Debating AnCap (and Libertarian Presidential Candidate) Adam Kokesh
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 кві 2020
- really proud of my rhetoric on this one
Website - www.vaush.gg/
Twitter - / vaushv
Patreon - / vaush
Donate - www.paypal.me/vaush
Intro animation credit goes to / itismekyleg & / honeybunnbadger for the visuals, and / sound_sierra for the audio! Thank you!
Vaush : “How would the abolition of the state eliminate the coercion of capitalism?”
Adam : “ I have committed several war crimes in Iraq”
what coercion of capitalism?
@@itscfh-ct7513 That option is undesirable for said workers if the option to generalise democratic ownership of workplaces is on the table.
Exploitation comes from various factors: 1)extraction of surplus value in and of itself, 2)privatising the things necessary for the economic process(usually whithout democratic ownership) in and of itself, 3)the material and historical conditions in which capitalism emerged as a dominant system and how it maintained and maintains said dominance.
@@itscfh-ct7513 This doesn't really explain why are any other options beside democratic ownership.
When socialists talk about private property we usually specifically talk about the parasitic and exoloitative types of economic relations found in capitalism, feudalism etc. Even so, there is a discussion to be held if, in fact, we should work towards the eventual communisation of the economy. Nevertheless, socialists usually support 3 types of property(as far as the economic process is concerned): common(meaning public, everyone has access to it and is used to benefit all), collective(owned/controlled by a group of people) and individual(owned/controlled by a single individual). As far as your personal belongings go, like a house, car etc. we usually refer to that as personal property.
Of course there is such thing as a dominant system.
Capitalism is a system based on private ownership of means of production, wage labour(as a result of extracting surplus value from hired labourers), and usually generalised commodity production. Trade existed long before and probably long after capitalism.
Things aren't just as easy as you make them seem, though, right? In the current capitalist order, there are many institutional barriers to creating co-ops. There are many factors which make democratic ownership of the workplace in a capitalist-dominated economy an extremely diffrent task.
Also, why should someone guilty of political and/or economic exploitation not get punished accordingly? I take you have the same opinion in regards to slave owners, feudal lords and despots?
@@itscfh-ct7513 You don't seem to grasp the fact that those so-called "voluntary trades" under capitalism don't happen in a void, and that the broader social context ansolutely influences that process.
@@itscfh-ct7513 1)Having more options is not inherently a good thing. Theoretically, a black person in America, at a certain point in history, had a few options as far as their life is concerned, including slavery. I would argue that taking that possibility out of the equation is not an undesirable thing. This is what you seem to not grasp, and why you keep giving all of those meaningless examples that cannot be compared to the matter at hand. Paying someone for transportation is retarding an effort, labour. Working in a capitalist firm implies exploitation through wage labour, as a result of extracting surplus value.
2)Socialists never opposed this. Reality makes it so, however, that capitalism(and class society in general) emerged in a certain historical context, with imposition of privatisation of necessary things for the economic process and imposition of the laws that governed economic production since. There were, and are, also, many laws in place that make something like a general strikes illegal and hard, as well as historical precedents in which capitalists, often in alliance with the capitalist state, repressed such movements. Another thing you are ignoring is the fact we live in a planet with finite resources and material potential, and most of said assets necessary for economic production, or simply put economy(the basis of society) are under the control of the classes that opress and exploit. As fun as "starving the beast" by simply not engaging with the economy and society in general, by literally not engaging with the social relations that maintain their power, we cannot afford that because they control objectively necessary things. That is why repossesion, taking those things away from them(and punishing them for their crimes) is necessary.
Adam won this debate, but only because he changed the definition of "debate" to "something Adam always wins"
Oh my God, SERIOUSLY. If I had to hear him reject the definition of coercion one more time, I would have thrown my tablet through the nearest window. I feel like I am dumber having listened to him speak.
@@NickTheGreatAndPowerful Hahaha, right? He literally tried to re-define everything to suit him. Jeez.
@@inappropriatemoment cApItAlIsM mEaNs VoLuNtArIsM HuRr DuRr HuRr
ProgPro96 he literally defined capitalism as ethical, wish Vauxhall’s would’ve picked up on that
Adam couldn't lose because he didn't consent to losing
AnCap ideology would literally only work in Minecraft
Not in Vintage Story?
Even that's debatable
why must you open my third eye so abruptly
ancap works if you have infinite natural resources, because then you literally can go start a business, and do it better then whatever is out there, but we have limited land, limited resources, and the land is nearly all taken up
@@cookies23z also because there is no real technology in minecraft everything you might want can be created incredibly easy
"I will die for your right to an ethnostate" Such morals
The Nazi sympathizer tautology.
Its silly, but its consistent I suppose
@@alejandrorivas4585 Yeah, Nazis do want Jews to die for their right to an ethnostate.
@@nickv1212 Last I checked, the Jews didn't want to die. Go off though
I was kinda already done when he explained his like of think on that. They don't want to go create a new ethno state they want undesirables to leave and what will be left is the ethno state.
When I clicked I didn't expect to hear Vaush debating a Jreg character.
Jreg is cringe imo but that's so on point
@@cistemshocke7731 Why's that?
@@cistemshocke7731 why
@@cistemshocke7731 Saving up for a new grill?
🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩
🍩@@cistemshocke7731 🍩
🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩🍩
Libertarians are all about consent, especially the age of it
@Quest Tzecai lol stepy on snek go aagghh
Yeah, they have a tendency to be extra concerned with certain "freedoms" with creepy regularity. You could play a Libertarian drinking game. Take a shot whenever:
1) they complain about age of consent
2) they complain about America having a heterogeneous population
3) they complain about false rape or make any statement regarding "real" rape
4) they complain about the civil rights act
Actually, don't play this drinking game. You'll die of alcohol poisoning.
@@devourerofbabies what if I want to die from alcohol poisoning?
"Oh yeah? What if the child consents tho?"
@@cbj4sc1 Honestly seems like a valid choice at this point.
"No you don't understand, all the flaws you pointed out about my system wouldn't exist, because we would all agree that it wouldn't."
The points vaush makes are not valid because bawerk already proved that this labor-valor theory of marx is bullshit, value is subjective, therefore the exploitation of the workes (wich is vaush primary point to criticise capitalism) doesn't exist.
@@guilhermevieira6010 this is such a worm brained taked. Of course value is subjective. The difference between a Marxist and a non-Marxist is how they see value. You people and your appeals to authority over actually dealing with arguments are so lazy. This is like saying black people don't deserve rights because the klu klux klan already proved that anti-racism is bullshit because bigotry and personal held beliefs are subjective thus harm caused by racism can't exist!
Strawman
@@obezy. fallacy fallacy
@@benh2339 I'm just curious do you think you know what is best for others? Furthermore, if someone finds pleasure in working a 9 to 5 flipping burgers or something do you think they are being exploited? or that they should want a "Better" career?
his first point in the debate: I own myself
rest of the debate: him owning himself
holy shit dude
good one
Libertarian: "i don't consent to this I'll have you know"
Man with big gun: "haha, ok buddy"
I'll have you know that violating the NAP is like uh, really not cool and you're not supposed to do that.
*fires gun*
I withdraw my consent
*bullet stops*
@@eatsandwichesonthursdays420 he's the chosen one!
Argument I get in all the time goes something like "what's to stop tenants from just taking the apartment complex?"
Ancap: "It's up to owners to defend themselves, a smart person should own firearms"
Me: "a single person is going to defend themselves against 100 pissed of people who want them out? What if they also have guns?"
Ancap: THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE NAP
BuT HiS ReputatIon will suffer from actions like this and he won’t be able to compete in FREE MARKET SYSTEM
_"I _*_TOLD YOU_*_ I'm getting to the coconuts and deep thròating!"_
🤣🤣🤣
Deep throating
Literally the best part of the video...
That might be the single greatest line a presidential candidate has ever uttered
That's libertarianism right there lol
@@GuardiaNES420 yeah i caught the torture part too
"I want what we have now, but without any human rights protections" is what this guy is pretty much saying.
Or fire departments, emergency services, or anything that helps people who can't help themselves
@@robinpage2730 well, there would be fire departments. but if you don’t have enough money to pay for the private fire brigade, your house just burns.
"well see the human rights would be protected by us all agreeing that humans have rights and consenting to having rights, and so if somebody violated your rights you would simply withdraw your consent to them violating your rights, which would then lead to them stopping violating your rights"
Yeah basically “I want to make life more difficult than it already is, just for the sake of making life more difficult.”
@@lexj432hz6
-Based?-
Adam's position is litteraly the meme:
If someone robs you just say no, they can't legally rob you if you say no.
@@earthmagickrising he didn't have a response to the problem of big-dick corporations just running a town's resistance through and setting up a small corporatocracy
@@earthmagickrising A couple hucksters in a town are going to take up arms to resist a company that is capable of hiring a PMC?
@@earthmagickrising Companies taking over towns and stealing resources isn't even a hypothetical. Look up what Nestle has done in pretty much any third-world country.
@@earthmagickrising You can't really believe a corporation is going to respect autonomy if you give them the power to self-govern and hire PMCs. That's ridiculous.
@@earthmagickrising no answer you provide will suffice because you don't have one that doesn't require we float off into magical christmas land and in your own words presuppose that all people will without exception respect the rights of every other person. you say you don't want to engage in "far-fetched hypotheticals" but your ideology is built on nothing but. i can point to star trek as an example of a world that is "morally superior" to ours and doing so is just as useful as you pointing to the imaginary anarchist world you want and calling it morally superior, which is to say not at all.
The amazing thing about this guy is that when he says "the evils of the state," he literally just means taxes. In his mind, being forced to pay a certain percentage of his income is more evil than all of the capitalist exploitation in the world. More evil than sweatshops, or starvation wages, or monopolies, or any of it.
You can't forget the forced vaccinations. Just unthinkable, isn't it?
Yeah, but corporations do bad stuff because the big bad gubbermint made them do it. If we just got rid of gubbermint, Monsanto would behave like a cuddly teddy bear and invite us over for hot cocoa and a rousing performance of Kumbayah.
What he actually said wasn’t bad enough, you need to strawman it?
@@tdbtdbthedeadbunny You say strawman, I say well deserved mockery.
@@Quetzocotol nope; nessecary
Guy:I don't consent
Mercenary: ha ha gun go blam
Merc: **fires gun**
AnCap: I do not consent!
*[bullet stops in mid-air, retracts back into the gun]*
*bleeding out* I’ll.. never buy your shit again.. *dies* ha gottem
“Libertarian socialists in the libertarian party” this guy REALLY had no idea what he’s talking about, I would be shocked to see an actual leftist in the libertarian party
There is. They formed a small faction in a historically capitalist party.
www.collegemedianetwork.com/libertarian-socialists-organize-online-within-the-libertarian-party/
It's a minority, but they're still there
Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron
@@johncole2744 care to explain why?
@@snakearekat2634 socialism is oppressive in practice.
“I’m going to get to the coconuts and the deep Throating” is my new moto
WTF, he just admitted that he has ppl working for him on an under the table basis, meaning no labor protection or insurance, and he claims that capitalism isn't coercive, oppressive and exploitative?
he(being wrong) will say that they are voluntarily working for him under the table for whatever wage they decided on and thus not coercive
He didn't get that gold medal in mental gymnastics for nothin'!
they had options, they just really wanted to work in a place that in case they lose a hand they wont get any help, instead of one of those bad places that follows laws
Where is the exploitation? Man, you folks are utopian ... to the point that even CONSENT between free parties, in an exchange (the bedrock of capitalism), is somehow exploitative in some way, and the system must be abolished and replaced.
Don't want to sell your labour, because not offered enough? Then don't ! There is no "power differential" as Vaush claims. He only imagines it, as HIS personal interpretation, because to him, oppression is virtually everywhere - that is his worldview, his lens, and the way he is wired. Doesn't make it fact. It's his opinion.
Vaush's pain comes from the unfortunate fact that some people have very little productivity value to offer - and to him, those people are victims. So their life outcomes (wealth-wise) are the very least among us. Vaush seems to give off a vibe of a belief that basic labour is worth more, and so valuable in itself, that it deserves major increases, even profit sharing at the top level of risk and responsibility. Essentially WalMart checkout clerks owning part of WalMart, and having a "democratic vote" in every directional decision of the company.... because they pull a bar code across a scanner.
The cool thing about free markets and capitalism is Vaush and his followers can ALL take the rest of their lives to make every effort to construct these kinds of "co-op" companies, and put their model to the test, in reality. You can make a co-op business structure RIGHT NOW (it can operate in our current paradigm). Vaush claims "look at the data" and "it's all proven to be wayyyy better" and companies are running his model right now... yet CANNOT NAME ONE COMPANY, and has yet to name one in ANY of these debates... even when prompted. So we can all analyse these alleged companies, and see how/what they are doing. I also believe that Vaush and every one of his followers will go to their graves never attempting one iota to start a business under this "model".
This is merely a battle of theory, fun to argue and debate, using essentially co-op vaporware to "own" these 'oppressive freemarket capitalists'. It's pretty hard to debate an iron-clad flawless (utopian) theory that is a ghost. All ghosts are iron-clad and flawless! That's easy. The Vaush ilk want the entire economy to be transformed to this 'better' model, yet don't have an inkling of drive to even attempt to set up ONE of these models themselves. *All for thee, but not for me* They're all free to do so - so do it. But they won't. And I suspect, none have plans to EVER do it IRL. Whenever challenged, Vaush backpedals quickly, and quickly starts throwing up all the excuses and roadblocks of why nobody can easily start a co-op-model business. All alleged conspiracies by 'the system' to hold down this worker-based model so it will never happen and take off. And he backpedals in such a well-spoken and slick way... it actually sounds impressive! Some of the most 'hypnotic' backpedalling and diversions I've ever heard... and his opponent never presses him on it, unfortunately. In every debate, Vaush squeaks through the "well do it" "show me a real-life example" "why doesn't just ONE of you folks actually make one of these businesses and prove it" parts of the debate, and suddenly they're onto other topics. I'm screaming at the screen "OMG how can you let that part go!!! Press on it. Make him answer. GAHHH"
@@abandoned-mines-novascotia If one doesn't sell their labor to one of the few low paying jobs they qualify for they starve to death. Real voluntary that.
LOL Adam sounds like a 16 year old stoner who just read Ayn Rand for the first time!
Absolutely embarrassing that he's almost 40!
@Kill Slug Sam Seder did a good job of ripping into Adam's incoherent worldview as well. Look it up on UA-cam.
Nah man that's every ride or die libertarian. They are all 16 year old stoners on the inside.
They all sound like that.
Every libertarian is forever the kid who didn’t understand why he couldn’t have his cake and eat it.
@@sargonsblackgrandfather2072 As long as you have access to the raw ingredients you can have all the cake.
"private physical defenses"
r e c r e a t i o n a l n u k e
I like how he tries to paint Vaush as an idealist when he unironically believes that everyone can simultaneously voluntarily consent to everything about the state of the world and not be coerced into anything, and also his solution to problems is just : guys be nice.
You do understand how individual force works, right?
@@qabbala1015 just say what you want to say.
@@melvinmalonga4068 I'm saying that you are strawmanning his position. Anarch capitalism is anti statism because statism is the monopoly of force. As there would be no monopoly of force under anarcho capitalism, each individual person and militia would have the ability to enforce their own voluntarism with the barrel of a gun.
@@qabbala1015 And you think the barrel of a gun isn't coercive ? If no, first wtf and second given your definition of state, how is the state coercive ? And if yes, then you still have coercion.
@@melvinmalonga4068 If someone is coercive, you can resist that coercion, it probably will come to a stalemate because you can both kill eachother in a second, but if you can't deter the other party you at least have the chance to defeat them.
"Capitalism is, by definition, not coercive (the way I define it)"
Lol
the sun is, by definition, not bright (the way i define it)
What is the joke here? Capitalism is NOT coercive. Period. However, the opposite is going on (unlike the joke)... meaning, it's coercive the way *Vaush* (and other socialist/anarchists) define it.
@@abandoned-mines-novascotia 22:45
@@xenoch8400 Money is ALSO the basis of his co-op / socialist model. So would the co-op socialist paradigm not be coercive too? In other words, if you 'want to live a fulfilling life' you'd be forced to participate in the co-op socialist model, to earn money? *NONE OF THIS IS COERCION* Money is merely a fungible avatar representing time and labour - so you can trade it for somebody elses time and labour. Something universal that we can all use - as using direct barter would be nearly impossible.
Vaush's premise 'live a fulfilling life' is his OPINION. Who defines a fulfilling life? In fact, if one wants to reject and leave the societal paradigm - you can certainly stop participating and go off into the wilds and live like Grizzly Adams. BUT that existence is literally basic living, like we did for hundreds of thousands of years. Shelter. Hunting. The wilderness. But it is living. That's all living is.
Vaush mixes up the baseline of what he thinks human beings 'deserve' based on modern industrial society - that we should all get to benefit from all modern amenities - but somehow not 'carry our water' to contribute and build that paradigm. He sees participating as 'by force' and thus 'coercion' to enjoy modern industrial society. No - it's a simple expectation that we all work together and do SOMETHING to contribute (turning our time into fungible currency) to earn our way along, with everybody else. The most basic of expectations. And hey - if you don't want to participate - exit the system and head out far away to live a TRUE human existence of being a mere animal. Hunting or growing your own food. Building your own shelter. Making your own home/life.
@@abandoned-mines-novascotia
Capitalism IS coercive. Period.
(Your argument was so bullet proof that I had to think real hard to come up with this equally amazing counter argument).
This guy would have billions of dollars in healthcare fees in his systems with the amount of times he broke his ankle pivoting.
Curious question... are you really from Winnipeg?
@@eratoisyourmuse659 Nope, its a reference to a song, My name isn't Maurice either
True. And. Funny.😂😂😂
@@cassie6056 Lol. Ok.... I live 50km southeast of Winnipeg, so I was just curious. I'm also french Canadian, so I know a lot of Maurices.
"Hey, how much are the apples?"
"These are Red Delicious apples!"
"Okay, but how much are they?"
"They're full of vitamins and nutrients!"
"You're not answering my question. How much are apples?"
"I get them fairly and legally!"
Lol underrated comment! Well done.
This guy ran for office? He’s like a stoned bro who read a few articles on Libertarianism and it blew his mind.
Yeah, pretty sure his house is just a very large dab.
Ancaps: The state is bad because it steals a percentage of the profits I make.
Also ancaps: hey buddy thanks for the labour, here's a pack of gum.
also ancaps
"if that man is giving you a gum and taking 99% of the money, why dont u start a business to compete with him or search other better job?"
you would be rich by doing so and could pay your workers same money u get.
mindblow
How can you compare the two? The worker signed a contract before and therefore consented to work for a wage. The worker couldn't create wealth without the help of the business owner and vice versa.
@@contekozlovski Yeah but if I don't have a job I'd die. It's not really consent if I there's a chance of starvation
@@brettuhl7818 the same situation may happen in an ancom situation where I am starving and a community owned company offers me a job with company shares.
You are right that we need to work but we'll need to work anyway, under any political-economic system. Free market systems leave you free to decide what to do.
@@andrebarros7703 Yeah sure, you can start a business with the capital you get from working for a pack of gum. There is nothing voluntary about your boss choosing your personal worth or threatening you with being fired. Repeat this over the scale of an entire society and you'll end up with an entire class of workers working for nothing and without the social mobility to get anything more than nothing. But that's okay, because it's VoLUnTary that you work in a job you have no power over and no opportunity to move beyond.
This guy seems so certain that people's collective morals will overcome the overarching will of corporations, yet shows no willingness to describe how those people might legislate it.
You know, without governments the ban on magic will be lifted and the people will use magic to stop the abuse of power by corporations.
(after some discussions with some libertarians I would not be surprised if they actually believed this)
Ancaps are weird bc they'll usually say that human nature is individualistic (which they mean as selfish, greedy and competitive, aka amoral), and would never voluntarily embrace a system where they have to work for the collective instead of just for themselves, then they do a complete 180 and say our morals would make us fight the evil intentions of a particular corporation under a libertarian system for the improvement of the collective, when by their logic when talking about communism, humans would actually rush to get a position in the evil power corporation.
Vaush: How would your system deal with problem X?
Adam: The current system sucks! (And now you heard every AnCap argument)
I consented to watch this video. I didn’t consent, however, to Kokesh killing at least half my brain cells with this level of stupidity
Scratch an Ancap and a Feudalist bleeds.
Small gubbermant
Small morals
The libertarian way
You forgot small workers
don't forget
Small penis.
The gateway drug to libertarianism.
Don tred on snek
Small gubbermant
Small morals
Small workers
Giant corporations
_The Libertarian Way_
@@RavenholmZombie How on Earth would you have corporations under the ancap system? A corporation is a limited liability vehicle created and enforced by the state. So, no state, no corporation, right?
This dude would be great at Dark Souls, with how he keeps rolling around everything Vaush throws at him
More like the dude who can’t get past the first boss and rage quits and begs Steam for a refund before going online somewhere to take a big shit on the game for being too hard.
Actually, that’s not fair to Vaush to compare him to the first boss in any of the Dark Souls games.
@@TaddiestMason he’s the demon souls boss that kills you with one punch after you think your safe.
Literally within the span of 60 seconds:
“I don’t agree with anything that impedes individual liberty.”
...
“You have to cooperate with other people to have a society.”
😂
"When Walmart Megacorp, which owns your whole town sends it's mercenaries to kill you because you are striking, just retire your consent"
"Mega bussinesses wont engage in any of the terrible shit they always engage with in my system, because i have defined my system as one in which that won't happen"
Amazing takes.
If I recall correctly, weren't the Pinkertons formally just private guards/mercs paid by companies to prevent/break up union strikes and then became a part of the government to continue that work but with the authority of the state?
@@jwomackandcheese73 what happened was the higher ups realized they could only spend so much of their own money to hire mercs and went with the much more effected publicy funded approach.
Instead of hiring private cops to patrol the city so no one bothers you, it's much better to convince the sheep that they need protection too and should giver thus percentage of their income to pay for that force, that mainly listens to you anyway.
an coms do the same thing, they dont explain how people will actually be compelled to share the product of their labor and not horde wealth or resources, or engage in voluntary transactions with others to create a profitable enterprise, they simply define an ancom world as one where none of this happens despite human nature
In a debate with Nick Fuentes, following a question about how to deal with the drug cartels at the border, he said "if everyone respects the nonaggression principle, then there's no crime...simple as that"
@@anahata3478 when you say "there is no private property" that simply means that you will forcefully expropriate wealth which you do not deem "personal". For this reason your question is circular, the real question is "how can there be no private property", to which the answer is "the state will forcefully expropriate the wealth and redistribute or socialize it"
I used to debate libertarians online for laughs. My favourite trap ended with me saying to them, “I’ve built a private fenced off road around your home. What you gonna to about it? You gonna cry?” They’d say they’d take me to court and I’d say I don’t recognise their court I’m got my own court which says I’m right. This would go on until they’d either rage quit or lose it and say they’d shoot me at which point I’d shout, “help he’s violating the non aggression principle!” Then they’d rage quit.
Of course, one would be quite right to point out that NAP is just a basic starting point, insufficient alone. "NAP says only what YOU think is an imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (Golden Rule). It does not say what THEY think is an imposition of costs on their demonstrated investments (Silver Rule).
NAP (libertarianism) is just another Ashkenazi Abrahamic version of marxism, feminism, postmodernism. Alone, [ it falsely assures as] an incomplete sentence, baits you into moral hazard, is defended by pilpul and critique, and allows you to be conquered through continuous appropriation of all common capital until it is too late. The underclasses and women were suckers for socialism, academics for marxism, merchants for libertarianism, and rulers for neo-conservativsm. These are all false promises. They are all attempts to destroy western civilization for the second time: by undermining rule of law, from which markets in everything evolve, and eugenics, high trust, prosperity, and the transcendence of the condition of man are a consequence." propertarianism.com/2019/05/26/ending-the-false-promise-of-the-nap/
I don't see how that is a big problem? In this AnCap society you would likely be ostasized for doing the fence and as such the local companies in town may not sell you anything for doing what you did. So I don't see how this is a trap, and I thought of this in 30 seconds after reading your comment.
@@dragonore2009 how will anyone find out what you did if they're trappeed
@@roman-it8rq Oh maybe I misunderstood, so the person who fenced in the guys yard, also fenced all the neighbors yards, owns all the phone companies, and owns the internet?
@dragonore2009: Ok. I find poor people from elsewhere, offer to make them all wealthy, and buy my materials from them. I also ship them in to build the fence. I hire good rhetoricians to make the case that this is the right thing to do and I hire big, strong bouncers to stand around the work site. Seems like you’re pretty enclosed.
Do you not think that I could find a workforce willing to fence you in? People will do a ton of stuff if they’re promised enough.
As ex-ancap this was really enjoyable. I'm glad Adam is willing to debate, he genuinely just believes in Libertarian ethics and just has porky blinders on & doesn't understand material conditions.
Not trying to be a dick but I genuinely want to know is the belief born out of an hate for the state or ignorance of how corporations would actually work with nothing holding them back?
@@ripyungbruh8157 Yes to both & a bunch of other factors I think the fundamental essence of ancapism is the NAP as a moral idealism.
An-Caps try to apply a universal philosophy to reality whereas everyone else is discussing reality itself or their own variety of idealism.
Why someone would attach themselves to moral idealism is different for every person.
@@RaPiiDHUNT3R1 moral idealism is a good way to describe it. When Kokesh debated Seder, he asked what his moral principles were. When Sam replied that he was more interested in outcomes than a priori principles, Adam just could not compute. He couldn't even imagine not placing abstract principles before everything else.
@@Jefferson-ly5qe Vaush also claims to have a principle that guides his conclusions, his principle being consequentialism. You can’t hand wave away the idea of principles. You either have good, useful principles or you don’t, and if you don’t, you handicap your own ability to reason your ideas.
@@HarryPainter sure, you can call it consequentialism if you want. I don't really care. The point is not to get caught up supporting a priori principles that lead to stupid outcomes.
“Coconuts”, “huge tracks of land”. How many holy grail references will be made here?
this guys obviously not doing well in capitalism if he cant buy a better mic than whatever he has lol
He has to pay to tax which is y he can't afford a better mic if the state didn't exist and we lived in a anarco capitalist he'll have a better mic 😉
LOL Adam's microphone would constantly disconnect and not work in his debate with Destiny too.
Use that damn free market to get a better mic!
When he was running for president his car broke down and he was e begging for money.
@@NeverBeenOnMaury What's wrong with that? Capitalists love getting money without labor, especially Adam Kokesh.
@@metalphoenix4244 try again there buddy
"I TOLD YOU I WAS GETTING TO THE COCONUTS AND THE DEEP THROATING, DON'T WORRY!"
literally just as i saw this comment i heard him say that, that is so fucking weird timing
@@vatyin7763 I love when that happens
He never got to the coconuts and deepthroating we should’ve been worried all along.
@@Monk-ow3ok I was really hoping it would cum eventually, but it never did.
That is hilarious out of context
I recently had a conversation with an ancap (friend’s husband) ... I basically just asked him questions with big eyes and played dumb little woman to give him rope to hang himself with and his argument eventually defeated itself and he threw his hands up and said
“No system works really- fuck it man, anarchy.”
🙄🤦🏻♀️
I could’ve argued with him, but didn’t out of respect for his wife. But that’s ok, he did a great job all on his own when lead with the right questions.
POV this shit never happened and you made this story up
Socratic method for the win!
When having to pay 20% of your income is a greater evil than death squads.
What death squads?
lmao huh
How do you extract that 20% of the income from somebody?
What happens to the person who refuses to pay that 20%?
I sure trust that it does not end with a death squads taking it away from you.
@@thomasdovell3003 Lmao
@AL HASSANE BARRY What if you try to resist the arrest?
I understand that I will not be killed for refusing to go to jail, will I?
If you cannot defend yourself from being put into the cage for not paying up the tribute you have never agreed to, where is the difference between your scenario and the death squads?
These few extra steps, which do not change the underlying picture?
Imagine playing Outer Worlds and unironically thinking "i wish society operated this way"
Or Bioshock. There's also the nineteen twenties. Unregulated capitalism is a disaster.
0
@I Don't Get The Joke Not all capitalism obviously. Reasonable countries regulate their industry but yes that is where uninhibited capitalism will get you.
Imagine playing that game and wanting it to be any of the other ways. For real, that game is good, but they could’ve handled the politics better.
Exactly.
Vaush violated the non aggression principle in this debate
NOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST VIOLATE THE N.A.P NOOOOOOO
haha child wives go shoot
@Dr. Ben Chode is Richard Spencer dead? Are the people who rioted at Charlottesville dead and gone? Shouting "Jews will not replace us?"
@DcyphR What?
DcyphR Doesn’t make them not Nazis
@DcyphR The original person you were responding to was himself responding to an argument that all the nazis were gone. He was pointing out that because Richard Spencer and the Charlottesville rioters are still alive, the nazis are not gone. He was never making an argument about the ethical nature of nazi hunting, just pointing out that nazis exist. You arguing with him therefore implies that you disagree with his viewpoint that the nazis are still here.
Adam kokesh said rape was a “fair exchange” in this debate
Thank God I’m not the only one who noticed that.
Really tells you what his definition of consensual is
At what time?
@@MrCmon113 I think they are talking about the part where he said "if the coconut man makes you a pina colada and you decide to suck his dick for another one that is a fair exchange."
Though to be honest, I think you need quite a bit more than that to determine it is rape. It just feels really weird to me that many people think you can't meaningfully consent to sex while drunk; obviously there can be times when you can't, but something about that just doesn't sit right with me. Especially in a world where people get drunk specifically to find someone to fuck.
me watching vaush debates while only understanding half of what he's saying: I like your funny words magic man
I hope Sam Seder wins the libertarian nomination.
Wtf?? Lol.
Yesterday i looked up an interview with the Libertarian candidate for president and she literally contradicted herself between the first 2 questions. I could NOT be a reporter/ interviewer , it must take so much patience. People just open their mouths and spew out verbal diarrhea they think people want to hear.
@@eratoisyourmuse659 Sam debated the head of libertarian convention or some shit and his bit was he was going to run for president as a libertarian. It was a hilarious interview
Wow this guy cares so little about reality he admits as ancap he'd be fine living in socialism as long as he gets to define it as capitalism. Definitely a relevent political position
Did you both not understand his point? Maybe give it another listen? That's not what he said, you are interpreting it backwards.
He said, if people want to voluntarily engage in their own community which abides by socialistic rules, they can do that, they can even call it socialism. But, in reality, that is happening through capitalism. Since it is their choice to employ their labour voluntarily in that manner. They legally can do so because they own the fruits of their labour.
He didn't say he wanted live in that way. But, that anyone who wants to voluntarily create and live in socialist communities can do so in the capitalist system. You can do it today if you like, there are many communities to choose from. Just search for a commune, you can literally join one today. And yeah, that option is available to people in capitalism.
Check out the fantastic documentary wild wild country, it's about a massive commune in the US.
@@Strife40k free association is not capitalism.
@@Aztlan632 well, actually free association is part of capitalism.
@@Strife40k its not what capitalism is though
@@Aztlan632 You don't believe so? That is interesting. What definition of capitalism do you subscribe to?
every single libertarian cave on this simple question "what happens to your family if you lost your job and someone had an emergency?" it blows their minds when i show them i care about their family more than they do, let alone other people.
28:22 for the coconut discussion
Ancap position: I dont like authoritarian governments, now let me have the freedom to own a business so I can act like an authoritarian.
@Vincent H. No but I am sure that a business owner would be a competent one by acting like an egalitarian who gives a living wage to those workers who actually work hard than an authoritarian who pays and cares little for any of their workers for the sake of increasing his profit margins. I mean it is the number one reason workers change their job in the first place which is due to selfish, toxic and close minded managers or management.
@@nicholasmocalis589 that is just an emotional hope. It doesn't work in real life. The most successful and profitable possible end goal for a business in terms of increasing profits is free labor aka slavery. All you need to do is create an excuse for that slavery to exist. There are ways to profit from labor without respecting worker's rights and those choices make sense to increase profits. It doesn't matter if you can technically carve out an existence by being an ethical business if it is always easier and more profitable to be unethical. Capitalism isn't controlled by where people choose to work, it is controlled by what consumers choose to consume. That means that the biggest, most successful capitalists who gain the most money and influence on the economy will always afford to attempt to create a system in which they are as close as possible to having free labor.
Especially when society allows a culture to arise where people think the worker owes the employer instead of vice versa and that culture is inherent to capitalism
Ancaps just want an absolute monarchy where they’re the monarch
Authoritarian business? Like women who want to decider over their own bodies are authoritarian?
@@Randomuser2329 So you took the ancap route, interesting.
My favourite thing about Vaush's debates is the way he sometimes looks into the camera
@Keaten Mansfield oh my God your right
I find that if I’m just listening, I can accurately know when he’s doing it if I rewind and look.
It's like Jim from The Office lol
Adam: complains about Vaush 'interrupting' him
Also Adam: proceeds to interrupt Vaush a 1,000,000,000 times
Adam: "My value is not to do something"
Vaush: "what if anyone else does it"
Adam: "I wouldn't do it - and if they did it then I would force them not to do it - non-coercively".
this debate convinced me to convert to the superior ideology of anarcho-capitalism-coconutism with deepthroat characteristics
hey
No anarcho capitalism is a lie. Anarchists believe in equality and are against overseers so there is no such thing as anarcho-capltalists. Are you joking?
@@yourmother2739 I think it was sarcasm.
XDDDD deepthroat characteristics
Lol best comment
Adam's argument in a nutshell: "If a mugger threatens to kill you, just say no! They can't legally take your money without your consent!"
Or just shoot them for violating the NAP
@@qabbala1015 But that's just what government does now. That's ultimately for the better too, as historically societies that had a decentralized ability to commit violence amongst all members of the population were, shocker, often the most violent and unstable societies, with warring families and tribes constantly fighting for dominance of resources, land, and political power, or out of retribution and/or deterrence from other groups.
@@thek2despot426 if a mugger holds me at gunpoint the government will kill them right there for me? damn, didnt know they were that efficient just yet
@@branchy1186 Literally absolutely irrelevant to any point I made.
@@thek2despot426 dont care loser
TLDW Vaush asks an important question and Adam tries to get around it the entire debate
The section about how "voluntary law" is kind of an oxymoron was rather insightful.
I dont "own myself", i AM myself. Ownership implies that people are property to be owned.
That's because 'Voluntaryists' / _-"Anarcho"-_ Oxymoronic-Capitalists replace the expression for _"I have/am a _*_SOUL_*_ / Consiousness"_ with _"I am, Property."_
It's just religion with all of it's steps renamed. It's like they think they're the only people who came up with the Concept of Consent, as if Consent arises out of Property/(Self-)Ownership.
They believe that Consciousness is a Property, a Something, not a Quality or Set of Characteristics that arises through the Machinations of Nature- of being alive, but an ownable _"ethereal"_ extant Object.
This is why Religion / Idealism is the root of all Evil, it fucks with your brain and makes you accept Paradoxes instead of being able to think Critically... and -"Anarcho"- Capitalists take the Structure and Ritual of Religions and _"Square"_ the Free-Market onto that _"circle"_ of a Structure.
@@Nordkiinach Dont forget the added dash of conformity by peer pressure via social psychology
Ok commie.
@@gloriouscontent3538 Ok liberal
Ancaps own themselves, haaa haaaaaa. It never gets old.
Like their girlfriends.
"I own my own business just like everybody else can, but I do it in a shipping container from a global trading corporation, buy my supplies from a number of corporate stores, everybody should do it! I'm an individual!"
LOL😂
Welcome to two hours of Adam being interviewed about his new fiction novel as Vaush tenaciously points out the plot holes
Pretty much lol
ANCAP guy must be great at dodgeball.
I'm not sure if this guy even prepared at all. He seemed to not even understand his own arguments and basically be relying on Vaush to explain them to him.
On the other hand, if he had invested any level of thought into his positions, he wouldn't subscribe to vapid jibberish like anarcho capitalism in the first place. Like, capitalism implies hierarchy, and "anarcho" means "without rulers". Just the name itself is should be enough to make a thinking person laugh.
He definitely prepared. I think the problem is that his definitions of socialism and capitalism that are the foundations of his arguments are fundamentally wrong.
@@rush7687 he has his own definitions and his own argument that works but only in his reality. It just doesn't apply remotely to the real world there is no homesteading anymore 🤣
@@declanflynn2580 that was my point
Oh he prepared. With a FAT fuckin bong rip.
I agree he is a believer in self ownership.... Libertarians self own all the time. Lol
Ironically enough he's also clearly in favor of public ownership too. He self owns himself publically.
I think this is the only case where A can be equal to not A. Truly an incredible feat, the implications of which cannot be known because logic has been fundumentally broken.
"b-b-b-b-b-but true capitalism has never been tried"
@@qabbala1015 just like real communism wasn't true I think that was the joke.
@@qabbala1015 just use the money you get today to make a ancap island.
Adam Kokesh: anarcho capitalism isn't immoral if i'm a corporate overlord
Vaush: but if you're just a regular dude
Adam: then it's really evil
Anarcho-capitalism is just monarchy with extra steps
Be need anarcho monarchism every man a king, except the sefs
It's probably the exact opposite
I'd say it's monarchy with fewer steps, but yeah.
Like Pandora of Borderlands
WKUK Anarchy Sketch
These 2 hours can be boiled down to this.
Adam wants to have the benefits of living In an organized society but none of the obligations towards it by being able to "opt out" of them and declare himself as "sovereign".
So....uber wealthy? You described most rich people.
@@TaddiestMason
Yes ancaps believe that they should be uber wealthy but they think that even the most basic of moral and legal barriers are "holding them down"
There's ancaps who think they'd "make big" if they were allowed to have slaves, do sex trafficking (including children), do hit jobs or make chemical weapons and sell them like one sells knives (i literally know an ancap that said that), build homes with no safety standards and out of any material they want on whatever land they can grasp and sell them, etc.
Basically they want to be able to do crime without any threat of punishment.
Ancap: "I'm talking about ethics... ".
10 minutes later
Ancap: "Here in Arizona, I can buy land and claim it as my private property...".
For those who don't have time to watch the whole thing it's basically this:
Kokesh: "The state is bad! Taxation is theft!"
Vaush: "So, in your ideal society, hypothetically, how do individuals safeguard themselves against the violent encroachment of corporations against human rights? How do you propose we avoid devolving into feudalism under that system?"
Kokesh: "...The state is bad! Taxation is theft!"
Vaush: "...dude..."
As someone who works in private security, I have to tell people like Adam that I am not a surrogate for the police and private security is not a magical alternative. My authority ends and begins at the property line
I would love for you to game this out and explain your deficiencies compared to the police and why authority should extend beyond the property line
@@HarryPainter i'm pretty sure he was just saying that police have important functions that wouldn't be covered by private security guards, for example, preventing you from getting shot to death in the public space of the town square. If there's no authority beyond the property line, then life becomes a whole lot more risky beyond that property line.
Is the lolbertarian high? At min 25 "We can make analogies like there's never been an incidence of cancer good for the human body" wtf u babbling about??
sounds drunk to me
I think he's been hitting the booze, he's slurring his speech bad.
"my definition of capitalism is that you own yourself" isn't that communism
"One second, I've got a side bar to my side bar to my tangent, but I promise, after I get through an inception of side bars, I'll get stuck in limbo and never come back to answer the question"
No one was ridiculous enough to create the idea of anarcho capitalism. Because this is what you get. It's literally Abradolf Lincoler. It's inherently contradictory.
Mr. M by definition they are as you take control of the means of production with force.
@Kill Slug anarco communists literally existed, they only stopped existing because other communities with weapons killed all of them and they are usually pacifists, they still exist in remote locations like Amazon jungle, there is one tribe famous for not having any deity or the concept of time
Fi☪†i☯N
How is seizing the means of production genocidal? A genocide is a targeted systematic elimination of a population based on religion or culture in the optic of eradicating their existence on a given place. How is democratization of the working place genocidal? Are landlords and capitalist a special ethnic and/or religious entity? Are they systematically eradicated (killed and not just striped of their coercion power)? Answer : NO
If anything, capitalism, nationalism and religious fundamentalism are the cause of genocide. And as we can all see from your name, religion is your stuff. Remember that nationalism did the jewish genocide, nationalism and religious fundamentalism did the Armenian genocide and capitalism did Native American genocide in the USA. Those are one example per idea, there are many more example for each and none for "seizing the means of production". And don't give me USSR and China example because :
1- the famines were major errors, not systematic elimination
2- the camps targeted political opponents and random citizens, not a specific population
3- the current Uygur genocide in China is the result of nationalism and religious extremism (from the atheists)
Elendil614 Elendil614 how? Because someone ownes the business you want to take with force that will resist you with force. Genocide can also be against political rivals, and what will happen is everyone that opposes the system will ether be killed, jailed or deported/flee. You can’t make a workplace “democratic” by force, this is ironic instead of allowing people to decide for themselves.
In America 97% of all filthy capitalists have less than 50 employees. That’s 16.6 million business owners that you will forcefully take. 15 million of those have less than 10 employees.
This is historical facts what happens, even with the good intentions.
The native Americans wasn’t killed by capitalism but imperialism. Capitalism is freedom for the individual, imperialism is the forcfull expansion over others territory with government power.
Nowhere does capitalism or nationalism advocate for the death, taking or exploitation of people. That are things unfortunately people do.
Nationalism, is not fascism, and only nazis and Soviet communists had ideological problems with Jews.
Religions and socialism advocates the forceful taking from people and subjugation under its ideals to protect itself from hostile ideas.
1: the famine was systematic failure indeed. Like the seating of the means of production from those with better incentives and know how in running farms, the state or forced collectives are bad ideas.
Communism doesn’t systematically eliminate people, it’s the consequences of the goals of the system to force equality in whatever way they see fit. Contrary to the capitalist way of allowing the individuals to decide
2: political opponents was everyone not supporting the party. That is kind of bad.
3: don’t you think is weird every socialist experiment ends in the same way? Even tho it’s not the goal? Hell is paved with good intentions
obviously anarcho-primitivism is the way to go
Recap of AnCap's arguments:
1) Everybody should be a homesteader.
2) Coercion is impossible without government.
3) When companies send in private armies, simply abstain from buying their goods. That'll show 'em.
4) BITCOIN WILL SAVE US ALL
1) First off, no. You can rent. Second, if you think homesteading is difficult then you don't understand homesteading principles.
2) Can you show me where he made this claim? Coercion can exist with any person pointing a gun at you
3) When you cut off their supply of money that does tend to limit the armies they can have... Not to mention any and all other companies in that market are going to push back on this.
4) This is foolishness. No one ever said this.
@@maxamos7
Step 1: find a dictionary
Step 2: look up the definition of "satire"
Step 3: have your mommy read it to you.
@@maxamos7 on point three the example was if a local populace used their ability of consensus to kick out a Walmart trying to open there. The ancap said yeah if it's a consensus you can use force, and when Vaush replied with "and what about when Walmart sends in their army", the local populace not buying walmarts goods isn't going to stop them from getting murdered. You see Walmart makes billions and billions of dollars, they wouldn't depend on one local pop to fund their armies. And if you're actually unintelligent enough to say "oh but then other people won't buy walmarts goods cuz they did that thing." Then you'd be wrong of course and I can explain why but I shouldn't have to.
Maybe the guy who punched that girl in the face for wearing a Make Bitcoin Great Again hat because he had mistaken it for a MAGA hat/, just sayin
@@theswapmeetofideas3126 lol I never heard about that, that's actually kinda funny.
Volunteerists know that no human volunteers to be born, correct?
So?
Wow you got him der hurr durr
lmao is this really a stupid question? It’s the entire crux of their argument yet the basis of life is one of being ripped into existence without a choice in the material conditions you are born into lmaoooo what am I missing
@@ripley2995 So then killing people is OK?
@@qabbala1015 No killing people isnt okay imo
A better deep throat hypothetical:
A plane you're on crashes into the ocean near a small island. You're the sole survivor. You manage, with great difficulty, to swim to shore. On the island is a community of people who, some years ago, found themselves there in a situation similar to your own. By the time you arrive, they've thoroughly worked the land and, among them all, established ownership rights over all of the island.
Surely, their claims to ownership are legitimate from Kokesh's perspective.
They proceed to tell you that you may voluntarily choose to remain on the island, and access enough food and fresh water to survive, in exchange for 12 hours of deep throat service per day, or else you may voluntarily choose to leave their island immediately, with no food, water, a floatation device, or anything from the island.
According to Kokesh's standards, it would seem this situation is perfectly consistent with "legitimate property rights" and "voluntary" interaction and exchange
I think that might be a bit better actually
He’s making an effort and not a bad faith cult leader like Molymeme but still just doing the whole talking inchoate childish gibberish thing.
Yeah I appreciated his agreeableness
Yea at least im not too ashamed of previously being a fan of this guy
Hooboy, that was just embarrassing for Kokesh. Even more so that he somehow doesn't seem to realize it. His ideology is completely nonsensical, he honestly seems like he'd be completely happy with socialism as long as he could call it 'capitalism'. Some of the ideas he was describing were straight up anarcho-syndicalism, and when Vaush pushed him on the practical applications and ramifications of an 'an'cap reality, he would totally admit that what he was advocating for seconds earlier isn't feasible and wouldn't work then describe some kind of socialist solution to the problem. He was _so close_ to getting it so many times, if 'socialism' hadn't been painted as scary word and totally misrepresented for the last half century or so, while 'capitalism' has been drilled into people's heads as the 'good American freedom system' he'd probably be able to actually engage with socialist ideology and he'd be a leftist.
I feel like a lot of ancaps would shift left if they were more open-minded. I used to be an ancap (I actually still have an ancap pfp because I'm lazy) until I stopped being so opposed to the left and listened to Noam Chomsky. A lot of ancaps have the same fundamental values that anarchists have, but since they generally started on the right (in my case, I was a conservative at first), they find themselves stuck there.
It's okay Kokesh. Let's not do a Socialism. Let's do a super-Capitalism. You know... The kind without a state or money, where we disassemble all unjust hierarchies and give the people democratic control over the means of production. 😂
He doesn't know anything about anything, he just wants a system he can call voluntery. If he can get twisted up enough to call distributing ownership of a company to its workers as 'privitisation' you're not dealing with an ancap, you're dealing with an idiot. Such a surprise that the two are often confused...
@@ProfessorEGadd "socialism is just capitalism but where the business's are owned by the workers and not by private investors." Then it's not capitalism anymore, since capitalism is based on the private ownership of the means of production explicitly in contrast to worker ownership. (Or other forms of ownership)
There are no real Ancaps. They are either confused socialist, who got the red scare drilled into their brain or fascists, who either don't realise they are fascist or just prefer calling themselfs libertarians (or classical liberal, looking e.g. at Sargon) cause it sounds better.
It is FAAAR more likely for a landlord or repo-man to be knocking on your door to take your money and stuff than the IRS.
Do you think there's a difference between consensual sex and rape?
@@MrCmon113 Do you believe there's a difference between consentual sex and renting a place because you don't want to sleep by the side of the road in a snow storm?
@@MrCmon113 if you are forced to consent to somebody out of a group of people or starve it isn’t consent
Vaush doesn't understand that Walmart gunning down 87 people was just a little trolling
That sounds like the modern Republican Party Platform.
Vaush trying to pull a Sam Seder by debating a libertarian now
After meeting and crushing his hero destiny, vaush now begins to abopt seaders stick and will crush him in a years time.
@Wheat Water & Fire I just got to suicide pills and giving the VA tk be run by veterans, I just wow this man was running for office
I love Vaush but daddy Seder is the OG of clowning libertarians.
Dang, I wish Vaush had brought up company towns when he was talking about huge corporations taking over towns. Given so many of those towns had their own currency that only had value with the specific conglomerate’s brand, it virtually removed all power from workers to resist them because they couldn’t even go to other towns to buy necessities.
Well, you've got to tie them to the business as much as possible. If the workers have freedom then they'd be the ones working the land.
Don’t megacorps in China still do this?
@@nationradical I doubt the chinese government would let that fly
"Boycott your way out of warlords." Ha.
I love that at an hour in he realizes "oh shit businesses in Ancap ARE states". You can hear his whole tone shift as he tries to weasel out of it.
I love watching ancaps argue. It’s like they’re sooooo close to understanding what’s going on but just doesn’t quite click
I have that same feeling. I love em
they're smarter than conservatives they're almost there. but they miss because of the conclusions they decided upon beforehand
Do I dare to ask why you think that? What is the click missing? Gulags?
@@nixpix814 Pretty sure everyone here is anti-tankie but go off
The only way capitalists can make capitalism seem ethical is by describing socialism.
The guy lost the debate when he started accusing Vaush of being emotional instead of answering his very simple questions. He could not answer those questions because the answers would jeopardize the consistency of his position, so the best he could do was attempt to paint his opponent as hysterical.
Absinthian does Vaush have a consistent position? They both don’t believe in the state?
@@vonzipper2712 If you'd been listening, you would have noticed Vaush said multiple times that he supports a state insofar as it is there for a transitionary period until it is time to do away with it entirely. I personally disagree with both anti-state positions, but Vaush was consistent in his principles in this debate.
Absinthian I listened to the entire thing... maybe I didn’t hear it as well as you but It was interesting... it seemed like Adam spent a lot of time talking about his ideal world, while vaush never made his case for his ideal world that could have similar faults... If Vaush got uncomfortable he would say that he wasn’t advocating for a state... If Vaush thinks Ancap is so dumb that’s fine, but I would have liked to have heard him also make more an affirmative case for his Anarco socialism... I still haven’t heard a lot about it bc nobody talks about it...
@Malic Bk I wouldn't call it naive as much as I'd call it idealistic. I am personally in favor of keeping a (tightly controlled) state so it can continue to guarantee human rights. With no central power, there is no such thing as human rights.
I mean, for some, the coconuts are an extra treat after gettin a throat workout
Kokesh the entire time: hold on I’m gonna answer that! Never actually answers that.
I just love the idea of someone screaming 'I withdraw my consent!' while a guy with a yellow smileface on his shoulder patch shoots into a crowd of strikers.
Suppose that happened, how long would such a business last, hmm? Don't you think a huge twitter storm would arise out of this and massive boycotts would ensue? Do you think at all?
@@dragonore2009 it was a joke friend, are you familiar with those over there
Did you even watch the video? Vaush addressed that point multiple times.
@@pygmalion8952 Not an argument
@@dragonore2009 beyyyyyyyttttaaaaaaa
Adam is so weak on his positions, he seems like he hasn't thought anything through. Vaush dominated in this debate, good show.
He was so unprepared to debate TJ Kirk. Even less prepared for Vaush
@@jaredgreathouse3672 Adam even got smoked by Steven Crowder.
@@democracyisevil6043 Nooooooooooooooo. COME ON. Really?
@@jaredgreathouse3672 Yeah. I hate Crowder as well and I kind of like Adam despite that he is an ANCAP. But Adam got rekted by Crowder.
@@democracyisevil6043 bro that's tough. If you're being outsmarted by CROWDER you need to go away
This is exactly the frustration I have every time I talk to Libertarians. It is like, a faith more than anything. It's the doctrine of market fundamentalism. Gov't bad, capitalism good. Eliminate the bad and everything's good. Vaush gets a bit preachy, but does very clearly explain the problem a couple times. I don't understand it's not obvious that simply abolishing the gov't at THIS point would be a catastrophic disaster. And would lead to more suffering than anything we've ever seen before.
his little smile when the ancap just walks into the argument
This guy is the only good moderator, the drunken peasants could learn a thing or two from him
DP has been shit since TJ left.
Tuna sandwich How is TJ these days?
@@Zhicano idk we will find out today. I've always thought he gets a worse rap than he deserves. He predates the whole politcal UA-cam anti sjw grift and kinda got caught up in some of that but hes a bernie supporter and down with LGBTQ peeps. So I think today could be interesting.
Your UA-cam icon is from William H. Gass’ novel “The Tunnel.” I caught it!
@@originoflogos absolutely based
funny thing is, i used to be a Voluntaryist AnCap just 2 years ago, lol... it's ideologically driven, the harder you push, the more he will just fall back on the ethical arguments without any awareness of the flaws in the system he's proposing, and i can say this with confidence because i was in that headspace as well when debating friends that always pointed out flaws in my beliefs.
What were the flaws?
How did you get out of this brain worms philosophy
@@michelangelo9353 i mostly just realized i was putting too much faith into something that had too many bad answers to difficult questions.
if someone isn't ideologically driven and blind, and is curious to hear other perspectives, it seems inevitable that you would shift to the left, at least to some degree.
most of the right wing only seems to benefit those who like the idea of hierarchy, and through the illusion of freedom, the rich will dominate the lives of the lower classes with the guise "free market is best"
AnCaps are partially correct when it comes to stuff like guns and borders and IP laws, but as long as the private owners of firms and businesses, especially multinationals, have overwhelming wealth, this translates to power.
because if all centralized government is dissolved, and only corporations are left to set standards, then the corporations become the new states and countries of the world, with no major government body to regulate them.
and considering there was a time when we were pretty much borderline to Anarcho-Capitalism, and this lead to extreme poverty, high rates of workplace deaths, child labor, etc...
it became very apparent to me, that Anarcho-Capitalism is not a rational ideal to aim for, it has too many issues that are often lazily handwaved with "the free market will sort itself out"
so between people like Noam Chomsky, NonCompete/E-merican Johnson, and certain Oliver Thorn/Philosophy Tube, along with streamer Vaush, i had crawled my way to Socialism.
now i don't think Socialism is going to be perfect, it's going to have it's own challenges, but the main thing is we can't just throw the fed out the window until we have a society and culture that can handle itself in a more libertarian way.
set the cement, it has to dry.
@@Utomneian I also came from "Christian" anarcho-capitalism 3 years ago and listening to debates between ancaps and socialists I saw the flaws in anarcho-capitalism like you, but then landed at distributism after reading Leviticus 25 in my Bible. But I couldn't see that without first seeing the flaws in capitalism. Thanks to socialists like Vaush.
@@eric-jr2nf cheers :)
vaush won the debate 15 min in tbh when he lowkey got the guy to admit he doesnt like capitalism
Adam: you're interupting and getting emotional
Also Adam: 22 veteran a day commit suicide (because of the state)
This guy dodges questions like he wishes he could dodge taxes
Well, he does... in his under the table business.
He answered pretty much every question in detail. Vaush was all over the place. Vaush actually thinks that corporations kill more people than government.
My favorite part was when he casually said he tortured people in Iraq
Where was that?
@@revelationreflection 1:09:20
I don’t think he was proud of it... That was one of the things that woke him up... This dude is literally one of the Original anti-war activists...
Vonzipper 2 dude hasn’t even been alive long enough to possibly be one of the original anti war activists.
@@vonzipper2712 you cant be anti-war if you're capitalist...
You completely nailed it with ancap devolving into feudalism.
lmaoooooooo i know my man walked away from this conversation like:
*ah, I really killed it in that convo!*