaphor, Stephan was talking about government as kind of this cancer, and he suggested that you don't go into the doctor and ask him to cut out 80% of the tumor.
Obviously, you'd want to remove all of it.
What that metaphor overlooks is that the tumor had to arise spontaneously the first time.
We presume that it had to come from somewhere.
And I believe that is true about government.
Again, if we could eliminate all government.
And again, we haven't actually defined what government is.
I don't know if we've established that mutual cooperation with nothing written down is anarchy.
And then it's only when you write stuff down, but as soon as we start to have contracts, you know, we write down, we write contracts on paper because we presume the paper's not going to change.
You know, if Stefan and I agree to something verbally and we shake hands and we're really good friends and we come back a year from now and I go, you said, he goes, no, no, no, that's not what I said.
If we don't have anything written down, we can end up arm wrestling or getting into fisticuffs to try to debate what was done.
If we have it written down, we can go, ah, here it is on paper.
That's what we agreed to.
And even that is not a perfect cure, because those contracts can also be misinterpreted or reinterpreted later.
But again, one of the factors that make anarchy I mean, so wonderful but impossible is human nature.
Most of us, I'm going to just roughly estimate, you know, 98% of us just want to be left alone.
You know, I really, really like you, but I have no desire to interfere in your life whatsoever.
I mean, I'm busy trying to run my life, and I'm not doing that real well.
So, I don't have enough time to try to control yours.
But, for whatever reason, there are people in society who just think that They know how to run your life better than you do.
All you gotta do is... And they're more than happy to spend their part of the day doing things to control you.
And they can formalize it and put it in paper.
And you've got government.
And if you don't nip it in the bud there, it's going to grow bigger and bigger.
And eventually, you will have a huge, organized system of plunder.
That, you know, somebody else can come in and take over.
At least you hope they can take over.
If it's impervious, then we're in trouble.
Because we do have a very huge, powerful government right now that is euphemistically known as the United States.
And if we the people, you know, don't stand up, it's going to... I mean, it's already out of control.
And it's easy for it to get more out of control.
How much time do I have?
Oh, great, I've still got 60 seconds.
In my Constitution classes, I ask my students, hypothetically, if Chinese people have a right to life.
And the answer's obvious to me, but they have to think about it a while and go, well, yeah, yeah, they do have a right to life, but they don't have a Constitution, they don't have a Bill of Rights, and they also don't have a government that respects their right to life.
Not a piece of paper that gives you your rights, You know?
And what would happen?
They've got 1.5 billion Chinese people.
That's 1,500 million compared to our 300 million here.
What would happen if, overnight, 1.5 billion Chinese people just stood up and said, hey, enough is enough of this, you know, communist dictatorship.
We're not going to do that anymore.
Well, it would end.
You know, we are in an ideological war.
It is a war of ideas, and the socialists and the communists are currently winning.
You know, they have most of us convinced that they're in charge, and, you know, we need to follow orders.
Why does communism work in China?
Sadly, because one and a half billion Chinese people think that's the way it's supposed to be.
They accept it.
They allow it to happen.
The same argument can be used here in the United States.
Three hundred million people allow this to happen.
All we have to do is stand up tomorrow and go, Freedom!
Enough is enough!
And we will be able to take back this government and have a lot more liberty and a lot more freedom.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Three questions.
This is basically what I've been alluding to one or two questions ago.
It's all about the unfortunate human condition that some people are evil.
Violence is going to happen.
And in many cases, the only way to stop that violence is with additional violence force.
I mean, if you can, you know, throw a tarp over somebody and subdue them without violence, all the better.
But somebody Sadly, somebody is going to have to use force and or violence to stop the bad stuff from happening.
And again, if you want to have anarchy, just let me know.
I'll strap on my 45 and you guys don't have to worry about my property.
I'm willing to take care of myself.
And anybody tries to take my property, I guarantee I will not hesitate when I pull the trigger.
Most of the people in the world, specifically most of the people in the United States, are not willing to do that.
They are not willing to engage in violence.
They are not willing to even use violence for self-defense, which is a concept that just boggles my mind.
But that defense needs to happen.
Most people want to subcontract that out.
You know, they want someone else to, you know, take care of them.
We want it done responsibly.
And, again, that's this theoretical minarchy which, you know, always protects, uses force to protect your rights and never uses force to violate your rights.
I don't know how we get there.
It's like flipping a coin and having it land edge-on.
But that is the goal.
I think that Stefan and I will agree that what we have now is way too much government.
You know, let's start cutting back on government, minimizing it, making it smaller and smaller and smaller.
And when we get to the 5% minarchy mark, we can reanalyze it and think, well, maybe we can go that last 5% and get anarchy.
I'm willing to, you know, to learn.
But we're never going to get to anarchy if we don't get to minarchy first.
It is our responsibility.
It is your responsibility to take control of your government.
So, 2% evil?
We're just trying to figure out who in this room is.
I mean, yeah, there are evil people in the world, as I said at the beginning.
I have never heard a satisfactory answer, because there isn't one, about how if there are 2% of evil people and the evil people want two things, they want money for free and they want domination and power over others, that is the exact definition of what a government does.
So if there are only 2% of evil people in society, let's say that's true, where are they going to want to be?
Are they going to want to be in the government?
The government is a rocket-propelled boost to evil.
It's like giving evil that nitro thing in the car movies, you know?
It just allows evil to go that much faster.
You can't keep evil people out of government!
You can't do it!
Everybody thinks that there's evil people in the world, so we need these shining, virtuous government people to protect us from the evil people.
But I don't want power over others.
I'm not that avaricious for money.
I do this crazy thing for a living, but...
But I recognize that there are lots of people out there who are hungry for power over others, who are hungry for free money.
You have a government.
Government is a monopoly of individuals with the legal right to initiate force, frankly at will, because constitutions stop nothing.
In fact, constitutions are dangerous because you think that they will save you from evil people.
If you believe the lies of evil people, you are at their mercy.
Chamberlain goes to Munich in 1938 and says from Hitler, He said he's not going to invade any more countries.
They believed him.
And what happened?
If you think that pieces of paper will control evil, you are setting yourself up to be dominated by the very evil people who are the only people who want to have that kind of power over you, and the government is a ready-made place for them to go where they have that dominant capacity.
Of course, if there are no evil people in society, we don't need a government.
If everyone's evil, no government is possible.
If a majority of people are evil, then you can't have a democracy because they'll just vote in evil people, right?
If a minority of people are evil, which I believe is the case, then you can't have a government because that's exactly where it will draw them like a black hole draws matter.
That's exactly where they will go.
So this problem, which is... I do remember the question vaguely.
The problem of who will watch the Watchers has never been solved.
And to me, saying, how will...
Arbitration and how will conflict resolution and so on be performed in a free society is like saying, who will determine the value of a good?
Well, the competition, optimization and efficiency of the free market determines the price or the value of a good.
No central planning can do it.
How do we find the best, the most creative ways to solve problems without institutionalized violence which leads to war, inflation, predation and destruction?
I don't have all the answers, nobody does, but I know the answer is not institutionalized violence.
I know that the creative intelligence of human beings, which has been forcibly restricted from solving these problems throughout history.
We didn't have a state created from us.
We inherit a state from the origins of the species, like we inherit superstition.
We don't any longer say, I need rain, I'm going to do a rain dance, because we understand that I don't have rhythm.
We inherited a state from the primeval ignorance of the species, the same way that we used to think that the moon was made of cheese and the sun was made of ping-pong balls or something, right?
But we now understand, as slowly and painful as we have gotten towards a more scientific and rational understanding of the world, we have to shed the superstition of statism, the fantasy that we can give a small group of people the power of monopolistic power of initiating violence and make the world a better place.
It's a superstition that we inherited.
Like slavery, we inherited slavery from the origins of the species.
And we outgrew it.
And we don't sit there and sit there and say, oh my God, slavery is about to come back.
Right?
Because we all understand that it's immoral and it's not coming back.
The same with statism.
We inherited it from the origins of the species.
It is a primitive, dumb, stupid, violent, and ugly way to solve human problems because it doesn't solve human problems.
It just makes them worse.
It rewards evil people at the expense of the virtuous.
And I can't spend my life running around saying, is the government getting any bigger?
What stand am I going to take today to make it smaller?
I don't want a life of eternal vigilance against the growing power of evil.
I want to remove the apparatus which feeds it, which is the monopoly of statism.
The very fact is that people don't want to spend their whole life caged with a rabid tiger saying, what's it doing today?
How am I going to make it smaller?
How am I going to control it?
No!
Get the tiger out of the cage and live free!
We don't have to circle around this thing called the state and try and control it and make sure it doesn't get any bigger, because we can't!
It's never happened before.
It will never happen in the future.
We just get rid of the whole thing as a concept, because it is an erroneous concept.
Calling people to government does not change their moral nature.
Putting a guy in a uniform does not mean that it's moral for him to kill.
Putting a guy in a funny hat doesn't mean that he can fly.
Calling someone to government does not give them the moral right to initiate the use of force.
It is a logical and moral error to talk about a government at all.
And so, who will solve it?
free individuals voluntarily, not those with the power of coercion.
Next question.
Michael, should an individual be able to secede from the government?
I didn't hear it.
Should an individual be able to secede from the government without repercussions?
I'm sorry, the acoustics are really...
Oh, I certainly hope so.
Secession is a topic that comes up frequently with, oh, I don't know, 27 states doing 10th Amendment proclamations these days.
And we were discussing the War of Northern Aggression last night.
And there is a widespread misconception in the United States that only Texas has the right to secede.
I don't know where that came from.
Maybe because we're just really stubbornly independent in Texas.
But anybody, any state has the right to secede.
And again, in our conversation recently, somebody tried to suggest that The Civil War proves that states, you know, cannot secede.
And it's like, so you don't know or either believe in or respect the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, yeah, that's my favorite document.
Well, the Declaration of Independence was a secession document.
We seceded from England.
And basically the only difference is that presumably we won the American Revolution and the southern states lost the battle for southern independence.
You can have an idea, again this is an ideological war, and sometimes you have to stand tall and defend your ideas.
You may or may not May or may not win those ideas.
But, yes, I do believe that philosophically an individual should... I mean, my parents are both alive.
I love my parents.
But at my age, I don't ask mom and dad for advice.
I talk to them frequently.
They don't try to tell me what to do.
In fact, mom bemoans the fact that, oh, Michael, you're just going to do whatever you want to do.
Like, yeah, that's pretty much true.
Stubbornly independent.
So if I'm not going to allow my parents to make decisions about my life, I mean, why on earth would I allow a government to make decisions about my life?
That's absolutely ludicrous.
So, you know, what we need is a lot more people standing up and being independent and, for whatever method you want to, declaring a secession from the federal government.
And, you know, we just need to have enough of us to make it stick.
You know, if I go up against the federal government by myself, I may be very valiant, I may be very courageous, but pretty much I'm going to end up looking like a pepperoni pizza.
We need to have a majority of people holding these same ideas and defending them.
If Stefan and I are walking through the jungle, I'm guessing that Stefan and I both agree that cannibalism is bad.
But if Stefan and I You know, encounter cannibals in the jungle.
You know, I don't think it would be a really good procedure for us to stand in a soapbox and go, well, you know, guys, this cannibalism is really, really bad because we're going to be the first ones in the pot.
You know?
So you need to have enough people, you have to have a good idea to start with, and you have to have enough people supporting your idea to be able to defend it and make it work.
And, you know, the Constitution, I think, is a really good idea, better than most, not perfect, But right now, in the United States, we don't have enough people defending it, and the government is way out of control.
I haven't eaten enough today, because when you start talking about cannibalism, I had this total Bugs Bunny moment.
You know, all I did is I looked over and I saw a drumstick in a suit, you know, with the aromatic stuff going up there.
You see the fade in and fade out.
But enough about me.
Well, should an individual be able to secede from the government, I think it's very important for us to be precise and accurate in our language.
I'm on a libertarian-less forum with Kinsella and Locke and a couple of other people, quite a number of other people, and we got into a very fierce debate under their whole video on this, because they couldn't quite understand the concept.
Because they're trained in economics and they're trained in political science, they're not trained in philosophy, right?
And so, it's a bit of an educational milestone, because they were saying the government this, the government that, the government the other.
Should the government be able to do this?
Should the government be able to do the other?
And it's like, well, that's like asking, should unicorns be allowed to play soccer?
And really, that is a very real way of looking at it, because there is no such thing as a government.
It is a concept that does not exist, right?
We all, like, we say, okay, there's a crowd here, right?
You all bought your Invisible Friends, which is great.
But there's a crowd here, right?
And if you all leave, there's no crowd.
You can't take a photograph of a family with nobody in the picture.
Because it's just a conceptual fact.
It doesn't exist in reality.
There's no such thing as a government.
What there is, is stuff written on paper, some very well-oiled and quick-to-be-pulled guns.
There are aircraft carriers.
There are buildings.
There are flags.
Those things all exist.
There is no such thing as the government.
There are people with guns.
There are prisons.
There are people who fear for their lives if they cross that government or do not pay its extractions.
But there's no such thing as the government.
It doesn't exist.
So, to me, saying, should I be able to secede from the government, it's like, should I be able to walk out of Middle Earth?
It's a meaningless question.
Do I have the right to live free of others initiating violence against me?
Absolutely.
Of course.
But, do I have the right to secede from the government?
It's a meaningless question, because it presumes that the government is a conceptual tag with any meaning whatsoever, when it's not.
It's just a bunch of people with guns.
That's all they are.
No such thing as a country, right?
There's earth, there's trees, there's air, but there's no such thing as a country.
No such thing as a government.
I can't secede from it, because it doesn't exist.
I do reject the right of other people to initiate violence against me.
That includes the people who call themselves the government, but I can't secede from that which does not exist.
As long as we continue to believe that it does exist, we think that we're obeying something other than people.
With guns, but that's really all it's about.
It's just people with guns.
There's no such thing.
And I can't secede from that, which does not exist.
The United States of America is involved in an experiment.
What was the cost of it and what was your experience?
I like the way that's phrased.
The experiment is self-government.
For countless centuries, governments across the world were all controlled by a king, an emperor, some monarch.
And I don't know how we got there, but everything was derived from the concept of the divine right of kings.
Without going into a lot of detail, God comes down with his magic wand, smacks some guy in the head and says, you're the king, you own everything.
You have all the rights and you can distribute privileges to your subjects.
They owe you their life.
Unless you can pick both feet up off the ground at the same time, you're standing on my land and basically I own you.
And so we came to the North American continent and decided, you know, that's really not a really good way.
And the Declaration of Independence establishes the idea that we are going to, you know, be blessed with rights, you know, ordained by our Creator.
And so instead of, you know, God hitting the king in the head and we get privileges secondhand, now We are sovereign.
We are kings and queens.
And my book is entitled, Good to be King, to express that idea.
We have 300 million kings and queens in the United States.
And we have rights.
We can own property.
We don't have to get our privileges from someone else.
And this idea was so unusual, so unorthodox, so, what's the word I'm looking for, revolutionary, that You know, most of the countries around the world goes, oh my God, this isn't going to last.
You know, 20 years tops.
I mean, it's going to all fall apart.
And so, okay, we've got 223 years.
It hasn't been, you know, the best of times, but it certainly hasn't been the worst of times either.
And by distributing the power, instead of having one person have that power, you know, life had been pretty good.
The standard of living in the United States has Exponentially increased.
But we lost sight of the concept.
The concept is individual rights and personal responsibility.
Everybody wants their rights.
You watch the news and every other day you have somebody banging on the podium demanding their rights.
Well, if everybody wants their rights, how come we're struggling?
How come we don't have wall-to-wall liberty?
Well, it's because nobody wants the responsibility.
You know, you own your body, you're responsible for feeding yourself, you know, sheltering yourself, and, oh, by the way, you are responsible for providing for your own retirement.
But our parents and grandparents were lied to.
You know, the government says, we're bigger and smarter than you, you give us your Social Security money, and when you're ready to retire, you're going to have more money than you know what to do with.
How many times have you heard the conversation, Mom and I are going on vacation again.
We just can't spend that Social Security money fast enough.
Nobody on Social Security feels secure.
And that's because we have given the responsibility of our retirement to the government, which is a really, really sad thing.
So I think the experiment started out real well.
But because we didn't understand that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, we didn't realize that the Founding Fathers didn't set it up to run in perpetual motion, that it's our job, our responsibility to provide for ourselves and to protect each other's rights and to keep the government small.
And because we've allowed it, you know, we've allowed the tiger out of the cage, you know, now we are in trouble.
We're trying to figure out how to get it back in the cage.
So at this point, the experiment may be ready to go extinct, which I think is very sad.
Thank you.
I think that's a different thing.
You want to put the tiger back in the cage.
I want some tiger skin pants.
I think that everybody recognizes... Sorry about that image, everyone.
Would you like to take a moment to put your lunch back?
I think that every person who studies and thinks about these topics recognizes that America was, on paper, a noble step forward and a great experiment in attempting to create a government by and for the people, to protect the rights of citizens, we create this government to secure our liberties.
And I think that I certainly believe that it was a great and noble experiment.
I can't imagine that the circumstances will be better.
Maybe when we go and live on other worlds, you kind of need virgin territory to create a new society, because unfortunately there are so many people embedded in and dependent upon status, largesse, and handouts, from teachers to postal workers to retirees to welfare recipients to military industrial complexes to executives to banks to now car companies, from teachers to postal workers to retirees to welfare recipients to military industrial If you simply can't pry that power out of people using politics.
So maybe if we go to a new country or a new planet, we can start something new.
If a new land mass arises, we can colonize it and start something new.
But I think there was a really unique set of circumstances that gave rise to the possibility.
It was a conjunction of new land mass, tyrannical governments in Europe and other places around the world that caused the best and the brightest to flee, as they always do.
And you had the peak of the Enlightenment philosophy.
You had the printing press, which allowed for the easy dissemination of amazing writings like Thomas Paine's and other writers, John Locke and all of these great philosophers.
So you had an incredible alignment of the planets to create the greatest possibility for statism.
And let's remember that the American Revolution was still a statist revolution.
It was not Let's get rid of government, except for a small little bit that occurred, I think, in Pennsylvania, which Murray Rothbard writes about.
But it was a statist experiment.
I doubt ever there will be a better set of circumstances to test the theory of statism.
But let's look at where it started and where it ended, because there is a bit of a myth.
You know, I did a lot of studying in history, and one of the things that you learn when you study history, especially at the graduate school level, is that the winners... Sorry, I'm walking in front of you.
The winners write the history.
The victors write the history.
Obviously, if Hitler had won, there would be a whole different set of history about the Second World War.
And we do see the American Revolution and the American statist experiment through the lens of, you know, I hate to say it, but rich white landowners.
They wrote the Constitution, they wrote the Declaration of Independence, they furthered the laws, there weren't a lot of black women who were on the federal court system in 1820.
And we forget, by just looking at this small group of incredibly privileged and brilliant and, I think, mostly honorable men, that there's a lot that's missing from our conception of how America started.
I'll give you a small statistic.
In the 16th century, the population, the native population of the Americas, North and South America, was estimated at about 24 million souls.
By the late 18th century, it was about 2 million.
Right?
That is a greater than 90% reduction.
Can we call it genocide?
I think at some levels we can.
Because there were bounties put out by the federal government and the local governments that if you killed Indians, you got paid.
It was professional mafia hit jobs of the native population.
Was some of it somewhat accidental, smallpox blankets?
Well, yeah, you could argue that it is.
But it did start on the wholesale... America rests on the graves of those who were here.
And that aspect of things, it also started with slavery.
I'll do 30 more seconds if that's alright.
It started with slavery and it started with certain aspects of a genocide.
That's where it started.
No rights for women, no rights for children.
Slavery, genocide.
Where did it end?
The largest, most powerful, most brutal government, particularly overseas that the world has ever seen.
The most powerful and brutal empire.
And I think we can do better.
I don't think we have to stay within that paradigm that we start with genocide and end with empire.
But there's another way.
See, there's no good answer to the question of government.
We need to start asking different questions, which is not what kind of government we have, but why do we need it at all?
Now that we have the technology, the communications, the wisdom, the knowledge that we have now, we need to start asking smarter questions, not how do we tame the tiger, but why do we need the tiger?
No government?
No, I don't.
I mean, I know I've been speechifying and I'll not go on because I really do want to get to audience questions, but there's an old saying that if the powers that be can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care about the answers because you're just completely in the wrong ballpark.
I do believe that there's two reasons why we do things, fundamentally.
There's pragmatism and there's idealism.
So pragmatism is like, I need to Mow my lawn, right, as you were saying.
I can either get a nice lawnmower or I can get some toenail cutters, right?
And if I use toenail cutters to cut my lawn, I'm not immoral, I'm not evil, I'm just, you know, not very productive, right?
So, if we're going to do things for pragmatic reasons, then we're going to do things for pragmatic reasons, then questions of morality and right and wrong and virtue and evil and good and bad, they don't come into it at all, because we're just about getting things done.
But I believe that we want to do things, particularly in the questions of institutionalized violence and organization of conflict resolution within society, those are all fundamental moral questions.
How do we live in a virtuous, free, noble, peaceful society?
How do we eliminate war?
How do we eliminate imprisonment?
How do we eliminate torture?
These are all essential moral questions.
When you're going to go from the realm of pragmatism into the realm of morality, you can't erase Your principles, because the whole reason you're there is because of the principles.
Mr. Batenaric and I and Minarchist and I will agree, self-ownership, property rights, the non-initiation of force are the moral principles that are the most sacred, the most important, the most vital.
I would argue the most pragmatic principles to hold to.
We can't have a moral goal called the improvement of mankind, the reduction of violence and torture, war and murder.
And then say, in our very first step towards that, we're going to break those moral principles and create an institution that has the right to do everything that we consider immoral.
If we want to build a bridge towards virtue, we have to go in that direction.
We don't say, it's so important, it's so moral to go north, the first thing I'm going to do is head south.
You can't break the principle in your very first step.
Maybe towards the end when things are really hellish, but not at the very beginning.
And if you want a peaceful society, as we all do, and you want a society that respects persons' property, then you stick to those principles and you don't break them the very first time you set forward your solution and say, yes, property rights are important, so let's create an institution with the perfect power to destroy them.
Yes, self-ownership is so important, so let's create an organization with the power to own people through taxation.
Yes, the non-initiation of force is the most important principle, so let's immediately create an institution which its very definition is to break that principle.
Let's not sell out the first step.
Okay, maybe the hundredth step when we're offered a lot of money, but not the first step.
And that's the consistency that voluntarism or anarchism or a dedication to non-violence and to self-ownership gives you.
You stick with your principles.
If you're going to abandon your principles, why even bother being in the moral arena to begin with?
And so let's not look to a violent institution to solve the problems of violence.
Let's not look to a monopoly of the initiation of aggression to solve the problems of human conflict.
Let's not give up on our principles The very first time we utter our solution, but let's stick consistently with those principles, because not only are they true, and not only are they moral, but damn it, they work!
And this debate, which is completely non-violent, And this audience, who is perfectly delightful, is a perfect example of that.
Everywhere you look, you see spontaneous social organization without violence.
You see it in the marriage market.
You see it in the job market.
You see it in the educational market.
You see human beings coming together to solve problems in a voluntary and peaceful manner.
Anarchy is what we live!
Statism is the exception.
People say, well, what's proof of anarchy?
They say, oh, can you prove to me that anarchy works?
Look in the mirror.
When was the last time you used violence to get a job?
I've never used violence to get a job.
Postal workers accept it.
When was the last time you used violence to get a date?
I've never used violence to get a date.
So, you negotiate.
You work peacefully.
Does that mean everyone's like that?
No, of course not.
But that's why we can't have a government.
People think it's an argument for the government.
It's the exact argument against the government.
We work voluntaristically, peacefully, in every aspect of our lives.
If you want to look at anarchism, look at 99.999% of everything that you do is voluntary and peaceful and cooperative.
Yeah, you'll get disagreements.
Yeah, you may raise your voice.
Yeah, you may get mad at people.
But you don't pull out guns and shoot people.
That's the vast majority of people.
And I'm not going to give up my freedom because there are a few evil people in the world.
I'm not going to allow the fear-mongering of people who say you need a government but to protect you from the evil people.
I don't want to give up my freedom, my daughter's freedom, my wife's freedom.
I don't want to give up that freedom because there are bad people in the world.
Isn't that surrendering something essential and important?
Because there are bad people in the world, I need to get into a cage called statism.
Doesn't that mean they win?
That's a shame.
I don't want that.
I don't think you want that either.
We have to come up with more creative solutions than, I hear something in the bushes, let me get into a cage for the rest of my life.
I'm not that scared of bad people.
I'm really not to the point where I'm going to huddle in a cage.
You know, like a frightened chihuahua.
Because there might be a beast out there in the bushes.
Because every time I go out, I don't see a beast.
And I see that the people who are telling me there's a beast are the ones who are the actual predators.
Right?
Say, well, you've got to get into the cage because the government is so... because there are predators out there.
But the only guns I see are the government's.
They're not protecting me from someone else.
They are the people who are threatening me.
I will take my chances that what's in the bushes is a squirrel rather than hide in the cage.
Because I'm afraid of bad people.
I don't want to surrender my liberty to the mere potentiality of evil.
And I don't think you should either.
Capitalism usually gets a bad rap.
We look at the economy, we've had a trillion dollar bailout, now we've got a multi-trillion dollar stimulus package being planned, and then we've got like a triple trillion dollar budget planned for next year as if anything with, you know, twelve zeros left of the decimal point can accurately be called a budget.
And I go, see?
Capitalism doesn't work.
Well, we don't have capitalism in the United States.
Not really.
You know, we have an economy that is almost universally controlled by the government.
You know, we just use that Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause and, you know, we have a population that doesn't understand the Constitution and they can pretty much, you know, get anything by it.
It's like, you know, We've got a president who's handsome and articulate and promises change, and people are standing ovations, applause, applause.
And you wonder why we're having problems.
When I give my presentations, I will ask for a show of hands.
How many people are good patriotic Americans?
Not surprisingly, it's unanimous.
Everybody's a good patriotic American.
I'm like, okay.
Show of hands, how many people know how many articles are in the Constitution?
Rarely.
Rarely does anybody have any clue.
And my question is, like, what constitutes a good patriotic American?
You know how to dress yourself in the morning?
That's the criteria.
You know, you got your shirt buttoned correctly, so that makes you a good patriotic American.
I think the standard needs to be a lot higher than that.
You know, we have a lot of criticism about the Constitution.
You go, yeah, you know, Constitution doesn't work.
Well, no, not if you don't use it.
Most people have no idea what the Constitution says, so they wouldn't recognize unconstitutional government when it falls on them, not if.
Most of what my government does is unconstitutional.
I find that unconscionable.
And totally unacceptable.
And with the last breath I ever take, I am going to do my best to restore a constitutional republic, to protect your individual rights, to protect your private property, and to limit the abuse that government has monopolized on us.
It may not be the perfect answer, but we have government because a wide, vast majority of people don't want anarchy.
I've already discussed one topic, is the just abhorrence of violence.
You know, it's like I don't want to hurt anybody.
In fact, a lot of people they know, they don't even like verbal confrontation.
I mean, I enjoy, you know, talking with Stefan and, you know, getting into all this.
I mean, my favorite thing is these philosophical debates.
I love it!
You know, arguing back and forth.
You know, examining the ideas.
A lot of people that I know don't even like to do that.
It's like, oh, oh, you know, like, you're raising your voice.
Just like, you know, can't handle confrontation.
I want everybody to just hug and love each other.
Well, you can want it, but it's not likely going to happen.
Not universally.
You know, most of you will not accept anarchy because it's going to require you, in some circumstances, to perform violence.
And most of you are not willing to pull the trigger to kill somebody that's trying to kill you.
The other thing is that we do, as Stefan said earlier, we like property and we like the, you know, the easiest way to accumulate it.
And instead of working for it, if I can take yours, That's just a whole lot better.
I'll let you go out and work in the field and grow all the corn and I just show up at the end and, you know, walk away with a wagon.
Most people do not understand the difference between rights and privileges and it boils down to you can do anything you want with your property.
You can do nothing at all, justifiably, with my property.
It's my property.
I was speaking to a college audience, and one young lady raised her hand.
I was a presidential candidate.
She wanted to know what I was going to do about Medicare and Medicaid.
I said, they're theft.
They're gone.
And she was, like, horrified.
You know, it's like, apparently I didn't understand the situation.
She had to let me know that her mother was elderly and ill and had all of these medications that she needed to buy?
And I said, well, do you love your mother?
Well, yes, of course.
Would you help your mother buy her medications?
And she doesn't say yes or no.
She immediately tries to divert the question.
She goes, but what about that SOB up on the hill?
You know, the guy with the big motorhome in the driveway with more money than he knows what to do with.
And the first thing I did was question her.
How do you know that he has more money than he knows what to do with?
Apparently, he knows exactly what to do with his money.
That's why he's got the motorhome in the driveway.
But ultimately, I said, Okay, your mother needs these prescription drugs, which we all acknowledge are expensive.
Are you going to take a gun and go up there and take that person's money?
No, not going to do that.
Why not?
Well, because that would be theft.
And I said, oh, I get it.
You want me to go up there and take that person's money and give it to you for your mother's prescription so you don't have to risk lead poisoning.
You want the booty, but you don't want to take the risk.
You want other people's property and you want the government to do it for you.
I am opposed to theft of any kind.
I am opposed to individual theft, and I'm opposed to government-sponsored theft.
We have individual rights, it's all based on private property, and I think that liberty does have a chance, because the idea, the basic idea is private property, and even a two-year-old, even a two-year-old understands the importance of private property.
What's a two-year-old's favorite word?
Mine!
Mine!
I want it to be mine so I can be in control.
Well, two-year-old doesn't understand the concept of yours.
We've got to convince them that, no, you're not allowed to play with Tommy's toys unless you get permission.
Our government is currently acting like a two-year-old.
They want to take your property and go, mine!
We call it eminent domain.
You know, in Texas, we had the Trans-Texas Corridor.
The Texas government was planning to steal 584,000 acres of private land to build some monstrosity highway.
Now, I'm not a, you know, Luddite.
I don't want to, like, you know, keep really low on technology.
I drive a... I travel in a really fast car.
I like highways.
I want them to be smooth and straight.
But I don't want to have the government steal property and then allow a Spanish company To monopolize the profit from that.
No, no, that's not going to happen.
Not in Texas.
So, anarchy is, again, I believe anarchy is a wonderful ideal.
Kind of like, you know, 100% alcohol.
Unfortunately, the laws of physics don't allow you to have 100% alcohol.
And I think that human nature prevents us from getting to anarchy.
You know, one, you don't want it because it puts too much responsibility on your plate, and two, because there's always somebody, sadly, who thinks they know how to run your life better than you do.
And so, I don't think that we can avoid government.
You know, you can't make an omelet without breaking a couple eggs.
I don't think that you can have a civil society without somebody kind of putting down some formal rules.
And we just have to make sure that those rules do not subjugate one part of the population for another.
Again, there are no easy answers, but that's our challenge.
That is our challenge, to be intelligent enough, to be moral enough, to find and identify what the ideal, what the perfection would be, and move in that direction as often as we can.
Maybe, maybe we'll get to it.
Maybe we will achieve anarchy someday.
But at the moment, I don't think even anybody knows which direction anarchy is.
You know, you've never memorized the Bill of Rights, you don't know how many articles are in the Constitution, and so I'm doing my part to educate the population.
You know, tell them, teach them the difference between rights and privileges.
And hopefully, and I believe it is true, I believe that people are waking up and I believe that people are more and more prepared to take responsibility for their own life because, frankly, the government has screwed it up so bad, you know, nobody likes the style of government we currently have.
And so I want to thank Stephan, I want to thank Drexel University, and I want to thank the audience again for being so patient and being so intelligent to be here and listen to us discuss this high-level intellectual concept.
Thank you very much.
First of all, I just wanted to remind everyone we are accepting donations in the back of the room.
So, you know, please take what this event was worth to you and please give that back if you could.
We're paying for this out of pocket, so we'd really appreciate that.
These questions are for Steph.
I think one of the roadblocks in trying to explain the concept of anarchy and how it can triumph over the limited government approach is dispute resolution and how you would get compensation if someone broke a contract.
To use an extreme example, someone murders your son or something.
In your example, you'd say this person would be ostracized from society, they would have a hard time having economic transactions and just having a lifestyle.
And I would contrast that approach with Hans Hoppe's.
Sorry, with what?
Hans Hermann Hoppe's approach.
Oh yeah, yeah.
I'm sure you've read through The Impossibilities.
I haven't read a huge amount of Hoppe, I've just read his stuff on national defense, so feel free to expand.
Well, he basically says you have an insurance company And the insurance company can sort of seek compensation if it's justified.
And I think just taking the approach of this individual being ostracized into society is kind of difficult for people to grasp because, you know, if someone has a huge bankroll or whatever and they're able to be ostracized and they're okay with that, then what's to stop that person from just breaking your contract or committing acts of violence?
Right.
And I'm wondering why you don't take that approach when discussing, you know, how you compensate people.
It's an excellent question.
The status solution to the problem of violence, if this kind of rape, of murder, of assault, the status solution is very, very tempting, of course, because it seems like it's a real solution, right?
But, of course, if theft is so bad, then property rights are absolute, then we can't have taxation because it's a violation of the principle up front.
So I sort of reject that as a solution.
It means that we then have to go to more creative places to solve that problem.
I'm in no way, shape, or form, even remotely intelligent enough to attempt to reproduce the creative intelligence of millions of people to solve this problem.
So the solution is going to be infinitely better than anything I come up with as people compete to try and solve this.
The first question, if you're thinking about an anarchic solution or a stateless solution to a problem like that is...
What would satisfy me?
So let's say that... I'm going to really ask that question.
If you were looking at someone to protect you from murder or protect those around you from murder, what would you want them to do if, say, your girlfriend or your wife was killed, murdered by some dude?
We'll call him Bob, because Bob is our usual guy.
If Bob kills your guy, what would you want as your ideal?
Solution to that.
Solution is the wrong word.
Restitution, or how would it best be handled for you as a potential consumer of someone who would provide services in this area?
Right.
Well, my approach would be to try to prevent that from ever happening.
Agreed.
Absolutely.
And the approach that I think needs to be taken is that the person knows that there's going to be extreme retribution or compensation in that event.
So just by taking that approach off the bat, you kind of avoid that situation.
But the situation could still occur.
And I don't, you know, I don't personally know, just like you said, how many millions or billions of people are going to have better solutions to this.
But I would definitely... No, but sorry, let's say I'm a... Sorry, I'll keep this short.
Let's say I'm a GRO, right?
And I'm trying to sell you my protection services, right?
So I'm doing a show and tell, dog and pony show.
What is it that would be the most appealing to you as the solution to violence committed against you or someone like you?
Would you want that person killed?
Would you want money from that person?
Would you want them to be incarcerated or imprisoned for 30 years and pay you half the money they made in forced labor?
What is it that would be... Nobody says this is great, but what would be the most beneficial thing that I could offer you to get your business as a dispute resolution company?
I would want, you know, I would want everything back that was taken from me, and if it wasn't possible... Yeah, if that's impossible, because we'll talk about murder, right?
I mean, what is it that would be... Like, this is how it would work in a free society, is that we would, as a dispute resolution organization, I would be going around saying, how can I make this right for you?
What is the best possible solution?
So, I know it's hard to talk about.
Let's just talk about, you know, maybe she gets knocked on the head or something.
Like, let's not go with, like... I don't know, that's fine.
OK, so you want to go with the murder thing?
Yeah, because you've got to explore the extreme possibilities.
Yeah, let's go with the extremes, absolutely.
So, your wife gets murdered.
What would be the best, it's a weird way to put it, but what would be the best possible outcome of that for you, as a potential consumer of protection services?
I would want some kind of monetary retribution.
Right.
I think it would be different for everybody.
Maybe I don't want the person committing that murder.
It is different for everybody, and that's why we need competition, right?
It is different for everybody, sure.
Yeah, and me personally, I might want that person to conduct many hours of community service or something non-violent, something that wouldn't, you know, I just don't want them to go in a jail cell and rock, because that's no good for anybody.
Right, and then when they come out, they're crazy, right?
Jail is a terrible solution, right?
Even for evil people, jail is a terrible solution, right?
Like, jail is a terrible solution for drug addicts, and it's a terrible solution for people to do evil, because they just come out and do more evil, right?
The repetition rate for criminals in a state of prison system is 80-90%.
It's ridiculous, right?
So you want a better solution than that, right?
And you certainly want to.
The best thing you could do for your wife's memory if she was killed was to, right, get money to replace the income that would be lost and the support that would be lost and the, you know, so your kids could get a good education and you could pay off your house.
You'd want that kind of money, right, because it's a significant loss of income to look at it at a coldly calculated economic level.
Forget the emotional stuff because that's not, that can't be fixed.
You'd want money back and you would also want to be damn sure that this wasn't going to happen again.
Right.
Now, a state of society is never going to provide you either of those things.
You're never going to get money from the criminal, and 80-90% is going to be a recommission of offense.
So my original question, though, is why... How come you opt to say this person would be ostracized from society and not be able to conduct commerce?
Right.
Instead of saying that... Well, no, so, sorry, sorry.
It's not just that you can't... Let's... Then we're going to go to a complete abstract here, and I'll try and keep this short, right?
But then there's more about this impractical anarchy.
But very briefly, You can't rent an apartment.
You can't buy food.
You can't travel on anyone's property because everything's privately owned.
You can't go to a restaurant.
You can't even use someone's drinking fountain.
You can't participate at all economically in the society.
That is what I guarantee you all of the protection agencies are going to work with.
So this guy is either going to have to go out and live in the wilderness and gnaw on tree bark and rabbit legs and stuff, which he's not going to do, right?
Or he's going to have to submit, in order to regain his status as being able to participate in society, he's going to have to submit to some punishment, in order to regain his status as an economic actor in society.
So he's either going to go out and live in the woods and be nowhere near anyone, in which case you don't get any money, but at least he's not out killing people, or he's going to have to submit to some sort of punishment and Hopefully cure for whatever ails him.
And so he's, the punishment is going to be, you have to work at some job, you get half of his salary, 40% of his salary goes to imprison him and 10% goes to the profit to the DRO or whatever.
He's going to go through anger management.
He's going to go through psychological counseling.
He's going to go through whatever it is to try and get the evil out of his heart so he doesn't do it again.
He's never going to be released until people can figure out as best they can, given the inexactness of the science.
So, it's not just, you know, you can't get a job.
I mean, you actually can't function in society if people don't want to do business with you.
We have computers and the internet, so if you walk into a store and try even to use cash, they're going to be like, murderer, murderer, murderer.
And if they give you a meal and you're a murderer, they also, the restaurant will get pulled from the system.
Right?
So, it's the best, I mean, is this the perfect solution?
I don't know, but it certainly is a viable and potential one, and it's a lot better than what the state is going to do for you right now.
Okay, thank you.
Can I respond to that?
My name is Don Corleone, and I'm so glad that there is no government.
And I'd like to offer another solution to your problem.
Right?
That was where I was going to go.
I will personally make sure that the family is wiped out.
All you have to do is kiss my ring and promise me a favor in the future.
That was right where my question was going to go.
If a DRO, if I'm shopping around for DROs, this man just killed my wife.
I want his family dead.
I want his house.
I want his bank account.
I want him dead.
I want him dead.
I want him buried upside down on a pipe.
Now, if you, the DRO, won't do that, I'm going to look for a DRO that will.
How does this jive with the non-initiation of force in anachronistic society?
You actually say you want his family dead?
No, really?
I mean, that's what you would want?
Do you think that would be just?
You're talking to somebody who just had his wife killed.
Sure.
- Sure. - No, I mean, I understand.
I'm just saying, I don't think a DRO is gonna be, I'm gonna take out the gene pool, right?
I'm gonna drop a bomb on the city where the guy, no, they're not gonna do that, right?
They're gonna say, yes, that's an extreme response and that's a shame, but we're not gonna do that.
Sorry. - And he's gonna go after somebody who might do something close to that, you know, or whatever.
Right, okay.
But look, let's put things... Yes, you can come up with something.
Some crazy guy wants to wipe out the whole family.
How does a free society handle that?
Well, first of all, by not making him a goddamn president.
Right?
Right?
Those guys do exist.
Maybe you're one of them, right?
Who want to just nuke the gene pool, right?
Okay, but let's not at least give him nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, and V-52s, right?
So...
There is going to be punishment for the people who do evil, but let's keep the problem in perspective, right?
The murder rate in the Wild West, when government was very small and remote, was absolutely tiny.
You could go 5, 10 years in a town without a single murder.
Some towns went as long as 20 or 30 years without a single murder.
Okay, so yes, is there a challenge dealing with the problems of murder in a free society?
Absolutely.
Will murderers be fewer and far between?
Absolutely.
because they won't be cops who go nuts.
They won't be veterans returning, battle scarred, and the PTSD.
And there won't be that kind of violence in the home from those kinds of situations which lead to further violence down the road.
There won't be prison guards who become dehumanized through beating up and controlling prisoners.
There won't be prisoners who are in jail getting beaten up and raped and shivved who are then released back out into the streets because it will be a different society where we don't use the initiation of force to try and solve these complex, embedded, psychological, difficult problems.
So we're talking about, in an average town, You know, a murder or two every five years, right?
And will society find some way to provide restitution for that?
Absolutely.
Will everybody want to wipe out the whole gene pool?
No, of course not, right?
They will be angry in the moment and the GROs will provide counseling and grief management and try and get them through that difficult time.
But the alternative to this as a solution is the state gets an army.
The state gets prisons.
The state gets to use whatever force it wants and will against anybody, anytime, anyhow, anywhere.
Right?
So it's important to put these problems in perspective.
Right?
Do we want maybe one out of ten people having an excessive response to a murder every five years, which means we face this problem in one town every fifty years?
Or do we want The CIA and the FBI and the U.S.
military with 700 bases overseas poking sticks into wasps' nests perpetually causing the murders of hundreds of thousands of people, right?
So again, will anarchy solve everything?
Of course not.
There's human problems which will be intractable.
Some people will go on a rampage and shoot the host.
Absolutely.
But, given that that potential exists, the last thing we want is a centralized military and police force and prison system.
I'd like to make a little...
A little side note here.
Essentially, with the DRO, which you mentioned, it wouldn't be as lucrative for them to go around and kill a whole bloody family.
If you do that, then, well, then you'd get repercussions from maybe the family's DRO and whatnot.
But, on a side note, what I actually want to talk about, y'all, uh, the two of you are very concerned with rights.
One from an objectivist moral standpoint, the other one from the Constitution.
Where do y'all think these rights come from?
Oh, I don't believe in rights.
Good man.
No, I don't believe in rights.
To me, you know what rights are?
This is rights.
Please don't hurt me.
That's all it is.
It's a request for those in power not to hurt you.
That's all a right is.
I do believe in objective, universal, absolute morality, and I have a whole crushingly boring book available for free called Universally Preferable Behavior, which if you ever have trouble sleeping, put it on the low murmur, a little Barry White in the background.
The trouble then is waking up, not getting to sleep.
But no, I don't believe in rights.
I don't believe that they are imbued within us.
You know, I don't believe that there are weak atomic forces that cling rights within us.
You know, I think that they are... Human beings have properties.
We don't have rights.
We have properties like we are ambulatory, for the most part.
We breathe oxygen.
We're carbon-based.
We are the rational animals, sometimes.
Right, so we have properties, and those properties biologically are universal, which is how we're classified as homo sapiens, so we don't get ourselves confused with sea anemones.
We have properties which are universal, and I think those should be respected as biological and physical facts, but we do not have rights.
No government can take away the fact that I have mass.
No government can take away the fact that I have scalp.
No government can take away the fact that I breathe oxygen and I'm carbon-based.
Right?
So those are just facts and properties about human beings.
But since governments can take away rights, the rights are just purely illusory.
And of course, begging people to leave you alone never works, because they're like, oh, you want freedom?
Great!
Then I'll start taking it away so that you'll give me stuff, because that's what you really want.
It's like saying to a torturer, you know, it really hurts when you do this.
Well, what does the torturer want to do?
Bam, bam, bam.
So I don't believe in rights.
I think that you have a different approach, and certainly the objectivists do, but I don't believe that they exist any more than theories do.
A difference.
We've discovered a difference.
When Stephan was down on his knees begging, he wasn't begging for rights, he was begging for privileges.
Rights are not, please don't hurt me.
Rights are, you will not hurt me.
Thomas Jefferson said, you only have the rights that you are willing to fight for.
I have freedom of speech, not because they wrote and ratified the First Amendment back in 1791.
I have freedom of speech because I've never met anybody big enough to shut me up.
So, we spoke at the Independence Mall yesterday, and, I mean, of all the places in the United States, Independence Hall, Fourth of July, I mean, it was This was the best Fourth of July, the best Independence Day I've ever had.
You know, to be looking at Independence Hall.
And then I discovered, thank you, that I discovered that as I'm speaking on this little podium, there's this little concrete square which was a free speech zone?
We're celebrating independence and the government is going to allow me my opinion on this concrete pad?
Are you kidding?
Anywhere I happen to be standing is a free speech zone.
The government doesn't tell me what I can or cannot say.
The government doesn't tell me where I can or cannot say it.
So, rights do exist.
You cannot take somebody's rights away.
You know, you can take their life, but you can't take their right to life.
You know, if rights don't exist, then I'm not sure exactly what the philosophical discussion is about.
What is it that we're trying to protect?
You know, life, liberty, and private property.
That's the whole point of having written the Constitution at all.
Imagine!
Imagine a hypothetical conversation between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry The sky is shining, the sun is shining, the birds are flying, and, you know, butterflies, the crops are growing, the children are laughing and giggling.
I mean, it is pretty much heaven on earth.
Can you imagine a conversation that said, you know, what we need is a government.
A government that's going to oppress us, raise our taxes.
I mean, everything's, like, too perfect if we, you know, just get bored.
If we at least had a government trying to oppress us, then we'd have a reason to wake up in the morning.
It would keep us, you know, like,
▲
Export Selection