“We cannot continue to send our children to Caesar for their education and be suprised when they come home as Romans.” ― Voddie T. Baucham Jr. "I learned in government school that, without government, there would be chaos."
Voddie also tells people that they should rejoice in God possibly sending their own family members to Hell for eternity because justice is being done. That dude is trash.
@@thomasjones4570 The second part of your reasoning is false. Anarchists don't believe in utopias, just trade offs. It's not that they think everything will be fine, they think it will be better.
I love how PBD unknowingly demonstrates Michael's point about the social cost of radical ideas. Even when PBD is openly admitting that Michael's arguments are extremely convincing he still can't admit that anarchy is the more logically consistent and sound position.
It all comes down to biases. This is the reason people are so attached to ridiculous ideas despite not being able to refute people who refute them. We all grown up with a government. That's all people know. You would have to do a lot of research and put your biases aside to join with anarchism. Not many people can put biases aside and nobody reads books anymore. Anarchism is very hard to get off the ground.
Think about what you just said though like really think about it don’t intellectualize how you are now but really think about it…. You just said anarchy above law and order it all seems beautiful and amazing until implemented kinda reminds you about communism doesn’t it, the idea of communism is amazing but as soon as it is implemented it completely fails it’s the same with this anarchy ideology eventually human nature takes over since there is no balance
This is also amply demonstrated in Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity”. He shows the conversion is a function of your social environment, not miracles, not belief, not persuasive and sound argumentation. If the people around you that you value the relationships with for social or economic reasons are doing a thing, you do that thing.
Don't take your eyes off the PRIZE ..... no matter what the distractions maybe be around you. UNDERSTAND YOUR PURPOSE, I went from living an average life to making over 63k per month. It's amazing. The financial markets are full with opportunities, but I've learned a lot over the past few years to doubt that. The key is knowing where to focus. Well appreciated, Rodger Michael Karl.
To put it in a very simple easy way for everyone to understand. Believing in, and advocating for anarchist ideals in the right form gets about the same reaction as those who believe in flat Earth. Sounds crazy until you realize how much State censorship and social power is used to shut down anyone who says things the government doesn't want you to talk about. Seriously, think about that without reacting emotionally. And you will realize it is true. Those who believe anything that is non-standard are constantly slandered and attacked through the full force of the government, media, entertainment industry, and in every other aspect of society. Especially, socially using the media to humiliate, shame, and attack anyone who asks questions about what the establishment says are true by those who do not. And this applies to every social media platform. Including in the public sphere no matter where you go.
I’m a 60 year old white woman, democrat most of my life. In 2016 became an independent. During COVID became a Libertarian, now I’m an anarchist . Hard to come to turns with being brainwashed my whole life.
Malice is the most reasonable human with a platform today. I do disagree with some of his opinions but overall his logical reasoning is something we should all strive to have.
The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
Thank you for opening up this discussion and allowing Michael to empower the people to take power into their own hands. Please get more voluntaryists and anarchists, Mr. Malice did an AMAZING job here.
His examples make zero sense. He says a hotel is safer than the projects and a bar is safer than a city park at night. 🙄 A park is made to enjoy during the day. Criminals hang out at the park at night. A bar has bartenders and bouncers to keep order. A hotel is a place where people with expendable money go to stay. A project is where the poorest people live. Lack of money is what creates crime in most instances.
I was shocked that PBDs main argument against anarchy was that he found it too convincing. He must just be allergic to the word anarchy, because he rarely has a substantive disagreement with Michael.
I do not think PBD understood what Michael was trying to explain. He should read Michael's book because it gives a clear understanding regarding his position in anarchy. PBD needs to listen before interjecting.
@Darby O'Hara Agreed. I hope he gives it more thought. I think he would find that many of his philosophies are closely related to Anarchism. In a way, he is already subconsciously realizing 🤷♂️😊
The problem with anarchy is similar to the 'tragedy of the commons'. When all players are abiding voluntarily by the 'Non-Aggression Principle' and there isn't some enforcement mechanism, then the first tyrant to come will have a field day with the conquest.
Michael Malice is bang on the money here. This is a debate that needs to happen with every single generation and demographic because it has affected us and it will affect our children and their children if the system remains as corrupt as it is
Hahah this was a fantastic back and forth, they very civilly disagreed and rebutted eachothers point. They're both right in a way. This clip was refreshing AF
The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
I agree and have always thought if a law is not enforced for 1 year it should be removed. Why have a law that they won’t enforce? Because they only use them to stack charges then get you to plea deal on a felony.
Conversation like this boil down to one thing. And I know a lot of thought enthusiasts hate this point but that one thing is… Human nature. Human nature is the issue, with any and all systems comes the high probability that human nature will unravel all it’s benevolent solutions. A society with capitalistic elements work so well because it rewards several hierarchy of needs. If youve ever seen the movie Equilibrium, where they changed human behavior by essentially shifting how we work- for the bad, I might add. This essentially is what would need to happen if we truly wanted a society that we all saw as good and free of pain and suffering. A society that rewards our hierarchy of needs in a different way. As long as we work as we work, our societies will look like they look.
@@darbyohara yes, correct, the struggle exists in the acceptance of said reality. Many people are afraid of human nature gone unchecked . Which is what governments does or is suppose to do, check human nature.
@@sdrc92126 No one seems to get this. Yes voluntary agreements are 100% better but how do you solve disputes within those agreements, especially with asymeteric power in a relationship. An anarchist country would probably bullied around by a non anarchist country. Government organization is a dominate strategy currently.
Patric, thank you for having Michael on. Anarchist philosophy does not get the space to be discussed in its fullness because it is so threatening to power structures. Thank you, thank you, thank you🙏 My favorite Anarchist statement is. Ultimate freedom is achieved only with ultimate responsibility.
@Javier Vasquez I understand how that can be a concern. I pose to you that responsibility is not divorced from compassion. Responsibility cultivates empathy for others who are less capable, but it also has boundaries, not draining itself unnecessarily. Survival of the fittest is more akin to the current political structures.
@René Monroy Woodstock is not a good example. That is so not what it is about. Yes, it is difficult to achieve. So much of culture and education programs us away from personal sovereignty. As an anarchist, I just try to propagate the mindset. The rest will fall into place little by little.
@@rojayreid908 Exactly. It simply will never happen, ever. Even if Anarchy was the answer, still, it will never happen. In a million fucking years. To think it would is delusional.
@@EdgarLopezInk his idea would work in smaller controlled area but in a place like america it would never work in practice abd even to try to test it ebcause its a pretty extreme and could really fuck things up if something goes astray.
That’s exactly the idea we had when we were building America, all local police are municipalities and they’re all supposed to live in the neighbourhood so they can see a reflection of the service
What would they be policing if there are no laws? If laws are set by the municipalities, what does that do for people who want to travel? We already see problems just between red and blue states. Legal to have a gun in your car in one state and illegal in another. Hope you don't get pulled over when driving through I guess.
There is no system that doesn't become corrupted, or end up being used against the people. The best we can do is a system that ONLY has the power to protect our individual rights, and no ability to grant itself (or be voted) more power. We don't need cops out patrolling to fill ticket quotas, we need police that show up when you call them. We don't need regulatory institutions, we need a basic legal framework that allows private citizens to sue corporations when they do harm, and real penalties to hold them accountable; fines that bankrupt them, and prison sentences for anyone who was complicit. Johnson & Johnson should have been put down decades ago, but they bought out the FDA, and the fines they receive are just a slap on the wrist.
Michael Malice is reportedly 5'6" tall and weighs around 130 pounds. How does he think he would fair under anarchy? Without societal laws, you have the law of the jungle.
It's not true that PBD, a much bigger man, would have beaten up Malice except that laws stopped him. Laws are not what keeps the average person in line. The people who are dangerous are rarely stopped by laws anyway.
how did the short Vietnamese soldiers kill the big American soldiers? use your head, survival doesn't converge into a match of size vs size. community, courage, culture, skill and technology are all far more important and in those realms Michael is far ahead of your average person.
I'm sure it has been already suggested, but please, bring Mark Passio to your show. We need his fire and passion to wake up people, and you are one of the greatest and brightest interviewers now with large audience. Thank you and to all your team for the work you do!
Michael: I don't think law is a good mechanism for getting order Michael, 10 seconds later: The problem is, that so much crime is granted legitimacy and is not punished as a consequence I really enjoy listening to Michael talk on a variety of topics, but I think this is the first interview I've seen where he got pushback on many of his beliefs. Can someone who is more "in the know" with the whole anarchy philosophy reconcile those two statements? How can you have or enforce a punishment without having a law in the first place?
@@cleanjimmy so in other words nothing. Every culture has always had outliers who go against the current opinions of the culture. What do you do then? Let them rob, steal, rape, and murder and just say well I hope they stop 😊
@@bogkazealijamislim5998 A 12 year old steals a pack of gum, so the owner shoots him in the process. How would an anarchist society handle this situation? Laws set the rules for society so everyone knows the consequences of breaking those rules. I think government is evil, but it's a necessary evil that needs to be limited as much as possible. Anarchism is a utopian idea just like communism.
@@bogkazealijamislim5998They don't work for most situations - robbery, murder for example. They don't even work in commercial settings. If somebody cutting and running in a commercial deal leaves me bankrupt then I have no choice but to pursue them legally. Simply posting a negative review on their Google business profile is not going to be enough. Michael's positions simply don't work in the real world - however I think the direction of minimizing government intervention as far as possible is sensible.
@@Yankee_Redneck6698 that absolutely is an argument lol, he asserts that chaos and anarchy are synonyms. YOU being unable to refute that argument is a lack of an argument.
@Yankee_Redneck NH The issue with anarchy is the fact of it being voluntary. What happens when people opposing do not choose to follow the voluntary ideology? That is where the chaos forms. This guy did have many valid points about government ideology tho.
Pat hit the nail on the head.... Great Message but not a good delivery. I am the same way. Same beliefs but hard for people to follow when I can't explain it in a way that is palatable
The reason a hotel is safer than an alley is NOT because the hotel is a private enterprise and an alley is not. The hotel is safer because law enforcement is stretched very thin compared to hotel security. If you gave any agency (private or public police) the responsibility of safeguarding an entire city, there will either be dangerous places like alley ways, or it will be a totalitarian nightmare with security on every street corner.
Michael Malice is so wrong here it's almost comical, until you realize he actually believes it. A hotel or Bar is safer then a park or alley? How stupid. When the right comparison would be what is safer a Hotel or a Police Station. And the answer to that is obvious. And privatizing policing and laws by groups? And he thinks that wouldn't lead to a more corrupt system of different law for different people? that has to be the most naive position he could take
@@snwlcke3 Well you'd have to give me some stats like how many deaths occur in police station and how many occur in hotels or something along those lines. Or how much violence happens in those communal jail cells.
I used to be more on the Michael Malice side, but I've moderated a bit and I've moved closer to Patrick's position.... it's just rational. I understand some of what Michael is saying - but a justice system is still important. His frustration about how they are applied is justified - but his solution isn't in my opinion.
I don't know how malice can jut think people will magickly gain morels out of thin air. Human history point to a percentage of the population always follows others and another percentage will always do wat they want dammed the morality.
@@Dan16673 this exactly. People seem to not tbink that governments are serving a market: that is a market for Justice--a primate imperative so strong we see it in every species of Monkey. When one "corporation" (i.e. government) fails to serve Justice, this opens space for other competitors (think cartels, mafia, vigilantes, hitmen, etc.) to provide a Justice product to the unserved.
David that was a weak response when you said, that sounds so good, but if it is, why hasn't this been implemented? Michael's examples have fundamental flaws, is that in the bar, it is regulated by the fact there are a lot of people who can intervene if social conventions are breached, but in a park there is no one and is a place where predators hang out looking for an opportunity. In a hotel you have people who are paying good money to be there, whereas housing is provided for people in poverty who also have all the issues of low socio-economical status.
MM has some excellent points. I've worked in local govn, fed, military, private, and non profit - I've seen incentives structures in every which form. Centralized law is not ideal.
The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
I wish PBD could live down on earth, this guest of his is insanely on point Right on so many fronts, policing, order, social costs of speaking the truth, the university systems use as a guiding light to train the next generation of thinkers to narrow their minds and subordinate and believe in the system.
Go full anarchy and the world will return to the Dark Ages and eventually crawl back to today's systems. The problem isn't necessarily the system it is WHO is running the system. Michael Malice seems to believe that humans are all fundamentally good and nice. If that were true how did we get to this point? Umm HUMAN corruption. Everything he is rallying against is because of corruption in some form. To think that abolishing the system will result in a Utopia is laughable and incredibly naive about real human nature.
No he didn’t. He says he wouldn’t have a right to take someone’s money in an anarchist society? Well who would stop anyone from doing so? Who or what would take away a right or give a right? It’s actually an incredibly stupid point
@@huckfin1598 well what he actually said was “I dont have a right to go into someone’s wallet and take your money right but somehow the withholding of taxes is where people think well you pay, taxes are the prices you pay for a civilized society that too me and to other anarchist is not legitimate”
@@huckfin1598 you sir are taking his statement out of context and making it fit your narrative. I think we can all agree taxes are a fraud when it comes to a civilized society. As the majority of people who pay their taxes are middle income people. I think his point is more to do with the states taking money from your hard earned paycheck..
@@lenchochurrito5003 and in an Anarchist society if I did go and take your money who is to say it is wrong? Him? You? Me? Someone else? Who says you don’t have that right?
The title should read "capitalism doesn't work without morals." There's a morality, a longer term vision, that must be present for capitalism to actually work. Otherwise it devolves into cronyism.
No, it always devolves into corruption. Even with “morals” cuz the state has a monopoly on power and violence. Remove the state the there’s an actual consequence when someone doesn’t behave according to the voluntary agreement you work out.
Capitalism works just by leaving people alone. And cronyism isn't necessarily bad. If you start a business and hire your friends, that is cronyism. Hiring unqualified people only hurts your business so it is self limiting.
@nustada Strong disagree. You can leave people alone in a capitalist system and it will function for a small period of time, but if the people within the system are not moral and smart they will eventually break the system in pursuit of their immediate advantge. This results in a form of cronyism where they hire their "friends" that hold power in government to alter the playing field to their advantage. The only preventative for this is a minimum level of morality and IQ among all participants in the system.
@@nustada cronyism isn’t hiring your friends. That’s nepotism. Cronyism is the government and other business colluding externally not within the business
The same argument could be made for anarchy can be said about communism. Neither take human nature into consideration. The best way to manage this type of stuff is through incentives/disincentives. Even better than regulations or laws.
Why do you think we think it would be a Utopia, we perfectly understand it wouldn’t be perfect but what is perfect about the current state of things that would change in an Anarchial society, at least in Anarchy I get to choose where my money goes
Michael gives too much credit to people. Reasonable laws with appropriate punishments (not the borderline authoritarian state we’re in now) are essential for keeping many people’s baser instincts and urges in check. Not everyone is of as sound a mind as Michael on these things, and most people would not last long in a lawless society. Maybe that’s what Michael wants. Instead of the government doing the culling, he wants the people to cull themselves. That’s what it sounds like to me at least.
Exactly. The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
So you think words on a piece of paper is stopping you from murdering people? If you don’t what percentage of people do you think would suddenly decide to go out murdering people when the other person can defend themselves without the fear of the police jailing them instead?
@@Ryan-ys2bq it’s not the words on the paper that stops people, it’s the threat of punishment for going against the words on the paper. If that threat of punishment went away, then definitely there would be a larger percentage of people willing to do those things. Granted, people would be more incentivized to defend themselves so it wouldn’t necessarily be any easier to get away with it, but there would be more people with little to no qualms about trying in the first place.
@@Brave_New_Tube there would also be more risk on their side too, how many can use a gun in self defence because the laws are against it currently, how many murderers would think twice knowing that a mob may go after them not bill and ben the useless police officers. I think you have a negative view of humanity 99% of people are good and you are happy with the most evil amongst ruling
@@Ryan-ys2bq Ohhh no, I don't believe that 99%-are-good statistic whatsoever. Every single human has the capacity for evil/malice, and there's no way 99% of people have all their bad tendencies 100% under control. Rather, I do think *most* people have *most* of those things in check, which is how they're able to be functional/productive members of society, but to think 99% of people are generally overall "good people" is naive and ignorant of human nature.
He has a point about the bars being safer than city parks, but I’m not sure that means self-policing works broadly. What happens when the allocation of young, testosterone filled men doesn’t cover certain areas of town? Those areas would devolve into violence and crime very quickly. As people avoided these dangerous locations, it would get even worse.
This is because bars have security right there, parks don't. Also bars are pretty dangerous depending on what bar just like which park you're referencing.
Porn is needed to keep them at bay - have computers sedate them to near-uselessness with respect to population density. Add AI into the mix to fulfill the social interactions in-between the sexual sedation and we have a recipe for taming the testosterone. Lastly, enforce harsh laws on unlicensed aggression. That is how a state returns to forever, until the rot kicks in. Either have something that explodes or something that rots. Pick your poison.
@@wittyjoker4631 that’s the point dumbass, the police don’t have to police parks because they have a monopoly and theres zero punishment for a bad service provided
3:24 he literally explained why anarchy hasn’t been implemented while mocking a hypothetical argument as to why anarchy hasn’t been implemented lmaooo. seriously though, great interview, amazing interview and amazing guest.
Fan of Malice. His point that the police monopoly isn't about protecting you, but enforcing gov't rules. Look at parking law enforcement versus Robbery Law enforcement. Don't pay a $30 ticket you go to jail, rob $900 from a store and nothing.
Yea just depends where you live I lived in California and there no punishment but moved to Texas and you break the law your going to jail for your crime
I lived in the Haight for 2 yrs. We didn't have written laws or uniformed police. If someone was a problem we collectively took care of the problem ourselves and I believe that we were more equitable and effective than the straight community. But,really we did not have much crime. We were peaceful people ready to share everything with each other. Everybody that I knew had everything they needed.
@@UltraSaltyDomer1776 Not all violence is illegitimate. You the rights to defend yourself and you can delegate rights you have to others. Most people have small tribes under about 200 people, even in a big city.
@@nustada Well, how do you suggest crimes would be followed up on in a huge city center with millions , should gangs of 200's fight it out to settle the order?
@@pontus9209 "gangs of 200's fight it out to settle the order?" If you have a disagreement with someone do you always resort to violence as the first an only option?
The weird thing is that Michael harps on a lot of under performances that happen in practice. I’m sure if political anarchism happened there would be many that happen in practice. In general if a system allows for some (emphasis on some) standards unmet, I don’t think we should do away with things entirely. A huge factor in all forms of people-governance is accounting for bad actors, ignorant actors, and standards just not being met (and whatever else in this sphere of thought). We’re dealing with people after all haha. I don’t think it’s unacceptablyy high and mighty to sometimes say things like “stuff will happen” and “a difficult boss at work still signs my paychecks” but a obviously if the boss is like a cannibal or something I should call cops and probably an exorcist. Hyperbolic but parallels don’t have to be entirely 1:1 to work, and I thought that parallel was funny haha I also don’t think comparing public housing to the successful safety that comes from hotels holds weight for abolishing the housing department, or our system of governance. For one, it’s just one part of government. And to say that it reflects or points to bigger problems that our systems have also doesn’t hold much weight. And maybe I just am biased but it’s really hard to get people to do stuff by using soft power. Motivating people as far as I know is still a weird problem when dealing with people. Finally if Michael still holds political anarchism while approving of the military, or something that is so bloody similar to the military that it essentially only differs in name (the shcmilitary), then I say we should just change up the housing department haha Obviously there will be points when if a kajillion screwups happen we should consider what the hell we’re doing.
@@cleanjimmy how do you filter for corrupt authorities when there is no system? What happens when they make a system and it at minimum functions, then they and a bunch of other guys who are convinced by them, come and try to force you to join said system? You'll gather your friends right? What if your friends don't wanna come because they are busy and have no actual obligation to you? What happens when you and the friends you did convince get dominated because you aren't as organized as the group who has a system? You might be able to fend off and crush one attempt but it will keep happening. What I just described is cliff notes of ancient human history. Organized groups of people whoade a system will dominate and subjugate people who are not. That's how it works. That is how anarchy will end.
The popularity of an idea doesn't define it as good or bad. I'd argue that the merit of an idea is one's ability to come up with moral and/or logical arguments against the positions within it.
Michael Malice thinking that people will naturally be peaceful is so idiotic. People are only peaceful because they’re scared of governmental or organizational retribution for acting counter to institutions.
Well, the only way people behaving stay in order is it there’s accountability and consequences for their actions Hence why you get law and order You enforce the law, so that order will stay Because people know if they break, the law and order goes away temporary early, there will be consequences and repercussions for their actions, and they will be held accountable by being sent to jail
PBD wasn't allowing MM to elaberte, there would still be consequences in an anarchistic society; its just that natural law is decentralized and focused on self defense and prevention.
@@nustada what happens when someone goes into someone else's home, murders them and then goes far away before anyone knows what happened? What happens someone comes in and takes people and disappears to the other side of the world? Anarchy has been tried all throughout human history and it has always been stomped on by groups with systems. There is no need for elaboration when it keeps being tried and it's always a massive failure. Hell CHAZ was basically the closest modern attempt at anarchy that people in this comment section wanted to work. What happened? Struggle snuggled skyrocketed and the people "entrusted with security" then unloaded their weapons on two teenage boys while laughing that they ran out of ammo. No I don't take your ideas seriously. I have looked at history and recent news. I have all the arguments I need to know, that what anarchists propose has a lot of unintended consequences I don't want to happen to me or anyone else. If it doesn't affect a human's immediate vicinity then they don't pay attention more often than not.
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 "someone else's home, murders them and then goes far away before anyone knows what happened?..." That is a problem in your statist paradigm too. Crimes have to be investigated. " disappears to the other side of the world?" Anarchy doesn't respect socialist borders, that is less of a problem in a free society. "? Anarchy has been tried all throughout human history and it has always been stomped" Actually it succeeds wildly wherever it is tried. Anarchy happens whenever people interact without a ruler. "CHAZ was basically the closest modern attempt at anarchy" Chaz was literally the result of policies in a city infested with big government communists.
One possibility of competition without laws is that one team wins so completely that no one else can complete. Private security falls apart then. Current system is corrupt, but it can get WAY worse.
Yeah having the world run buy private security companies is going too make the world look like some dystopian sci-fi like cyberpunk or bladrunner. It's sounds nice and It's good to have faith in humans but we cant be naive about it. Their will always be people seeking power and will try to gain it no matter the cost those are the type of people we need laws for. Pluss taxed aren't theft without taxes we don't have an functioning society. Maybe my view on that as an Norwegian is slightly different then a American idk.
All 50 states should be in charge of governing themselves according to their values. Over time you will see a very clear separation between the good states and the bad ones, but they will all be better off - because each individual state will be competing with each other. If one raises taxes astronomically then they will strangle economic growth, if another one lowers it too much then they will have problems maintaining their infrastructure. (Simple example) The federal government should only in charge of the military for defense purposes and preventing violent conflicts between the states. I believe that Switzerland does something similar to this albeit on a smaller scale.
Greed is greed…it doesn’t matter if it’s the government or private businesses!!!….WallStreet,Federal Reserve,FBI & all corporations need leadership that serves with honesty & integrity!!!
Greed isn't the problem. Just as hunger isn't the problem. You can satisfy hunger by growing food, or cannibalizing your neighbor. Satisfying greed through business and the state has the same ethical difference.
@@jameshudson169 easy, it’s being done already. Someone starts a firm that leases our private security guards or guards a geographic area. You pay for it directly. That way if they stink you can fire them and hire a new one. There is no way to fire shitty police today
Another problem with a political system is that we have 10% of the population who cares/understands power/politics. It allows a small few to control the masses by taking advantage of their ignorance. This allows them free reign to do whatever they want.
The Anti Trust laws were crafted by the very corporations they were supposed to "break up", all the Anti Trust laws did was break up the bigger companies into smaller ones all controlled by the very "robber barons" the public believed were being broken up. The Anti Trust laws were used to keep out competition to the bigger companies and make it harder for competitors to compete. Read "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko, he was a leftist who sought the prove that the Anti Trust laws were good but doing research found out that they were actually used to stifle competition and pull up the ladder for others who wanted to climb it.
PBD asks "If there are no cops, people wont rob". I'll push back on that sentiment and point out that we have cops now and robbery is still a thing, so the real question he asks is "Will robberies increase without cops?" and the fallacy there is that the existence of The State dissuades opportunity(which is what robbery is, a crime of opportunity).
I'll push back...studies show that theft is least likely to happen to an armed person(the risk is too great for the reward) so it is the individual has the greatest effect and scales to least on the federal level(no purse snatcher fears the FBI will go after them for a $500 crime). the concept of the federal matters when you have* nations at war
PBD said "Capitalism Doesn't Work Without Laws." He is 100% correct, BRAVO PBD and thus why Captialism will also gravitate to bigger and bigger govt. Socialism or even Communism are little more than capitalist enties as they just make the State the Capitalist. In so called Private Capitalist countries the State owns the monopoly of force, therefore as a means to protect and incentivize or privilege, a strong central State also serves and enable capitalism but the cost of this centralized power is monopoly, redistribution of wealth back into concentrated hands we rightly or wrongly call the wealth class, small in number by the way but even worse in our case in the US, Corp entities in alliance with State power achieve both wealth and political power thus killing a more organic capitalism if you will that be natural action more broadly distributes wealth. The only difference between the tyranny of State Socialism/Communism and State Capitalism is the illusions of the people in that their system they live under will grant them a good outcome. And Michael did a good job and the hardest thing for people to do is understanding anarchy in its classical defintion of "No Rulers, No Kings, No Chiefs" and how in so many cases of day to day life people function and interact with one another without a King, Chief or Ruler standing over them and dictating their outcome. We are surrounded every day by anarchy, we just fail to not see it as such because to us it's just everyday life. All of us are anarchists, some just a little more than others but some dare ask, "how far can this go?" and that scares a lot of people.
The bar example is seriously flawed. Government law still exists in the bar. How many people would get killed for looking at someone else the wrong way, get minors drunk and abused, the list goes on. Does everyone have to pay private security? The social thing to do is to combine resources and fund a police department. A government by referendum does beat elitist representatives but the government itself is needed
I think this is the most hostile I’ve ever heard Michael. Maybe hostile is too strong, but the sentiment remains. I’ve gotta listen to this whole thing and see where it went sideways 🤷🏼♂️
Pat kept asking him questions and then interrupting the answer to ask something else. It's disrespectful and shows that he isn't willing to have a full conversation exploring the subject.
Michael is incredibly naive. We are in this mess because of people not the system. People made the system so it is a reflection of humans. Dismantle the system and another one WILL rise up and eventually be corrupt or imbalanced over time.
Really? Do you see fighting and violence every time you walk out of your front door? Is your house getting broken into on a nightly basis? Of course people don't talk about the mundane dealings of everyday life, but to think that peace is NOT the majority is kind of crazy.
I think Michael should test his theory. Send out the invite for 200 people to participate. Don’t run any back ground checks. Take people at their word to participate for a time frame of 2 years. and do it live so people can see the progress.
Success is not built on success. It's built on failure, It's built on fraustration. it's built on fear that you have to overcome. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life
Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer also articulates how “the number of people killed by their own governments in the twentieth century was more than four and a half times greater than the number killed by nongovernmental murderers - which raises the question of whether a strong government should be counted more a source of security or a source of danger.”
Exactly, and I find it interesting that a lot of the anarchists I've met tend to be somewhat small in physical stature, a type that would be one of the most vulnerable without superior firepower.
@@nustada Sure. Take your family on a peaceful vacation in Somalia. No functioning government. See how the largest factions maintain “peace”. Get back with me after your family is done relaxing. Nut.
@@snowflakemelter1172 Unless that something is institutionalized theft and murder (the state) Your argument is like saying cancer shouldn't be treated because it may not go into recession.
I'm a minarchist trying to find a good argument for anarchy. I think I summarize my concern with anarchy in this question: how will anarchy handle people with cluster B personalities--narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths--especially those with the dark triad?
The state is fundamentally evil, it isn't "flawed". In fact any liberty found under the state is its flaw by its nature. The state is theft, taxes, slavery; and murder, enforcement thereof. More totalitarian governments are less flawed governments because they better embody what they are. A state without theft and violent enforcement is called a business.
Capitalism create Entrepreneurs. Capitalism create Jobs Capitalism create Wealth. Capitalism create strong economies. As long as you have the right mindset it can benefit anyone.
True but that doesn't mean that you should never question it and there's a problem in America when the majority of the working/middle class are declining, and the rich are getting richer.
@@BishopWalters12 i get your point but again everyone of us got 24 hours a day and the question is what do with it. If you are willing to work 80 to 100 hours a week on your own Business you will be on a much better place then having a regular 9 to 5 job. So in some cases it depends on the choise we make.
@@yoesefgeorgis2893 That's a weak way to defend the system just to say forget the workers and it's your fault. We need people to work 9 to 5 jobs and it's not right that most of the country is getting screwed by the rich. This country won't last if most of us can't afford housing, healthcare, food and so on. We are headed in that direction.
@@BishopWalters12 Weak point according to you. Ok fine so what do we do now?? What you fail to see is that those rich people you blame have done the work to get where they are today. Blaming a financial system is not a solution. Again capitalism give you all the opportunity to build your future so you can provide a better life for yourself and your family. Otherwise what is your solution? Removing capitalism and implementing Socialism or communisim? How did the countries Prosper under those systems? I leave it up to you to decide for your self.
“We cannot continue to send our children to Caesar for their education and be suprised when they come home as Romans.” ― Voddie T. Baucham Jr.
"I learned in government school that, without government, there would be chaos."
Voddie also tells people that they should rejoice in God possibly sending their own family members to Hell for eternity because justice is being done.
That dude is trash.
💯👏🏽… Amen… that was a great sermon. I wish Pastor Voddie was a guest on this podcast. That would be amazing.
"I dont like the government. Without the government everything will be fine. I require no proof to support this either. Anarchy!"
@@thomasjones4570 It's organized crime. Why would anyone like it unless they were indoctrinated to do so?
@@thomasjones4570 The second part of your reasoning is false. Anarchists don't believe in utopias, just trade offs. It's not that they think everything will be fine, they think it will be better.
I love how PBD unknowingly demonstrates Michael's point about the social cost of radical ideas. Even when PBD is openly admitting that Michael's arguments are extremely convincing he still can't admit that anarchy is the more logically consistent and sound position.
most people cant, I find it fascinating. Why do you think that is?
It all comes down to biases. This is the reason people are so attached to ridiculous ideas despite not being able to refute people who refute them. We all grown up with a government. That's all people know. You would have to do a lot of research and put your biases aside to join with anarchism. Not many people can put biases aside and nobody reads books anymore. Anarchism is very hard to get off the ground.
Think about what you just said though like really think about it don’t intellectualize how you are now but really think about it…. You just said anarchy above law and order it all seems beautiful and amazing until implemented kinda reminds you about communism doesn’t it, the idea of communism is amazing but as soon as it is implemented it completely fails it’s the same with this anarchy ideology eventually human nature takes over since there is no balance
@@georgemulford2910 The answer is obvious. Most people are stupid.
@@carlosleon1721the idea of communism sounds terrible to me
This wasn't a heated debate, it was a good open discussion
The AC wasn't on.
Patrick looked dumb
The low status in the office analogy was more powerful than people think. It explains a lot even within my family and their views
Except in a lot of businesses people seem to get higher status by following along with the BS nowadays. Whether they believe it or not.
This is also amply demonstrated in Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity”. He shows the conversion is a function of your social environment, not miracles, not belief, not persuasive and sound argumentation. If the people around you that you value the relationships with for social or economic reasons are doing a thing, you do that thing.
Don't take your eyes off the PRIZE ..... no matter what the distractions maybe be around you. UNDERSTAND YOUR PURPOSE, I went from living an average life to making over 63k per month. It's amazing. The financial markets are full with opportunities, but I've learned a lot over the past few years to doubt that. The key is knowing where to focus. Well appreciated, Rodger Michael Karl.
I just looked up his name on Google and saw his impressive resume. I consider myself lucky to have found this comment area..
NPC
Rodger Michael Karl took my eye out in a bar fight
Bot thread
Con game...do not respond to this post.
Michael - "Can i curse?"
Pat - "sure!"
haha love it
There is a huge social cost for adopting a different view. That is key, and it was a point that was steamrolled in this conversation.
To put it in a very simple easy way for everyone to understand. Believing in, and advocating for anarchist ideals in the right form gets about the same reaction as those who believe in flat Earth. Sounds crazy until you realize how much State censorship and social power is used to shut down anyone who says things the government doesn't want you to talk about. Seriously, think about that without reacting emotionally. And you will realize it is true. Those who believe anything that is non-standard are constantly slandered and attacked through the full force of the government, media, entertainment industry, and in every other aspect of society. Especially, socially using the media to humiliate, shame, and attack anyone who asks questions about what the establishment says are true by those who do not. And this applies to every social media platform. Including in the public sphere no matter where you go.
Ur some kind of conspiracy theorist aren't you
Agreed
We learned this big time recently.
Another very important point was that political systems don't lead to efficient outcomes.
I’m a 60 year old white woman, democrat most of my life. In 2016 became an independent. During COVID became a Libertarian, now I’m an anarchist . Hard to come to turns with being brainwashed my whole life.
You are awesome
And your still going to vote for biden judgeing on how u speak pls prove me wrong pls 😢
WOAH
Here's the kicker, ready? You still haven't left the matrix. You're still brainwashed. You will change again.
@@josesantos-kd3vk Nothing she said even remotely indicates that.
Malice is the most reasonable human with a platform today. I do disagree with some of his opinions but overall his logical reasoning is something we should all strive to have.
What do you disagree with? Lex Friedman is the most reasonable human with a platform, then Michael Malice.
He's VERY interesting and also full if shit and naive. Still love him.
@Lord of the Pies how is he naive and sometimes full if it?
He fully believes in an anarchist utopia, so I’m not sure about that
@@Rocchio753 anarchy is just a temporary solution until a governing body forms. Michael is soo dumb
Love the debate! Free and open critical thinking is a must!
The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
Pat hit him with common sense why does noone else do it and succeed
@@Optable you and that guy both like using vague made up on the spot examples
Thank you for opening up this discussion and allowing Michael to empower the people to take power into their own hands. Please get more voluntaryists and anarchists, Mr. Malice did an AMAZING job here.
Good God
The guy is delusional.
You’re nuts. He proposed anarchy. Only the mightiest win.
His examples make zero sense. He says a hotel is safer than the projects and a bar is safer than a city park at night. 🙄
A park is made to enjoy during the day. Criminals hang out at the park at night. A bar has bartenders and bouncers to keep order. A hotel is a place where people with expendable money go to stay. A project is where the poorest people live. Lack of money is what creates crime in most instances.
i would love to smoke a blunt with pat 😂😂🌳🌳🌳
I was shocked that PBDs main argument against anarchy was that he found it too convincing. He must just be allergic to the word anarchy, because he rarely has a substantive disagreement with Michael.
Pbd didn’t understand.
Maybe because anarchism is just an ideology that’s impossible to implement in real life? Like Marxism?
I do not think PBD understood what Michael was trying to explain. He should read Michael's book because it gives a clear understanding regarding his position in anarchy.
PBD needs to listen before interjecting.
@Darby O'Hara Agreed. I hope he gives it more thought. I think he would find that many of his philosophies are closely related to Anarchism. In a way, he is already subconsciously realizing 🤷♂️😊
The problem with anarchy is similar to the 'tragedy of the commons'. When all players are abiding voluntarily by the 'Non-Aggression Principle' and there isn't some enforcement mechanism, then the first tyrant to come will have a field day with the conquest.
Michael Malice is bang on the money here. This is a debate that needs to happen with every single generation and demographic because it has affected us and it will affect our children and their children if the system remains as corrupt as it is
Facts
Hahah this was a fantastic back and forth, they very civilly disagreed and rebutted eachothers point.
They're both right in a way.
This clip was refreshing AF
The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
@@Optable bruh
"They're both right in a way"
Um. No.
@@jdsartre9520 oh ok
I agree and have always thought if a law is not enforced for 1 year it should be removed. Why have a law that they won’t enforce?
Because they only use them to stack charges then get you to plea deal on a felony.
Good point
Exactly
This is a good idea in principle but prevents creating laws that are specifically for edge cases that don’t come up often.
Conversation like this boil down to one thing. And I know a lot of thought enthusiasts hate this point but that one thing is… Human nature. Human nature is the issue, with any and all systems comes the high probability that human nature will unravel all it’s benevolent solutions.
A society with capitalistic elements work so well because it rewards several hierarchy of needs.
If youve ever seen the movie Equilibrium, where they changed human behavior by essentially shifting how we work- for the bad, I might add. This essentially is what would need to happen if we truly wanted a society that we all saw as good and free of pain and suffering. A society that rewards our hierarchy of needs in a different way.
As long as we work as we work, our societies will look like they look.
hear no evil see no evil Human DNA lies I refuse
Anarchy removes the monopoly of government on that reality of human nature.
@@darbyohara yes, correct, the struggle exists in the acceptance of said reality. Many people are afraid of human nature gone unchecked . Which is what governments does or is suppose to do, check human nature.
human nature is greed. greed drives our decisions.
greed drives trade.
y'all don't understand how to take advantage of human nature and it shows
@@jdkingsley6543 Checks and balances are needed because governments are managed by humans too. What checks the government?
we need rules, not rulers.
The only way that you can have rules is to have rule enforcers.
Sounds like a dog chasing their tail
@@sdrc92126 No one seems to get this. Yes voluntary agreements are 100% better but how do you solve disputes within those agreements, especially with asymeteric power in a relationship. An anarchist country would probably bullied around by a non anarchist country. Government organization is a dominate strategy currently.
@@peterhorton9063 Perection is the enemy of the good.
"Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes"
Everything is transient. If you're lucky, you'll be alive during a phase with high equality & high standard of living. It won't last...
Patric, thank you for having Michael on. Anarchist philosophy does not get the space to be discussed in its fullness because it is so threatening to power structures. Thank you, thank you, thank you🙏
My favorite Anarchist statement is. Ultimate freedom is achieved only with ultimate responsibility.
Anarchist is survival of the fittest. Good luck with that.
I don’t know that he said that, but that last sentence sounds a lot like something Viktor Frankl would say.
So, it’s not achievable. How many Woodstock 99 are we going to have before realizing it?
@Javier Vasquez I understand how that can be a concern. I pose to you that responsibility is not divorced from compassion. Responsibility cultivates empathy for others who are less capable, but it also has boundaries, not draining itself unnecessarily. Survival of the fittest is more akin to the current political structures.
@René Monroy Woodstock is not a good example. That is so not what it is about. Yes, it is difficult to achieve. So much of culture and education programs us away from personal sovereignty. As an anarchist, I just try to propagate the mindset. The rest will fall into place little by little.
It feels good to see a debate where the 2 parts listen to each other and respect both arguments and views.
Malice wiped the floor with this guy.
This ain't that type of discussion dude. No one wiped the floor with anyone
Action speak louder than words. His Ideology sounds good in theory but put it in place is a different story.
@@rojayreid908 Exactly. It simply will never happen, ever. Even if Anarchy was the answer, still, it will never happen. In a million fucking years. To think it would is delusional.
@@rojayreid908 I love malice but his ideas need to be tested. It sounds good but very unrealistic
@@EdgarLopezInk his idea would work in smaller controlled area but in a place like america it would never work in practice abd even to try to test it ebcause its a pretty extreme and could really fuck things up if something goes astray.
That’s exactly the idea we had when we were building America, all local police are municipalities and they’re all supposed to live in the neighbourhood so they can see a reflection of the service
Yup. The further away the service the worst the outcome will be
What would they be policing if there are no laws? If laws are set by the municipalities, what does that do for people who want to travel? We already see problems just between red and blue states. Legal to have a gun in your car in one state and illegal in another. Hope you don't get pulled over when driving through I guess.
@@123darkdeal so you want a 1 country world? Because laws are different?
@@123darkdeal Turns out courtesy and socialbility is needed to adapt to rule-changes.
@@Dan16673 People aren't typically driving their cars to other countries to see their parents.
Perfection is the enemy of the good
I’m officially a Michael Malice fan. Thanks
Why? His arguments are trash and make no sense?
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 Wow. Such a compelling counter.
I just like the way he explains things…great analysis!!!
There is no system that doesn't become corrupted, or end up being used against the people. The best we can do is a system that ONLY has the power to protect our individual rights, and no ability to grant itself (or be voted) more power. We don't need cops out patrolling to fill ticket quotas, we need police that show up when you call them. We don't need regulatory institutions, we need a basic legal framework that allows private citizens to sue corporations when they do harm, and real penalties to hold them accountable; fines that bankrupt them, and prison sentences for anyone who was complicit. Johnson & Johnson should have been put down decades ago, but they bought out the FDA, and the fines they receive are just a slap on the wrist.
It's literally human nature.
Anarchy isn’t a system. That’s why it works
@@darbyohara everything is a system if it’s defined.
@@renemonroy214 no it’s not. Anarchy isn’t a system. Its a ideology of voluntary interaction. It’s the lack of government.
@@renemonroy214 it's a lack of a system
Michael Malice is reportedly 5'6" tall and weighs around 130 pounds. How does he think he would fair under anarchy? Without societal laws, you have the law of the jungle.
That’s why they we have guns. Or he could hire private security
“They say God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
It's not true that PBD, a much bigger man, would have beaten up Malice except that laws stopped him. Laws are not what keeps the average person in line. The people who are dangerous are rarely stopped by laws anyway.
@@lennonzamora5387 I don’t think that Malice has the balls to shoot anyone, he cried like a baby when he got a poem read to him
how did the short Vietnamese soldiers kill the big American soldiers?
use your head, survival doesn't converge into a match of size vs size. community, courage, culture, skill and technology are all far more important and in those realms Michael is far ahead of your average person.
When that guy said “Poorer than US” Pat definitely is going to write that down and use that as a motivation source for 6 months😂
This dude Pat seems to only care about $$$$😬🙄
I'm sure it has been already suggested, but please, bring Mark Passio to your show. We need his fire and passion to wake up people, and you are one of the greatest and brightest interviewers now with large audience. Thank you and to all your team for the work you do!
He’s not ready for Mark Passio, but that would be Earth Shattering.
That would be great.
Michael: I don't think law is a good mechanism for getting order
Michael, 10 seconds later: The problem is, that so much crime is granted legitimacy and is not punished as a consequence
I really enjoy listening to Michael talk on a variety of topics, but I think this is the first interview I've seen where he got pushback on many of his beliefs. Can someone who is more "in the know" with the whole anarchy philosophy reconcile those two statements? How can you have or enforce a punishment without having a law in the first place?
culture.
Free market mechanisms. Ostracization, boycott, etc.
@@cleanjimmy so in other words nothing. Every culture has always had outliers who go against the current opinions of the culture. What do you do then? Let them rob, steal, rape, and murder and just say well I hope they stop 😊
@@bogkazealijamislim5998 A 12 year old steals a pack of gum, so the owner shoots him in the process. How would an anarchist society handle this situation? Laws set the rules for society so everyone knows the consequences of breaking those rules. I think government is evil, but it's a necessary evil that needs to be limited as much as possible. Anarchism is a utopian idea just like communism.
@@bogkazealijamislim5998They don't work for most situations - robbery, murder for example. They don't even work in commercial settings. If somebody cutting and running in a commercial deal leaves me bankrupt then I have no choice but to pursue them legally. Simply posting a negative review on their Google business profile is not going to be enough.
Michael's positions simply don't work in the real world - however I think the direction of minimizing government intervention as far as possible is sensible.
I like it when people confuse Anarchy with chaos, great video thanks guys 🤙
Anarchy IS chaos. The two are inseparable.
@@PTANV-x2g ☝️That is not an argument.
I'm just sayin.
what is anarchy, if there is no law, why shouldnt everyone do whatever they want.
@@Yankee_Redneck6698 that absolutely is an argument lol, he asserts that chaos and anarchy are synonyms. YOU being unable to refute that argument is a lack of an argument.
@Yankee_Redneck NH The issue with anarchy is the fact of it being voluntary. What happens when people opposing do not choose to follow the voluntary ideology? That is where the chaos forms.
This guy did have many valid points about government ideology tho.
Pat hit the nail on the head.... Great Message but not a good delivery. I am the same way. Same beliefs but hard for people to follow when I can't explain it in a way that is palatable
Michael Malice needed this pushback.
Listened to him on different platforms, but he didn't get as much scrutiny until PBD.
I didn't see any pushback, I just saw PBD aggressively misunderstand what MM was saying.
I agree. Pat and the guys gave him a good debate. I've seen him on Joe Rogan and Dave Ruben its been more of a conversation vs challenging debate.
What's not to understand?
Malice thinks like a hippie dreamer. It's why he rarely debates anyone on Anarchy, cuz it's a weak and childish philosophy.
Oh and uh, everyone knows u liked it own post...
Watch his discussion on lex podcast with yaron Brook
Capitalism is just free exchange and VOLUNTARISM. This does not require force, laws are force.
The reason a hotel is safer than an alley is NOT because the hotel is a private enterprise and an alley is not. The hotel is safer because law enforcement is stretched very thin compared to hotel security. If you gave any agency (private or public police) the responsibility of safeguarding an entire city, there will either be dangerous places like alley ways, or it will be a totalitarian nightmare with security on every street corner.
Michael Malice is so wrong here it's almost comical, until you realize he actually believes it. A hotel or Bar is safer then a park or alley? How stupid. When the right comparison would be what is safer a Hotel or a Police Station. And the answer to that is obvious. And privatizing policing and laws by groups? And he thinks that wouldn't lead to a more corrupt system of different law for different people? that has to be the most naive position he could take
I agree 💯
"Law enforcement is stretched very thing"
A violent monopoly has no incentive to adequately protect you.
Unless it “Hotel California “
@@snwlcke3 Well you'd have to give me some stats like how many deaths occur in police station and how many occur in hotels or something along those lines. Or how much violence happens in those communal jail cells.
I used to be more on the Michael Malice side, but I've moderated a bit and I've moved closer to Patrick's position....
it's just rational. I understand some of what Michael is saying - but a justice system is still important. His frustration about how they are applied is justified - but his solution isn't in my opinion.
I don't know how malice can jut think people will magickly gain morels out of thin air. Human history point to a percentage of the population always follows others and another percentage will always do wat they want dammed the morality.
There should be more competition in law creation and enforcement
@@Dan16673 this exactly. People seem to not tbink that governments are serving a market: that is a market for Justice--a primate imperative so strong we see it in every species of Monkey.
When one "corporation" (i.e. government) fails to serve Justice, this opens space for other competitors (think cartels, mafia, vigilantes, hitmen, etc.) to provide a Justice product to the unserved.
you don't understand Michaels position.
culture derives what justice is sought. think about how the Amish solve problems..or the Muslim world.
@@Dan16673 there should be ANY competition
Anarchy is working out great in Somalia and Yemen.
Africa has 1 of the most oppressive governments in the world haha they're not anarchists societies. It's the opposite actually
Love this podcast some common sense on the UA-cam platform
David that was a weak response when you said, that sounds so good, but if it is, why hasn't this been implemented? Michael's examples have fundamental flaws, is that in the bar, it is regulated by the fact there are a lot of people who can intervene if social conventions are breached, but in a park there is no one and is a place where predators hang out looking for an opportunity. In a hotel you have people who are paying good money to be there, whereas housing is provided for people in poverty who also have all the issues of low socio-economical status.
MM has some excellent points. I've worked in local govn, fed, military, private, and non profit - I've seen incentives structures in every which form. Centralized law is not ideal.
Freedom is a set of rules that make you feel free.
Quoting Noam Chomsky as a source of wisdom is never a good sign
We need lots of wise people who make decisions that can see it not from their point of view but what is the best outcome for society and humanity
Yea but we all disagree on who those people should be
The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
@@Optable I agree we need law and order we need government without the abuse.
Those people exist?
I wish PBD could live down on earth, this guest of his is insanely on point
Right on so many fronts, policing, order, social costs of speaking the truth, the university systems use as a guiding light to train the next generation of thinkers to narrow their minds and subordinate and believe in the system.
What?? Michael is totally off base with his idea of what a truly anarchist society would look like.
@@PTANV-x2g I don’t think total anarchy is an answer for the current problems
Go full anarchy and the world will return to the Dark Ages and eventually crawl back to today's systems. The problem isn't necessarily the system it is WHO is running the system. Michael Malice seems to believe that humans are all fundamentally good and nice. If that were true how did we get to this point? Umm HUMAN corruption. Everything he is rallying against is because of corruption in some form. To think that abolishing the system will result in a Utopia is laughable and incredibly naive about real human nature.
Anarchocapitalism and Michael Malice are the best. Keep learning about it!
Income/property tax is antithesis of free market capitalism.
I think Michael made a very great point at the very end. Love the show pat.
No he didn’t. He says he wouldn’t have a right to take someone’s money in an anarchist society?
Well who would stop anyone from doing so? Who or what would take away a right or give a right?
It’s actually an incredibly stupid point
@@huckfin1598 well what he actually said was “I dont have a right to go into someone’s wallet and take your money right but somehow the withholding of taxes is where people think well you pay, taxes are the prices you pay for a civilized society that too me and to other anarchist is not legitimate”
@@huckfin1598 you sir are taking his statement out of context and making it fit your narrative. I think we can all agree taxes are a fraud when it comes to a civilized society. As the majority of people who pay their taxes are middle income people. I think his point is more to do with the states taking money from your hard earned paycheck..
@@huckfin1598 Im not even a big proponent of most of his points, I just seem to think that was a very valid point that most people can relate with
@@lenchochurrito5003 and in an Anarchist society if I did go and take your money who is to say it is wrong? Him? You? Me? Someone else? Who says you don’t have that right?
You can always tell when a person is loosing an argument when they stop a person in the middle of their point to tell jokes!
he is trying to make him lose his thoughts.
"that animal that smells like weed" I died
Why that would be me. I am that animal 🗿
🤣🤣🤣
funniest quote in this interview
There’s something to what he is saying. It feels true to some degree. Not sure how bit it should be discussed more.
Malice made PBD look intellectually stunted for the whole podcast and I love PBD.
The title should read "capitalism doesn't work without morals."
There's a morality, a longer term vision, that must be present for capitalism to actually work. Otherwise it devolves into cronyism.
that's why culture is super important
No, it always devolves into corruption. Even with “morals” cuz the state has a monopoly on power and violence. Remove the state the there’s an actual consequence when someone doesn’t behave according to the voluntary agreement you work out.
Capitalism works just by leaving people alone. And cronyism isn't necessarily bad. If you start a business and hire your friends, that is cronyism. Hiring unqualified people only hurts your business so it is self limiting.
@nustada Strong disagree. You can leave people alone in a capitalist system and it will function for a small period of time, but if the people within the system are not moral and smart they will eventually break the system in pursuit of their immediate advantge. This results in a form of cronyism where they hire their "friends" that hold power in government to alter the playing field to their advantage. The only preventative for this is a minimum level of morality and IQ among all participants in the system.
@@nustada cronyism isn’t hiring your friends. That’s nepotism. Cronyism is the government and other business colluding externally not within the business
The same argument could be made for anarchy can be said about communism. Neither take human nature into consideration. The best way to manage this type of stuff is through incentives/disincentives. Even better than regulations or laws.
if I remember right the only Anarchy/communize I read of working was nomadic tribes with communal housing.
you don't understand anarchy. incentives and disincentives are the basis for anarchy.
y'all need to understand the phrase might is right.
No, Anarchism is taking human nature into account. If you assert people can't rule themselves when makes you think they can rule others.
Why do you think we think it would be a Utopia, we perfectly understand it wouldn’t be perfect but what is perfect about the current state of things that would change in an Anarchial society, at least in Anarchy I get to choose where my money goes
You've got your basic laws from God/nature. Like authority over your own life and property.
Michael gives too much credit to people. Reasonable laws with appropriate punishments (not the borderline authoritarian state we’re in now) are essential for keeping many people’s baser instincts and urges in check. Not everyone is of as sound a mind as Michael on these things, and most people would not last long in a lawless society.
Maybe that’s what Michael wants. Instead of the government doing the culling, he wants the people to cull themselves. That’s what it sounds like to me at least.
Exactly. The South side of Chicago would love this. Do we really want to go to Jersey Mikes with ecoli in our lettuce while Ted Bundy is the one ordering behind us, taking his sandwich to go so he can stuff us in the back of his van while we fumble for our keys? The capture of the government from private interests is exactly the problem, as Michael inherently stated, that all would be great with private only. Why do private companies toss their millions at lawmakers again? To do what they want. But atleast there's a process and a potential "no." in passing. What happens when it's always a yes? When the post office can provide an indefinite delivery date? Maybe your letter will get there in a week. Or maybe in 7.5 years. Sorry we can't give you that confidential info, nobody said we had to do anything for you. Then there is a government, it's whoever is at the top the quickest, making rules barring any other company to compete with them because they said so, making sure to add in their 100,000 armed spec ops to protect and enforce their rules. Then when all the psychopaths figure out that vehicle mounted missile launchers are in mass production for the high school aged kid without their understood concept of consequences, because it doesn't exist anymore, there would be endless bloodshed to the point humans cease to exist. Do we really want to live with a Purge everyday? Sorry your wife and 5 year old daughter was sexually assaulted daily sir, but since that company bars anybody from taking up arms and bombed all of the other factories around the world that weren't their own, you can take that guy out. Sucks to suck.
So you think words on a piece of paper is stopping you from murdering people? If you don’t what percentage of people do you think would suddenly decide to go out murdering people when the other person can defend themselves without the fear of the police jailing them instead?
@@Ryan-ys2bq it’s not the words on the paper that stops people, it’s the threat of punishment for going against the words on the paper. If that threat of punishment went away, then definitely there would be a larger percentage of people willing to do those things. Granted, people would be more incentivized to defend themselves so it wouldn’t necessarily be any easier to get away with it, but there would be more people with little to no qualms about trying in the first place.
@@Brave_New_Tube there would also be more risk on their side too, how many can use a gun in self defence because the laws are against it currently, how many murderers would think twice knowing that a mob may go after them not bill and ben the useless police officers. I think you have a negative view of humanity 99% of people are good and you are happy with the most evil amongst ruling
@@Ryan-ys2bq Ohhh no, I don't believe that 99%-are-good statistic whatsoever. Every single human has the capacity for evil/malice, and there's no way 99% of people have all their bad tendencies 100% under control. Rather, I do think *most* people have *most* of those things in check, which is how they're able to be functional/productive members of society, but to think 99% of people are generally overall "good people" is naive and ignorant of human nature.
Popularity is 90% marketing, 10% morality... roughly, of course...
“I didn’t say perfect!” Malice could’ve been an amazing attorney.
Love both these guys. Good talk.
Why would people with monopoly power give it up?
If the cost to not give it up was greater than the benefit of keeping it.
If the 99% stop arguing about blue and red ties and actually see the power structure
He has a point about the bars being safer than city parks, but I’m not sure that means self-policing works broadly. What happens when the allocation of young, testosterone filled men doesn’t cover certain areas of town? Those areas would devolve into violence and crime very quickly. As people avoided these dangerous locations, it would get even worse.
This is because bars have security right there, parks don't. Also bars are pretty dangerous depending on what bar just like which park you're referencing.
Porn is needed to keep them at bay - have computers sedate them to near-uselessness with respect to population density. Add AI into the mix to fulfill the social interactions in-between the sexual sedation and we have a recipe for taming the testosterone. Lastly, enforce harsh laws on unlicensed aggression. That is how a state returns to forever, until the rot kicks in.
Either have something that explodes or something that rots. Pick your poison.
@@wittyjoker4631 that’s the point dumbass, the police don’t have to police parks because they have a monopoly and theres zero punishment for a bad service provided
A company starts a security business and trains their employees well. That would fill the gap.
@@elliotalewel3163 they could already be doing that now with the parks. Where would the financial incentive come from? Government?
PBD went in looking for an argument, Michael offered a thoughtful discussion... well done, Malice!! 💯👍
3:24 he literally explained why anarchy hasn’t been implemented while mocking a hypothetical argument as to why anarchy hasn’t been implemented lmaooo. seriously though, great interview, amazing interview and amazing guest.
Fan of Malice. His point that the police monopoly isn't about protecting you, but enforcing gov't rules. Look at parking law enforcement versus Robbery Law enforcement. Don't pay a $30 ticket you go to jail, rob $900 from a store and nothing.
Yea just depends where you live I lived in California and there no punishment but moved to Texas and you break the law your going to jail for your crime
Right , so reform the laws ,not get rid of them all together, he's an idiot
I lived in the Haight for 2 yrs. We didn't have written laws or uniformed police. If someone was a problem we collectively took care of the problem ourselves and I believe that we were more equitable and effective than the straight community. But,really we did not have much crime. We were peaceful people ready to share everything with each other. Everybody that I knew had everything they needed.
Maybe that works in a small population. In America with 330 million people and not a peaceful people we would end up in violence
@@UltraSaltyDomer1776 Not all violence is illegitimate. You the rights to defend yourself and you can delegate rights you have to others.
Most people have small tribes under about 200 people, even in a big city.
@@nustada Well, how do you suggest crimes would be followed up on in a huge city center with millions , should gangs of 200's fight it out to settle the order?
@@pontus9209 Hire a security agency. In a free society a lot of security would be probably provided through insurance companies (reducing payouts).
@@pontus9209 "gangs of 200's fight it out to settle the order?"
If you have a disagreement with someone do you always resort to violence as the first an only option?
The weird thing is that Michael harps on a lot of under performances that happen in practice. I’m sure if political anarchism happened there would be many that happen in practice. In general if a system allows for some (emphasis on some) standards unmet, I don’t think we should do away with things entirely. A huge factor in all forms of people-governance is accounting for bad actors, ignorant actors, and standards just not being met (and whatever else in this sphere of thought). We’re dealing with people after all haha. I don’t think it’s unacceptablyy high and mighty to sometimes say things like “stuff will happen” and “a difficult boss at work still signs my paychecks” but a obviously if the boss is like a cannibal or something I should call cops and probably an exorcist. Hyperbolic but parallels don’t have to be entirely 1:1 to work, and I thought that parallel was funny haha
I also don’t think comparing public housing to the successful safety that comes from hotels holds weight for abolishing the housing department, or our system of governance. For one, it’s just one part of government. And to say that it reflects or points to bigger problems that our systems have also doesn’t hold much weight.
And maybe I just am biased but it’s really hard to get people to do stuff by using soft power. Motivating people as far as I know is still a weird problem when dealing with people.
Finally if Michael still holds political anarchism while approving of the military, or something that is so bloody similar to the military that it essentially only differs in name (the shcmilitary), then I say we should just change up the housing department haha
Obviously there will be points when if a kajillion screwups happen we should consider what the hell we’re doing.
bad actors are filtered by reviews in a competitive system.
how do you filter for corrupt authorities?
@@cleanjimmy how do you filter for corrupt authorities when there is no system? What happens when they make a system and it at minimum functions, then they and a bunch of other guys who are convinced by them, come and try to force you to join said system? You'll gather your friends right? What if your friends don't wanna come because they are busy and have no actual obligation to you? What happens when you and the friends you did convince get dominated because you aren't as organized as the group who has a system? You might be able to fend off and crush one attempt but it will keep happening. What I just described is cliff notes of ancient human history. Organized groups of people whoade a system will dominate and subjugate people who are not. That's how it works. That is how anarchy will end.
@@cleanjimmy That's great for a supermarket but how do you filter the possible gang rule out by reviews?
The popularity of an idea doesn't define it as good or bad. I'd argue that the merit of an idea is one's ability to come up with moral and/or logical arguments against the positions within it.
Michael Malice thinking that people will naturally be peaceful is so idiotic. People are only peaceful because they’re scared of governmental or organizational retribution for acting counter to institutions.
The only law is the original constitution. Period.
It's not though. You just made that up.
Well, the only way people behaving stay in order is it there’s accountability and consequences for their actions
Hence why you get law and order
You enforce the law, so that order will stay
Because people know if they break, the law and order goes away temporary early, there will be consequences and repercussions for their actions, and they will be held accountable by being sent to jail
PBD wasn't allowing MM to elaberte, there would still be consequences in an anarchistic society; its just that natural law is decentralized and focused on self defense and prevention.
@@nustada what happens when someone goes into someone else's home, murders them and then goes far away before anyone knows what happened? What happens someone comes in and takes people and disappears to the other side of the world? Anarchy has been tried all throughout human history and it has always been stomped on by groups with systems. There is no need for elaboration when it keeps being tried and it's always a massive failure. Hell CHAZ was basically the closest modern attempt at anarchy that people in this comment section wanted to work. What happened? Struggle snuggled skyrocketed and the people "entrusted with security" then unloaded their weapons on two teenage boys while laughing that they ran out of ammo.
No I don't take your ideas seriously. I have looked at history and recent news. I have all the arguments I need to know, that what anarchists propose has a lot of unintended consequences I don't want to happen to me or anyone else. If it doesn't affect a human's immediate vicinity then they don't pay attention more often than not.
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 "someone else's home, murders them and then goes far away before anyone knows what happened?..."
That is a problem in your statist paradigm too. Crimes have to be investigated.
" disappears to the other side of the world?"
Anarchy doesn't respect socialist borders, that is less of a problem in a free society.
"? Anarchy has been tried all throughout human history and it has always been stomped"
Actually it succeeds wildly wherever it is tried. Anarchy happens whenever people interact without a ruler.
"CHAZ was basically the closest modern attempt at anarchy"
Chaz was literally the result of policies in a city infested with big government communists.
Laws are for the lawless.
One possibility of competition without laws is that one team wins so completely that no one else can complete. Private security falls apart then. Current system is corrupt, but it can get WAY worse.
Yeah having the world run buy private security companies is going too make the world look like some dystopian sci-fi like cyberpunk or bladrunner. It's sounds nice and It's good to have faith in humans but we cant be naive about it. Their will always be people seeking power and will try to gain it no matter the cost those are the type of people we need laws for. Pluss taxed aren't theft without taxes we don't have an functioning society. Maybe my view on that as an Norwegian is slightly different then a American idk.
you are describing the status quo, lol
All 50 states should be in charge of governing themselves according to their values. Over time you will see a very clear separation between the good states and the bad ones, but they will all be better off - because each individual state will be competing with each other.
If one raises taxes astronomically then they will strangle economic growth, if another one lowers it too much then they will have problems maintaining their infrastructure. (Simple example)
The federal government should only in charge of the military for defense purposes and preventing violent conflicts between the states.
I believe that Switzerland does something similar to this albeit on a smaller scale.
Greed is greed…it doesn’t matter if it’s the government or private businesses!!!….WallStreet,Federal Reserve,FBI & all corporations need leadership that serves with honesty & integrity!!!
greed drives trade
every trade both sides think they are winning
Greed isn't the problem. Just as hunger isn't the problem. You can satisfy hunger by growing food, or cannibalizing your neighbor. Satisfying greed through business and the state has the same ethical difference.
Brand-new fan you do a great job
Thanks for speaking the truth Michael. Hidden by design of the system
i would be interested in michael's views on murder, autotheft and shoplifting. not holding my breath. nobody ever seems to mention it to him.
Privitely funded policing
@@cheeseburger3209 not sure how that works. it would still be a government.
Easy. You mitigate person risk by hiring private security or carrying a gun
@@jameshudson169 easy, it’s being done already. Someone starts a firm that leases our private security guards or guards a geographic area. You pay for it directly. That way if they stink you can fire them and hire a new one. There is no way to fire shitty police today
@@darbyohara "somebody murders your wife." what happens to that person?
Another problem with a political system is that we have 10% of the population who cares/understands power/politics. It allows a small few to control the masses by taking advantage of their ignorance. This allows them free reign to do whatever they want.
They’re called Anti-trust laws. Problem is you have politicians who don’t want to enforce them.
The Anti Trust laws were crafted by the very corporations they were supposed to "break up", all the Anti Trust laws did was break up the bigger companies into smaller ones all controlled by the very "robber barons" the public believed were being broken up. The Anti Trust laws were used to keep out competition to the bigger companies and make it harder for competitors to compete. Read "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko, he was a leftist who sought the prove that the Anti Trust laws were good but doing research found out that they were actually used to stifle competition and pull up the ladder for others who wanted to climb it.
Great video!🎉
PBD asks "If there are no cops, people wont rob". I'll push back on that sentiment and point out that we have cops now and robbery is still a thing, so the real question he asks is "Will robberies increase without cops?" and the fallacy there is that the existence of The State dissuades opportunity(which is what robbery is, a crime of opportunity).
I'll push back...studies show that theft is least likely to happen to an armed person(the risk is too great for the reward) so it is the individual has the greatest effect and scales to least on the federal level(no purse snatcher fears the FBI will go after them for a $500 crime). the concept of the federal matters when you have* nations at war
small robbery is gonna happen, gang are gonna group up to take over neighborhoods
Capitalism may not work without laws but the Free Market does
Lol... No
The market in your scenario would quickly become the governing body, genius!
Nope.
Yeah it's called child labor
How do you stop the formation of monopolies without laws?
PBD said "Capitalism Doesn't Work Without Laws." He is 100% correct, BRAVO PBD and thus why Captialism will also gravitate to bigger and bigger govt. Socialism or even Communism are little more than capitalist enties as they just make the State the Capitalist. In so called Private Capitalist countries the State owns the monopoly of force, therefore as a means to protect and incentivize or privilege, a strong central State also serves and enable capitalism but the cost of this centralized power is monopoly, redistribution of wealth back into concentrated hands we rightly or wrongly call the wealth class, small in number by the way but even worse in our case in the US, Corp entities in alliance with State power achieve both wealth and political power thus killing a more organic capitalism if you will that be natural action more broadly distributes wealth. The only difference between the tyranny of State Socialism/Communism and State Capitalism is the illusions of the people in that their system they live under will grant them a good outcome. And Michael did a good job and the hardest thing for people to do is understanding anarchy in its classical defintion of "No Rulers, No Kings, No Chiefs" and how in so many cases of day to day life people function and interact with one another without a King, Chief or Ruler standing over them and dictating their outcome. We are surrounded every day by anarchy, we just fail to not see it as such because to us it's just everyday life. All of us are anarchists, some just a little more than others but some dare ask, "how far can this go?" and that scares a lot of people.
The bar example is seriously flawed. Government law still exists in the bar. How many people would get killed for looking at someone else the wrong way, get minors drunk and abused, the list goes on. Does everyone have to pay private security? The social thing to do is to combine resources and fund a police department. A government by referendum does beat elitist representatives but the government itself is needed
You can’t have peace without law.
Exactly, this has been known since the ancient Babylonian times. This guy is an idiot, I'm all for small gvmt but to have no law is to have no order.
Where’s the peace then?
I think this is the most hostile I’ve ever heard Michael. Maybe hostile is too strong, but the sentiment remains. I’ve gotta listen to this whole thing and see where it went sideways 🤷🏼♂️
Pat kept asking him questions and then interrupting the answer to ask something else. It's disrespectful and shows that he isn't willing to have a full conversation exploring the subject.
More with Michael pls!❤
Law is not for the 90% of people who are good and peaceful. It's for the 10% who aren't!
I didn't know who Malice was before these episodes. Now I find myself wanting to know more of what he has to say.
The White Pill is a tremendous book.
congrats, you're on the path to racial awareness
“People are mostly peaceful” He lost with the opening statement.
Michael is incredibly naive. We are in this mess because of people not the system. People made the system so it is a reflection of humans. Dismantle the system and another one WILL rise up and eventually be corrupt or imbalanced over time.
Really? Do you see fighting and violence every time you walk out of your front door? Is your house getting broken into on a nightly basis? Of course people don't talk about the mundane dealings of everyday life, but to think that peace is NOT the majority is kind of crazy.
The anarchist: "Can I curse?"
Respectable. It's not his platform.
@@johnrodriguez2438 He is not an anarchist. He is just a guy that wants to sell a book.
I don’t mind following the rules, I just refuse to follow stupid rules.
The problem with people like this is they don't have an example of there ideology being better that the status quo. Same for socialist.
Nothing works with out laws, even anarchy will result in tribal laws set forth by the strongest faction.
Will the strongest faction bomb kids in hospitals, asking for the Middle East
Malice has no idea what he’s talking about.
I think Michael should test his theory. Send out the invite for 200 people to participate. Don’t run any back ground checks. Take people at their word to participate for a time frame of 2 years. and do it live so people can see the progress.
Look up Cheran in Mexico. Got rid of cops and threw out the cartels
They’re doing that in Mexico. Anarchopulco.
@@umiluv lol. I believe it’s 90% of Mexico.
@@umiluv the cops were corrupt, so they threw out the whole system. Only way to clean it up I guess
You clearly don’t understand a thing he said 😂
Success is not built on success. It's built on failure, It's built on fraustration. it's built on fear that you have to overcome. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life
@Carl Garza O' Yes I'm a living testimony of Mrs Victoria Alejandro.!
Victoria has changed my financial status for the best.!
All thanks to my aunty who introduced her to me.!
PBD is too simple for Malice
The Myth of Rule of Law by John Hasnas illustrates exactly as it purports. Rule of law is always a myth. Sovereign is he who decides the exception.
uwlaw-omeka.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/original/1d98367dc355cc67cc6d32d14111a84c7f79bfe6.pdf
Enterprise of the Law by Bruce L Benson also goes to show that most laws are adjudicated privately already anyway.
Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer also articulates how “the number of people killed by their own governments in the twentieth century was more than four and a half times greater than the number killed by nongovernmental murderers - which raises the question of whether a strong government should be counted more a source of security or a source of danger.”
With Anarchy, the group who is willing to exercise the most violence will rule all groups. Who will you turn to for relief?
So worse case scenario is we end up where we are. Not a reason not to do it.
Exactly, and I find it interesting that a lot of the anarchists I've met tend to be somewhat small in physical stature, a type that would be one of the most vulnerable without superior firepower.
@@nustada Sure. Take your family on a peaceful vacation in Somalia. No functioning government. See how the largest factions maintain “peace”. Get back with me after your family is done relaxing. Nut.
@@nustada ending up where you already are is a great argument for not doing anything.
@@snowflakemelter1172 Unless that something is institutionalized theft and murder (the state)
Your argument is like saying cancer shouldn't be treated because it may not go into recession.
This dude is 100% correct ..
Come to beverly hills and take a look at all the private security around.
I'm a minarchist trying to find a good argument for anarchy. I think I summarize my concern with anarchy in this question: how will anarchy handle people with cluster B personalities--narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths--especially those with the dark triad?
A gun in every hand will solve that.
They won't. In other countries with weak governments that aren't able to enforce laws those people are called warlords or cartel leaders
@@MrJJacks7 and in places with strong governments they are called politicians, cabinet members, bureaucrats and elected officials.
Great question
Parenting is the reason those people exist
Fix parenting by spreading the NAP, getting rid of welfare and encouraging marriage
If something is flawed it shouldn’t exist
- Michael Malice
you're right. flawed things should be embraced and we should all drink poison cola and defective cars
The state is fundamentally evil, it isn't "flawed". In fact any liberty found under the state is its flaw by its nature.
The state is theft, taxes, slavery; and murder, enforcement thereof. More totalitarian governments are less flawed governments because they better embody what they are.
A state without theft and violent enforcement is called a business.
Cathy Newman moment
Holy strawman! Your pfp is correct 😂
@@Pepestock shitposters can be ironic I see
Capitalism create Entrepreneurs.
Capitalism create Jobs
Capitalism create Wealth.
Capitalism create strong economies.
As long as you have the right mindset it can benefit anyone.
True but that doesn't mean that you should never question it and there's a problem in America when the majority of the working/middle class are declining, and the rich are getting richer.
@@BishopWalters12 i get your point but again everyone of us got 24 hours a day and the question is what do with it. If you are willing to work 80 to 100 hours a week on your own Business you will be on a much better place then having a regular 9 to 5 job. So in some cases it depends on the choise we make.
@@yoesefgeorgis2893 That's a weak way to defend the system just to say forget the workers and it's your fault. We need people to work 9 to 5 jobs and it's not right that most of the country is getting screwed by the rich. This country won't last if most of us can't afford housing, healthcare, food and so on. We are headed in that direction.
@@BishopWalters12 Weak point according to you. Ok fine so what do we do now?? What you fail to see is that those rich people you blame have done the work to get where they are today.
Blaming a financial system is not a solution. Again capitalism give you all the opportunity to build your future so you can provide a better life for yourself and your family.
Otherwise what is your solution? Removing capitalism and implementing Socialism or communisim? How did the countries Prosper under those systems?
I leave it up to you to decide for your self.
@@yoesefgeorgis2893 You missed the point and that is sad, little buddy.